 Hi, this is Senate government operations. It is Tuesday, February 9th, I believe, this is Senate government operations. And we are looking today at the proposal that came from the administration around the creation of an agency of public safety. We, there is no longer an executive order because the house has opposed it. So we're not, we don't have to talk about an executive order at all. However, there is, we do have some interest in creating an agency of public safety. And what we want to do is hear from people around what that would look like, how it should be structured. I don't know if Commissioner Shirling is on here with us, but he, oh, there he is. We're working to put together some kind of a draft bill that we can all respond to. But today we're going to look at just people's ideas and whether it's a good idea and how it should be structured. So I am going to say that for people who are on here that aren't normally on here, we do not use chat because chat is a sidebar conversation. And if we were in a committee room, we would not allow it. We would tell you to go out into the hall and have your conversation. So we don't allow it here either except for Gail to post links to things that people might bring up that are of interest to people. And we will, I will call on different people to speak to us. I'm going to, other than Bill Sheetz and Bill Surrell, is there anybody who has a time constraint that we should be paying attention to? Anthony, were you raising your hand because you have a time constraint or were you fixing your computer? You're on mute now. I was raising my finger to mute myself. I'm sorry I'm a little late. No, that's fine. That's fine. We just are getting started. So does anybody else have a time constraint and need to go sooner rather than later? Okay. I don't see anybody. I just want to say I never got lunch, so I'm listening, but I'm just making lunch. Oh, well, you can eat. We eat in committee a lot. I'm still in motion, so then I will eat on video. So with that, then I think that we'll just jump right into it and go to Bill Sheetz and Bill Surrell first. And I don't know how you want to do this, but there are implications the way the executive order was written. And if we look at it as a bill, there are implications for the council and for the academy. And I think that Mark Anderson also, I think you are connected to the council in an official way. So we'll also hear from you about that. But I'll go first Bill Sheetz and Bill Surrell, because I know they have to be out of here. So thank you, Madam Chair. Appreciate it. Bill Sheetz, it's good to be back in front of you. I guess I would defer to any questions. I'll just start very broad based. I think that just from I like your distinction, Madam Chair, there really could be some clarifying language that the academy is kind of a subset of the larger criminal justice council. So I certainly believe that the academy piece should not have the autonomy that it's had in the past and should be held more accountable in the form of an agency or something similar. I think for efficiency, effectiveness, it would be much better. I think budgetary wise, I come here with a fairly vast amount of experience with budgets. And to say that the budget here is thin and 92% above and beyond our control. I wonder that if in the last decade, if we were under an agency umbrella, our budget would look a little bit different, that we would have additional resources and a mechanism to be more effective in our budgetary response. I think there is a concern. I've heard it now as part of the council and in my role as the interim executive director over how we keep the autonomy of the new 24 person council. And I think it's critically important. So I don't know if that could be done through language. But I do think that even though we're closely related, there is a distinction between the 12 full-time equivalent lawn for professionals here at the academy compared to the 24 person criminal justice council. Yeah. And I think that that is important. And I think that we can, that those are the kinds of details that we need to address. And I'm glad we can do this as an institute because it's hard to get into that detail in an executive order. So, but in terms of the academy, you do think that it belongs. Yeah. Autonomy is a wonderful thing until it goes wrong. And there's only one way to ensure that it doesn't go wrong. And that's through direct accountability. And in this case, this position reports directly to the administration loosely and of course to the council. But that's only as good as the person sitting in this chair. And there should be some further accountability through an agency. Okay. Thank you. Does anybody have any questions for Bill Sheetz? Senator Polina? It's just a quick one. So I think you mentioned this, but you think it would have budgetary benefits as well? Senator, I don't think it could hurt. Again, we are as thin as possible. I appreciate the opportunity. I know we got to speak about it last week, all of the implications on S-124. I just think that a larger organization would be forced to support us. And we would not have option of having certain things unfunded. It would be a bigger, stronger, more collaborative voice towards funding. Thank you. I think that one of the thoughts from the department was that some of the business administration functions could be done by a support division in the agency itself. So Senator Clarkson? Thank you for that. I think that's what Anthony raises, what both of you are raising, critically important to have an advocate who's at a cabinet level. I mean, so when you're in the agent, if you're, and when you're in the agency, you will have an articulate advocate at the table with, you know, in that whole budgetary process, which is quite different from what the way it is now. So I think you'd benefit by an elevated articulate advocate. Any more questions for Mr. Sheetz? So Mr. Surrell, and I see Cindy is also here with us. Would you like to talk to us about the council now as a, and we know, we know they're connected, but we also know that they are separate. And you are on mute, Bill Surrell. There are people who've been trying to tell you that for a long time. I think I got it. You got it. Okay. Thank you for the opportunity to speak a bit about these matters. And I'm not fully on the same page as Bill Sheetz, for whom I have the utmost respect, but we're close. First, just generally on the concept of an agency of public safety. Unless I'm having a senior moment, I attended the Grafton conference back, I think it was in the early nineties or so, on the idea of the creation of an agency of public safety. And I would, and I think I was at that time either had just left as Chittenden County state's attorney and was administration secretary, or was still the state's attorney, my recollection. And in any event, I thought there were real benefits to the creation of an agency of public safety. And I still do. As far as the academy goes, separately, I do see benefits in budgeting, IT issues, and the like, being able to take advantage of an agency structure, which typically has a sizable contingent of folks working on either IT or budgeting issues, contracting issues, grant writing, grant administration, and the like. So I see some real potential benefits there for the academy. Then there's the question of funding. And I would agree that there's there potential funding benefits when you're divvying up a large pie with how the fifth floor and the secretary sort of divvy up that pie, even though the legislature, you know, kind of says that the department of X gets this and the department of Y gets that. Money, you know, from my five years as administration secretary, money moves around and there are differing priorities. Commissioner Schirling, I know, thinks that the training side of the academy and its operations are underfunded. I've heard him say, and he can correct me if he's on, but I've heard him say he thinks it might be a million and a half dollars underfunded. And there's no question, but that he is a strong advocate for the academy and for police training and for the council. I mean, he's the first one who called me about taking over as chair. That being said, we're level funded in the governor's recommend. Despite all of the additional duties that are put on, we say the council, but the lion's share of the work is actually going to be done in the training and so much of the work in S124 that is given to the council is going to be done by academy staff. And we have some very real needs to remotely come close to meeting what we see as our responsibilities under S124 and yet we're level funded. And so we're left and we have to get off at two o'clock because we have to go to the appropriations committee and we're going to be in there pitching for more money than the administration is recommending that we receive. If we were in an agency setting, I've been there. I've done it. Those who go in and try to say the governor has it wrong, our department or our agency should be receiving not only X but X plus Y. They're not the most popular people at cabinet meetings or other similar gatherings. And in my view, I mean, I'm not worried about myself. No one's going to call me from anywhere in state government and say, you got to shut up in terms of what you think the council needs to do its job. I mean, I'm not worried about that. But an executive director who was ultimately appointed by the governor might find himself or herself in a bit of a pinch between really espousing, I mean, you can espouse all you want to your secretary, but to be espousing before the legislative branch on what your financial needs are, that concerns me. So I'm not sure. I'm not sure that it's financially advantageous to the council and the council's responsibility for the operations of the academy to have to be in the agency. The jury sort of out on that for me and our current experiences are all that I have to go on. And we're going in slugging for ourselves before the appropriations committee in about 10 minutes. The last thing I would say, I apologize for taking too much time, is another matter that doesn't have anything to do with finances about the potential merits of the independence of the council. I think what the legislature was trying to do, you know better than I, but to put more voices into the creation of policies involving the operation, the recruitment, the training, the disciplining and policies for law enforcement. And if the council loses its independence, those who are calling for other citizen oversight groupings over law enforcement statewide, to the extent that the council is now, even though it's made up of significant numbers of law enforcement, they don't have a majority and it functions as an independent body. And I think I'd like to think longer and harder before I say it's a good idea that the council loses that independence. So I'm going to ask if anybody has questions, but I think that that is a huge issue and that's been brought up to me by a couple of people and which is one of the reasons why doing this legislatorily instead of an executive order language can be put into there to assure that independence. Yes, I appreciate that. Committee members, are there any questions? Cindy, would you like to add anything here? Good afternoon, senators. I'll just really briefly say I second if there is a restructuring to occur what executive director sheets mentioned and the distinction between the council and the academy. And I've worked there a long time and I've spent a lot of time explaining to people that yes, the agency I work for is the criminal justice training council. And then we also have this sort of board of directors that is the council. And sometimes when like directives come down, people are confused over whether or not it's the board of directors, council members, responsibility or the employees of the agency that I work for is responsibility. And so some clarity there if it could be added would be so I think the academy is a location and a program, but it's not the agency that we all work for. The agency is the criminal justice training council. So it's just confusing. And I think if it could be cleared up, that would be helpful. So when we move further into this, if we do, I would like to make sure that perhaps you work with our legislative council and with all those players to get that language in there. And I know that Mark Anderson has some concerns about that also. Committee, Senator Rom? I just wanted to ask, is it Chairman Sorrell? Are you chair of the board? I'm chair of the criminal justice council. Yes, council. Sorry. I just want to ask Chairman Sorrell, would you currently say you report to someone right now or do you function in this kind of independent oversight way? Well, I was appointed by the governor. The governor under S124 gets to appoint the chair of the council. But do I work for the governor? No. The governor is free to ask for my resignation any day that he might want, but I don't need to check with anyone before I exercise my responsibilities as chair. Obviously, might seek some legal advice on some things and like and appreciate need that. But no, I'm independent. Thank you. I really found your testimony very compelling. Thank you, Senator Clarkson. I would agree with Keisha. I think there are lots of advantages to being independent and it would be great. Actually, Bill, you'd think about some examples of where that's been really important. Because the governor appoints you, the governor can remove you, but the key thing is you don't have to check in with somebody all the time to make sure that it's okay to do something. Right. And that is critically important and every legislator can appreciate that. But if there were a couple great illustrations of where that was important in your mind, that would, I think, be helpful. Well, thank you, Senator. First and foremost is the one I mentioned that Executive Director Sheetz and I at two o'clock are testifying on our budgetary needs. Right. But I'd certainly be thinking about others that and if I come up with them, I'll bring them to your attention. Right. Thanks. Thank you. Any other questions for them? And I understand you have to go and I know that Mark, I'm sorry, Sheriff Anderson brought this issue up to me last week and about the maintaining the independence of the council. And so if you come up with some language, I would maybe ask Mark, what is your Sheriff Anderson? What is your role with the council? Thank you, Madam Chair. So for the record, Mark Anderson, Wyndham County Sheriff, I am the Sheriff's Association's appointee to the council. Okay. So I fill one of the 24 seats identified in S-124, but also prior to that. So if you would have any suggested language that we talked about, work with Mr. Surrell and Sheetz and Commissioner Sherling or whoever is going to be writing this potential bill for us. I'd be happy to do that, Madam Chair. And I also not to say that the language is exactly perfect, but Commissioner Sherling's 10 point modernization strategy does discuss it. I believe the words were enshrining in statute the purpose and the mission of the council. And I think that that is an excellent starting point, if not even the finished point. Yeah. Thank you. So any other questions on this issue of the academy and the council right now? And so I think our committee or my intention, and I don't know if the committee even agrees with me, is to try to create a bill that we could then look at to see and have people testify on. But I wanted to get this initial conversation first from people so that we had an idea of all the things that might need to go into a bill. And Commissioner Sherling, did you have your little hand up? I did, a tiny little hand. I can just barely see that tiny little hand. I just wanted to flag for you, Madam Chair, as we discussed earlier in the week, there is a draft in progress. We hope to have it to you within a day or so. We just couldn't get it done for this morning, because there's a lot to put in there, including, as Sheriff Anderson indicated, we've been talking about this for more than a year. Every iteration, including the executive order, has all called out the need for the council to retain its independence in much the same way that we call out on a different similar parallel path, the 9-1-1 board retaining its independence, as well, if it were to come to an agency. And I testified to that fact, I think, before your committee, just a week or so ago. So I just wanted to ensure that folks are aware that that is not in any way a point of contention. Right. Thank you. And just, Senator Rahm, just one second. I just so that you know, Senator Rahm, I don't know that other committee members know this, but we have actually had a similar bill in front of us at least twice in the past. And the last time, I believe that it got interrupted because there wasn't a lot of time, and just some other things happened. But we have been considering this for some time. So did you have a question? I did. I mean, this might be work the committee has already done to explore what independence means, but I just ask the commissioner, would he imagine having any sort of oversight role with whoever is chairing the council or having any sort of having that person as a direct report or having that person have a direct line to the governor? No, we're not envisioning any changes to the structure responsibilities of the council. The only change would be as I've testified to previously, the support the council would get for his operations would move from a 10-person operation and a $2 million budget to a $600 person operation and $130 million budget. Those are what might be considered the business functions as opposed to policy. Exactly. The council would continue to set policy as directed in statute, continue to have their oversight role relative to professional standards as memorialized in statute. They would just get access to a much larger array of resources with the operational components of the academy connected to a cabinet level organization. There's no, I don't know that there's a polite way to say this. There are these various islands in the state government that have been created over the decades and they get lost in the shuffle. It is really hard to come in with a $2 million budget sitting on an island as the council or the academy or however it's portrayed in various testimony when you're up against the $2.5 billion agency of human services budget. We have trouble going up against some of those large programmatic needs. I do not see any downsides to the resource allocations that would go with attaching the operations of the academy to whether it's a department of public safety or an agency of public safety or the agency of administration somewhere. I think it makes the most sense to be attached to public safety because it's directly aligned in mission and further fragmentation is what we're trying to avoid. But I do not see any budgetary downsides and I'll also observe that having been in commerce for three years, this construct is pretty normal. We actually have it in public safety. The fire training council operates independently and guides fire training and we don't touch that. We just execute what that independent multi-agency council directs. The same thing happens in commerce. There are a variety of independent boards and commissions. I think the secretary of commerce is appointed to something like 60 various boards and commissions. Some of them get all of the resources of the agency but do not report to the secretary. Same construct. Senator Rom did you have another question? I did and I'm sorry to do this if the chairman has to leave right now but I'm actually asking the commissioner. I don't sort of doubt your professionalism so I don't want it to seem that I am but as you say there's no downsides. I'm just really curious are there any certain resource allocations or personnel support systems where you could see any delay in getting something to this kind of council that has independent oversight functions that could have you accused of sort of slowing down what they're doing etc. I mean I'm just trying to understand what islands are important sometimes and so you know I'm just asking you what kind of resources and personnel would they be getting and how could that potentially interfere with their work more than help it. I'm not exactly sure I'm following the question because it sounds what resources would be going but how would it would interfere with operations so I'm not sure I'm following the... Maybe I can give an example here and I don't foresee this happening but instead of you have a grant you have a division of support services and one of those is potentially grant writing so there's a grant that's available and the grant writer says yeah well I'm not going to do that one for the academy because I don't think they're important. Is that what you're referring to Senator Rahm something like that? Yeah I'm just trying to understand where it might be beneficial to be reliant on a larger organization but where that could become a dependence that's harmful to the independent function of this kind of organization. But the academy isn't independent the council is. I'm sorry I wasn't specifically speaking to the academy. I was speaking to possible independent oversight functions of the council if we were to it's a legislature I think would like to continue to have some independent oversight of public safety functions. I'm sorry I'm not following the question the council would retain as we framed it the council would retain all of its independence the primary challenge that I'll observe over the last 30 years and watching the operations of the academy is it is vastly under resource. It requires the contributions in good nature of 73 police departments around the state to operate. Almost all of the training assistants almost all of the instructors are volunteer. The budget is an afterthought in the grand scheme of the state budget there is no budget for investigators to assist with the professional conduct investigations that are increasingly taking center stage. There's if it were some large robust budget that could conceivably be leached on to by another organization to try to bleed it to fund something else this would be a completely different equation. But it is so under resourced that there's just there's no ability to the only way that osmosis can work here is to infuse more resources into the operations of the academy. They just don't have enough people they don't have enough money they don't have enough resources to do the mission that they've been charged with. Okay so let me just give an example with the criminal justice. Mr. Sorrell and Mr. Sheets I believe have to leave so thank you and we'll be back to this next week okay. Thank you very much Madam Chair. Thank you and thank you both and Cindy I don't know if you're staying with us or going but okay. All right Senator Rom I'm sorry. No problem. So let's just say we wanted the criminal justice council to be able to work with racial justice organizations to give grants to communities that want to have community led conversations about what public safety looks like in their community and that might lead them into conversations about moving resources from policing to other forms of public safety. What would it look like for the back end support for the criminal justice council to go to administering grants like that if they were part of a larger organization that might have different philosophical feelings about those kinds of grants being given out? So two answers to that question one operationally they would have the assets of an entire division administrative division that handles grant administration accounting and things of that nature to administer those grants from a philosophical point of view it's no secret that we have disagreed with a number of pieces of legislation that have been passed over the last 18 months or so but once they become law our job is to execute them to the full extent of our capabilities and that is exactly what we have done that's what we would continue to do under the construct that you're describing Senator. And I believe that if the training council or if the council wanted to go in that direction it would have to be it's not in their jurisdiction or their duties right now so it would have to be legislatively given to them I think and then as Commissioner Sherling says they would be expected to obey the law. Yeah I mean the most important point there is that in its existing form I don't want you to cross check this with director Sheetz I do not believe there's any capacity to execute what you just described there just aren't enough people and not enough resources to execute a program of that nature where within the Department of Public Safety we do that every day. Senator Clarkson oh I thought you had your hand up I'm sorry okay and I just will remind us that we in S-124 charged the council and the academy and the department and I don't know who else to investigate whether or not the academy should live under an agency and if so where so we we asked them to to investigate this so let's move on then to other people who want to weigh in and Bill as Sheriff Bill I see you Senator Clarkson did you have a question first yes well you just raised a good question which is remind me when we asked for that update because I don't think it was a report but we asked them to weigh in on that didn't we and when we asked them to come to us with a suggestion so this time period that we're looking at would be a good moment for that suggestion this is their suggestion yes I should that no okay go ahead so I just want to clarify because I think it was a little bit of a mixed message that my understanding from uh Commissioner Sherling is that the recommendation is that the council continue its independence yes just but be incorporated in some capacities in the agency at to benefit from all the administrative resources and grant opportunity you know all the the the all the resources that are in that would be in that agency that would benefit the council and the academy well we what we asked for was not not to look at the the placement of the council that was not in the equation at all it said where should the academy live and come to us with a recommendation and that's what they're doing is coming to us with a recommendation that was the we asked them in fact we had in there but the house took it off shouldn't even live in Pittsfield right early Pittsburgh Pittsburgh yeah we we had that in there also and and um should it maybe live it under an institution of higher education I mean there were but we asked them for that recommendation and this is their recommendation so I see Commissioner Sherling has his hand up again and then Madam Chair I was I was just going to add that uh we uh we were part of the preliminary engagement process and we engage the stakeholders chief sheriffs the law enforcement advisory board the previous version of what was the criminal justice training council because the new council was not seated until uh January and there was unanimous agreement we also engaged Vermont legacies in towns the mayor's coalition um a variety of representative government entities and unanimously those organizations were in support of moving the operations of the academy itself within the agency of public safety in the manner that we framed it where it was under a division of support services and not embedded or accountable to the state police the important caveat is the new council has only met twice and has not in its entirety weighed in on this just because they're brand new Chair Bill, Madam Chair and Commissioner he just explained that uh I put on my other hat being the chair of the LEAB we did have a quite active discussion on this and you gotta remember the LEAB is made up of uh just about all law enforcement in Vermont plus like someone from the Attorney General's office Defender General uh Vermont Leagues and Cities and Towns and it was unanimous um to move the academy just like you're talking about just what the commissioner explained um to the DPS or the if he created the new agency of public safety and uh you know we want to see the independence sure we want to continue that and uh you know the commissioner is he's assured that's that's the way it's going to be so you know we're we're on board with the move so um and it was unanimous on the LEAB side thank you maybe we could um someday hear from um Mike DeRosius to see how the fire account how that works because that it it's kind of parallel to this the academy would be under the agency as the fire academy is now but the council isn't does that make sense just here and maybe we can duplicate the the language somehow if I may madam chair one of the reasons we think this makes sense is because as these two parallel um public safety first responder training organizations move forward there is the potential to leverage experience technology certain kinds of training leadership training in public safety for example we currently replicate two different places it there are tremendous possibilities in the future um by having a training division within an agency of public safety we I just can't emphasize enough the in my I don't know how many years I've been in state government now it seems like forever with COVID but the fragmentation of effort is costing taxpayers in terms of repetitive effort delays and extra costs that just don't need to be there okay does anybody else want to weigh in on the placement on the suggestion of placing the academy in an agency and yet maintaining the independence of the council uh chief falco did you want to weigh in on that or because we can move on to another topic if we want that madam chair I can wait because what I'm gonna testify to anyway we'll dovetail with this issue okay great thank you so uh senator romp I just I just want to say that I'm I'm such a visual person and I'm on the website and it says Vermont criminal justice training council and then when you go to click on the council members it says Vermont criminal justice council so I just want to make sure I understand there is no longer a criminal justice training council yes okay someone should change that on the website but it was just confusing me yes I'm sure we just we that became effective just a couple months ago and I suspect that they've just been um busy with other issues but we will remind them um yes sheriff anderson uh madam chair I think that underlines just one of many ways that the the academy staff is under resourced um we've we've worked with them on on various it issues but uh that being said I'm happy to deliver that message to the people that work on that thank you um so let's um move to does anybody um we want to hear what your thoughts are about the agency in general other issues with it um whatever this is just a conversation so that we can get everything in so um let's go to you then chief fecos or director I'm sorry good afternoon madam chair and members of the committee for the record I am Tony fakus director of enforcement and safety division for the Vermont department motor vehicles uh since I'm no longer I guess responding to directly to the executive order um but some of the things that I've already testified to in the house but remain the same is terms of you know overall I absolutely believe in support in in the uh the future vision the 10 points of police reform and modernization that have been already laid out how we get there is to you know I think is still you know work in progress obviously it's why we're here um there in the as far as them the department of vehicles uh specifically we have you know we have um we do a lot within this division of enforcement and safety that we have the drivers ed program the motorcycle uh education rather education program school about safety and then when you get into the criminal investigations and and a business support end of end of the investigative side of the house you know we're working with our dealers the vehicle inspection program and then lastly and as I think what we're most known for is the commercial vehicle enforcement team uh unit and and these folks are highly highly specialized as all of our our our uh our employees are here um but it's all part of highway safety and that's so we look at some of those you know what are some of the similarities and mission um you know so I'm gonna in very broad terms one of the greatest strengths I always felt in Vermont law enforcement is that that we've had one academy that you know it doesn't matter of what the shoulder patch whether it was you know Montpelier police uh I went to the academy with many many state troopers and and as well as uh DMV personnel and the fact that we have that foundation I think is a great strength to Vermont there's no question in all of these conversations that uh Vermont in terms of law enforcement of policing it's kind of a you know the have and have nots especially when you know when we talk about municipal policing um and what communities are willing to pay for and and then uh so my point about one of the areas why I supported the you know the this concept of an agency of public safety is really to um I think it really fits well with as we look for police modernization and inconsistency even though we are very unique in what we do here at you know with DMV enforcement and safety um if we weren't doing that job for example of the truck inspections and working with our federal partners um you know really nobody else doesn't in Vermont I mean there are some officers that are trained to certain degrees that they can do if they can do vehicle inspections but that's our primary focus is our is making sure that we help support our trucking industry as well as make sure that you know our highways are safe for them um so there's a lot of opportunity with training and that's where I think as I mentioned I think that the more we can have a almost standardized training and I don't just mean you know a mandate class here there or just earlier this morning I was on the phone with a you know federal agent who's an instructor for in Chicago and also and we were just talking about how Vermont we really need to modernize and that in terms that's you know philosophically how we approach training and everything laid out in this agency you know the architecture of this could really deliver that and that's something where I mean I can do all the training I want and we have vision here within DMV of what we want to accomplish um but again it's it's going to be compartmented it's not necessarily going to be in line with you know for example what the Vermont State Police are doing you know there's a lot of things that you know that are might be very proud of with their state police for example they're a collier accredited organization I mean there's a lot of so there's a lot of opportunity for join our you know joint projects again sharing of you know of of technical platforms um and but I think the end result that would be incremental for us because I want to make really clear our folks do a phenomenal job they're highly respected in the industry as well as with their by their peers and I couldn't be prouder and they're very you know and they're they have a lot of pride in that pride goes to their identity and yet there's so there's some concern that that they may have that they don't want to lose that but also same time where can we add to that training value that consists of the policy professional standards and accountability um to kind of take us to that next level um you know then so that's why historically I think um why this conversation keeps keeps popping up again um you know especially now with you know we're writing really reevaluating how we police whether it's a highly specialized avenue such as what we do with commercial vehicle enforcement and and you know regulating you know the automotive industry if you will here in Vermont but there's those are the things why um I think create some opportunity as long as again nothing detracts from the success uh and how we how we do business here with uh you know with our division is that your hand senator Clarkson no okay um so the way I understand that the executive order worked and I and I think that I heard you say you agreed with it is that there would be two departments um in the under the agency and the the one department would include um vsp and motor vehicles that the as two just different divisions I believe um am I right about that that is correct it'd be that under under the under the executive order the language will specifically creates a department of law enforcement and that would have a division of the Vermont state police and a division of motor vehicle enforcement um and there are absolutely two very distinctly different organizations I mean you know the responsibility the Vermont state police have you know they're handling the not one calls anything that comes up they are the go-to um including all of their special teams and their unique resources uh you know we have a very different job um but yet we're all law enforcement officers we all support one another and and certainly anything that creates better interagency or division integration I think would go a long way for example highway safety task forces in other words working with troopers side by side on various details with our commercial vehicle enforcement folks um to protect our trucking and commercial vehicle corridors uh you know there's a significant number of the accidents that involve commercial vehicles in many cases was caused by a non-commercial vehicle so we have a lot of um it's not overlap it's just an opportunity to do it even better um but the fundamental back backstory there though is that accountability that professional standard the policy um and this is something that you know I dealt with even as a Montpelier police chief that you know nobody in Vermont should be held to you know should be should have different standards of expectations when when they have an interaction with a law enforcement officer and and quite frankly as we all know where it's all over the map um so but does that answer your question in terms of back to the structure specifically? Yeah it answers my question that I think that you saw see that as a first step is um and the division each division would keep their own identity. Yes. Yeah. Any questions for chief? Okay so I I do know that um John Federico he works for you right? That is correct he yes he is one of our commercial vehicle enforcement inspectors and I think that he um wanted to also weigh in on this and I don't think oh there he is. I can't he it looks like John it looks like you are in witness protection because you are so dark I can't see you but I can see your um DMV uh yellow lines behind you so I knew it was you. I apologize for the lighting uh in the studio here um Madam Chair but thank you for having me. That's okay would you like to weigh in now that since we're talking about that um right now? Certainly thank you for the record I'm John Federico I'm a commercial vehicle inspector with the Department of Motor Vehicles I'm also the VSEA representative to the law enforcement advisory board and the Vermont Criminal Justice Council um and this was a surprise to me uh as well today to learn that we weren't really going to be speaking directly to the Executive Order um as I spoke to the House Government Operations Committee last week but um just narrowly speaking concerning the Department of Law Enforcement aspect of the of the previous plan um I guess a couple of the things that I would bring up or are that um it's it's not so much the change I've heard it said that you know change is is really the sticking point here I mean I think we're all used to change we're all used to adapting uh to change um but it's it's really more of the unknown um that's the issue than than just changing uh no one has a has a problem when there's a need for change but it's uh it's a lot of the unknown um uh if if this is going to go forward I think what we would press for is uh some level of uh of the rank and file being included at high level discussions uh about how this might proceed and as we've not been involved in the past um I'll be frank with you we we I understand uh everything that that um Director Fakos has said and um and I understand some of of the goals here but we're still not currently seeing the benefit this would be to either our department our mission or the taxpayers um the Department of Law Enforcement of course would require more than just the state police to be a department otherwise it wouldn't be a full department um and we're not quite sure yet why um why if philosophically this was important um and useful uh that other law enforcement agencies in this state um and I understand that they were included in the in the executive order but under future study but um just sort of wondering if it's if it's good for one group wouldn't it be good for all groups and to be discussing it as a whole um I mean we currently are lucky enough not to have issues with funding so I don't think it's a funding issue um we're we're really tied into what I would call the neural network of the DMV I think it's going to be um I think there's going to be a a lot of things that come up I mean it's to me I liken it to kind of like those flipping houses shows I mean every time we are going to open a wall here we're going to find a new issue or a new problem and it's going to cost potentially more money and there's a lot of unknowns there I mean we we've talked about um how how there are some known increases right off the bat this isn't a money saving operation anymore uh or or plan that I've I've heard it said um and so that that that bureaucracy that may be created in Department of Law Enforcement just right now looks to be um unnecessary to us um but again if we were involved in future high level discussions perhaps those those um those ideas would change perhaps not um but um um you know we're not the only ones concerned about that um you know I won't speak for for him but there was some testimony from the trooper side of things that um that bureaucracy um that that would be created and maybe more costly would be concerning as well and and I would just lastly say that uh you know we we in some ways in operate like a different law enforcement agency just like a Montpelier PD or a St. Johnsbury PD we were we easily can pick up the phone share training share ideas share um share operations we can do it even easier because we're state employees the state police are state employees there's a lot of those things that we can do right now and without having to go through um changes that that may cost the state a lot of money in the future again that said we are we're certainly um open to the continued discussions we'd love to be uh involved at a higher level um then previously uh if if this is going to go forward so that um so that our voices are heard and and and that we may also bring our expertise to the table uh so that you know we don't hopefully we can help avoid any walls that are opened and find out we need new electricity you know throughout the house new roof and all that kind of good stuff so appreciate your uh your time thanks john I I do apologize for the fact that um we aren't speaking directly to the executive order because we've set this up last week before we knew that the house had opposed the executive order so there is no executive order anymore so um and terms of um speaking to the higher in the higher level conversations I think that's what this is the if we do this it will be done legislatively it will be done by statute so the this is where the conversations will be held I believe am I right committee this is I mean we we will be writing the the statute senator colomor thank you madam chair john I really appreciate your uh testimony I was going to ask uh director fakers because up till this point everyone that's testified seems to be in full support of uh what was contained to some degree in the executive order I still think there's some discussion as to whether both chambers had to vote no or yes I know that certainly the administration's legal counsel feels differently than some of the other folks but that that aside this committee has also put forward a bill uh more than once uh which would reorganize the public safety situation but I'm especially grateful to john for for providing some testimony because I think it is important um full disclosure my wife worked for DMV for many years in a mobile unit she had nothing but good things to say uh about things and the way they ran um but it you know if you have a hundred people in a room you're never going to get or rarely will you get a hundred to nothing vote on anything it just that's just the way things are so I think it's especially important that we hear from the rank and file and john if you have specific examples of given this possibly going forward what would change for the average DMV worker and pick whatever um job that they have uh versus what's in place now if you can think of any examples um thank you I can't uh think of any examples right now because all um all that we've heard to this point is just that um nothing will change uh we'll simply move over um and everything will remain the same and and um but there's but there's a lot of confusion around that um it just just for example we're we're not quite sure whether um the the executive order referred to our civilian staff that are that's intertwined with uh some of our operations comes with us doesn't come with us um they're you know title 23 is a big thick volume of law that that that's got the commissioner amount of vehicles written all over it I don't know if you can just simply replace the title and and then everything goes smoothly we um like I said because because it's it's just sort of been a flat no discussion but just a flat you know nothing's going to change don't worry about it it's gonna just everything's going to stay the same um you know we're it's the unlike I said it's not the change it's the weary of the unknown that um that I think has been the biggest uh sticking point uh so far um I mean certainly there's a little lament that you know the inspectors have been around for a hundred years we just we just celebrated that anniversary of uh the history of remote motor vehicle inspectors and that you know and that's ultimately going to change it's not a reason to to to make this decision to go forward or not but um you know it's just it's part of the it's part of the identity part of it as well so maybe I could turn the question a little bit to uh Tony and you must have had someone comment negatively or at least express some doubt about about the change can you offer any sort of reassurance to the folks who might be watching this and john I'm very sympathetic I've gone through four or five ownership changes in the in the job I used to have and when they say nothing's going to change except the color of the check that's the first indication you know that there's going to be a big change coming so um Tony if you could just sort of reassure uh the folks that that work with john sure I mean right now the the uh the executive I'm gonna go back to the executive order language it was specific to to the the director position as well as all sworn DMV so I've already made clear to um one of our non sworn staff that because that he's directly involved with this commercial vehicle enforcement unit he does audits and inspections and they you know that's absolutely part of it um in all respect to commissioner Manoli and I we also have um you know some discussions that we're still hammering out on you know what if it's no longer enforcement of safety division for example um standing up a new division that would you know directly support business the business side of the function but either way we'd have to still be embedded in my my vision um still have to be absolutely embedded into DMV for example we have attorney general you know people from the attorney gel's office assigned to DMV we have people from ADS assigned to DMV um so that's how I would envision it and I want to make really you know if I didn't make this clear enough in the beginning again it's we're not broke um this we it's a very highly functioning team um but where we get into some of the some of the um more nuanced opportunity and changes that could impact uh a sworn officer of the DMV um in the case of looking at their you know if there was an allegation and misconduct it is a different process than if it was for example currently uh for a Vermont state trooper um because of you know a lot of that has to do with just some of you know there's union issues different different unions different structures and and how those are handled um and I don't I don't want to just put up that it's only a negative I'm saying but in terms of the accountability piece though um and what I'm looking to is take a something that works well in my vision that I think I certainly uh you know I really buy into what Commissioner Shuling has laid out is that we're taking something that works really well but can we actually make it even better um policy development and training opportunities um and and staff development is is the area that I've been highlighting consistently with that um as far as it's not going to change for anybody um the workstation locations you know everything right now there's I don't see a reason to change that but maybe there could be opportunity down the road um again thinking about um you know a workspace or having uh in a barracks where um you know again be more cross-pollination if you will of different agencies and ideas um but I want to make clear also we were very well with the Vermont state police um and our all the municipal departments and because we're a unique resource um you know in that regard but in terms of the unknown um those those questions that I think are concerning the union membership that I just can't answer at this time all right thank you both yeah I think that um and I don't want to go back to this these studies but we've had about 10 or 15 studies done over the past number of years and every single one of them has recommended that all um the state sworn officers should be somehow they should keep their identity with their with DMV and it's fish and well like DLC and DMV are the three and that they should keep their identity and think of it much as the attorney general's office they're in the attorney general's office but they're actually assigned to some place and I that's been a recommendation since I started here in 2003 right that has been a recommendation every single time they spend one done um senator Clarkson uh thanks uh I don't know if this is a question for John or for Tony but how many people are in the DMV law enforcement division and how many of them are as you call them sworn officers uh I'm not sure what they're sworn to I mean that means they're certified they're certified okay because worse I guess you could call us all sworn officers too because we all swear oaths um so it's anyway how many uh are in the division totally and and how many are law enforcement or sworn law enforcement versus uh administration or non-scorps sure we have the division is made up of 41 full-time employees and then during the writing season we at we we hire seasonal employees approximately 40 additional seasonal employees of the 41 full-time 27 of those are for full-time law enforcement positions so again every one of our inspectors whether they're a detective or you know working on the commercial vehicle side of the house they're all full-time uh from law enforcement officers and uh with some very unique specialized training and experience thanks and the 40 seasonal art are not they're just riding they're just motorcycle riding instructors that help out but they're sorry they're part of the division when they are employed ah okay great and so and I guess this is also a question for Michael Schirling which is as I recall uh stage one in this is including DMV but that we're still you're still discussing fish and wildlife in liquor and lottery uh for are they part now of this proposal I thought that they were kind of stage two that's correct senator as proposed in the executive order uh there would be that would be a secondary phase so there would be some additional I hesitate to call it a report because as senator white indicated this has been studied and re-studied and every report comes back the same yeah um but that would of course be at your discretion um if it were uh a bill uh how you'd want to handle that we given the current operating environment the pace uh and all of the support we provide to the COVID operations I'm not sure we would want to accelerate things um but there are a variety of different ways to phase implementation in the future phasing in as yeah yeah you could got thank you very much well I have the floor madam chair could I add um I want without sounding argumentative I want to provide some clarifying information regarding inspector Federico's testimony I I do want to take issue with some of the things that he said we have been actively engaging every sworn law enforcement officer uh and every member of public safety organizations in the state on this topic for almost 14 months we have circulated and recirculated drafts of modernization strategies the secretary of transportation and the commissioner of motor vehicles met with the dmv staff in may of 2020 one of the items brought up for conversation at the highest cabinet level at that point by inspector Federico was this topic um we have actively solicited stakeholder feedback as we have uh circulated that modernization strategy we have testified side by side with the ve vsea on this topic going back to january and this committee when we were testifying live in january and february pre-pandemic um the vsea president was in the room for that testimony um so I want to be really clear and unequivocal that there has never been a law enforcement or public safety engagement process that has been more robust or more sweeping than this one in my 30 years in public safety in vermont thank you thank you um I see that um the treasurer's office is on here and I think that late in the day we changed the uh time to three o'clock for retirement issues and you're welcome to stay with us but I assume that you're busy doing other things probably and that we will continue this until um for a little bit longer um allison is out of hand yeah yeah I just while michael had the floor I just want to ask the additional personnel michael that is in as I recall it's quite a bit smaller the fish and wildlife crowd and the and the liquor and lottery I mean it's not 80 people when it's it's not 81 people it's like it's smaller right uh fish and wildlife is I would say roughly the same uh size and uh liquor liquor one or no in the in the 40 range okay 41 I thought you said 21 27 sworn officers in dmb oh is right and the rest were there there were 81 totally talked about 41 full time 27 were uh law enforcement right and it's the law enforcement right so we're it's just the 27 sort of roughly 27 to 30 fish and wildlife yeah and we will he and the lottery is about the same no smaller uh is that that's quite a bit smaller senator yeah that's a like 10 or 12 yeah it's not that many and for the record uh we have very deliberately contemplated the congruity of operations of these various entities and and I was frank with this committee last year I'm not sure to what extent um moving liquor into the agency makes sense there is a very small fragment of what they do that has anything to do with enforcement it's so it is the different kind of operation so um we have been we've been as thoughtful as we have the capacity to be um and we have not prejudged which pieces make the most uh sense um at this stage uh because of some of the the the timing issues and things of that nature so thank you thank thank you so um on this um the issue of the agency and and we will keep this conversation going clearly this isn't the last time we're going to do it and by the when we do it next week we'll hope to have some kind of a draft that people can actually look at to see the language which will be helpful but um Tim Page are you who are you representing hi thank you Madam Chair I'm representing the Vermont Chiefs of Police Association I'm the current president oh great Chief of Police in St. Johnsbury um I'm basically here to support the transition to an agency format mainly the Chiefs aren't involved in the minutiae of who's going to be what under the agency but we do see benefits in its formation we are going through such a time that the training and recruitment of officers is going to be paramount um and uh having a an agency that would lead agency with the academy uh as part of that to advance the academy's mission and personnel I think is huge um we we need to improve our training we need to improve our our personnel that we're hiring we need to set a professional standard for every organization out there and I think we can do that uh through a robust training of our people and I think that can only be accomplished if we have the the funds and the resources to do that and I think as an agency that'll afford us that opportunity not to mention that departments such as myself that are smaller uh rely on uh the Department of Public Safety right now for uh certain investigations uh um sometimes manpower issues things of that nature so uh I think bringing it all together under one one auspice would be uh beneficial for everyone uh both in uh in resources but uh budgeting and uh so I'm here just to show support for the agency thank you and are you speaking you're speaking for the chief's association also yes ma'am second I I um pulled the chiefs uh before coming here and uh overwhelmingly in support of of this move okay thank you thanks for being here um any questions for um how about the sheriff's association anybody want to speak for the sheriff's association you know Madam Chair Sheriff Von Yax as president of the association the we're we're in favor of moving the academy in 9-1-1 you know to DPS or the Agency of Public Safety you know we're we want to remain neutral as far as advocating for or against creating the agency so that's that's our stance but we do want to see the we'd really like to see the academy and the 9-1-1 board uh go over uh just like uh Chief Page mentioned about especially the academy so that's our stance currently thank you thank you anybody else want to um weigh in on this on where we are right now with with it Benz I saw you um joined us did you have anything you would like to say well maybe he didn't join us well he's there he looks like he's thinking I think he's giving a speech at BBSR he's seeking refuge in our committee as usual oh yes many people come and sit in our committee to get away from the hustle and bustle but um I think he's probably waiting for the temp workers discussion okay um in that case I'll just ignore him um so does anybody else have anything else that they would like to throw out um on this issue right now and then let's get everybody here the next time we bring it up senator Clarkson yes um I'd just like to go to commissioner shirling's question because it sounds like you did a pretty robust survey of everybody in law enforcement or at least a large number of people in law enforcement when you said you had reached out and and publicly engaged so many people on this on this issue and I I think for us to make you know as we make this as we consider this it would be great to know if you could get us the number of people that you reached out to the number of people who responded you know just so people understand the public engagement uh the robustness of that feedback that I think that would be helpful in making the case I'm happy to provide an outline I think senator there there may be a report that we drafted back in December on some of this engagement that we sent I with the starting reports I apologize and well I need to make sure that this is one of the topics that had a report so I'll I'll double check that but great because I think it'd be useful as we go forward and John is John still with us yet you are I would say that um what should happen is as we go forward and whether we ultimately pass a bill or not we need to get um people's thoughts in there so if if um your members have have uh comments or would like to see language in the bill we need to get that to us so that we can make sure that we're going in the right direction I mean when we talk I don't know if you were with us when we talked about the putting language into to guarantee the independence of the council the criminal justice council if there's language that needs to be in in the bill to um guarantee the uh not independence but the identity and preserving the identity of people who are not in the uh vermont state police in their individual units we need to get that language and anything else you think is relevant all right thank you for that opportunity we'll uh work on that sure thank you um anybody else have anything right now uh senator polina yeah I'm just wondering I don't know if there's an answer to this question or not but I'm wondering how large an agency we're actually talking about creating I mean we're talking about something obviously it's not going to of not going to rise to the level of agency of human services but I'm just curious is there any way of talking about the size of the agency that we're creating and what it means relative to state government certainly senator it's a great question it would add uh somewhere between 120 and 140 people to a department that currently has a little over 600 employees so by contrast the agency of human services has 3600 or so employees we are very mindfully did not draft something that looks like a super agency you may recall prior iterations of this that have been drafted into legislation have contemplated moving all regulatory functions department of corrections emergency medical services other things that would create a super agency and that's not what was proposed here because it's interesting I've heard from a few constituents who are not saying this is my opinion but I've heard from a few constituents who have said this is no time to be building a super police agency that kind of an attitude given the fact that there's skepticism about police operations around the country not just in Vermont obviously and so it made me just think about the size and scope of what we're trying to do here and also as you well well aware we've had issues with bias policing and issues like that around the state and I'm wondering if there's be anything that would change or improve this kind of consolidation within any way improve our ability to deal with racial bias in policing and those kinds of things I mean data collection we've had issues around the state that have been disadvantaged to BIPOC people I'm just wondering whether or not did you see any way of using this transition as a way to improve the ability of us to do anti-bias policing and things of that sort very much so senator and with I think two primary areas well three primary areas of focus unifying the supervision of law enforcement under the elected chief executive is one that's one of the goals I mean the governor ultimately is responsible for delivering bias-free operations in state government in part at the direction of the legislature based on the statutes and the budgets that you create secondarily the you mentioned data unifying the mechanisms with which we collect and then swiftly report data not just on interactions with communities of color but data across all law enforcement operations and then third the front end of this hearing was largely talking about training but increasing the investment in and broadening the influence on the training environment in a way that helps to unify that rather than keep the fragmented approach that we have now all we believe are incremental steps to improve our outcomes relative to bias-free operation senator ron I was just looking through some of the committees of the criminal justice council and I know that the chairman's no longer with us but I was curious I was just looking for example at the use of force committee and it looked like a lot of local law enforcement folks including you know from towns and state government is anyone commissioner shirling paying attention to the racial and gender diversity of some of these committees and task forces are you doing that right now in in your department we are very much doing that we have a fair and partial policing committee that's co-led by a civilian who also serves as our our equity advisor I can't speak to the nuances of how those committees were formed relative to the council as that was done by the the chair and the director I'm I'm just a member of the council do you have a philosophical approach that you encourage your team to be guided with in this regard yes in a put most simplistically uh broad engagement with communities with special emphasis on extra outreach to those have who have been historically marginalized and that is one of the the core reasons we've got an FIP team they engage on a monthly basis with over a hundred stakeholders from a diverse backgrounds um on this topic of of operations policy training um and communicate with them generally about things that are happening statewide so that's uh that's our primary operating methodology right now my last question sorry go ahead do you do you see opportunities to pay more civilians to engage with you in this work knowing that it's kind of an additional burden for them to engage on these issues and continue to give their time and capacity uh stipends yes we've actually uh recommended that I think that may be there's too many documents but that may be drafted into the modernization plan actually I'm fairly confident it is um to look at increasing yeah either establishing or increasing stipends for civilian participation and things that would otherwise be volunteer efforts thank you I saw Sheriff Anderson you had your hand up thank you Madam Chair just to follow up on uh Senator Polina's comment on benefits specifically around training uh back at the end of 2019 before we started looking at law enforcement uh in the way we are now I was engaging with a an organization uh that uh it was a training system and platform uh that I had the benefit of uh going to down in the federal law enforcement training center uh that program is now closed I was talking with the vendor to bring them here and it's a hundred thousand dollar program uh so to the point of the agency uh not to say that they would necessarily need to promote this but the access to funding uh I think is a way that we could bring in some uh leading edge training that uh that deals with this when we talk about fair and impartial policing uh the current training model delivers the cognitive level and while I'm no expert on Bloom's taxonomy of teaching and education uh the the reality is is what we are capable of delivering within the the academy's budget right now uh is simply cognitive level uh we're not doing uh nearly as much as we could with experiential learning uh or or uh in areas where we need to work towards culture so uh to that point I want to say that inside the agency the academy has a far better chance of providing higher levels of training not just on fair and impartial policing but also in areas unrelated um but also important to culture such as supervisory training and executive training uh as a new sheriff uh I I had the benefit of learning from many sheriffs who were willing to take the time to support me learning my position uh from people like the commissioner who's willing to take the time to explain the state government and we should have that formalized um to to figure it out by asking the right person is somewhat of a uh splash approach and then to senator roms observations on the academy's website I just reviewed the list of committees I noticed it's still the former training council's committees we have met I believe twice now uh and uh to the point of why the academy's website is not currently updated the uh the position responsible for updating that was vacated in December the person was just hired and so there is a piece where they are actively working to update information there's several committees that are created that are not listed and I can't give an accurate representation of what they are right now but I just wanted to know with them thank you thank you so any other questions concerns right now so let's um when we take this up next week we will have um hopefully a draft and if anybody has what I'm going to suggest is that if anybody has language that they um would like to get in here to for us to consider um amaran is that um could I say that um uh your point people would be uh John Federico um uh Tony Fakus um I think that uh Bill Surrell and um Bill Surrell and Mark Anderson may be around the independent the independence of the council if there's anybody else that wants to get language in there not that that we will adopt all the language necessarily but we can get it in so that we can look at it in a draft form does that make sense committee okay and if any committee members have uh suggested language I'd suggest that we get them to amaran also um okay so with that may we may we madam chair may we have a five or ten minute break to go do the our stretch our lens that is exactly what I was just about to say is um let's take up let's see it is uh three oh one we will be back here at three ten that's nine minutes we should be able to do it and everybody to put off your