 Okay. So, Senate government operations, it is Tuesday, April 6. So, I think Gail and I got our wires a little crossed. Who's Lauren Glenn. Daveton. Oh, she's, she's marks wife, she's the Center for media and democracy. She was with common good Vermont and she's now she's there with the TV there she is with her fabulous. So there she is. So I think we got our wires, a little crossed. So, it seems that s 106 is on our list for today. Oh, it is. Well, I was just looking at the agenda. Okay. Yes, it is. And I thought I had taken that off. But I remember that discussion. Oh, well, we have Lauren now. So, so I just I think I should explain what we're doing with 106 because I don't know what your testimony was going to be at all but let me explain what I think we're doing with it. First of all, there are two parts to it one is the making sure that we learn from what we've gone through in terms of public access and participation. And then the second is the issue of lobbyists wearing name tags. And I think we're not going to address that part of it at all. The, we are still s 106 is the way it's worded is that it would set up a pilot program, but that language was from a number of years ago. I think Amron said it was the same language that was introduced in 2014 and 2017. It was similar, similar language. We have now had our pilot project, the all of last year and all of this year. So we don't need a pilot anymore. What we need now is, is a committee of legislators to work with the interested groups out there to come up with the best way of continuing the kind of access that we've been having in the last year and a half or last year. And so what we're still trying to figure out is if we need to have legislation, or if we just by rule, if it's just a legislative committee, we might not need legislation. We might just need to have to go through the rules committee and have the rules committee set up a group of legislators to work over the summer with the sergeant at arms and the secretary's office and the clerk's office and media groups and public interest and all of these good government groups and all of that. So does that make any sense to anybody. What I just said. Yes, it reflects our conversation. Very well. The other key piece is the money. So it's going to be an expensive transition and so we also need to be weighing the cost of it in from which is quite different than where we are here on a platform that we pay for but we're recreating that platform within the context of a physical committee with is is I think the additional challenge so it'll be legislators media groups, but also the nuts and bolts of how we finance it and if we roll it out, you know how we roll it out if we do. You know it's a whole schmagaggy. But it will be a legislative committee that looks at all of these things and uses the expertise of the sergeant at arms and the secretary's office and the clerk's office and our it people and who's Kevin Christopher. So Kevin and I were slated to testify today. And I asked him to hop on now I came early because I know sometimes you finish what you're doing early so he is my colleague from Lake Champlain Access TV. Okay. And we prepared testimony. It's very brief and it speaks to your point. Okay. I think he should be here any second. I think he, I think he was trying to get in so I think that he is letting him in. There you go. There he is. Okay. Thanks. Yeah. So Kevin, Senator White just did a, an overview of what we know which is that there is an intention to have a study committee on this question. I might just take slight issue with one thing that you said. And it's you have done a pilot in the virtual space but you haven't yet done a pilot in the hybrid space which is to have people in a committee room physically and to have people virtually and and one of the reasons that Kevin's leading this testimony is because the leaders have developed a real expertise in these hybrid meetings. And so we had a series of questions to pose to you that may become part of the, maybe the, the, the mission of this committee or questions we think would be valuable to consider within the scope of the committee. So that was really what we wanted to bring to you today. Kevin is in a position to do it because he's actively involved in putting those hybrid meetings together and providing technical assistance for the folks in his community much like the 25 access centers, community centers across the state. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Kevin. Sure. Well, thank you for your time today and for including us in your committee meeting. Just looking at our experience and what we do in terms of live streaming and understanding that what we've done in the past year is almost 100% in that realm. We did come up with a list of questions and considerations as you go forward into potentially a summer study. And just to bring up some of those now for discussion. Is, is the purpose of live streaming to provide, as you do now through YouTube, a one way communication to the public of your goings on in the state house, or is it to do more as Lauren was saying of a hybrid situation where there is the opportunity for testimony for more of a two way interaction. Once you get back in person in the state house with people who are outside of that realm. Looking at some of the nuts and bolts in terms of the technical considerations, the equipment, the platforms, what the costs involved there are in terms of both operating and capital and policy considerations, including but not limited to media management, where do files live, how are files moved around, how is an archive built and maintained, who is overseeing that on your staff. What's what is the policy involving getting rid of files over time if storage is an issue. And all the costs there there are so many a myriad of options in terms of data storage and file archiving that can run the gamut in terms of cost. And how does this fit into any ongoing or planned it upgrades within the state house audio upgrades within the state house. And something that we've talked a lot about internally in the Vermont access network is this part of a larger discussion in terms of creating something to take the place of the now defunct Vermont interactive television that kind of statewide public meeting network that we no longer really have in Vermont. Those are those are the kind of the thumbnails of what we have discussed and really what we deal with in our community media centers day to day, in terms of streaming archiving and planning our live and hybrid meeting coverage. Yeah, I think all the all those questions will have to be asked and I didn't mean to imply that we didn't need to have a pilot but and we might. I don't know how how we're going how it's going to shake out if it's going to shake out that we try it with one committee in the house and one committee in the Senate, and try it that way or if we. I don't know I think those are questions that we have to ask. And with the group will have to tap into the expertise including you guys for the questions to ask and how to go forward. So, Senator Clarkson. Yeah, and I think your question, Kevin is a good one about the one way or interactive, because it could be very disruptive if it be two way on the other hand, any, any system we bill, we'd be crazy to not make it flexible or have an ability for it to grow. So we might get one way which it is now. So we only admit the witnesses we've asked, or who come or who've asked to testify ahead of time. And the rest of our participants are, it's one way they're, they're just watching our committee deliberations, but it's, we, I would hope anything we did could evolve. If, if we wanted to trust it to become a two way system, and we could actually afford to manage it because that requires more management. And I would hope whatever we decided over the sub with this task force that it would be a system that could be built upon. Yeah, and I don't, I don't think there's anything I don't think it's either one way or two way. I think that there are all there will always be a part of it that's just one way. Because I look at this. I mean, I don't think we want to have 260,000 people, 620,000 people being able to weigh in at any time. So there are parts of it that when I look at it will always be one way, and there are parts of it that will always be two way. But I don't think it's either or. Well, but for example, I think just thinking out loud and thinking about this because I think this will be an exciting task force actually to serve on. One of the questions is, could this same system then be used for our public hearings where we may want to have a 200 or 300 people in a room and able in a controlled situation to ask questions in a, in a, in a substantive You know, be able to have it be two way with a larger group. So, yeah, because we can tell us now in real time, how many people are on YouTube watching this. And yet we only have however many we have here eight of us, or nine of us act in our actively able to interact. There may be 200 people on YouTube watching this meeting. Yeah, but so there's, there's a difference be there's committee meetings, there's floor sessions, and there's public hearings. There's many different layers of, and they are my guess is they will all be treated slightly differently that they, they won't all have the same rules in the same format but that's Lauren, did you have your. I'm just going to echo what you just said which is really when you start to open this box and look at it you're moving from the committee room to locations across the state really when you talk about public hearings and so what is the, what is the legislative space and how do you make it available to people given what we've learned which I think, you know your point about the last year we, we've learned quite a bit. So those findings certainly can be brought to the table. So I would just say, just one final comment I have is that Vermont access network is at your disposal we are happy to participate in that study committee it would actually be helpful for us to do so given our involvement in public meetings, and we support this effort. Right and and you have been the most interact I mean you have been filming us for the last several years in committees on and off the, the mostly the Montpelier but they then feed into the Vermont access network. So, it's, it's, yeah, you've been very present all along. Yep. Thank you Madam Chair. So, yeah, I, your points well taken I think if this sort of two way street goes too far along. What's the point of having a state house I mean we don't need to have a state house anymore. We could just do everything from home and have committee meetings that wherever we wanted to and people could testify. And so, I'm fine I guess with what we had to do over the last 12 or 13 months, but I don't necessarily think that that means that we need to explore even further ways to change the way we do business I, I very much value the committee procedure that we have now if people feel strongly enough about an issue, then they're going to have to drive up to to attend a session in person. That's my view anyway, and the floor sessions I we've already for many years made available for people to listen to, at least on the public radio situation so I think it's okay to study it but I wouldn't jump both feet completely redo what we do. I can, and Peggy you can let me in. I think that that we have to be, we have to be aware of the expectation that we built up that people have the ability to watch. And that's okay. But we also have to be aware of the cost of anything we do and, and I'll tell you if we had. Right now, anybody can see all five of the committee members. Right. In, if we were in the state house, we would have to have six different cameras in each room in order to do that. So I think there's going to be a compromise. There's not going to be. It's not going to be like this where everybody can see us, each of us all the time, because we simply, I don't believe can afford to have 14. No we have 1114 we have 25 committee rooms. That's a lot of cameras, and that's a lot of somebody working those cameras and keeping track of it behind the scenes. And I agree with you Brian that I, I, there's, there's a compromise. We've, we've always let people testify on the phone, if they needed to. Yeah, and we could make accommodations so that somebody could testify like this. If they needed to. That ability in most of the House committee rooms, and in by sort of portable method in most Senate committee rooms. So we already have that ability it's just clunky in the Senate, but easier in the house the house has whiteboards where they can do that now. You mean let somebody testify visually. Yep. Yep, upon the big screen. The House committee rooms have that ability, if not all. So I mean that that's something that we can do but I agree with you that for the, our committees are going to be held in our committee rooms that's, that's my personal feeling that that that is where the committee operates out of, but how I think you're also right and we can't put the genie back in the bottle. I think if now created an expectation of openness that is just I think kind of exciting that so many people can, can watch and participate and respond then to in real time to, to what we're doing so I think it's going to be hard to put that genie back in the but watching is different than participating in real time and there's a, and I think that we really need to be careful about opening the, the expectation that just because you're watching you have the ability to participate. I think Lauren have it. Yeah, Lauren. Thank you Madam Chair. One of the really exciting things I think Kevin could also say something about is that the equipment has become much less obtrusive. So, prior times when we've had this conversation about bringing cameras into the committee rooms. We've imagined having a person and a camera and a tripod and especially in those house rooms it's very difficult. But now, Jeanette and I deal with it all the time. Yeah, right between us. So, but now we're talking about very small cameras and microphones that sit in the middle of the table and so the equipment is much can be much less obtrusive just so you know. So I think that that also changes the nature of the discussion and what's possible. Right Kevin when you. Yeah, and I think that's where we in van come in handy is that we can point you to what we're doing so that instead of three cameras around the conference room. You have one camera that's cat that is capturing the entire committee. And that doesn't have a camera operator. It's very effective. That is space effective and accomplishes what you what you needed to do. Yeah, I mean I know that the equipment is very has changed a lot and that is why whatever this committee is to get set up for this summer needs to be able to tap into your resources and into our own it. And we have, we have our it people who are very, very helpful, but we need to know what their capability is and how much it's going to impact their jobs and our committee assistance. What, what does it mean for them if they're balancing all these things do we have to have to committee assistance or I think that there are a ton of questions that we need to ask and Secretary Bloomer. He first read about this bill said, I have a list of about 100 questions that you need to ask before you can even think about where you're going with this. So, I mean there's, there's a lot of people out there who have a lot of input and our sergeant at arms and our capital police. Right, and they'll all be on the task force. So, I think, I think it has to be a legislative tax task force, but and using the expertise of other people. Otherwise you're going to get a huge, huge task force, but that's just my personal opinion. Yeah. When appropriate might we have a break. Well, I think that break on our radar screen. I, I think that this. I think this is the last thing on the agenda. Yeah, deal and I got our agendas mixed up. So I think this is the last thing we had on our agenda. Correct. So when we're done with this conversation. And I think we have a meeting at four. Yeah. So, Now I would just say, I would just say that I have a sudden law who does a lot of it stuff and he works partly at MIT and they're having the same conversation about how they're going to come back to school and be in classrooms but be interactive some people would be remote. I mean, I know he I don't understand it at all, but he's got cameras that are like, you know, this big that will see a whole room I mean, I mean, there are ways to do this and there are people who understand the stuff a lot better than a lot better than you arrive to probably and I think the technology is pretty amazing. So I think that we may find out that it is doable. But on a practical level, the politics of it is going to be discussed as well. Well, I think one of the things that Lauren said at the very beginning, I believe, I think I remember you saying this, is that you have to first define what your policy is going to be your philosophy behind what what it is you want to do. And, and then figure out for those different levels that the committee rooms the floor, public hearings, special committee meetings caucuses all of those different levels of things. What the philosophy is going to be for each of those howdy, what's the interaction with people what's the ability for people to watch what's the ability for people to participate. In each of those and once you figure out that, then, then you can go start looking at the technology and the, and the kind of rules around it but until you figure that out I think it's, you don't know where you're going. I think I heard Lauren say that, not just like that. I think you heard us say that yes exactly it's define the scope and then the other questions of finance technology and roles will roll follow follow those. Yeah, yeah. It's said much better and more simply than I did. Madam chair thank you so much for having us even in this short time we appreciate it. No that's great. And I know Amy had sent a note so I'm glad you were able to come and give a big hello to mark. I will. Yeah, really. You know, it's just like, it's amazing to go from having people that you see every day everywhere and then I know I'll pass that on. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you very much. Thanks. Cameron we still haven't decided figured out yet whether this has to be a statue it has to be a bill or just a. I did send a note to the pro tem and the secretary, and I'll send them another note to ask them what their feeling is. Thank you Madam chair.