 All right, we are back. This is still February 17th and we are back. This is the Senate Government Operations and we took a short break and now we're looking at S155 and we have with us John Federico from DMV and John, my apologies for the kind of the push and pull that we've had going on here which is because of scheduling and then non-scheduling and then changing and stuff. So we're very glad that you finally made it to us. So thank you for coming. So if you'd like to just jump right into your testimony that would be great and you are muted. Okay, how's that? There you go, perfect. Okay, first of all, no apology necessary. Thank you, appreciate being invited back to speak to you for the record, John Federico Inspector, Department of Motor Vehicles, Division of Enforcement and Safety. Apologize for the technical stuff, not in my usual environment today. So- I know we miss your background of your- It's gonna stay work. We hardly know who you are without that background. Well, they asked me specifically to make sure that we weren't advertising today while we were on the record opposing the reorganization. So I said, sure, that makes sense. But I'm glad you like the background. So again, thanks. I appreciate the invite back. And really I'm just gonna try and probably just reiterate some of the things that I talked about last time but certainly, of course, if anything is new for you, please, please ask. I'll do my best to answer any questions that you have. And so I'll say, Madam Chair, I wish it was different. I wish we were on the same side because I know this is coming from a good place and I know that this is important. We still believe that the reorganization isn't good for the DMV, for Vermonters, for our mission and for our employment. We believe that the state is still better off with groups of the separate law enforcement groups rather than a large public safety office. All of the units outside Department of Public Safety are highly specialized and deeply entrenched in their own agencies and departments. And when I say entrenched, of course, I'm talking about everything from the relationship with the customers, with the other support staff, HR, payroll, finance, the other civilian staff within their own agencies and everything that goes with it. We still believe that the efficiencies that we heard discussed, that are reasons for talking about reorganizing can occur without the complication and the known and the unknown costs of creating a Department of Law Enforcement. We believe that training and policy, public and internal oversight of law enforcement can be standardized if that is the goal without having to reorganize all the specialized law enforcement officers under one umbrella. Currently, one consideration we'd like you just to take note of for what would happen if we combine under an agency is that currently law enforcement officers in the state, let's say they decide that their current employment is no longer for them or it wasn't something that they wanted to do or continue to do, they can go and apply to another state law enforcement department. And the key is that we all currently act sort of like separate independent police departments even though we all work for the state. So in that, we currently select and screen candidates just like any other police department would would follow the current laws associated with background investigations and that sort of thing. A large agency would simply be able to transfer people from division to division without the same types of bedding and without the same choice. Just imagine a scenario where say one division was just too short of staff but somebody wanted to transfer to another division, the department or the agency may not allow that because of staffing. It also happens plenty often that sometimes an agency who's bedding candidates that are coming from within the state may decide that that isn't the best fit for their department or that's not the best candidate for their department and they're not selected. This may no longer be the case if we're talking about transfers within a larger agency under one umbrella. One other area of concern is that we believe that more executive positions, commissioners, deputy commissioners, the addition of which don't seem to currently be necessary for current law enforcement operations but would be added to the agency under the proposed organization would cost for monitors hundreds of thousands of dollars more a year. As the chair knows, employees just spent a long summer helping to figure out how we would give back in order to save our post-employment benefits. In fact, the state is providing very generously in that proposed plan in order to save those benefits as well. And it just seems at odds to our group and the VSEA that we would create additional expenses such as these if they weren't absolutely necessary. One thing I wanna throw out to the group as I was considering this going back and listening to all of the summer retirement group discussions was that we found out that Group C is highly subsidized by the state. They did some, I think, actuarial research and found that while we're highly subsidized a group of retirement group, we weren't subsidized at the expense of other retirement groups. And this type of thing was not unusual for retirement systems in general. We also found out that the Department of Public Safety is the largest number of Group C members in it and that their budget is largely driven by the general fund. I mean, our budget is mixed with federal funds and I'm not an expert in the organization and government and I don't know the answer to this, but I just wondered if, have other people considered this? If we drive all of the law enforcement officers in Group C to the agency of public safety, which is largely driven by the general fund, is that gonna create any more undue burden on the retirement plan? There is a line in the bill that protects current employees to a certain degree when it comes to involuntary transfers. But the bill itself contains a lot of language that allows the new executive staff to reorganize the agency or the department and the divisions under it, how they see fit. Our members are concerned over a lot of the language in the bill that allows for transfer of classified positions, transfer of appropriations, the ability to organize, reorganize, transfer or abolish divisions, staff functions, change ranks or change grades of employees, assign or transfer members within a division to serve at such stations and to perform such duties as the commissioner shall designate. That's just some of the examples of the language that's really concerning to members. They don't know what it means, they don't know how it's gonna turn out for them. Don't get me wrong, we all know that the boss runs the show, we as employees, what we can do sometimes is attempt to negotiate items that we might believe are negotiable and grieve things that we believe shouldn't be altered or removed. But we believe that the language in the bill is potentially setting us up for a lot of problems in the future. And I'd also like to remind the committee that they did hear some testimony from people like the trust and truck and bus association about the longstanding relationships that DMV has made with its customers and the professional department that we've created there. And again, we're concerned that the focus will come off of the safety of commercial motor vehicles and we don't wanna see that happen. Not much else has changed for us from the executive order to the bill except for some of that language that I talked about specifically and I'd be happy to entertain any questions that you might have. Thank you, thank you, John. Does anybody have any questions for John right now? Yes, Senator Polina. By the way, John, it's Senator Polina's birthday today. Happy birthday. But be gentle with me. I'm feeling old. I'm asking you the same thing. Well, I don't wanna be redundant, but it seems like what you're saying is you're concerned about your loss of autonomy. And I'm wondering, do you see this merger or whatever, this new agency as something that might undermine your ability to get your job done efficiently? Well, I think the undermining, I wouldn't call it undermining, but I think what it is is the bill doesn't contemplate all the facets, all the details that I don't think people have contemplated when you talk about just picking one group over and moving it over here and assuming that it'll work. I think that we are so entrenched in the department that we're in organizationally by all the statutes that have been layered upon layered over the years. And in the relationships, like I said, inside and out, I guess we'll go back and forth and argue about whether we'll change or it won't change. I've heard many times the intent is not to have a change, but I don't see how moving people over and then figuring out how that might work is the best plan, is the best way of going about doing it if they were gonna do it at all. I'm also just wondering, I don't know if you know the answer to this question or not, but clearly you're speaking on behalf of your department or division, are there other groups of divisions or departments where workers are feeling the same way? I mean, we're hearing what you're saying, I'm just wondering whether, and maybe it's not appropriate, maybe you don't know, haven't had contact, I'm just wondering whether you think what you're saying would be substantiated by others in the other departments. No, that's absolutely fair, Senator Inge. We did not refresh a survey that the BSEA did of all the BSEA covered law enforcement officers the first time that this came up, I believe last year. And although that survey didn't show overwhelmingly that the law enforcement officers surveyed or BSEA members did not support an agency of public safety or something didn't support the agency of public safety, they didn't support all law enforcement officers being brought under an agency of public safety. It should be much more specific about it. I'm not talking about the agency of public safety bill as a whole, talking about the consolidation of law enforcement groups under it. Sure. Thank you. Senator Clarkson. Thanks, John. I just need to have a reminder of how many people this is affecting. It's been a while and I just am not remembering. Sure. I believe the last time when we did the survey we did it with about 120 people. So that's law enforcement officers assigned to the Department of War Vehicles, liquor and lottery, fishing game. Right. The Secretary of State's office, the Attorney General's office, the Medical Board under Human Services, I believe. How many with you at DMV? There's 27 of us. Yeah, that's what I remember it was in the 20s. Thanks. So you're the largest, I think, of that group, aren't you? Probably close to it. I mean, fishing game might have it. Fishing game is pretty hot, yeah. They might be equal or maybe even a little bit bigger. Yeah, thanks. Senator Colomer. Thank you, Madam Chair. John, welcome back. It sounds like, and if I'm not characterizing your remarks appropriately, please let me know. But it sounds like at least DMV and to be fair, I have not heard from fishing game. I haven't heard from lottery and liquor. I haven't heard from anybody except DMV, but I have heard very loudly from your group. But it sounds like you would rather not be part of this but I'm at a loss to find out how else we could do it. Do you have any sort of idea how we could, I don't wanna say exclude, but you know what I'm trying to say, I'm sympathetic with what your concerns are, but I just don't understand organizationally how we can't include DMV in this. Well, I mean, part of what we're wondering is, I'm not clear, we're not clear really on if we're gonna do this, why are we not doing everybody at the same time, because this bill doesn't seem to contemplate anybody but moving DMV over for now. And I don't know if we're at the place where we're studying the other groups before we move them in, which gives us the opportunity not to move them in if it's perceived that it's no longer believed to be the best organizationally in order to move anybody else in. But if that's the case, I think our members are definitely gonna feel like, well, if it isn't best to move everybody in and we're in, there's no way we're then coming out. You know what I mean? We're never gonna reverse this decision once it's made. But that may just leave the DMV in the division or department of law enforcement and it may keep everybody else where they are if it's decided down the road that it's not prudent to move other divisions like liquor and fishing game, et cetera, et cetera, in under the same umbrella. So I don't think I answered your question directly, but I don't know how, I assume the Agency of Public Safety can still stand on its own without the division of the Department of Motor Vehicles, without the division of motor vehicles under the Department of Law Enforcement. I guess you don't need a department if it's just the division of state police, but I assume that the rest of the Agency of Public Safety bill and organization can stand on its own without us by the looks of it. And perhaps I'm wrong, but I would suggest that it could, if that were the case, or I would suggest that if it's prudent to move everybody in, what are we doing about the other groups? Okay, thank you. Senator Plain, I think you had a question. Yeah, actually, you partly answered it. I was gonna ask whether or not you've been able to have direct talks with the Department heads and whatnot, so-called leadership about alternatives to what you took, what they're planning on doing. But I didn't realize that, you're saying that DMV is the only group that's gonna immediately move into this new agency, I didn't realize that. So the other, the fishing game folks and others would not necessarily be moved in at the same timeframe is what you folks would use to sort of the guinea pigs to see how it all works out. Well, Senator, I think that's how the executive order contemplated it, and I don't know that this bill language changed that, you might have to ask, I might be, I might have to stand corrected and we asked the, you know, maybe the chair, if she knows better, but- You are right, John, what it does is it contemplates by October of 23, looking at moving in fish and wildlife, liquor and lottery, Capitol Police, Department of Labor, Project WorkSafe, passenger tramway safety. But there's, if I'm correct, is there still sort of an sort of an eject lever clause in there that you don't- Well, it says, shall study the effectiveness, efficiency and delivery. So I'm sorry, just to be clear though, saying to Madam Chair, is that these other groups would move in later, a couple of years later? Is that what you're saying? Yeah, and John is right, in the language in here, it isn't necessarily a foregone conclusion that they would move in. I think there is the foregone conclusion, but it isn't reflected that way in the language of the bill, you are right. And I will say that in the years that I've been in this committee, we've seen probably, well, we all know that we've seen tons and tons of studies and every study that's been done, whether it's external or internal or has recommended this move, that this should happen and that people at DMV and Fish and Wildlife and Liquor and Lottery should maintain their attachment to, and their identity with their department, their agency, but be part of the agency of public safety. And I know that sounds pretty weird, but that has been the recommendation since I've been on here for 20 years. Senator Clarkson. Is it not sort of dissimilar to what we did with the Attorney General's office and all our lawyers who are actually embedded in the other departments and divisions, but are actually part of the Attorney General's office? And agency of digital services too. Yes, and agency of, sorry, both, both of them a very similar situation. And we redid that a couple of years. I feel like not that long ago, but it's now very clear that every lawyer, whether they're at Department of Health or AG, employed by the Attorney General's office, but they are deployed and are part of those departments and are functioning as part of those departments. And that worked reasonably well. That transition, I think. Well, I do understand the concerns and I'm sorry we're not on the same side here also, but I think that this was is one time when we probably will disagree. And I do appreciate that. I just like to add that the studies, the studies weren't all equivocal as my understanding of them. They weren't all unequivocal. They definitely parsed the different things differently. And the latest study to be fair was, I think it was 2009, it was my recollection. In law enforcement years, like dog years, it's a long time. So I'm not sure how relevant that is to today's situation, but that's just a counterpoint, that's all. But and if those other organizations did achieve, a large amount of streamlining or organizational destressing and saving money in the budget, I suppose kudos. But as I'm concerned, as I've expressed, my concerns are that this will be a very costly and a process that will be very difficult. Among other things, of course, is we'll be in a division of law enforcement with a group that's got a different working conditions, different contract, different representation from the employee side. And I think that'll make things difficult under one agency as well, frankly. Any other questions for John? Thank you, thank you so much. And so we'll continue to work on this. And however we end up doing it, I'd like to get it done. I understand. Thank you for your patience and having me back. John, before you go. Oh wait, Senator Palmer. I do remember one other thing that we touched on. If this is destined to happen, we talked about uniforms, I think at one point. I believe that and Chair came up with the idea that your group would still have, I don't know how you phrased it, input into or make the final decision on uniforms. I don't know whether that, how you see that, but. It is just, in there it says that commissioner shall consult with the other agencies and departments. And I just said it needs to be stronger. The commissioner won't consult with the commissioner, we'll take the decisions from the other departments. So, the DMV would still have control over its uniforms, which is a small thing, but. We also consider it a very small issue. And definitely not the crux of the issue. We're definitely not worried about the patches, the uniforms and the designs on the cars. And sometimes people are, but it is not the overarching concern. Understood. Yeah, I just want to be clear again. We're talking about how many people John under your division? Well, my understanding is that this bill contemplates only removing the 27 sworn people from the department of, I'm sorry, from the Division of Enforcement and Safety at the DMV, which is bigger than the 27 sworn law enforcement officers. There's several civilian support staff, several civilian investigators, et cetera, that aren't contemplated as part of this. So again, a lot of open questions as to how that organization will make that work. So they're not contemplated to be part of the move? No. No, I think we heard from Tony Fecos the other day that they would be, that they would remain in DMV and you would remain in DMV, but in a slightly different form, but that you would remain part of the enforcement division. And the difference, Madam Chair, some are sworn and some are not. I mean, it's for all the sworn officers. The 27 are sworn. Yeah, that's what I thought. And the rest are. Okay. So committee, what's your pleasure here? We can make a flag by that section, but can we begin to walk through it and see where we have flags? I think that's what you was next on the agenda. Sure. That's what you wanted to do. Okay. Senator Rom-Hinsale? Yeah, Madam Chair. I don't know actually, if you were in the Zoom room, I may have said it at a point where you weren't there when we were talking about the upcoming schedule around this bill. I am aware that we're bringing back, a lot of folks who are within law enforcement and public safety and the section around the new office of engagement should really have the input of people who have been impacted by law enforcement activity. And so I just wonder if we're gonna hear from the community or other witnesses about that piece. We certainly can. If somebody wants, we will hear from anybody who wants to testify. We did specifically ask for input on that section for input on that section from Susanna Aiton and Wilda. But if we want to hear from community people and remember that the office isn't, it's just us to create and develop. And it seems to me that's where we would, that's where you would hear from the community people was when they get to the, because this isn't creating anything except setting up an office. Well, I mean, as I pointed out and as folks have come in to testify, they, I mean, they actually said that last time, the agency, their department did a public process around public safety. They felt really marginalized, unheard and uncomfortable with the way the feedback loop was created that they said that on record in here. So, you know, I don't know that letting it go from this process to the department is satisfactory to a lot of folks. If there are people who want to come and testify, they're welcome to come. I'll mention it at social iPhone copies. Okay. But I haven't heard, I haven't had any inquiries from anybody about testifying. So, I, but if anybody wants to come, they certainly are welcome. They may not know we're taking it up again because people did come in to oppose the overall bill last year. Yeah. I think three people came in. So anyway, can we walk through? And when we get to that point, we can flag that. Absolutely. Okay. So, I don't know exactly how to do this, but I think that I just want to start walking through and seeing if there are issues here as we go through. And we have raised two issues now, but. So, I'm, does anybody have any issues with the section under creation of the agency? No. I am going to say that we should add some language here and around the animal cruelty investigation advisory board to, and I don't know that the language has to be here. It can be in a different section of the bill, wherever it seems best to live, but that asks that the agency review the, Mike Shirling has been working with the people in, so sorry, my brain is starting to collapse. Working with the people in Burlington and some other people about seeing if they can expand that and have it live here. And it isn't time for us to assign it, but it is time. I think that there could be some study about it. Does that make any sense to anybody? Senator Clarkson? Yes, I think that's fine. I think in light of the conversation we just had with John, I don't know where the other law enforcement divisions are mentioned and the timeframe on contemplating, because I know it's 2023, I think. I mean, I think it's just next, am I crazy in thinking that? It's on page 27. Okay, so it's further. So it doesn't, it's not, even though it's, they're not in this group, the explanation for where they might be in the future is elsewhere. It's on page 27, yes. Got it, okay, thanks. So I know that, Anthony, you are you suggesting we put a flag beside the division of motor vehicle enforcement? I guess that's where we'd go, sure. I know, I mean, are you suggesting that we put a flag there that they? Yes. Okay, okay. Any other? Well, on page three, I think Senator Rom Hinstel wanted to align two, I don't mean to speak for you. No, yeah, but I don't know that she wanted to underline it there, but when it talks about it in the bill itself. Yep, okay. Yeah, that's what I got. Was that right, Gaysha? Wherever it appears, yeah. Yeah, so I do have on page four that the division directors a note from Tony Fakos here, and I can't remember, does anybody else remember what he wanted the division directors to be appointed? So that they are not, does anybody else remember exactly what that was? I think Mike, do you remember? Commissioner, do you remember? Why? If I can get to the under the button, I believe the request was for the directors to either be able to come from the classified service or be appointed in executive service, which I have not testified about, but I don't disagree with and I'll note that that is the way it works now in a number of different departments and agencies around state government that there are multiple options to be a director, some of them are classified some of them are accepted. Yes. Okay, so the language doesn't have to be changed there. I think it was just a clarification from him. So I'm gonna ask the people that are with us, if you, as we're going through this, if you have comments or concerns or language changes or anything, please speak up. And Senator Clarkson? Yeah, I mean, just to Mike's point, on line seven and eight on page four, it says they are exempt from classified state service. If we're letting some of them possibly be, then they wouldn't be, right? I mean, you don't, I thought I heard Mike ask for more flexibility here. I think that's what John Fakos was asking for. Tony Fakos, I think that what they, I thought what I heard the commissioner saying, and I might be wrong, was that they can come from, they can either be appointed or they can come from the classified, but once they're a division director, they would be exempt. Is that what you said, commissioner? Yeah. That is accurate, but as folks go into those directors roles, there are directors who are classified and some who are exempt. So if it pleases the committee, having the flexibility to do both is actually helpful. That's what I thought. Thanks. Okay, thank you. Yep, we'll get that changed. Okay. Anything else under appointments and duties or budget and report? I'm, I don't know where everybody else is. I'm on page five. Yep, pop of page five deputy secretary. Yeah. And I have no problem with any of that. I do note at the bottom here that it says that members from different divisions of the department of law enforcement shall not be reassigned or transferred outside their division unless the member requests, which I think answered one of John's questions here about being transferred from DMV, say to Fish and Wildlife or to Vermont State Police. And he did have the question about when they're transferred, are there applications or reviews of their appropriateness for those transfers? So you feel that answers his concern, Madam Chair? Well, I think it answers one of them. Yeah. Because it does say that they wouldn't be transferred unless they were, I don't think it's, it doesn't certainly address all of his concerns. Yeah. I'm, if anybody has issues with going through this, I really don't. So, I mean, I've gone through this so many times that- Right. But I think this is good. We flagged a few things so far. I think it's good. Let's keep cruising. Yep. Keep cruising. Well, I mean, I'm just curious, why did, I guess, I don't know where you are, but I'm on page six under subsection three. Yep. So, I know this is silly, but mandatory duties. Why are duties mandatory? They're their duties. I mean- Where are you? Line 13, why are they called duties? You have to say a different section because the printed version is different than- Okay. I'm on sub chapter three commissioners and directors. Yeah. And the second section in that is number 6052. And it says mandatory duties, as opposed to what? Voluntary duties, duties they feel like on alternate Tuesdays. I mean, to me, duties is duties. I still don't see where it says mandatory duties. Does everybody else see it? Yeah, it's in mine. Is it in A or B? No, it's above A. Oh, it says mandatory duties. Oh, yes. Why isn't it just duties? I mean, it seems silly to call them mandatory. I mean, they're the duties of the commissioners and directors. Anyway, I would flag that. I don't, I wonder why my hand, Amron. It might be a drafting thing. Amron can probably answer it very quickly. It just seems to me a little over the top. Amron. Oh, I see because down on 6053, there are permissive duties. You'll see under mandatory duties, these are all of the shals. Shall duties, shall not do that. Where the permissive explains where the commissioner has the flexibility to do other activities at the commissioner's discretion. I don't know that it's necessary, but that is the distinction. I think it's fine. I think we have enough to do to figure out the areas of concern that we shouldn't spend time debating whether we should have mandatory or not. I think having just discussed flexibility with the commissioner above that anything that ties people's hands unnecessarily, I mean, I just, I think it's an issue. So anyway. Well, you don't want any mandatory issue. If you're forced, if you, anyway, if Mike doesn't think it's an issue, I'm fine to move on. I just find it extremely, I think when you're running something you, that's what you're hired to do is, I mean you're, anyway. So if you look at the mandatory duties, these are the duties of the commissioner. These are the things that the commissioner has to do. Not the secretary. This is the commissioner. These are the things that commissioner has to do. There are some things that the commissioner can do with approval that aren't mandatory. Right, fine. If it's not an issue and no one else is concerned about it, fine. Yeah. Senator, just for the record of Mike Shirley. Yeah. I concur that there are often superfluous words buried in various things that we work on, but I would defer to Emma, whether this matches the general construct of an agency and or department, if it does, I think we would keep it. Right, fine. Okay. Yes, we trust our drafter. Okay. Does anybody have any problems with what the commissioner has to do or what the commissioner may do? Well, under the permissive duties, the first one says the commissioner may with the approval of the secretary transfer classified positions within and between divisions subject to state laws. I'm wondering how that relates to what we talked about earlier. With John. Yeah. Yeah. Because earlier I said that they wouldn't be doing that. And now here it says that they could possibly do it. That's what I reading. That's my reading of it anyway. You will see in subsection C further down within this section that it clarifies that transferring, it clarifies how transfers must be conducted consistent with the language you saw previously. So this would be covering everyone else other than you'll see when you get to subsection C, I think hopefully that will alleviate your concern. It should be consistent between what you read earlier and this section here. Yep. Yes, under C, right? Yep. Yeah, great. Yes. So other positions could be transferred, but not law enforcement. And then we have directors. Is this where, Amron, is this where we would need to put that they could either be classified or exempt or would that be in the section above? Okay. So just remind me here on A under directors. Shall appoint the directors for divisions that are part of A department. Does that mean the department, the director of would be, what does that mean of other departments with that are part of A department? So this is general language that would cover all of the agency. So you have a director that will administer each division within each department of the agency. So this says that it's the commissioner with the approval of the secretary who appoints directors for each division within that department. And then it gives the secretary the duty of appointing any other directors whose appointment is not otherwise governed by law. This is sort of the standard language that you see in the creation of other agencies. It's meant to be relatively generic. Okay, I get it. All right. So we have the department of law enforcement and we have the department of fire safety and emergency management. And one of the things I like about this is that this elevates fire safety and emergency management to the same level as law enforcement. A law enforcement. Not to put law enforcement, not to de-elevate law enforcement, but I like the idea because public safety is more than law enforcement. Correct. Yeah, it's elevating. Any problems with that? Nope. And then we have the division of support services. That's not a department, that's a division. I need a division of support services. Yes, we probably all do. I'm reading this with envy. Oh, I could do with all these things. I think that everything that's in the, all of this has been in there for a long time with the exception of seven, which was put in by Representative Colston. Yeah, good addition. Okay. So now we come to the office of community engagement. And I guess what, I just wanna be very clear that if people testify that they're not testifying to the process of public engagement or the variety of mechanisms for community feedback because that's what this office is going to be doing. So we're not doing that in here. We're giving that responsibility to the office, which consists of, I don't remember who it is now, but there is a team of people that are connected to that office. So I just wanna make sure that when people testify, what they're testifying to is, do they want this? Because when, so anyway, I won't say it again, but yeah, Senator Ron Hinsdale. Well, I mean, I really want my caution against trying to limit what people testify to. I mean, the intent behind this I think was to try and make law enforcement seem more connected to the community or more engaged in some way. And I think people need to be able to comment on whether or not they think this will accomplish that or what they think it would need to accomplish that. And I personally raised, when we first took this back up, I believe this session, that I find a lot of concern with how the complaint process is articulated on the website. I think if this office is to mean anything whatsoever, it needs to be able to make the complaint process and the resolution a lot more transparent to people. So I started reading from the website and I see we've lost Chief Shirley, but that to me is the only value I can see from a community-facing office is how people who feel unsafe around people sworn officers address their needs and concerns. Okay, oh, I get that. I did not see this at all as a complaint department that they might set up a process for complaints, but that this is not a complaint department and it also doesn't deal with just law enforcement. This is outreach around emergency management and around fire safety. This is around the E911 board. So this isn't community engagement for law enforcement just this is for the agency itself is the way I see it. And so the complaint process is they might have suggestions for the complaint process, but this might not be the group that they might set up a process for that, but it might not be the community engagement office that deals with those complaints. Does that make any sense? To some extent, but I guess I don't see what problem this is currently solving for emergency operations or fire safety. And if there would be like what, I don't remember hearing any testimony that we needed more engagement around those topics. No, we had set up a, it was suggested that we have some kind of a community office or community and it was called relations. And that wasn't, we didn't like that term. So we changed it to community engagement and we didn't know exactly what that meant. And so I sent this past Hal Colston and asked him to come up with some language about what this office is looking to do. And it isn't just around law enforcement. This is the, I don't know how else to explain it. If there are, there might be issues around emergency management. There might be, they might want to have a community engagement process set up. They might, they might want to maintain a variety of mechanisms for community feedback and engagement regarding the operations of the public safety system. So this doesn't set anything up. This just says this office is supposed to set that up. I don't know what else to say, but so we can have testimony from people if we want to. And if, and if we feel we don't need this office then we'll take it out, but I think it's important. I mean, I guess I see less value in it now than I did before. Cause I, I don't, we haven't heard from those divisions that they're looking for this office created. Well, okay. I'm not sure where to go from there from that because this is part of the agency. And we haven't taken testimony from those other offices much on this year on the agency concept. We did last year, but other committee members, can you wait, help me out? May I jump in? Yes, please do. I thought we heard fairly compelling testimony from Aetan and from Wilda in particular about the import of having an office of engagement too, as they go forward and we're creating these divisions and departments that they build in opportunities in every aspect to go back to number seven, training, including diversity, equity and inclusion training in kind of in every department. So certainly they're, so I actually, they were very compelling, I thought, and made a good argument for there being this office of engagement to actually bring along all those divisions and departments. I'm not sure how training is engagement cause training is already supposed to be happening. Well, I can't speak to that cause I am not overseeing it, but I- Call them more. Thank you, Madam Chair. From what I can remember, commissioner Schirling liked the language that representative Coulson offered to us, all this does in my mind is create an office. It does not speak to the methods by which they will engage. It just says there is an office. And yes, I think 80%, 85% of the engagement process will probably have to do with law enforcement. I don't know how much, you know, engagement they'll be with the fire district. If there's a fire, you want somebody to show up to put it out. It doesn't require too much more than that. So all this does, I think, is create the agent or the office. It will be up to them to decide in what manner they engage the stakeholders. And so I'm fine with it. I don't know how else to do it. And I think house language does exactly what we want it to do. It says create and execute a process. However they decide to do that and however they want to involve the stakeholders in it is fine. So I'm at a loss to explain it any further, I guess. And I think there were some different opinions from Susanna, Wilba and Etan about how to do this. Which they will hash out internally because we're not telling them how to do this. Wilba talked about having a standing committee. Susanna didn't talk about having a standing committee. So there's a different approach here and the people in the office will try to figure out the systems and what the process is. So I don't think we're in a position to say what their processes should be and what their mechanisms should be for getting community feedback. That's- So I think perhaps we shouldn't, I mean, engagement is a very triggering word for a lot of people who've been harmed by law enforcement because they don't want to be engaged. They want accountability. So I think calling it an office of engagement and acting like it's helping the community already presupposes that that's what people want. And so maybe not calling it anything but talking about it as an opportunity for accountability and transparency in the agency of public safety is worthwhile. But I don't know that saying there's gonna be an office of engagement and they'll figure out what to do adds a lot of value for people. Well, we can take it out. And then I think we will get a lot of grief for taking it out because now there's no public, now there's no office here that's gonna focus on trying to figure out how to get community feedback and how to engage the public. That somebody has to have the responsibility for doing that. So if we took it out, then we don't have that. And I'm, if we don't have to call it community engagement we can call it something else. It isn't and it isn't accountability. That's something else. This is, we have the, AHS is doing this big thing around the GAC worked with AHS to come up and with Drew Russell about the community engagement process that they're doing. And that's, they're doing that. And it seems to me that this is the same kind of thing except we're not telling them how to do it. They're going to figure out just as Drew and the, and other people figured out how to do it for the, around the outcomes and the indicators. They figured out the system there. We didn't put that in the statute. We told them to figure it out and this we're doing the same thing here. And we had community relations, but that people said that was a bad word. So because that just sounded like public relations. So we changed it to engagement. If there's a better term, I'm going to leave it in. If somebody wants to take it out, they can take it out. And if people want to come in and testify they can come in and testify but what they need to do is testify to this language not what they think the office not what they think the process should be to engage public safety stakeholders in the development of the policies or the mechanisms for community feedback because we're not going to, we're not putting that in the bill. We're charging the office to do that. So they can talk about that if they want but we're not going to put in here. We don't have time to figure out how they should be doing this. That's the point of this is for them to for us to charge them to do it. So I don't know. Is there a better word than engagement? I will ask for feedback from people who are impacted by law enforcement. So I will try to see if people want to testify to that. Okay. I just think narrowing and narrowing of what people can talk about is a little bit of a way of cutting people off from saying what they feel they need to say about. I mean, that's kind of the opposite of community engagement. So I think we should let people engage. I realized that but I realized that but the getting community engagement is a little bit different than writing a bill. And what we're doing is asking for language. Should the language in this bill be different? That's what we're asking. We're not asking for them to tell us what... Anyway, I mean, I'm not gonna... I just, if they wanna come in and... I mean, I can't talk about what they should be saying but when we are doing a bill, we generally ask people to respond to the bill itself. That's generally what testimony does. So... Madam Chair, did we ever actually hear from Hal about this? I mean, a long time ago we did, but we... Well, I don't know. He didn't come in and testify. I sent him... He just did this work and thought... This is what he wrote. And I think this is good. I think if they can manage to engage every one of these departments and divisions in their communities and more fully than they do now, I think that's great. So if people want to come in, we will schedule that again next Friday at... I think I have it down for one o'clock. Friday at one o'clock. Yep. Okay. So the E911 Board, we heard from Steve Whitaker on that. Anybody else have an issue? Okay. And they're fine with this, right? The E911? The E911 Board has been assigned to the agency of Public Safety for a while. Yeah, yeah. And now the section three is the whole DMV section. And we're just gonna have to make a decision about that. And I'd like to hear from the commissioner and just primarily the commissioner. And Jennifer, I see you there and Chris and Chief Peake and stuff. So you've been very quiet, but we haven't given... I haven't given you much chance to say anything. I've been talking way too much here. So please... Thank you, Madam Chair. I was actually on here to see if you guys were gonna be discussing anything about the S250. And if you're not... Well, I don't think we're gonna get there because this is taking much longer than I had hoped. Okay, ma'am. Well, then I will sign off and I hope you all have a great rest of your evening. Thank you. Thanks, Jennifer. Bye-bye. Chief Peake, is that why you're here too? Yes, ma'am. Just to answer any questions that you may have regarding that to make myself available, I can sign off if you need me to. No, we don't need you to it. All you're welcome to sit and listen to us haggling. All right, so that in section three, we have to... And I'm gonna pass over that for right now. And then the rest of it is all the transition. Okay, sorry. I hadn't realized my churling had left so obviously. And the rest of it is how the transition will happen. And then the very last one is on page 27. I think that the whole rest of it is transition. Isn't that right, Ameren? Until you get to the very last page. Let's see. Yes, there are a few provisions around transition. And then there is cleanup language starting around section five for changes that need to be made throughout the statutes for each of these entities that's being moved and for the transition of the department or the transition of the Department of Public Safety into the Department of Law Enforcement. Yep. And then there are, so I believe there are some report sections or at least one report section towards the very end. Yes. And that the report section is the status, there's a status report. And then there's also the report on the, on page 27 concerning Fish and Wildlife and the other law enforcement. Right, I get to that. And this, right, the feasibility of, so, okay. So where are we committing? I think we have flagged, I'm a little puzzled by the 911, what additional we might wanna do on that Madam Chair, the concerns of Steve's, and I don't know what you wanna do about those. And we flagged a couple of things I thought at the beginning, but I think other than that, I think we're, and other than hearing from community members about their, both hopes and concerns about engagement, I think we're getting there. The DMV, I think is the, And the DMV, yeah, we need to hear from Shirley, from Michael about that. I don't think Steve's concerns had anything to do with the 911 board being here, I think it had to do with how we're allocating the money for regional dispatch and the towers. And if the towers can belong to the, to private entities or not, I think those were his concerns, not got the board itself. Was, am I right about that? I believe so, but I was just wondering if there was anything in that, and maybe Brian heard more because he was with Steve more, if there was anything that was applicable to this. I don't know. I took his comments to be more specific in terms of his dissatisfaction with the way things were being run right now, but I'm not sure what intersection those concerns have with this bill, in the sense of it being a reorganization bill. I'm sure he would disagree with my report on that, but you know, he was specific about funding and why this is taking so long as freedom of information act requests and all that sort of stuff, which to me doesn't really intersect with the bill itself. And I think after crossover, we are going to hear more about dispatch and how the dispatch, the money for the dispatch and the polls is in the, in the budget and how that gets distributed. And I know chief Pete, we've had a conversation about that and Mark Anderson. So there are Roger, Mark who there are a number of people who are concerned about how that money is allocated and the parameters around it and stuff. So we'll have that, but that isn't part of this bill. So we'll have that after crossover. Okay. Because it'll end up being in the appropriations bill. Got it. Okay. So we will schedule this and we'll have to have the discussion on the DMV and the, and hear up from community members. I will say that's the only piece of this that I've had any recent interaction with, with anybody nobody else has said anything negative about the bill lately, but that certainly has sort of risen up over the last week or so. And I think that when we take that up again, we should make sure that we have, we invite John Federico back. Yeah. That, that we have Tony Fecos because he's the head of that, of the enforcement division at DMV. Have them back and, and I know that there's a difference of opinion there, but we're going to have to hear from both of them and sort it out. Agreed. Agreed. Yup. Yup. I just, I think, well, for me, I need to hear why it was compelling to put them in and study the others. So. Yeah. And I'm not sure about that. I think they, John made a good point. Yeah. They started instead of doing everybody at once, but that, that we should hear that. And also hear from the commissioner. Yes, we will. Yeah. Yeah, I think that was a, that was a good point that, yeah. So. All right. Are there other things that we need to address now then on this? I don't think so. And I, some place on my table here, I have 250 and I apologize that we didn't get to that today. And what I did was, I divided it up into, I went through it and there are, I think very discreet sections. And what we'll do is, like we did before when we did the law enforcement thing, we'll deal with sections two, three and four at one time because there might be different people testifying on them. So I have the, one section is the AG's ability to investigate sheriffs and municipal agencies that seem to have a history of discrimination or a pattern of discrimination. So that's one. And then the raising the hours to 10, I think we heard both from Susanna. I didn't hear from Eton on that. I heard from Susanna and I think that she, oh no, it wasn't Susanna. We'll hear from Susanna. I think that her suggestion was that it be intertwined with all training instead of having more discreet hours. But we'll hear from that. And then one was on the data collection. Right. And one section on independent investigations and the database of law enforcement officers was a separate one. And the independent investigations there was another section on that. And then the disclosure of information on the law enforcement officers and confessions based on false information. So I think that what we'll try to do is when we take it up is focus on a couple of them instead of trying to focus on this whole thing and having people go back and forth and back and forth, if that makes sense. So yeah, I'll try and organize it so that the same people might be here for, like the AG's office could be here for a couple of them and the council might be here for a couple of different ones. So, okay. And Ben, is that why you joined us here? Yes, hi, I know that S250 was on the agenda but was not sure how the timing all played out. So I think that that's the way we're gonna do it. We'll take a couple of sections at a time and have discreet discussions about each of the sections instead of kind of the general. There was a sort of let me fit it all into one bill, but not if you don't talk about them all at the same time, you miss something, I do think they can be taken up discreetly depending on which section makes the next. Yeah, yeah. So I think that that's what we'll do and I'll try and get that also for next Friday. So, cause a lot of the same people are gonna be involved. Ben, you got a great shout out today on the Senate floor. You did. Thank you. Yeah, my first bill passing out a committee and making it to the floor, so. I remember when I asked for you to draft it. So it was and then Dick joined on and Jenny, it was great. So thank you. Oh, thank you, I appreciate it. After the Magna Carta speech, I couldn't add my two cents thanking the committee for their work, so. No, I actually don't like thanking committees for their work. I, it just. Oh, it was good. It was good when it was good. I know, I know. I think in general that committees do their work and if we all stood up and thanked them, we'd never get off the floor. It's part of our mandatory duties. Yeah, thank you. Actually, that's a permissive duty. I think it's a prohibited duty. Yes, yes. Can I can I know that it's different, you know, because it's folks who may have other civilian, you know, commitments to doing other things. But can we invite specifically NAACP and ACLU for the S 250 conversation as well next Friday? I just think they're only hearing from from law enforcement has a lot to do with. No, and I will I will say that I have never turned anybody down. I'm not going to go out searching for people to testify. You don't have. What you don't have time to go out and search. Well, I think it particularly. It's hard for individual people to follow, but there but advocacy groups, if they're not, if they're following it, then they have to call to ask if they can come and testify because. And I'll never turn anybody down. Well, since I'm not as closely involved in scheduling Gail, can you just let me know what what you need from me to make sure that ACLU and NAACP are right? They should they should contact Gail. J. Diaz or whoever should contact Gail. OK, well, if you definitely not just following our agenda. So. All right. I could just email Gail. That's helpful. Yeah, and give her all addresses and who to invite. OK. And it would be Stefan. I would I would start by my name, Stefan and Mia from the two NAACP chapters and see if they like a committee that they can be or something. Yeah, if you can just provide me names, I'd be happy to track it down. And I know things have changed in the last year. Some leadership has changed. So names are appreciated and any emails, contact info. But yeah, there I'm we're happy to hear from from people. OK, so. Anything else we need to do? Hope.