 All right, thank you. So we're going to be continuing our testimony and turn to, you'll always be representative, Kaya Morris. But to welcome Kaya Morris who had to call in. I'm so sorry that we didn't get you in sooner, but I'm so glad that you are able to join us and I appreciate your flexibility. Welcome. Thank you. No problem. Can you hear me okay? Yes, we can. Okay, perfect. Hi, everyone. Good afternoon. Thank you very much, chair and too many members. And thank you, Daniel and Melissa for your testimony earlier. So my name is Kaya Morris and I am the Movement Politics and Policy Director for Rights and Democracy Vermont. Just for introduction for those tuning in, Rights and Democracy is a member-led people's organization working in New Hampshire and Vermont. Our mission is to shift the political landscape through electoral and community organizing to ensure that the values and the needs of our communities guide the policies of our government. And we're doing this by building a popular movement to advance human rights, dismantle economic inequality, racism, sexism and to build a real democracy. So I'm here obviously to provide testimony with regards to H644, which seeks to decriminalize a number of substances which currently hold various penalties for use or distribution. This bill is... Can we turn it off? Sorry. We can. We want to get the volume up. I can't hear you as some of us can't hear you as well as we'd like to. Oh, you're not able to turn it off. Okay, so are you able to either speak louder or get closer to your microphone? It's turned up as loud as if you can go here. One moment. That's better. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, are we still coming in clear? Yes, yes, it's great. Okay, fantastic. Thank you. So I appreciate your time. So this bill is of great importance to Vermont to meet with our values of wanting to recognize that substance use and substance use disorders are not criminal acts but are a matter of public health, personal preference and choice and for some mechanisms for alternative medicines as desired. We are well aware of the data and the information supplied through research in Vermont and nationwide on the impacts of our policies regarding substance use. In particular, the cascading negative impact on those who hold marginalized identities, such as those classified by race, gender identity or income status. Decriminalization of substance use is necessary as economic equality remains a vision instead of a lived reality. And racial justice is as far from realization within the criminal justice system in the state as it could possibly be. The hyperbolic hysteria that was created around and weaponized in the devastating war on drugs has had generational impacts that negatively affect us all. Families torn apart, deaths of Vermonters, economic systems pushed to the brink and community fabrics pushed to their limits. Even when drugs have been reimagined such as within medicinal cannabis use, some still choose to not engage in its use at all even where there are proven health benefits because of the social stigma embedded in the messaging of substance use. This will not change until our relationship to substance use is fundamentally transformed. The stigma is what may keep those in need of help from seeking help. Creating spaces for different conversations around you are crucial to help capture those who are in need of that treatment for misuse or disorders. Now at the nexus of criminal justice and social equity, it's an opportunity to address these harms and to move forward in a progressive manner which supports our communities and better addresses the public health needs and desires of those who live and work in Vermont. H644 does support that work and rights and democracy is in support of this bill's passage. As a reminder, this bill does not go as far as to eliminate all of the barriers towards a just society nor does it refrain from imposing a legality around substance use. Still, this is a truly important moment and the crucial and crucial which is apparent from both the number of signatories onto this bill and the organizations and entities that will come forth in support of this work. An important part of rights and democracy's theory of change is in bringing those who have been kept to the margins of the centers of the place where decision-making power lives and bringing them there in as peers and as representatives of the communities from which they come. This is achieved meaningfully through the composition of the board itself as written in the bill. So the bill creates an advisory board to support overseeing changes to current law around drug use and distribution and to advise actions that the Department of Health may take in their rulemaking efforts. With regards to the advisory board, there's always a cautioning and having an entity who's sole purpose is to provide input to the state without a provision or mechanism for enforcement or reinforcement of that very work. Noting that there is an important space for consumers of substance use that will bring a much needed voice to this advisory board, I still see a kind of strange circular pattern in having many of the harm reduction service providers nominate those individuals rather than a broader self-identification of those interested in this work. This is particularly awkward when there will be seats from the same harm reduction service providers onto the board itself, but I greatly appreciate and am encouraged by providing the opportunity for those from the substance use community to be able to shape the remainder of the advisory board itself. Now, a question that I do hold, though, is that the actions of the board include providing recommendations for rulemaking, but do not require any communication back or reporting back to the board to ensure consistency with those same benchmarks and the intent of the recommendations the board puts forth. So I'm unclear a little bit about the frequency of how often this group will need to review those rulemaking changes as they're sometimes dynamic, and that it's isn't just expected to occur during the once annual meeting as currently stated in the law or further. An additional question is whether or not that singular meeting would be sufficient enough to also provide the continuity of community engagement that is expected for this level of work. An important function of establishing citizen-led boards in service to the state is to also ensure that those individuals are seated in a way that enables them to actually be directly liaison back to the communities that they're representing. It's not enough for these decisions to place them in a segregated space that doesn't allow for the communities they represent to see those same persons as a means of ongoing community engagement so that they can reach out to them with regards to concerns, ideas, or questions about those recommendations they will make. And finally, as these boards are often seen by the general public as a function of the state government, it can be discordant to create advisory boards that have no actual power. The perception of the public, the average for monitor, is that those who are appointed to such board are actually in fact empowered to enact meaningful change. So ensure that those positions do provide that key component of needed societal change for our state to chart that new course with care and to build a sense of trust in the system again. I appreciate the opportunity to testify with regards to this bill and rights and democracy is here and available to help support any additional testimony or witnesses that you would like to have come and provide input. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. I especially appreciate your comments about the advisory board and I know you'll be very helpful as we can continue to work through what that might look like. Something that is a very important piece as we move forward with this conversation. In light of all the work we're doing in terms of reclassification not just this bill but H505 and as we try to work on the recommendations from the Council of State Government. So I do see that advisory board, some group with especially with the protections that you were referring to could be very useful in this process. Any questions or not seeing any? Martin? Yeah just a quick question. Do you have suggestions on language on how to improve or just general doesn't have to be specific legislative council approved language but could you precisely point out where you think we could change as far as the concepts in the language of this bill and I'm not asking you to do that right now but if that is something you could provide us to address those comments just mentioned. Well so this is a I will be frank that some of these recommendations that I'm making with regards to thinking about the role of board members both within the advisory function in and of itself of that entity but also their relationship back to the communities is something that I'm speaking more broadly to state government period around we've just seen how that has this is an important moment I think as gov ops and is really trying to look at the composition of our boards and commissions and thinking about the role that they play as a function of state government. So you know if I was to say I mean I was trying to say through how to fix kind of a circular piece that comes through in having the nominations again coming from the the initial nominations for those who appoint the three consumer representatives that's I think on page eight and like that section down there like 20ish or so. So what I saw that just seems strange is like who are the harm reduction service providers that are going to choose these other individuals when they then will have seats on the board it feels like it's going backwards you know so will those particular service providers then get preference as far as their appointment because they selected the consumers. I also know that from the much experience that I've had and not only working but then the legislature outside the climate council and many other places that are trying to do community engagement is that there's so much more expertise than juniors that we don't know yet and so I'm always looking for opportunities to allow for people themselves to say this is a worthwhile project that I want to be a part of and that's how they identify themselves as wanting to be considered for the appointments. I'm appreciative that we didn't also just require that the legislature does all the appointments as we typically do for these boards and commissions but placing the public in that seat of important power on really kind of vetting who's going to be able to help support doing nuanced and thoughtful work if it's going to take adjustment for everyone right so I think that's the piece there that there might be I don't know the history behind why it ended up that way so that's something that I am missing that might have already been figured out and deliberated and I'm just coming in new to under the scene that the other piece of this too though is that we are talking quite a bit about possession and dispensing there was a strange part let me take a look I apologize I'm in the car holding the phone waiting for my kid to come out of school but there was a place that spoke to I think actually it's a general writing it's a general pattern where it's those who are if you are essentially encountering law enforcement for possession or for distribution that there's an immediate health assessment that happens in there and I feel like it doesn't speak to what's happening economically as to why folks may be distributing or selling selling these drugs that we're talking about I don't you know the the health components I think while it is we are looking at the social determinants so it sort of implies that there's a question around what's happening economically for the individual I feel like it makes an assumption that those who are distributing are automatically engaged in substance use disorder or misuse so I don't know if that captures the spirit of what I think we were trying to but I think the bill drafters were trying to do with that piece if that makes sense yeah I think I saw that in many different places where it was essentially a health assessment so and then also seeing that the health assessment is I'm appreciative that it is optional but recognizing that yeah we're trying to build a readiness to change and those who are ready to seek help but I also want to consider what are the other factors that are leading to that particular point of intersection with law enforcement that they would then suddenly be engaged in this so I think that might be what kind of comes to my mind there there also was not if you are going to go back to the language around and I'm sorry I'm bouncing a little bit but I'm trying to think through the around the board composition itself again having the consumers be there I think is important could be key also to think about geographic spread also think about the identities of those that are going to be holding these seats so that we also ensure that it's not either mostly focused on a particular region of the state that has an easier ability to participate nor that it's from a particular demographic that is deeply engaged in this work as that just makes a presumption that there aren't others who would want to do this work that just may not be in communities um with the recovery community for a variety of reasons thank you and yeah anything else morning anything else okay anybody else anybody else okay well thank you thank you so much thank you for your flexibility and always always good to see you and hear your voice take care thank you so much thank you committee and thank you chair yeah you bet yeah thank you so I'm not seeing Mr. Dio's J. Dio's yeah he did okay all right okay