 So here we are, Senate government operations on Thursday, September 10th. And let's start going through what is now. It doesn't have a number yet, but hopefully by the end of today, it will. So, and then we'll have to find out the procedure for, because I don't know, does it have to go to editing. Tucker is shaking his head. So is Betsy and we're edited has already gone through the editing process. Okay, and so because this is a committee bill. It just goes immediately to the floor. Okay, great. Okay, thank you. All right, so do you want to start going through it let's start at the beginning. Okay, so section one is again your open meeting law section of the bill. Would you like me to highlight the changes that were made based on yesterday's testimony and discussion. I think that would be, yeah. The first change that I made is somewhat technical, but it was based on yesterday's discussion and some of the concern around how these provisions are going to be interpreted when they are put out there in the world by those who will be in this area, particularly the municipalities. So the first change is on page two online one, the notwithstanding clause that starts subsection be now reads notwithstanding subdivisions 312 a to D and C to have this title. That is in place of the notwithstanding clause that just listed one VSA 312 generally that will direct the reader's attention to those two specific subdivisions that we are dealing with here. So that there's no confusion around that. Anybody have any questions about that, or concerns. Thanks. The next next change is in subdivision three of that subsection be starts online eight of page two. You added the terms publicly accessible prior to designated electronic locations. So the subdivision now requires that an affected public body, if they determine it's necessary. That they post any meeting no agenda or notice of a special meeting in two publicly accessible designated electronic locations in lieu of the two designated public places within the municipality. That was based on the list serve discussion that you all had yesterday. Any questions about that one or comments. Okay. So this is section C, and these are some of the more substantive changes based on yesterday's discussion in subdivision C one. You added the requirement that the affected public body use technology that permits the attendance and participation of the public through electronic or other means. Further on and if you're looking at draft 2.2 this is highlighted. And this was the results of the discussion you asked for between the press VLCT and myself. Subdivision C three now reads that the affected public body shell post information that enables the public to directly access and participate in meetings electronically and shall include this information and the published agenda for each meeting. So, any questions or comments on those two changes. Mike. I'm just wondering if, again, when it just says the information is published on the agenda that towns can read that to mean call the town office, you know, which is what the problem is now rather than saying, adding the word shall include this information. And then add the words, including access codes in the published agenda for each meeting because as of now, they claim that they do have that information on there that you've got to call and get pre approval to be in a public meeting. I think line 19 says, enables the public to directly access and participate. And plus, may I say, Madam chair that, you know, 15 years from now or whatever, you know, whenever they're it. Who knows what, what that information will be in as a technology and electronic systems evolve. So I think that you have directly said the public has to be able to directly access the meeting and participate in it through the information on the agenda. Yes, I think that that word directly access. I agree. And eventually we're just going to have electrodes to plant it in our brains we're not going to have to do any of this stuff we're just going to show up and play things and it's all going to happen without us doing anything about it. Exactly. You'll just think it. It's like, you just wiggle your nose and you'll party. I think you've already been wired center point. I don't know if they form you. We should pass on so they have to tell us when we're wired. That's the I don't think they have to Brian. Thank you madam chair to Mike's point I wonder if when it would just comment on whether she feels a municipality could read that in any other way than to provide the information that would allow the public to get into the room. I mean, when Zach of the LCT. It says, I mean, I think my interpretation is how the rest of the committee is interpreting it so that would be our advice but to catch every single individuals interpretation of it you know we can only capture so much in our advice for municipal boards that contact us directly. There's others that contact the Secretary of State's office obviously we don't have school boards as members are talking to the school board association so they might be getting different advice but you know to us if it reads as publicly accessible where they have to be able to get direct access on that even narrows the scope down more than the previous language which didn't have that level of specificity and I think you know when you have too much detail. If this is going to be, you know, triggered, you know, six months down the line or two years down the line or four years down the line to add things like passwords or access codes or anything like that we don't know what this will look like so it's, you don't want to make it so narrow that it's, then you're all actually preventing, you know, other versions of access right so I think in and of itself the fact that the legislature would want to change the language from what it was, or what it is currently is indicating that the legislature the legislative intent then becomes we are recognizing that we want the public to access it in this direct way and there's no, you know, room wiggle room for interpretation there. Okay, thank you. So is everybody okay with that. Yep. Okay. Tucker. Final change here. Sorry, I did not realize I was muted. I enjoyed being muted during the discussion of the implantation of notes. So the last change was that you removed the subsection that allowed in the event of a staffing shortage for the 10 calendar day extension. And that is gone from this version. And that is the summary of changes that you made within this section. So it just the minutes are it just reverts back to the underlying law which says five days, which says five days. Yes. Alison, Alison, I know, I know I was wildly outvoted on this but the we are talking, I mean the only reason I would put one more plug in for the 10 days or longer than five days is we are talking about an emergency and all hazards emergency. And, you know, what happens if that emergency means you have no electric you have no electricity. You know, yes, people could whip out the minutes but they can't get them anywhere necessarily in. I just, I think we have the law to go back to the five days as an underlying law, but what we're addressing here is emergency measures. And it just strikes me that in an emergency you may want a few more days than the five days. I was thinking about it in the shower this morning I thought, really, I mean we're talking about this. This is very specific for something that isn't normal, where we may not all the things we need, which may be even more to the point about why it needs to be done. Well quickly because you are how you're having to act quickly. And so decisions are being made and if they're if nobody knows about those decisions for 10 days that that could be problematic too and I think that if you had no electricity. Yeah, then you wouldn't have an active website and you would just post it at the town hall. I mean, right, right. I hear. I just was. Thank you. We're trying to think around the corners and yes. It is everybody okay with taking that out and reverting back to the five days other than Allison. Brian. Yes. Yeah, they're all fine. I'm sure. And is Chris with us. Oh, there he is. You aren't on my screen. Okay, there you are. Well, I can't do anything about your screen. I know. Okay. Are you okay with that? Me? Yeah, I had a thumb. I did a thumbs up. Sorry. Okay, sorry about that. And Gwen and Mike and Ross. And who else is here? Lisa. Oh, Lisa is with us. Good. So we're okay with that. Brian, Brian has his hand up. I'm going to be about my screen. Okay, Brian. Thank you, Allison. Thank you. Sure. So I'm just wondering since we are. In essence, the leading something that. People are already kind of familiar with now. Would the lead send out anything letting people know that it has gone back to five days. Or is that necessary? And in other words, Are people going to realize that it's not 10. The next time it happens. Oh, good point. And D. Once the legislature passes this and once it goes into effect. And once there is a, an effective date that's put into the bill. You know, hopefully we'd have, you know, some heads up to. Some time to give our members some forewarning, but we have. And because the open meeting law and public records act, things are probably, probably the most requested information tidbit that comes from our members. It's usually something we would do an all email blast to all of our members and not just like select boards and managers, but to like, you know, zoning boards and whatnot. And so we will update our COVID-19 on. FAQs for the open meeting law stuff. So there might be some, you know, the, the effective date, right? There might be some confusion because whenever laws change, it's people are used to one way. And then it takes a little while for people to get on, on the same page. So there might be a bit of a lag time, but I'm having a little bit of a lag time to get legislative bodies aware of what's going on is helpful, but, you know, we'll do our part, at least letting our members know I can't speak to any other municipal or public bodies that are not municipalities that are, you know, cities and towns and villages. So, but also Brian, this effective passage is January 21. So it may take us through all the emergency of this year. I mean, it may take us through all the executive orders. And the declared emergency current, current declared emergency. So it may just naturally, I mean, because our current law is in place until January of 21. Yeah. I just, some people would probably. Some people in the event that there's a, there's a subsequent declaration. They may just assume that it all those. Yeah. I remember all those new laws when we did it before. They must be the same ones. That's all. Yeah. Oh, Tucker. I am glad that there is a more astute mind than mine here to back me up. But I think that act 92, because it is more specific and specifically calls out the COVID 19 outbreak. It has an expression of legislative intent that states very clearly at the beginning that during the continued spread of COVID 19, that during the state's response in the state of emergency, specific to that outbreak, the temporary open meeting law provisions that you put out there should be in place to ensure public access to meetings while protecting the health and safety of the public. That the current provisions allowing for the 10 business days would continue as a more specific authority that you have granted. And that in the case of a future state of emergency that would trigger the provisions you're working on now, the general work that you are putting into statute here would then be triggered for future events, but it wouldn't necessarily supersede the very specific work you did in response to COVID. So, you know, the 10 day allowance will continue through the current state of emergency. When it ends, it's over. And then the general laws become available to public bodies moving forward. Okay. I appreciate the answer. Thank you. All right. So are we okay with open meeting? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Issues. Brian. Yes. Yes. Yes. Mike Ross. Lisa. I don't hear anything. Yes. Sorry. Okay. I was muted there. It's very difficult to mute you, Mike. I'm glad we've found a way. Others have tried. I know. Lisa. Yes. I'm good with it. Okay. Thank you. Ross. Yes. Okay. Great. Thank you for your work. Appreciate it. Thank you. Tucker. That was great. Good work. Now we can sew. S E W or S O W. Well, it will sew different types of seeds. And yes, we're sewing it up. Okay. Thank you. Well, Can we move on to the municipal quasi judicial proceedings? Section two. Yup. Yes, Madam chair. The only update that I have for you in this section is that. The more astute mind than mine discovered that there were some references within this section when they were supposed to not be capitalized. So there are some technical corrections throughout. Both to existing statute and to some of the language that you've seen before to make sure that we are consistently lower casing our boards throughout 32 VSA section 40404. Otherwise I have no updates in a section for you. Good job. Yeah. Who caught that? I'll give you a wild guess. Or Nadine. One of them. Does anybody have any? We're all okay with that section. This is what you need. Legislative trivial pursuit. You know, for one, some time. I don't know. Which is it board capital B or a little B? And why? Okay. Can we move on to section. For what? I think. Section three. Wait a minute. Section three. Section three is the next level of those BCA grand list. Okay. Okay. Any issues with that? All right. So now. Section four. Which is the water. Disconnect. Yeah. So there is a, there's a, there's a, there's a, there's a, there's a, there's a, there's a, there's a. Yeah. So there is one update here that I will bring to your attention in the draft that you saw yesterday in subdivision. A two, which is on page eight line one of this draft. This subdivision accidentally. The city council. Has stated that. The all hazard does not require the municipality to disconnect services. And that was too specific because this section deals with multiple entities that provide the services. So we changed municipality to the water or sewer service provider. and the PUC-regulated entities as well. Thank you for that because I was wondering about inter non-transient, non-public, sorry, private, privately owned public non-transient water supply systems, et cetera. So there's a few odd systems. And of course Woodstock has one of those, and I should have caught that. But I'm just curious, it is regulated, though the private systems are still regulated by the PUC. I thought some were regulated by ANR. Some are permitted through the Title X ANR process. They're called out as well in subsection A. Go ahead. Something to note related to this, but not necessarily within the purview of the work that you're doing. When you first started discussing this section, you discussed the arrearages payments that came out of the CRF funds to some of these utility providers. And it was brought to my attention yesterday that those arrearages payments are actually only available to one type of entity, or at least the individual who emailed me said that it was only available to one type of entity. And that would be the PUC regulated entities. I don't know if there was some confusion around that, but ultimately it didn't impact the work that you did because the provision that you put in here requires the rate payer to make right any amounts due after the end of the moratorium. Gwen, are you okay with this? Yeah, the same question had come up from our towns about whether there could be interest in fees and collected and how long it was, but I think it's covered in this wording here. So I don't think we have any issues right now. Anybody else? Okay. Thank you. Municipal deadlines. Section five. I had no updates for you in section five. Okay. Anybody have any issues or concerns or questions about section five? Okay. About section six, highway funds repeal. I think we were okay with that yesterday. Anybody change their mind? I just have one question and I just want to be 100% sure this is a permanent change, right? This is. No. No. Oh, it is a permanent. Oh, it is. It's repealing. Okay. That's okay. I just wanted to make sure I got it correct. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I'm sorry. Yes, because it's repealing that section. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. So good work Tucker. Thank you. So do we want to move on to local elections? Hello. Hey, that's the end or ask legislative council. No changes to the local elections provisions. This section seven allows a legislative body to move the time and date of an upcoming annual or special meeting. During a state of emergency, if the legislative body determines that the circumstances of that emergency may harm the public and they'd have to schedule a new meeting as soon as practicable and warn it accordingly. And I did hear, excuse me, from Senator Baruth about these sections as they related to school boards, because they had gotten a, they had a draft of a bill or they had a bill from the house education committee that also addressed this in some way. But they thought ours was more accurate and detailed. And so they're going to take the section that section out of the education bill and they approved this. Good. That's the end knows how to do elections. That section seven was about moving the time. Wait, wait, I think Mike had a question. Oh, sorry. Do you have a question, Mike? Yes, just, just to be clear, we, we had a situation in Grand Isle. So it says that must when it's postponed and then it must be whatever Julie warned or whatever it says. Does that mean that it needs another 30 to 40 days and go through that whole process time frame so they can't just postpone it like 10 days or something like that they've got to go through the whole public notice posting in three spots taking 30 to 40 days or whatever. That's how I would read that. That's how I was reading it, but I was just wondering if, because I think some self broken as a charter that allows them to come back quicker or something like that, but other towns. I think had to wait on revoked of a school budget or something. Yeah, when. Okay, just would this not withstand charter more specific charters or not. I would think not if I guess it would depend on the language of the charter but if the charter addresses a way to move the time and date of a meeting then that I would read that charter vision as controls the special law. Okay. Okay. We're fine with the language as is. Okay, great. Thank you. Okay. So, I think we can move to the next slide. What's that? Oh, no, just go. Section eight is about the ability of the legislative body to apply the Australian ballot system to an upcoming annual or special meeting during a state of emergency. It's an upcoming meeting that they could do this, not less than 60 days in advance of that meeting to move to Australian ballot which should give them enough time to prepare as necessary the Australian ballot itself and get the questions on it on the ballot. Sub B says that a legislative body that does so is not subject to the statutory deadlines or provisions related in a school district articles of agreement related to the meeting that conflict with the need to apply Australian ballot to the meeting to the extent necessary to enable the municipality to apply Australian ballot to that meeting. So that seems to me that that's more of just in case language belts and suspenders it would seem that the 60 days is enough time to give them to meet all the current law deadlines. But as I understood I got feedback from the Secretary of State's office they seem fine with this language as is so that that be might just be in there as just in case there any other deadlines that might get in the way of moving to Australian ballot. Anybody have any questions or concerns about this section. Okay. So then the bill moves into professional regulation and I've just been discussing this with Jen Carby who handles board of medical practice issues as well as the executive director of the board of medical practice and director of OPR. So after discussing with them just further. There were a few tweaks to this, these sections, a couple of them. Three of them are in the nature of a technical correction and then the board of medical practice actually requested that one of the sections be struck, but there was no change in this first one section nine, which provides that during a state of emergency, the OPR can extend up to 90 days at a time the expiration dates of OPR licenses and waive any fees that would have applied if the circumstances of the state of emergency create a barrier to obtaining renewal. And to confirm the prior draft contains similar language for licenses under the office of governor but that is out of the bill it's not in the bill. So far as the three technical corrections, I just noticed that actually I think it was Jen that noticed. In regard to these out of state health care professionals this is first the bill starts with OPR statutes because those are entitled three and then it moves on to board of medical practice statutes. This section and another section referred to in one place one of these sections referred to the regulatory jurisdiction of OPR, and you can see that language on page 12 line 16. In the next section it referred to both quote the phrase regulatory and disciplinary jurisdiction of OPR will disciplinary authority is part of regulatory authority so just to make a both consistent. Both OPR and Board of Medical Practice agreed it should just be regulatory jurisdiction because disciplinary is included within regulatory jurisdiction so that was a technical correction that we caught. In the end so just to remind this section 10 and you'll see it again for Board of Medical Practice but this section 10 is for OPR, and it provides that during a state of emergency in consultation with the Commissioner of Health. The Director of OPR can authorize a health care professional who practices in one of OPR's profession, and who holds a valid license of practice in another US jurisdiction to be deemed to be licensed to practice here for a patient located in Vermont, using either telehealth or as part of a facility. So long as the health care professional is in good standing in that other US state, not subject to any professional disciplinary proceedings there and it's not barred from practicing here in Vermont for reasons of fraud or abuse patient care or patient safety. And then someone who is deemed under this section to provide health care services has to submit to OPR their contact information and where they're going to be practicing to provide health care services to Vermonters. And the person who does that the professional who is providing those health care services is deemed to consent to the regulatory jurisdiction of OPR. And this authority remains in effect until the state of emergency is terminated. And so long as they remain in good license and good standing. So that provision was one of those in Act 91. Any questions or concerns about that section. Okay, seeing none. All right, on page 13 in section 11 we're still an OPR you can tell by the three VSA start that title three is where OPR's main provisions are codified. So that's about inactive health care professionals coming back to practice in a health care field. If you recall, one of the requests from one of your prior drafts was to not use retired and said use inactive. And so that change was already made in one of them, your most recent drafts you reviewed. What you're doing is saying again during a state of emergency in consultation with the commissioner of health, the director of OPR can authorize a former health care professional who practiced in one of OPR's health care professions and who left active practice between OPR, not more than three years earlier with their license and good standing, they can provide health care services to a patient located in Vermont using telehealth, or as a part of staff, after they submit their contact information including where they'll be practicing to OPR. Returning health care professional would be authorized to provide those health care services for not more than 30 days pending their application for a temporary license or until the director of OPR determines whether to issue a temporary license, whichever comes first. And then finally in subsea, the director can issue temporary licenses to these returning health care professionals at no charge and can impose limits on their scope of practice as the director genes appropriate. And anybody who does this at the top of page 14 is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the office. This is another place where there was, aside from that regulatory jurisdiction phrase. We just noticed that this section used in one line a temporary license and in another line used emergency license. We're talking about the same thing. So they agreed to just use the term temporary license. So that was the change there. Okay, technical correction. Okay, great. Anybody with questions concerns comments on this section. And again that was another act 91 provision. And it is Lisa still with no. I don't see her here anymore. Because I can. Okay, never mind. Okay, go ahead. Sorry. No, I'm on page 14 and section 12 there was no change to this section after we reviewed it again. But the big picture what's going on here again taken from act 91. This is emergency authority for the director of OPR to act on behalf of OPR boards. So the language is during a state of emergency. If the director finds that a board attached to OPR cannot reasonably safely and expeditiously convene a quorum to transact business. And if it's authorized by the Secretary of State this is one of the places where Secretary of State's office. They suggested there'd be that hook there, the Secretary of State authorizes this. The director can exercise the full powers and authorities of the OPR board, including disciplinary authority, so that they can keep, keep going in case it's not safe for one of their boards to meet. And as a reminder OPR regulates about 50 professions and I think 18 of them still have boards. Signature of the director has the same force and effect as a voted act of the board. And if the director takes such an action. It has to be published conspicuously on the website of the board on whose behalf the director took action. There's no change in there from prior drafts. Sorry madam chair. No, that's okay. Any questions concerns comments on this section. Okay. All right. So I think this is the final OPR provision in section 13. This is the ability of the director in a state of emergency to issue emergency regulatory orders, again taken from act 91. During a declared state of emergency, the director may issue such orders governing regulated professional activities and practices as maybe necessary to protect the public. And if the director finds that a professional act by a person licensed or supposed to be licensed by OPR is exploitative, deceptive or detrimental to the public or some combo of those. So the director can issue cease and desist orders. And then if there is such a cease and desist orders, and the office makes reasonable efforts to publicize it or serve the order on affected persons. It's binding on all persons licensed are required to be licensed by OPR, and a violation of the order can subject the person to professional discipline. Under the need for an injunction by the superior court and deemed a violation of unauthorized practice. And no change there. Sorry, go ahead. Sorry. Can you just give us an example of what might be considered a professional practice act or that is deemed exploitative or deceptive like selling masks or what. Well, I thought it was neat when this question came up for the director before and could be she said that the OPR had used this authority during over the act 91. And it was for MMA fighting, I believe that she said, oh yeah, that couldn't be there couldn't be. People had to maintain social distancing but here is a group of people apparently engaging in MMA fighting boxing and MMA fighting is a regulated profession under OPR. And so there they use that authority to require that to stop. Okay, thank you. Which was a neat one. I don't know maybe we can, I can reach out to her to see if there were other ones she can give an example for you on if that would be helpful. I mean, I think that's okay. Okay. Thank you. So I'll note here that does any. Oh, no, go ahead Betsy. I was going to move on. Sorry, madam chair. Does anybody have any questions, any other questions or concerns or comments on this section. No madam chair and thank you for asking that question because I had the same question. What could somebody possibly do, but I do remember her mentioning the, because it was in wrong. Yeah, fun. Also I could think it would apply, you know, when salons closed down, you know, if a cosmetologist went back and was opening up her his shop. That could be a another way that are another reason to use this authority a cease and desist. Yeah. So I'll note here that we generate is a good question because for border medical practice. The prior draft referred to OPR three vs a 127 for unauthorized practice for the same statute, the same language that would have applied to the border medical practice. And that that wouldn't work because border medical practice doesn't use OPR three vs a 127 for unauthorized practice. So we started to discuss on what might be a proper substitute. And on further reflection the executive director of the border medical practice is requested that this same section not be included in the border medical practice section. As I understood it, the border medical practice doesn't you have ordinarily have cease and desist authority, and it appeared from what I gathered that they would already be able to address this and other ways. So as I understood it, the overall perception of the board at this time was it wasn't, it's not necessary to include it in this bill draft. So that was the one substantive request from the board of medical practice would be to remove that section. And so I did that for this draft since, as I understood it, the executive director advise it, probably not they didn't want to pursue it at this time. So that was the one substantive change for the board of medical practice. Any questions or concerns or comments on on this section. Okay. Thank you. So then in section 14 you're going to start to see a repeat of these same provisions but for the border medical practice. You can tell we're talking about the board of medical practice in section 14, because it starts out with 26 vs a that's title 26 is where the border medical practices statutes are versus OPR is being in title three of the Vermont statutes annotated, and it goes a little bit out of order that's the third technical correction, because the board of medical practice has different sub chapters. And one of them is about the board specifically, and then a following sub chapters about licenses. And after reviewing some of these provisions, it appeared that this first one in section 14 about the executive director being able to act on border medical practice and states of emergency, it really should go into the board sub chapter. And so that's why the order is not identical between OPR and border medical practice. Because I think this same provision for OPR was just in a different place but that's the reason why I just moved it up from a different. It was further on in the bill, but just moved it up to this section 1378 because it fits within the board sub chapter. In language we already reviewed for OPR, which is that during a state of emergency, if the executive director finds the board of medical practice cannot safely meet. And if the Commissioner of Health authorizes it. Executive director can exercise the full powers of the board of medical practice, including disciplinary authority. Anything the executive director signs is the same force and effect as if the board of medical practice did it. And there has to be a record of those actions that are posted conspicuously on the board's website. And I would, I will give a prize to any committee member who actually saw that it was in a different order and questioned about why it was in a different order. Did anybody pick that up. If you did you get a prize. Okay, thank you Betsy and I guess we didn't. I didn't. I pointed out there that's why it changed a little bit, but without any change to substance. So section 15 now skipping ahead to 26 VA say 1405 because now we're in the licensing sub chapter. This is the same thing about out of state healthcare workers being able to come back and practice in Vermont during a state of emergency. This is authorized by the Commissioner of Health, the executive director the board of medical practice can authorize a healthcare professional who practices one of the board's professions and holds a valid license and some other US jurisdiction to be deemed licensed here in Vermont to provide healthcare services to a patient in Vermont using telehealth or as part of staff provided same qualifications they're licensed. Other US jurisdiction, not subject to any professional disciplinary proceedings anywhere in the US, and not affirmatively affirmatively barred to practice here in Vermont for reasons of fraud or abuse patient care or public safety person who is deemed to be licensed has to submit their contact info, including where they're practicing to the board, and they consent to the jurisdiction, the regulatory jurisdiction of the board, there's that technical correction, regulatory jurisdiction. And this authority remains in effect until the state of emergency is terminated. And so long as the professional remains licensed and good standing. Any questions concerns comments on that section. Okay. Thank you. We are on section 16. Now, and this is about those inactive healthcare professionals coming back to practice. I've learned what we already reviewed for the OPR. This is for the Board of Medical Practice saying during a declared state of emergency, when authorized by the commissioner of health, the executive director of the Board of Medical Practice can authorize a former healthcare professional who practice one of the board's professions and left active practice not more than three years ago with their Vermont license in good standing to provide healthcare services to a patient located in Vermont, either by telehealth or as part of a staff as a facility. After they submit their contact info, including where they'll be practicing to the board. They can do so without a license for not more than 30 days pending their application for temporary license, or until the executive director determines whether to issue a temporary license, whichever is first, and the executive director can issue these temporary license to these returning healthcare professionals at no charge and impose limits on their scope of practice, and they're subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the board. So there's those two other technical corrections using the phrase regulatory jurisdiction, and then consistently calling it a temporary license, because it in two places it called it temporary license and one emergency license and the other. Okay. Anybody questions with that. Okay, thank you. Okay on to sheriffs. Yeah, so just a reminder that Board of Medical Practice about the emergency regulatory authority of the executive director was moved out, no longer in here. So we get to the sheriffs. And this is the authority based on Act 100 for a sheriff to be able to use county reserve funds when approved by the assistant judges. This was the same thing that you put in your Act 100 now just here for a future state of emergency. So it's saying during a state of emergency that affects a county in order to support the emergency needs of that county sheriff due to the emergency. The county's operation reserve funds and capital reserve funds that are described elsewhere in law, may be allowed to be used for the emergency needs of the sheriff subject to the approval of the assistant judges. There's that same definition of emergency needs that was taken from Act 100. It's the needs to respond to the emergency and it includes hiring deputies dispatchers and other personnel and purchasing equipment and supplies. This emergency funding from the reserve funds is in addition to the minor support of the sheriff's department that's set forth elsewhere in law. In this picture right now, sheriffs are not allowed by statutory law to access the reserve funds and more contract for aside from the sheriff's own statutory salary. It goes on like Act 100 did to say that if a sheriff receives those county reserve funds for emergency needs, the sheriff is required to apply to any applicable resources for emergency. Whoops. Sorry, I got the notice my internet was unstable. The sheriff is required to apply to applicable resources for emergency relief like FEMA that are known to the sheriff for any allowable reimbursement. And then within 30 days of any getting getting any of that reimbursement. The sheriff has to provide those funds the county in order to reimburse the county, but a sheriff's only responsible for reimbursing the county in an amount equal to what they got through those other resources like FEMA. And then there is a sunset, the authority for the sheriff to obtain funding for emergency needs under sub a sunsets two weeks after the day the governor terminates the state of emergency, which is also what was in act 100. Any questions concerns about that I think we heard from both the sheriffs and the side judges that they were okay with this language. Seems like I remember that. Yep. No problem. Okay. So the effective date section. So this bill overall would take effect on January one of next year, except that repeal of the use of the town highway funds would take effect on July one of next year. And that is because of remind us why that does won't take effect until July. I think there was a reason a Tucker question. I'm not exactly sure. Is that future effective date. I, I do remember the content. Yes Tucker, would you like to remind us. Sure, the, the repeal is set for the start of the next fiscal year for most of the municipalities, so that the prohibition on commingling of funds will be lifted at the same time as the towns are heading into the new next budget cycle. So I think this will pass and they'll have some advanced notice that as of July 1, you know, the requirement for the separate town highway fund is going away, and they can start sharing if need be. Sounds good to me. Anybody else have any questions or concerns or thoughts about that one. I see Karen and Gwinn are both with us. No. Yeah, they might still be, I knew that they had to participate in a emergency management call. Oh, I see maybe Karen's coming back. Yeah, but I, I haven't actually seen that. I haven't been looking at the right draft. Sorry. Well, I think the main question is. Right now the effective date of mixing the highway fund town highway funds. Yeah, it's effect on July 1, 2021. Yes, we that we think that's fine. Okay. All right committee. Where are we. We're good. Think to say. I think we're in a good place. Yeah. I think we've learned, I think we've learned lessons. And I have my, I, I want you to see your clerk is prepared. She has a vote sheet. All right. Did we do anything about electronic vote sheets? No, I still have to mail these to Gail. You know what I saw another city do just snap a photo of it with your phone and you could just send it. You could just email it. I could, but I want to keep the post office in business. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm thinking of mailing. Did you all get your ballots today for the judicial retention? No. Yes. Yeah, because I haven't gotten my mail yet. Be downstairs when I get back down. Wow. I'm impressed. Did you are you still running? Charing up those elections. No, I have chosen not to do this one. Because it would, it requires going to Montpelier. And it doesn't make any sense for me to drive to Montpelier just to do that. And Becca will be in Montpelier anyway for a separate. Meeting. So it makes sense to have her do it. Anthony, we could volunteer Anthony. He lives so close. Well, I think they need two senators and they were trying to. Ask senators who were. You know, I think they need to think how to put this. Not in a vulnerable population. Meaning us old folks. And. So Becca will do the tell the chief teller, I think, because she'll be there anyway for a meeting. Great. I don't, I don't know who he asked for the second one. It might have been Anthony or might have been Andy. I don't know. Okay. Well, are we ready for. Are we ready for a motion? Are we ready to say, yeah, we don't have a bill number, but. I would, I would move that we. That we approve draft 2.2 of lessons learned. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Second. Would anybody like to. Make a final comment or anything on this, anybody out there? I would just say thank you for taking this up again. Well, we had to earn. We appreciate. What? Sorry, Mike. No, likewise. Thank you for your work on this. I know it's a pain. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. All of you. Thank you. And we appreciate the input from everybody. Yeah. Well, and I think it's good. I think this bill is just the foundation upon which more will be attached. So we'll have this is, this is. Round one of lessons learned. And I think we'll see several other iterations of it. Okay. Do you want to. Absolutely. So the motion is to approve draft 2.2 of our. All right. Okay. Okay. So we'll move on to the lessons learned bill and are we ready for vote? Okay. Senator Bray. We're not. Senator Bray. Are you. Trying to do his. I will come back to Senator Bray. Right. You know, she's hard to find too. Yes. Senator. Yes. Senator. Yes. Senator Polina. Yes. Senator White. Yes. Senator Bray. Yes. An animus vote. Okay, great. Thank you. Thanks Betsy and Tucker. Thank you. It was great work. Thank you. Yeah. Great work at the very beginning when we were doing the ones that ended up being acts that led into this and then great work putting it together for us in this form. So, how many acts fed into this act 91. 100 act 100 91 100 and what else bets your Tucker. Act 91 was the first covert act and that's where as the professional regulation stuff came from act 92 was your gov ops first emergency bill and that had the election stuff and Tucker, most of Tucker's got a variety of bills in here actually act 106. So we're up to four acts fed this bill. So that's so good it's it's like not having to duplicate our work in the future it's like we've done this work this is a great this is great. Carpe diem sees the moment we're putting in this is great. Okay. I am, I am happy to report it unless somebody wants to. I think you should report it madam chair because it's your baby. So Betsy and and Tucker if you have any notes that I mean I think I'm pretty clear but so don't don't spend a lot of time coming doing a lot of detailed notes but if you have helpful hints that would be great thank you. And a summary of the bill be useful for us, those of us who are writing about it. So, okay, committee. Yay. Good work. So, the one other thing that we had on the agenda for today was s 220 if, if we know where that is and what has happened to it Betsy, and do you know. So it's just waiting house action, it got voted out of house give ups and house ways and means and house of probes but today the house is first doing the budget. And battle take a while. Yeah they just, they just started I believe at two o'clock. And so I think it was tentative as to whether the house would take up as to 20 today. And I think, as I understand it they're going to do a cox of the whole just to do an overview and then they would go to floor, but I just don't know if it's going to be today or tomorrow. I think they're being flexible with their schedule. So aside from any surprise house amendments or anything, were there any major changes other than the ones that you gave us before. Nope, all the changes right now are what is thank you to Gale for posting this it's on posted on your webpage. The HGO amendment. So there are just the eight instances of amendment that we already reviewed. And I think the house of process it's always in means to about the structure or the fee structure. Did they do anything. Nope, they, they just want more information about OPR fee structure and how it works and, but they had no amendments to propose. Is that somebody that we should be paying attention to. I guess not. Anyway, so. Committee, I think what we have on Tuesday is. The National Guard and a couple of people have asked to testify. How are you on that? Somebody's a little confused. It sounds like Brian though. It sounds like a funny loop of our tape. No. Well, whatever it is, let's try to ignore it and see if we can finish up today. And then on, I would also like us on Tuesday to, if we allowed an hour for the National Guard and that topic, is that enough? Do you think Anthony? Probably. Okay. And then. I would like to go through one 24 with Betsy to see where. The house is on it. Yeah. And then some of the other things that we just talked about. And also have. Commissioner. Sherlyn come in and talk to us because, as you know, the governor put out an executive order. And some of the things in the executive order sound. Like he just lifted them out of one 24. So have. Look at, have Mike. Sherlyn come in and talk to us about. if there's any conflict, or I don't think there is, but just so that we understand what's the relationship there. And then Wednesday, BGS purchasing, just to talk to them because we heard from corrections that it took BGS so long to go through the purchasing procedure that they actually weren't able to get the PPEs that they wanted. So, and then any charters, I mean, I think that next week we have to be a little bit flexible around charters and 124, those are the two things. Is that where we are? Yeah. Sounds good. So I don't think we need to meet tomorrow, do you? Wow. Because they won't have passed 220. Right. And even if they do pass 220, well, maybe I should ask, are we okay with the changes that they made? There was a VCIC proposal. Betsy went through these before. They pushed the deadlines, they removed the section that says about removal of street clothing, and then they pushed back some other dates and they changed the effective date. So really the only two changes other than dates were the removal of clothing and the VCIC proposal, which came from VCIC. I'm fine with them. Anthony? As much as I can remember, yes. I remember we agreed to them at the time we went to them. Allison? I'm with Anthony. I just, I'm sort of booting up as I remember our conversation a couple of days ago and looking at this. And Chris? It would be helpful when we do to have somebody from SGO, a HGO come and just talk about what the reasoning was behind them. But other than that, I'm fine. Yeah, I don't care. I just don't want, if they voted it out, even if they voted it out tomorrow, we wouldn't get it on Tuesday, right? On the floor. So we would have Tuesday afternoon to just briefly look at that. Okay. Right. So I don't. I don't know about having somebody come in from the house. I mean, if they all they did was change effective dates, what difference does it make? Well, change the removal of clothing. That's the only. Could we just ask Betsy just to give us, give me like one sentence on each of those changes. So I remember what they were. And what their thinking was. Why, I mean, why did they change the clothing? I think if we did that, then we wouldn't have to meet tomorrow. Great. Just be reminded. Yes. All right. That's the end. Sure. Do you have the amendment in front of you? Yep. It's right here on our website. All right. First instance of amendment is just changing the language about criminal background checks that OPR is allowed to conduct. The bill has passed the Senate contained the FBI's requested language. And then this change reflects the CICs, just tweaks that they had. The second and third instances of amendment are related to the deadlines in regard to clinical pharmacy prescribing. There were deadlines for the commissioner of health to adopt some of the state protocols and the board of pharmacy to have rules to support clinical pharmacy prescribing by January. And so they extended those deadlines from January to July of next year. Just for more time, purpose of more time. The fourth and fifth instances of amendment are in regard to the massage body workers' touch professionals regulation. And remember, it's a registration requirement. And one of the qualifiers to register was you only have to register if you're providing those services to clients in a manner in which they remove street clothing and have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The fourth and fifth instances of amendment would remove the street clothing qualifier. I think just I can't speak the legislative intent, but the conversation was how do you tell gym clothes, taking those off, taking off a sweatshirt, you're in a gym. I just think part of it was what constitutes street clothes and how are you going to regulate that? So they just took that all out? Our providing service is still a qualifier that you only register if you assist the clients in a manner in which they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. So that privacy still isn't there. Great. And then the sixth instance of amendment is also in that massage chapter. And I'd call this a technical clarification. So there's that section in there that says who's exempted from the registration requirement. And it lists all these professions that are already have to get licensed and they might incorporate massage or body work into their normal scope of practice. And so one of the professions that was listed was nurses. And as I understand it, there was a request from some APRNs to specify that nurses includes APRNs. And so they just added including APRNs as a technical clarification. Line with them. Yeah. Seventh and eighth instance of amendment relate to the effective dates. So the massage provisions in the bill as past the Senate would have taken effect on November 1. And in the eighth instance of amendment that got moved out to April 1 to allow OPR more time to prepare for regulating these new professions. And so there was also that separate section that said three years out from the effective date, OPR needs to report back to the legislature on how things are going and whether there should be any amendments to this regulatory structure. And so since they moved out the overall effective date of massage to April 1, 2021, they then moved out in the seventh instance amendment that report back to be April 1, 2024 to allow this full three years. So, so committee, unless there are any questions or concerns right now, I would say that we went whenever we whenever it hits the floor of the Senate that we would just concur with their with their changes unless somebody has a problem with that. We're fine with that. That's fine. Allison. Yeah. And there's a grinning Chris Bray. Yes, I'm still grinning. Yes. Yes. So I don't think he's grinning because it's only 303. So I think that we there's no need for us to meet again about 220 and when whenever it comes to the floor, we'll just concur. OK. Yeah. All right, so I don't think there's any need for us to meet tomorrow unless everybody just really, really wants to on Friday afternoon. It's not going to be easy, but I think I can manage to stay away for an afternoon. Chris. Well, it's been at least a year since we've had a Friday afternoon discussion of cannabis in Vermont. I thought maybe we could use the extra time to revisit that. Yes. How's your conference committee going? I don't know how you just said I was 302 Anthony. It's going. Jeanette, are you still meeting? I don't know what's happening right now. You know, the house is in charge. We have given them a proposal and we'll see what happens. Well, good luck. Yeah. So anyway, OK, so I don't think we need there's any need for us to meet tomorrow afternoon. So everybody can have a. I want to I want to take us all and have a creamy. Oh, oh, yes, it is creamy. Oh, no, it's way past creamy time. That's me. It's 80 degrees outside. Are you? I know our creamy stand clothes, though, already. Thanks. We stand turned into a drive through creamy stand. Drive your car up to the window and make your order. Drive your car to the next window and pay. Drive your car to the next window and get to creamy. So you really ought to be careful because you're coming really close to the building at that point. Well, they close on Labor Day. So we're all done with creamies around here. If anyone wants to come to Woodstock, we can have a homemade ice cream at the Woodstock Creamery. Thank you. I think that I'll just go buy a pint of Ben and Jerry's instead of driving to Woodstock. But thank you. I would like to take a rain check. OK, I am open to a rain check. OK. It's about to rain here, I think. So it's been raining here all afternoon, all day. So, Gail, are you set with Tuesday? Yeah, can you elaborate on the executive order that you'd like Michael Sherling to comment on? Oh, I have no idea what the number of it is. But he knows because he was in judiciary this morning and I told him we were going to have him come and talk to us about the executive order. Yeah. I don't know if he understands. That's great. Yeah, he does. The one that's based on our bill. Just tell him. Right. I'll send it to you, Gail. Oh, OK. Yeah, I printed it out, but I don't have it here with me now, so. What day did it come out? It came out Tuesday? No. I think it was last week. Oh, was it? Oh, I thought it was. OK. Do you have it, Betsy? And for BGS, would you like just Deb Daymore or do we need anybody else to join us on Wednesday? I mean, she really is the purchasing person. And I don't know if they even have a commissioner now, do they? They have an acting commissioner. Jennifer. Did Chris call resign? He retired. Oh, I missed that altogether. He did. He retired. When does that help? Use his skills someplace else. Oh, when does that help? I think it might. July, I think. Oh. So we should invite the acting commissioner. OK. And then leave it up to them, whether they. And we can tell them that it's just in response to the concerns that were raised by the Department of Corrections about the length of time that it took to get a purchase order in order for them to be able to actually order their PPEs. And by the time they got the purchase order, the PPEs were gone. And if you want to, we can notify Commissioner Baker at DOC that we're going to just talk about this so that he knows. OK. That'd be a good idea. Yeah. Anything else? Let's see how creative we can be. No, it's not. Huh? But have they taken up any charters yet? Oh, Tucker, Tucker. No, they have not taken up any charters yet. And I know one of the charters you asked about was the Berry City Charter. And I can't remember if I mentioned it the last time you asked about that particular charter, but there was no Berry City Charter Bill introduced this session. Well, because what I got a note from them that said that there were two charters that they were considering that they were going to take up both non-controversial. One was Berry City and one was Burlington. So Berry Town doesn't have a charter, does it? Berry Town? Maybe it's Berry Town. Berry Town also has both Berry Town and Berry City have charter amendments that were passed this spring. Neither of them were introduced this session as a bill. Oh, OK. Well, if they weren't in, we'll take them up. If the House takes them up, we'll look at them. So the only one we're actively waiting for is the Burlington one. As soon as they take up any in their committee, Tucker, can you let us know? And then we'll look at them at the same time. Absolutely. Thank you. OK, committee, I think we're unless you want to keep chatting. No, Mike, Mike, Mike, Donahue has an issue. Oh, I'm sorry. Mike, you're unmuted, but I can't hear you. Mike. Mike, we can't hear you. You're unmuted, but no, we can't hear you. Try unmuting yourself again. Wonder if you turn down your volume on your laptop. No sound. This is the time for sign language. Send us an email, Mike. Or can you dance? I think it's the volume on your computer. Yeah, or just leave and come back. Then we'll. And we'll be gone. We'll wait if you want to do that and come back. OK, I'm going to end the live stream, Senators.