 Good afternoon. You are with the Vermont House Government Operations Committee. We were delivered an executive order late last week relating to the restructuring of the Department of Public Safety into an agency of public safety and as a way of getting ourselves familiar with what an executive order is and does and in particular what this one contains. We are going to spend a little time on that this afternoon. So we have with us Luke Martland and Luke, I would love to have you take us through a little bit about what is an executive order and what it does and what the legislative role is in that. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair and good afternoon everyone. I'm Luke Martland, Director of Ledge Council and Chief Counsel to the General Assembly. And as a chair indicated I'll give you some background today on how the House or the Senate could consider and either approve or disapprove an executive order from the governor. And my colleague, Emmer and Emmer Jolly would will hopefully join us soon, and she could give you more details on the specific executive order and walk through its specific provisions with you. So I'll start out with the intro, the background if you will, and then hopefully she'll join us she's in another committee right now, and she can pick up the conversation and carry it forward. As always, if there's a question, please stop me. I'll let the chair recognize questions as she thinks best, but I would encourage questions if anything I say is unclear. On January 14 the governor submitted to executive orders to the House and to the Senate, and each would reorganize or change the functions of a different executive branch agency or department. And the one you are considering would solidify or coordinate all law enforcement duties in a new agency of public safety. Now, pursuant to three vsa chapter 41, the governor can propose changes in the organization or functions of executive branch agencies and departments pursuant to an executive order. The procedure for the governor to do so is set forth in that chapter, and more specifically in three vsa section to 002. And by the way, all the background I'm giving to you is also contained in the memo that I sent you, and that is posted on the webpage. So pursuant to three vsa to 002 an EO proposing the reorganization must be submitted to both the House and the Senate on or before January 15 of each year. The proposed reorganization set forth in the executive order will then become effective, unless disproved by resolution by either House of the General Assembly within 90 days, or before final adjournment of that annual session, whichever comes first. And there's other provisions in the same chapter that deal with other things that aren't directly relevant to our discussion today. For example, how money is moved to follow the reorganization terms of gubernatorial appointees and some other matters. Therefore, the process set forth in three vsa chapter 41 is quite straightforward. Number one, the governor may issue an executive order that reorganizes executive branch departments or agencies. He has to submit that executive order before January 15 of each year. Number two, as I said, the EO can propose changes. Number three, if either the House or the Senate passes a resolution within 90 days, disapproving that proposed reorganization, it does not take effect. And number four, if neither body does so, then it does take effect. So I just set forth in the memo and I won't walk through these individual executive orders. This has been in effect the statute for approximately 50 years. It's been used multiple times by different administrations. It was used previously by the governor Scott administration, including in 2017. And I explained those executive orders and what happened to each one of them. I'm going to pause and welcome any questions you have or guidance from the chair about what else you'd like me to discuss. Are there any questions. How Thank you, Madam chair. Thank you, Luke for that overview. My question is, are we able to amend the executive order or to accept it as is or not to accept it. I think it's a straight up or down. In other words, I do not think you can amend it because it comes from the governor's office. It's his executive order. So I do not think you can amend it. And I think it's instead of decision whether you wish to approve it, in which case you do nothing, or disapprove it, in which case you would pass a resolution stating that. And by the way, if you decide to disapprove it, the resolution doesn't need to state why you disapprove it, it could. All the house would need to do is pass a resolution saying it disapproves the executive order for whatever reason you think appropriate. I do not think you need to spell that out. Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead, Peter. Oh, thank you, Madam chair. I'm sure you notice this both of the executive orders in my reading, which is probably why you spent so much time saying it has to be either not both because the language in each of them makes it seem like both houses have to disapprove. I know what you're unequivocally saying is that's not right. I guess that's one observation. The other question, perhaps for a chairwoman better. Are we to discuss today just the one on public, the proposal of an agency of public safety or both representative chairwoman. I think for today we will focus on the one that's most directly in line with our committee jurisdiction, and that is public safety, and we will wait and see what the fish wildlife and natural resources committee does with the other executive order before we spend time on that. And representative Anthony. Yes, you are correct and that is why I did stress those words and why I spend time in the footnote. Both executive orders clearly state that the executive order needs to be disapproved by both bodies that is incorrect. That is a false summary of applicable law. Instead the statute clearly states that an executive order only needs to be disapproved by either body. And in fact, that is a procedure that has been followed for 50 years. So, it is what the executive orders attempt to imply or state is incorrect. John Ganon. Thank you. Thank you for testifying today. What is the operative part of the executive order. And by that, there's a number of whereas clauses here that make certain statements. Are those operative. Or do we just look at the now therefore clause at the very end of the executive order. That's a good question I think the operative part is a now therefore clauses and the whereas I always view as similar legislative findings. It's an explanation or background. Once again, either body could disapprove this CEO for any reason it deems appropriate whatever that is. So, you can look at the whole thing or only look at part of it and then you make your decision as you think appropriate. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Bob Hooper. Okay, Luke. And unlike a veto simple majority. Yes, I'm almost positive about that you should definitely check with the clerk but I think it's a simple majority vote. I would check with the clerk to make sure. Thank you. Can you help me understand a little bit more about the timeline what what constitutes 90 days 90 calendar days night slate of days. Because some of the therefore clause is dated for April 15 to be the day that certain changes happen. So when is 90 days up April 14. So, I counted and then I had for my colleagues count because I don't trust my ability count, and we all ended up with April 14. So 90 days is calendar days. We started on the 15th, it was filed on the 14th we styled on the day after it was filed. And then we counted 90 we all ended up with April 14. And if we're all wrong, then it's it's only one day difference, but we came to April 14 so action would have to be completed before April 14. I appreciate you checking on that given given our questioning of the accuracy of the third whereas clause. Other questions from committee members. Right, I am not seeing any questions. So, I understand that Amarin is finishing up in another committee. Yeah, she's testifying in house natural about the other executive order where we're splitting up duties. So I hope she'll be able to join you soon. Okay, Mike Marwicki has a question. This is for you madam chair. Since we have a moment I'm just wondering if you have any sense of a timeline for us and who we need to hear from next and if you if you're taking suggestions for who we need to hear from. I will always take suggestions. The workload of the committee this week was intentionally left open in the event that we need to take any testimony with respect to budget adjustment which has a tight timeline. And we'll talk about that again, maybe in a moment here. Yes, we will take this up in short order and and begin working our way through how the executive order envisions changes to the Department of Public Safety and with particular look to how, how the changes proposed here impact some of the work that we did last year in our criminal justice reform work. Yeah, go ahead. And pardon me if this is already been sent out but do we have documents from the administration, which, which explain these these moves. As far as I know the only document that's been sent so far is this executive order which you can find on our committee page under today's date. Thank you. There's more background documentation I haven't seen it yet. Thank you, Luke. I was looking at the second whereas clause, which seems to be making a constitutional argument that both houses have to pass a resolution. I know you have a footnote in your, your memo that talks about the constitutionality of three VSA section 2001, 2001 and 2002 but am I reading that whereas clause correctly. That's how I interpreted it. It seems to clearly be their implication. And, and they seem to want to have it both ways. I mean in one way they're using this vehicle. They don't have to they could seek a bill to achieve these changes, but they're using this vehicle that is afforded to them to try to implement these changes. But then on the other hand they seem to be misrepresenting part of the applicable law, and then they seem to be implying that the law that they are choosing to use may even have constitutional questions. So they seem to want to have it more than one way. It is an unusual statute. And I do think there could be constitutional questions raised about it, but it has not been challenged. It's valid. It's on the books. It's been used for 50 years. So as of right now, it is a valid law. Thank you for that. And as you pointed on your memo, Governor Scott has used this on multiple occasions in the past without challenging it on a constitutional basis. Before I get to Peter Luke and your review of of this executive order. Did you happen to go back and look to see if the 2017 executive orders contained this same assertion. Yes, I did and no, they do not. I looked at them a few days ago, but I believe what they said, at the end is unless disapproved by the general assembly pursuant to then they started to statue. So that would seem a more accurate summary of the law. I don't believe they contain those introductory whereas clauses that representative Ganon just highlighted and the conclusion was different and and did not state that both bodies would need to disapprove. So the 2017 executive order seemed to be accurate and had different language than the current executive orders. Thank you. Peter Anthony. Thank you, Madam Chair, much as I'm intrigued at the thought of a constitutional collision. I'm not sure that's our job, or at least I'm not up to it. I guess I would pose this to you. This may be a naive question but given that this is an administrative executive branch reorganization. Where would we go, so to say, for testimony, since the likely people who pop into my mind would immediately be accountable to the very proposer of the reorganization. I'm non plus I guess. Well I think it's safe to assume that the different departments these departments of state government that are that are mentioned here will all testify to the same effect that they support the unification of these different government functions into an agency. But as we know from work that we've done with respect to the Department of Public Safety there are many other entities around the state in in the judicial branch as well as interest groups who may want to weigh in with us about the details of this. And so part of the reason for not diving into this immediately is that I think it would be helpful if if other folks had an opportunity to digest their reaction to the to the proposal and and we will certainly call them in in the coming weeks to hear their reactions to it. If I may a footnote, I can tell you from sort of local radio traffic as it were the dispatch topic, which will be drawn in by the state police into a more centralized and consequently a billable as it happens activity is somewhat controversial maybe I'm even soft soft soaping it it may be more than somewhat controversial. Thanks. We've been around that track a few times. So you're, you're picking up some of the same chatter that we have heard in the past. Bob Hooper. Order also produced an explosion of employee conversation about what does this mean to me and a lot of it is a little unclear so there might be conversation that comes from people who are actually impacted, being taken away from the people that they have been co located and working with and now put someplace else. And I can certainly hope that when we ask the various departments to come in and testify that they will get into the granular level of the day to day functions of their departments and and make a case for why this makes more sense than the way they're organized currently. Any other questions from committee members. Mark Higley, go ahead. So, Luke, maybe you can remember but didn't the shumlin administration propose a restructuring of the risk management division and, and that that required quite a bit of conversation from, you know, VSE a employees and others as well at the time is my correct and remember that. I'm sorry I can't answer that question I don't know. Thank you. Rob LeClaire. Thank you madam chair. I think I can answer some of that question. Not only was it proposed by the shumlin administration but it was to outsource that particular function which I think actually did end up happening if I'm not mistaken. Hi Rob. All right. Are there any other questions for Luke. All right. Thank you so much, Luke. Thank you and I'll try to make sure that I'm running can join you. That sounds great we have a few minutes of committee discussion here on on responding to budget adjustment. And so we will occupy ourselves until we see Amron in the waiting room. Thank you. So last week we jumped right in and, and assign some folks to, to be liaisons to the budget process and today is Wednesday, I believe that the appropriations committee would like to have a yay or nay from us by Friday or, or Monday afternoon at the latest. And so I guess I just want to ask folks are you, are you getting what you need for information about whether there's a budget adjustment proposal in your section of the budget and, and are there anything, anything's being proposed in budget adjustment that rise to the level of needing to take a little testimony here in the policy committee. So I think Rob's hand was up from before so mark. Yeah, so madam chair I reached out to representative Harrison and representative Townsend. Those are my two links there and appropriations. It appears to me that. And I'm not real familiar with this but there was some money set aside last year for reserve for the use of space, whether it's the very auditorium and very auditorium and other other buildings. My understanding is that money is being drawn back probably probably to go for other uses so you know that would be something I would think that we would at least look at as far as, you know, whether whether or not that's an appropriate thing to have happen. And then I guess the other issue was. And again I'm not real convinced of this but there's a, I believe in the in the budget adjustments is also a provision around body cams for DMV liquor control folks and so on so those are the two things that I was made aware of anyway. I appreciate that. If you could shoot an email to me and to Andrea with a couple of suggestions of who could come in and testify to that. Namely who who has testified or who will testify in the appropriations committee and anyone else who may have an interest in weighing in on that that would be helpful thanks for that report. Thank you. Mark's right. There are requests for money funding for body cameras for liquor control personnel $15,000 fishing wildlife enforcement $45,000 and motor vehicle law enforcement personnel $138,000. So those are fairly significant, even more significant. And this information came from representative Townsend public safety is requesting training costs for S one, one 19 which we passed last session of $402,000 for the state and $1.4 million for municipalities. So those are significant budget adjustments. All right, so it looks like we're going to find some things to fill in our committee agenda later this week. Thank you for that. Bob Hooper. With specific relation to the auditor's office there's nothing in budget adjustment that we would be dealing with. Nothing in budget adjustment period for the auditor's office so that was my little area of interest I talked to Kim. She verified that. Thank you. Mark your hand still up. You have some notes. No, okay. Peter Anthony. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to thank Mark I I treated it as a local issue. The mention of the Barry auditorium there are many local communities that have offered facilities for regional application in the context of cares either backup medical sites testing sites, inoculation sites the auditorium is one of them. And I like representative eagerly would be rather disappointed if all of a sudden the locals had offered real estate and facilities at the behest of the state and then all of a sudden the money disappeared to support those facilities. So thank you very much for raising that. Other questions or reports on areas of budget adjustment. All right. Well that's perfect timing because now we have Ameron in the waiting room and we will invite her in to talk about the executive order. Hi, Ameron. Hello. Thank you for zooming in from your last committee meeting into this committee meeting. If we were present in the state house we would give you a moment to catch your breath after printing up the stairs. Hopefully you've had a moment to sort of reorient yourself to which executive order we're we're discussing right now we had a good conversation with Luke Martland. And we would love to dive in a little bit to the operative parts of the executive order related to public safety. Perfect. So, does everyone have access to the executive order and can do it on a. Yes, it is up on our committee page and hopefully folks can call it up. Okay, I will note that I also submitted just a sort of truncated timeline document. Just to highlight the pertinent dates. I believe Andrea also posted that it's sort of a quick reference to see what's going to be happening over the 18 months if this passes into effect. Thank you. That's helpful. You're welcome. So I'm going to walk through the language of the executive order itself. This is an executive order to create the agency of public safety. I'm going to cruise through the first couple pages of where as is, let me make sure I have the correct document. Okay. So starting on the second page, I think it's worth noting the the goals that are stated here for the creation of the agency of public safety, the goals of law enforcement and modernization and reform and optimal government efficacy require a stronger and more direct alignment of state government law enforcement services officer and executive training recruitment and policy development and implementation. And the executive order states the state could improve and more efficiently deliver law enforcement and emergency response services to the public through the reorganization of the Department of Public Safety into a single agency of public safety. So that's just a little background on the stated purpose for creating the agency of public safety. I'm sure once you hear more from the administration, you'll hear more background on that. But in terms of the mechanics of what this executive order proposes to do, starting towards the bottom of page two. It's important to note that all duties obligations responsibilities and authority, including contracts grant agreements service level agreements and MOUs that are currently at the Department of Public Safety would be transferred to the agency of public safety. Similarly, all financial assets and liabilities, including all appropriations associated with the positions at the Department of Public Safety would be transferred over to the agency of public safety. And then lastly all authorized positions functions equipment supplies and inventory is going to be changed over. This is, you will see these phrases covered multiple times throughout the executive order as they talk about the shift of some of these entities over into the agency of public safety. Moving on to page three. It's important to note that the commissioner and deputy commissioner positions at the Department of Public Safety will be abolished, and that all the duties and responsibilities and authorities of those positions will be transferred into new positions of the secretary of the agency of public safety and the deputy secretary. The agency of public safety shall be headed by the secretary who would be appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. And then the secretary may appoint a deputy secretary with the approval of the governor. These changes would take effect April 15 2021. So this would be the first day that the executive order comes into effect. If the House or Senate does not disapprove the executive order on the lower half of page three and into page four. The executive order lays out what the structure of the agency of public safety would look like. There would be three departments. First the department of fire safety emergency management, a department of law enforcement, and then lastly a division of support services. Both the department of fire safety and emergency management as well as the department of law enforcement will have commissioners, which will be appointed by the secretary with the approval of the governor. And it's worth noting that division of support services would report directly to the deputy secretary of the agency rather than have its own commissioner. So for the department of fire safety and emergency management, there would be four divisions within that homeland security and emergency management, inspection division, fire safety division and then the technical response unit and there are some additional layers beneath listed there. For the department of law enforcement. There would just be two divisions which is the motor vehicle enforcement, which is presently in the department of motor vehicles, and then the Vermont State Police. And then lastly, the division of support services would encompass the administrative division, the communications division, including the E 911 board, PSAPs radio technology units, then a fleet services division, a forensic lab division, a training division which would include the criminal justice council, as well as the fire safety training council, and the state fire and police training facilities. And then the last part of the support services division would be the Vermont Crime Information Center, including the sex offender registry. I will also note that the switch over briefly. In the timeline. Let me just scroll up here to make sure that I'm saying this correctly that the, the medical marijuana board which, excuse me the medical marijuana registry is currently in the Vermont Crime Information Center. It is not referenced in the executive order. So it may be worth following up to see whether this plans on transitioning over to the agency of public safety, or whether it would in some way be moved over sooner into the cannabis control board which it's scheduled to on March 1 2022. So that's just something we wanted to flag to make sure that the committee is aware. It's not mentioned in here, presumably, it would move over with the Vermont Crime Information Center. I see a hand. So, yes, I suspect it might be on that topic. So go ahead, John Gannon. Thank you. You sort of answer my question with respect to medical cannabis or marijuana dispensary. So that's an open question. The other thing I know there there seem to be appropriations tied into this executive order. I mean, there's promotions of to commission heads to agency heads. That's going to cost money. They're moving some law enforcement agencies from other departments. Public safety. So that's going to cost money but I did ask Representative Townsend and appropriations that they're taking this up in the budget adjustment act. And she indicated they were not. So I'm just wondering where the funding is coming from. Given that much of this begins on April 15 of 2021. Have you heard or I have not heard and I agree that that is a good question. The appropriations that are currently with these positions would transfer over but anything that is beyond that. That is a good question to ask where that money is going to be coming from. Any other questions before I start back up again. Let's see. So moving down to the bottom of page four. Let's talk about the criminal justice council. So you'll see there's the main shift of most of the Department of Public Safety into the agency of public safety, effective April 15. You'll see that the criminal justice council, however, has a later transition date of July 1 2021. And again, all duties obligations and responsibilities and authority of the criminal justice council under title 20. Chapter 151, including all contracts grants grant agreements service level agreements MOUs, all of that would be transferred over to the agency of public safety. As we discussed higher up this would also include the transfer of financial assets and liabilities, the transfer of position supplies equipment inventory. I see another hand so I will pause. Go ahead, John. Thank you. Just so the committee understands, can you explain the current status of the criminal justice council is an independent public safety now is an basically an independent agency. Just so people understand what's happening under this executive order. The criminal justice council is independent. Its composition is laid out within title 20 chapter 151. The, it is a rather large council, and the composition is statutorily laid out in terms of where the appointments come from. And so for the bulk of this executive order you have mostly the people who are already within the Department of Public Safety, moving over to the agency of public safety, the criminal justice council is outside. The E 911 board is outside and the motor vehicle enforcement division is outside. So those are the three entities that it would be moving in with the rest of the Department of Public Safety into this umbrella organization of an agency of public safety. So, if the criminal justice council is within the Department of Public Safety, does that mean that the Department of Public Safety can change the makeup of the council. The makeup of the council is set by statute currently and it does say that all duties obligations responsibilities and authority of the council under title 20 is transferred. That's a good question. I had not thought about it in that aspect. The reason for new members the reason I raise that is as people who were on the committee last year now, we spent a lot of time in S 124 changing the makeup of the council so that it was made up of a majority of people who were members of the public, and not related to law enforcement. I thought that was really important because they are judging people's professional conduct law enforcement professional conduct, and we want to make sure that it was independent and there were independent sets of eyes that were, were reviewing professional conduct so one of my concerns here is, if all of a sudden it's now back under public safety. Do we lose the independence of that council. And I do think it would be worth asking as you hear testimony on this, what, what the plans are for that and how they view this statutory, the very prescriptive statutes that lay out the composition of the council. And I will also look into that in the meantime. Thanks, Amron. You're welcome. And thank you john for bringing that up. That's an important consideration for this committee, because it was a major piece of work that we put a lot of time into and heard a lot of public testimony on last just last fall. Peter Anthony. Thank you very much madam chair I, I'm glad john raised that I couldn't. Couldn't for the life of me figure out how an executive order could Trump a specific statute outlining composition and appointment powers for an independent council but I'd like that confirmed by Amron. A rather different note. I once upon a time I was more involved with the executive branch. And there was a mini cabinet that didn't composed of most of the commissioners, apart from or separate from the core cabinet, obviously composed of secretaries. Obviously this changes. What is the current composition of the. Just, how would you say, smallest number of the cabinet of secretaries, is there a place maybe I should know this is there a place which diagrams essentially the executive branch so that I could look at the current mini cabinet versus the existing cabinet of secretaries and figure out what's going on aside from the money issue. It seems to me, one of the intriguing things is the rearrangement of how the mini cabinet relates to the chief executive officer of the state. I think we could find that I'm trying to think the state workforce report might have a diagram of the state entities but I can, I can find out if there is a document that is updated to reflect current agencies and departments. Any other questions before I keep going. So moving on to down on to page five. Okay, so as we discussed the criminal justice council would be moved under the agency of public safety as of July 1 2021. And then as of November 15 2021 I will say this is an item that I noted on the timeline sheet that I gave you the secretary of the agency of public safety would report to the governor as well as the leadership of the general assembly and the house and senate operations and advisory committees on the status of the organizational transition and then recommend any legislative changes that are needed to continue an orderly and efficient organizational transition. Moving on to the Vermont enhanced 911 board. This also would be on a date as maybe agreed by the general assembly but no later than July 1 2022 all duties obligations responsibilities and authority of the Vermont enhanced 911 board under title 30 chapter 87 and applicable rules, including contracts grant agreements service level agreements and MOUs shall be transferred to the agency of public safety in the division of operations. Again, we have the same transfer of financial assets and liabilities, including appropriations associated with the positions transferred. And moving on to page six. Again positions functions equipment supplies and inventory would be transferred to the agency. The 911 board will have the administrative technical and legal assistance of the agency and may request the assistance of any executive branch agency. I've been here about that the executive director of the 911 board shall be appointed by the secretary of the agency. And subject to the approval of the governor and the executive director may appoint officers employees agents and consultants as he or she may deem necessary and prescribe their duties and consultation with a 911 board. This is a statue. This is language that is mirrored in the current statutory provisions for the 911 board. So they're just making sure that it gets included in here. However, if you want any more information on what that looks like that might be something you want to ask witnesses as they come in. And then lastly the rules of the 911 board effective as of the date of the transfer will become rules under the agency of public safety. So that's for the 911 board, then for motor vehicle enforcement officers. Again, no later than July 1 2022 all duties obligations responsibilities of the certified law enforcement officers and the department of motor vehicles enforcement division. 19 and 20, excuse me title 19 and 20 title 23 will be transferred over to the agency of public safety within the department of law enforcement and then its own division of motor vehicle enforcement. Again same language as above financial assets and liabilities will be transferring over all authorized positions functions equipment supplies and inventory will be transferred over including all sworn officers. And a chief executive officer, also called a director of the department of law enforcement shall be appointed by the secretary of the agency. I'm going to pause. I see a hand. Go ahead, John. So I just want to know, you know, having spent a lot of time looking at law enforcement retirement. So I think we're going to be talking about session. Aren't there collective bargaining agreements issues with respect to moving union employees from one agency to another. Because I know that the DMV law enforcement are unionized. Just more clarity on how that happens. I think that is a good question I did go back and look at the executive order which established the agency of digital services and I did see in there that there was a consultation with the department of human resources over the transfer positions. I don't know. I don't know whether that should be included in here. It may be worth hearing a bit more about whether there are additional steps that need to take place around the transition of classified service positions. I am not sure. Thank you. You're welcome. I've got another question from Peter Anthony. I think I'm sure John knows this. I just want to say it for the sake of anybody who doesn't as it turns out the state police have their own bargaining unit. They're not part of the VSE a so that I don't know there are there some issues it seems to me embedded in here that I'm not even fully aware of I just know that these are separate contracts. Thank you. Okay, so I am now on page seven of the executive order. So again it's worth noting that the rules of the agency of transportation and DMV relating to the responsibilities and duties enforcement officers effective as of the date of the transfer shall become the rules of the agency of public safety. So rather than the adoption of new rules that would need to go through the rulemaking process. These would presumably if this goes into effect automatically be transferred over into the new agency. So our our last remaining items here it's noted that the physical locations of the departments and divisions of the agency of public safety will be determined by the secretary of public safety with approval of the secretary of administration. So that may indicate that there might be some movement of physical locations. Then there will be. If this executive order passes into effect. A study from the agency of public safety that will look at the effectiveness, efficiency and delivery of state public safety law enforcement services, and shall report the governor and the general assembly on or before October 15 2022. So this study and report would be about the feasibility and advisability of transferring the operations of multiple branches of law enforcement, the Department of Fish and Wildlife certified law enforcement officers. The Department of liquor and lottery certified law enforcement officers, the Capitol Police, the Department of Labor relating to VOSHA project work safe and passenger tramway safety. Again, the report date on that is October 15 2022. And then lastly, honor before November 15 2022 sounds like again the legislature and the governor will get a check in from the secretary to explain the status of the transition and recommend any legislative changes that are needed to complete the transition. And the end of the executive order notes that the secretary of the agency shall become a member of the governor's cabinet. As well as such commissioners of the departments created by law as the governor in his judgment shall appoint to be a member of the cabinet. So again, unless this executive order is disapproved by one by either house of the general assembly or the House or the Senate. This would take effect on April 15 2021. So again, I sent you over a timeline which for me was helpful just to map out in my mind what the timeframe is going to look like over the next 18 months. But the more detailed information is in here in the executive order. Thank you, Amron. Committee members any questions for Amron on what we have just gone through. All right, John Gannon. I just should note that it appears this executive order also creates two new policy committees the Senate and House committees of operations. I didn't know that those existed. An expansion or a contraction of our duties. It's a bit of a role reversal. All right, any other questions from committee members. All right, I trust you will be in contact with me as you think about the various entities you would like to have in front of us as we consider this. And we will, we'll begin work on this in the coming weeks. Mike Marwicky, Mike hit that unmute button again. Thanks I just want to amplify the concerns raised by John about the, the board that we stood up and to see where. I'd like to hear again. Overall the ration now for what what the governor is proposing but especially that and if it, if it actually undoes our hope that it would be a majority civilian oversight on that board. Definitely. Bob Hooper. Thank you madam chair I just throw out some information to john probably knows and Peter raised this. This will have impact on retirement for a lot of these people because it's a hodgepodge of people that are in law enforcement still in plan F in law enforcement on plan C with a different proposal and then there's the state cops which are completely different so it's going to be hodgepodge of that to get worked out and probably when it does get worked out it'll cost us more money. Thank you. Good point. Any other questions from committee members or perspectives that you would like us to dig a little deep more deeply into. So I've got an email out to representative Harrison in regards to that kind of a clawback covert money for for rentals. And maybe how can help me out on this I heard your name mentioned. Maybe that's I had I could, I couldn't find that amount as to what it was in the budget adjustment so I've got that question in as well. Could it be possibly be through BGS. And I'm asking how just because I heard that you maybe were involved with that. Outfit last year. I'm not. I'm not familiar with, with your question. I'm not understanding. You're asking if I was involved with the BGS issue or. I believe representative Harris, Harrison mentioned. That, that you were the go to person through BGS last year, am I mistaken. I believe so. I wasn't involved as I am in this session. So I didn't have any details to offer. I just participated as, as the, as the committee. Okay. So what I'm saying, I guess is I'll find out for sure who we should get in here to talk about those, those particular provisions. Of callback of COVID. But I believe in me. Thanks, Mark Robbler Claire. Thank you, manager. I may be a little off the mark here, but I think it is. I think we're heading in the right direction there. Mark about BGS. I believe the money they're talking about. If I'm correct here is the money that they were looking that they had kind of allocated for the legislature. Potentially us coming back with a hybrid session. There was a lot of discussion around while one opening day at the Berry auditorium. And so we were having a couple of days worth of meetings there. And then I know that there had been a lot of robust conversation and around, I believe us taking over one, the fifth floor of 133 State Street. And some other spaces. And if it's my understanding that money was allocated for fit up for those spaces, but it looks like we may not be using them potentially. But the confusing piece for me is I looked over the budget adjustment act and I can't see anything in there in regards to, you know, any money specifically set aside for that or taken back from that so we'll we'll get it squared away. Thank you gentlemen I appreciate your hard work on that. All right, any other committee discussion, either with respect to the executive order or your budget adjustment assignments. All right. Thank you, Amron for going through. Oh, Sam LeFave has a question go ahead Sam. It was not given an assignment which I understand why but I'm just offering out if anyone needs help. I am willing to work. I very much appreciate that and we will certainly try to create more opportunities for for teamwork on on these budget areas when we move into the big bill so that our newer committee members can can jump in and get their feet wet with how to track the alignment of budget and policy questions. Thank you for Amron before we let her go. All right, thank you so much the timeline is particularly helpful to see how it is envisioned to all come together and we will, we will need to have you back I'm sure as we begin to take some testimony from these departments. Sounds good thank you. Okay, so committee we are done with our agenda for the day. I just want to invite any of you who are working on particular budget adjustment issues to to shoot me and Andrea and email. And as soon as you come across something that you would like us to spend some more time on so that we can work on getting that scheduled for the gaps that we have in our committee later this week. Let's see. Our agenda has been updated a couple of times. We are back here in committee tomorrow morning to get an overview from Chris Rupi who's at JFO on sort of how our pension system works and if he gets as deep into the weeds as as Bob Hooper was talking about a moment ago about the patchwork of different kinds of pension plans in different law enforcement divisions around the state so so we'll do that tomorrow morning and so if you want to pop on a few minutes before on to chit chat and find out what everybody had for breakfast we'll see you a few