 Tuesday, May 26th, Senate government operations, and we're gonna be talking about elections. And just an aside about elections is that anybody who wants to run for an office has to file with their county clerk or their town clerk by Thursday, by this Thursday. So for all those people out there in the world who are watching and you decided that this is the year you're gonna run for something, you have to file by Thursday. Okay, so Betsy and I think we have a draft. Hello, yes, I believe I saw it up on, maybe if it's not today, let's see. It was, yes, under today, right, Gail? Believe so. Under my name, today's date, this is the draft. Believe that I sent to the committee last week, the draft 2.1 in regard to the 2020 elections procedure. Okay, okay, so do you wanna tell us what this bill does? Yes, hello, for the record, Betsy and Rask, legislative council. So the general assembly is part of the COVID related legislation enacted what is now act number 92. This was the first GovOps COVID legislation. In act 92 and section three, that section provided the general authority that you can see here on page one of this bill. The current language to address elections in 2020 allows the secretary of state in consultation and agreement with the governor to order or permit as applicable appropriate elections procedures for protecting the health safety welfare, voters, election workers and candidates and carrying out elections. And then the bill provides a non-exhaustive list of what this may include. When it says including, that's not exhaustive, that's not the whole universe of what these temporary elections procedures are, but it did provide some examples of what this authority may include. Right now, for 2020, the secretary of state has this authority to implement temporary elections procedures due to COVID, so long as the secretary consults with and gets agreement from the governor in regard to what these temporary elections procedures are. Seneca Vops took testimony on where the secretary of state's office and governor are in instituting some of these temporary elections procedures. There is still a question about what our elections procedures will be for the 2020 general election, particularly in regard to mailing out general election ballots. And so the committee requested this draft bill that you have before you draft 2.1, which would maintain the requirement for the secretary of state to consult with the governor in ordering or permitting these temporary elections procedures, but it would remove the requirement for the secretary of state to obtain the agreement of the governor in ordering or permitting the elections procedures. So this would be amending the act that was already passed this past recently by the general assembly. It would amend that act to remove the requirement to obtain the governor's agreement and this act would take effect on passage. All right, any questions committee for Betsy? I think it's pretty straightforward, what it does. Okay, let's, we have a big list of people here who, so Chris, can we start with Chris Winters and Will Senning? I don't know if Will is with us. She was a moment ago. Okay. And Chris, you are muted. Oh, there you are. Got it. Finally. Thank you. I can start and I think Will is here to answer kind of the mechanical questions, the technical questions that let you know why we think it's so urgent for us to have a decision now. But I can kind of start with a summary of, a very brief summary of how we got here. First of all, I really want to thank everyone for the opportunity or your patience with us and for giving your valuable time to this really important issue. And I'm really excited to be here with you, because we just want to make certain that every Vermont or has the ability to vote safely. In what's quite likely going to be a high turnout election in November. And as you've heard many times before, from me from Secretary of State condos. From director, sending, and from others, we have to plan for this now. Even though there's going to be a great deal of uncertainty. We still have a lot of things that are going to bring us. So our goal has always been to be as prepared as we can for the worst scenario. We know this virus is still going to be with us in November. The experts, including Dr. Levine are predicting a resurgence at some point. We don't know when, but there are all kinds of experts predicting a resurgence. So we need to do, we need to do now what we can to allow the best and most effective way for us to do that in our view, is to drive down in person voting in polling places. Protect Vermont voters to protect election officials and to protect the poll workers who are often among that very vulnerable demographic. The best and most effective way to drive down polling place attendance. Is to mail every active registered voter a ballot. Voters will still have the ability to, to vote in person, to vote early, to drop off their ballots, or to put them in the mail. But we need a clear path forward now so we can get to work. We need to get to work without worrying about whether the rug is going to be pulled out from under us at a later date. And we thank you for passing act 92. And then for giving us some time to try to reach an agreement with this team. We've been diligently trying to get the assurances we need for the last couple of months. However, after many conversations, a lot of deliberation, many, many hours of work at the end of the day, we simply still need that clarity and that certainty. And we still don't have it until now. We've been hopeful that we could get a decision from the administration to go ahead with the amount of assurance that we need. But the goalposts have shifted a few times in our latest proposal for a decision. Now with an opt out off ramp to be decided by the governor and secretary of state after the primary. Has been rejected. The governor and rejecting that has proposed an alternate decision. That would be done by a committee. And that would take the decision right out of the hands of the governor and the secretary of state. And we believe that's contrary to what you directed. In act 92. So if the governor is not providing the certain. That we need to plan and to be prepared, we can certainly understand why you as a legislature would feel obligated to do something. In fact, the governor has invited you to do just that. I think he said that to secretary condos in their conversation. Conversations they've had and publicly. The legislature could do something and remove him from the equation. He has said publicly that he never after the involved and never really wanted to be a part of this decision. So if you determine that's the path forward, we can certainly appreciate that. All we know is that we need some certainty soon. Before we make too many decisions. Before we enter into more contracts and best resources. We need that certainty now. So we really, again, thank you for taking this up now. And as I said, will sending is also here and he'd be glad to answer any of your questions about the mechanics or why. Decisive action right now is so important. As you can imagine, he's been working nonstop to do what he can to get us ready for every eventuality that's out there planning for worst case scenarios. So thank you. We appreciate the time. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Or defer to will. For questions about the mechanics. Does anybody have any questions for Chris or should we jump to will and then we can ask both of them questions. Cool. Okay. All right, Will. Yeah, sure. Thank you, Senator White and the committee. Sorry, I've been having very slow winter, some slow internet today. So I'm going without video. That's okay. The deputy secretary winters just summed it up really nicely. I don't have much to add to that. Just just a couple of points. I think. I have in previous testimony gone into detail about why I think we need to make the decision now from sort of the mechanics standpoint, the. Contracting coordination with the postal service. I just, I just got an email from my contact at the postal service while Chris was talking to talk about the forwarding process. And so I've gone into detail about a lot of that. I can answer more questions about it, but I wanted to mention something that occurred to me over the weekend. And Chris mentioned. Just the need for clarity and certainty for me, for my staff, for the 246 town clerks. Or all of the poll workers that work for those clerks. And for the voters. I just want to point out that I still. I get daily inquiries from multiple clerks. The plan. Has a decision been made. Will, when are we going to know what we're doing in November? So that anxiety and that need for clarity and certainty among the clerks, I think is real. Over the weekend, I was thinking about, I try to, I have to periodically do this, right? Over the last eight weeks, as I'm sure we all do. During this crisis as we're dealing with everything. About the crisis. I try to remind myself, what would I normally be doing if we weren't in a COVID situation right now to make. Dotting the keys of my work. And the two things that occurred to me that I'm typically really ramping up around this time. Our revision to the key booklet that we provide to all of the clerks, which is an election procedures booklet. It's, it's pretty lengthy. It's a, it's a 20, 25, 30 page document. Nine or 10 appendices with various documents that they need for the elections. Typically, we're, you know, your session is closing. A month or so ago earlier this month. And I'm revising that procedures booklet. With any change that's been made to the law. And I need new systems we have put in place. Anything new that the clerks need to know, revising it, updating it and getting it out to them around the state. Right around this time, usually. And I started thinking this weekend that I should be doing that. And then I started thinking that I have. Process is going to be in November. And how would I write that book with a menu of options? And it's, it's really impractical and doesn't make sense. The other thing that I'm doing around this time, typically is I'm planning for a series of trainings every two years in an election year in the summer. In July, I host. Seven or eight, usually eight trainings around the state at locations. Geographically spread out around the state. Get 50 or so clerks and other election workers, BCA members attending. And I would be developing the outline for those right now as well. In conjunction with updating that procedures booklet. And planning for holding those and planning for. How I walk the clerks through whatever the process is going to be this year. And again, obviously that would be very difficult to do. So those are just a few examples of where the clarity and certainty on a practical level become really important for me. And I will leave it at that and answer any questions. Does anybody have any questions right now for Will or Chris? All right. If not, let's jump to Carol. I see Carol losses with us. And Carol, I don't know if somebody from. Digger called me the other day about this and they asked for who they should, who else they should talk to. And I suggested Senator column or because he's on this committee. And has a different position. So I thought that would be good. And then you, I don't know if they contacted you or if they No, that's okay. I'm, I'm always happy to, to, to talk to any legislator or the press or any member of the public. Anything to help with education and outreach. So. I don't, I don't have a lot to add from what Chris and will said. The only thing that I would put out there is, is just a couple of scenarios that I've actually been running through my mind over the last weekend. One of them has to do with it. If we don't plan for and proactively move forward with. Mailing ballots out for November. I can see there being a huge influx of requests. I don't have a lot to add from what Chris and will said. The only thing that I would put out there is just a couple scenarios that I've actually been running through my mind over the last weekend. So, I don't have a lot of, I don't have a lot to add from what Chris and will said. I don't have a lot of influx of requests on the local level that have to be handled on the local level. For mailings. Typically we'll mail. Five, six, seven, hundred. And with a voter checklist of 5,500, I can imagine it being more in the range of two, three thousand. And, you know, I don't have a lot to add to that. I don't have a lot to add to that. So, having the staffing available to meet that kind of demand. Might be tricky. Being able to do the, the mass mailing through the secretary of state's office would certainly be, be helpful and to know that was going to happen. We would provide certainly a, a level of comfort on our end. The other concern I have of course is, I don't have a lot to add to that. I don't have a lot to add to that. I don't have a lot to add about polling places for November. With any luck, we will be able to accommodate. I mean, we'll have polling places. We have to, but we'll be able to accommodate the usual kinds of numbers, but I don't think that's the, the smart way to plan for it. And if I have my normal turnout. I don't have a lot to add to that. I don't have a lot to add to that. I have lines where I have to designate people come in one door and out the other where I have lines on the floor that keep them six feet apart. Where I have people standing at the door to only let a few people in at a time where my polling booths that accommodate for people in those quarter booths can only do one person for social distancing where everybody has to get a golf pencil so that they don't have to have to have to have to have a, a, a, a polling process that would, you know, we can do in a 12 hour timeframe, turning into something that, that goes hours and hours longer because of the line. And because of obviously the care we want to take with the public. So being able to offer as many different options as possible. But also to be able to offer different options to a, to, to a public, public and equitable voting process for November. Thank you. I actually do have a question for, I don't know which of the three of you Carol. It just triggered something when you were talking about the hours and hours that it would take. Even, I mean, even if. We did this and people, many people mailed in their ballots ahead of time. only doing one person at a time in the little carousels or whatever they're called. Is there, do we need to extend the hours? And I think that you can do that, Chris, without legislation and Will, about when the results have to be in, because it might take longer than that to count all the ballots, because it'll take longer to vote. Yeah, Will can probably speak to this much more than I can. But one piece of the plan would be to understand that there would be additional time needed to count all of those ballots that come in by mail or dropped off or voting early. And that we shouldn't expect, and we're seeing this in other states already, we're not going to be able to expect election night results that it's just going to take longer. We may not know the outcome of the elections for a few days after. That's one of the pieces we really need to get out and communicate and educate. Will, I don't know if there's anything else you'd like to add to that. I would just add that to your specific question, Senator White, that would take us exercising the authority under the directive to change the current law, which says you complete the vote count on the night of the election. And what it is is it's really a great example of why we need to make this decision now. This is the primary decision. There are secondary, tertiary, and whatever the word is for the fourth level decisions that need to be made after that, and all seriousness. And so now we're in a position of it webs out from the first decision you make. And right now, we're having the entire web. And if we can make one decision, then we move on to those next ones about, do we extend past the usual polling hours? Do we allow processing for 30 days beforehand so that we're better prepared on election day? To maybe get some election that results out by eight. Those are the secondary decisions that I can't make until we make the first one and start planning for. And I would assume that in making all those decisions, you'll be working with the town of clerks for their input. Of course, and of course. Brian. Thank you, Madam Chair. Carol, could I ask you whether you did a survey of any sort or have a sense generally of how many of the 246 clerks are supporting this? We haven't done a formal survey. There's been a tremendous amount of discussion on our listserv and all the discussion that I've heard has been in support of the processes as are proposed by the Secretary of State's office. OK. I may be in a strange locale. I have yet to hear from any town clerk in my district that is supporting it. I've heard not that many, three or four that don't support it. But I may be in a very different situation. I think I got the same three or four that you did. And those are the only ones I've received. One of the Wyndham County delegation is actually a town clerk. And we meet pretty regularly. And she is very supportive. And I don't see this as a partisan issue. She's an independent. And I don't see that this is partisan at all. I did hear from Senator Benning that he hasn't heard from any of the town clerks in his district one way or the other. So any other questions for Will or Chris or Carol? I like the concept, Will, of a web kind of, all these things have to, or a Venn diagram, which I just learned recently what that meant. I mean, this last year, I didn't even know what it meant. Phil was in a crossword puzzle that I was doing. Anyway, any other questions? OK, let's jump into it. Oh, I'm sorry, Anthony. That's OK. I was hesitant, because I don't really have a question. I just thought the reason why I thought this meeting today was important was because we've been obviously hearing from Chris and Will that they've been asking us to put this decision off and put it off, give them more time, give them more time, which we've done. So I was really curious as to what they were going to relate to us today. And clearly, the message is very different. It had been, let's wait and see what we can do. Now it seems to be, we can't do it. We have to move forward with the legislation. So it's not a question. But that's what I thought this was about. I'm glad to hear that in a way, because I was getting anxious about the idea of having to make contracts with printers and paper and all that kind of stuff, all the details of the technicalities of carrying through with the kind of election we're talking about doing. So I'm glad that we're going to finally be able to move forward, at least on our part. The one other thing that I would point out that I heard, and I don't know if it came from the governor or what, but it was that there should be this committee that does it because it shouldn't be somebody who's on the ballot that makes the decision. And I would, so I don't know if people want to respond to that when they talk, but I would point out that the short of having the decision made by the Supreme Court Justice, everybody, we're all elected. So any, and if you're appointed by the governor and appointed by the House and appointed by the Senate, you're still kind of answerable to them. And the people who make elections decisions every time we change them are elected people. It's the Secretary of State's office and the legislature, and we are all elected. So I just wanted to point that out, that that was one of the things I don't know if it came from the governor, but it was pointed out to me that. So and I would say that if I were thinking about this, I think that most of the decisions are probably being made by Will and Chris rather than our elected Secretary of State. You have bureaucrats, right? You have big bad bureaucrats. But the committee idea did come from the governor, right, Chris or Will? Yes, Senator, that's correct. That was in the latest rejection of our proposal was a counter proposal to create a committee of five to make the decision after the primary. And we just think that's beyond what you were intending. You wanted to put this decision in the hands of the Secretary and the governor. One from each party would help make it, make sure that it was not partisan. That's part of our reluctance to bring it back to the legislature. We really were concerned that sort of an override type situation would make it seem partisan, but it's really not. We've worked really well with the governor's office on so many things. And even in this and having some great communication and great discussion, we just can't see eye to eye on this one piece of it, which is making a decision now, which you're hearing from us, is really important for us to, for all the other pieces to fall in place. So that's why we're here. Paul. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. You've heard from me before, so I'll be very brief on this. I have had the opportunity over a number of years to speak to this committee on many different issues. And I think I would just say probably the idea of making this upcoming election as safe and secure as it can possibly be for voters and for election officials all across the state. I can't think of anything more important that your committee could do or will do. And so I appreciate the care and the concern that you are showing in revisiting this issue now. I think from our perspective, given the possibility for the COVID-19 virus to come back in a threatening way in the fall and that being something that we just cannot know for sure now or in August, it does make sense to try to reduce the number of people who are showing up in polling places on election day to the greatest possible degree. And it seems pretty clear that the best way to do that is to encourage people to vote safely from home. If you want to ease the way for people to do that, we have seen from other states you mail them the ballot, provide a postage paid return envelope and other means if they so choose for them to drop that off. And that's the way to bump up the numbers. In Vermont, we have something on the order of 95,000 Vermonters who typically might vote early or vote by mail before. That's a little less than 30% of all registered voters. Again, we think that the best, safest thing this year would be to have a number closer to 300,000 people. So up from 95 to close to 300,000 people choosing to vote early or vote by mail or otherwise avoid the polling places in person on election day. It doesn't mean that you won't have in-person voting on election day. You all know that and we agree that that is important. But let's try to keep both voters and poll workers and other election officials as safe as possible by having people take advantage of the state as possible alternatives. So I think that's the way to do it. I think that we have seen now thousands of Vermonters signing our petition and others embracing that idea. There are dozens of organizations and businesses that are on board with this, and we appreciate the partnership of those organizations as well. And we and others who are involved in doing public education work or people who are active in communities or civic organizations I think are across the board very willing and able to help do education, which will also be an important part of this. Because if thousands, if tens of thousands of people are voting using this method of voting that they've never used before, it's not tremendously difficult, but there are things that you need to do and do it correctly. And so we want those things done the right way the first time in order to avoid any possibility of a large number of spoiled ballots or none of us would want to see that kind of thing. So I just wanted to add that element in here, and we've appreciated the communications that we've had with the Secretary of State's office. We and again, our partners and many, many other organizations are very willing to continue that effort to work with the Secretary of State and the local clerks to do anything we can to be helpful about that education element to this too. So I think I'll stop there and just say I really, again, appreciate your willingness to take this up. It really shouldn't be a partisan issue. We all are concerned about making elections safe and secure, and I just think this is the best way to do it this year. So I have to admit, I've never voted by an early ballot. I always go to the polls. And is there when, if I get one, is there something on there that says you can mail this ballot back to your town clerk, you can take it to your town clerk, you can deposit at the town clerk's office, or you can take it to the polls, or you can show up at the polls. Is there something in there that clearly identifies that people have those choices? Rather than me answer the question, I think I'll ask Chris or Will to respond to what it says now. Okay, Chris. Maybe I'll defer to Will on this, but it will be, that's part of our plan is very clear communication on your options. Will, you wanna take this one? Sure, the current certificate envelope, as it is now really focuses on the procedure to return it by mail, because that's really important to get right so that what Paul was talking about, you reduce the number of potential defective ballots because of any issues about putting them properly in the certificate envelopes. In the August primary, it's instructions to return the two unvoted ballots in the other envelope that's provided. So really on the envelopes themselves, because with their four, it's mainly focused on the mail return, but Senator White, I plan a cover letter essentially, an informational cover letter, which will describe all of the options and will make clear that in-person polling is still available also. Great, thank you. Any other questions or anything for Brian? Thank you, Madam Chair. So I remember when we talked about this last week, I'll just ask the question, is there anything to prevent an individual who could be a candidate or not, or a group or association from offering to pick up completed ballots and bring them to either the town clerk's office or a polling place or to mail them? Senator Cullinmore, the current law, I believe does allow for that. I can send you the language in that section about return of the ballot if you'd like to look at it. To me, it could be more clear. It starts out by saying that the voter shall return the ballot as prescribed, and then down from that, further down the section, there is what you would consider the prescriptions. And those include some language that if I'm pulling it off the top of my head, but one of the options is, buy any means to the town clerk's office. And I think you could read that as saying that one of the prescribed methods that is allowed for a voter to return that voter's ballot is to give it to somebody else, as the any means that's described down below in that statute. But I just, I know that in coming up with the directive, one of the things we've been discussing is how we can bring clarity to that issue with language in the directive that will make exactly clear what is and isn't okay on return. Allison? Oh, wait, Brian has a follow-up, I think. No, that's all right. I think I get the answer is, yes, I could go door to door and offer to pick up people's ballots and bring them to either the town clerk or the mailbox or somewhere else. Yes, and I would add that there are situations where that is very helpful for folks who are homebound and unable to effectuate the return. Okay, I thought there was something at one point where if it were justice of the peace, there had to be two people that would accompany somebody to do that, is that not true? I think that's if you deliver them. That's a separate process where the JPs deliver the ballot to the person, let them vote it and then bring it back for them. Okay, thank you. Allison? Yes, I was just gonna go to that exact point, which is it's a great, actually, it's a great opportunity for many of our assisted living facilities and for places where people can't actually physically get back out where the members of the BCA go and conduct a mini election in those facilities and bring the ballots and bring them back. And sometimes they let them mail them back on their own, but we do allow for other people to bring ballots back and I don't see that that's necessarily a bad thing because in those cases, it's very enabling. I think that the fear comes in with the bad experience that was in, was it North Carolina last year, where but we have, if we've had 30% of the people voting early up to this point, and I don't think we've had any examples of that kind of fraud at all. So I wouldn't expect, even if we have 90% of them voting, that's three times, if three times zero is still zero. So. Well, while we're on the subject because I know that this is a concern for some people, but perhaps Will and Chris could address, has there been any voter fraud in Vermont? I mean, my understanding. We've already decided, we've already heard that. I know, but maybe now, while we're having this conversation, everybody's more tuned to it, maybe now it's best to hear it again because my understanding is there's almost none. Right, and that's why I said zero times three is still zero. I know, but I think to allay fears, there is clearly concern there. So if they would just reiterate it, I think that would be helpful in this context. Okay. Sure. Reiterate. Reiterated. I've been in the Secretary of State's office for over 20 years now. Secretary Condos, more than 10. Will's been with the office a long time too. And we just, we have not seen those complaints of voter fraud. Nothing like we've seen in North Carolina. We've had a lot of votes, a lot of elections, a healthy amount of vote by mail. We have not seen that. And the other thing that I do want to say is I really appreciate that Governor Scott in discussing this issue with us, he himself has said voter fraud is not a concern for him. That he knows he thinks it's overblown that it doesn't exist in significant amounts in the state of Vermont especially. Right. So, yes, I'll reiterate that that it's not that we're not concerned about voter fraud. It's that we have not seen it happening in the state of Vermont. We're always on the lookout for it. Thank you. I think that's helpful for the people, there are more people participating in our committee events now via YouTube than there have been in our room where you've said it many times. So, it's great to hear it much more publicly. Thank you. Is Kate with us also? Or Paul, did you speak for Kate also? Right, no more testimony from VPIRC today, thank you. Okay, all right. Thank you, just wanted to... Did we hear from any of the parties, the political parties, did any of them respond back? Do we have Terry Anderson or Deb Bilado? Bilado, is that how you say our name, Bilado? Or Josh Bronski? Are any of them with us? We've received no response from any of the parties, Senator. Okay, well, like we've said before, we can't make people come and testify. All right, so is Anne Galloway with us? We did not receive any response from the press either. Okay, or Mike Donahue? I guess, or Amy Schoelenberg, who I don't know who she was representing. Do you, Paul? But she's not with us, right? Okay, so I think that if there are no more questions, are we in a position to act on this bill? I hope so. Are you ready for a motion? Oh, yes. Does somebody want to make it? Yeah, I'm happy to make it. I would move that we pass out draft 2.1 of the drafting request 20-0989. I would move that we voted out favorably. Ready? All right, any questions or comments or anything before we take a vote? Nope. Okay. Okay, great. Senator Bray. Yes. Senator Clarkson. Yes. Senator Collamore. No. Senator Polina. Yes. Senator White. Yes. Great, thank you. Motion carries 4-1. So I assume that the way we have to do this now is we have to, Betsy Ann, you have to get it to drafting operations. And is that to get a number and everything? Back to, I was just looking back to Secretary Bloomer's email. What I'll do now is I'm going to copy the whole committee on this email and send it to both drafting operations and copy Secretary Bloomer and Vanessa and get the ball rolling for that process. Okay. And then you might have, looking back to Secretary Bloomer's email. He might just follow up with you, Madam Chair, as needing further confirmation of committee approval. Okay. And I, if anybody really wants to report this, they're welcome to, otherwise I would love to. So. I think if you'd love to, we don't like to stand on the way when you love to do anything. Okay. All right. So, thank you. Thank you, Will and Chris and Paul and Carol. It's been very helpful. And I appreciate all the good discussion starting probably the very first week we left when we started talking about our first emergency COVID bill. So. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. And you're welcome. The first COVID. What? The first COVID act was what? Act 91. I have no idea what act are. Act 92, we were right up there with one of the first. Yes. The first one was act 90. And then the second one was act 90, excuse me, act 91 and the second one was this one act 92. That would be amended. I actually don't really pay any attention to them because it gets very confusing because you have act 46 of one year is different than act 46 of the other year. But yet when people talk about act 46, you know exactly what they mean, even though there was an act 46 the year before also. So. Okay. Thank you. And you're certainly welcome to stay with us for the rest of our day. Love to have people with us, but we understand. Thank you. So I see we're not set to go here until 2 30. It's a little bit early. I don't know if any of the people I saw that Sheriff Anderson is with us. Maybe we can have a little committee discussion and then before people come about what we heard last time from the commissioner. And I will start off. If I was, first of all, I have a great deal of respect for the commissioner, but the training council and the Academy are not under the Department of Public Safety. And the commissioner is one member on the training council. So I looked at a number of the things that he suggested that one of them was not changing the council membership until they got a new director. And Brian was very helpful in making sure that that stayed on the radar. My concern about that is that I think that when they get a new director and the new director starts figuring out the direction to go and the things to do that they need those other voices that we've put on there. So that I wouldn't not want to wait until hearing those voices until after everything is decided. And I did have a question for Betsy Ann about the town's planning. Did we say emergency plan? In my mind, I had public safety plan. I think that's what it was. Huh? You did, you called it a public safety plan. We can pull it up, I have a new revised draft 6.1 I'll send out, but we can look at this current language if you want to check it out. Gail has posted for you draft 5.1 and you can find that town public safety planning starting in section 28 at the bottom of page 44. Okay, wait a minute. It's going to take us a second to guess there. No problem. Is that posted today 6.1? We're still on draft 5.1. I haven't sent out 6.1 yet, but the language for this public safety plan would remain the same. Great, and what page? That starts at the bottom of page 44. But what this language does is piggyback off of a requirement that towns already have to analyze their capacity to perform emergency functions during an all hazards event. Right now, how we're operating under the governor's executive order authority. Now, we're in an all hazards event right now with COVID. So this language is, you'll see it's in title 20, 20 VSA section six, that's in our emergency management chapter. And in emergency management, towns have to analyze their current capacity and provide their current capacity to handle emergency all hazards events and feed them up the food chain because as we are going to an emergency situation, we pretty much operate from top down with people, the local organizations shipping in as necessary depending on what type of all hazards event it is. So if you wanna look at this current law requirement for each town to analyze their own emergency management functions, that's on page 46, starting online for. But that's the end before you go any farther. We haven't changed anything about the emergency plan except capitalize and technical changes. We didn't change that at all. It already says they have to do it in compliance with the state emergency plan. You're absolutely right. You're not changing any of the emergency management function whatsoever. You're just borrowing off of the work that towns already have to perform. You can see on page 46 online for, it says each local organization and local organization is defined in the chapter. It refers to, it's on a town level, it's referring to people who are in charge essentially of emergency management. But it's a current law requirement for each local organization of a town to annually notify the local emergency planning committee of the town's capacity to perform emergency management functions in response to an all hazard event. So towns already annually have to analyze essentially what they're capable of doing in responding to all hazards event. And this new language would borrow or piggyback on that current law duty that they already have to perform annually. So with the understanding that they're already annually analyzing their emergency management function or capacity, this new language starting here on page 46 line 11 borrows or piggybacks off of that, builds off of it to create this new public safety plan. And so it says at the bottom of page 46 on line 18, Con currently with its annual notification required under the subsection D, each local organization will have to analyze the law enforcement, fire, EMS and dispatch resources needs, scarcities, costs and problems within the municipality and report that information to its legislative body. Then the legislative body would go through a process of soliciting public comment and consulting with other entities that might be able to provide these emergency resources and then propose a public safety plan or revisions to an existing public safety plan as the public body deems necessary. And then finally adopt one. The section 29 says each town and city would have to have a public safety plan by July 1, 2023. So his comments I thought were aimed at the emergency planning because he talked about how the state emergency management office is, they'll be revising that. And so it's premature to have the towns do it but we aren't changing anything with the emergency plan at all. We're just requiring them also to do a public safety. Did the rest of you feel that way that he was mainly referring to the emergency planning as opposed to the public safety planning? I think so. I mean, it was a long period of me exactly what she meant at the time of telling the truth. He had a lot to say. So that was just one of the many things that he brought up but given what Betsy, what you and Betsy just said it makes sense whether he meant it that way or not. And I'll just note that this public safety plan specifically on page 46 lines 13 through 15, I didn't say it when I first started talking. This is about the law enforcement, fire, EMS and dispatch resources need scarcities, costs and problems within the municipality unrelated to an all hazards incident. So outside of emergency management. So this is really talking about what a town needs for its own standard, regular public safety needs. So non-emergency, not non-emergency though. Is that the way, is that accurate way to say it? Unrelated to an all hazards event. All hazards event is defined term in the emergency management chapter. That's what triggers the emergency management chapter. So this public safety plan is unrelated to an all hazards event. So not what a town would have to do in when there's an actual title 20 emergency but it's just normal public safety needs. True. Allison. So Betsy, I'm a little concerned with help me understand 46 into 47 on line, on line 11 on page 47. Are you referring to this as the annual review of what would become their public safety plan? Are you, because I'm a little concerned with the words as necessary. We are the deems necessary. We are determining that every town needs to have a public safety plan. I don't want to, I mean, I'm hoping that we will not have towns coming back and saying, well, we've looked at this and we've deemed that unnecessary. We're just going to continue with the status quo and the status quo is unacceptable, you know, what we're trying to get away from. So is this referring to the annual review or is this referring to the initial plan? I set that statutory language up on page 47, lines 10 through 13, that subdivision C, that legislative body needs deems necessary. That's what I'm asking about. I put that up at the annual review. Okay, so this is the annual review. With an understanding that the public safety plan will have already been adopted. Got it, okay. 29 that follows makes clear that every town and city has to have adopted a public safety plan by July 1, 2023. And so with the understanding that that will happen by that date, then the statutory language would be there for when the town annually looks at it to determine whether there are any necessary changes that needed to be made to it. Thank you. I thought that was the case. I just wanted to. Yeah, good. Thank you. Any other, so the two other things that the commissioner talked to us about. Well, I have one in my notes here and I have leave and I have a check beside, but I don't know what it meant to leave it in there. I, what I wanted to leave or what he wanted to leave, but or maybe you wanted to leave and get into the garden. That is true. I tried to go out on our deck because I was so jealous of Anthony and Cheryl today in the Senate section and the sun hits our deck about two o'clock and it's just so hot. And I couldn't do it anyway. I sat outside for them for the morning session and for the eye committee. I came inside for the afternoon because it was too hot outside. You are such a North country person. I agree with you, Anthony. I can't, it's above 80 and I'm done. So section 13, which is the section that says VCIC should report the, and he talked a lot about the dashboard that they're putting up and how everybody will have access to it and they can manipulate it and everything. So I wondered if that was something that we felt was unnecessary to leave in here now since they are working on that. And so it's not up to VCIC now to send it to them, but it'll be up there on the dashboard in towns. Can look at it and say, how many robberies did we have and how many? So. Yeah, the one concern as you may remember I had about this is that the LCT, somebody's gonna have to take on educating towns about this as a resource because I think it's, one of the reasons we had this here was that we were so stunned by towns that had no idea of what was going on. Well, it was a little more difficult to find the, yeah, Allison, I'm sorry. No, you know what I meant. It was a little more difficult to find the information before I think it was on a website, but it was a little bit more difficult to find and somebody is gonna have to educate them, but Betsy Ann. Yeah, so I have in my notes as I was preparing draft 6.1 that the committee directed me to remove section 13. Was that correct? Okay. I couldn't remember if we actually did. Okay. Yes, good. For draft 6.1, I couldn't remember if we did or if it's just in my notes. And I know this is going to make some people very unhappy, unhappy, including my own sheriff who is with us right now. But I wondered if we should eliminate the section about the retirement and the treasures and instead give the committee that's been working on group C and who belongs and who doesn't belong in the treasurer's office. I'm on that committee. And give them time because when they finished their work, the treasurer promised that she would look at how we can better put the sheriffs into retirement and maybe other people too. So I just, I throw that out because it will cause a lot of grief from the treasurer's office and nothing will happen before January. So anybody have a- I'm making a note. What? I am fine taking it out. Yeah, me too. Okay, with it as long as we make, because it isn't just the sheriffs, there's a whole bunch of municipal, I mean, it's a big recruiting issue as I recall. I mean, I can't remember everything about it, but I remember it's a recruiting issue. I remember it's inconsistent between all branches of public safety. So it would be great if there was a consistent, I mean, I hope we're not gonna drop the ball on working towards a consistent, equitable way for people to have retirement benefits. Well, if any one of the five of us is here next year, my guess is we won't drop it. Chris? Yeah, I, yes, I agree with your take on it. There's a certain world weariness in the way you talk about it that tells me, yes, this is a realistic assessment of what we can get done at the moment. So I agree. And now Chris is speaking to us from the rain forest. That's New Haven, Vermont. That's our old lot. It's beautiful. So I'm gonna ask Mark if you want to weigh in on that knowing that this is a huge concern of yours. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I apologize, my internet has not been the greatest today. So I'm just by audio. I also have a wind tunnel going behind me. So if I need to turn my air conditioner off, let me know. It is warm for me. Having not spoken with all the sheriffs regarding it, I think we understand that you have a lot going on right now and while it's discouraging to hear it get dropped, it's understandable. We have to come to terms with that. So appreciate you acknowledging our interest and we understand where you're coming from. Well, I feel bad because I, and not just for the sheriffs, but I would like to see all law enforcement in the state in the same retirement plan, but that's gonna take a lot more effort. And I think that we have the commitment of the treasure to try and figure that out and work in that direction anyway. So I don't want this bill to get bogged down because of it. So we're still way ahead of ourselves here. I don't know where. So who do, do we have? I see that. Sorry, what section was that, Jeanette? The retirement section? I don't remember. I don't either. But Betsy Ann will find it. Do we have Chris Bracal or Matt Birmingham or George Merkle, Mike Schirling, Dan Batesy, Bill Boneyack, Winsack up, and I did see Drew here earlier. Our two guests in the room at the moment are Sheriff Mark Anderson and Drew Hazelton. And the others aren't on yet, but Madam Chair, if you would like to take a break, the committee can always do that as well. Oh, that would be lovely. Would you like to take a 10-minute break? Well, what do we do? That's unheard of. I'm sorry. I am usually such a slave driver that I don't let people take breaks, but we can do that. I want to ask a totally random question before that. It's not totally random. And it might be mostly for Betsy, I'm not sure. But it has to do with how we turn in the bills that we want to get under the challenge. I know we've had back then. So I have a bill in front. I have 948, which is 948, the one with the quasi-judicial proceedings, et cetera. So I have a version of it that says draft number 2.1. I'm not sure if this is the one I'm supposed to send in or whether I'm supposed to be waiting for something different. I have the same question. I don't know. Is that a question? Was that the version that the committee ultimately voted out? Yes. Yes. And the email from Tucker says, tax, please find draft 2.1 of the 8 to 948 amendment. Subsection B has been removed. The remaining subsection has been lettered. So he's saying, please find this draft. And it is the one we approved. So it's not draft number 2.1. Something about it that does make me feel like it's, I'm not sure if it's the official one or not. Well, so was he sending that to the Senate Secretary's office or was that? No, he's just sending it to us, to the committee. OK, so whatever the official version is, if that was the version that was voted out of committee, then the reporter of the bill needs to submit that to the Senate Secretary's office. So that would be Secretary Bloomer and Vanessa. OK. But what is this with the drafting operations? I get very confused. Yeah, I think I've heard that with Nadine this morning. So that process where drafting ops gets involved is only necessary when it's a committee bill. For example, right now you just voted out that elections committee bill. So I'm about to hit send on an email to legislative council drafting operations staff, which is Nadine heads that. I'm going to copy all of you, copy Gail, copy Secretary Bloomer and copy Vanessa and say, this is the bill, the committee bill that they just voted out. Drafting ops, please process it. Secretary's office, here it is. Get ready for it. Please let Senator White know what else needs to be done. So for you to confirm that you're introducing this. But that LC drafting ops only has to get involved when it's a committee bill. I think when it's a committee amendment to an existing bill, it's just that the reporter of the bill needs to submit it, submit the version that was voted out of committee to the Senate Secretary's office. Drafting ops doesn't have to get involved with that one. OK, Brian. So Betsy, the bill that we drafted from the other page, H793, which was the auditor's change. You sent it to me, but I didn't do anything more with it. Am I in error? Yeah, well, that needs to get to the Senate Secretary's office to vote out favorably so that they know that it got voted out favorably. So if you want, I can send that email to the Senate Secretary's office and copy all of you and let them know that you'll be the reporter. Are you reporting that one? Yes. OK, but I think you're just going to follow up with you to say, all right, Senator Callemore, please confirm. OK, that's fine. OK, so I'll do that just to make sure that it's in the hopper. Yeah, because I have that we have seven bills here that we haven't, that kind of we've passed. But they, well, eight now with the elections when we just passed, and they're kind of in limbo, and I wasn't sure how to. So if it's an H bill that came to us, which all of these are, we just have to, once we voted out, we just have to send it to the Secretary's office. Yeah, just try to consider it. I've been trying to just think of it as doing the same thing you normally would, but just electronically. So normally when the committee, when you vote out a bill, whether it's an H bill or an S bill with amendment, you have to walk that amendment up to the Secretary's office or he comes down to get it from you and staff isn't allowed to do it. So that's why I would say just send to his office whatever you're voting out. But I can do that now with the auditor's bill, but he'll just do a follow-up to make sure that you agree with that. And so that's why I also did that with the S33 amendment. I just noticed that I wasn't on there. And how important is it that I remember what, when we voted it out today? Pretty important. Sarah Clarkson might have the record, but. I don't, I've mailed to Gail. I don't think the date is as important as the committee vote. So they're going to want to know the committee vote. But I don't, I don't think the date matters. The committee vote on everything from the calendar. The committee vote on everything so far has been 5-0 until this draft 2.1. So who's reporting 5? The vote was after we went to the rules committee meeting. Yeah. That was the date you took your husband for the cataracts. Oh, so that would have been last Thursday. Okay. So who's reporting 5-58? I don't even know what that one is. It's the victim, the, the, the. Victim compensation for crime victims. Okay. And you're, are you reporting that Allison? Yeah, but I don't know where the bill is. I think Tucker has it. I don't know. I'll check and see if Tucker sent it to me and I then send it to Bloomer, right? Yes. Cause we made an amendment. We made an amendment and I don't. So it, and we did decided to do it as a strike all. So anyway, I'll be in touch with Tucker. It's 5-58, right? Huh? It's 5-58. Yes. Yeah. Who's that? He did, he did email it to us on May 20th. So you might be able to find it. Yeah. I'll, I'll. And so that's the, the fixed, the final version. And so then I send that to Bloomer. And then with 5-584, it's also with Tucker. So I'll, that I, I think that's ready to go too. And who's reporting 7-88? It's me. That's you. Which one is that? That was the technical corrections bill. Right. We have a, we have a one page amendment. You're going to serve coffee with that one, right? Yeah. I'll be serving coffee with that. Cause, you know, there's nothing more important than we're a nation of laws. So I want to read this one completely. Yeah. To the room. Is that the 255 page bill? Yes, ma'am. Now 256, we're adding one more. So we have a one page amendment to a 255 page bill. But I have every, I've looked in email, I don't have an official copy of our amendment that I, well, I'm thinking what I need is an official copy of the amendment. We did get one from Jen and we voted it with no changes. So I suppose I could use that. What was the number of that one again? 7-888. And she sent it to the committee. I just want to make sure that it's, you know, that it is that we voted draft 1.1 of 7-888. And it's dated 512. Okay, 534 p.m. Yes, ma'am. So I think that is the one we voted cause I remember one, two, three. Three instances of amendment. Yes. Okay. So I could forward that to center, secretary Bloomer. And I guess, does that mean that all these things are going to arrive there and then they're going to process and automatically go to the rules committee at which point you, ma'am, will get them out. They don't have to go to rules. We've already been there for these bills. Okay. They're eagerly awaiting the technical corrections bill. Well, a lot of people are. People ask me about that all the time when I walk in the dogs. When is that coming up? I want to get on that YouTube session. It's a premium on Zoom tickets. Really. So who's doing seven- That one's also posted on your webpage, but Gail, whenever you're able, if you could label that one also as the version recommended by Senate GovOps, that's 7-888-1. I have one posted that is recommended and I'm just trying to send it to Senator Bray. It's just, they get that official label as recommended by Senate Committee on Government Operations and that's just, it's not, I don't see it labeled online yet just so if they need to reach it that way. It is on there. So I'll just need to see where it's listed or where it's posted. And who's doing 750? What's that? Anybody remember that one? What is it? I don't know. Maybe it's me. Oh, that's the National Guard Provost position. Oh, right. Yeah. Oh, I think I'm doing that. You are? I think so, yeah. Okay. I'll see if I, I'll see if I have a final verse. That's 750. Yeah. And there we made no changes. Okay. So Betsy Ann, just for me, so that I don't forward the wrong one to Secretary Bloomer, you're saying there is a, it's the head, you know what, the leading language going to change after we've approved the amendment? It shouldn't change it for that. So that for that one was 788. I'll get back into that one. Sorry. No, no problem at all. Senator Bray, I just sent you a copy of the as a recommended version. You can look forward in your email and if anybody else who's reporting needs one of those, please let me know and I'll just send you the as recommended version. Well, I think I need 438 and the amendments that came from Betsy and Jen, right? Yeah. So 438 will need to be turned in. That'd be Jen's amendments. Okay. So now I'm comparing the two, what Jen and us and what Gail just sent me identical. So good to go. Thank you. Good. So oftentimes there are two of the same. One is the one that you've taken up in committee and it's posted for that day's discussion. And then once you voted it, then I post a second copy that's called as recommended by. And as far as that goes, I can do that, right? I don't have to wait until I get a copy back from the attorney. Yes. I think procedurally, as soon as the committee votes it out, it can be posted as a version as recommended because the committee will have already had the document. Right. Unless they're like, oh, the committee approves it with a spelling error corrected and the attorney just needs to resend it. Right. Okay. So just the issue that I had seen, it usually gets that official label and maybe it's somehow showing up in your system, but I just, I'm not seeing it labeled that way on the committee webpage. So maybe, maybe there's some sort of technical issue labeling into that draft of 124 that we have. Did you, I need to refresh, right? So that I can get that one. Do we have a new draft up? We do not, Senator. Okay. There are a couple of people waiting. Did we lose Senator Brae on other areas? Still here. Okay. So I guess we had a little conversation while we were before, while we were kind of waiting and about what we've heard yeah, whatever day that was from the commissioner. And I don't know how the rest of the committee feels, but what I'd like to do, I guess is go through them now and just make sure that we're okay. We don't have to have an in-depth discussion of them unless there's some issues. So let's look at section two. Section one is just a technical section. Did you just post it? Still working on it, Senator. Okay. So section two is the makeup of the council membership. We heard from the commissioner as one member of the council that he felt that we shouldn't do that until there was a new director and they knew the direction they were going. My personal feeling is that with a new director and looking at the future of the academy and how to where to go, that it is important to have those voices in the mix going forward. So committee, where are the rest of you on that? So are you suggesting we just leave what we have in place? That's what I'm suggesting. Yeah, I think I'm fine with that. Do you think so? Yes. I'm also fine. I thought we did good work on this. And my only question has been, has the chief of capital police chief been in touch with you? That's the LEAB board. That is not this board. Okay. Chris, did you have a question or were you scratching your head? That was a scratch there. Okay. So we'll leave section two in there and section three. Okay. Okay. Section four is really is related to that, right? It just, it talks about additional, about certification for alternative routes and for coming up with level two to level three. I'm trying to look at it now. We've been dealing with this bills for so long, I forget it. Okay. Right, Betsy. Section four is. Section four is powers of the council. Yeah. Yes. So this section four in subdivision A1 there, on lines 10, starting on line 10, requires the council to adopt rules to identify and implement alternate routes to certification aside from training at the academy. And there is a future effective date that was one tweak that was made to this requirements. I had my notes that you extended that rule adoption deadline to be July 1, 2023, rather than July 1, 2021. And you can find that on, at the top of page seven, where that change was made about the rule adoption deadline for that, the alternate routes to certification. Is that what everybody remembers? And are we okay with that? Chris. Sorry. I'm flipping back and forth between reading and the other screen. Yes. That's why you have to have two different things going here. I can't do it on one. Allison, are you okay with that? Absolutely. So I think that maybe Mark Anderson is the only council member with us. I would ask you if you would comment on the leaving what we've just talked about leaving it as the bill is. Thank you, Madam Chair. I've heard absolutely nothing counter to any changes of that section. I think everybody I've heard from has supported it. I do want to say I'm not speaking on behalf of the council of just myself as well. And I don't know the commissioner's reasoning for wanting to do that. However, since I don't know his reasoning, I don't have any change in opinion. I think leaving it alone is... Okay. Thank you. Okay. So the next section is generally after section four is section five. Madam Chair, can I mention... Oh, you do have that other thing in section five about transitioning from level two to level three. We still... I had in my notes that you wanted to leave that deadline as July 1, 2021. So that's still the deadline at the top of page six. And I think we heard from Chris Raquel that they really were working very hard on that anyway. And that if they come back and say, they just can't do it by then, we say we extended. Is that what we heard, committee? Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yes. All right. Then section six. Oh, this is the one that we decided, we just decided to take out. Section six specifically is the report back from the council. Oh. To the GovOps committees. I know things are going... Yeah. No, you're right. You're right. Yeah. And so the main change here was the one at the top of page seven to say that the alternate routes to certifications deadline is July 1, 2023. Yeah. Okay. So section seven. Additional training. Oh. This allows one agency to train another agency. Right. Any comments on that? Keep it in. Okay. Section eight. And you had a change on this one. I think I'm not looking at the right one yet. I'm looking at 5.1. It's got all the different colors, right? Yeah. That's all we have at the moment, I think. Okay. All right. That's what I'm looking at too then. Thank you, Gail. I sent that during the break. So there wasn't a lot of time to post that. So, but she did post 6.1. If you just want to refresh your webpage, you'll be able to see it. Oh, is that what we can go to? That's better than 5.1? Yeah, it is. We haven't seen any changes yet between five and six, but that's the most recent one. It's by magic, refresh. I mean, no wonder humans are getting so spoiled. I mean, that was literally a second and there was 6.1. Thank you, Gail. Well, it was a second for us. It wasn't for Betsy Ann and Gail. I know that. So this one was just some tweaks. I saw some places where it needed just some cleanup, but it doesn't change the overall proposal here, which would be a duty to contact an officer's current agency. Right. Okay. Are we okay with that? Yes. Okay. So section nine. And that's just the corresponding language that says that that requirement to contact the current agency doesn't apply if there's an existing non-disclosure agreement that prohibits it just in case. So that's eight and nine are related. And 10 is where I believe you've made a change. Yes. So 10 we get into unprofessional conduct and there is one change from what you reviewed last time. You'll see that on page 11, line 19. This is in regard to the requirement for an agency to report allegations that an officer at the agency committed category B conduct. The current language says that an agency needs to report allegations of category B conduct if the executive officer of the agency deems it credible as a result of a valid investigation. So it'd be only after a valid investigation that the agency would need to report those allegations. The original proposal was to say that the agency needs to tell the council when the agency receives a complaint that an officer committed category B conduct and then with some follow-up from the commissioner and thereafter the chief on the council, the change here is to add the agency of credible complaint that the officer committed category B conduct. Which is always one allegation because only the council itself can determine whether an officer committed category A or category B because it would be a finding of unprofessional conduct. And I believe that that agreement came from the academy and from the commissioner. Brian. I see that commissioner has joined us. I'm trying to recall which section Michael Shirling objected to in terms of an unproven allegation. Is that this section? Yes. Okay. And I believe that the commissioner and the chief both agreed that this solved that issue. Am I right about that commissioner? Yes. Adding the credible language does give it a higher bar that makes it easier to operationalize. Thank you. Okay. So that was what section was at 10? Yes. Yes. Okay. Section 11, we decided to take out even though it is something we want to pursue, it's just too complicated now the way we have to operate. I believe the retirement division representatives of the retirement division are here on the line. You are correct. Okay. So is Ashlyn with us? Oh, Tim and Erica. Did you see that we've removed that section? Which Tim? Tim Duggan and Erica Wolfing are with us. So if we have removed that, does that make you happier? It's not going away though forever. It's just going to this bill. So you won't be happy fully. Okay. Well, I'm not hearing anything from either of them. Even though they are there. Apparently there's no shock, there's speechless. Okay. So I'm moving on to section 12, which now would become section 11, I believe. Or it doesn't have to be, but okay. This is the requirement for VCIC to establish definitions that are uniform for all officers to use when entering crime data into their system of record keeping, be it Spillman or Valkor. Right. Good. Any comments? Definitely needed. Okay. Move on. But based on your feedback, on page 15, the prior section 13 would be removed. This was the requirement for VCIC to send the quarterly updates to towns without a police department describing the nature of the crimes alleged to have been committed in the town and the preceding quarter. And I think we heard from the commissioner that they're doing a dashboard that will be very easy for towns to look up the information and actually see it the way they wanna see it if they wanna see how many burglaries or how many domestics or in their surrounding town, in their towns. So I think we can remove this. Is everybody okay? Okay, Brian. Yeah. Okay. Commissioner, did you wanna comment on that or just to agree with us? Nothing further to add, Madam Chair. Thank you. You're welcome. Madam Chair, may I go back because the commissioner did have a concern about our section 12 soon to be section 11 on the VCIC stuff. Michael, I think you said you were concerned this didn't need legislation, but they would just do this automatically. It is work that the director already has underway and will also be obviated by the new data system if we're successful in getting one stood up. I think this was one of the places where Senator Cullinmore used the term gentle nudge. It's just saying we know it's happening, but we just want to make sure you move forward. I don't think we have any. We do understand that it's happening. Yeah, and that it needs to happen. And this is our, we're keeping it in as a gentle nudge, right? Okay, great. Understood. Okay. Okay, so section 13. Now 14, the LAB board. Yeah. So most of this is recodifying LAB. Oh, sorry. And the proposal was to add the director of enforcement and safety at DMB. Okay. And this is where the Capitol Police Chief would like to testify. I believe. Oh, is he here? I'll have to look and see if I got anything from him about this. We sent him and you, he sent us an email last week. I can, I'll text him now. I had not heard anything about this. So he has not been invited. So my apologies. Gail, would it be easy for you to invite him quickly? I can send him an email. That would be great. Okay. Here's what he said. It was the LAB committee we were talking about. That said, if you ever see DMB enforcement, gay mordons and liquor and lottery somewhere and we aren't, it would bear consideration to add us. The four small state law enforcement agencies with unique missions often get left out. Right. I'm okay just putting it in. Committee. What, what, what did you say, Jeanette? I said, I'm okay just putting him in. Yeah, me too. Okay, Brian. I guess so. That would mean there's 18 people on this board. I guess with the Zoom meetings that wouldn't necessarily be too bad, but it might be a little cumbersome in person. I think often they divide themselves up into working groups also. Sadly, we have bigger boards than this. Oh, I will. Sorry, go ahead, sorry. I was chair of the United Way Board here and there were 24 and it worked really well. So, Anthony. Hi. Chris. I think it's right. It's a big board at this point, excluding any one person. I'd rather round in the favor of adding a voice than having someone potentially important or a new voice at the table left out. Okay. All right, let's just do it. Okay, I just texted it. And so that will change the quorum. I'll be sure to change the quorum then on page 18, line two to be 10 members. All right. Now we're at section 16, that is... Just goes along with the qualification. Yeah. 17 at the top of page 19 is the more substantive one to require to be to report in 2021 on how town... You just went on to mute. For some reason, Betsy Ann. Yeah, sorry. The substantive provision in regard to the LEAB is at the top of 19 and section 17 to require the LEAB to report in 2021 about how towns can increase access to law enforcement services. Okay. May I ask a question? How are we envisioning that with our expand... Our public safety planning... Our public safety plan and our regional public safety pilots? How are we... When we say that, you know, the ways that towns can increase access to law enforcement services, how are we hoping to integrate that hope with the other two pieces of work we're doing to try and ensure this? I would say that the towns are being asked to do a public safety plan. The LEAB might be... Might come up with ways for them to have better access that would help inform towns about how to do a plan. And the LEAB has a member of the LCT on it. So... So do you see this as sort of technical support to the planning process on public safety and the regional public safety pilots? No. This is a volunteer board that makes... It's an advisory board. It makes recommendations for things like... Here's some options around dispatch. Here's some options around how towns can get better access. It does not... It has no authority at all. Okay. I just... Where I see those words, and I know we have two initiatives trying to improve towns and public safety. I'm just trying to figure out how they integrate and how they can work together. But I guess maybe through VLCT's efforts to let them all know that all these options exist. Okay. Let's just try. Anyway. Okay. Are we okay with that? Section 18. I mean, section 17. Betsy had her hand up. Oh, Betsy in. I'm sorry. I just see that the chief of the Capitol Police is here. If you wanna take his testimony on LEAB. Oh, we just cut him out of that. We were going to put him in the LEAB. And then we decided since he wasn't here and he obviously was dissing us, he was out. Works for me. We put you in. Oh God. Okay. Thank you. I think. Well, be careful what you asked for. Well, when I was speaking with Senator Clarkson about it I'll do respect to the commissioner. I see him on, you know, sometimes our needs don't necessarily match up with the needs of that get represented there. So anytime that I see DMV and Fish and Wildlife and liquor and lottery represented somewhere that we're not, I wonder why. Because we're much like them. We were that small state agency with other, you know sometimes with priorities that don't necessarily match up. So. Commissioner, did you want to unmute it yourself? Mr. Shirley, that's not a shot at y'all, by the way. No, no, none taken chief. I was, I unmuted myself only if the opportunity presented itself, I'd be remiss if I didn't say go back 50 years and all the studies that say we ought to just be one agency lumped together so that we don't miss all those opportunities to ensure that we're aligned in effort and investment and everything else. So thanks for letting me throw that on the table. Thank you, thank you. If you hadn't said it, I might have. And I definitely don't oppose that either. I mean, the last, I know this is not the topic for today, but all the studies that I've read since I've taken this job have, have recommended the uniting of a single entity in the complex. So I mean, it's, it matches everything that we've got locally too, so. How about a united entity for the state? No, you couldn't have a united entity for the state unless you had the state police taking over all local law enforcement. I mean, that's a different issue. If we, I'm not ready to go there. I am ready to go to having all state employed law enforcement officers in the same. Yes. But I'm not in this bill. We've tried it before. Okay. So. So you're in chief. Okay. So we are now on section 18. 18. And this is the dispatch and we changed Betsy. And do you want to just tell us what we changed here? All right, so if you want to look at page 20, this would still require DPS to adopt rules that set forth the rates it charges for dispatch. And I added in, I believe based on the discussion with the commissioner and with the committee, I believe my notes indicated that you might want to specify that the rules can say that it'd be a future a date on which the department would implement those rates. I don't know if I understood that correctly or if you wanted to add that language, but I did add that there, online seven through nine of page 20. Did you want to add that? Or should I remove that language? Commissioner. Apologies, I have multiple things going at the same time. Which sections are we on page 20? Yeah, sorry. Now we're on that. We're on a new draft 6.1. I don't know if you're able to access that on the committee webpage, but this was about the DPS rates for dispatch. Give me just a minute to try to find the new draft and I'll come back to you in a second. Okay. Well, what I did remove here while the commissioner was looking at that, while you all are looking at page 20, I did remove the language that would require DPS to have rules regulating the technical and operational standards that would apply to any entity performing dispatch functions. So I indicated you wanted to remove that. That was what we decided, right committee? Yes. Okay. Chris is in such a forest there that he is losing. He's off there in La La Land. La La Land Bristol. I've heard, I've often heard that Bristol is La La Land. Really? Now you can tell me, we just moved here last fall. I know that's when it became La La Land. Oh, I see. Yeah, I don't know that we need to put that in because the rules would, I would think, have to do how they're going to implement. It might be better to say how they'll be set forth the rules for dispatch functions and the implementation of them. Because that's what we want is for the department to come up with rules around how they arrived at them and when they're going to implement them. That sounds more eloquent. Yes, I was just based on your conversation before I was concerned that it was the statute might at least imply to some who read it that when the rules were adopted, those had to be the rates that had to apply at that time. But I thought I heard from your conversation with the commissioner that they might adopt the rules but then implement those specific rates at a later time. On a, yeah, kind of a progressive manner. I think that's what he said. Like Brian, did you have your hand up? Yeah, I did. Thank you, minister. I remember that exactly as Betsy and described that it's a, in essence, a two-step process that they can adopt the rule or the rates and then decide at some future date the way it is that those will be effective at whatever date they fit. So I do see a little bit of a distinction. I reviewed the language, madam chair. I don't see any issues. It appears to parallel what we're working on now. Then let's just leave it as it is here. Third, manner of implementation. Would that be capture more for you? How you would want to implement those rates? Shall specify a manner of implementation? Or is that too loose? You know, no, under the circumstances, I think that makes sense because we'll have to engage municipalities in particular as we get a better sense of the financial picture going forward and what what a reasonable timeline is is going to look like. Yeah, I think that's fine. Which version? I'm sorry. The one that you have here, I think, is on the page. On the page. OK. Yeah. Thanks. Just wanted to confirm. Thank you. OK. Was there anything else until section 19? Section 19 is just technical correction now that you've removed the requirement to have operational and technical standards. It's just removing reference to those here on page 22, section 19. But second, the one that follows is my very rough, first rough draft of what you did discuss in regard to operational dispatch standards to have those four entities, the LAB, the Fire, Your Service Training Council, the EMS Advisory Committee and BLCT recommend how best to address standards for dispatch and the entity that should adopt rules providing those standards. So this is just the first draft of that language to see if that is along the lines of what you were you had in mind. Just so the committee is aware, Madam Chair, there is a national body that issues standards around emergency communications, APCO. So those exist already. Oh. So we might not even need this. Conceivably, I'm not aware of an issue relative to the standards of operation that's emerged. That doesn't mean there isn't one. It just it hasn't crossed my desk. And I think most folks operate based on the APCO standards to the greatest extent possible to the extent that they're applicable to our operations in Vermont. Mark, did you want to weigh in on that? Thank you, Madam Chair. I agree with the commissioner. Originally, I opposed having the rule setting at all. I wasn't aware of the reason for adding it in the first place. OK. All right, let's just take that out. Committee. Brian, Anthony, Chris. Yes, let's remove it. Allison, I guess, I mean, unless it's workkeeping as an agent, as. As Senator Collamore says, as a gentle note to make sure it continues, I mean, that it actually happens. But he sold us that there already is a boat that it already I thought it was happen. It was in the works. You know, a national board that set standards. Fine. But if that exists, let's do it. OK. OK, I'll remove that section. OK, now we get to emergency medical services. And we've switched the state department of of the State Board of Health to the Department of Health everywhere. And I think that that's all been agreed on by everybody. Am I right, Dan and Drew? OK. And I see Dan nodding. Drew, are you nodding? OK, that takes us down to page 25, I believe, where the only other changes. And that's we repealed that. Is there anything in here that's substantively different than what we did before? So you at the top of page 26 is just a reminder of that new requirement for when ambulance an ambulance service wants to become licensed. They have to do so in a manner that's not discriminatory. The anti cherry picking language. So there's just a reminder to the Department of Health that that language appears on page 26. A lingering question is what the implementation date would be for this and for other Department of Health duties that would be required by this bill. So I think where I've left it now is just a flag. These requirements that would be imposed on the Department of Health to get a better understanding of what the Department of Health's capacity would be to take them on. Because right now this this language on page 26 would require Department of Health to adopt rules about these new ambulance license requirements. And so one question would be when does Department of Health that have the capacity to adopt those rules? Dan. So I think the challenge is going to be that there's a number of different bits and pieces of this bill that I think we'll probably want to talk a little bit about as we get further down the line here. Are you asking me for a blanket date right now or do you want to have more conversations about those other parts? I am hoping that we will have no more conversations that as we go through it, we can just make decisions and make changes because if we're going to get this past this year, we have to get it out of here. And I'm hoping to have it out of here no later than Thursday. Yeah, I think I think it's entirely possible to do that. I think the only challenge is that we have a couple of different dates for for example, with the instructor coordinator issues and with new licenses, those are going to be a little bit different in terms of how easy they are to implement. So I'd almost rather answer that question after we've gone through those last bits and pieces and come back to you. But I think it's doable. I just I'm not in my head. I want to make sure that we're giving you a date that's going to be encompassing of all of those elements. OK, so when when we get to the implementation dates, if you'll comment on all of them then so that we can OK. All right. And does anything else in there in this section stand up? We have changed on page 27 from the. What one year to three years? Some of this is reflective of what was done in 182 or whatever that bill was. Exactly. So one of the things that so thank you, Madam Chair, on page 27, that section 2683 about ambulance license terms. So S 182 is now law change the license terms from one to three years. So what I'm showing here is just showing what the language of the law currently looks like. But what would still need to change here is that it's the Department of Health that issues those ambulance licenses rather than the state board because S 182 didn't make that change from state board to Department of Health. So just to remind that it would now be the Department of Health that issues the licenses. All right. Any questions, Drew? And I think we talked about it. Is there an appeal to the state board if the licenses either denied or revoked or suspended? What is that appeal? I think Dan told us that there is a process right now and it would stay the same. It's an appeal to the commissioner's office. The way it's currently in rule right now. So the original decision will be made by the EMS group and then the appeal would be made at the commissioner's level. And that's the way it is now. That's the way it is now. Yes. OK. Well, I'm sorry. It's it's the way it is now is it's made by the board of health and then appeal to the commissioner's office. But it's still the appeal is to the commissioner. Functionally, it would be the same. Yeah. So is that any question? Is that a process where evidence could be given and, you know, questions can be answered? Yes, this is a decision being made. Yes. If any questions, Allison, how frequently does that happen? Almost never. I've been here just shy of five years now and it's happened once. Yeah. You know, the fact of the matter is most licensure applications are are pretty straightforward and are abundantly vetted before they even hit a decision point. So with the exception of one controversial agency that came in that sort of didn't fit in the normal the normal practice model, we've never had at least I've never had an issue. However, I think Drew's got a good point, though, to be ready for one that does come up. And I think that process is in place. OK. Thank you. All right. So page twenty seven. And I just wanted to just for Drew's reference, I just did find it and it's an EMS rule fourteen point four in regard to appeals. So thanks. Just want to point that out. Thank you, Dan. At the bottom of page twenty seven of the bill is just striking out the language about DFR and forcing directly the health ensure direct reimbursement because that was taken care of an S 182. And that was a permanent change. Was it or was it? That is correct. OK, just wanted to check. Yeah. OK, section twenty one. Section twenty one is about the HRAP addressing emergency medical services, resources and needs that are identified by the EMS Advisory Committee. OK. On page thirty, you'll see section twenty two removed because that relates to that DFR enforcement. That's already addressed in S 182. Yeah. On page thirty one, you'll also see some cross out language in red. That was because that was addressed in S 182. But what you will see is starting on page thirty one and yellow highlighting is language to correct S 182 where S 182 removed reference to credentialing. Some of those amendments could have been read so that to eliminate the current requirement that a person can only practice as EMS personnel if they're affiliated with an affiliated agency. So, Dan, this is a language I had sent to you when I thinking it was going to get put on another bill, but here it would show up in this bill starting on page thirty one would be it's related to that requirement that people who are affiliated with an affiliated agency and the licensed are hereby authorized to essentially act as EMS personnel because the main idea is as I understand it in EMS licensures, you just you can't get licensed and go hang out as a shingle to practice as a EMT, for example, solo practice. You have to be affiliated with an affiliated agency to do so. So this is just correcting language to ensure that that is that requirement is maintained. Dan, I think that's great. And it does exactly what you needed to. I think the only thing is I'm not sure what an affiliated agency is. Do you mean a licensed agency? And so affiliated agency is a defined term in title twenty four. And that is your first responder services or ambulance services. OK, it's also defined to include a hospital. OK, that's fine. Yeah, that title. Eighteen EMS chapter uses the definitions in title twenty four that regulates ambulance services. And so that's a defined term in there. OK. We've taken out some little three dot things. On page thirty two is the requirement for the Department of Health to establish by rule at least three levels of EMS and structure instructors in the education required for each level. And what I would ask, I guess, Dan, if you would look at all of those requirements and come with some sorry about that and come with some recommendations for times so that we can deal with them. OK. OK. And so just to confirm also what I'm doing, what was the way that I structured this at the bottom of page thirty two started going on to page thirty three where there were it's that red highlighting. It's not actually removing the language is just not showing it. It's not it's not necessary to show it. So it's not like that language would be removed. What is already removed on page thirty three line six through fourteen. That's the main credentialing requirement and S one eighty two eliminated that. So it's just getting rid of unlike not showing in the bill language. That's just not necessary to show or amend. Sorry about that committee. Are we OK? Yeah. OK. But another correction and S one eighty two correction starts on page thirty four. So S one eighty two again, remove that credentialing requirement. But it was this section that on at the bottom page thirty four that raised a question on the House side that we didn't discuss on the Senate side. Where this language is talking about how. People the current law used to say if you're credentialed, you can practice within the scope of practice of your license. Well, credentialing got eliminated. So it seemed that you still needed to have reference to affiliation with an affiliated agency. So this is starting at the bottom of page thirty four is an S one eighty two correction to say an individual who's licensed as EMS personnel and who's affiliated with an affiliated agency is able to practice fully within their scope of practice. Any questions on that one? OK. Moving right along page thirty five and subdivision C one. This is related to the requirement to get rid of that psychomotor skills testing for EMRs and EMTs. It's a two step process, the way that this bill contemplates this. You'll see this initial amendment to the law here on page thirty five to say that psychomotor skills testing for EMRs or EMTs is accomplished by either the demonstration of those skills, competencies as part of the education required for that license or by the NREMT psychomotor exam. The testimony to this committee was let's eliminate that psychomotor exam by the NREMT. The way that the feedback before S one twenty four got voted out of committee from the Department of Health was let's make it a two step process where for now you could either demonstrate your psychomotor skills or take the NREMT psychomotor skills exam. But on a future effective date, you'll only have to demonstrate the psychomotor skills. You won't have to take that exam. So this is the first step in the process. You'll see there's a section twenty four, I believe, that has a future effective date that I've just flagged for DOH feedback on what would be a realistic effective date to completely eliminate the NREMT exam. OK. Everybody OK with it, Dan? Just a point of clarification. So as I read this, I want to make sure that we've we've withheld the ability for a student to choose this, right? Because the way that we envision this process, and I believe the way that the advisory committee advises this process, at least initially, is that for a period of time, we would make the determination as to whether the test needed to be applied or not. I just want to be careful that we're not creating a situation where a student can come and say, I don't want to take the test. I really want to do it the other way. And the law says that I can. So are we in that place? I'm just trying to clarify. So the way that I'm reading that language on page thirty five. And as I understood it, it would be based on whether the education suffice to test psychomotor skills testing because it says the psychomotor skills testing shall be accomplished by either the demonstration of those skills competencies as part of the education required for that license or by the NREMT psychomotor exam. So I do think it's it seems like it would still fall back on DOH to determine whether the education actually did appropriately test psychomotor skills. Is that how you're reading it? Does that make sense? Yes, Sam. So I think I'm reading it that way. You know, I want to be the challenge for this is that we we need to use testing as a quality assurance measure as we roll this new process through. So as as we determine whether a class can accomplish it through education and I think a great many can, we need to be able to say to them if you don't follow these rules, your students are going to test. So I would almost suggest that we make this even a little bit more explicit to that end, just to protect us, to protect our ability to continue that process. Because again, although I think there's a great many education programs that can do it through education and should do it through education, I can also share with you a couple of stories of classes that shouldn't do it. And those are the ones that I think we need to maintain that testing for to to have that quality assurance measure. So could I ask you to work with Betsy and to come up with some language? Drew, did you have your hand up? Yeah, I just like to point out that we did have a advisory meeting and discussed a draft kind of plan to get to this point over the next six months of development with the advisory committee Education Subcommittee on how to develop it with a six month with a six month kind of pilot program so that we would be well under way by year at this time, understanding whether and how to kind of do that portfolio based testing. So the EMS advisory committee and the Education Subcommittee of that group has taken this up and believes that there's there's merit in moving forward of the health department in developing this program. Good. Thank you, Dan. And I'm sorry, but just one more element. So currently right now we have no capacity as a state to change the rules around advanced EMTs and paramedics. So the way this would work would only be allowed for us for the EMT and EMR levels. So I think that may also need to be explicit as well. And I think it would be very easy. We can share with Betsy and the document that we created for the advisory committee and we can certainly talk this through. It's I think these are minor tweaks. Great. Yes. Yeah. And I the language right now on page 35 start on line seven does specify that this is only for EMRs and EMTs. And I just wonder if the the clarifying language could be where it says as part of the education required for that license level. On line 10, I wonder if it would work to add as approved by the department. Yeah, I think it would. OK. Great. OK. I'm on page 38. I don't know where anybody else is. I'm almost there. I just got to point out that on page 35 and 36, that red language that is getting deleted, that was covered in S 182. And this is another credentialing cleanup to add in reference to a person needing to be affiliated with an affiliated agency. That yellow highlighted language. So, for example, this subdivision E was about or is about a person essentially getting licensed without exam. And right now it only the way that S 182 amended it, it arguably could be a red only if you're a medic. Sorry, that was the language on page 37. But this is essentially just the belts and suspenders language that you still have to be affiliated to enjoy the the benefits of the language that's provided here at the bottom page 36 top of page 37. Any questions on that? No. OK. A substantive change on page 37, line nine, is the requirement for the department to establish by rule and entry level certification for Vermont EMS first responders. But that isn't a change since we have done this before. That's correct. That was already in S 124. And it's just a question of what that rule adoption deadline should be. Yeah. And I think what I'd like to do is have Dan and Drew, whoever come up with all of everything that has effective dates and deadlines that deal with EMS. OK. All right. Page 38, you already had this in S 124. But just a reminder, there's a requirement to do the sunset review at least once every five years. There is a transitional provision at the end that says DOH will do its first sunset review when it adopts its rule. So it'll just be a question of when that rule adoption deadline is. OK. Bottom of page 38 is establishing establishing that EMS Education Council. Yep. And so the one bit of feedback that came up was in regard to the language on page 40. The feedback from DOH in my notes last time was to not have this new Education Council approved training. I understood the feedback to be that this committee could still sponsor training. So what I've done here at the bottom of page 40 is to maintain that EMS Education Council, but provide that it is to only sponsor training in education for education programs required for licensure. Any but any comments on that one, Drew? I'm assuming just like I haven't found it that this is the EMS Education Committee that's already part of the advisory. The one that's in existence now? Yes. Yes. Yeah, you can see that on page 40 line 14. The committee would establish from among its members this EMS Education Council. Thank you. OK. On page 41, I'm just flagging that future effective date section where the requirements or the ability of psychomotor skills to be tested by the NREMT exam would go away. So I just flag that as just a reminder of we need the effective date for when that could actually happen. OK. Just a room. Oh, sorry. I see Dan has a question. Oh, I'm sorry, Dan. I'm sorry. My only hesitation with a hard deadline to say we're taking this away is that I think I'm a little concerned that it's going to take away an important tool for us in enforcement. Right now, the vision of the role of testing as we go forward is for the non-compliant programs to be able to say since you've not demonstrated this capacity here, we're going to make your students go and test. If we get rid of that capability altogether, the only other option we have is to say your class is invalid and now you have 20 students who have spent 16 weeks in an NREMT program and nothing to show for it and little recourse to take to carry on. I'm all for saying that to put a hard deadline on the capability of using competency based evaluation for in lieu of testing. But I'm reluctant to say get rid of it all together as a hard deadline. Anybody. So would you. I guess work with Betsy on that and try and figure out how that would be rewarded. I think it would be simple to to create some language that says on a hard deadline, we will make available competency based evaluation, a psychomotor evaluation and that this will be available to all programs that meet the standards. And again, we'll have to massage the language, of course, but but again, I think by by taking the registry away, you're taking a tool out of the toolbox, probably unnecessarily. OK, through. I don't object and I think that was the the advisory committee's sense of the kind of the program we put forward is that leaving that ability was important, but we wanted to shift away from kind of everybody gets tested. But certainly in the event that we needed to provide that test, it should be available somewhere committee. Great. OK. So it sounds like all right. Section 24 should just be removed. Oh, yeah. Yeah, I agree. OK, if it will be handled by the amendment to that section where if the department approves the education that you could demonstrate psychomotor skills competencies as part of your education program. Yeah. OK. Then Drew, does that. I think so. I just want to give it a little bit of a deeper dive to look at it. But I believe that will work. We want as many psychomotor skills as possible. Just a reminder, maybe a lot of people need this training, too. Just a reminder here on page 42 that what's happening on lines 7 and 8 is just adding our existing EMRs and the newly proposed certified first responders as EMS personnel that are eligible to get the current law funding stream that annual 150,000. Oh, Madam Chair, you're muted. Oh, thank you. Speaking of training money, did you see that the budget adjustment act that we passed this morning has three million dollars in there for EMS? Yes. OK. And related to that section 26, which was in the bill as past the committee would be removed because that is the much lesser appropriated amount. Yes, let's get rid of that. Well, look where we began, though. Good to remind ourselves of for sad reasons. I mean, when we began this, it was a totally different world. Mm hmm. Although I'm not sure that it really was a totally different world for the EMS providers. I think that they were in dire straits then. Yeah, right. I agree. But I think the world has become became radically more sympathetic to these needs and understanding. OK, so. All right. Now we're 27 is a date that we need to address. Yep. Now we're getting into all the dates for the rollout of all this EMS new language. I like that. I'm going pink. Allison. Nothing. I just, I like the highlighting and bright pink. Instead of going through them, what I would suggest is that you and Dan and Drew figure them out instead of trying to figure them out here now. And come to us with a proposal for what those dates might be. And then we're going to be looking at, looking at all of them together. All right. Does that work? I'll await the word. Thank you. Okay. Now let's go to section 28. That's the public safety planning and commissioner. Are you still with us? I don't think he is. No. Well, I think we talked about this, um, this morning. And, um, we. Let me, let me see if, um, we actually agreed on what we talked about is that this, when the commissioner talked to us, he was talking more about emergency planning. And by the towns and we haven't changed that requirement at all. So however they currently work with the state emergency management, they're going to continue to work with them in the same manner. All we're asking is that they use the same, um, procedure to develop a public safety. Plan for the town. Is that. What we talked about committee. And do we want you with leaving this in. Yes. We had this discussion earlier this afternoon. Do you want me to text him and ask him to rejoin us? No, he doesn't have to. I'm sure he's very busy. Um, Senator columnar. Senator Bray. Senator Polina. I'm good. We did talk about it. We, we did. I just wanted to. Make sure that, um, in case people were still with us. Okay. So moving on now to. Whoa, we just covered a whole bunch of pages. Yes. Those are two long section. I mean, three long sections, 28, 29 and 30. Yeah, you're at the end. Section 30 is the ACCD, uh, a $100,000 appropriation. For the regional planning commission, public safety planning grants, public safety planning grants. And, um, I have no idea. I don't know. I don't know. Well, how, if appropriations even talked about this yet at all, but we should leave it there. And it'll go to them and they'll either. Approve it or take it out. Madam chair. Yes. Uh, Would it be possible to include chairs offices as a. Regional organization. To. Let's see. So that would be on page 49. I guess it could. I. Uh, well, I don't think so because I would not necessarily. Because they're one of the groups that we're hoping will be. Involved, but not. I mean, aren't we talking there about who's going to convene. So, uh, I guess the reason I ask is that, uh, There's 14 different counties with 14 different responses to 14 different issues. Uh, and so for example, grand aisle provides, uh, the grand aisle of sheriff's office provides an emergency operation center, which does a lot of this type of work. Uh, we've talked about, uh, developing. Uh, something similar in my county. Uh, and so, uh, where towns have a need to do, uh, emergency planning and public safety planning. They also often rely on all refer to us, the regionalized partners, which many sheriff's offices sometimes serve. So being able to do that, uh, effectively puts professionals who are doing emergency planning work, uh, in a position to be able to provide the service to the area. Uh, it's not, uh, I guess my request won't be to compel that we get the funding, but rather make us eligible to apply for it. Uh, as there are agencies that do this throughout the state. Yeah. But, but, uh, but I guess our, our, our hope, I mean, you're definitely a regional organization. It's just, but you're one of the agencies that we're hoping will be. Uh, uh, one of the, the agencies that, that will have many agencies all as regional as you are. We're, I mean, not that. I mean, it's a public safety. Planning grant and your key piece of the regional public safety piece. And we. I'm not. I don't. Thank you. Thank you, Madam chair. I don't know whether it's covered on line five and six. Which says, or other qualified organization. Uh, when they apply to ACCD, I would say that. If the ACCD folks think that the local sheriff. Uh, association or organization is a qualified. So be it. And Betsy and should that say organizations with an S. No, it's no such as a regional commission. Union thing. Or other qualified organizations. Somebody is going to apply. Some regional organization is going to apply. If, if four regional organizations in the same area apply. My guess is ACCD is going to tell them to get it together and figure out who's going to apply. Because you can't have four organizations in the same region applying. And this, this is primarily. This isn't. Implementation really. This is. Planting a planning. And that's why we put the planning commissions in there because. That's what they do. Yes. But I agree with Brian. We hesitated to start putting in any regional organization by name. Because there are a lot of. A lot of them. Yeah. I mean, there's regional development corporations. Who some of them may feel that they qualify. So. Could I ask Betsy and whether she feels that a sheriff's department could be a qualified organization. Well, the way that this language is currently structured, it really would be up to ACCD to determine qualification. I was envisioning this line of. I was envisioning this language originally. More closely to what Senator Clarkson was. Indicating. That. The grants are really more toward regional entities, but I also didn't think of. The sheriff's department in the manner that Sheriff Anderson was describing. So maybe it's just. Me not having that in mind. I feel like. The sheriffs are one of the entities we're hoping will. Be included in it. It's almost like a company. One of the people we're hoping will be a player in. In improving the regional. Response effort in public safety. I don't know. It strikes me slightly competitive that. That they have that as a voice. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. When they're one of the entities we're wanting to be part of it is. A little awkward. I'm not able to articulate exactly what I'm saying. But well, they strike as one of the players and not necessarily the appropriate disinterested party. That should be convening them all for the conversation. I think that is the keyword there. That it's a disinterested party. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. If you. And. ACCD may say. In some. County. The county sheriff might be the appropriate. Regional organization. But in some county, they may not be at all. And if you're talking up here about. Your. If the. If the sheriff's. Office is the one that convenes this planning group. Is there. Automatically. Is there. Public safety. Yes. Entities in the, in the region, because I think that that's. We want to avoid that. We want it to be. Wanted to be. Right. Organs facilitated by somebody who has no dog in the fight. Right. Exactly. Disinterested. Does that answer that at all, Mark? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I think that. DCD has the latitude to make that decision. And it makes sense. For example, Grand Isle County. Then that is perfectly fine. And. We look forward to being part of the solution. And remember, there are only three. Okay. So now I think that we are. Done. Yeah. Yeah. There are a couple of languages that need to come from. The department of health and. EMS around. There's a couple languages in there to make sure that we're saying the right thing. And then the effective dates. For the deadlines. Am I right about that committee? Right. Oh, Chris Bray just moved. Again, he just moved to Bristol. Okay. Yeah. I would like to get this done as soon as possible so that we can get, because it's going to have to go to appropriations. And as much as possible, we would like to pass this bill this year. So is it, is it possible. To have. That done by tomorrow afternoon. The day that's a group. And they're all nodding their heads. They're not shaking. Yeah, I have very, I have just a few amendments to make. And then I'll just be able to fill in. The dates. Whenever you're, you're, you're able to let me know what the date should be. Okay. Committee. Sounds good. Sure. Okay. Absolutely. All right, let's finish this tomorrow. And try and get it wrapped up and voted out. Okay. Sounds good. Okay. So Madam chair, will this be the only thing on tomorrow's agenda? Well, I don't know. I have to, I guess I have to look at what else we need to do. Committee. You know, This phone. Is in here. And my phone answer is falling down on his job. What else committee. We've passed all our bills. I don't know that we've gotten any more from the house. Have we? I'm sure we will clerk. Have you brought any more down? I've gotten so much exercise, bringing those down there. Um, We have some spares and natural resources and energy. If you'd like. I mean, you're knocking it out of the park. Maybe I could give you something little. 250 bill. Sure. Yeah. We could do that. We'll do it. We're getting for anything there, Senator Bragg. Okay. So let's finish this up tomorrow. And then if you think of other things that need to be on the agenda, send them to me. And I would actually at some point, but not tomorrow, maybe Thursday. I would love to do what we were going to do before. But I would like to get an update. An update on our burn pit bill. He, as you may have read, um, our wonderful witness, uh, has actually sued the VA. Wesley. Yes. Good. Well, I'd like to get an update. Does that. Do the rest of you want to get some kind of update on that? I think that's great. Okay. Good. So if there's anything, I think that we'll, we'll, we'll. Gayle. I'll send you, let's figure out when. When we can do that, because we want to give people enough time. So tomorrow let's just. Finish this. And, um, if any emergency thing comes up other ways, we'll be done early. Does that work. You bet. Okay. Okay. It's at 8.30, sad, yeah, and I don't know how we, I mean, it just seems short because we have a nine o'clock joint hearing with the house. So in Senate economic development, so a half an hour, we have lots to discuss. I'm impressed that he thinks we can do it all in half an hour. Or maybe you'll just have to leave. Oh, well, what a thought. There is that. The indication was we wouldn't be done until 9.45. Peter Sterling, so far. Oh, did he? 9.45. Okay. Okay, I think we have judiciary at 10. Oh, the other thing that I would like for us to discuss at some point is the finances of the sheriff's offices. Mark has sent me some information on that and I'll send that out to everybody today. We can look at it tomorrow or Thursday. That's Anne. Oh, we got a reply back from Secretary Bloomer, advising that the Senate Rules Committee has not approved the elections bill. But I just wanted to put that on your radar that Senate Rules Committee will need to approve it before Senate GovOps can introduce it. Okay, I'll ask them to meet maybe at 9.45 tomorrow morning. Thank you. Sorry, I was just reading Tucker's email. We are on tomorrow afternoon after the floor and we're anticipating that being at what, two? Oh, I don't know. Are you doing your bill tomorrow, Brian? Yes, I think you can figure on 90 minutes on the floor tomorrow. Okay. So, 2.30. Just to guess. Well, as a reminder, I'm starting the call at 1.30 for anybody who wants to just join in and wait for the Senate to finish. A little bit, it's on S190. I think there was, Senator McDonald was getting questions. I have a feeling that we won't get stuck but it's a bill with pluses and minuses and if we really start to get into it, it's a slow way down. I think when the Pro Tem spoke last, that was kind of a, no one loves this bill but it's probably a decent thing to just get ahead with. So maybe we'll be fine on the floor. I would hope so. I mean, we can sometimes beat things to death. Yes. We do have that ability to do. Okay. So tomorrow afternoon, we'll only do 1.24 then since I forgot we were on the floor. We'll only do 1.24 and finish that up. And Thursday we'll look at the financing for the sheriffs and anything else that anybody has. And if we can get people for Friday, we'll do an update on the burn pit. If not, we'll put it till the next Tuesday. We are in good shape. You're in excellent shape. Do you have a notion from Sarah Copeland-Hanzes as to what else is coming to us from them? That's a top priority? No, I don't. I think that my understanding is that we've got everything that were there, top priorities, but I will check again. So, okay. Okay. Thank you. Bye, go enjoy the heat. Bye.