 Okay, we are back and we're changing gears over to JRH2. We've had a lot of conversation about JRH2 this week, which is our resolution to apologize as to Vermonters as a result of the state sanction to the suffering and damage done as a result of the state sanction, eugenics policies and practices. We've had a pretty hearty conversation the last two days with many of the witnesses that have been present throughout this conversation, members of the affected communities and historians. And we are, I think at a point here where I wanted to take, have Michael include as much as what we had talked about, he did stay after yesterday and got some clarification from one of the historians on some of this early material. And so I liked Michael to kind of take us now through this bill again and to show us the new language. Again, we are at a point where just, I think this is a point where we are ready to hear this material, but also to edit it down a little bit where we need to edit it down. And, but I think it represents, I don't think I got, I don't think I informed Michael of all the smaller changes I would hope to. He had a list of the smaller changes that he had heard from us during conversation while he was online with us. But Michael, why don't I just pass the microphone to you and if you can now take us through this draft. This is draft 1.2, which is available on our website. That would be great. Good afternoon members of the committee for the record, Michael Chernick legislative council. I also, as an FYI, I had a conversation with the chair around quarter of four yesterday and he made an effort to fill me in on a few more pieces. And with all that information and my scribble notes, I worked last night to create a new version and I will go through it now. And I also remember to use the new reference with respect to the question of Abenaki versus Mohawk or Huron, and I went back to the statute and we'll see where it travels. But this is the version that exists in my system as of the moment. The title remains the same, the joint resolution, sincerely apologizing and expressing sorrow and regret to all individual Vermonters and their families and descendants who were harmed as a result of state sanctioned eugenics policies and practices. Whereas state institutions established in the 19th century, including the Vermont State Hospital for the Insane and the Vermont Reform School became settings for the implementation of eugenics policies. And whereas in 1912, the intent of the General Assembly to develop policies that in later years would be identified as the practice of eugenics was manifested with the passage of the subsequently vetoed S79 of 1912, an act to authorize and provide for the sterilization of imbeciles, people-minded and insane persons, rapists, confirmed criminals and other defectives. If I just may as an aside, many of those words are words that we would not use in the statutes in 2021. And through the enactment of Acts and Results, Act number 81 of 1912, an act to provide for the care, training, and education of feeble-minded children, the law authorizing the Brandon Training School, which opened in 1950. Whereas in 1923, the Department of Public Welfare was established and this new State Department compiled records on hundreds of families. And whereas in 1925, University of Vermont Zoology Professor Henry F. Perkins established the discredited eugenics survey of Vermont with the participation of leaders throughout Vermont State government to collect evidence of alleged delinquency, dependency and mental deficiency. And this survey targeted reminders of Native American Indian heritage. That by the way is the language from the statute. Mixed racial heritage or French Canadian heritage, we added in an extra heritage in editing for parallel construction purposes, as well as the poor and persons with disabilities, among others. And whereas in 1927, S-59, an act related to voluntary eugenical sterilization passed the Senate but was defeated in the House. And whereas the General Assembly adopted 1931, Acts and Results number 174, Act 174, an act for human betterment by voluntary sterilization for the purpose of eliminating from the future of Vermont genetic pool, persons deemed mentally unfit to procreate. And whereas Act 74 resulted in the sterilization of Vermonters and whether these individuals provided informed consent can be questioned. And whereas this state sanctioned eugenics policy was not an isolated example of oppression, but reflected the historic marginalization, discriminatory treatment and displacement of these targeted groups in Vermont. And whereas eugenics advocates promoted sterilization for the protection of Vermont's old stock and to preserve the physical and social environment of Vermont for their children. And whereas the eugenics survey received assistance from state and municipal officials, individuals and private organizations, and the resulting sterilization, institutionalization and separation policies intruded on the lives of its victims and had devastating and irreversible impacts on the directly affected individuals that still persists in the lives of their descendants. And whereas in conducting the eugenics survey, the survey has re-granted access to case files from state agencies and institutions and the files were made available to persons of authority, including police departments, social workers, educators and town officials. And whereas Vermont's role in the eugenics movement, including the state sterilization and institutionalization practices has lasting impacts and contributes to chronic health disparities experienced by Vermodgers who are black or indigenous and individuals with disabilities who have a low income. That was the new clause that I was asked to include. And whereas as a result of the opening of these files, children were removed from families, individuals were institutionalized or incarcerated, family connections were severed and the sense of kinship and community was lost. Now therefore be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives that the General Assembly apologizes and expresses its sorrow and regret to all individual Vermodgers and their families and descendants who were harmed as a result of state sanction eugenics policies and practices and being further resolved that the General Assembly recognizes that further legislative action should be taken to address the coming, the continuing rather impact of state sanction eugenics policies and related practices of disenfranchement and ethnicide leading to genocide. And if I may, several of you are already aware that I indicated our editing department and drafting operations indicated it thought that the phrase leading to genocide should have some actual documentation should you decide to leave it in. And I know that's still a topic of conversation. That is it, Mr. Chair. Chair, you're muted. But of course, thank you. I will keep the share screen up and I will just make sure you use your raise hand function so I can see it in the small group here. Representative Hango. Thank you. Can you, someone please remind me on page three, line 16, the new whereas clause where that came from, I missed that. Sure, that was language that was shared with us yesterday through Susan Aronoff from the Disability Rights Council. You know, I would consider to put as I've been talking about with brackets around that, that was this new material that is kind of present looking so it's up for conversation. But that's, this was shared as a result of the, it parallels some of the conversation that's going on in the healthcare committee on healthcare disparities. Right, thank you for reminding me who asked for it. Although I don't disagree with the concept behind it, I feel like it looks out of place in this resolution because we kind of went to a very historical document and now all of a sudden we have this modern statement in it that it just doesn't seem to fit for me because we certainly talk about folks who were disabled or marginalized in many ways in previous whereas clauses. And I think we're getting a lot of where as is. I think it's getting really long. And my other comment is I want to thank Mr. Churnit for bringing forth the issue that the editors talked about in terms of ethnicity, leading to genocide, that was a resolved clause that was a resolution that was a resolved clause that was concerning to me last biennium and it remains a concern because it was kind of the first time I had heard it being called a genocide. So those are my concerns and thank you. Thank you representative Galaki then try them. Thank you, chair. I think that Susan's language comes from the health disparities bill out of that committee. That is actually going to be in their bill. And I think I agree with representative Tango that I think that that is beautifully placed in the health care bill. I'm not as we went through it. I thought it just didn't seem so that one I chair you said it's in brackets. I think it's a good place to keep that in brackets. Michael, I think there's two words that I heard maybe and one is in the very final resolve. Yesterday, representative Blumlee had put erasure and I thought that was a good word. Where are you? And I missed that. Okay. I think, well, I won't speak to representative Blumlee. I think it's practice of disenfranchisement, erasure and ethno side. You're absolutely right. Thank you for identifying that for me. I had scribbled in something and I couldn't quite figure it out. And I wasn't about to include a word that I wasn't sure what it was. And then the safe side. Yeah, I know it's erasure. I can, I think, and then on the top of page for that, whereas I heard that the word continuity is important, especially in kind of tribal lineages. So the sense of kinship continuity and community. And I think that was in there as well. Yeah, that was in the material we talked about a little bit. Right. Thank you on both scores. Kinship, comma, continuity, comma, and now disenfranchisement comma, erasure, comma, and then the rest of the sentence, however you decide to end it. And, and I'll jump right in Michael and say it that first line on the top of page for as a result of the opening of these files, children and adults. Yeah. Okay. So number eight. Um, and I say try a representative try and on next, then walls, then Murphy. Thank you, chair Stevens. Um, you know, I know there's a lot of discussion surrounding unnaming any of the transit tribes or bands, uh, in this, uh, but I certainly would, uh, side with Chief Stevens, um, in recognizing that, um, the, uh, tribes presently known as Abenaki, um, which should be included by name. And I thought there was some language surrounding, um, Abenaki and other indigenous groups, which would, um, not, um, exclude anyone else, uh, except by name. Um, and I think, um, the, uh, talking about, um, space and length of the, uh, of the, um, of the resolution at this point, it could be, um, better not to name everything, but to name the, uh, Abenaki again as currently known as, um, and, um, other indigenous bands or other indigenous people. Um, uh, and the other piece that I wanted to comment on is that I would side with Carolyn McGranigan, uh, when she, uh, read her definition of genocide. Um, and I think that the term, using both terms is, uh, more appropriate and more descriptive of, uh, the ultimate, um, result of what we know has happened. So, ethicide leading to genocide would be my preference on that piece, uh, based on what Carolyn had, uh, read to us and, uh, her position on this as a, uh, as an indigenous person. All right. Representative Walston, Murphy. Um, well, yeah, I had two items, and Representative Freyano just mentioned one of them. I do think it's important to name the Abenakis, because I really think among the Native Americans who spoke to us, Judy Dow was definitely in the minority and not wanting to include the name, whether or not the Abenakis were heard from, they'd want to be named. And I also, I think it might be the fifth whereas it's on page two, about two-thirds of the way down, whereas in 1927, excuse me, the whereas is this, whereas in 1927, I think we strike that. I remember, uh, we included that because we were documenting the history of the movement. But let's apologize for what we did. And in that instance, the house did the right thing. So let's apologize for the wrong things we did. And I would suggest we strike that whereas. Okay. Representative Murphy. Thank you. And I'll follow up on, um, what Representative Jones just said, because I think that this is a joint resolution for apologizing for the General Assembly. So I think that, um, his argument for excluding it isn't, um, maybe accurate. And I certainly think we are trying to make this concise and not necessarily cite every, um, step along the way we have documentation on. So I certainly don't insist on it being there, but I just want to clarify that this is a joint resolution we're looking at, um, from the General Assembly. So it is appropriate. I think that the 27, um, vote might have laid ground for the one that passed in 31. So I, I do see rationale for maintaining it. Um, I appreciate the addition of the words that, um, folks remembered and were able to decipher for Michael. And, um, I really do think that I prefer to go with our, um, editorial staff and, um, have the erasure and ethnic side and that second, um, therefore result. So there's, there's portions up above some of the warehouses that I think have some redundancy in them, but, um, I'm not gonna nitpick, um, every word just to surprise y'all. I'm sorry I didn't mean to laugh. No, it's quite alright. You were intended to. Um, um, I had a representative but I think I had Byron next and then Kalaki and then Plumlee. Uh, thank you chair. So I'm in agreement that he should be used at least at one point in here. Um, the portion that was referred to earlier, but I was also looking at page 16. Uh, excuse me page three line 16s, whereas where Vermonters who are black or indigenous and individuals with disability, maybe something like that, that was the first area that jumped out at me. Um, to the genocide, genocide conversation, I think it needs to remain. It speaks to the harsh reality of what occurred. Um, and it's really provides a I think an appropriate tone that needs to exist in the document. Um, they are difficult words, but these are difficult conversations and different steps that we're taking. Um, and to that 1927, whereas, um, I, I get both sides of that argument. So I think I'm going to refrain from an opinion right now because I think I had an opinion and then it was deluded through this conversation. So I'll step back now. Thank you. Representative Kulaki. Thank you. And Michael, you did a extraordinary job with the history. Thank you for how you do these things. Um, I wonder though, if if the history is a little too dense and at the risk of trying to be this specific that we might be inconsistent. And so I would, here's what I would posit by looking at this. I would actually drop the first, whereas the state institutions established in the 19th century and I would start with the 1912 because we're about the General Assembly. Um, then I don't know if we need the Department of Public Welfare whereas, um, I do think we need the next. So I would propose striking the state institutions established in the 19th century. I would propose striking that I would propose striking the whereas in 1923, the Department of Public Welfare. I like the next one. I think it is important in 1927, because it's a joint resolution. 1931 is clearly really important. And I agree that, um, we should have, um, Abenaki bands and other indigenous people that it should be called out. Um, and so I don't, that would be the language I would propose, but, and then I would take out that the health things resulting up to today. Um, okay. Did John all right. Representative Bloomley. Oh, so I, um, I really appreciate the history. Um, and I, but I think I agree with John that there are a couple of those. I think it's the same where as is that John has indicated probably can go without. But I do, but I do think that understanding that it, it wasn't just this one moment in time or this one project, but there was groundwork laid for it. Over time is important to note in the where as is um, I I actually what I appreciated going back to the portion that representative Hango and somebody else mentioned on page three line 16. I appreciated this section because it because we're very vague about the impacts on descendants and current communities. And I think you know, they, those are not limited to health disparities of their inequities and economic disadvantages um, uh, that, that are experienced by folks in many of these groups. Um, and I I'm not, I don't have a suggestion yet for, for how to reword that, but I, I actually think making a reference to the fact that this has this is, we're not just apologizing for a moment in time. Um, the actions of a legislature in the 1930s, I feel that we are um, we are recognizing to the, the the persistent longstanding impact that um, those actions have had and that we um, had are as a legislature dealing with now. Um, so and then the only other thing um, I had no other thing. I sent to you I'll just say share. I sent from the chair some language I remember hearing from um, maybe it was Nancy Gallacher, maybe it was Charlene or maybe it was somebody else a day before, but uh, where we are, are referencing Native Americans, um, one could say um, somebody I think had suggested Vermonters of Native American Heritage, which include those who now identify as a Abnaki or some of whom identify as Abnaki. Um, and um, I see um, Representative Murphy's point on um, that on page three line seven we do or line, yeah, line seven um, um, that still persist, but that that's pretty vague. We might want to expand on that um, because we're talking about kind of systemic impacts and not just on those individuals and their families. Um, so and where was that that's in on page three lines uh, it's not line seven, it's line 11 but it's that whole clause right that whereas in my mind is a broader statement of the one that um, Representative Blumie was speaking to um, having a little more still persist in the lives of their descendants and I think what what we do know is that that the harm has affected whole communities, not just their descendants but whole communities and their their um, economic well-being you know, their health etc. I and I, so there may be a way to either more fully develop that whereas it starts on line seven or uh, tweak line 16. Okay, just make, we're just making notes right now. Yep, yep. We'll review them. Um, I just want to, one of the things that Representative Trino mentioned is that uh, General McGrann had quoted from the United Nations um, it was an international convention on December 9th 1948 on genocide and genocide just keeping in our keeping in our mind that sometimes language didn't exist or meant something else genocide is a that was coined really in 19, according to um, this history that I have on um, that I'm reading, I'm reading a book um, that is about Jean-Paul Sartre writing on genocide but this was um, the backup on it and in 1948 the international convention on genocide wrote in article two and this is what Carol McGrann had shared with us way back and at the beginning of this process um, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic racial or religious group as such a, um killing members of a group b, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group c, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part d, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group um, e, forcibly transferring children of the group to another group and this is considered um, international law but I do not know, I have not been able to find out if in fact the United States actually signed on to this so that's where that's what she was quoting um, at the beginning of this um Michael and then representative Toronto uh, Mr. Chair if in the end of all your discussions you decide you would like me to keep that I would very much appreciate getting a copy of that page for supporting evidence so I can show my editor that we, that the committee had that discussion and that was it's supporting document. Thank you representative Triana yes, thank you just even so I'm um I'd like to comment on um the whereas clause um, which uh the state um whereas the state institutions established in the 19th century I think again as I said yesterday I think the historic um, perspective is important and what really um, screams out to me is that, that hospital was, that it was called the Ramon State Hospital for the insane I don't know how many of the folks on this committee have ever been to Waterbury or had ever been to Waterbury I've been there numerous times clients and then I've we visited um, the new Middlesex facility uh, in Middlesex the new Middlesex hospital with me when I was on human services community there was no comparison as to the progress progression that um care for the mentally ill um, had taken over the this period of time so that term and I've also been to the Brandon school and filled the same way these are hard halls that you can feel um, that people were abused and misused um, who lived there and stayed there and were committed there beyond their own um, ability to object and I just think it's important to look at things like that in this conversation um, and you know and I think that you know from Nancy Gallagher's book you know I think it did have an important role in the um, development or the uh, progression of the eugenics movement uh, and which was coming in at the turn of this entry when you know Perkins started to uh, incorporate it into his zoology classes and uh, and they started to incorporate sociology and biology and zoology all in this attempt to um, hypothesize genetics as a reason for um, you know for this to be coming about so I you know I kind of feel like that section should be left in there just just to, just to have people think about just these terms for Montt State Hospital for the insane you know I mean we are in 2021 and you know that notion is just so outrageous to me I just really think it has a place in here I'm going to take down the screen for a minute so I can see is everybody okay if I take down the screen the um, having had I don't know if the privilege is the right word but having had the opportunity to be in the Waterbury Hospital um was very especially after the flood which was considered a safer time obviously because no one was in it um, but you could still see the areas that were not affected by the flood um including the stone walls in the tunnels underneath all the buildings were connected by tunnels and there were um, I don't even know what the right name of the hardware is but there were places where people were hooked um, chained you know to the walls um, at times where that was considered a reasonable treatment um, the B2 Ward which was um where the hardest patients were I guess um one of the rooms was literally a rubber room, it was a padded room that had scratch marks in it and you wondered, I wondered when I took the tour and saw these, it was like well wait, my knowledge of a padded room is that you're supposed to get your fingernails cut so that you couldn't self-harm and yet somehow people needed to communicate, this was clear that they needed to communicate and figure out how to write on the walls, it was just um you know, this was after, again it was closed by then but this is after years of um, and voluntary medication um the hospital at its peak had 1700 patients all of which were not psychiatric but they fit in this long list of defected people um could be someone on a bad on a bender, an alcoholic bender, could be a mother of a child out of wedlock um and even though this apology when it deals with this issue in the subject matter doesn't really go into the what continued on for decades after the 30s after the eugenics survey itself ended and we supposedly stopped doing the um, I mean we took testimony from one of the historians that it was known that sterilizations happened in other places um, and I think anybody who had an association with the state hospital here in Waterbury could tell you that um, things didn't end in the 30s or 40s or 50s the language um I asked Damien to find out if there's any and representative Donahue who's done a lot of work in this field um if what language still exists in our statutes and this sterilization law wasn't taken out until 1981 and the language the language that Michael mentioned what we call feeble minded morons and vessels um, representative Donahue led legislation probably 10 or 11 years ago to get that out of statute so it's just, you know, it's it's kind of hard at times um to think that we did this and this is a field of Vermont the state hospital here in Waterbury always was it was the state hospital here in Waterbury before um it closed in the late 70s as a full hospital again it peaked at 1700 folks by the time it closed it probably had 400 and then it was then it was a state hospital up until the time of the flood and maybe had anywhere between 50 and 70 people in it um at max and yeah, it provided a lot of work for a long time I'd read obituaries and I'd see folks who used to work in the hospital um or who were patients there uh for years and years years less so now um because it's been over 50 years since it's closed but it's um yeah there's a lot there was a lot of power in that building there's a lot of karma in that building and um I think more than a few of us I know of a few people within our our peers who had some direct contact with the interworking so that hospital for a long time and I don't know if we'll hear from them on this but it's pretty powerful stuff um I did an art installation there the year after the flood to commemorate it's closing and it was um the testimonies we heard from people who came to see it one last time patients um it was again it was pretty powerful stuff you couldn't help it but um well I couldn't help but want to work on something like this so that's my personal part of it um representative uh balloon lead internal thanks chair what you're just describing reminds me of um similar um um pilgrimage back to the um orphanage on north avenue um by a number of folks when um uh when the the college Burlington college moved over there and there were a number of folks who came anyway it uh uh I am trying to address myself however to the issue of the word genocide and I I have you know I've read about um a number of efforts you know uh or it's often governors who are apologizing um for states history of genocide um in United States and um what I and in many of those announcements the governor has used the word uh genocide and in Maine in the truth and reconciliation process where um Maine acknowledged that it had committed um um in its foster care program cultural genocide against its native peoples uh I know it's a really strong word and yet I feel that um the history our history and um and its parallels that have used the words um the word genocide um speak to our needing to use that word here so um I guess that's just my and I don't know what I don't know what kind of information the Ledge Council would need um in order to justify the use of that word um uh so I was just wondering um Michael if there if you know what that would look like uh if I Mr. Chair if I may I'll say two things on that topic number one is what you ultimately decide to do is your political call we were making I was the editors and I were making a comment that in the ideal yes there should be some type of supporting documentation and we would certainly prefer that uh but ultimately this is your political call decision to make not mine number one number two though is that the reading that uh Representative Stevens did a few moments ago would actually I think be very helpful in that direction and that's why I made the mention that if you do decide to leave the word at this this language structure in if I could have a copy of that page it would really be helpful yep I'll take care of that and um um we're gonna I mean I think before we go today and I want to be done today early a little bit before three um I think what I want to leave Michael with is some of the more general I think there's probably some things that we can agree on on a general sense of deleting sections or perhaps get a consensus on if not then we are obviously going to revisit this next week um and I think we can consider if we want to consider waiting to make any changes until next week um and sit with the language for for a few days um that would be a reasonable way to go as well um Representative Triano then Murphy yeah I just I guess I just wanted to follow up you know my involvement with the state hospital was not a tour it was there my mission was there to visit clients who were routinely sent there by courts to be evaluated and sometimes well fortunately there was a legal aid office in the state hospital that um helped to uh or facilitated them being released uh once the evaluation was done but often times the evaluations would take a considerable amount of time so you know as I said before that walking the halls the B unit was the secure unit the place that I would always end up um and visiting and you know um and you could feel it in the hallways it was just such a weird creepy place that um you know again I think it speaks loudly to the callousness in the in the uh maybe not even that's not the proper word I think maybe just the perception of what was needed to house people and as you say about 1200 people or 1700 people maximum house there um they weren't well cared for um and then you know and again I just think it's a really important piece of how this whole thing developed you know and I just want to make one other comment you know um I started working the public defender's office in 1981 and through the late 80s and into the 90s there was a family in a town which I won't name um that um existed um as what would be described as hill people um who were accused of inbreeding and um were treated so poorly by both the community and social services this is not in the 1930s this is in the 1980s that this was happening and I had occasion to meet with and represent these folks and you know it just it just continued it really didn't stop um I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't stop other places presently in the state but this was modern day that these people no one would rent to them they were incarcerated the father was incarcerated for uh in sexual relationships with his children you know the children were all um disabled and it just it just went on and it was just a horrible story that was part of what work that I did um over the time so um it just it didn't end in the 1930s Representative Murphy thank you I'm gonna um go back to just the ending the final resolve and I think for me um if if we do want to maintain the word genocide as well as ethnicity it wouldn't be improper um ethnicity is the disappearance of the culture and genocide is the disappearance of the people and I think that the actions did contribute to and that could have resulted in both if it didn't and so um for me it's more the ethnicity leading to genocide isn't proper it would be ethnicity and genocide actions and I think if we go that path we wouldn't need a razor because that is what ethnicity does so that would be my recommendation thank you um Representative Parsons thank you uh mine was actually quite small something um everything else we're talking about it was just in the whereas from 1925 section um I just don't know if it would be clearly accurate the part that says with the participation of leaders throughout Vermont State Government it was certainly within state government but maybe I'm wrong but I don't know if it was all state government was participating in this I mean I'm sure there's probably agencies that have nothing to do with this possibly I'm sure government was a tad smaller back then but Representative, do you want to comment on that? I did I think that we do want to be a little bit careful because we are trying to speak as the General Assembly we're not including the Governor to sign on to this so I think we do I think Representative Parsons point should should be carefully considered that that we are um not including that part of the government that isn't what we have control and sway over they certainly implement the acts and laws that we put into um statute but it's a little bit um difficult to sometimes draw that margin around things. I'm personally comfortable with the word within um at that point I have a question for us all um and I think we asked this question last year and so for those of us who may remember but on line six there's the word discredited and it's not wrong I just does it fit there at that place without going on you know I mean you could have seven where as is about why it's discredited and how it's been discredited and I think last year we talked about I brought up well what about now discredited and I think there was the discussion I think Michael you let it just about saying that um this was this was sufficient shorthand for all of that you know that that um that in the end this was discredited yep Michael go ahead. Mr. Chair it's interesting you brought that point out because the editors were asking me about that this morning and I had a recollection that we bounced that concept back and forth last year last biennium so some of you will not have been present for this particular conversation and my recollection was that I had since discredited in an early much earlier version last year and the comment was made back to me know it was really discredited from the beginning and therefore just to use discredited obviously how you decide to use it as your call but that's my recollection of the genesis of the conversation and why I told the editors this morning to just put discredited if you want to change that I certainly can. Yeah I'm not sure it's necessary because this whole this whole thing is saying that it was wrong and while it it may have been disputed back in the teens and 20s and 30s it wasn't really discredited it had changed over time and then it fell completely out of favor so that just... If you want Mr. Chair and members of the committee I can just follow the word completely whatever you want but I have a bracket around it now the famous brackets I have lots of brackets Representative Triana Yeah I don't have any strong feelings about it but I think it was discredited I think that it did not provide a solution to what the perceived problem was in the 1920s and 30s and it was based on as I said before a zoological biological psychology a zoological hypothesis that didn't prove to be accurate in the end so I think that term actually describes the way this whole thing came down but I don't have strong feelings about it and if it's removed that's fine Well and I to get to the I mean it's really important to be as right as we can be in the apology I also want to point out that the floor report on this I'll be doing the floor report it will be somewhat of a history lesson for the whole body and for the public to hear and while again while that's not going to be recorded in the same way this is going to be recorded it gives the context that I think in some of the in the case of discredited for me I think it would show that it was discredited and I'm not sure whether we need it in the apology because the rest of the apology insinuates that it was the wrong policy but again I don't want to make final decisions on language until next week and so before we start to just go through this again just very quickly to get those sections that we can tell Michael to take out now and provide us with the next draft I would ask for your own and our own education if you take a look on our page for this week on this issue there is there's a document that's new to us is the Kevin Dan History that was written in 1991 and Kevin Dan was the fellow if you followed if you remember from the testimony who found the 40 some odd cases of materials in the laundry room and it's a much it's a very compressed version of Breeding Better Vermonters and Nancy Gallagher's book is much more flushed out in terms of information but what Kevin Dan wrote I just ask us to read it I'm not going to it was what was up on my screen when I had my emails up yesterday it was I guess it's close to a synopsis of what we've been dealing with from the historians perspective more closely related to Breeding Better Vermonters I think Mercedes de Guardiola's say is good and is a good resource but a different facet that we should also just be up to date on as we make our final decisions but those the material that was in the speaking of discredited what I was reading when my screen came up was a letter from Henry Goddard who in 1912 wrote a very seminal book on eugenics and it's one of the books that got Vermonters hooked into eugenics and Henry Perkins at this time this is 1934 so there's this whole thing that the American genetics movement had slowed way down by the early 30s and had changed there were still pockets of people who believed that it was all about heredity and but so this Henry Perkins was trying to raise money for the American eugenics society of which he was the president of and Goddard wrote he's the original guy now one of the original guys in America wrote why not drop the whole works we've carried on for several years and what have we accomplished it was good fun as long as we could afford it but now it's a different matter if Hitler succeeds in his wholesale civilization it will be a demonstration that will carry eugenics farther than 100 eugenics societies could if he makes a fiasco of it it will set the movement back where 100 eugenics societies could never resurrect it you know and so there's this there's this um and this apology and any floor remarks I make aren't going to tie this into Nazi Germany directly because there's no proof that Harry Perkins ever met with the Germans I mean that's a whole other world um and that takes away from the general assembly's role in it and takes away from this but just it gives a picture of by the 1930s just after this bill was the the sterilization bill was passed by the general assembly and signed into law 90 years ago um how far it had tailed off you know so yes it was discredited and there were battles within the movement itself but um it was also at the cusp of something else completely different the way the Germans took it was so far afield um from from what even the Americans were working on um and they had been and they had been as interested in it as we were for 30 years um so with that sorry um representative Murphy thank you well you were talking not that I wasn't listening it was it was fascinating is um I can't find the Kevin Dan link it's look for Paul Carnahan oh okay um got it okay thank you I wrote down didn't write down that name and chair uses the word abinac key in that article written in the 90s so when I read it yesterday I was struck by that so um Michael or and committee we have made suggestions um do we want to leave this draft the way that it is right now rather than make any decisions on it or is there are there clear decisions that we you want to make today um I've I've penciled scheduling this in for Thursday and Friday to finish up next week and so the question is do you want to go through this in the next 10 minutes or so and give Michael some broad you know broad instructions on stuff and then we'll let the more bracketed material late wait until next week I think that's worth at least getting confirmation on the um changes that we all kind of nodded our head on the symbols there were a few um John and then Michael John did you have a comment well I I uh you know I always love listening to my brother Chip and I think leaving the historical stuff in is powerful so um I think you know I was earlier saying calling them down I could live with the fuller history I would think I agree with representative hang of that one whereas that's about the uh chronic health disparities that was added I think that is the one that would be I would say could go Michael if it would be all right with the committee I've numbered all the clauses and I would if you would be willing to give me five minutes now to go through all of them by number and tell you what I have heard is that you may want to change that's good yep because I've been busy and I actually have another clean copy just in case I'm trying to think I I I appreciate that you're here taking notes as you're listening Michael as you know legislative council has been a little short-handed this year and we feel like we've done a lot of our editing ourselves at time so I really appreciate you having these notes ready to go okay so with that members of the committee I'll tell you what I have heard that for right now it seems that first clause at least for the moment stays in subject to your further discussion next week I've heard arguments both pro and con but I didn't hear an overwhelming removal at this juncture I did not hear any removal with respect to the second whereas clause at all on the third whereas clause I think I heard the one about the department of public welfare nearly unanimous concurrence to remove that clause I'm looking at the squares yeah I think that's right when I put it in last night I thought it might well not stay that it was part of the information that I have been given but I questioned whether it really belonged there in clause number four I see two things number one is that you're still having a conversation about retaining or not retaining the word discredit and I'm going to change the word throughout to within yep and on line nine oops go ahead and I have it here and my proposal for here is on line nine surveyed surveyed targeted apanaki and members of other indigenous bands committee ought to read Barbara I think I think that bands still implies their apanaki I think what we were hearing is there were other tribes not just holding off from that word tribes because it maybe people are other indigenous populations so indigenous people populations I think one of the things that Nancy I found a phrase that I think if I got this right from Nancy Gallagher yesterday was she had used indigenous family bands but I think that there was a question so it was like indigenous people comments some that we now recognize as apanaki I think was her suggestion the reason Mr. Chair and members of the committee the reason I'll be honest I hesitated between bands and tribes I know in Canada bands are used as if they were tribes yeah so I wanted to be careful that and people or population or something of that sort seemed clearer because you were referring to not apanaki right so I would can I suggest that we bracket that because I would I think for monitors of Native American community and heritage you know again some of whom we recognize as apanaki might be the answer but I'm not going to say it is today can I offer that in our state statute in that title one the language that's used is indigenous Native American peoples now known as western apanaki tribes the question there but the indigenous Native American peoples would be an inclusive language right I had thought that Native American Indian heritage which I also pulled from the statute was what you were referring to last evening but I also heard yesterday there was a lot of discussion about naming apanaki yes but also recognizing there were some non-apanaki absolutely if you didn't know if you had known as now known as apanaki that would imply everybody was apanaki yeah I mean a number of whom are now known I mean there's just let's bracket it and just not make a decision on it today okay so I'll leave what I have the Native Native American alone for the moment and that's a bracketed question big question mark for next week Clause 8 that's the S-59 I heard yays I think I heard more yays than nays but I'm not sure that's about the 1927 senate bill yeah I think right now keep it in okay okay representative Kalaki you had a different opinion maybe no no I think keep it in I was going to the other one there was discussion about the three D's the delinquency deficiency and oh mental great where are you now in the one above Michael the one where as in 1925 evidence of alleged delinquency dependency and mental deficiency oh you had a discussion about whether the word mental is the right word even though it does indicate that people with cognitive disabilities were targeted but I think it's so I think deleting mental I think was suggested on a couple different levels also it from the three D's perspective yeah delinquency dependency and deficiency were the three D's so yeah I think do you want to leave the word mental if people are comfortable I mean let's just bracket it let's just bracket individual words for next week okay other than the fact for example that throughout to within you seem to be in agreement on that one at line seven yes okay clause six and clause seven that's the where is the general assembly adopted 1931 and where is act 174 I didn't hear any comments on either of those two clauses nor did I hear comments on clause eight clause nine note that in clause nine I changed it to just old stock it had read slightly differently earlier and the chair indicated just make it old stock clause 10 that's where how does that we're okay I see where you're going whereas eugenics survey received to go down to the near the end I see a note here about or I put in a note maybe it should be impacts something to the effect of irreversible impacts on the targeted groups and directly affected individuals or something along that line if you want to add that with the bracket yeah I'm going to put a bracket here you'll talk about it next week yeah okay in clause in clause number 12 you're still having a discussion as to whether you're leaving it in at all and if you do leave it in I know you'll have to decide the American nomenclature so I'm just putting the bracket in a big question that's the Susan Arnott clause which I since you all have not decided yay or nay at this point yeah clause where are we here clause 13 excuse me I'm sorry clause 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 yes 13 clause 13 after children and adults clear on that one that goes in now and the word continuity after kinship that seem to be absolutely clear now that I can add that in the first resolved clause I didn't hear any changes from anyone the second resolved clause of course is the question about the word erasure and then the which I first heard you wanted in and then of course this whole question of whether the genocide whether it's and genocide stays in or doesn't stay in and I have a big question mark and a bracket on that for the moment and yes I did receive your email Mr. Chair okay and before we go representative Hango are you still uncomfortable with the concept of I mean we talked about should be taken as opposed to shall be taken we're not ordering this could be interpreted you it felt like we were ordering a future legislature to do things are you comfortable with where it is now outside of the word genocide I know you're uncomfortable with the word genocide but are you comfortable with the should be taken language not particularly but thank you for asking what I will if I may Mr. Chair just as a procedural matter not taking sides the should would not be I believe that the should would not be viewed as binding the shall would be viewed as binding okay alright everybody so we're going to pick this up next week as like I said and I appreciate all the hard work hard work we've done on this so far this is not comfortable and and the more we dig into it and I think the testimony heard yesterday really in the last two days really illustrated how difficult this can be not only for us but for the affected communities and I just want to thank you for your patience and for your perseverance and trying to hear everything and respect everything that we're trying to do here I really do appreciate that this is this is not easy work so I have another meeting thank you so much