 All right. So it's, I believe Wednesday, August 27th. Yes, my sister's birthdays. Happy birthday, sisters. This is the Senate Government Operations. So my understanding is that, Erica, you have some time constraints. Is that right? Yes, that's correct. Okay. So what we're doing is looking at the CR, the Appropriations Committee has asked us to look at the CRF funding. What's gotten out? How many she had like a few questions. And I think you might have been forwarded those questions. Where is there issues setting it up and launching it? How many applicants have received money? How much money under unencumbered money? And then what issues have been raised as a result of this? So we're looking at DPS. And so, Erica, I guess you're talking to us about particularly emergency management. Is that right? Yes, that's correct. And for the record, my name is Erica Borneman. I'm the director of remote emergency management. So thank you very much for, for giving me the opportunity to talk with you folks about this and allowing me to go first. I have a, I'm like stacked up and booked with Zoom meetings and calls for real afternoon. So I really appreciate this. So as you may or may not know, the Joint Fiscal Committee allocated $15 million in response costs. Funding out of the CRF. And one of the, the first appropriations, once we, once we first received the money, that funding is meant to cover response costs, particularly response costs that require a match for, for FEMA, for, for FEMA requests for reimbursement. That funding is also to cover that what would, that which may not be eligible for FEMA, but was a Department of Public Safety, state emergency operations center response cost. Is also meant to cover the match requirement, the non-thera match requirement of all municipalities that are applying for, for FEMA funding for COVID-19 response. And that's really the first time this, that this has happened. Normally local jurisdictions have a non-federal match requirement, part of which is covered by the state, and part of which is, is covered by, by the municipality itself, depending on a, a number of factors on a sliding scale. The, the worst that they might be obligated to would be about 17.5% of their total eligible disaster costs. Best case scenario, they might have to pay 7.5%. But in this case, they have to pay 0% of their eligible response costs because they have a draft allocation that can, can cover that. So, Erica, could I, in terms of one second? Go ahead. Just, would you, just, I, I, defying for me and maybe others already know, but what you're calling response calls. Response costs. Response costs, yeah. Good. Thanks. Right, so, back in, in March, the, the state of Vermont and every state in the country received a major disaster declaration for COVID-19 response. And we were approved for costs that fell under the category of emergency protective measures. So those are things like personal protective equipment, disinfection, testing, pretty much anything that the state or municipalities need to do to respond to COVID-19. It covers personnel hours for overtime. And, and it covers the costs related to mobilizing and operating and demobilizing alternate care sites. It covers costs such as non-congregate sheltering, emergency feeding. So pretty much anything that is essential for the protection of life safety throughout an event is an eligible emergency protective measure. And that's what we were approved for. DPS and the EM administers the FEMA public assistance program, which is those, that, that's the disaster funding that we receive under that major disaster declaration. So, so we were, we thus far, the Department of Public Safety has about $28 million in response costs. Thus far across the state, including all state agencies and hospitals, there's about $53 million in what we think are eligible have been scoped and are getting ready to be submitted to FEMA for reimbursement. There is a September 1 deadline for applicants to submit costs that have been incurred up until June 30th. And one of those reasons that's very important is so that we can give an accurate picture to you folks about what the total match requirement budget might be out of the CRF. So DPS has about $15 million. There's a number of other agencies that have CRF allocations that would cover this non-federal match requirement. We have gone through, we're obligated to about half of that $15 million thus far. We, we also, we don't have a really good idea. We don't think it's going to be that much, but we don't have a really solid idea of how much, how much match is going to be required for municipalities. What we've been seeing thus far, though, is really only a few thousand dollars per municipality. So, and there's, and not, and there's certainly not all municipalities are applying for their costs, because some of them just didn't have significant costs. And we are, we anticipate going through all that funding because as we look towards the future and as we look towards the winter months with flu and in the overlay of COVID-19 and the ongoing response, as well as the need to prepare for and execute or support vaccination operations when they're available, those are, those are all costs that will, we think will be at least in part eligible for FEMA and will require a non-federal match. And I'll just, I'll end it on this one point. The other reason that an important DPS maintains a pot of funding for, for match is we, there's, there's some inconsistency across the country right now with FEMA in terms of what they're going to moving forward, deemed eligible for federal assistance and not. That's got us a little bit worried. And so this funding would not only cover match requirement, but it would cover things that are deemed ineligible by FEMA, but we need to have a funding source to be able to pay for them. So we have not what, when you look at our balance sheets, if you will, you'll see that DPS doesn't appear to have spent much of that money at all. But that's because we have to go through the entire application process with FEMA, have that funding approved and or not, and then the match is drawn down. So it actually may take a little while for it to show that the, that the match is being drawn down. So I think I've answered all of the questions. I haven't gone through them number by number, but I think I've answered all of them in the course of my explanation. And I'm happy to take any questions. Does anybody on the committee have a question right now? I have to admit that I'm a little confused by the, by some of the numbers that I thought that the 15 million is what is in reserve for the match and for things that aren't covered. And you've expended about half of that and the rest is waiting on applications to be denied. But then what is the, so VEM has incurred about 28 million and in cost. And you figure that across the state, there's about 53. And where is that coming from that 53? And is it, is the 53 and the 28, do they get added together? Or is it the 53 includes the 28? The 53 does not include all of the 28 yet. And I could get really complicated in my answer here, but the 53 million is what has been scoped thus far. So that's basically what we, what we know of, of all of the costs of the applicants thus far. What I'll just qualify that by saying that for DPS, for example, we haven't scoped all of our costs. So when I said we have 28 million in costs, we haven't applied for all of those yet because we're still compiling all of our documentation. So I do expect the the 53 million dollars to go up. I can't say how much, but I do expect it to go up. And the DPS is incurred about 28 million in costs thus far. And when I said we have about seven and a half million of our 15 million that we were allocated, that's, we have about seven and a half million committed. So we're, that's our projection for our costs thus far. And that's how much we have committed. Although that's not what you would see as having been drawn down. If you looked at our balance sheets yet. So the 58 or the growing 58 will is what you're going to apply to is what is being applied to FEMA. It isn't coming out of this CRF money that we got upfront. Is that right? The, the match for all of the, all of the match for anything applied to FEMA for is coming out of the CRF in one right. The 15. Well, it's not just the 15 though. Okay. So DPS has an allocation of 15 for DPS is caught in municipal costs. Okay. AHS has a has an allocation. Of 15. And then there are our hospitals and healthcare providers that AHS is working with. I can't remember what the program is now, but they're asking them to go through. And then they will cover any of the ineligible costs through CRF, as well as the match. And so that's, it's being handled a little bit differently. And we're tracking it across the state. But, but pretty much any, any, any costs that are being applied to for FEMA, the intent is that the CRF would be the match floors for that. Okay. Allison. Actually, Erica, I'm, I'm a little confused as Jeanette is, you know, in terms of the numbers, it might help us if you, if you were able to send us a sort of an update interim sheet with the numbers on it. And what is expected of what, of each bucket and in what's expected to be matched, what's expected to be reimbursed. And you use the terms reimbursed or matched. I don't know if they're the same. And what's in your bucket? What's DPS bucket? What's you, AHS bucket? What are the buckets that make up the 53 million thus far? And I think that would be helpful. Okay. I just, I just want to make clear in my own head though, that the 53 or whatever that number is, is not coming out of CRF funds that were allocated as part of the 1.2 billion that is being applied to FEMA. I mean, applications are being sent to FEMA for that, for that money. So that if, if all 53 or 60 million came in, that's money that isn't in the state right now, and that this 15 is being used to match what that, the 15 came out of the CRF funds for DPS to use as match for either things that were denied or municipal match. Am I right about that? Is that. You've got the, you've got the last part, right? So 53 million is what has been scoped thus far as, as damages that could be eligible for FEMA and that we're applying for that funding. Okay. FEMA only covers 75% of that. Yeah. So 25% needs to be matched by the state. And we're allowed to use CRF funding for as a match source. So when we, when we get through the application process for that funding, we'll still need to, we will be obligated to pay 25% of that of, of those total costs as a state. DPS has an allocation that is to cover the, the non-federal match requirements of DPS and the non-federal match requirements of municipalities. Right. And other state agencies have, have allocations of the CRF that is better meant to cover their non-federal match requirements as well. Right. And so when I say 53 million, it's $53 million in damages thus far. And therefore we'll have a 25% match requirement as a state. And that's in, in counting. And that match is coming out of multiple different. State agency budgets. Right. So, but yours is 15 million. To cover your unmatchable funds. That's correct. Okay. Good. Okay. I think I got that finally. I don't know if anybody else has, questions. I could go on all day about public assistance and I could confuse the heck out of everybody. So, I'm sure you've, you've confused me more than once in the past. So, so I guess for me, so what's important for us to clarify. In those damages is we need to do that fairly soon. I assume because if we want to keep and use. And it's the 25 match that the 25% that we is up, that the state is obligated to pay that we're hoping CRF will. Be able to cover, right? That's correct. So, and that's why I mentioned the September one deadline. Right. So the agency of administration has made a September one deadline for applicants to be able to do that. And that's why I mentioned the September one deadline. Right. So the agency of administration has made a September one deadline for applicants to ensure that they at least let us know what they have for potentially eligible damages. And apply for those. And so we're well on our way for that, but that's really so that we can give a more accurate picture of what we think the match obligation is going to be. And so we have a crystal ball. I don't know what our response costs are going to be at throughout the winter and the state emergency operations center center is activated virtually every single weekday. And has been activated since March 11, supporting this response and supporting the health department. So we are, we are very. Cognizant that we could have a ramp up of operations again this year. So that will result in additional costs. I'd like to ask you one more question before you have to run, unless somebody else has them. Yesterday we heard from. Doug Farnham around the municipal granted. I think it's 12.6 million. And that. What. So this 15. Could cover some of the costs that aren't covered in their money or, and then the 12.6 is money that goes to them. That they're, that they wouldn't be eligible for FEMA. Is that. So in order for municipalities that are applying for the Elger grants. Local government emergency response grants. I think those 12. They actually first need to apply through FEMA. And then they'll be able to apply through the Elger grant process. So our folks are working with the department of taxes. I think they're the ones that are administering this. And anything that's not eligible in there in terms of a municipal municipalities total package. We'll then get funneled over to the, through the Elger grant process. So the idea is that a municipality should only have to apply once. And then they'll be able to apply through the Elger grant process. And then they'll be covered by FEMA. Or be covered through the Elger. Elger grant process. And I know that the, the, the. BLCT and the development corporations all across the state have. Been doing webinars for towns so that they can. So they expect a lot of applications to come in in the next few days. Right. Alison. Yeah. I think that includes the hazard pay of municipalities. I mean, this is. Right. I mean, that's. That's 12.6. Yeah. That's where the municipalities are also having to apply. Separately for the hazard pay piece. And that's through the Elger thing as well. The Elger. Final as well, isn't it? Yeah. The hazard pay is not an eligible. Right. Right. Therefore they would. They would directly be directed to the Elger grant. Right. Right. So whatever is in doubt that is indulgeable. Or what they're. And then the match that they would have to do and be. Coming out of the 15. Right. Right. I'm glad you're. I mean, it's important that municipalities go through FEMA first. Because that's what's. Allowing us to stretch our CRF dollars. If we can get the eligible costs covered under FEMA. And it's not coming out of our CRF allocation, we can stretch our CRF allocation that much further. Right. But it's a really important first step that they make sure that their eligible costs are. We're covered through FEMA first. So does anybody have any more questions. To confuse us even more. Any committee members. I don't see anybody. Okay. Well, thank you. That was very helpful. No problem. And I, and I have a, a due out here. I will be sending a breakdown of what is currently scoped thus far. And that's what we're doing. And that's what we're doing. And because we do track that regularly. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Erica. And thanks for all the. The work that you've been doing. It's great. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Should we. Who else do we have with us here? I see we have Chris. Yeah. And. Jennifer Harlow is here. Okay. So. Were you guys going to talk about, um, I guess we had on our list, um, as part of kind of DPS. The. Sheriff's budgets and also the training council. And, um, Anything else in DPS that, um, we need to hear about. So who, who wants to start off here with, does anybody have else have any time constraints. That they're working under. Mine, if you wish, madam chair, mine are fairly insignificant and small. Hey, we'll hear from you. Very good. Thank you. Chris from Brandon again, representing the Vermont criminal justice training council. And specific to the questions that were asked. I checked with the budget analyst for the academy. And what I learned through them is that, um, For the fiscal year 2020, there was a total of $14,490 and 87 cents that came from the CRF one. And that for the 2021 current year. Essentially we've got in now. Well, there's been $13,000 spent. That has not been applied for yet. And once that's applied for, and if that's granted, then they'll be doing the 75% reimbursement match through FEMA. We're talking a total of $27,490. That's not very much. Do you know what that was for? I can tell you that in the first round that that was for salaries. Um, essentially the salaries of employees at the academy. And the rest was, uh, the, the 13,000 was for. You don't have the list in front of me now, but it was a list of equipment, um, upgrades to laptops and, um, projectors since they were having to do remote teaching and taking shows on the road and equipment for, uh, scenarios, new, um, head and safety gear for the recruits to be wearing. And one other thing that was on that list was the replacement of the third, um, This bottle refilling station. So it replaces an old water fountain. So it's touchless because the recruits constantly have to rehydrate. So that's, I can give you the entire list. Yeah. But there at one point, um, I saw a grant application. For it was somewhat over a million dollars for the training for the academy and it paid for, um, Uh, lodging for recruits and lodging for, was that CRF money also? And was it a separate? That was not that. That was the Corona emergency relief fund. So it was a different fund altogether. And it didn't come through the state. It was you applied directly to that. Yeah. That did come through the department of public safety. Um, they submitted a grant that was through the CERF, uh, grant process in which they were the pass through for funds to the academy. And that was in fact for the, uh, COVID-19 academy class I went through, which was training lodging over time deals and such. Okay. But that didn't come out at the 1.2 billion that way. So that was a separate grant. Okay. I understand that it did not. Okay. Yeah. I did see that it was a separate grant. So, okay. Any questions for Chris? I'm not sure you really needed that third water cooler though. You better be able to justify that. I'll have people on it. Trust me. Any questions for Chris? Thank you. Can I just ask another question? Absolutely. Well, I guess I can. I'm the chair, but. Um, where I haven't, uh, I must admit that I've not paid very close attention. Where are we with hiring a. An ED. Very close. Um, they're. My understanding is that there has been. Approval that the final details on salary are being worked out as we speak. Oh. Great. Allison. Yeah. And Chris. I remind me. Do you did a national search for that? It was a national search. Yes. That's correct. Great. I think if it all works out, everyone will be very pleased with the candidate. Good. Well, as soon as you know, send us all a note. We will certainly do that. Brian. Thank you, madam chair. Somebody asked me the other day, Chris, and I should know the answer, but I couldn't immediately recall it. Okay. How many people are on the training council? I said about 23, 24. There are 12 currently. And there is talking. There has been much talk the last session. Of increasing the size and adding other organizations to the actual. Which would increase greatly. Okay. But it's 12 right now. Yeah. I think our bill proposed that we're more. It will end up being more like 18. Yeah, I think so. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. And that's in S124. If anybody cares to look. Correct. That's where I remembered it from. Okay. Any more questions for Chris? Thank you. Thank you for keeping the ship together, keeping the ship. Steered in the right direction. We're getting a lot of help trying to do that. Thank you. Good. Thank you. All right. So Jennifer. What is very specific? Are you going to talk to us about? Oh, I spoke with sheriff Anderson. This morning. Wait. I'm sorry that I'm not as prepared for this as I probably should be. But some of the concern or some of the. Would you just identify yourself, please? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Sorry about that. That's a little boney act is here too. Just so that you know. I'm sure you can see him. His little. There. So, um, So I guess that. It's really too soon for us to say really too much of anything because, um, Um, The applications are still out as you guys know, so we don't really know what, how many people have put in, what the funds are going to be, um, what people are going to be receiving at this point. Sorry. And the current, some of the concerns are that there was a 200, um, You know, per county cap put on this with a dollar or $2 per person. So that's really. That's a lot of money. I mean, That's a lot of money. That's a lot of money. That's a lot of money. So I guess there's some, you know, what that's going to look like. Some of those side judges have allocated some monies, but I guess they're not going to be eligible for the entire. Monies that they've put out. So that's part of, um, The concerns as well, but. And we're not sure if the entire state is going to put in applications or not. I mean, if they all put in applications, then. But the likelihood of that happening. I'm not positive on. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. As far as you know, the sheriffs haven't received any COVID funds, except maybe what the side judges gave, which isn't really COVID funds. It's not the CRF funds. That is my understanding. Madam chair. Yes. Okay. Bill, did you have anything we wanted to add to that? Yes. And for the record, it's bill. Bonnie at Orange County sheriff. Um, as far as I know, as far as the counties, the county's are, the county's are, the county's are the county's of the county's of the county. Um, you know, No. Anderson, maybe the only one applied to the counties. Um, You know, currently. This $1. Per person per county. Like, uh, uh, I give an example, I use Orange County. Um, the first two and a half months of COVID. You know, we, we lost approximately about $78,000 in revenue. year average. And in Orange County, our population is roughly 29,000. So that doesn't, it doesn't come close to, it helps. But we're, some of the sheriffs, you know, not probably be one of them, where we'll see an effect is when December, January, February come around, that's where the money that we make during the summer carries us, carries us over. Some sheriffs are doing, you know, very well. Because of COVID, you know, with the, how should I put this, the babysitting of the motels, hotels where the homeless are in, like LaMoyle, and I think Caledonia is doing pretty good with that. And some of the summer jobs are picking up a little bit now. Hopefully, you know, that'll help. But we're still, there's several of us are still operating, you know, with the, you know, looking at lost revenue. So, you know, once we get a better handle on where we're at with that, you know, we'll, you know, we'll keep in touch with the entire, you know, Seneca option, we appreciate everything you do for us. Yeah, we'd be, it would be good to keep an eye on how much loss there is. I know that at one point, Mark had put that together. That was a couple months ago, though. And it would be good to have an update of that. And so, you're on the other end of the, of the COVID, you didn't get money to start with and are telling us how to, how you spent it. But you're on the other end of, you're on the receiving end of it and have lost considerable funds. That, well, we have to figure out a better way of, have I ever said this before, a better way of funding our sheriff's offices? Hello. Okay. Anyway, Allison. Oh, and Anthony, did you have a question? Well, just a quick thought. But I think I'm hearing is that the real loss is that you might experience later on in the winter. That part of what you said, which is that harder to reimburse those because we don't know what kind of monies will be available after, after December. You know, you're absolutely right. And so we're going with this would be to, if we could show our actual loss for the first few months of COVID and ask for those monies, you know, you know, within the next, you know, month or so. This way we'll have that money and we'll able that'll be able to carry us over through the winter. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So if you could, if you can get that to us soon, we will forward that to the Appropriations Committee with some suggestions, maybe of where it might even come from. I know that one, one pot of money that we talked about the other day, it seems is going to have about a million of unencumbered funds by the end of it. So there might be some places where they just aren't able to spend the money that was allocated. And those might be sources for putting more money into this. Yes. And as you're fully aware, the Vermont Sheriff's were in a unique position of being a government entity. And also the, the business side, you know, we're the sheriff's in a nation who are funded or not funded this way. And you know, as being a government entity, we were not, we're not available for the the PPP money that was out there. We, we, we looked at it. We, we, I actually wrote the SBA a letter that went from our, from Montpelier to Washington DC for, for waiver, which was denied because their answer was the sheriffs are government entity and they will be publicly funded. Well, not here in Vermont. Yeah. The way our setup is causes all kinds of dropables that nobody understands. I know, I remember with when Irene hit and the funds were supposed to go through the county government and we don't have any county government really. So it took practically an act of God to allow the money to go through the regional planning commissions because they were kind of the only county organization that we had that dealt with the devastation from Irene. So we have, we are set up in a unique way here and maybe we should be looking at that. You know, some over the years, I've been a sheriff now for 14 years and over, over 14 years, I heard everything from the fellow sheriffs. I've been here many, many years before me and they say, well, you can open a can of worms sometimes by looking at this. You know, some sheriffs do very well with that the 5% they can take by statute. I don't, I'll be honest, Orange County is small and I do not take the 5%. And I just feel you know, would it be best for to be 100% publicly funded if I had my way, I'd say yes, but I'm only one of 14 sheriffs. And that's just my own personal opinion. Well, and you know mine. I know you, you've been helping us and we really appreciate everyone on, on Senate Govups. We really do. We know we, we got your, we got your support. So thank you. So any more questions or comments or anything for Jennifer or Bill? Alison, I see you're unmuting yourself. I am, I was, I was just curious, Bill, thank you, thank you for this. How many of the 14 don't take the 5%? I'm not, I can't be 100% sure if we had a few new sheriffs. So can I throw something in here? Sure. There's, there's a couple of different ways of taking the 5%. So the sheriff, the sheriff hammer herself is allowed to take the 5% for their own for themselves in Wyndham County. I do know that Keith Clark, and I assume that Mark Anderson is doing much the same. They don't, they take the, they put that 5% into their budget so that they, they, they don't take the 5% for themselves, but they put that into it like, I think he used to put it into a special fund for equipment and stuff like that. So it isn't part of the regular budget. They plow it back into the upgrade. Yeah. Thank you, Bill. You're welcome. And some, some sheriffs might take 5% of one and then nothing of the next one or whatever, if depending on how overworked they might feel for their salary level. Jennifer? And also a small county and I don't take the 5% of the contract. See, there it goes back to the department. So I plan on doing that for several years to come as long as I'm blessed to be in this position. So how long have you been in that position, Jennifer? Seven months. Since town, no, that's not a town meeting. That's a general election. Or were you appointed? I was appointed by the governor and I'll have to, yes. So any more questions or comments? Thank you so much. And on next week, I believe we're going to be looking at the budgets, the governor's proposed budget and hopefully, I don't know if there are any changes in the budgets for the sheriff in terms of the transport deputies and how that, if there's any changes there, but we will, we've contacted the sheriff's association and John Campbell, who administers the funds for the state funds for the sheriff's run through the department of sheriff's and state's attorneys. So we will be looking at that next, I think, Tuesday. Yes, I'm aware of that. And also, I'm also aware that I believe we were, we were looking at the per diem transport budget. We were going to take some, I think, a percentage of that and a percentage of the mileage. Because due to COVID too, you know, there's been less transport. So Okay. So we will look at that on Tuesday, the how the budget is going to work. Thank you. Thank you so much, Bill. Thank you, Jennifer. I'm sure. Thank you, everyone, senators. Thank you. Good luck. Thank you. So I think that there, we did have Gwen, but we kind of talked about the municipal grants last yesterday. So I'm not sure that there was any more. I see Damien is with us. And I can't remember why Damien. Madam Chair, we're going to start with the burn pits at two 30. Right. Have a couple of minutes until then. And Damien, is that why you're with? Oh, Brian. Well, I just noticed on the agenda that John Campbell was supposed to be with us today. I don't know. I think that was a mistake. I think that was my mistake. I think that I put sheriffs on there for today to talk about the COVID. And then I also put sheriffs on there to talk about the budget. And that was my mistake. I just got confused. Yeah. Because he, he really didn't. He has nothing to report about the COVID funds and so what time is it right now? 2.18. It's what? 2.18. Oh, okay. But we have a couple of minutes. Do you want to take a break or do you want to just chat? Whatever your pleasure is, Madam Chair. Well, I'll see you guys. So Chris Bray, yesterday in the meeting, you said, did I have a few minutes after the meeting for a phone call? And I called you 23 times. Wow. Really? Yeah. I didn't notice my phone rang twice. I went off to two more Zoom meetings and didn't finish till like six o'clock. We're in the, you know, there's this black hole. Well, there are many black holes in the universe. One of them is labeled act 250. And so we're trying to sort out, you know, the administration came back with a very significant, large significant proposal to, you know, come to an agreement on act 250, which I think everyone would welcome. But it ain't easy any time you, so as soon as I left, I was back into trying to hash out the issues in act 250. And I'm still hopeful, but it is, it's making me wish we would adjourn for the year. Get a budget and be done. I would vote yes to that. No, I want, I, we have three bills that I really want to see passed. Get back to us. 233, which we know has just insignificant changes. And 220, I don't think there's going to be any significant changes. And 124, I don't know about because the whole committee hasn't talked about it yet in the house. We want 124 to pass. Yes, we do. We want all three of them to pass. There's no controversy either. Well, yeah, maybe on which 124 will have more discussion because of the whole social justice and policing issues, you know, it will have a lot of discussion in the house. And I, I do understand that, but I think that unless they start putting in mandates in there, we've asked for all the, the information to come back to us in January. And I think that there, I suppose the house could put, start putting mandates in there instead, like around the body cams. Somebody was concerned that we didn't require it of all, all law enforcement. And if we're going to require it of all law enforcement, then we better pony up some money and pay for this local. So we've asked for a study to come back and have a policy and look at that. And the same thing with the militarization and use of military, military surplus. The, I, I don't want us to put a blanket thing in there that says no military surplus equipment because a lot of it is radios and equipment and that kind of stuff and desk chairs and desks. I mean, it isn't all sub machine guns and tanks. Right. But that's the, that's where people's mind goes. And, and I'm afraid that they're going to be pressured to do those kinds of things in that bill instead of asking for time to get more information on them. Yes. Cause at the moment we just have studies on those. That's right. I'm both those things. Yes. We, we just asked for them to, I see June is with us. Hi, June. Are you in a public, are you in a public setting? I'm at City Hall in Burlington. Over your count. Yeah. Do you want us to put masks on so you feel better? No, no, you're all good. Well, I don't have one year, but I could pull up my turtle neck. I considered walking to my car and doing it. You're really fading in and out. I'll take this off if I have to speak. Oh, well, no, it wasn't, it was the connection, I think. Oh yeah. It is very much in go here. At City Hall? Yeah. Well, I'm using the hotspot on my phone. So I could try to connect to the public Wi-Fi and see if that's any better. Okay. Madam Chair, I have a question about what we were just discussing before June arrived. Okay. Like on the law enforcement related issues. So I mean, I think one of the sort of troubling phrases because of the way it gets used, it means so many different things to different people that quote unquote defunding of police. You know, it could be that you change the scope of what happens. What if you now address mental health issues by having police departments include someone who's a mental health worker, for instance, you would need to fund that position. So anyway, I don't know if that kind of discussions part of what's on the list of things that you're thinking about considering or... Well, I don't think we specifically, I mean, we've passed 124. I have no suggested changes to it. I don't know if you do or not, but we didn't address funding, I don't think, but we did address, I know we addressed the training that they needed to look at that. And I know that there is some movement to put social workers or mental health workers in police departments. And a number of them have, and there's a difference between having a mental health worker and a social worker in your police department. And it's what you want to do, what you want that person to do. Yeah. So... We're having a community conversation here in Bristol around safety, security, and policing. Right. With the notion that safety and security is a much bigger sensibility than just policing. So we're talking about everything from having a good rec program and parks and concerts and neighborhood events to police work as well. So... One of the things that I found was interesting was that... I don't know if you're getting the letters from the ACLU. It's a form letter that people are sending out now. Yeah, it was generated by ACLU. And one of the things in there says to not have police involved in low-level misdemeanors and low-level offenses such as... Oh, I don't remember the examples that were given, but to remove police from them because they have too much discretion. But the Burlington study, as I understood it, said that there was definitely racial imbalance on the higher crimes where they didn't have discretion. There was much less racial imbalance on low-level crimes where the police actually had discretion about whether to charge or not and how to do that. So I found that very interesting because if you take away that discretion, then you're going to have... That's the way I read the study. I don't know if anybody else did or not, and if that's the way you interpreted it. I haven't read it. We also took some... The committee... So we had a community conversation a few weeks ago. And one of the things that came up was this program out... I think it's in Washington State or Oregon called Cahoots. And it's a... I don't... Well, we need to learn more. But basically it's a response to situations that need some sort of assistance and in cases where it may be more appropriate to have someone other than traditional law enforcement showing up to help take care of the situation. So for instance, mental health related things or neighbors in conflict over things that's... Anyway, so we have more to learn. And I... Dogsparking. Roosters crowing. Yeah, I've never heard as many roosters as now that I live in Bristol Village on our farm that was much quieter that way. Well, it is interesting. You remember when we went on our tour, the police chief in Newport said the last thing that someone in a mental health crisis wants to see appearing on his doorstep is somebody in uniform with a gun on his hip. But there aren't options out there. And they need to... I don't know if you want them to not be there at all, because things could quickly escalate. And you need... So you need somebody on the front who maybe is the mental health worker who can try to de-escalate and get it there, but to have an officer there for backup. I don't know. I don't know. I hope what we have are officers who are so well trained that they will be welcomed. I mean, that's I think the goal in our training, in our asking to review and improve the training on many of these issues. I would hope that people would, once they experienced retrained and more fully trained officers in these areas, that people would welcome their presence, just as people are welcoming the presence of this wonderful HCRS edition in our Bellows Falls Sheriff's, you know, Vermont State Police Barracks. Well, there are people who are never going to welcome the presence of a cop. I mean, we have to understand that. And they also will never be mental health workers. They simply can't be. That being a mental health worker requires a fair amount of intensive education and training. Training isn't the right word, but so they need to know how to de-escalate and recognize, but they'll never be mental health workers. No, but they can have more training in that. And certainly, I think that the more training they get, the better they will be at de-escalating and figuring out how to pivot situations, direct situations, and, and, and, you know, not end up having people terrified. Right, right. And, but there are some people who I would like to see remain terrified of police officers. Oh, so anyway, so who do we have? Gail, who do we have? Who's going to walk us through the burn pit other than June? Do we have? I know we, I think Vermont Medical Society, I saw was on the list and, and Wesley, Wesley was going to update us on his lawsuit. I mean, he now has an active lawsuit. Good. Yeah. Oh, yeah. He was going to talk about the lawsuit. Okay. So Bob Burke and Catherine. Hi, this is Catherine Long with Senator Leahy's office. Good. Hi. And who else is with us? Hi, this is Bob Burke. Oh, Bob Burke. Okay. I can only see a few screen, few people on my screen here. So you have to tell Bob, Bob, Bob sent something that Gail has posted on our website. Good. Okay. And so we have right now June and Catherine Long and Bob Burke with us to talk about. So June, do you want to start us off and tell us what you see and where we are and what's been happening and what we need to pay attention to? Gail, I'm sorry for scale. Does anyone know who Elizabeth Alessi is? Yes, I do. So I admit her to the, there's, there's Alessi as a, I believe she's working in this area now, but she is a someone I know relatively well. And I don't know where she's working at the moment, but she's a good egg. Okay. Thank you. She may be working in this field now, which is why she's joining us. Okay. So I see Elizabeth here there. Who are you? She's gone away. Now Jess is there. Yeah, sorry. This is Jess with the Vermont Medical Society. It's the, we're having issues with our Zoom account. So it logs me in as one of my co-workers typically. Oh, great. Okay. So we're saying, been now working with you? Well, Elizabeth Alessi is our program, yes, our program and event manager. She's from down in your neck of the woods. I know. I've known her her whole life. She's, we love her. She's great. So I love her too. Okay. All right. So let's, June, would you like to start us off here? Yeah, I don't have a whole lot more of information from our last meeting because I've been a little distracted lately in how we know. So I don't know if any more has been done with the National Guard, but I'm sure Bob Berk can speak to that a little bit. I had reached out to Penn Greg and I know that they were making some headway on getting the word out that veterans and current military members should get on the burn kit, but I don't know what that number looks like at this point. My focus has really been with this team coalition, which is working on federal legislation. And so we have drafted the first draft and it's been submitted. It's the VA draft we're working on two, one that's DOD focused and one that's VA focused. This is VA draft that is actually been given to ESPEC at a roundtable, not yet a hearing. And we're in the process now of reaching out to other, Senator Tillis is going to sponsor the bill, but we're reaching out to other members of Congress to see if they will co-sponsor. I have actually sent some of that information on to Catherine Van Hase to see if we could get Bernie Sanders to sign on to that. But locally I've been, I haven't seen any difference. What I'm curious about is if we are doing anything with the health department to get that information out, because I do know that we lost another military member recently, a veteran who had burn pit exposure and whether or not she got any benefit. I don't know. All right. So I think we'll kind of do this as just a discussion. So if anybody has things to add in. So Bob, do you want to, and then Jess, talk about what might be happening locally and with the medical society and the VA? Bob, if you want to, okay, there you are. Yeah, so hi, this is Bob Burke. I can't, we can't hear you. Can you hear me now? No. Just barely. You're very faint. So from the state office, from the state office of Veterans Affairs, we continue to push out and advertise and talk about the registry. The numbers of what I had sent to Gail earlier were numbers to show from September 30th, 2019 through June of 2020. So in September of 2019, Vermont had 544 registrants and as of June 30th of this year, that number is up to 661. So slow, but we continue to make progress. I'm not sure if the Guard has started to make it part of their annual physical health assessment. I was hoping that somebody from the Guard was going to be on today. That might be my fault. And that's my report. I do know that Guard has offered to, they have a couple traveling computers that they can send around the state to get people. And they have technical advisors who will help. And Laura Sevelli and I have talked about this fall, having them come down to Wyndham County for a day or two days and hit Brattleboro, Bellows Falls, Wilmington, and maybe London Dairy and get people to come in and register and have somebody from the Guard there to help them. So, Jess, do you have any updates from the, and I did I see, I thought I saw Shayla's name on here, but I think Shayla is on vacation. So not too many updates. I believe I submitted an update. Boy, it's so hard to keep track of time now, but it was when you were, we did a brief update on this spring when you were meeting. And so, you know, we've pretty much same status for us where we've put some information in our e-newsletter to our members and on our website. But just as a reminder that we only represent a subset of medical professionals in the state and that VDH was also going to be working with the licensing boards. I think both Board of Medical Practice and Office of Professional Regulation. So I don't know if it's gone out through the licensing boards or what the status is with sort of the Department of Health's piece of the work, but we have been working to share the information about the registry with our members. And are people responding? I mean, are the dots? I have not received questions about it. You know, I think it's been kind of put out there more informationally. So I can't speak to sort of what the response has been. You know, obviously, health care providers are a little distracted at the moment with a number of changes to their practice and what they're learning and having to absorb every day. They're pretty overwhelmed right now or, you know, they hadn't been over the spring. So the timing might be better. So as we go into the fall, things feel a little bit more stable at the moment, so it probably we could put another reminder out there in the next month or so. We'll make sure that OPR does the same thing to all the licensing boards. Any questions or anything else? I think this was, I am sorry, I think I really blew it on making sure that we had OPR in the guard here. I apologize for that. I don't know where my head was. So, Catherine, do you want to weigh in here? You just... Hi, yeah. No, I'm right here. No, I actually didn't have anything to add. I was interested to hear, you know, how things were going in terms of the state's efforts. And I'm eager to hear more from June about the legislation. Catherine, is Senator Leahy going to join as one of those sponsors of this? We haven't yet seen the proposal. If it's gone to Senate Veterans Affairs, he's not on that committee. So I'm happy to make sure that he gets a look at it and would certainly be considering it carefully. Absolutely. Catherine, I'll reach out to you. Thank you. Catherine, would you like... We have two Catherine's here right beside each other. Would you like to weigh in? Hi, everybody. Sorry to be late. I was on the phone with the Senator and did not think I should hang up with him. So sorry to be late to talk to all of you. So I'm just getting my context here for what you're discussing. Can I presume it's the legislation that just passed out of Senate Veterans Affairs in DC? Well, we were just getting kind of an update on where we were with burn pits and June brought up the legislation that she's introduced. And then we just wondered if anybody had anything to throw in about that? What's happening with the burn pits? Yeah. Yeah. So I think that the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, which Senator Sanders obviously sits on, met in earlier this month and considered some legislation having to do with burn pits that was passed favorably out of that committee. So that's kind of where things stand right now. Our thanks to June, who is very helpful in getting us some information on that. But I can sort of wait at this point and answer any specific questions you folks may have as the discussion continues. So go ahead, Allison. I think we'd just like to know sort of you could give us a rough summary of what the bill entails that passed out of Veterans Affairs Committee. What does it ask the feds to do? What does it ask the Department of Defense to do or the world to do? Do you want me to speak to that, Catherine? Yeah, I was going to say, I wanted to give June the opportunity to do that since she obviously had a had a role in that legislation. So if it's okay with the committee. I don't want it all in the right now. And I was just told that Ward 6 memory card was just wiped out. So a little. Yeah, if you need to go in a few minutes, I will, but I will let you know what I would do is send what it has been proposed if it's appropriate. And maybe Catherine, tell me if it's appropriate to send what's been proposed to this group or to Gale to distribute to this group. Is that appropriate to do? You've seen it, right Catherine? Okay. So if I can, I send what we've done so far and it's being proposed. There is an NBAA letter that has also been drafted. I don't know. I'm a little behind in my email this week. And so I don't know there's an exclamation point beside it today. So I'll read that. But it really is proposing one that we take care of our veterans so that they have the health care that they need. It's proposing presumption so that those who are exposed to burn kits will get that health care because right now the way it's set up is you have to prove that you are exposed to toxins from burn pits or other environmental toxins. You have to prove that you have an illness that is considered a disability. This is for a disability claim. Then you have to prove that the two are connected. So this legislation takes out a couple of those. So it just, the presumption will be that you were exposed and that you are. So we have a long way to go on that, but at least the first draft that's VA focused has been at least developed, delivered to SBAC to look at and sounds like passed. So we're moving in the right direction. Good. Thank you. All right. Is there anything else? Does anybody know about Wesley's suit? I just know that it's been filed. And more than that, I've only know what I've read in the Valley News, which is that. Bob Burke, do you know anything more about it? I know that the VA was pushing back saying that the time had run out on it. But I think that, I don't think there's been a ruling on that yet. But it was the last information that I read again, you know, from the press look like they were leaning towards saying, no, the time had not expired on the filing because, you know, there's contention about the date of diagnosis is basically what it is. Right. June? Wesley did tell me that he was going to try to attend, but he was in Maine and wasn't sure if he would have an internet connection. Okay. Well, do you have any update, June, on his lawsuit other than the fact that it's still active? I only know what the article in the paper said. Yeah. Okay. All right. So any more questions or anything that we should address? I would say that the guard is willing to work with people to have to take their little traveling computers and personnel on the road. So anybody who wants to set up some dates for them in their area, they'd be happy to do that. This is Bob Burke. Can I ask a question if either the Catharines know anything? HR 1381 passed out of the house. Is the Senate going to take that up? And that was a bill to allow survivors of people who had died due to burn pit exposure to then go in and annotate that in the registry. Sorry, Katherine, go ahead. No, you go ahead. If you have a crystal ball on Senator McConnell's agenda. If that I did. So there is, I just was looking at that legislation and as of now, there's no Senate companion to that bill, which would mean that the Senate would, like you said, likely take up the house version as probably won't surprise most folks in this meeting. The Senate has not been particularly busy. As of now, the US Senate, that is, of course, our return date is scheduled for the 8th of September. I think that largely on the docket, it will be focused on coronavirus response and also potentially funding the government because we are running up against that deadline as well. It remains to be seen, I think, what other sort of general business, you know, typical types of business that we would take up will be considered. My guess would be without looking in my crystal ball that if there's anything to be considered, there will probably be a large end of your package that might include some proposals. But anything, of course, that costs money, I think is going to be difficult to get across the finish line at this point. The Congressional Budget Office typically considers anything that would extend benefits to have a cost associated with it. So that's a long way of saying I don't know, but we will certainly track it. And as negotiations occur, you know, now to the end of the year, we will certainly keep this on our radar. I think that was a great summary. Thank you. Should we all go down to Washington, give them lessons on how to function? If you could suggest to the leader that we could meet remotely and vote remotely, that would be a good place to start. But yes, I think lessons are in order. Anybody else have anything they'd like to say? And I know that this was, I do apologize for not making sure that the Guard and OPR and Department of Health were here. I, as I said, I don't know where my head was. And I apologize. But I just want to again, thank people who helped us get this through. And I think that even just, I mean, it isn't a huge, huge number, a huge increase, but it looks like we're making some progress. And if we can just get people, and this COVID thing, as Jessa said, certainly did impact the medical professional people in terms of of how they were responsive and promoting this because of what they had, how they had to change their practices and everything. But we'll keep an eye on it and keep thinking about it. So anybody else want to say anything? Quiet bunch this afternoon. All right. Well, June, run down and see what you can find out about Ward 6, whatever that is. Yes, I will do that. Thank you very much. Thank you for continuing to work on this. Thank you. Thank you. So committee, anything else? Do we want to, do you have anything else you want to talk about or anything? We're all set. So we're set for tomorrow. You know, we are going to start looking at the governor's, thank you, the governor's budget. And I did hear from the Ethics Commission and they have nothing to say. They said they're just fine with whatever, however the budget is. Right now. And they asked if we wanted to have a report from them on what's been happening and everything. And I thought we should put that off because we need to deal with the budget stuff first. So we'll hear from the Racial Equity Advisory Panel and Human Rights Commission, hopefully, and the sheriffs and VSEA. And I think VSEA is going to have some issues around, the administration has asked, well, the budget is one thing. And then the administration has asked, and this affects the budget, to reopen the bargaining for the second year. And I know we're going to hear about that. So, Damien, I'm sorry, Allison. No, wait, wait, there was a good piece today. I mean, NPR did a piece on it and I think Digger did as well. So I did not hear that. But, Gail. I'm sorry, do you want to go, Damien? I was just going to ask, can you make sure to invite me whenever you hear about that, since if there are labor relations changes, I'll be working with Betsy to draft any changes to the pay act that might need to occur to clarify the legislature's position. All right. I'll send you an invitation for tomorrow. And as the chair said, we may not get to it tomorrow. It may go into next Tuesday. Okay. That sounds good. I actually think that tomorrow is going to be pretty brief, because I think that the report on the budget from the Human Rights Commission probably isn't going to take a lot of time, nor the Racial Equity Panel. And we're also interested in hearing from the Women's Commission. So I am a Women's Commission on their proposed budget. Yeah. And we have the sheriffs for next week. Oh, okay. We have them for next week. So I think that we will hear from VSEA tomorrow. I think that we will have plenty of time. So sheriffs and DPS are on Tuesday. Okay. Great. Okay. Yeah. Thanks. Great. Okay. So I'm trying to write a summary. Damien, you will get an invite. I'm trying to write a summary. I'll see you guys tomorrow. Okay. I'm trying to write a summary of the CRF money that we've heard about so far. Do you want me to send it to you guys first to look at, to just make sure that I'm really understanding? Thank you. I'm going to scoot and go to the CSG Executive Committee meeting, which I, thanks. Bye. So I'll send it, I'll send it to you and just make sure that I am understanding because in my mind it's so complicated. My banker will tell you I'm not very good at money. Well, you're not alone, Madam Chair. Senator Plena can probably attest to this too. Isabel, please. We had a situation in Senate Ag this morning where we're trying to figure out, and I don't know why I think it's more simple than it is. How many farmers have applied? Is it a large farm, a medium farm, or a small farm? And how many people have had checks issued? To me, that was kind of like the procedure that we wanted to find out. But it's not an easy answer to get. And I'm not blaming any of the agencies. It's just the workings of government, even at the state level, seem to be so slow that I thought by this time, I mean, we're looking at September in a couple of days. And I don't see a lot of progress being made. It's, you know, applications take two weeks to go through. And I don't know, maybe it was just my own unique way of looking at life. But I thought, yep, I lost a million bucks. Here's a check for a million. I lost $50,000. Here's $50,000. And it's not that simple. So when Erica was speaking, I was kind of lost, too. I still don't know whether that's $53 million. Does that come out of our COVID relief? Or does it come out of FEMA? It comes out of FEMA. And then there are things that won't be covered by FEMA. And then there are things that the match, that the municipalities and the agencies have to put up will come out of our COVID money. Where I'm confused is the relationship between that $15 million that's going to cover uncovered expenses from FEMA and the $12.1 million for the municipalities. And I know that some of that will go for hazard pay. And so that's the relationship that I'm not entirely clear about. And I don't, again, I probably sound like I'm whining. I don't mean to. I'm just making a point that what we do in this situation is very important to people. And I talk to radio people almost daily. And I mean, I talk to people on the radio almost daily. And I get the sense that they're still frustrating because what I said to them in June still hasn't happened. Yeah. I mean, I think you're right. Well, I know with people with their Department of Labor stuff, there are still cases out there lingering. I mean, there was one family that I think only a week or two ago did finally, you know, they sorted things out and they started getting money. But they've had claims pending all the way back to March. Wow. So they were, as you can imagine, they were, and there were three wage earners in the family, all unable to work. So they were very stressed out. And frankly, I was getting very stressed out along with them trying to, you know, through emails, calls, et cetera, help them get it sorted out. Surprisingly difficult. Yeah. Anyway, okay, well, I'll send, I'll send it out to you this afternoon. I'm going to go down and try and work on it right now and then get it sent out. So let's see. Tomorrow, and we don't have an ag meeting in the morning. So we go from the floor at 1130 until, and then I think he said this morning that the 1130 was just going to be a token session. Yes, he did. And so our meeting tomorrow was when? One o'clock. So Chris, Bray. Yeah, can we speak now? Okay. If I go downstairs and call you, will that work? I don't think we should speak live on YouTube. No, no, I mean, my phone. I just want to make sure I, there's two phones I can be called that you have my number that begins with 371, that one, my cell phone. I do, I do have that. Okay. She called that 22 times. But I only left a message three times. There was a, we, our house still has a landline. It's in a closet. And the only thing on it is the modem. And there's an old phone, old rotary phone in the closet too with it. And so I did hear that. I almost went in the closet to answer this. Who's that? It's a secret call. Okay. Okay, I'll go down to my old landline that still has a crank on it and call me up. Okay. See you tomorrow. See you tomorrow. See you later. Bye.