 Hey, good afternoon, the Senate government operations committee is Wednesday, April 7. So we were going to move on to discussion about the agency of public safety. I'm willing to let Jeanette take the lead on that, obviously. I wonder, Gail, are the folks here. I'm admitting them right now. And I did post that document that you referred to earlier, Senator Polina, that's on our website now and I just posted a link to it on chat. Oh, dear. If it's on chat, we can't pull it up. Because you can't, I can't see people and do that. You don't have to do it on chat. Oh, it's on, it's on our website. Right. Okay, got it. I can forward that to anyone who needs a copy. Well, if it's on our website, which was the document you just did. It's the letter for Mr. Sorrell. Oh, from Jacob Humbert. Yes. Yeah. Okay, great. So that was hard. That was sent on Monday, if anybody needs to check email for it. So before we start, I guess I need to ask a procedural question here is since this is an S bill, we're going to have to have permission to from the Rules Committee to bring it out and I think they'll, if we bring it out that they will give us that permission. But my question is, is this likely to end up being a committee bill? Does everybody is everybody. Or should I just ask for it to be drafted in my name so that we can get going on it and have actually, so we make sure we don't lose the opportunity. I'm not ready to be a co-sponsor so. Okay, then, Cameron, I'm going to ask you if you will just put this in my name and send it to whoever needs to be sent to and give it a number. I'll do that. Okay, thanks. And as we get farther along, we may all buy into it or not, but at least there'll it'll be in the works. Yeah, that would be great. It can evolve into a committee bill. Well, no, it will all how it is introduced is not is is not always how it ends up. Is it. If it is introduced as S 224, that's what it will always be. Right. It won't be a committee bill, but it may have the support of the committee, but it will not be a committee bill. Yeah. Okay. I just wanted to, I was just, I woke up in the middle of the night. Last night, thinking about this. What a life. What a life. I know what a dream life I had. But I have to tell you something very exciting before we start here. I had a real breakfast with a real person in a real place. Isn't that exciting. That is exciting. I had, I had home. I had coffee and muffins with the sheriff on the porch of the general store. How exciting. First time since last fall. That's really good. I just like normal. I know it's weird to be normal. Right. It felt weird to be normal. Yeah. All right. So I think the way what I'd like to do today is focus on the language that came from, because I think one of the real outstanding issues here is around the independence and autonomy of the council. And, and so what I'd like to do is start with the language that came from Mr. Humbert and Mr. Surrell around that. So, it's the best way to do this Amron for you to walk us through that. Those changes. Those suggestions. Or would you prefer having Mr. Surrell do it. It might be hard to view those changes outside of the context of the bill draft. Okay. So I'm, I'm thinking maybe we should, and it does, I believe, give some direction as to where in the bill draft. Those changes are so. Okay. We do have a draft posted. Okay. So I suggest committee members pull that up. And then we can view these changes one by one in the context of the draft. Okay. I would suggest that. Okay. That is, since you've been working on this that that sounds reasonable to me. Does that sound reasonable to everybody else to do it that way. All right. Yes, this is just 1.3 right. Yes. Okay. So we go back and we pull up 1.3. Great. Okay. Great. Thank you. For the record, and we're an average LA office of legislative council. Just as a preface for looking at this draft, the, as you may recall, the department of public safety came into this committee with a prior draft in a different format and did a walkthrough of that draft. I had taken that draft. Converted it into a more standard draft format, which is what you see now. Before you go, I continue. I'm going to Gail. I'm going out of the meeting on this device and going into it on another one. So I'm waiting in the waiting room here and I'm going to leave on this one. Okay. High tech. I know. Move. It's like a switch and bait. It's like, okay. So this draft is a updated version of the draft that you saw from commissioner Sherling. It is shortened I took out a lot of the references that are sort of technical changes changing commissioner to secretary department to agency throughout much of the statutes and instead of doing an iterative. Act timeline where you see what the, the statute would look at a different stages of the transition. I, the draft that you're looking at now would be the statutes, as of the completion of the transition, as of July 1 2022. And then in the effective date section, you'll see that we only add in the provisions. According to when their effective date should be, if that makes sense. So, after completing that draft. I ran the draft both by the Department of Public Safety, as well as Mr. Surrell in his office and Jacob Humbert, and they provided feedback. There was some discussion. And what we have here right now is language that people could tentatively agree was a good place to start, I would say is a good place of framing this. So, the feedback that you see here from Mr. Humber is somewhat incorporated into the draft you're going to see now, I will point out where it's incorporated and where it has not been incorporated. So to begin, we're going to scroll down to section two, which begins on page two, and then scroll down to section 6002. And you'll see that this is the comment was around three VSA 6003 to preserve the Criminal Justice Council independence. Chief Surrell proposes that the text read that the agency would and then you'll see that there's a line here so I'm scrolling down to subsection C. I'm sorry, this is on section 6003. I was going to say, I'm sorry. I've got too many screens going here. Six zero zero three section C online 17. Yes. So this change that was requested by chair Surrell has been incorporated into this language. And Madam chair, would you like me to stop with each requested change for background in discussion or would you like me to go through each of the requested changes, and then I think unless somebody has questions about them let's go through the changes and then have a discussion of them because I've already found a number of places here where I would change language but it's not substantive changes just language. I have concern, I already have a concern but I can wait until we're done. I don't think technical question for amour and not a resounding question. Yeah. Wait. Okay. All right. So the next provision. Let's see is on page five. Again under section 6003. You'll see at the top of page six, the secretary may exercise administrative powers and functions relating to and then there's a placeholder here. There was some, I would say discussion between Commissioner Sherling and chair Surrell about what would be the appropriate language here. I didn't see an easy place to put in compromising language or language that everyone was comfortable with so we have a placeholder here because I know this might be come with more discussion about where the parameters are around what's administrative and what is not administrative. So that change has not been incorporated. Moving down to sections 6054 subsection C. I'm going to find that 6054. Not right. I think it might be on page 10. Thank you. I was trying to do a word find and it was not working. 16 on page 10. Yeah, 6054. Okay, thank you. Yeah. Okay. And so the, this was with regard to subsection C on page 11. The comment from chair Surrell the criminal justice council wishes to retain the authority to appoint the executive director. And I did incorporate this change as you will see in subsection C one. And then the executive director shall not be under the direction and control of the appointing authority, except to the extent permitted pursuant to subsection 603 C of this chapter. And this subdivision to that I just read is with regard to the next comment. So change was that chair Surrell further request that this subsection C to reference executive director for consistency. And again, as the administrative reference could be subject to various interpretations cross reference to 603 C. And so I did put in that cross reference. And that again cross references up to what I read before where there's just a placeholder for outlining what is the difference between an administrative function and power and what is not administrative. So the next comment was on section 6054 B. This I think was really a wording. I'm trying to describe the comment. I agreed to that the way I had drafted it was perhaps confusing so I did make change the draft to be consistent with the request there. Moving down to comment number four. This looks like it doesn't have a reference. This must be the transition section, looking at section three on page 13 chair Surrell's position is that the Vermont criminal justice council financial assets and liabilities as well as its positions equipment supplies inventory should remain the criminal own further the rules should remain criminal justice council rules, meaning that the Vermont criminal justice council would retain its rulemaking authority. I did not incorporate those changes there was some. There was an agreement between Commissioner Sherling and chair Surrell about whether this was standard language, or whether this was an area where the criminal justice councils authority was being somehow moved or modified, and giving the secretary, more authority over the criminal justice council. Comment number five. Which is the general transition provision. This is down on page 15 section six chair Surrell wishes to express concerns that this transition section could undermine the council's independence. It sounded like there was specifically around the language authorizing directing the agency secretary to take any action necessary to enable the organizational modernization and consolidation of state law enforcement divisions and resources. This was again an area where the interested stakeholders did not agree on whether this was language that was providing more authority to the secretary of administration and diminishing the authority of the council. So I left it as is for further discussion in committee. Moving on to comment number six with regard to section 2355 Yeah, page 16 section seven. With regard to subsection C one. The council shall. This will not match what you see here because I did revise as requested to leave the language as it was which says the council shall appoint subject to the approval of the governor the executive director. Lastly comment seven. Also in section 2355, but subsection C to be the previous version said with the approval of the secretary and consultation with the council. Well, said that the criminal justice council wishes to retain its current independence to employ staff and contract for services without the approval of the secretary and requested that this the language currently in statute remain, and I have done so and remove for the modifications to leave the the statute as it is currently written in that section. And so that's section 2355 C to be and those are the changes that I made in response to these I apologize that was not the cleanest walk through of those sections. There was an interim draft that the committee did not see which these comments were in response to. That's, that's okay I'm, I'm going to, if Anthony, I'm going to run right now and I just printed this out. I'm going to run downstairs and pick up what I just printed. So if you would just entertain, if any, but he has drafting questions for Amron. Sure. Does anybody have questions for Amron. So these are all the questions that were written on questions right word but this all came off that memo that was sent to you. And then the other day that we saw that was multi page at memo. You basically dealt with all of those things. The, all of the those items that were listed in what's posted for today. Right. Yes. So those are, I don't know if it would be helpful it's been a while since we got the walkthrough from Commissioner Sterling of the bill would it be helpful if I did a refresher on what the bill as a whole does and the timeline. Well, I mean, I have a question I think for, for bill about this language, but I don't know if that's appropriate now or people want to do a walkthrough bill again first. I think if it would be appropriate now we're talking about the language in the bill I take it. Yeah, and this these changes. Sure. I mean, I guess I'm first of all I'm wondering bill, you know, even. If you're doing an independent investigation into use of force. Do you see any problems with having this larger agents in your independence with having this larger agency provide the administrative and operational support to you in conducting that independent investigation. Can I can I just before I'm sorry I was going to interrupt before you start because part of my question is, is that the case I mean that's what that's what we're seeing and that's what the language appears to say correct send it around. Right, even if it says instead of it previously it looks like the it said the agency part of the agency's role is to conduct these investigations, I appreciate the clarification that's presented here which is that the independent investigation would still be separate from the agency in the hands of the CJC. But I still am curious if, if the CJC could truly conduct an independent investigation in all contexts, if they are getting their administrative and operational support for that independent investigation from the agency. Bill, do you want to comment on that. I'll try but first I, I'm at a bit of a disadvantage because I either don't know or don't have the technology to be seeing the, the language of the drafts that you're seeing so I've written some notes down, but I'm flying blind a little bit here. I would feel much more comfortable if I had a second screen that had the draft on it that I could, I could see so with that qualifier that I'm a little bit disarmed I guess. Thanks to Senator Rahm's question. It. I hate to play lawyer but it depends on what you mean by administrative support. I'm trying to figure out what that means as well which is why I'm uncomfortable with the language at this point and essentially uncomfortable with the CJC being under that in a new agency. I guess my overarching question is, is there a way to be independent and be part of the agency. The if when we say administrative support. What we're talking about, for example, is the assistance in drafting contracts. We're talking about IT services. Things of grant applications and grant for received grants grant administration. That's what we construe to be. Administrative where it doesn't that the agency doesn't have authority to to engage in the substantive work of the council. That's where what's fundamentally important to us in terms of independence. And so, what we were trying to suggest it as long as the independence language is clearly defined and through legislative history, what you as the legislature means by the language, then we would be content that we wouldn't have the thumb of an agency of public safety for our substantive work on investigations on creation of policies on, you know, body worn cameras, access to military equipment, permission software, the, the entrance exam, any of the issues we get relating to the curriculum at the, at the county, excuse me at the, the training council, then you're at the police academy excuse me. We don't see that the agency just by assisting us with administrative details would be in a position to negatively impact our independence for the duties that were given under S 124. We see that there is a hybrid situation but we as executive interim executive director sheets is testified and I've testified we've agreed that there would be some benefits to the council and the operation of the academy. Certain of the administrative duties were afforded by the agency of an agency of public safety. The, the independence for example is that we want to be free to go in and testify before the legislature just as we've done multiple times this session in both the House and Senate gov abs committees and in the appropriations committees about in response to the governor's recommend we don't want to be run the risk of getting an angry call from someone in the cabinet saying you may not do this or that I mean, we won't live. We won't be able to function independently if, and we would lose credibility I think with what the legislators tried to do by the creation of the council, if, if we were restricted in that way so we, I trust the bill sheets and the Taylor patch and others who see some advantages for in certain respects, being under an agency umbrella. But as, but not as long as the substantive work of the council is negatively impacted. I was just going to finish that thought I mean I appreciate what you're saying bill on the other hand I thought when I saw administrative actions, I was thinking of making copies and stuff like that. Because you could argue that designing contracts and working on grand proposals could really raise red flags because you just by designing a grand proposal shapes part of what your activities are going to be so I'm just, I'm not, I'm not saying it's that being argumentative or I'm just saying it raises those kinds of questions. Well, good point, Senator, because I'm not thinking by saying being of assistance in writing a grant proposal that the secretary of the agency an agency of public safety would be in a position to say, No, you can't apply for that grant or you can't say this as a reason for supporting the reason for the grant that I don't see as administrative administrative I see is typing the proposal or figuring out, maybe what software we might need to enhance our computer system, but in terms of grants to apply for and what to say in support of receipt of such a grant. I, if, if you're concerned, if you're concerned that an agency of public safety could, could negatively impact that then that would not in my view be an administrative service that would be a decision making service on in the part on the part of the Secretary of Public Safety and I would strongly object to that so I think you and I are on the same page here. I think on this and I hope I'm not being, you know, giving away too much. I, I think that when you talked about grants I was thinking of grant administration, the real that real administrative part of a grant and the example I'm thinking of is the town of Brattleboro for example, has a grant to administrative unit grant manager, the library decides what grants they're going to apply for, and does all the content work, the grants manager can help them write the grant actually to get it in the form that they needed, and then they can do the grant administration that the reporting and the keeping of all the numbers and that kind of stuff, but the library actually decides what grants they're going to apply for the grants manager has no say in that whatsoever. So that's what I was thinking of when you said grants administration you're really talking about a grants management position. Yes, not, not the. Yeah, it just that we want to, if we get a grant in, and we want to make sure that we don't arise and cross these so that we are not violating any of the rules and regulations relating to use of grant funds and such. It's, but it wouldn't be that. So I think I'm agreeing with what you're saying is just, you know, not the agency wouldn't be in a position to say no you may not do that whatever is that you've got to, you've got to do it in this way, as opposed to the substantive issue of whether you can do the action. Right. I mean, is complicated. And if there is a grant administrator or grant manager in the agency, and you should be taking advantage of it. Because some, I mean, I mean, the police academy staff, I mean it's a small, it's a small staff and so some of the sort of duties that don't affect making decisions, you know, to be done within an agency constructively take, take some of the, some of the burden off the, the academy staff. So, can I ask a question about does on page five of the does the way it's to find shall retain and exercise all powers and functions given to the council by law including the power to develop training and training delivery methodology, administer legal standards conduct investigations and hearing adjudicate law enforcement officer conduct and issue and enforce orders is does that cover is that specific enough to, and, and then just the secretary may exercise administrative powers and functions and I would not use the word powers but change that language a little bit does that does that address it well enough or not. I think when you were away from switching screens or whatever senator I said that I was a little bit of a disadvantage and that I am not. I don't have the technology to be able to see the exact draft language what you just read. Right to me. I would feel a lot more comfortable if I had the draft language in front of me but I don't either I'm not skilled enough technologically or I don't, I don't have access to what you have right now. Can you go to our web page. Without losing your. I, I don't think so. Right. Well I couldn't. You know, maybe someone more technologically verse than I could tell me how to do it but I don't have it. I can't do it either I have to have another device to do it so. Okay. So, to me, I mean this is just as I'm listening to this it's, it's sort of like the council is in a co working space with the agency it shares administrative functions, which are co working space does we're all familiar with that model. Independent, it has its own authority, it has it's clear on its boundaries, and is is clear on its own authority and will act and continue to act in those capacities, but that it will take advantage of shared costs and burdens with, as you would in a co working space. Is that sort of a fair way to look at it I mean, I can envision it in this capacity. Is consistent what with how I see it working that. Yeah, that, that's a good analogy. But I mean, the, the council could be investigating someone in their co working space. I feel like. But, but, I, okay. I think that's the case, but I, they may. That doesn't bother me. I mean they, yeah, it doesn't mean they couldn't do it. I don't see that that would be a problem. I mean, I think we have to give some some. Either we don't either we let the whole Academy and the council be completely separate from the agency, or we allow them to get some benefit out of the fact that they can get some administrative support. But if we don't put them someplace else, then we're going to have to provide them more resources for before their administrative support. I mean one of the things that I had wondered about when we looked at where to place the Academy. It would be at some place like BTC. But that wasn't, that wasn't an option, but that would have been that would have put it under the auspices of an educational institution but they still wouldn't have been completely separate I guess I, I don't see an issue with. I would change on page six, the on the top where it says the secretary will exercise administrative power and functions relating to and then Amron put in that placeholder. I would change that language to the secretary will provide administrative support and functions. Instead of saying administrative power, which makes it sound so you're just providing administrative support. Right, and that I think that would clarify that that co working aspect of it and any power and authority, the Criminal Justice Council has retains and we're not talking about power we're talking about administrative function. I think that's a good sharing, which I think is good. We could also put in, and we could review how this is working. I mean, although anybody can raise their hand at any point and say this isn't working for us. And we do feel too much pressure to not do something or we could put in a review and see how it's working in three years. I think we could add develop policies under their ability under the Council's powers develop policies. Make it very clear. I think the question is, does, does this create a perception issue with the council supposed to be conducting independent investigation is there a perception that there is that this is no longer independent. And that causes a lot of problems for how we what why it matters to actually have independent investigation. I would much rather I what I feel like is happening is the language says, you know, the, the Council, I think we should start with the Council is completely independent. And only received such and such very limited scope of services. But I think we need to really spell out the independence first and not just sort of consider that an unspoken reality. I think that is the critical centerpiece of this. Yes, turn it on a tad in a way and start with it being an independent body that is housed and and shares administrative functions with the agency. In fact, in some ways it should have authority over the agency in certain ways as it conducts investigations it should not be not administrative support it's the ability to access the resources and the personnel support it needs to conduct an independent investigation. I very much like affirmative statements that are clear. And I think the idea of starting with that premise of independence makes a stronger statement than than otherwise treating it as an exception, if you will. I'm not carving out something, but yes, I, I, I see that the listener has turned his camera on. Does that mean he's wanting to pay something. I turned it on just because but I would observe I like the approach of declaring independence to use old terminology and working from there to make it clear what the intent is. I would, I just want to also flag that we keep talking about oversight over the the agency of public safety. It's really oversight over the, what would be the department of law enforcement the agency of public safety is a much larger construct. And that is in part why we thought that bringing the operations of the Academy and administrative support to the criminal justice council does make sense and does create the requisite distance from law enforcement operations because the agency is much more than a law enforcement organization it has a component or would have components of law enforcement in it, but is designed to do much more than that. I would also just offer that we often find ourselves in this rabbit hole of trying to create sort of workflows that don't take into account the need to hire and recruit the right people and what I mean by that is all kinds of bad things can happen if you appoint a secretary or commissioner of public safety that is the wrong person. The one of the important pieces here is to try to elevate this work, all of this work to include the operations of the Academy to a cabinet level so that there is direct oversight by an elected governor and that there is, you know, there's a, there are political small P ramifications to doing the wrong things making the wrong appointments so I just wanted to add a little context to this. So, I, I have a suggestion and I don't know if this makes any sense to anybody, but instead of 6003 being talking about advisory capacity and talking about, and then carving out an exemption for the council, let's, what if we put in a separate section for the council itself. So we had 66003 was declaring the independence of the council and putting in there, what is in see there that what what they have authority over, and then making it clear that the agency has administrative support can provide administrative support and then have the section on the other advisory boards, as is in a and B. So then that that's making that definitive statement. This, this is a different animal this is not the same as those others and making it very clear. One other observation madam chair that I was in my notes and I neglected to mention, and I'd say this for awareness more than anything. One of the reasons that this was put forth originally in that construct that it was was unfortunately there have been historic instances some of the not too distant past where personnel action within the Academy has been necessary, and there have been significant challenges to a council that are not state employees not embedded in the system, and often without the requisite personnel management skills. And that is an exception right now with chair sir element in the chair. But one of the reasons that we had this a little more closely bolted to the operations of the agency was to obviate those prior challenges and we even faced those challenges recently with the, the processes to hire executive director they require resources that don't exist within the existing construct of the Academy or the Council, and to that end, the Department of Public Safety provided significant administrative support to that process. Well, I see that clearly as administrative support. If you have an HR person that can help make sure you follow all the guidelines and everything for hiring processes and stuff I, I clearly see that as administrative support. It gets a little more complicated when you have someone a state employee who's in trouble for something, which unfortunately has happened, and then they're the appointing authority is an amorphous council versus an actual appointing authority which is an individual. So, again, I just flag that as a potential challenge. It's not a reason not to proceed in the way that you're contemplating but it, it creates the possibility of issues down the road. So isn't the executive director higher. The people in the executive director of the Academy not of the council executive, the council hires that the executive director but the executive director hires the other personnel. And so they are not really the, the hierarchy, the two directors of administrative services, and of the instruction. So those really. I mean the executive director is key in that but it's the. Let's just say the council was very active in the interviews and the hiring the decision to hire the, the new director of administrative services. And I think we had some language there that made sure of the underscoring the independence of the council in that in that the secretary of public safety would not be making the decision of who should be in the hierarchy of the Academy. That's not what we envision. Yeah, I would just offer what I was originally envisioning and I'm not sure it was. It was as clear in prior drafts was that a partnership between the secretary and the council where the council retains oversight of things until or unless they need to hand something to the secretary like a personnel action against an executive director for example. I'm trying to do that with a council of, you know, X number of people is a bit of a nightmare. That's, that's why we have appointing authorities and state government so you're not doing it by committee. But again, it you there you can do it that way I'm just pointing out that what the original concept was in terms of the shared duties and just offer that as an option. So, so I see, I'm trying to think here in terms of the town of Brattleboro, the town manager is the person that hires the, the police chief. But there's a committee that does the interviewing and all that and recommends to the town manager who to hire. The town manager actually hires the person. And so I guess I don't see what the issue is here. So somebody help me out I don't see what the issue is here that the council would recommend would do the interviewing, but the executive director actually does the ultimate interview and signing the contracts and all that am I wrong about that somebody has to do that. I think you're right. I think it's where the where we draw the line between like the training staff, for example, the people that work for me, the council isn't typically involved in that. Right, the process but I think more to the commissioners point of who is involved with issues that occur at the level of executive director. Yeah, well I would think that if it was an issue of the executive director that the council would have to work with the, with the secretary to figure that one out if it's the executive directors. If it's the secretary that's being under investigation somehow governor is going to take care of that. If it was a misconstruct senator the council would retain all of that authority, which again is one way to go, but just operationally I don't want to bring you too far in the weeds. Imagine there's an allegation of misconduct against an executive director that requires swift action, you've got a call a meeting to present what's going on, take a vote to have a body take it personnel action. At the same time, to Senator Rahm's point, we're not trying to create something where the requisite oversight that the council has relative to certification investigations etc is in any way circumvented so it's trying to we were trying to strike a balance. This has gone in a further in the other direction from what we had presented, and again, you can do it that way. I'm just pointing out the potential pitfalls. It's, it's not. Yeah, we hope that those kinds of things don't happen so again we're talking about. This isn't something that's going to happen every other month it's, it's a rarity and hopefully we'd never have to deal with it. I just think that if, if you had an executive director that somehow went off the rails, and you had to do something right away that was for cause that the, the, what's your title bill. I'm the chair of the chair that the chair could immediately just relieve the person of their duties until, until you could take action I can't imagine that if, if it was something that was so egregious against the executive director. That the chair wouldn't just say, you're suspended for a time being, and, and then, and then take action, but I agree with you I wouldn't wait to get 24, the quorum of the council together in the middle of the night. To take that kind of action. And you must have a personnel committee that can it could address it without having the whole council, but I would anyway. Just keep in mind, and I'm not being argumentative I just want to point this out. The current chair has as much go state government experience as any person in Vermont, and that is not always going to be the case. Right. That is true, but there are legislators who have no experience and we're actually making legislation so. I just mean relative to an immediate decision versus someone who might defer to a council it's again it's a rarity. And I just offer that as one example of why we, we propose what we proposed previously. Okay, well, what did you think of the my idea of putting a whole separate section in there that specifically address the council and its independence and its duties and the administrative support to make it clear. Clear and positive instead of an exemption. If that was directed at me I am in favor of that center. It was directed at anybody who cares. I like the idea. I would, I would really like to see it say something about none of this support shall in any way delay or in or circumvent or, you know, get in the way of an independent investigation. Well, it isn't just an investigation I think that we need to be clear that we're not talking about just investigations here. We're talking about policies training curriculum, we're talking about all of that so I would hate to focus in just on investigations and one role of the council, and we want to maintain the council's independence in terms of curriculum and policy development, and the training delivery methodology, all of that. I think that we make it clear that the administrative support does not interfere with the core functions of the of the council which is those things that are outlined here including investigations and hearings and adjudication of law enforcement officers. Yeah, I think it would be great to have it separate although the language is pretty clear that the following units on page whatever it is page four. It does say the following units are attached to the agency for administrative support. Only I mean doesn't say for anything else but I think it would be clearer if the council had its own. Its own section, because the others, I believe, Commissioner the others will be viewed as divisions of the agency right. That's correct component. Some of them are components within divisions but. But yes, I think of them as being divisions like the division of fire safety or fire service training or so I get away it would be clearer to have a separate section on that. If I can back up a minute I did not mean to take it out of the of sick of 6002. I didn't mean to take it out of there at all because that clearly says, these are attached for administrative support what I meant is to have a new section. And then there are three that's under advisory capacity that clearly identifies the council as an independent authority and and clearly says it and then gives these responsibilities and says that it will get administrative support without interfering with the core functions, and I think we have section, the section there that says except as otherwise provided and not and be and be. So you're just removing see and putting it in its own separate thing but you're not removing it from the list above. I would support that. I think that's good. I think that's a good start. Thank you manager. Yeah, I agree. If you took what's now numbered as 6003 and took the exact same language from line 17 through. Yeah, line two on the next page and made that its own separate 6003 and then took what is now a and B and renumbered those to be 6004. I think you've accomplished what you want to do. That's that's exactly what I would have done it and then just made be a beginning statement a little stronger. So you said it much better than I did. Thank you. I'm not sure I did but you're welcome. All right, so. Are there other. There were there other issues here where there was. Cameron there were a couple other places where there were some. I'm not not agreement. Yes. I'm not sure. Would you bring us to those. While she's looking for those Gail has her hand up. I'm not sure. Oh, Gail, I'm sorry. Hi, chair white. The HGO is expecting you in about five minutes. Oh, okay. Cameron is going to that same meeting as well. I think mine's been pushed to about 330. I think Tucker is going to the one I'm going to. Okay. Okay. Yes. So the. There was the. Section that we've discussed the six zero zero three subsection C where I had the placeholder, which we've just discussed. Then there was. This was this is transition. This is the transition section. I believe it's section three. Of the bill. I think it's down. A ways. I think it's on page 13. Is that it? Provisions for the transition. Yes. Yes. And the concern. About the concern was about. Subsections a B and D. Subsections. Equipment supplies inventory should remain the justice councils. And the rules should remain council rules. And the justice council would retain its rulemaking authority. We've lost our chair. She's gone to house. No, I thought she had actually already left. She has left. Well, those, the words, I mean, I guess I would ask people to comment on why. No, I mean, I think they're not going to be willing to do that. We're going to be willing to do that. We're going to be willing to do that. We're going to be willing to do that. We're going to be willing to do that. But I don't think it's over the years. If the council is going to be giving over everything, it's appropriations and equipment supplies, et cetera, to the agency public safety. Is that related all to them being independent or not? What would be the results of doing that? The wording that's in the bill is came from who? Yeah, Emron. That came from the department of public safety. the E-911 board, the enforcement officers, all of those, it's the same language for all of those transfers. So the question is whether it's appropriate to have that same language with the council, with the other entities. Commissioner Sherling, I presume you would speak in favor of that. Thanks Senator. The original goal here was to infuse more resources into the operations of the academy by sharing resources. Obviously the Department of Public Safety has vast resources above and beyond the small operations of the police academy. So that was the original intent. I'm not clear from my discussions with folks to what extent the council actually has any assets. I think many of the assets are, like facilities are BGSs, I don't know what else there is. So I'm not sure how this, I just don't fully understand how this is perceived as being problematic. At the same time, there's no significant advantage to the agency or the department to absorb assets and liabilities of someone else. So it doesn't make that much difference. But again, the goal was to try to be helpful by providing more resources. Could you tell me, I'm sorry, Senator Clarkson? Their chief asset seems to be Bill Surrell. Agreed. And the staff. See it says there would be, it says all authorized positions. Yeah. I wonder what that means. Does Bill go to work for this agency now? All authorized positions. B. I believe that is just standard language around state government consolidations. So in the position head count that you see when we present budgets, you'd see the dozen or so academy employees within the agency construct. But that, this does beg the question if we're gonna keep it as an independent and we're gonna set up the section that identifies it as an independent council, then wouldn't the only letter here that really applies is C, which is the CJC will have the administrative, technical and legal assistance of the agency of public safety. It keeps its rulemaking authority. It keeps its assets and liabilities and it keeps its staff. Yes. I mean, doesn't it only share, are you gonna share HR? I mean, are everybody's paychecks gonna come from the agency? Is that what this is trying to clarify? Or. Yes. I'm looking for a good, within the agency of public safety, excuse me, of commerce, for example, we have a couple of different constructs where there's an independent council that has full authority over spending and programmatic delivery. But there are employees of the agency of commerce that are, they exist, Fred Kenny, for example, when he was with commerce, existed as a commerce employee, but reported to the economic progress council in his entirety. That's kind of what we anticipated with that kind of relationship that we were trying to create relative to the executive director here is exactly what you see with Pepsi. Got it. So full administrative umbrella of pay, benefits, but reporting and independent reporting, independent authority, that just probably needs to be clearly outlined. It would be interesting to see what the language is around the Pepsi incorporation into ACCD. I mean. Yeah, I don't think it's this nuanced. We are in the weeds here trying to find our path. I think it would be interesting to see, I'm sorry, do you have your hand up? I just wanted to, the question of what our assets are came up and it would be our fleet vehicles, furniture, another related training equipment. The one thing that just, I mean, that makes sense, but the authorized positions is the nuance that is a little, seems a little not complicated, but questionable. But I hear what you're saying, Mr. Commissioner Sherling that it's relate to the Pepsi example was a good example. But I guess what I would do is I would just in my own mind leave a question mark here until we see the language that makes it clear that it's a separate entity, that the council's separate entity. And that having seen that later on, we might decide that this is okay. We might decide that we want to revisit this conversation a little bit about turning over all the positions to the council, to the HEC Public Safety. But for now, Amron, are there other, is there another section that we should be looking at? And may I say, Senator, I'm not sure about the legal assistance piece. We, the new position that thus far has made it in the budget in the house. And we're hoping that Senate appropriations goes along with it. Two new positions. One of them is a legal position. And I'm just raising a bit of a red flag about a we could ask for legal assistance, but you may not need it. May not need it. You also may want your own legal advisors. Well, that's what I'm trying to say. And so depending on what you're dealing with, I mean, you may not want to have it be public safety agencies legal authority. Yes, that's what I'm suggesting. Our massive legal team of two would not balk at not having additional responsibilities. Senator, you look at, you have a comment there, Cindy, I don't know if you had your hand up. Just agreeing. With which? With Chair Sorrell. So then that's another reason to leave this with a question mark until we get more clear about how the independence will be stated. But I think the legal assistance and the authorized positions are two things we might just want to revisit. Where do we go from here, Amran? Down to section six on page 15. This is the section about transition generally. There was a concern about the phrase that the agency secretary may take any action necessary to enable the organizational modernization and consolidation of state law enforcement divisions and resources. So this would give the secretary of public safety the ability to basically do things, make changes that are made in the name of modernization, but have the power to do that without necessarily having to have it be approved by the council or anyone else. Is that what? I would observe, Senator, that I think if you're going to move the criminal justice council on the academy to its own section, you can probably obviate the impact of this piece by doing that. Yeah, I would think so. Yeah. Is there other sections, Amran? So other particular questions, those are the sections that we need to revisit that where there was disagreement, I guess I'd call it, controversy, lack of agreement. Lack of agreement. So far, we're getting there. But I wonder whether there's other comments or questions around any of these sections or about where we are in general in terms of where we stand with the bill. And Amran, you'd be able to take what you have to come up with something around the independence issue. Yes, for the, yes. Mr. Schirling, are you okay with this so far? Yes, I believe so. Just observe that, I think we're largely aligned if not entirely aligned with where Chair Sorrell wants to go in terms of the independence. It's just threading the needle to make it all make sense. And not water it down so far that there's just no benefit to having the operations, the academy attached to the agency. Sure. Bill Sorrell, you okay with this right now? Yes, thanks to the committee for this today. Any other comments? And of Mark Anderson's here, other folks who haven't spoken of any ideas or any comments? Thank you, Senator. I think that I'm pretty comfortable with everyone's comments so far. John, you're comfortable? I can't find the raise hand feature, but in listening to, and maybe perhaps I should just say for the record, John Federico, Department of Motor Vehicles and the VSEA rep to the Ramon Criminal Justice Council. I think I agree that there's a threading the needle piece of this. The important piece, which from my perspective is just to make sure that the executive director of the academy just has to remain not beholden to two different groups. So it's my belief that the executive director of the academy has to be beholden just to the council if that's the way you intend it. And the language just has to, you have to just assure yourselves that the language is such that they're not beholden to two different people. Therefore the direct reports I think to the executive director would therefore be beholden to two different groups. And they'd be potentially in certain circumstances rolling in different directions. And there's a number of imaginative scenarios that we can all come up with. But that's the most important piece for me is that the language protects the direction that the executive director has to row. And if that's to maintain the direction of the council without having to be beholden to anybody else, I think that's the important piece for me from my perspective. It was well said. I appreciate that. Tony Fakas, Fakas. Tony Fakas, Director of Enforcement and Safety from the Department of Motor Vehicles. Yeah, John, that was a really important, I think way to encapsulate it. And I'm fine with exactly where this seems to be headed in terms of the academy and the train count, criminal justice council, excuse me. And again, we're supportive of this piece of legislation to create this agency. And you're okay with the move towards more independent statement, is okay with you? Yeah, I think it accomplishes, provides crafted appropriately. What's so important is the public has to really believe and trust what we're doing at the highest level. And I think it will all flow from there. Again, trust and legitimacy, as we know, is just the cornerstone of law enforcement. And if anybody, any group entity feels doesn't franchise from that or feels that it's just change can't happen or accountability can't occur in an appropriate way, then it's doomed to fail. Sure. I can't see everybody who's here. So I don't know if anybody else needs to speak or make comment before we adjourn. I've asked everybody that I see. John, did you have your hand up? I just wanted to, I didn't of course know what all the chair wanted to cover in this particular hearing and one of the reasons of course that I came in case there was the opportunity or the need to speak on the Department of Law Enforcement piece of the bill. But if that wasn't for today, then I will certainly hold and come back at another time. Well, we're certainly gonna come back to this. I don't know when it's up to the chair. So when we schedule this next week or the week after, but we are committed to moving it out one way or another in time to give it crossover to the other chamber. So I think what we would do is task hammering with coming up with some language around the independence issue. And then we'll come together and revisit the whole bill again and give us better direction as to how we handle those other pieces that we left hanging around the movement of the personnel and the legal assistance, those issues. We'll deal with those next time we'll have closer to consensus on that. Anthony, our chair has returned. And I'm just curious, because it's only 315. I mean, are we, I assumed we were gonna go to other sections of the bill also or other sections of, I just assumed. At 330, we're supposed to talk with people about ARPA funds. Oh, right. Drew Hazelton, Gwen Sackoff, Peter Gregory. Got it, right. We have a change of topics in 330. So I was gonna suggest that we take a little stretch between now and 330, if that's okay. And then come back and sort of finish. So we'll be finished with what we're talking about now. We come back from a little stretch, we'll be able to sit down and talk about the ARPA funds. Come. Anthony, Senator Polina, you are much more humane than I am. He is. And we're preaching. This is true. I think I did tell really a message to John Federico that if we had time today, we would look at that. But I think that it took us longer with the independence language than had anticipated. So I'm going to try to put this on the schedule for next Tuesday. Okay. And do you think, Amaran, that by Tuesday we might have a bill? I mean, have an assigned number and can go from there? I would need to check. Okay. But we can use your draft anyway and you can be changing language in it. Yes. Okay. All right. So a bit of due to those of you who are here to talk about the agency of public safety. Thank you very much. Removing that Tuesday if possible. Great. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. Senator Plano, that was very nice of you to give a break. I know what it's like. Will I take us offline then? And we reconvene after a break? I believe so, yes. 10 minutes. 10 minutes? Okay. Wouldn't that be about 3.30? Sure. Well, yeah. It's like 13 minutes.