 All right. Good morning. It is Thursday, March 25th. And we are returning to JRH2, which is our joint resolution, sincerely apologizing and expressing sorrow regarding the eugenics policies and practices that we put into place in the 20th century. We have received quite a bit of testimony on this. We did quite a bit of good work on this at the end of last week on adding material. And where we left it was with version 2.1, which Michael Churnick has provided for us on our website. And we have a series of bracketed materials that we did not want to make a decision on last Friday, but we had made some decisions, but we just left it that we would return to this today and see how close we are when we go through the bracketed material to finishing our work on writing this apology. So we have, does everybody have access to this, or do you want it shared up on the screen? Do you want me to share it up on the screen? Yes, please. I was going to say I find it easier if we can all see each other, but that's okay. Whichever, if people need it up there, that's fine. All right. Chip, do you want to still see it up on the screen? My iPad's on the charger. And Mary said she would. It's fine. And so in this case again, remember that I can't see everybody. If we're just conversational and you want to chime in, that's fine. If we get into lengthy things, just raise your hand. I mean, we do really well with the raising hands here in this committee. I appreciate that very much. But if I can't see you, I like to see everybody as well because I get to monitor people's body language or if their hands are half up or something like that. So all right, give me a second here. I don't think we're live either. Is that intentional? Yeah, we're live. We're live. Okay. All right. Can you see that? Can you see the document? No, not yet. How about now? Yes. All right. So I just have to say, and then I'll stop talking, but I don't see the live insignia that usually indicates to me that we are live. So that's fine if it's my glitch. I see it. It's here. Okay. I see it too. Just so you know, I check the live stream to make sure it's working when we start. All right. So let's just scroll through here. The first bracket of material is the first result. There's the first whereas. It's bracketed, I believe. Well, what's your pleasure? Representative Triano got a hand up? I do. I think I spoke last week about the historic value of this clause, this whereas just, you know, again, the term from on state hospital for the insane. We know that it was not only the insane that were lodged there, it was people that children or adults that towns didn't want to care for, spend money to care for, and many other people. And so, you know, I think it has value in the historic perspective as to the way things progressed as to the end result here. So I would be in favor of keeping this. Thank you. I think we have consensus on this one to keep. Okay. Tommy, you had your hand up for a second. Are you okay? Yeah, I'm okay. I'm just not in favor of making resolutions into novels. And so, you know, I'm okay either way to leading or leaving this one in. Okay. Noted. No novelization. Representative Parsons. Thank you, Chair. I just would follow with Representative Waltz on that. I'm going to support whatever we come out with on this, but it really turned into a bit of a novel here instead of just a pretty concise apology. So I'm probably not going to make my point 50 more times, but there it is. Okay. Representative Murphy. Thank you. I was just going to actually be in support of this one because I think it is the only one that speaks to it even predating 1900. It's setting a stage of the longevity of this process. But I will in the future, there's future ones that I would suggest are redundant and excessive. Okay. So I'm not going to, so Michael's taking notes. Michael, you just take notes and then you'll reflect them back to us after we get through. I am for right now. I'm putting the word key next to that, to this clause based upon what I heard. Okay. All right. I'm on page two now, line four, where we had bracketed, discredited. And also, I think we had, I think the consensus was against people, people, you all share. I don't want to test my memory now. Barbara? Well, I don't remember what our decision then was, but I would suggest we remove discredited, because again, it's when he established it, it was not. And I think that it's just setting the stage. And I understand that the desire to just say that we went, we didn't believe in it in the end, but it wasn't discredited when it was established. And this is a statement about it being established. Representative Wallace? Well, mute. Yes, I would suggest we replace discredited with controversial, because clearly it was not unanimous. And there were strong, strong opposition, I think from the very beginning, about the science of the whole Perkins initiative. Representative Hango? Thank you. Well, I was going to agree wholeheartedly with Representative Murphy, but Representative Wallace brings up a very good point. So I'm neutral on it now. Representative Callacchi, then Murphy? Well, I think taking out discredited is good, and I wouldn't put another adjective in front of it. Representative Murphy? I would echo Representative Callacchi. I think that, again, this is a statement, and you're adding an emotion, which is fine, if that's where we're going, but I think we're just laying groundwork. And I think that the facts, just the facts, ma'am. Representative Triana, then Polacic? No, I don't have any strong feelings either way, although I do think a descriptive vagitive does have a place in that. And maybe Tommy's term is a little bit better than discredited, or Perkins established the now discredited eugenics survey, indicating that when it was established, it was not discredited, but it is at this point in time. Yeah, I mean, go ahead. Representative Placic? Yes, he just stole my thunder on that one. I think now discredited is good, or deleted entirely. I can go either way. Okay. Representative Howard? Mute? Mute? Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, I agree. Either say now discredited or, you know, leave it out. Either way is fine. Representative Murphy? I think that adding the word now goes back to my initial issue with it and clarify. So if folks would like the adjective, I think that's a great resolution and we can go on to another bracket. All right, Representative Persons? I was just going to say to get rid of it all together. Okay, we are all over the map. So I'm going to Michael, well, no, we've reviewed it. So I'm just, let's just review it. Again, let Michael take the notes and then we're going to speed through it again and make the final decision. Right now, Mr. Chair, I have the words now discredited with a question mark next to it. Yeah, that's fine. And we'll go through it and do the final edit. So the Representative Bloomley? Hi, Chair. I was actually moving on to the next bracket. Line six, go ahead. Yeah, I would strike mental because I think that deficiency is a broader word and it's apt given the history. It also is a literative delinquency, dependency, and deficiency. Anyway. And that was the 3Ds. I think there's a, I think there's a, I understand why mental deficiency was in there because it's referred to that way as well. But I think the 3Ds is much cleaner. Chair, are these, were these Parkinson's 3Ds? And so should those 3Ds then be in quotes? The 3Ds were used by everybody. Okay. Because the words that meant something then, but they mean something different now. So I don't, I think in the context of our presentation, that will be understood. Okay. And, and, you know, so it's, but I do think the 3Ds, everybody refers to them as that throughout all the paperwork. All right. Line seven, representative, perfect. I had a realization, which I'm sorry, because it's words that aren't being offered in bracket. And I know we kind of tried to get down to choices. But Judy Dow kept speaking of French Indian, not French Canadian heritage and not Native American Indian heritage, but French Indian. And I think that somehow if we, if we want to include the ebinaki, which I appreciate and understand and think we do, potentially figuring out how to also include French Indian. So, you know, adding a few words in this one, but I just wanted to say that that really was, it finally echoed for me that that's what she kept saying was we saw ourselves and we're seen as French Indian. The border didn't, you know, it was a crossing. And so I just offered that to muddy the waters. Well, it's, yes. I mean, this is a, this is a, it's a good point. I mean, and I think it speaks to everything that we've talked about on this issue from erasure to inclusion or exclusion. It's just, it's, so let's just put it out there as a, as a thought. Representative Trina. No, that caught my attention as well. And I was wondering if, you know, up on the border, particularly up here in the Northeast Kingdom, there were a lot of intermarriages between Native Americans and French Canadians. And I was wondering if that was not what she was referring to. I can't say for sure, but that was one of my thoughts when I heard that term French Indian and that it may have been a combination of French and Canadian or Canadian and French and Indian descendants. So I'm not sure. I don't feel strongly either way about that. Yeah, I, you know, the history, the history, of course, borders were fluid between Quebec and here, first of all. You know, the history shows that after the big contraction, after, and we're talking in the 1600s, you know, the contraction brought people, you know, maybe there were not as many permanent settlements, but that, you know, the Odinax in Quebec were the primary group of Native Americans in Southern Quebec. And yes, there was lots of intermarriage, you know, the question that is unanswered in the materials, I think, is identifying people. I think we know that the population in Vermont was especially in the northwestern quadrant was very highly French Canadian. It was also French Indian. You know, whether those Indians were considered Odinac or or any group, any other group, I guess, is is less clear to us. So again, just throwing out little bits and pieces here to, as Barbara said, to muddy the waters a little bit. Representative Blumlee. Yes. So if I'm remembering what Nancy Gallagher said and Judy Dow said, it might be more historically accurate to say, for monitors of Native American Indian heritage, among whom were those who now identify as abnaki, as opposed to the past, as opposed to who identified at the time as abnaki, because that, you know, the point was made that the word abnaki didn't appear in the documents that they examined. And that and so and we have recognized abnaki as Native American bands who live here in Vermont. And I and it just it seemed to me that that would square more with what both of them testified to. Mr. Chair. Yeah. If I may just with respect to the last comment, if you decide to make that reference, would you want to say whose descendants now identify because they obviously weren't alive. The same persons weren't alive 100 years ago who are alive now. I just made that comment. That's that is a reasonable that is a reasonable option, I believe. Representative Walsh, then Kalecki. Okay, I think Michael just took care of one issue I was going to bring up. I'm also wondering about the Native American Indian. Isn't that redundant? Don't we normally refer to Indians as Native Americans and who else are we referring to as Native? Actually, at that time, many of the settlers refer to themselves as Natives. Representative Walsh, that language comes directly from the statue. Okay, from Title One, from the Native American Commission chapter. I took that verbatim. Okay, that's fine then. But I, you know, we say Native Americans, I think we normally know who we're talking about. Even though, you know, your ancestors may arrived in the 1600s, you're still not considered a Native American. Except when you say that you are representative Kalecki. Thank you. I, you know, I think it's important to just keep it as including among those who identified as Abenaki because we heard a lot of different kinds of testimony on that. And she Stevens was saying, well, it was the Abenaki region just because the people doing the survey didn't use the term we did. And so I think I like the idea of the French Indian as well, to be added there. But I don't like diluting down the power of the word Abenaki in there. Representative Parsons, I saw your hand up for a minute. Yeah, thank you. I'm just curious here considering the start of this is that they targeted, and I thought we'd heard from Nancy Gallagher and Judy Dow and others, that they really didn't, they just targeted anyone who looked Indian really. That was, it wasn't specifically mentioned that they were targeting Abenaki and that one thing I'd say is there was other, certainly other tribes that were that were affected by it. And I'm just concerned that we are using Abenaki because we've heard from Chief Stevens and others that they'd want to be included. But we haven't heard from other tribe members that would, to say they're okay with being considered others or if they'd like their tribe mentioned as well. So I'm just Well, it's fine. You know, we recognize, we as a state recognize for tribal bands. We also recognize that there are others who are not, who are not affiliated with bands. Chair, your email is on the screen now. I did that again. I'm so sorry. The newspaper. I don't even know where I'm sorry. I totally started spacing out again. I don't like sharing screen. Isn't this your job? We kind of like you Sheridan. We get to see what else you're doing. Unbelievable. Unbelievable. No, I think I, well, we're all over the map on this one. So I just, I think we need to think hard on what we really want to put on this online seven here. You know, so we've heard that to not change it. We've heard to among whom are those among among whom there are those whose descendants are identified as Avanaki. We've heard adding French Indian. Are we coming back to this? Or can we come up with a resolution before we before we scroll on? All right. I don't see anyone. So we're going to scroll on and come back to this. So going into the next bracketed material. I am on page three, line seven. And the end of that reads irreversible impacts that still persist in the lives of the targeted groups and especially the descendants of the families who were personally or directly impacted. And I guess personally or directly as a choice. Representative Murphy. I'm torn on this one because I definitely think that the next whereas after two down is one that we should remove in its entirety. And it kind of connects back to this. So whether we remove both, maybe that feels too, too much of a loss to folks that would like this really identified as this is the current that this is really happening. But I just think that if we go back to that, yeah, I think that it again there's some redundancy going on. I think we added that line seven and eight as a way of being okay with deleting the other one. That's what I'm thinking that I don't know that we want to remove all of it. I think that it is certainly a better option than having the other whole paragraph that just gets off on a trail. And I agree. I think that this was again, I think we added this so that we could so that we could cut the next one without feeling like it was ignoring the point being made in it. What if we what if we offered in the lives of the targeted groups and especially their descendants? Period. That I mean, that could work for me personally. Representative Bloomey. That was going to be my suggestion. And I like the inclusion of this language because it is it gets personal and it's not just kind of at arm's length an idea. Any other thoughts on so what's on the table here is including this language except perhaps putting a period after descendants and making it read especially their descendants. Is that satisfactory? And again, remember, I can't see you. So a lot of times going up at least on the four IC. Yes. Okay. So Michael, so line eight will read targeted groups and especially their descendants period or I'm sorry, their descendants comma and so noted, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you. So that means lines 14 through 19 are deleted. Yeah. But you know, I want to recognize in our committee that the work we're doing on this impact of the health care committee because that's the language they put in their bill that we passed last night or we voted on last night health disparities. So, you know, it is a way of saying that we're kind of influencing each other here. So I think it's to take it out as the right thing. Okay. I agree. I think it served its purpose and now they'll be that tie through, but I don't think we have to repeat it all. Right. Okay. Scrolling down on page four, then we get two. Oh, yeah. You guys have this conversation. I'm just going to go back to my email. All right. So here we are at line 10 and I think where we left this, well, you tell me where we left this. We had choices here, Representative Murphy. Well, I'll say what I think I heard, which may just be what I wanted to hear. But I think that leaving the comma after disenfranchisement, removing the erasure and then having ethnicide and then and genocide. So disenfranchisement, ethnicide and genocide, because ethnicide is erasure. So we can't, I don't believe we should use both those words. And I think if people are more comfortable with erasure, and that is the one we heard, then disenfranchisement, erasure and genocide would be the three. But anyway, that's my offer. And we, I believe the conversation went to ethnicide and genocide, rather than leading to genocide, because what we learned was that ethnicide is the culture, is cultural, and genocide is human effect, or physical effect. That was the differentiation there, so that that both using both of those words or concepts, if it's erasure, is accurate. Yeah. And thank you. I'm sorry. I was just going to say, I think that if we do use erasure, then ethnicide and genocide both actually could be removed. It could be disenfranchisement and erasure, because of culture and people. But now I'll stop. Okay. I'm just going to go with how I, I don't know who was next. So I'm just going top to bottom on my screen, Representative Triano, then Walsh. Yes, I agree with Barbara. I think that erasure and ethnicide are redundant. And so, of leading erasure, I think ethnicide is a more descriptive term, which would be better used in this situation. So I would be in favor of removing erasure and leaving the other terms. Representative Walsh. I'll second that. I believe the same thing for the same reason. We should delete erasure, ethnicide is more specific. And I would, so I would remove erasure and include ethnic, ethnicide and genocide. Representative, thank you. Representative Hango. And then, Bloomily. Um, I don't really have a strong feeling about erasure and disenfranchisement and erasure versus ethnicide and genocide, but I do have concerns still about the whole clause, the whole resolved clause in that it directs a further legislature, a future legislature to take further action. And that really gives me pause. Okay. So noted. Representative Bloomily, then Byron. Yeah, I was the one that actually suggested erasure and I'm not even sure if it was for this line. I would take it out and and as others suggested, just say, and ethnicide, ethnicide and genocide. Okay. Representative Byron, then Howard. I'm simply going to concur with the ethnicide genocide language. Everybody has already said what my mind is going to say. So thank you. And Representative Howard. Thank you. Yes, I agree with what Representative Byron had just said. Thank you. All right. Any further Representative Placic? Yeah, I've been putting my thumbs up. I'm not sure how well it's working, but I like that last part. Let's get rid of the word erasure. And I like the disenfranchisement when the other just the other few words, it's perfect. All right. Thank you. No, I didn't see your thumbs up again. I'm now I'll see you if you put your thumbs up for the next 10 minutes until the thumbs up is, you know, just I'm agreeing with something, but it's so close on that I'm looking at the screen. I can write down the difference myself by spoke up. All right. Thank you for that. So Michael, you have that. I think the I think the consensus is clear that that this is this should be reading related practices of disenfranchisement, comma, ethnocide and genocide. Right. And there's a comma after we use serial commons in the wedge console. So we'd read disenfranchisement, disenfranchisement, comma, ethnocide, comma, and genocide. Period. Okay. Scrolling back to page one. We agreed we'll be keeping or with the consensus was anyway, that we'll be keeping the first paragraph. We agreed on page two, online six to get rid of mental establish the, I mean, I'm this is this is the word that I brought up. I don't know that it's necessary. I think that by the time we get to ethnocide and genocide, it's clear that it's a discredited policy. And so I guess my thumbs up or thumbs down, and you'll have to tell me, of course, what the consensus is, is that we cut the word and just have established the eugenics survey. Can someone report back to me that there's a general thumbs up on that? Thumbs up. All to raise our hands or something. I can't see you. I just that's the whole thing. I can't see you when I'm sharing screens. So if everybody screams yes or no. Yes. Yes. I concur. Thank you, John. Thank you, John, for the yes check. We'll get that down by next year. And then I believe we're only left with lines seven and eight. And so let us say that Vermonters of Native American Indian heritage. Michael, what was the next piece of language that you had attached to that? I read in brackets Vermonters of Native American heritage among whom were those who, and then there had been some suggestions in the last round, whose descendants now identified as Abenaki. And then this mix, that part was in brackets, the Vermonters, and then language mixed racial heritage or French Canadian. And representative Murphy, I believe, or someone suggested the idea of French Indian, though there wasn't a distinction whether French Canadian stayed in, if you put in French Indian. So we have the phrase mixed racial heritage, which also encompasses, we took testimony and there is some literature in the boxes that talk about descendants of slaves, that there was a group of Black Vermonters that were descended from slaves that we, I think, were implying inclusion by mixed racial heritage, because I believe they were referred to as mixed race, as mulatto, and other words. So just representative Hango comment. Yes, thank you. I would like to keep in the Native American Indian heritage as well as the descendants identifying as Abenaki. The mixed racial heritage, I agree with you, Mr. Chair, that there was mention of descendants of slaves who then intermarried. So I think we need to keep that. I definitely think we need to keep the French Canadian heritage because the book is just liberally sprinkled with references to French Canadians. And I do believe we need to mention also French Indian, which was brought up a number of times in testimony. And I would be willing to take out then after that where it says among others, because I don't know what others, unless you're now referring to cultural groups such as religions, Catholics, who were also targeted in one way or another. So I don't know if that, among others, is necessary. It's getting to be quite a long descriptive clause. Oh, and there were also the Italians who were discriminated against. But I don't think we need the among others. And I do think we need to add French Indian in there. Representative Trina, thank you. Representative Trina. I think we put in and others from Judy's request that there were other Native tribal people that are not included when we identify Abenaki. Well, I guess Native American heritage can cover that. But that's why I thought that that language went in there. I think it spoke to the fact that there is some evidence that you could probably pull out people who were Polish or Italian or Irish. I mean, the Irish were pretty well established in Burlington anyway at the time. But that they were not a significant number of the people who were targeted. They were among the people who were targeted. But they weren't, I mean, the groups that we mentioned were almost all specifically mentioned as targets at some point. Well, I'm keeping in mind that, according to Nancy, that there were situations in which people, particularly children, were taken into custody that did not match or were solely poor and did not actually have disabilities, and were taken into custody as well. So I'm not sure if that includes them as well. I mean, people were taken in who really were just a burden on the town's finances oftentimes and put into Waterbury or Brandon as a result of that. So I'm not sure that among others is not accurate. Okay. Representative Kolecki. Yeah, I like keeping among others. And, you know, poor is in their chip. I just want you to see, but I think among others. Because the other factor that I heard was that the initial survey is actually targeted families who had someone in prison. And so, you know, it gets so a wide swath here of people. So I think it's, it's not a definitive list. And that's why I think among others is important. I do agree with Representative Nyhango about all the other things about keeping them in, though. I think if we can get French Indian in there as well. And that's not the same as French Canadian. I think it's that some of them may be, but then I'd be happy with it. All right. Chip, did you put your hand go back up? I did. I think that I would concur with John, keeping all that other language while keeping among others. I think that covers a lot. And adding French Indian? Yes, adding French Indian. I think that would be fine. Okay. Thank you. Representative Walsh and Bloomley and then Pulasik. I agree with the previous speakers and I have, again, a recommendation to include the French Indians. We can put it in that phrase, Vermonters of Native American Indian heritage, among whom were those who identified as French Indian or Abenaki. I think we could sneak it in there. Okay. Thank you. Representative Bloomley? Alternatively, we could say Vermonters of Native American or French Indian heritage. All right. Representative Pulasik, then Hango. Tommy, did you have your hand back up? All right. Representative Pulasik, then Hango. Okay. I'm getting, we're getting a lot of different words from Khan here, but I don't have a big, personally I don't have a big issue with most of them except I do agree with I think four or five of us so far that the French Indian need to be put in there. So, if it's something like French Canadian and French Indian heritage, that would, that should cover that issue right there. I'm still, you know, we got to keep the word Abenaki in there. That's a give me. And the rest of it, I think it pretty much I'll go with. Okay. Representative Hango? Yes. Thank you. Okay. I am going to agree with Representative Kalaki to leave the among others because you know, thinking about what I read in the book that there were other populations that were targeted and I think Representative Triano said something about that too. I would like to leave among others in there. I don't care for some of the suggestions of where to put French Indian, but I think after or French Canadian comma or French Indian heritage because French Canadian and French Indian, although they may sound alike, are completely different because not all Quebecers intermarried with Indians nor did all Quebecers intermarry with English. So I think they are two very distinct heritages. So I just would like to see if Mr. Churnick could come up with some nice flowing language. So this just doesn't sound like a run on sentence. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Triano? I would concur with that. I think that I agree French Canadian and French Indian are two very different and specific heritage. So and I do think that if Michael could put in some good language where he thinks it belongs, I would be in favor of that. Representative Hango? Yes. Thank you. My hand is back up because I have a comment that I've been wanting to make for a little while and that is that after reading the book again and listening to all the discussion we've had, I still find it very difficult to believe that the first take at this last biennium at this apology did not include French Canadian and we had not taken any testimony on the French Canadian influence, on the influence of this on French Canadians. And now we're also adding French Indians. So I really appreciate that COVID interrupted our work on this. I feel like we've had so much more time to think about it and get this right. So I just want to just mention that I appreciate the extra time to add those groups back into this resolution. Yeah, I think we all do. I think it's and I think it really points to the word erasure. You know, where in this particular case that there's a feeling that it happened, I mean this is the sense I got from the witness who came and testified is that it happened and they weren't really allowed to talk about it anymore. And because the French Canadian, the French, the Vermont or French Canadians have all been very much a part of our lives as long as we've all lived here, really they weren't, I mean it was always a part of French Canadian names were always a part of Vermont history in 20th century especially. You know, it just speaks to, you know, being able to find that voice and have it acknowledged is really, yes I'm glad, I'm glad we took the time, I'm glad we were able to take the time to get there. Representative Triano de Murphy. I agree with that wholeheartedly. I think we did try to reach out to the French Canadian Association I think or there's some there was someone last year and we didn't get anyone in. So I am also very happy that we were able to hear from folks about this and to feel much better about including the inclusiveness that we're looking at in this section here. So thank you. Representative Murphy. I just wanted to say I'm very thankful that you all did wait for me to be able to participate in this with you. I think I was pretty open about the personal heritage connection I have to it and it's very meaningful to me more so than just being able to participate as a floor member and present past this through but really being able to understand the depth of this history of our state and as the saying goes history is written by the winners and it's great to actually get a piece of history being written in its totality and not just with things blacked out that we don't like and we don't really want to remember. So really meaningful and thank you again for all waiting for me to join you. Michael. Yeah if I may Mr. Chair and members of the committee in response to Representative Han goes comment about the clause being now a run on sentence which I totally agree. How would it be if I split it at the point and say whereas this survey and made it a separate whereas clause just to make it a slightly shorter clause and try to break out this extraordinarily long clause. Can you elaborate on that a little bit or what I'm proposing is with all the changes you've made it would read whereas in 1925 University of Vermont zoology professor Henry F. Perkins established the eugenics survey of Vermont with the participation of leaders within Vermont state government to collect evidence of alleged delinquency dependency and deficiency comma and whereas this survey targeted etc. That sounds great. Yeah that's good. It was just steering me in the face just now. Thank you. Thumbs up. Yeah I think thumbs up and then and then if you can certainly add an inappropriate place to French Indian. I was going to suggest Mr. Chair I put that it will read mixed racial heritage French Canadian or French Indian right at the end of the heritage. Okay. I split the sentence in two. What about what about mixed racial heritage comma French Indian or French Canadian heritage. Whichever order the committee wants I'll certainly do. I think it fits better I'm sorry but I think it fits better back with the Abinaki as I think Representative Hango may be offered that it is within those those who are identified as Abinaki and French Indian. Exactly. Okay. That wasn't me that was Representative Waltz but I'm sorry I'm seeing it better now I disagreed at first but I'm seeing it better now that that's a good place for it. But then I'm still leaving the French Canadian in where it is right now. Yes. Okay. Fine. Good. Representative Classic. Yes I like that. Mr. Turnig did some of his magic and I think he resolved that issue with those big long paragraph making it the two words like that a lot. Thank you sir. You're welcome. Okay Representative Clackey. I'm not sure that the bands identified themselves as French Indian. I think that the people surveying when they saw native peoples who spoke French identified all of the different tribes as French Indian. So I don't think it's actually correct to say for those who identified as French Indian because I think that that is the white person's label for all of the different tribes that actually were French speaking multiple tribes. So just parsing a little bit I think those who identified as Abinakis okay but I don't think it's those who identified as French Indian because I think there were still tribal affiliations that were recognized in those bands that were traveling across this Abinaki land who spoke French. So among whom were identified as Abinaki comma French Indian comma mixed racial heritage. Is that what you're suggesting? Those who identified as Abinaki comma French Indian yes I could work with that. And is that French hyphen Indian just I don't know Michael yeah okay. Barbara has their grandma grandma hand up I can tell. No I'm well yeah sort of actually I think because we were going to go back to that they they didn't it's who now identify as I thought we'd removed it from that past tense because the Abinaki right or did we go back and I know we went back and forth I'm still stuck on whether we're speaking. Well I think that I think that Abinaki I don't know did Abinaki I mean again this is this gets to the historical issue of how we phrase this I mean it's probably one of the stickiest things that we're talking about here. Well I think that if we say Vermonters of Native American Indian heritage that covers everybody but then we can say the however we word it that some now you know some now identified as identify as Abinaki and French Indian I don't know it I think it's all in there I just remember I mean the thing is that the survey targeted right so it is a past tense situation it's just a question of you know and I don't think that there's any question I mean we have a couple of different histories who who acknowledge perhaps following along what Chief Stevens said is that you know it was Abinaki territory therefore it's easy you know it's not hard to say that these folks were Abinaki among others. Representative Hango. Yes I think Representative Murphy just brought up a really important point I wasn't remembering that we were going to change that to say something to the effect of among whom were were those who now identify as Abinaki because that that's something that was brought up to us over and over again that we should do so I would go with that mixed racial heritage comma French Indian comma or French Canadian heritage as well as the rest of them because I think that will that will highlight that even though they were Vermonters of Native American Indian heritage they weren't they didn't identify themselves as French Indian but the survey identified them as a French Indian group so I think it should be as Representative Clacky it was suggesting separated from those who now identify as Abinaki because I think they probably referred to themselves as Native American Indians but the survey takers were identifying them in all these other groups and the Abinaki is a more recent term is what we're hearing so that that's my take on that. Lisa why wouldn't French American or French Indian be part of the Native American heritage though aren't because I think they would be absolutely but the survey takers specifically identified them as Indian so I think we need to make that good I'm in a committee meeting. Somebody needs to mute. Mary Mary you need to mute. Yeah so I think John the Representative Clacky I think that we need to I recently read the book again like very recently in the last few days so this is all really standing out in my mind that they were not really called Native Americans or Native American Indians they were called by the survey takers French Indians. No no I agree with you I just think that that is part of the because even the Canadian border wasn't really recognized the tribes were saying they were just they were moving and so I'm just I'm not the only thing I'm just we're disagreeing about is where to place it. Right that's what I'm disagreeing about also. Yeah okay I'm with you I'm actually asking to place it where you asked to place it I think you said right before mixed racial heritage and I just wanted to move it one phrase over to right after mixed racial heritage just to sort of separate it from those who are now identifying themselves as Abenaki because we don't want people to think that it's those who now identify themselves as French Canadian. I just thought it was too close to the word Abenaki because we're separating out Abenaki as a newer term and I and I I think Abenaki and French Indian need to be in the Native American Indian heritage clause so that we're just disagreeing. Then I would put French Indian before among those who are identified as Abenaki now identify as Abenaki because we're not talking about people who now identify themselves as French Indian. Do you do you follow me on that? Well Chair could I just play a little bit with this with the vermin of Native American heritage including French Indians and those who identify as Abenaki. Those who now identify as Abenaki and I'm with you. Okay comma mixed race heritage or French Canadian heritage so it's there. Perfect and and the only thing I would say about considering Abenaki as a new phrase is that it is actually the historic phrase it's always been Abenaki territory. It is but we were being told over and over again by that one witness and I regret I can't remember her name that they didn't use Abenaki they didn't exist as Abenaki so that just threw me totally. Yeah and that's part of what was you know then we taught then we taught saying like that's where the word erasure came in right or you know is is the idea that they didn't either believe that Abenaki existed or that they that they existed on their own and that they were penciled in or put together with French Indians or basket weavers or pirates or gypsies or whatever we've you know whatever language we we used. But I think we're getting closer. Representative Bloomley. Very quick I just wanted to know whether Michael might be able to come up with a couple of different options reflecting what we've heard that might make our conversation the next time around a little focused so we were kind of voting one version up or down. In terms of what if I made represent Steven since I'm not sure you can see me. So I'm getting the impression I should have French Indian in a couple of different places as options. Yes can you provide us you know it's separate from this draft on a set on just on a this is the last piece that we're talking about in here I believe I believe we've covered everything else and so if you could provide us with even if it's just a simple on one page of paper clean copy two sentences there you know a rewritten whereas I don't know how best yeah of this of this whereas if you could provide us with a couple of different options on that from based on what you've heard as potential pieces then next time we see this we will we will sure thumbs up and earth you know we will we will finish our conversation on it. So committee I'm gonna I'm gonna take us off share screen right now I just I've missed you terribly. So how are we all on this are we ready to vote on this tomorrow representative Hango if you ever did you have your hand up or I do have my hand up I remain concerned about the second resolved clause and I heard Mr. Churnick a couple of meetings ago concur with me that this may may direct a future legislature so I don't think we've had a robust enough discussion about that I would like to hear more about the quote unquote legality of this. Sure and I think we heard something different from Michael as well Michael. If I may if I may as a point of clarification for the record against Michael Churnick for legislative from legislative council if you had the term shall be taken then clearly it would then clearly it would be a direction what you have here is should which is a suggestion if I may make an analogy Mr. Chair and members of the committee when I write policy resolutions I often have the language excuse me request or urge because a resolution can't bind so I never say for example that the general assembly directs that the governor should do ABC or Congress shall pass so-and-so it's always request or urge I could play with that I could make the should to be urges if that helps you the should is not a direct the should I also view personally as a as a suggestion a strong suggestion but if you would prefer request or urges versus should I could certainly rewrite it to that effect representative plastic and waltz I'm just going to refer back to your question if you thought that we we thought it would be good to vote on this and I would just a personal request I would very much like to be a part of this vote I do have my second COVID vaccination tomorrow afternoon and I have to leave at three o'clock to make that appointment and there you know I'd rather not have to reschedule that so if we could do that that would be wonderful and that's just a personal request sure no I think I mean it sounds like we're pretty close so so we will make sure that you are part of the vote no question representative waltz thank you sir and I and they're on reason I asked that this is uh as I mentioned before this is something that is very very special and definitely needs to be done and I think we're working hard to get it done correctly and thank you Mr. Chair thank you representative waltz I'd like to address the should question first of all should means ought to and it doesn't mean the same thing as shall as michael chernick has already pointed out and secondly it does not commit to any specific action I just said should take action and so perhaps the issue would go away with something like urge or encourage but I'm okay with the language as it stands I think it's fine well and I also think I do think that should is fine I mean it was chosen I think as a very carefully so it's not a shout um but we're also seeing yesterday we saw a raft of legislation that is um starting a process or continuing actually a process that's been under way for over a year of of legislation that's specific to many of the communities that were affected here if not all of them in some way and so um unless there's a case to be made otherwise um you know again we can have a final discussion on this when we see the next draft if we if we like I mean I'm personally comfortable with should because it's not shout um all right I wanted to end at 10 15 and I just wanted to um um just take a minute yesterday was a really long day and it started off with our conversation on each 157 and um we got pretty I know I did um and I think I think the committee as a whole or at least most of us got heated in some way about what we felt was um another committee really not treating our work with respect and um you know bringing back work that to us that showed that that you know we've we felt that we weren't taken seriously in our work that's what I took and that's what I that's that's what I was triggered on um for personally and I got the feeling from us as a whole that that was the case um we're gonna vote on this tomorrow I still don't know what you know where appropriations is with this so we still have a little bit of time before we have to come up to a conclusion on this particular amendment but you know after sleeping on it and listening to yesterday's long long conversations and about all the work that these committees these are the money committees did on other bills um I want to appreciate the fact that the changes that they made to our bills um the changes that were made were relatively minor in the scheme of things and they're actually allowing the concept of this to go forward with the fees which is an integral part of the bill and so I just want to let you know I'm kind of relaxed much more relaxed than than I was yesterday with what happened that may not change anyone's vote but I just in order to move the vote forward you know I I'm gonna support the amendment uh when we vote on it and um I think the bill is important enough to to to move forward and you know let the legislative process take its take its place but I just I want to acknowledge our work on it and our feelings about it yesterday um because it was clear that some of you were if not as upset as I was then pretty upset um Representative Murphy. Thank you Chair Stevens I um definitely was one that was very clear about my opinion on this amendment I I do think it does harm in in some aspects I understand the committee's desire to get something through that you've worked on so long I would suggest that if possible um the exclusion bothers me because it really does confuse the regulation and the registration and so I think that the exclusion should be there excluded from the fee but still have to be on the registration they have to be on the list because that was the whole process as it puts it into um an area where a person can access it so anyway I I I I can't even guarantee I'd vote well actually I could I could vote for the amendment if we can at least get that change made to it but otherwise I just I I think it's part of the work we do we sometimes give up and take the crumb when actually it's better to move on without it so thank you yep thank you Representative Trina yeah I mean I wasn't terribly upset but it it um it registered with me that the particular piece that this amendment contains or addresses um was a subject of considerable um conversation and testimony and discussion in this committee um and having sat in on the ways and means committee and and seen that you know someone suggested that this moves up because they didn't like the amount and they just did it without any um testimony or or discussion to speak of um you know again it didn't piss me off but I just said didn't sit well with me that um this just came down like that I you know I yeah I was there for a good part of the conversation and I was certainly here for the long discussion that took place surrounding um that piece of the of the bill so um you know we'll see how it goes yep okay Representative Hango um I'm in partial agreement with Representative Murphy that I feel like um we shouldn't really just move on for the sake of moving on I don't like how the amendment is constructed um so I I guess um I will not be supporting it in its current form thank you okay Representative Kalaki well I my my iris I did get a little worked up yesterday and you may have noticed about this um but you know I I have been also thinking about it and um I think it's it's a journey and I am willing to support the amendment and I feel like we will bring these messages on to the Senate um and try to get clarification as as the bill moves on uh in its course if it moves on because I fear that if if we if we have a floor fight over this it will take a very long time and I think the bill could be imperiled and I would rather so anyway I was probably the angriest or loudest yesterday but um I'm a little calmer this morning about it so right now I'm voting yes for the amendment holding my nose a little bit on it okay that's fine I just wanted to acknowledge it and we'll you know like I said I don't know when we'll have a vote on it but um I don't think we need to hear from ways and means any longer um they had offered to come back and um but I don't think that we need to I don't think we need to have any more testimony on the amendment um and the only little piece of flotsam um I don't know actually is it flotsam or jesson jesson I don't know but it's um on this is that my take is that if you excluded people who were already regulated by the pc the question of course the question would have been are you talking about individuals are you talking about companies being registered you know and and does anybody really install net mirroring on a saturday gig you know on a side gig is that really something that you can do as a side gig is hook up electrical equipment you know to the outside of the house but that's you know I don't know and I'm gonna I'll check with with some people but again I just wanted to let I just wanted to get that off my chest because it was bugging me all day yesterday as we were sitting around um listening to everybody else and the other thing I'll say um actually Matt do you want to comment on this I mean I spoke yesterday my support of it it still exists I just wasn't sure if we were going to ask our representative elder to come in and talk briefly to his mindset um which or no no because he doesn't really I mean he clearly doesn't support the bill in the first place and you know the word the word back from ways and means is that we would have um actually probably had um representative cornheiser joined us as vice chair but um to further explain you don't really we really can't we really can't start saying you know hey we want to pull in anybody who has an opinion against our bill that's not really good form or protocol um and and give them the ninth you know third degree or whatever we would want to call it but um we'll like I said we'll deal with that we'll review it um representative hango yes um I was not particularly angry or disturbed yesterday because it's kind of a par for the course thing that that people come up with different ideas all along but I I am a little disturbed now listening to the conversation that just because representative elder doesn't support the underlying bill we don't invite him in to discuss the amendment that he has proposed when we said yesterday that we were going to invite him in to ask why he included this group um I just find this a little bit politically offensive and that's all I'm going to say because you know I've spoken on this topic before that we really need to have transparency about what we're voting on and I have no idea why he added this in and I know that he was one of the swing voters in that committee so I'm not really sure what happened in the course of that committee meeting but I don't like it so thank you for hearing me out and and that's that's fine I just from my perspective it's it's um we really in this work we really try to not make it personal and I think if we called someone in to um in this particular case and that's just my feeling that's my call I'm just going to go with that and at this point it's better I think we're we're satisfied with the information that we have and people can make their votes based on the information that we have on it. Representative Treana? I mean Ways and Means committee could have and maybe should have sent representative elder to our committee to explain this bill they chose to send representative of Maslin did a relatively good job he's in the business and um he covered some ground that we needed to know about how they came to their decision whether we agree with it or not so I mean you know Ways and Means chose to send someone other than representative elder to explain the bill and so I don't think we're excluding anyone I think we followed the process it's generally happens we listen to the person who is chosen by that committee to come and make a representation to our committee. Representative Hango? Yes I beg to differ on that because if I were the author of an amendment and I were not invited in and one of you were invited in instead of me I would take offense to that so I'm not really sure where you're going with that representative Treana but I guess we're gonna agree to disagree on this one thank you. Sure um last note before we go to go watch Representative Treana lead the charge of judicial retention um which if you've not gotten your if you haven't gotten your ballots already please let John Bloomer know so you can make sure you get your um and and understand that the date on the ballots he had said get them in by March 25th and then an email went out saying no no do it by the first um I just want to thank you everyone in this committee um for the work that we've done on JRH2 in particular um but also all of our work this year we really you know having the opportunity to hear other people's work in the other committees yesterday was fascinating to me because you know we've been in our bubble here working on what's really quite a different bill than than what the rest of us are working on and it on one hand I felt like I was uh coming up for air you know and saying oh my god look at all this money being thrown around and look at all this is great this is they've been able to they've been able to help these folks and these folks and these folks and um um we've been doing different work here and you know we're and I just again want to make sure I you know that I appreciate the work we've put into this um and and and the other work that we've done this year it really is um top notch stuff and it's and we take it at a different level it seems sometimes sometimes not all the times all of our bills aren't going to be like JRH 2 or age 96 or anything like that there's going to be a lot of like you know should we do happy hour kind of bills but um uh the I just want to thank you all for for the work that you've done so far to get us to this point where we're actually on the edge of voting on JRH 2 tomorrow so um thank you thank you and we'll see you