 Good afternoon, Senate Government Operations Committee starting somewhat late, but not so much given the fact that we were on the Senate floor for a while. We're also awaiting the return of our chair, the Senate or the Senate wife, who's locked up in the rules committee meeting somewhere. But we wanted to make sure that we started moving through Bill. We're still taking a look at S-124, the miscellaneous law enforcement bill amendments. And since the last time we spoke, Betsy had talked with, I presume, had dealt with Mark Anderson and Dan Batsy and Drew Hazelton about some changes to make the bill. So Betsy, if you could take us through some of those. I'm working off of the one that you emailed to me, to all of us. So that's what, just so you know, that's what I'm looking at. Hi, thanks for the record. Betsy Anrask, Legislative Council. My internet has been acting up with the storm also. So just... Is the storming where you are? Yeah, we had some rain and I hear a little bit of thunder rolling through. So just give a shout if my internet freezes up. Oh, it did. We had fun watching you totally frozen. I was watching you frozen. Kind of like a Disney character. So I sent you all draft 7.1 just with highlighting and then remove the highlighting in case you do vote out this draft 7.1. The highlighting just showed some of the substantive changes that you discussed to draft 6.1 that we reviewed yesterday. So I will just I have the bill up here. Will you all just follow along with your own versions? You don't need me to share it with me. OK, you've just emailed it to us. Drew and Dan, do you have it? OK, everybody's got it, Mark. OK. So let's see. Page 7, I think that's it. Thank you. And on page 7, that was just pointing out, I think you already gave final approval to this, but this is just to confirm that the rule adoption deadline for the Criminal Justice Training Council to adopt rules regarding alternate routes to certification, aside from those at the Training Academy Police Academy is July 1, 2023. I think you already discussed that, but I just left that flag in there. Also, just to remind the language at the top of page 6 would say that by next year, July 1, 2021, that's the deadline for the Council to structure its program so that a Level 2 officer can get to Level 3 certification without having to restart over. Those are both OK with everybody? Yeah. OK. All right. Then move on to the next one. The next change. Page 14. Thank you. I'll just give a reminder before we get to page 14, that on page 11, line 19, just a reminder that that was the change from yesterday that an agency, a law enforcement agency would have to report a credible, a credible complaint that an officer committed Category B conduct to the Council. So that's everybody like that. Everybody like that. OK, so I'll move on to 14. Here's just a reminder actually on page 13 in regard to the Vermont Crime Information Center that you deleted the section that would have required the VCIC to provide the quarterly reports to towns without a local police department. Just a reminder that went away so you don't see it anymore. But I'll get finally to that page 14, line 20. Here is the addition of the Chief of the Capitol Police Department getting added to the Law Enforcement Advisory Board. So that would bring the LEAB up to a total of 18 members. And therefore you'll see on page 16, line four, that that would bring the quorum up to 10. Yeah. Great. OK. All right. Then the next. I presume if anybody has issues with any of this, you'll speak up. Sounds good. Then we get into the matter of dispatch and there's two changes from yesterday here. I just flagged on page 18, line seven and eight that the Commissioner of Public Safety would be required to adopt rules that set forth the rates for dispatch functions performed under this subsection. And there is corresponding language. So yesterday's draft six point one said that those rules may provide for future dates for implementing these rates or imposing the rates upon the subscribers to DPS dispatch functions. Instead of that discretionary May, there was further conversation yesterday. I got feedback from Senator Collamore and Senator White and Commissioner of Public Safety about concerns about imposing rates on municipalities, for example, that use DPS dispatch. And the request was to have language to say that there would be a minimum of three years before these rates actually get imposed. So if you scroll down to page 20, that language got added to the session law about this rule adoption. These dispatch rule adoption. And there's a couple changes here on page 20, starting on line eight. The first is that in the prior S124 draft, unlike the other rule adoption deadlines for other agencies affected by this bill, those other agencies said that rules have to be adopted by XYZ date unless that deadline is extended by Elkar. Elkar has authority to extend rule adoption deadlines. Well, in the original version of S124 as past Senate Gov Ops, this was a one off for the DPS dispatch rates, where the committee wanted a hard and fast date that the dispatch rules had to be adopted by July 1, 2021 period without any sort of ability to have rule extensions, rule adoption extensions. But with the understanding that these rules don't have to be in place or at least that was my understanding, don't have to. You don't have to have something happen by July 1, 2021. I added in the language just to allow a little bit more flexibility and say, in case something comes up with the rule adoption to add in that authority, like it says in the other parts of the bill, that it's still a deadline to adopt these dispatch rules setting forth the rates by July 1, 2021. But adding in the language that Elkar could extend that adoption deadline, because that would be consistent with the rest of the bill. OK. Secondly, is that last sentence there? Oops, sorry. Senator Clarkson, Allison. Oh, yeah. So what? Betsy, you prefaced this a bit on page 20 by saying it was in session law. And I know this is embarrassing to ask, but I will. How do we know that we go into session law here? I'm sorry. I still don't know that. No problem. No problem. So there's session law and there's statutory law. Both have the force and effect of law. Well, how would I know? So you would know by the introductory language. So let's just take a look on page 20. Here's an easy way to tell. Compare line five to line 14. You can tell line 14 is amending statutory law because it says section 18. Yes, 24. VSA chapter 71 is not an amendment to statutory law, whereas you can see the intro on line five for section 17 just provides a heading without actually amending statute. Believe and learn. So also, thank you. Am I not the only one that had that question? No, I doubt it. So. So is that so? OK, I'll ask you later. But OK, so that and and we decide the difference between, I mean, obviously, when we're amending a statute, we're amending a statute. But when we're changing something and which we are asking to be done, we're asking rules to be changed here. That's still a statutory request. I mean, but it's not until it becomes a rule, it doesn't isn't in statute. So rules for the most part don't get codified in statute, except for some Department of Fish and Wildlife rules that get codified in title ten appendix. This is just a requirement in session law. We usually reserve session law for provisions of law that are temporary in nature, right? Whereas statutory laws reserve for ongoing requirements. I've got that difference. I just was curious why this would be there. But anyway, let's move forward before the before the blizzard comes. So section 17, the big picture is this rule adoption deadline. Since it the sea kind of changed about these dispatch rules generally, part of the impetus for having a hard and fast July one, twenty twenty one deadline before was because there was the requirement to have those technical and operational standards in rule. That's gone away. So this would just make it consistent that a little bit of flexibility to allow Elkar to extend, but there's still an expectation that the dispatch rate rules would be adopted by July one, twenty twenty one. And as I think we understood from the commissioner, the department has a pretty good idea already of what those rates would be. But moving on to the second issue here, the last sentence here of section 17. Here is the language that would say that these dispatch rates shall provide in the rule shall provide a minimum of three years following final adoption before the dispatch dispatch rates set forth in the rules are imposed. So there's that language that would give, for example, municipalities three years after the dispatch rates are adopted to pretty much ramp up and prepare for paying for those those rates for dispatch. If I then after three years, they would be ready to raise the rates anyway. So does that language work from your perspective? Yes, I see Senator Collamore has a question. Brian, no, I don't. I just want to thank you, Betsy, for doing this. And I realize in one sense it was last minute, but I think all along I have been receiving requests from especially volunteer fire people and Senator Polina is correct. What I didn't want to have happen with this bill would be this tsunami of new rates and charges imposed on a municipality or volunteer fire department without the ability to sort of see it coming and be able to get prepared for it. So this works perfectly for me. And I really appreciate that's the end of doing this. I hope the rest of the committee understands what I'm coming from here because it was at my origin that we changed it. Sounds good. It makes sense. I think it's right. Now we're getting zoom-bombed. We have a chair. It took so long. Show us your battle scars. You're muted. It's probably best that you're muted. This is blown our computer up. Yeah, it would have blown the computer. I don't forget you're on YouTube. I know, I really think chair White. Well, so I guess they weren't pushovers. They weren't put in your hands this time. Well, I think that the biggest issue that I see is that two of the committee members don't agree with the bill, which in my opinion is fine, but they should allow the bill out to be voted on the floor. And if it gets voted down on the floor, it gets voted down on the floor. Right. But if that would be a three to vote, which would let it out, right? Did they not want to hold the vote because of that? Oh, Nick, I'm very, very complicated because somehow Tim got lost and then we all went back in. And when we went back in, they it couldn't be on Zoom or on YouTube. And then Tim had was in a car, had to go someplace. And so they put off the vote until tomorrow. That's the bottom line. And which and I take it that we're talking about our elections, Bill. Yeah. OK. Well, we've been going through what we've been going through 124. Good. Did you already have it? We didn't pass it yet. We were going to want you to have a chance to vote on it. You'll find an email from Betsy with with point seven point one. I think it is in an email and we're on page. Well, we're kind of finishing up page 20 page 20. Actually, oh, good. Betsy. And I was just going over that three year roll out on the dispatch rate rule with the language on page 20, the last sentence of section 17, saying that the dispatch rate rule shall provide a minimum of three years following final adoption before the dispatch rates set forth and the rules are imposed. Why don't you continue chairing Anthony, since I haven't been involved and I don't know where you are. So we're right here. Don't worry. OK. Yeah, Betsy. All right. So then the bill moves into EMS. And I'll scroll down. Thank you, Josh. There is one thing I just wanted to point out on page 23. Um, this relates in 20 24 VSA 2682. This relates to the change from eliminating the authority of the state board and transferring it to the Department of Health. And I just wanted to point out that you can't see the language here because it's hidden by those three asterisks. But I did just want to be sure that you're aware that the existing law 20 24 VSA 2682 allows the state board of health to adopt rules regarding EMS districts. And there's language in 2682 a three, I believe. I'm pulling it up now that says the state board can adopt rules. But the rules can be repealed within 90 days, following final adoption upon the vote, majority vote of all the EMS districts. That would, first of all, that's kind of an oddity because usually when once a rule is adopted, it has to take the whole rulemaking process to repeal the rule. But another oddity here, I just or maybe not an oddity. I just wanted to point out that the law wouldn't change with although the Department of Health would take over the state board's powers, there's still that language and statute that would say now that it would be the Department of Health under this introductory language of a to adopt rules, but there's still that language in 2682 a three that says any rule may be repealed within 90 days of the date of its adoption by a majority vote of all the district boards. The EMS board. Yeah, the EMS district boards. So do you like that, right, Drew? I see Drew shake his head, yes. All right. I don't know that that's ever actually happened, but. But it's nice to know it's there. At least to know it's there. So I just wanted to point that out. But that's that you didn't know one requested that change, but I just wanted to point that that's that's there in the law. So that was hidden behind those three astros. That's there. It's sitting there. It's interesting that sitting there behind them. OK, OK, but the here, I'll just point out at the bottom of page 25, we already talked about this, but in section 20 is that cleanup language following S 182 to ensure that to be able to practice as EMS personnel that you have to be affiliated with an affiliated agency even when you're licensed in order to practice. So there I just wanted to point it out. There starts on page 25, line 20. There's the language about needing to be affiliated with an affiliated agency. Got it. So in that, I'll point it out in a couple other places as we go through it. There's another reference to it on page 27, line 17, that you have to be affiliated with an affiliated agency in order to be able to practice fully within the scope of practice for your license level. But the substantive change we talked about yesterday is on page 28. And this is in regard to online seven. This is in regard to that psychomotor skills testing. So the language that was proposed is that psychomotor skills, testing for EMRs and EMTs is accomplished by either the demonstration of those psychomotor skills, competencies as part of an education program or by the NREMT. And what we discussed yesterday is adding in that language on page 28, line seven, that you can have your skills, testing be part of your education. But it has to be as approved by the department. So the department just to confirm that the department still maintains control over the education and has to ensure has to approve the education that the education does actually adequately test psychomotor skills testing. Does that look OK to our EMS stakeholders here? And another reminder is that, remember, you remove that extra section that would have eliminated NREMT psychomotor skills, testing as an option. Your discussion yesterday was to leave it as an either or and not completely eliminate NREMT psychomotor skills, testing as an option, just in case there is some education program that doesn't adequately test psychomotor skills. So just a reminder that that went away. OK. OK, EMS stakeholders. Everybody says yes. You'll see it top of page 29, line three or line two is another reference to needing to be affiliated with an affiliated agency. This actually addressed the concern that was raised in the house. This is about a person being able to get licensed without examination. If they're either a medic in the US armed forces or they are. Let's see. No, that's sorry. That was pardon, pardon. That's not page 29, line eight instead. You're either a medic or you're affiliated with an affiliated agency and you're NREMT registered. Just a reminder on page 29, starting on line 11, is that requirement to have the entry level certification for Vermont EMS responders. I'm just bringing up these little reminders because yesterday on the committee asked our EMS stakeholders to consider all these requirements for DOH to come up to perform the duties prescribed by this bill and to get back to me with a date by which those could be accomplished. And it's my understanding that the bill's original deadline of which was overall July 1, 2021 works for the department. So I just want to put that on everyone's radar that that that date that you already had in there seems workable, as I understand it. And just a reminder in regard to that new EMS education council on page 32, line five, that they are will would sponsor training, but not approve it. So we already discussed that, but that's just a reminder there. That language about approval went away. And then on page 33, section 22, you'll see the overall July 1, 21 deadlines are still in those EMS transitional provisions in section 22. And then I think that was, oh, and then the last thing I just flagged is the effective date at the bottom page 39 because it had an overall July 1, 2020 effective date, but with the future effective date, but with the future effective date of the date on which the NREMT psychomotor skills testing would be completely eliminated. But since you're getting rid of that section, you don't need the future effective date for it. So overall, this bill takes effect on July 1, 2020. So who? Dan. I did have a one quick question that I found when I was reading this over and it is on page 34. Line six. The way this is written, it would require any existing instructor coordinator who is currently licensed to be licensed at the highest level of whatever the three levels of licensure are that we come up with. I'm a little concerned that we haven't come up with what those license levels will be yet. And I'm not sure that every existing instructor coordinator would necessarily be appropriate to be at the highest level pending whatever the outcome of that discussion is. Is there a way that we could create some language in here to put some discretion into that or to. And Drew, I'd be interested in your feedback on this as well, because this came out of the advisory committee. But I'm just a little concerned that if we put everybody into that last piece, there may be some folks that probably shouldn't, you know, like if a person received their instructor coordinator two weeks before this goes into effect, they're the most junior IC we would have. But by rule here, by law here, they would be the most senior level of instructor coordinator. That's concerning to me. So I don't disagree with Dan's concern. As to how to, you know, correct that I'm not certain. I think we could certainly create a process. I just think we need a little language buffer there to enable that. Any ideas that that would be though. I mean, you don't want to say something when wherever possible, whenever possible or something that's too. You want to say shall be deemed to be at the license level consistent with the new scope of practice with the. New levels of instructor coordinators. Yes. That's exactly what I want to say. Okay. She's amazing that way, isn't she? I was going to say that's what I was thinking too. It's a good thing. This is her job. Very good. I was going to say. Whatever was appropriate, but I think that's really good. That's exactly right. Anything else? I want to remind people that Senator Brace. Senator Brace won't have said he had to leave at three. It's a saying that's enough before you got here. Senator Brace said he had to leave at three. And then we had some talk about. Not having this to not having this be a particularly extended session. I'm fine with that. Back to the rules committee. She has a lot of work to do with that. Are you going to meet? We might, we might be pretty close to being able to vote on this. So that's why I bring it up in the time we have left. We have 15 minutes or so. Mark. Mark. I have a question. Post me this morning by chief Brachele chair of the criminal justice training council. Asking why the commissioner of corrections was removed from the council. I guess we just noticed that. Actually, that was done three years ago. It's all, it's been. That's all news. That was an old change. Okay. Just for, I guess. Just noticing it. Well, surprise. I guess for the record, there might be a desire to pursue that in the future, but I'll think it's anything to do with this year. Okay. Sounds good. Anything else? Also, thank you. Thank you. Dan drew. Everybody's okay. This has been a long and windy road. Let me tell you. You feeling okay about this at this point? Yeah. Are we ready to vote? I know realizing Betsy has to make that small change. So I don't know whether we could. You know, we could choose to vote based on not having seen that small change. Otherwise we'd have to come back again together again to do it. And I'm assuming that we have permission from the rules committee to vote on it because we did vote on it before it was sent to appropriations and they sent it back to us. So I'm going to assume that we're good. Okay. Brian. So Betsy, would it be. 8.1. Make it a 7.2 since it's such a, it's a minor change. Okay. If that were. Motion madam chair. And I can. You're sorry. I'm sorry. Just be here today. Wait, Betsy, you're making a change now. Yeah, I can do it right now. If you want to just take a look at it. Oh. It'll just take me a sec. You want to talk about the weather. It's hot. It is hot. It's hot where I am. Betsy said they have done that. Well, there's, they said in Washington, we got a thing from Matt Romeo, that said in Washington. Rules. We were jealous that some places were getting rain and we weren't. Jeanette, you and I were left out of the rain. So Jeanette, while, while we're making weather talk. Jeanette. When are, when is the rules meeting? Convening again. Sometime tomorrow. Well, we'll all petition to get zoom invites to that, even though you're the only one presenting. I want to see her in action. You can always zoom it, but. I think I gave all my arguments today. So. I'm sure you were brilliant. Yeah. Well, I think that it's legitimate to be. Opposed to the bill, but I think it also. Tim very clearly told us that we had permission to go forward with bills that were not necessarily unanimous and people should feel free to vote against bills because we're kind of in a, a regular session now. And we don't always. We don't always have the right to vote. So. Opposition to the bills and not keep it from coming. You know, some opposition to the bills and not keep coming to the floor, obviously. Right. Hopefully rules will be before floor because. Otherwise, you know, we, if it's controversial enough that we're not going to suspend rules, then we need Thursday, Friday to move it. And it's got to get to the house. So. So. I'm not sure that this is one though that has to. Like the municipal ones that we've done that really need to pass. In order to allow them to go forward because the secretary of state. Is going forward with the preparations, which is what the governor indicated he should do. So they're having all the envelopes printed and the postal stuff. And they're not going to be able to go forward. So. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I just put on them. So that's all going forward because that's preparation work. And so I, I don't know that this one is crucial to have. Fast track. Fast track. Yeah. How are you doing, Betsy? Oh, I sent it to you. You should get it in your email. Yep. There it is. Yeah. Yeah. It would. I'm, I'm done with it. Seven point two. And that's page 34 again. Seven and eight. So we do need to be licensed at the level that is consistent with the scope of practice of the new license levels. Oh, perfect. Yeah. I liked it a lot before. Now I like it even more. Yeah, let's, let's, let's do it again. Brian, you want to make a motion? I do. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would move that the committee vote out draft number seven point two. S124. Alison, it's up to you now. Sorry, I just have to ask, is that our motion or is our motion to amend S124 first? Details. I have a motion. I have a motion to amend. I have a motion to amend. A manned 124 with. A version seven. With draft seven point one. Two. But I withdraw my original motion and now. You vote to amend. S24. With. Draft number seven point two. That I will vote on. Okay. Senator Braille. Yes. Senator Clarkson. Yes. Senator Collamore. Yes. Senator Polina. Yes. Senator White. Yes. Second. Second. Thank you. I'll move further that we now adopt. Version. Seven point two of S124 as a member. Or as. As a member. As a member. Vote on S124 as a member. Okay. Thank you. Perfect. Okay. Senator Braille. Yes. Senator Clarkson. Yes. Senator Collamore. Yes. Senator Polina. Yes. Senator White. Yes. Thank you very much. And Senator Collamore, you did such a magnificent job this morning. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. He got, he got big kudos. Thank you. Would you like to report this? No. This was your baby. This was your bill. I know. I know, but if somebody else wants to. Report it. Cause I'm. Okay. No. When we first talked about this, you said, you love this and that you had to report it. Oh. Yeah. And Madam chair. The reason I was laughing with Senator Baruth. I already understood what you wanted to do, but I further understood that we hadn't read the bill the third time. So we couldn't move the rules. Unless we put it in all final stages. Yeah. I just want to thank Drew and Dan and Mark and others who stuck with this process. Yeah. Fair hair. Yeah. Yeah. We hope you're, we hope you're pleased. Well, thank you. We greatly appreciate the work that you're doing. And we'll do more next year. If we're still here. Oh, we should, we should actually. Mark is adjourned. Go home. Get reelected and come back. I don't want to just stay here. Mark, I thought I'd had an email from you this morning, but it turns out it's another Mark Anderson in Norwich. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. It's entirely different. So I would. Those of us who are on the committee. Do we want to talk? I mean, Drew and Dan and Mark, feel free to leave if you'd like to. I just wonder whether we need to talk a little bit about scheduling before we adjourn. It's very productive. Good work. I think that I had a note this morning from Sarah. Yeah. Yeah. And there are, we have one, two, three, four, five more of their bills. I don't know if we want to take some testimony. If we want to take some testimony on any of them. She did say that if. If we didn't want to do all of them, I'll tell you what they are. One is about livestock running at large. I have no idea what that is. I don't know what that is. I don't know what that is. One is about incompatible local offices. One is about allowing childcare expenses to be. Taken out of your campaign finance. This is one is the sunset on the boards and commissions. And one is something about veteran status on applications, which I can't think came from. I don't know. I don't know. I just went out. I don't know why. You told me I had to do it. Okay. It's the zoom bogger. You just can't. It's playing games with us all the time. So those are the bills that we have. And I don't know if we want to just have a walk through of each of these so we can see if they're important or not. I trust the discretion of everyone who's going to stay here and think about it. Yeah. Nice. I'm not, I'm not kidding. That's what I mean. I'm passing the ball. I don't know what we want to do, but I think, yes, Chris. I'm sorry to interrupt. I have to leave for a meeting to speaker asked me to go to. Okay. Do you want us to, would you prefer to have some kind of a walkthrough of each of these so we can see if they're important or not? I trust the discretion of everyone who's going to stay here and stay here and have a seat. Great. Thank you. You're welcome. Sorry to interrupt. I think they're gonna. I want to walk through from the sponsor and legislative counsel for all the bills on our wall that we haven't heard from about yet. Cause, you know, just go away, Chris Bray. I'm kind of. Yeah, I think and I think that they were all pretty non controversial. I have no idea like what the incompatible local offices one is or livestock running at large I can guess what the childcare expenses what that is. And boards and commissions Brian that's our bill that John Gannon did. And the veteran status I, I don't know either so it maybe we should just have a run through of those. I think that's a great idea. So, when do we want to do that. We don't have anything scheduled for tomorrow do we Gail. You're muted. You're muted. Now you're just ignoring us. There. Sorry, every paper slipped here. We have sheriff's finance. Okay agenda for tomorrow and I'm not sure if we need to reword that I'm not. I don't know what that is and I also know who to invite. It's COVID. It's COVID revenue loss. Isn't that. Yeah. Yeah. So you might call it COVID revenue loss for ship departments is for sheriff departments. So we'll do that. Right now. Why. Who should we invite to that. The sheriff's. I don't know who else to invite. Oh, you know who else maybe a side judge because they are the budget. They do the sheriff's budgets. The county budgets. They do the county budgets, but they wouldn't know what the losses. Okay. We can invite them. Yeah. They, they don't, they wouldn't have any idea what the losses were, but we could invite them. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But it will impact. Count it. Yeah. It's worth making sure that T is crossed. Jack Anderson. Right. Thank you. So we could do that after the floor. I would just going to suggest. A person that might be good to hear from on that because he's a former sheriff. He's a former sheriff. He's a former sheriff. He's a former sheriff. He's a former sheriff. And you'll be able to talk from both sides. Okay. Perfect. This last name, Senator. B. E. R. N. A. R. D. Bernard. Okay. And. So if we talked about that. After the floor tomorrow, that's enough, right? Well. Huh. Should we spend some time on Friday? Yeah. I don't know. So we can decide whether we need to hear the more of them or not. Okay. We'll, we'll have a walk through. All five of those bills. On. On Tuesday, we're having the burn pit. Update. So we'll have the walk through. On. Wednesday. I'll tell you. I didn't feel like doing anything after judiciary this morning, except going and puking. We were talking about child pornography. It was. Very disturbing. Very disturbing. So we'll do that on. Wednesday. And then. Okay. And then Thursday. If we can on maybe on Thursday, start looking at what we put into place. You know, just a list of the things that we did this year. For the, to respond to the pandemic. And that would be both Betsy and Tucker. If you have. You know, I think we should start to put them into. What might be. I think that it was Anthony and Brian talked about a, a big bill that Andrew Purchlick had suggested the way. And that that would be so that we have our thoughts of what we need. To have in place. Should there be another one. Does that work Betsy? So we would come up with. We would take notes or. You would, I'm sorry to interrupt, but you would look at the bills that we've passed this session. That relate to the COVID-19 emergency. And the idea would be to see if we can put all those into one bill. So that if we had another emergency, we would just flip the switch. You know, and they would automatically go into place. Okay. Looking at the, what you pass as temporary provisions. Yes. In order to determine whether to make it. Okay. I don't know whether permanence the right word. It might be, but to make them appropriate next time without having to go through all this process of hearings and whatnot. Got you a permanent option for whenever an emergency comes up. Or not a kick in when an emergency comes up, whatever you. Right, but. But not a permanent solution. Yeah. So we could do that on. Thursday. Is that what I said? Okay. That's the whole week away. What days today? Wednesday. Yeah. I heard two different things. I heard that we were going to do the walk through the five bills on Friday. And I also heard we're going to do the walk through of the five bills on Wednesday. So. We're, we're very dense. We need to walk through. Yeah. It's the charm. Let's do them on Friday. Then get them over with. And then we can decide if we need to schedule some for next week. Good catch. Gail. Can you furnish me the numbers of those five bills? I can. Do you want to do them now? Or do you want me to send them to you? Either way. H5, five, seven. H6, zero, eight. H6, one, nine. H6, five, zero. And H7, six, nine. And H7, six, nine. Six, five, zero. And what was the last one? Seven, six, nine. Seven, six, nine. It's not necessarily a bill, but we had mentioned week or so ago. The money that municipalities have lost because of the emergency. I'd gotten a letter from Barry city. Barry city. And then you had said that you had talked to Karen Horn about that. I was wondering what did you talk to her about? I forget exactly what happened there. Appropriations is putting in $16 million. For that. And the way they did it is it's going to be not. Just grants to the towns, but actual losses. So they're going to have to. Put in for reimbursement. And they based it on population of the towns. So that's what they're going to do. Yeah. So you're pretty sure that's going to happen. That's what Jane talked about. This morning in the all Senate meeting, I think. I must have been dozing. Yeah, I don't recall either. Easy to do. What if a municipality was very small. But they lost a lot of money. And they lost a lot of money. So that's what they're going to do. And I think that's what they're going to do. Just linking it. How many people live there might not be the best way to. Decide how to distribute. No, that isn't the way they're going to distribute. That's the way they figured out the amount to put into the bill itself. Some towns may have no losses. Okay. And some may have. A lot of losses. So basically it'll be a grant program for the municipalities. Right. And they had to pay over time for their. They had an EMS system of their own. And I don't know what, but. And they would apply. They would send in a request for that much money. Sure. Good. All right. Nice job today, Anthony. Nice job. No, I meant as vice chair, but that's okay. Well, that too. The best thing I do is I brought Betsy into the conversation. Indeed. That's always a good idea. All right. So we'll get out early today. We do. See you tomorrow. Well, thank you. Bye. Bye. Bye.