 I know that at least two of them send their regrets because there's a conference in Springfield this morning about economic development. And so they felt that it was important to be there. It includes regional planning commissions from two counties and the economic development people from two counties. So they send their apologies. So we are, this is the last week before crossover. So we have four more days before bills need to leave the jurisdiction on the House side to get to the Senate, on the Senate side to get to the House. And so in general, like the rest of the world, we do the easy things first. So all of the bills that could come out of committees on unanimous votes have passed. And now we're down to the things that have some disputes. In my committee, we have been working, so as you may recall, I serve on human services. And we've been working a lot this year on issues relating to elders. One bill that we passed that will be up on the floor this week is to have a group to really look at how we have an overarching plan for how we take care of elders. There is, the federal government passed many years ago, I want to say 30 or 40 years ago, something called the Older Americans Act. And those of you who have had any contact with the area agencies on aging, that's what we call the triple A's, that's the umbrella that kind of set those groups up. But we are concerned about trying to make sure that we have integration of services between the triple A's and visiting nurse associations and state government, the Department for Disabilities, Aging and Independent Living. So this group over it will have 18 months to look at how we put together a Vermont, elder Vermonters, what are we calling it? Gosh, we keep changing, whether we're elders or seniors or it's old, I think it will be an older Vermonters Act. Incredibly, so I didn't know where else to put it. We avoid that whenever we have a contact. Geysers, so that's the other thing. The other, but one of them, meteor pieces that we've been working on separately has to do with the oversight of nursing homes. I don't know if you noticed in the news last fall, there was a rather precipitous closing of a nursing home in the White River area called Brookside. And when we drilled down on that, what we found was that basically they had run out of money and no one had noticed. And as we brought in to our committee, the folks who theoretically regulate nursing homes, everybody did that. So under current law, we have the product procedure for the Green Mountain Care Board that regulates hospitals to look at the transfer of ownership of a nursing home. But there are serious questions about whether that adds anything to the process. It makes it very expensive and basically drives up price costs. But in any event, once the transfer has happened, no one thereafter looks at the books. And so we are trying to put together a bill this week that will direct the relevant players to get together and figure out how we work this into the licensing. So nursing homes are licensed by Dale, by the Department of Disabilities, Aging and Independent Living. But the people who inspect the nursing homes are nurses. So they look at things like patient care and bed sores and staffing levels and whether the food is nutritious and served hot and things like that. But they don't have financial expertise. They don't have the same thing than the hospital has where they come in once a year every so often and do an overview of everything. They, yes, but it doesn't seem to include finances at the current tone. So that's what we're working on right now is we feel like, what we found is that that other states have seen the same kind of issue when they have, they call for something like the early warning system. And so that's what we're hoping that they're gonna be able to pull together. So we are, we're gonna have a bill this week to charge them to come forward with a plan about how this gets done. It does not seem to be an appropriate job for the Green Mountain Care Board because the, so we have something in Vermont called the Certificate of Need that once upon a time was done by one group and when Green Mountain Care Board was set up it was taken over by them. And the concept of Certificate of Need is to make sure that we don't have 10 MRI machines, you know, one in Bethel and one in Stockbridge and one in Randolph and have them competing for business. So it's really about, you know, how do we, how do we appropriate healthcare resources in a way that is, that increases access without also increasing costs. So we're trying, but to have them look at these transfers of ownership, you know, so okay, so they do, so they get financials on the buyers who are often out of state companies. And often, as with most businesses that these are, keep in mind that nursing homes I think with the exception of the veterans home, all nursing homes in Vermont are for-profit businesses which is fine, that's their time to do that. But as most of you who are a business know you often separate ownership of the land from the business. So you, you know, you set up a partnership to own the land, the property, the real estate and then the corporation, the business is a corporation and lease is from the people who own the property. And there's, again, there's nothing wrong with that setup as long as the entity that is actually operating the business is, is solid. And so that's, so we're gonna be, we're gonna be trying to figure out how we put, how we put some constraints around that to make, to make that, because what happens when a nursing home closes abruptly is that you end up with very frail people who are then moved precipitously, possibly hours from where their family is. So A, they probably shouldn't be moved at all and B, where we are reducing the options of possibility that they can have meaningful contact with their family. So it really is a serious question. And with Vermont's population aging, this is an issue that will only, only continue to become more important. Couple of things in the news last week, you might have heard that, so one of the, I also serve on the Corrections Oversight Committee. I'm sorry, it used to be called that. Now it's called the Justice Oversight Committee. We mostly meet only in the off session, but we met this week because we've had, Vermont has, as I think I've talked about before, we have some prisoners who are housed out of state. Once upon a time you heard about them being in Kentucky and then for a couple of years they were in Michigan and Michigan cut off our contract, rather abruptly last year because they had better business. And so Vermont entered into an agreement with the state of Pennsylvania to have, we have about 250 prisoners who are currently housed in Pennsylvania. Interestingly, when we were dealing with private prison companies, which a lot of us were not real happy about, we did at least have contracts with them so we could say, you have to do this and you have to do that and you have to do, you have to provide programming and make sure they get enough exercise and this is what we want for medical care. Dealing with another state, we don't have that power. The state has its own internal rules about how its prisoners are kept. In the same way that if Vermont took in a prisoner and we do from other states, sometimes states take prisoners from other states because you don't want the policemen who shot somebody to be in the same place with the criminals who hate him. So you might, so there are reasons that we move people to prisons where A, they will be safer and everyone else will be safer. That tends to be done on a one-for-one basis. But when that happens, whoever is in a Vermont prison is under Vermont law. And so the same thing has happened to us in Pennsylvania. And the result has been not great. Number one, we've had three people die. Two of them on site and one within days of being sent back to Vermont. Was that their fault? Would they have died anyway? I don't know, those deaths are all being investigated but it was three deaths in about six months so it was dramatic. And second, we discovered that the particular facility where the Vermont prisoners are is for detainees. Now, if you've ever watched law and order, you know that they go to visit people at Rikers Island. Well, Rikers Island is a jail. It's a county jail and most states have a difference between jails and prisons. So if I'm charged with a crime, I go and I sit in jail waiting for trial if I don't get bail. But I don't go to prison until after I'm convicted. In Vermont, because we have so few people in any of those categories, we have what we call an integrated system where everybody is in prison. So if you get picked up on a Friday night for drunk driving and they decide not to send you home, you could spend the weekend in prison. And the particular facility that Pennsylvania has been used and called Camp Hill for the Vermont prisoners is a detention facility. And what that means in practical effect is that there's no programming there. So our prisoners are spending, I think it's five hours a day in their cells. So they get out for three meals and they get out for an hour of exercise and a shower and that's it. And these are the people that we send to the out of state facility for the most part are people who have fairly long terms. We don't, if you're in for three months, you don't go out of state. But if you're in for 10 years, that's very likely where you'd end up. So it is the programming, the jobs don't exist and the medical care has been not up to our standards. So our committee this week directed the commissioner of corrections to get the prisoners out of Camp Hill. If it's possible that Pennsylvania can put them into a better facility, that may happen. But she is now going to be trying to figure out where else they're gonna go with that. That was in the news and I thought I'd talk about that a little bit. The other thing that was in the news last week was the coyote bill. I don't know if people paid attention to that. That was, we spent four hours on the house floor talking about coyote hunting. The bill itself was a kind of miscellaneous official wildlife bill. But after talking about it for years, the committee decided to recommend that coyote contests be made illegal. Not, so it's, we have completely open season on coyotes in Vermont. You can shoot a coyote any day of the year. You can always shoot a pest on your property. So none of that changes. What changes under this bill is that you can't say, oh, let's spend Sunday having a contest and see who can come up with the most coyote tails. And so it's illegal to organize a contest and it's illegal to participate. What took the most time? Hello, Senator! Yay! Come join us. Good morning all. You should know that a lot of school buses are picking up children, so we need more of the folks. I'll finish up and then I'll turn it over to you. So once we had sort of, we've had, a majority wanted to ban the contests, then there was a question of what the penalties would be. And the committee had decided to plug it into an existing penalty provision that applied to big game and extinct species. And a lot of people thought that that didn't make a lot of sense. So I confess that, I flipped, I voted for it one day and I voted against it the next. In the meantime, somebody came up with a compromise that the jail time, so that there were the penalty. So what the committee had recommended would have had possible jail time for a first defense. And since a lot of us are trying to reduce the number of people who are in prison for the wrong reasons, that was troubling. And so the compromise was that the penalty provision was moved so the penalty for organizing or participating in a coyote contest is a fine. And a fine, and points on your hunting license, which effectively works out to a suspension for a year for participating in three years for organizing. That was the Coyote bill. Interesting, because I understand that's coming. I think you're gonna get it. And I've actually had a lot of calls about starting with all the other calls that are coming. There have been quite a few coyote calls when they first started coming up with it. What bill is this? It's not in the Senate, it's been in the House, so we didn't have the bill, so, okay. So welcome, Senator Necker. Thank you, I apologize for being late. I'm sorry to see you. I was surprised to see you come through the door. I was thinking of all the roads between the here and yours. Yeah, they weren't so bad as they were. Okay, but my two colleagues, Allison Carson and David Farnwick, who I know was oily here, they're in, let's see, Springfield, what is it, the whole regional commission, all kinds of groups that get together and have an event there. Every Monday there are a lot of events all around the county, so it's certainly hard to get to all of them. But anyway, glad to be here. I haven't seen you in a while. I've never. And are there specific topics that people wanna talk about? I'll give you, okay. I think the efficiency of time, this means about listening to the people, President. Yes, sure. And hearing what the reality is of what's going on. And listening to the reality. Yes. Right, and responding to the realities. Yes. I don't know whether everyone in this room looked at last month's recording, or if you're being recorded or working. Working. But I timed the recording. And it was amazing how much time we listened, rather than had a chance to speak. The Sandy Hawes attended the meeting and took notes with thought, which we expected there would be responses by the notes she took. And as of today, responses to those requests, I know how to do that. So rather than here, I'm not here for a dissertation about the coyote law and an hour of my life in the morning. Listening without being able to communicate my concerns. And I think there's other people in the room that would like to communicate their concerns before we run out of time. And one of the representatives says, I'm done meal. I'm not sure what the message is and what you're saying. I would like everyone to ask questions specific to what their individual needs are to Sandy Hawes and you, and respond appropriately rather than an hour of listening to what's going on. No one asked any questions about prisoners. Well, Bob, I think they're just abiding by tradition. We've been doing this the same way for 30 years. Right. And what we ask is generally the senators who speak for it as long as they want to speak on what they're doing or whether they think it's significant and they were asked the reps to do the same thing. And then after that, we ask questions. So I don't think we're doing anything different than what we've done before. Then that looks obvious. Well, is that the time to break tradition? I'm sorry, if somebody wants to change the rules, I'd be happy to read the thing that thought, but in the interest of time. Well, maybe we should extend the meeting to all my friends. Yeah, I assume they have time to stay here. I hope it's somebody right to stay here. We were here, I think, last week till 20 up for tonight. Last month. Right, but if you look at the recording, it was way over balanced. It's okay, let's continue on. Mr. Monterey, Sandy, you started with about the nursing homes. You know, what? The palace was just beginning. I thought she was done, weren't you? I haven't spoken yet, other than to say. Go ahead, I'll back up. But I don't mind. I have to admit, I can always get informed here when I hear Sandy speak as well, because we don't always hear every single thing that's going on in the house, so it's nice for me to hear Sandy speak as well. But anyway, I just had a couple of items on the agenda. Sometimes when we go to these meetings, it's a good idea for me to speak about items that aren't in the press frequently that people do want to hear about. So it works out to get a little blurb and then speak, but I'm up to whatever. I think some of the topics that I would like to just mention that people are calling me about from around the county are, one of them is the car inspections that people are getting stuck with a check engine light on. And so we had contacted the Department of Transportation and they're working on new rules for everything that are going to be in effect. I think around October they said they can't say exactly which date, but a lot of the things like several of the lights that are on, that are not a safety issue are the things that we feel they should be addressing. Now, of course, the check engine light could be to do with your catalytic converter and the problem of emissions, but it also could be that there's an effective light which a lot of people have had. So there's a couple other things like that that they're working on. And there had actually been a proposal by one Senate member to suspend the fines for failing inspection or if you don't get it fixed you just let it go. But that was a little too much in terms of, obviously I don't say brakes and tires and all that stuff. So anyway, that's something that's looming large though that the Transportation Department and the Department of Equals aren't working on. Another one that people haven't heard about that a lot of people have called about are the new tax laws with regard to the changes there from the federal government. And one of them is we had had a study done with regard to alimony which is a very controversial issue with a lot of emotions on every side. So that's, we had a bill before that we passed with regard to a study to try and figure out how it should be done. Is it a lifetime event that you pay for someone even if they remarried? There are many different things going on with that. So there's a judge that's the head of it. There are, I think, there were no legislators on it the last time, which is fine rather of the good folks sort of the South themselves, but so we had to renew that because with the tax law starting January 1, 2019, the person who pays alimony will not be able to deduct it and the person who receives it will not have to declare it. So the whole, there are alimony guidelines which all need to be rewritten. So we passed something, continued that same group of each couple of different members to work on that to make sure it's fair and there's different awards depending upon the judge. There's certain personal circumstances that have to be taken into account. So another bill which you might wanna be talking about and I'll wait to talk about it is a bill that we passed in my Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday with regard to extreme risk persons. We had this bill going long before Florida shooting and before the Fairhaven incident, it wasn't averted and that bill is about removal of dangerous weapons and that takes into account, it does have due process in it. Many people, of course, are very concerned that some of them would take somebody's property without due process. Of course, a police officer, a sheriff or whoever who's called to say a domestic violence situation, someone's been threatened with a gun and the gun's on the table. Police officer takes that now and always has. But the other part of that is they can't search the house and get other guns. So with this bill, which will help with regard to suicides which are the majority of incidents with guns in Vermont, family calls in, goes to the police, whatever, they can get, if this is something the person is planning, you know that they went out and bought a gun, you know that they've been thinking about gun, shooting themselves very depressed. The police officer could call the court and get an order to take the gun first for 10 days or maybe it's 14, it changes so many times. 14 days was a foot of that. And then you have to be back in court on that 14th day to be reviewed before the court. And then it could be removed for a period of I think 60 days or 90 should actually look at the bill because that kept changing back and forth. First it was for a year, which wasn't acceptable. Then it was for 60 or 90 days. And then you would have a subsequent hearing if there was evidence presented that you were still in danger to yourself or you were in danger to others. For instance, the guy in Fair Haven who was posting on Facebook and all over the place that he was going to do a school shooting and that very fortunately, that young woman and he sent something to report it to the police and there was intervention in those that was averted. But so if someone was doing that kind of thing, you could get a court order, get all the armaments. This also includes the bomb making material. In other words, if the Boston Marathon's roommate, if that's bomber's roommate, I've been able to say, gosh, this guy's making a pressure cooker bomb. Call the police, they would be able to intervene. So it covers a lot of things. It's coming on the Senate floor to, let's see, Tuesday. Because we submitted it on Friday, it should be unnoticed. I think the rules are going to be suspended to have it put in place more quickly. And then it would have to pass the Senate, it should pass there, I think it will. It would go to the House and the governor has sent us all a letter saying he has a list of things but he's wanting this done before town meeting day. So I think about the mental health aspect of this. Definitely there's something wrong with somebody who's doing that and they just never ever seem to get that person to the right people. I mean, fine, you send it back home, you put him in prison, he's back in society. Why isn't there a mental health intervention? That they have to go to mental health, that there's a place in each town that has mental health, that he gets some help, you know? That's true. I think that's so, I mean, this bill isn't really, of course, everybody that has mental health issues isn't going to be able to get it done, but certainly that's an issue. And in terms of, you know, for the other incidents whereby somebody's committed to the hospital how it works in a mental health hospital and then they are released when there's a determination within, you know, the psychiatric community that they can go to the community. And the thing that I've been advocating for which isn't really acceptable to the mental health folks is I, if someone has been committed to a hospital or there's an also in the community kind of commitment that you wouldn't want to put in. And if they, I always thought that so many people go out taking medication which helps them to remain stable and is great. But the fact is, when they stop taking their medication and they're out in the public then things can really go awry and happen to some people. So I always thought that before your discharge from the hospital, you should go through a report from the court to review it. But that's not something that's going to happen. I tried to get that last year as part of another bill and it would not go at all. It's also the state of affairs in the world today with, you know, these generations, you know, psychologically, you know, it goes deeper than. Yeah, but I, again, we go back to that 39, the police went to the house 39 times. I mean, let's be serious, you know, why wasn't something done? I mean, take him and have him go to, have him talk to somebody. No, I just, I caught visiting your house. What is that going to do besides tell you you're a bad boy, you shouldn't do doing that and let's not have to come back here again. But 39 times, that's to me, that would have been a real red flag about the fourth time in that there's something wrong there. Of course, that was for that year. Yeah, I know, I know, but I mean, it's just, yeah. But so this bill, hopefully, you know, if that person had been posting something on the internet, having all this trouble threatening people, this bill, someone could intervene under this bill that was in the works. So I guess I'll leave it at that. Of course, just. Okay, you started your speech about Brookside, the nursing home. How you spend five months in there? She received the best of care. It's an old place. The state wasn't doing their job at all. The inspectors who would come in and they would look at, oh, there's a hair on the floor. That's a violation. This person didn't have a net on her head. Nobody from the state ever asked the workers in there to speak because they were told to shut up. Don't talk to the state people. Now, why? Why the state didn't wake up to see the signs that the people that bought the city on the Brookside had no idea of the business? And how did the state allow them to do that? And why they didn't listen to some of the workers in there which are the best people in the world taking care of the elderly? And I'm saying that because one of them is still helping me with hiding home. In other words, the state is failing miserably in a lot of these things. And they always put the blame on, oh, the workers didn't do this, they didn't do that. The state is the same, you know, we didn't do anything. So I know that as a fact because I was there daily in the five months that I was there. And I would see how these people were taking care of the older people. And no matter what the state would say they are not so, it isn't so, I would tell them you are lying right through your teeth. And that's all I can say. And I know that because when Heidi was transferred from a Scudney hospital to Brookside, it was just like day and night. She felt a lot better. A Scudney was really caring about the daughters. Couldn't care less about anything else, you know. Or they thought Heidi was gone, you know. So just do the basics and don't try to do anything more. Heidi fell off her bed in a Scudney one time. They called me at nine o'clock at night. And here's the stupidest idea. I said, why did she fall? Well, we didn't have the railing up. I said, duh, why not? Well, you have to authorize that. Okay? These are the idiotic rules of the state, you know. Maybe they changed it by now because I complained to the state, they got after them. You know, but why these things, why do we... Oh, no, the book says no, we're not supposed to do this and we're not doing it. She's drowning. No, no, well, we're not supposed to do anything. We got to wait until she comes up again, you know. Where are these regulations happening, bro? So... So I appreciate your note about speaking to the workers but I'm gonna make sure that that's part of what we do with the commissioner on the follow-up that we're doing. And I appreciate hearing that it worked well. I, you know, it's interesting that you say that they were incompetent but she got good service. So, you know, clearly they didn't know how to manage money. That part was... Well, I saw that from the very first day the new owners came in. The way they were talking and everything. Oh, nothing is gonna change, everything will be fine and all. But don't forget, it is a business. We'll throw somebody under the bus if we don't need that person. So, but it's a business, we'll take care of it. That's why the states will be stepping in. Not if there is a hair on the floor or there's nothing which used once and, you know, so I'm gonna try to use it again. Well, the other thing, I'm gonna talk a little bit and then I'll shut up. Last month I got to ask you some questions I was expecting some answers. I didn't get them. About DCF, Department of Children and Families, I believe. I had asked you who's responsible for the day-to-day operations. Who oversees the workers that are working in there? Who is their boss? Who do they report to? Who is giving them that situational authority? A little pipsqueak that works in there that's telling me when I call them, well, sir, you better stop because I can throw punches at you too. So, DCF? Well, who is in charge for Medicaid? What have you got? Medicaid. Right. That's, that's diva. Okay, diva or whatever it is, yeah. And so, my, I apologize about that. I understood that, I talked to Dick about it and he said that he would follow up because he had done it for you the first time with eligibility. I was hoping he'll be here today because I sent him a lengthy email but I know he was busy and I don't expect to jump. So your issue last week had to do with reapplying for the Medicaid, is that still the issue? Well, Heidi was denied the Medicaid because she was over the allowed thing by $5,000. In other words, you gotta have only $2,000 to be in Medicaid. They claim that I didn't send all the information. I didn't send everything the first year, last year and I sent the same thing again this year and now they tell me you didn't send us that thing that she got $7,000 or $5,000. So, so they denied Medicaid. And I said, I tried to tell them and to my lawyer, if I was trying to be a crook, why should I send this thing that you claim I didn't send you last year? The reports of investments and everything. There's no answer to that. My lawyer is trying to find out you're off Medicaid right now. What do we do after that? Nobody in that field knows how to answer that question. And these are the state people that find the thing, they're doing a great job. And Dick also knows about V&A. Last year I told you some situations that they screwed up an account. Hiding this account by $3,000. And when I come up and I said, they wouldn't send the money to pay the people who are taking care of hiding. And I said, you made the mistake, who's gonna pay for that? You, that's what they told me. And that's what I asked Dick and Dick helped me on that. And this is the attitude of these some workers sitting behind the desk, they're sitting there, sitting free. And Dick also knows, yeah, we hear from them, they tell us how great of a job they do. But you only listen, you don't follow up to see what they are doing. The very first day Heidi came home with the V&A visitors, nurses, physical therapists and all. They would spend about an hour, 40 minutes playing the computer to fill the reports. And the other 20 minutes would be what it's supposed to do. So are you aware of these things? This is what I'm trying to find out. Nobody is, they are doing a great job. They go there for an hour, they are finished, how do we go? We fill up our report for 30, 40 minutes. And if there's any time left and Heidi is not responsive, well, we can't do anything, here we go. And I'm not saying they're doing a good job, but they have to follow those stupid rules that you have to file the report. And many of them didn't know how to use their laptop. Neither I, but so take more than extra minutes to do that work. So this is my case. And the other thing, denying Medicaid to Heidi, there was an article in Rutland last month after we got the meeting here. I thought those Syrian refugees that came to Rutland and one paragraph that hit my eye and I said, ouch, you know, possibly absorb, you know, they wondered how a hundred newcomers could come into Rutland requiring housing, jobs, and English language training and how they fit into this situation. They failed to mention medical stuff. And I guarantee that many of them could be into Medicaid right now or health insurance. They throw the people that work every time of their life in this state, pay their taxes, and now you have a few dollars more than you're supposed to. So let me throw you under the bus. And what happens after that, we'll deal with that later, but nothing now. So Dick is aware of it and I was hoping he would be here because I have great respect for him for the last year and I'm sure he can help out on that. At least get an answer. How do you reapply for Medicaid? Nobody knows about that. If you have any answers, I'll be more than happy to hear them. I'd like to share this. I come from a very large family and, Sandy, I don't know whether you're expecting to take care of one of your parents. Do you? My parents are dead. They're dead. Okay. I gave two and a half years to my father. I have eight, seven brothers and sisters, 15 Eastern nephews. It took all of us to take care of my father and that was with a full-time nurse. So I look at Nick's physician over here, alone with his wife, Heidi, a wonderful woman, screaming, begging for help. Nick Nicolaitis asked you for help last month and as of this minute, the request that he made, you have not returned a phone call. You said you called Dick McCormick and passed it on to him. You didn't call Nick and say, Nick, I tried. It's in Dick McCormick's hand. So rather than going from the nurses up, I think it should come from the leaders or supposed leaders of you, our representative, to pay more attention to citizens like Nick Nicolaitis and many other in the villages that you oversee or you're supposed to represent. You sit on your electric ranger in Rochester. You're on the plane, we're in Rochester. You just mentioned your only justice oversight today. I believe that ironically, you chair or co-chair the Human Services Committee in Montpilich. Is that true? Yes. Co-chair, the vice chair. You're the vice chair. In that position, do you think just from a social etiquette and a political etiquette, do you co-chair that Human Services Committee and you deny Nick Nicolaitis a phone call? How can you reach the co-chair of a Committee for Human Services and you have a constituent that's begging you for help and you ignore it? That's not good. The other thing to make it up, well, I talked to my lawyer and he says, we will still have a chance to have an appeal. But he says your chances for an appeal is zero. Diva is known to retaliate to people they're really pushing the envelope a little bit. And if, oh yes, yes, I know it's used to you, but there are cases that that's what they do. They find ways. Did you ever realize they asked me to prove to them this year that I had a stroke? They needed proof that she had a stroke. I had to go to Gifford to get a report. That's the thing of what they did to her in the emergency room. Who oversees these people? Did you have to pay that report? No, thank God for Gifford. Gifford is a great book, yeah. Why? Why do I have to prove? And then 2013, two years before Heidi had the stroke, she sold some stock for I don't know what reason to the amount of 5,000 or 8,000. They want me to tell them what it's to do with that money. What the hell does she have to do that today? And I have a favor, that's it. All the things they asked me to prove. They can't ask you to prove your assets. They can only ask you to prove your income. I believe that is the fact. Yes, I didn't anything they tell me, but when they, you know, when he kills me, when he killed me with proof that she had the stroke. What the hell is that freaking person up there that, and that's a little bit squeak that's in the bottom of the line that whoever sees her, I don't know what your name when I send it to the people. Do you know who it is, Sandy? The data has many, many, many eligibility workers. It is required that people reapply that they have to prove every year that they are still eligible. We talked about, I was talking to someone the other day about that and we're trying to figure out if there's a way to make the reapplication more streamlined. One of the problems with Medicaid is that it's a joint state and federal program and some things are federal law and some things are state law. And after I sent the report from Dieford that she had the stroke five days later, another letter comes in. We need a letter from her doctor to say that she had a stroke and she was in no need of a nursing home prior to the stroke. I have these things in paper and I'm not making that up. And I told Dick, if we have time we can get together. I'll show every freaking paper I send to the state and they still pound it. So, and they will doing that because you dare to go against us, we'll get it with you. Who knows what we're gonna find next year or if there is a reapplication for Heidi. Nobody knows how to do it. Even the state, even my lawyer doesn't know. He says, I'm calling them there and I can't get an answer from them. What do we do after the penalty period that you are Heidi's of Medicaid? They don't know. But if you ask them up there, oh, you're doing a great job. We try to keep a line on everything and you're satisfied with that without looking a little deeper like we did with Brookside, you know the state. I'm not saying you guys, but the state. That's all I have to say on that and I hope something comes out of that. I have faith on Dick. He can help me a little bit if he did last year. But this is when I gave up work. I can't work anymore. Not because I don't want to, but I have 20, 30, 30 and hours a week. Supposedly the nurse and the other two ladies help me hide it. Now if for me to go to work to have a job, my office is so limited, almost zero. Where can I go from nine to one or 10 to one or 11 to one, you know? And as I said, the state, the way they are operating right now, we try to create another problem. So I can go on for a while, but not forever, you know? So this is what you have to look and consider the coyote thing that, how to shoot a coyote or what to do with this and that. These are more important things. Many years ago it was a commercial. I don't know what's election year. Somebody was pushing an elderly person in a wheelchair, taking it over to that cliff and throw them down. I don't know if it was a Democrat or a Republican or whatever, but this is what you're doing right now. You're trying to create the problem and then oh, we should have looked into this and yeah, blah, blah, blah. And that's, I'm finished. Next? Well, it just goes back. Why would you not, why would you not return? This is a major problem and it really is because as I said, taking care of an elderly person is a 24 hour job. My father had a full-time living nurse and it still took the entire family watching the prescriptions, the procedures, the nursing home, the mistreatment in the nursing home. If you're not in the nursing home, we were lucky we had a large family because the nursing home was so intimidated because we were always there. We didn't miss a track. But the tricks they tried to pull were despicable, absolutely despicable. And then what state was that? That's Pennsylvania. And I'm not trying to take that much time there, but we reached out to newspapers. Our state representative, the family did because of these concerns. And I just, I'm telling you, when you're taking care of an elderly person, God bless them. They need every minute of care that you can give. And it's just in total respect for that elderly person. And a person like Nick Nicolais alone with some assistance from you in the BNA, that's nowhere near enough. I should be down helping Nick and his wife probably four hours a day if I could. And I'm not asking anymore than that we had last year, the 39 hours, whatever the amount of hours is, 30 hours, whatever. I'm not asking for any more. I'm happy with that if you can maintain that, but. Well, I think it's very sad. Nick has the name of the little worker I dealt with that has the situational authority. I learned that word from my son when I told him the situation. Who checks on these people? What they do on a daily basis? And what they tell me, oh, we didn't get the papers you sent us. How come you didn't get them? What did you do with them? And then this year they're asking the same thing again that I sent last year, the same questions. And I said, what did you do with the things I sent you last year? Nothing has changed. We want them. Break your neck, send it to us. So we can throw it in the garbage. And next year we can ask you again the same thing. If this is the situation of the state, the state is broken. The system is, you know. And nobody up there in Montpellier wants to admit that. But we're doing a great job because V&A tells us we're doing a wonderful job. And I told you what it is. They are doing a wonderful job. We let them do the job they're supposed to do instead of finding reports for the half an hour. The post should, I pressed the wrong button so I had to go over again to start from the beginning. In the meantime, the car is ticking, time to go. So, I said, don't let me talk anymore. Shut me off. I work for stagecoach and you can imagine that I drive for a lot of the people who don't have insurances. They'll have Medicaid and they're elderly. But I've heard the same story over and over again. I know of one incident where the person was denied Medicaid because they had $32 over the amount. How ridiculous. And I agree with him, the state is broken. In many instances, you can call and you have to keep redoing and redoing, reapplying, reapplying and get nowhere. Absolutely nowhere. And I feel so sorry for these people. I feel blessed because I don't have that problem. But I heart breaks for these people who you can see need help. And they cannot for the life of them get it. They get cut off if there are no show for this and they're cut off if there are no show for that. And as they say, the rhetoric for trying to get something is almost impossible. But $32, they got denied, really, really. Oh, so what do they do? I mean, what is your next step? Are you supposed to sell everything that you've worked 50, 60 years for, 70 years for so that you can satisfy? They didn't have to question the $65,000 that took from Heidi's account to pay hospital, improvements in the house for her to come home and all that stuff. They don't want to, they don't care about it. You have $5,000 more in your account, your name. And that goes over the limit of the $2,000. That's all they care, just like the horses we, they call these things, the blinders. That's what they tell me to do, so that's what I'm doing. Don't bother to look around you to see anything else. And I used to say many of my patients, many of my clients aren't capable. They don't know how to do this stuff. And they have no means of getting to the proper people or the people coming out. And when he talks about VNA, I took care of a lady just out of the, just wanting to take care of her because I knew her, he's right. They come in, they ask if she's done her walking. No, do they do it? No, they get on that laptop and they fill that out. They spend 20 or 30 minutes. She never gets walked. She never got checked. And everything is wonderful, but it's not wonderful. I think that people who are in these positions need to go out on the field once in a while, unannounced, and say, hey, I'm going to follow you today. You're a VNA, I'm gonna do, I'm gonna see what you do today. It's just like people who get stamps, food stamps. Do we ever go to their house? I know I had years ago when I was in my 20s. I made a big stake in the state of New Hampshire. Yeah, a few years ago. Yeah, about people who have aliases that get food stamps. They have two, three aliases. And people who are getting food stamps and things like that that really, really, don't tell me that you're coming to my house at two o'clock on Thursday. You're right, I'm gonna be right in the equity and doing exactly what I should be doing. Walk in in that house on a Thursday afternoon unannounced and really see what goes on. They're not, they're capable of doing things. I do, I think we have, I know that there's, they're understaffed. I know that they don't have that many field and I have a good friend who was in the field for years for the state and he said, they are so understaffed to get people out in the field to actually see what's going on is almost impossible. So I don't know, I don't know the answer, but I do know that it's- Who has health care workers can also write on them. There are a few really good, there's a lot of religious stuff just like you said. This brings up another point with regards to people on assistance. Maybe you can adjust this, Ms. Nikki. I'm gonna- Nika. Nika, I'm sorry, excuse me. I understand that people on assistance, I don't know whether it's the EBT system, I don't know what system it is, but they're allowed to buy lottery tickets, alcohol, and cigarettes. Wrong. Is that wrong? That's wrong. No. But they can. But they do. They prefer and get cash and they go, that's how they do it. Now I have friends that work at Mass Market. Elders can get cash and nobody else. Is that a fact? Yes, that's it. Well that's interesting. I'll be back to- If anyone gives them cash, you call me, we'll call the fraud number because merchants are not supposed to do that. I've heard of one merchant in the Northeast Kingdom that may have done that a couple of years ago. It is illegal. Well, is it? Can you? I know that the elderly can get cash. The elderly meeting, what age, over? Yeah, what is an elder? 65 and older? Or is it 55 and older? But I don't- 19 months. Yeah. That's not to tell. Yeah. Because I- Something's not right there. I'd say the same thing you do. I've also seen cash from across. I think some disabled people as well are they not eligible for cash return. That's not what I heard. Oh, okay. I think maybe you can help us with this, but I think you should know how many people in this county are on assistance because I think it's way over the top. And I think there should be some serious intervention in people that are getting assistance. Something has to change because the population of assisted people, just in Rochester, is overwhelming. And they're all driving new trucks and running up. Yeah, so every letter I get from the state in regards to Heidi's problems, there's a whole page of languages. If you need help, you can Swahili, Chinese, Cambodian. That's true. If you never hear that, who pays for all these things? We do, but I'll throw Heidi under the bus because she worked here all her life and she made a little extra money. Now we don't need her anymore. She doesn't pay any taxes, although she does pay taxes. So it's a security. That's a great way of taxation. Wonderful. Very wonderful. Well, that's what you're gonna think to tax after that. What I mean to be going on for years, not just now. But, and then what I said about those wrote on refugees and the illegals we have working in the farms. They are wonderful people. They are not working people. We need them. And as one former representative says, every count of remote speaks Spanish, you know? You know that, you know? But they're wonderful. But we'll give them medical attention and probably medicate sometime because they don't make enough. But what about us who work here all our lives? You ignoring us. But we pay more attention to them. For what reason? I don't know. Votes, kindness or heart, whatever it is. And I have nothing. I'm an immigrant too. I'm a refugee rather, if you didn't know that. My father was born in Eastern Rumelia and I urge you to find out what Eastern Rumelia was. It doesn't exist anymore. But in 1950, United States allowed those refugees from Bulgaria and now I gave it away. So many, about a hundred a year to immigrate to the United States. We got away about 10 years to come here. We came here legally and we came here learning that don't go like this anywhere around. You have to work. You have to go to school at night after you finish work to learn English and get into the system here. Over here now we have to give them everything. They have no housing. We'll find the housing. Who pays for that? We have to give them medical care. Who pays for that? And I'm not saying let them die on the street but pay attention to us first, to the real citizens that are working here to make this state and this country great. When we finish, I wanna say, I'm gonna ask you a question when you're ready to go. What did you get out of the whole thing today? Not now, when we finish? A lot of anger, a lot of anger here. Yes, do you blame that anger? No. Okay, there's a lot of disappointment too. I mean, in every category, I just think the people have to get active. And I think, you know, just going back to the assistance people, there's more attention to helping a kid, an 18-year, 21-year-old kid in Rochester with assistance than attention for Nick's situation at the top where he really needs to help. We're helping people that should be out working and giving them assistance for what? I can show you photographs of these people sitting all day, all summer on the porch, watching the cars go by, and they have their own assistance. There is a fraud unit in the state, I think, that if you have a specific complaint about someone, you should complain. Well, I think going through a phone call for one, I think universally there's a major problem. I don't think there's enough policing on how these people, first of all, I think after two years of assistance, they should be identified publicly. They should be in the newspaper. Give them two years for help. After that point, the people in the town are gonna know you're receiving assistance, because these people are on these things for life. There are people that knock on doors of businesses every single month asking for a job because they have to prove that they went different. I have a friend, she gets knocked, every month she gets her door knocked on because she has a little tiny business for these assisted people to pretend they're looking for a job. It's about within the same two days every month they come and knock on my door. She's kind enough to say something, but then they go to their car and I break down, I visited blah, blah, blah, so that justifies me getting my assistance card. I think that's probably an unemployment issue. It was an employment, claiming. Well, it's a combination. The whole thing is. What happens when I keep hearing here, and I'm hearing social services, we're lacking in social services, what is the first thing that gets caught in government services? Social services. Yeah. So next time you think about it, when there's an election, think about social services and who's going to cut it and who's going to put it, who's going to fund it? We can't create jobs without funding. So we can't create people to go help Nick out or to help someone so out. We have to fund it. If it's cut, we can't fund it. I was in social services for years, made nothing, next to nothing in money. I did it because I wanted to. But, you know, there was no money in it. And jobs are good. I have friends that do it now and their jobs are getting cut left and right because the funding is disappearing. Because our government is cutting it because we can't support these people anymore. So there's got to be a fine line there. Somehow. There's got to be a fine line. Yes, there are people that are abusing the system, but there are also people that need the system. Right. We have to find a way to do it, but we have to fund it. Well, I think policing the assistance across the state of Vermont would fund a lot of money. Well, you got it. It's the entire country. I know. It's not the state of Vermont. Yeah, it is the state of Vermont. Well, that is true. The entire country. It's worse in other places. And when the case worker of Heidi comes up every month, he would come. I have to ask this question. Heidi, do you have a thing of suicide? And then, you remember the shooting of the social worker up in Barrie? I know. You're pushing people to do things like that by the stupidity of whoever creates these rules. I have to ask that question together. She can't answer you. Nick, I have no forgiveness for the shooting of Barrie. No, I'm not saying it was a good thing, Alice. I'm not saying that. But that's how some people are getting pushed against the wall and they blow up. I mean, to me, those two cases, you have ideas, I mean, thoughts of committing suicide or proof that you have the stroke I have to provide. Yes, I know. In other words, put the knife one more time in there. The first time it wasn't enough. And my wish is the person who is doing this, I hope she suffers the same way Heidi did, 10 times and more. Mr. Monterey, I don't want to minimize any of this conversation. But I think these two folks have heard, I hope they've heard loud and clear of the problem. You're right, Nick. I have a couple other questions I'd like to ask. The first one, Sandy, you talked about what the state might do for oversight with the business of the aging home, the senior homes and whatnot. Have you thought about going to a business, or going to one of these homes that's doing well and using those as a resource? And they might know something, I mean, just as an example, we've, in our school, we've been in the deficit at our lunch program ever since I've been involved, anywhere from $50,000 to $90,000 a year. We've got a new man in there that knows how to do this. We are making a profit, feeding our kids better, feeding more kids and making money. So what I'm saying is tap into somebody who's doing it right, not a lobbyist, but he says, I know everything, because those people don't know much. David, a youthful day with Brookside. No, I'm not. Brookside was hold and operated by the Grace family for probably 30 years. Since 1960. 45 years, 50 years. And very, very successfully, they made a good living. They didn't make a lot of money, but it was successful. And it had its ups and downs as every business does. And this company, I don't understand how this happened. You didn't either. And this company came in and bought it and another nursing home, another state organization. Now, when they bought these nursing homes, they had to do due diligence before they bought them. So I can't understand how they could have gotten access to these two viable properties who provided an excellent service without having gotten into due diligence. And why didn't they have to share that with somebody? I guess, for that price. Brookside, I think Sandy hit the point, though, is the fact that the state is, and we've also, the state's falling down in that they checked, you know, was the floor clean, bought all these things, but they never look at any financials. Well, that's what my point is, I, why didn't they? Well, I got right, that the state has any, anything in their rules? That's anything you do that. The state supports that nursing home. The state, the state and the feds. The, because there are rates, the state sets rates for the Medicaid patients. So there's Medicaid money, Medicare, of course, is entirely federal. So people who are on rehab, and there are a handful of private hand, until they use up to $32, and then they go on Medicaid. Well, I'm just surprised that there wasn't something further investigation of the financial. Well, that's it. Rare with all of this company. So, it is our understanding from the GreenMap Care Board that did do the analysis, that everybody looked fine on paper. What I have heard subsequently is that the, so I talked before about the separation of the real estate ownership and the operation, and whoever was the operator was not competent. The ingredient. You would think, yes. But in the same, how to approve the sale? The sale was approved. This problem arose later, and that's what we're looking at, is that there's review up to the closing, and after the closing, nobody is looking to finance it. We're gonna fix that. This problem started within three months after the sale took place. Garbage was piling up in the parking lot, mountains of it. The workers were screaming, what are we gonna do with that? Nobody, the state wouldn't listen to that. They come in, and probably they will look the other way. So I made a note about it. It's a great idea. I think another problem we have in the state, and this is statewide, probably over the country is, and I have no idea how to correct you. We have way too many overpaid lobbyists. I don't have, Nick doesn't have, Robert doesn't have time to come up there and spend day after day after day in your ear, saying, we need this, we need it, we need it now. These folks, I don't even know what kind of salaries they make, but it's a heck of a lot more than anyone in here in this room makes, and they're in your ear every day. So I'll never run from this, but if I were to, the first thing I would say is, if you're a lobbyist, don't come see me. Whatever you want, you're not gonna get it. Keep them out of the city. I'm sorry, there are some good ones, but I will have to say that you know the way you can get rid of the bad ones is here at home. So there are citizen lobbyists there every day, lots of them, as well as the paid lobbyists. You know, a lot of the volunteers for the American Heart Association, for example, they were paid lobbyists, but there are all kinds of groups of citizen lobbyists who come every day. Every day they're there. Come on up, let's see what's going on. Well, as soon as I make my millions, I can take my money and work. I take this day off, this morning I take off and work because I think it's important, but I guess I haven't found it important enough to take days off, or when I'm at a school meeting, I'm not at one of your hearings at six o'clock in the night. I feel the local school is more important to me than to do one of those hearings. So they're better compared to what I'd like to go up to. Anyway, I just hope that we, this group here, is now a lobbyist, per se, and you came to us, and that's a good thing. But we don't have the time to do it tomorrow, and Wednesday, and Thursday, where there are folks who came to do that. Is there a public list of paid lobbyists and citizen lobbyists? There is a book still that exists. The Secretary of State's website has all of the people who have to register as lobbyists in my recollection, as you have to register if you spend $500 in a cycle. But as Alice pointed out, we do have citizens who are retired who just come and hang out all the time. There are two things that happen. You're right. I have to tell you that at least the corporate lobbyists, I keep, I am very skeptical when they open their masks. Let's put it that way. But we also have people who are either lobbyists or advocates, depending on your point of view, for children's needs, for elders' needs, and the Heart Association. Everybody, what they do is they have, they amass the data to support their positions. And so they are a source of information. It's obviously, it all has to be checked and counter-checked, but they are actually a check on some of the other folks. But so with respect to the, so there are firms that have lots and lots and lots of clients, so they would register and they have a list of their clients, and that is available. Is there a list of representatives and senators that take lobbyists' money? You can, so everybody has to do a campaign finance disclosure. And so you have to list who gave you money. And so you can, I think you can do it too, is I think you can look at, let's say, a lobbying firm and see who they gave money to during the election cycle. Or you can look at an individual candidate and see where they got the money. Is that, I'm sorry, is that on the House, okay? That's on Secretary of State's vote, please. Secretary of State, okay. So if you look at Sandy Hart, please. Yeah, yeah. I wanted to ask both of you what your feelings are about term limits. There's a lot of career politicians in the State House. Well, you know, the State House or the Federal are both. I'm talking about the State of Vermont career politicians, which I think anyone over two terms, three terms at the most, I think there should be a limit because I think we have a big problem with lobbyists and career politicians. It's a little too, we need some refreshing, I think, with a position, whether it be a senator or a State representative. I think it's- There are no term limits in Vermont. I know, I'm asking what your feelings- My feeling is we don't need them because we run every two years. Everybody runs every two years from the governor right on down. The only people who don't run every two years are state's attorneys and the assistant judges or side judges, so-called. They have a longer term. But everybody in the State House is elected from all the State White offices right on down, with those exceptions, run every two years. So people can go right out and vote them out or vote them in. Whatever the public chooses is what happens. Do you have, there's a small flaw here in the fact that history will say that even the less than great incumbent has a more than a 50-50 chance to be elected. Depends on what the issues are. I can remember civil unions. Many, many people were outspoken. So, you know, it's what the, you know, you have to agree, you have to say, you know, there are a lot of people who don't like somebody's work. It's, you know, it's a mixed fact. But you're right. I agree that they're coming. In this town, the night I first found a school board, I ran against five people, and there was no conceit. Since then, in the last 13 years, I've been at home with months. As long as I'm willing to run. Perhaps they think you're doing a good job at everything in that. You were complaining before about all the people on a cool board who didn't have any imperatives. That's right. And now I don't mean to say that I should have been there for 13 years but I wouldn't have had someone else to come along. Maybe not. Maybe they would have voted you again. So actually this school board is a really good example. So the house has 150 members and in a typical year, in a typical biennium, there are between 30 and 40 new members. So there is constant turnover. And in fact, what I've heard from friends of mine who have worked and who have visited other state houses in the country that have term limits, the institutional memory is with the lobbies. So the only people who remember what we did 10 years ago are the lobbies and that gives them more power. So there's a real question about we have, I believe that we have a very healthy turnover. You guys have, the Senate has 30 people and you get five or six. It's so we have about it. We have 20 to 30% turning over every single term. And that brings in fresh blood. And I can tell you on my committee we've had last term, we had five freshmen out of 11 members. And it was, on one level, we had to a little while to bring everybody up to speed, but it meant that they were asking all kinds of questions that people didn't usually ask. It's healthy. We have that healthy input of new energy and new ideas and new questions constantly. Move to economic development, Sandy. I think this is a different one. Somebody over here wanted to ask a question. Did you have a question? Yes. So with regards to economic development. I thought you might have a question but I don't want to say something. Over your 13 years of tenure, can you give us some good examples of your efforts in economic development? Yeah. Like a couple of examples, some businesses that. So for most of that time I have been a member of an informal group that meets in the morning before we go to committee called the Rural Economic Development Working Group. And in fact we have this year, we are pushing a fee increase which is going to cause lots of angst among some folks to get a little bit more on the universal service fee for a brief period of time to continue broadband build out. Because one of the things that we know is that broadband is, it can't be regulated under federal law which means that we can't make it a public utility like we have phones and electricity. And so the for-profit businesses go where the money is. And the money is not in rural areas. We want, what we want is we want every little town in Vermont to have people be able to work from home, to not have to drive their cars, to be able to send their PDF files to people in New York. And we don't have that yet. And that requires some capital investment in backhaul and we still don't have that in enough places in the state. So this would create a modest fund to continue to build out. So let the, meet the candidate last year at the library, I think you attended, meet the candidates. I sat with you and asked you a question about economic development. And you answered me saying you personally, quote unquote, do not want some outside company coming into Rochester. You want the company homegrown like some organic new peanut that can be grown. But you don't want a company coming in from the outside to create jobs in the Valley. That was what you said to me. I have it written down. So you actually said you don't want an outside company coming into like the plywood plant with let's say it's from New Hampshire. You want it homegrown like out of the house. So it brings up another question with regards to bed and breakfasts. Are you still in the bed and breakfast business? No, we retired. You retired. Okay. It's still in your bio on the legislative website that you want to bed and breakfast. Now I understand there's some legislation coming through where they want to register all people that are doing Airbnb in the state of Vermont. Is that something on your agenda? In other words, if I want to rent part of my home, which is like a little small business, now the state wants anybody doing that to be registered with the state. So here's the situation going on. Are you aware of that? Let me talk to you about the situation going on with Airbnb's. And that's not a bill in my committee, but let me talk to you about that. The situation with Airbnb's is we have many, many bed and breakfasts, inns, motels, complaining about say there's a large house. I can think of a guy right in Bridgewater who he has a bed and breakfast license. All the fire inspections done, water testing, all that stuff done. And next to him is a large old house. That person does Airbnb. And outside their home on a big weekend would be 15 or 20 cars with equal number of people or more. And of course, there's nobody checking that for fire. There's nobody checking that for water. And so the people who are paying all the bills and doing these things, the fellow in Bridgewater was a commercial, his tax amount down was commercial. So he's come to me, and as have many other people doing Airbnb, doing legitimate hotels. And it's not that he's against Airbnb. He just wants them to be approved the same way he has to go through. The other thing is Airbnb never collected the taxes, the Roman occupancy tax. However, we worked with Airbnb and now they collect the Airbnb tax right through them and they get to the state of Vermont. So that is happening, which is very good. Still, there are the issues. And there was a study group, I think, to look into that, I haven't checked on it lately, that was looking at the issue of safety. In other words, overcrowded homes, fire escape, people not knowing how to run a wood stove, putting the ashes on the deck. Just all of that going on and there are, there is a need. We don't want an incident in Vermont where, you know, there's a fire and people are killed in an Airbnb that isn't safe. So that's being looked into. There isn't, and something done, but there was with regard to the tax. The tax department, as I said, worked with Airbnb and now the tax is collected, which is good for the state of Vermont. Yeah, it's over 18 million last year. For Airbnb taxes? The state collected between 18 and 22 million from Airbnb receipts. By time. I was a motel manager also in my family over here. That's great, what you say. They need to be regulated. Oh, great. Great, they need to be regulated. Yeah, absolutely. How you know, you go through, but you can see the safety issues. I've been in here at BNBs with like, how do we get out of here? If there's a fire, how do I get out? So that's being looked into. Those home detectors, I think, I mean, it's just that. So it's very important for safety. It's about the registered licensed hotels and then it's have to do it for Airbnb and you should have to do it as well. Well, it's like the dynamics of Uber, you know. There's a great book that you might want to read. It's called Who Moved the Cheese. It's a business book. So all of a sudden there's a dynamic where Uber comes in and upsets an entire marketplace just like Airbnb did. It's a great book, by the way. And all of a sudden the game can change. Unfortunately, sometimes state laws and everything else aren't up to the game changer. It happens in huge corporations. Someone invents a new mousetrap and all of a sudden the market changes and they're swept away with nothing, you know. So last year, you're speaking about Uber, I've got to cut you off, but people might want to know. So last year, with regard to Uber and the taxi companies, this is, Uber is basically only operating out of Burlington, even though some of those cells in the state, and maybe occasionally there's some place else, but basically they're operating in Burlington. And there's, and Lyft, I think it's a YFT. That's also somewhat operating in Burlington, as I understand it. So we had it in our Judiciary Committee, the taxi people, of course, said, hey, I have to register, I have to pay all these fees, I have to do this and that. And so that was taken up. And we actually passed a bill last year with regard to, and apparently Uber in Burlington, I think is doing this, record check for sex offenders driving Uber cars. There's a real opportunity to be a predator on some innocent victim that gets in your car. So that, we set up a program whereby they need, but they were already, Burlington said, we're gonna do it anyway, because they have a license for Uber there, to check for, they have to go and check the sex offender registration. So there are things that come about, by people talking about complaining and so, to make it a little more equitable for taxi companies. The other thing that was very big to look at, insurance for Uber drivers. Now, Uber ensures them when they have a passenger in the car. In other words, Uber pays the car insurance when the Uber person has a person in their personal car. But the fact is, their own insurance, in other words, they're riding around looking for someone to pick up. When they're on the call from Uber says, okay, you're on my, you're on that, so you pick up somebody, just see them or whatever. The part whereby their own personal insurance doesn't cover is when they get the call, Uber gets the call, the driver gets the call. His own insurance cuts out when he starts working for Uber. And I've seen that in a couple of policies, we've looked at it. So we tried to get them to cover that, Uber to cover that portion. Once the car driver gets a ding, but before it gets the person in his car, there was no insurance coverage. So if he runs into you, if he runs down to get on the street, it wasn't being covered. So that parts, I think that's still in the works. I don't know where that is right now, but his own insurance will cut him off when he goes to work for Uber. Because the Uber insurance will pick him up. But again, that period of time before the person gets in the car, they weren't covered. So, Uber rather wants that either. Yes. They're talking about changing the way the patient is funded. And also the... Unless you're under $47,000. I mean, this is a bill that has not passed. It's been being worked on in the house over and over and over again. Is it, do I know enough about it to say it is or isn't a good bill from what I've read? I don't think I like the sound of it, but I've got to really look at it. So, that, they had, I can say that I really don't like it when I know about it. They had said they were gonna try to vote it out on Friday and they didn't. As I said, this Friday is crossover. I don't think it's gonna move this year. And if it did get out of the house, then it would have to get over the Senate hurdle. So, there's been push, there's been a push for a long time to try to get to something that is even more income-based than what we have. And as a matter of policy, I agree with that. The problem with any tax bill is that the devil is always in the details and the details in what I've seen of this are not good. And in fact, look like they would actually drive up the property taxes because that would be the only, that would be the only expansion valve. So, everything else is set and if anything, and if you need more money, then it has to come out of property taxes. Why property taxes only all the time? Why does everybody pay for it? My taxes went $400 a year more last year, higher than the year before. A little over $4,000. We are in a fixed income if you wanna say so. Next year, the way I see it, it's gonna go maybe another $500. Where is that gonna stop for the property owners? How far can they, and you said it before that the aging population is getting bigger and bigger and many of us have in our own properties. That's why I keep you right, Nick. That's why people are screaming to get away from the property tax and go more to income. And this bill would do that. It would still have the business and the second home owners and people in Vermont who aren't camp, they would pay at the fixed rate that they do now. But all the other money needed would have to come out of income or property taxes. They have, we have the joint fiscal office which runs all kinds of numbers on computers to figure out who will be impacted. And obviously it would change from year to year depending on what budgets were voted in. But they run all those numbers and they haven't gotten accurate numbers or enough information yet. And they haven't, it isn't sorted out. So as you say, you're wondering what will happen. We don't know yet, but that bill has not passed. The school consolidation was supposed to help the animal taxes. Yes, and sometimes, and ultimately it is, sometimes they didn't want, you know. From Southboro. This year. This year. And next year. And just to put two things together that we've talked about, people who are running over out of their houses are still, they're still in their residence. They're still getting all the benefits. The Airbnb people are getting all the benefits that private residences get. Because they're not registering as, they're not businesses yet. They're not corporations. And that's going to all have to change. That's right, this goes through. Well, what's happening, and what I see, just the real estate market. Can we go back to the school thing? No, I wanted to go back to very quickly, the school merger is causing, it's a big, false influence. It's on some towns that save money and others who know what's going on. Okay, but this is what's happening. The cost of school is driving the property taxes so high that the local Vermont are, I think, high frame. Yes, we know that. What's happening is, they can't afford their homes. They're leaving the state and people from the flatlands are buying the property and turning the property to Airbnb. It's almost, That's true, but in terms of the, we do have income sensitivity at this point, which is, as you said, what's going to have an effect goes away. So that is certainly a big worry, but there is income sensitivity for people right now. For primary residents. For primary residents, not for commercial or second homes. 74% of my taxes goes into it. Goes into education, yeah. Yeah, big deal. Yeah, it's a lot of money being spent on education. But then, Yeah, I don't. You're on the board, so you know more about it. Obviously, I heard a different version of what this law is going to be or what they're trying to do. They went from a, to a yield rather than a, a dollar fixed, dollar amount. But as I understood it, it was going to go to about somewhere near around 50% of what they need for education was going to come from private tax. The other 50% was going to come from an income tax. Except, The income tax is not going to take effect until you made more than 47,000. Then we'll be teetered. Except, That's the down and dirty that I learned. Except that, that yes, the 50% except that that can expand to meet local budgets. So if the, if the, if the local budget goes up. I understood that, that's still, if you go to 50%, and even that expansion unless it gets really way up, it's still going to be a relief to private tax owners. It may not be if you're still making $200,000 a year, you will not see any relief. But for those who are making less of $47,000, $47,000. That's a great household. Great household. That number, you will pay that, where that number is, 48 cents, whatever they have talked about. And that, that'll be your property tax. That'll be your education tax. If you get over 47,000, then you're going to tear up. And then at some point, you'll be back where you were. That's how it was explained to me. Well, I haven't, I haven't, Bill is in the house and so I haven't looked at it. And I don't want to look at it until I know what's happening out of him. I have people at the BSPA that watch it very closely. Yeah, and I live with a woman. I, one of my housemates is on the education company, so. Why can- She's not sure she wants it either. I think, I think we all have problems, but I don't know what's working. What we have isn't working. Well, in your, in your supervised reunion where you live. Love them all. You're in love though, right? So is that part of the Woodstock Reading? It is not. Okay, but- It's not, and what's going on in my town, we had three votes about a merger. The first one failed, it would have sent the, we're already part of the small union, in Mount Holly, which is near, which is in Rutland County and nearer to Rutland where this, in Clarenham, there's a school, you know, River, which the people in Mount Holly, Black River of my town, we have a diminished number of students, of course. It's a wonderful, it's been a wonderful school. There's a college one there and we love that school. But, we don't have the students in our town. They simply weren't born. Well, excuse me. Okay, the supervised reunion, that's Woodstock, Killington and all that. I counted the amount of people that work at the supervised reunion and compare it to the, this white river supervised reunion down the road. They, I forget the name of the acronym for that school district, but they have six employees. They have six employees. Woodstock? The supervised reunion. The supervised reunion? Windsor North is it? I can't remember. Woodstock, what about administration? You think they only have six employees? The supervised reunion, from their website, they've got six employees that's listed on the site. They probably go down there and look in the office. Okay, our supervised reunion has 20, I think 24. You know, a lot of the special ed people have been moved into the purview of the supervised reunion. So, Woodstock, that reunion, I know that more than six people. Not that, but I, and not to get off. Well, I didn't list them on the website, I don't know. I've got an idea that they have that money on the back of who they call an employee and who you're calling an employee. And I think the numbers would, they're not that far apart. But also, don't forget, Woodstock, that, that union has three counts? It has, that's more than three. It's more than three times. Yeah, it's like five. Well, they, they've had bridge water consolidated with the Pomford. Now there are those bridge water children go over to Pomford. Right. And they're part of that district there. We've just, we've just consolidated. Now we have 10 towns. You have 10 towns. And they're scattered. And then from one end to the other is 56 months. So, and I'm in the office at least once a week. And there's nobody out in there controlling their thoughts. In the supervisor. That's a question. Well, that's the reason I brought it out because the gentleman brought up 74% of his property taxes go to education. The last meeting we had here, you were going to get back, we were going to talk about what percentage goes to the, to support the supervisor union. Do we? Yeah. I thought it was 40% of your 70, 40% goes way to the top to pay for the supervisor union. It never gets to the child. Also, when I actually bought it, I don't have time to go over it. I can't. So it's not for you? But the big number is you, I think everybody gets this look at is how much money goes to the SU office. Right. In the SU office, there is special ed. Right. And there's office expense. Okay. I think we have, and I'm just going to, off the top of my head, there's about $3.2 million in our SU that goes down to that office. Sounds about right. About 800,000 of that is actually the office expense. The rest of it, 2.1 or something like this special ed. Which, not now, don't forget, out of that 2.1, we get reimbursed about 46%, 44, 46, and we're in there. And then when you have a child that is over what they call extreme need or whatever, then it goes up as high as 90% when you get over 55,000 per child or something like that. You probably know more about that than I do. But so when you look at that 2.1 million, expense, you've got to get a real handle on it. You've got to go over to this side and look at the revenue. See how much revenue we're receiving for our special ed to see what it's actually costing us in dollars. And your tax rate. It's very complicated. I was, that's why I say about these new people. I was in the, I was on school board three years. I was going to make, I was going to change everything. Three years later, I'm just starting to grasp on how school finance works. I know they paid $54,000 a year for their real estate, where they ran. And of course, someone mentioned salaries over here. Donna was kind enough. I mentioned this last time. I requested salaries for everyone that works to supervise me in the White River. And she very kindly sent it to me. But some of the numbers are kind of high. Which? They really are. I don't have my computer. I might show that to you. Also, the average sound we pay, average or less than the rest of the state. Definitely way less than the rest of the country. I need your documentation on that. I know we haven't, I apologize to Neil that I didn't have a chance to get these numbers. So I could have them for today. But hopefully, if there's a comment out here, please, you think we've settled one of our contracts. So, now I don't have to meet the three-hunt team. There's a lot, there's a lot more to it than just the quick numbers you read. I think that's what I was trying to say. Quick numbers that come in these books don't look good. But you have to be able to look at expenditures. Yeah. And where? And then look at the revenue page. Well, I think, I don't know your name, but, Ted? Well, Ted knows that 74% of his property taxes go to the school. I think it'd be a great exercise for us to find out exactly what that is for the next meeting. What percentage of 74% goes, without any complication, the number has to be finite. I mean, right? So, we've talked about what percentage of the school budget was compensation. And this year we've gone from, you made $50,000 a year down to what is your compensation? Compensation is salary. Right. Health benefits, dental benefits, vision benefits, personal days. Shoes. All anything. That is what we have done this year. I can give you, I can give you an answer. It's gonna scare you what the percentage is now that we have gone to total compensation. Because I don't think anybody realized the person who was making $70,000 was costing the school district well over 100. That's right. Well over 100. It's a wolf. But it doesn't have to go on a dinner floor here. It does if you know where to add it. Right. Well, that's the thing. I think it was like $52 a day per student. Is this kid getting $52 a day for college per day? I don't think so. Unfortunately, I don't mean to take everybody's time but unfortunately, a lot of kids get what they're willing to take. They need to get $50 push at them. But how much do they let in? And is that number, does that take into account their share of the heat, the mortgage, the insurance? Is that what's being put into that calculation for $52 a day, it might be. Well, I'm gonna put the cost per student but at the number of days that they go to school. Number 80 days. But I mean, do they include those numbers in the cost per student? I'm not sure. It tells me I'm on the floor probably. Yes. As a Rochester resident, you just mentioned, this issue about how much a child allows in. And a lot of that is a reflection of their community and the state of the world around them and how we're all interacting. We had a very important moment in our town where we had a change of government to a new merger. Unfortunately, you two are not there with the Education Center. In fact, basically, nobody was there. Were we invited? No, but I'm talking about a situation where we're changing governments. This is your job. Is this where the drum rolls go? Yes, we have better school meetings. No, no, no, I'm not talking about school meetings. I'm talking about a historical moment from our community to change our way of governance to a merger situation. The Secretary of Education was there. Nobody else. Basically, maybe five residents out of 500, yes, folks. Something is missing here, a connection of how we relate to education. And when these students aren't absorbing the information, they're picking up something. I just want to put this out. That we have a duty, all of us. When we have a change of government, we need to be there. And I was shocked that we had no representatives there. I just wanted to leave it at that. Well, that was kind of you made some to record it because I watched it in total disgust. They accrued $8,000 site in budget. There's Rebecca, Hockham, and Martha Slater, and like 500 people in the crowd. MP Auditorium and the News Merging School Board. One of the most emotional, educational decisions. It went all last summer. I was almost at every single meeting. Sandy, you used to go to the meetings early last summer. You hadn't been at a school board meeting since, I don't know when, back in July. It was the last time I saw you out. And then we have this, like Mason said, a very important merger, a marriage of these two school districts, the mixing of the boards. There's no representative there. It's like, how can that be? Not only some represent, there also aren't the members of the community there. Absolutely not. It's a $5 million budget and probably 50 people, 50 residents of it. Yeah, that's true. But we'd go for Ben Conser, we'd go over $150 for this, and they'd say yes or no. But when it comes to really some important, we'll run into the bushes. Now I'm curious to see what's gonna happen the next Monday night. And this would be Royalton Groups. Royalton will have their annual meeting. But next Tuesday at night will be the newest White River Valley Union District meeting. You'll be held in Bethel for Royalton and Bethel residents. I think there's approximately, I wanna say, somewhere around 3,000 voters. I will be surprised that there's 210 people. You're probably sitting at high. You're way high. And we're gonna be voting for a $11.6 million budget. But when we tried to change work at school, we didn't have a room big enough in our school. And when we do have these meetings all this last month, that has been more of a discussion about the colors of the school, the name of the mascot or the name of the school than what we're gonna do about education. What kind of program here are we gonna have? But the Senate Partists would like on that song, you can't do a line item. Well, I don't like this part. You can't pick the budget apart. And people say after a while, what's the sense of going, you're beating it and so on. Well, the dumbing down is there. I mean, people are just, they gave up. They lost all their emotions during this merger situation. It was so bad. People just, you know, I can't deal with this anymore. And I attended the meetings. I mean, I mentioned the one in Stockbridge last August 8th when the supervisor union backed by a consultant, Mr. Dale, we sat there for almost two and a half hours before the Eureka of all Mr. Dale and Labs' numbers were totally wrong. It shut down the whole meeting. Not only that, kids were trying to make decisions, parents were trying to make decisions on where to send their children. And it delayed the decision because of the missed numbers for almost another three weeks a month, forcing parents to just throw their arms up. So it got to the point where they just said, you know, I don't even care. And they're done. So why go to the meeting? And work a little harder than they had taxes and just shut up. Yeah, it's just like education. The importance of education, it's the driver of the economy. It's if you don't have a good education since it's a minor town, you may as well close the town. People aren't going to move here with young children. Who sent their child to Rochester? Kids aren't going to move to this town and education is a priority, but because the adults can't find a good paying job. That's the other point. It feeds itself because there's no economic development happening, the school system's a disaster. I mean, the children in Rochester take Fizz-Ed on a computer. It's a software-driven, they do Fizz-Ed on a computer. That's all I want to know. Now someone at the state house approved, statewide, to re-tariff the Fizz-Ed teacher and replace it with software where the kids- Excuse me, no one in the state house votes on local school, but that's a local decision by locally elected people. Okay, all I'm saying is I think it's despicable that a child of six or eight, their 10-year-old child sits and takes Fizz-Ed on a laptop. Well, that's the school that's done it. That's the school that would have done it, it's a prize program. Well, you'd be surprised with the software. Just an interesting piece on history of schools in Vermont, which in the archives at the state house, there's all kinds of material about the, and in towns, about the fights about closing small schools that happened at the turn of the century. And I don't mean this last time. Not being back from the 1800s to the 1900s, we have all many, many small schools and districts that were then the districts around the state. And now we know that there was equal pain and terror when they voted to close a lot of those small schools. And now people are living in those places. But this has not been a new problem in terms of populations changing, things happening. And so there we were, more than a hundred years ago, yeah, no, it doesn't, yeah. The history of Wilton and Hope and Ash wrote the history and it had a little picture of the school on Dairy Hill when they consolidated on them. And there's a little leaf on the bottom, they did it to say Texas, who's not on the bottom, but Texas is still in the East. So it didn't work then. I know it's gonna work today. Yeah, right. Here, it didn't work then. One more quick thing. Last week you had a hearing about guns up in Montpelier, right? I think you were in the committee that, I was. Right. And in the news, that's where I saw it. It's a several people attended. How many people were there then? roughly, if you remember. More than a thousand. They were a thousand people, fine. That's what they told me, I didn't count them. Are you gonna have any more hearings? Another hearing like that? Any more hearings, number one. What I'm trying to say is. We've been having a hearing in our committee all week and in part of last week with regard to the issues that were raised at that hearing. Relate to the three bills that are in the center. What I'm questioning is, are you gonna base your findings on that hearing that happened last week with a thousand people? Yes, there were a lot of people not very remember. What about having a hearing here in Vermont? In the center of Vermont? Yes. We have a lot of small towns around here. But I see every time there's a hearing to that, my pictures, we have Montpelier or Burlington or Brownboro or Springfield. Well. I agree next. So the week before that, we are actually, was it last Monday perhaps, I can't remember. Last Monday night, we had here, I'm on the budget committee and the appropriations committee and we have hearings as many as can go all over the state. We have them in Springfield, we have them in Hyde Park or Burlington, Rotland, hearings on the budget so that we know that people can't all come to Montpelier so we have different hearings all around the state as many as we can so that people can't come. It's very hard because you're right about it, I think I get the right feeling. So we try to do that. When I think about it, we had a hearing on this one last year on the gun issue, I don't know if that's what's going on. Well, I said I have nothing against it. We've got a hearing last year on that too. Don't base your results or your... Right, we're hearing from people all the time. You know, people have email, people send us emails, people call, people send letters, people call it home all the time. So we're hearing from people. Yeah, I'm not defending either side, you know, from all over. Right, about gun control. Well, as I mentioned earlier, on Friday our committee passed out this bill with regard to guns, you know, firearms of all kinds, explosives, dangerous weapons, that we passed that bill out on Friday. We've been working on it, we've been working with all groups. You know, it's not like Washington, where one side just goes and does everything. We've had the gun owners in, the people who are concerned about, you know, down, having a background check, people who are concerned about dangerous people, just like the Fairfaving guy. And so we've been working on this bill for quite a while. It was introduced last fall when we were working there. Every new bill had to be in by December 13th. The House has a later date, or 4% of those, that's when they have to be in. So this bill was put in with regard to extreme risk before most recent situations happened. So that, you know, you can go in and take a gun when there's an extreme risk. Not you, but you believe it. Police can't take a gun when there's an extreme risk founded by adults. In other words, there's a due process. You can't just go in and grab a gun. Except, as I said, domestic violence situation where there's an immediate need, the police can absolutely take a gun. And of course, they won't do it. So that's solve weapons that they entered into that. They're not, you know. I mean, if the person has an assault weapon, yes, that can be taken. Yes, I don't know. No, I mean, and they don't, they're going to limit it until they can't buy a gun. That's not a bill that was introduced. But, you know, if you keep hearing this, I'm working on it. They may work on it, but it's unknown at this point. What is the law regarding remoders and guns? Can you take and get a gun? You can have guns. Absolutely. So whenever anybody goes to buy a gun, they have to, they're buying it from a dealer, you know, it's going to a board shop, Dick's Sporting Goods, Walmart, I don't know if Walmart still sells them, but Dick's Sporting Goods enroll them. And so in order to purchase a firearm, the purchasing has to go through the federal background check. That's from the Jim Brady situation that came about. He was the press secretary for President Reagan when President Reagan was shot. And Jim Brady was shot also. And the bill was passed by Congress that covers both countries. So whenever you buy a gun at a shop, you have to go through that check. It's very quick. We fill out this form. There's a lot of information on it. They send it into the FBI NICS system. And then it comes back that you can or can purchase. What's the turnaround on that? So turnaround on that is very, very quick. Very quick. Do you have any personal sales, gun shows? Gun shows. Let me speak about those. So everybody's saying a gun show repo. So in Vermont, when there's a gun show held, every licensed dealer in there, and that's all who is licensed in there, the people with the booth. You know, they pay money to have booths inside a show. And they ought to put people through record checks. They have not sell without booths. So now there's the situation of the private individuals who can sell at a gun show. So as I understand it, and I've talked to a lot of people, I've done a gun show myself. If you're a private individual and you want to sell your rifle, you go into the show, you put a flag in the booth, it sticks out of the barrel. And then someone else who's wandering around can see it. Say, hey, I'd be interested in that gun. You just set a price, maybe. And then you'll go, oh, this is voluntary on the part of the gun show promoters. They make you go to, and this is not the law. They make you go to a booth. It is a federal firearms dealer. And that person runs the record check. And then the transfer of the gun can occur. Now, this doesn't stop somebody who wants to do something out in the parking lot outside the purview of the gun show. That's a private sale. So that's a bill that we have also. And we feel that this bill that we're doing will take care of almost all of the really difficult situation. The problem with S6, which is the record check on private to private sales, there's a criminal penalty if you do that. And that would mean, and there are some exceptions for very close relatives. But if an alcohol wanted to sell a gun to his nephew, and he did that if this S6 passed, and that's not the bill I've been talking about, then that person would be subject to a criminal act and could go to jail for the other gun. The private to private. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It goes you to the commercial. No, no, no, no. Just a sale of self. This is only the sale. This is only to go to the sale. And there was another piece with regard to domestic violence, which we think we've covered back by our bill that we've got. 2.1, which is coming out on the floor this week. We believe we've covered that situation with a dangerous extreme risk and a dangerous situation. Thank you. So hopefully it will pass. I think it's a very good bill. And I think I would really like to say that the gun groups and the domestic violence groups, they all worked together. They were all in our group. They were all were testifying. It was a very civil way. It was done. And I think you're not going to see this in Washington, but we did this the way that it can be done here. Do you think the teacher should have guns and scope? I think in general, they shouldn't. But it may well be that it would be a good idea for one teacher or two teachers who are qualified and have taken all the training and who would want to do it to maybe have one. I mean, I know certainly arming every teacher is not the answer, but maybe having more security at school. Because in terms of hearing about these people who have said they're going to do a school shooting, I mean, the fellow in Fair Haven, as I understand it, his goal was to terrible shoot these school resource officers who was the policeman first. So obviously, there's a person there. Well, why stop them, too, if they know that there were guns in school? I'm sorry. I mean, it might stop some of that. If they know about your school, there was a man on television and they said, I don't think there's eight in their school. I don't know how many of them, but eight of them carry half the weapons in the school. This is a terrible tragedy. It's terrible. It is. I'm kind of jumping in here late on this. But we've got these AR-50s that can be modified. Do you think somebody with a pistol has half a chance against somebody with one of those guns? Yeah, that's good. And the second thing I'd like to just say is, you can walk into a Walmart and you can buy one of these guns. Why can't I walk into Walmart by a rocket launcher? Well, I mean, that's just it. This weapon was designed for military use. And it was banned for years, always in the military. Then somewhere along the line, they let it go. Anybody can own one of these guns. So we have people owning military-style weapons. They're just average citizens. Why can't rocket launchers? Well, it's an extreme, but it's in a metaphor. Why can't I go buy a rocket launcher? Why can't I go buy a hampernace? Hampernace would probably be the school. I'll just say, it's amazing to think that I can go in and try. And for a few dollars more, buy this modification thing. It's an explosive drone. Explosive drone. What's the difference? Yeah, what do you mean? You can go with a white, you're able to buy a military piece of equipment. Why can't I buy a tank? If I'm going to go in and shoot, I'm not going to walk in. Probably can. You probably can. You're going to buy a working one. If it's a mentally ill person wants to, well, is determined to shoot a bunch of people up. Why would they not shoot the ARK, whatever the hell it is, if they go with a little training gun? Yeah, exactly. That's what they're going in with. Yeah, they're going to bring us. Right. You don't have a chance. But at least they, I know I have a 1% chance to defend myself. If you're lucky. Yeah, yeah, no, I agree with you. I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying. The guy on TV in Colorado, he has a wrench into his boot. Yeah, right. He had to get his pistol. And he was nice. Well, actually, I would be for, you know, I'm a gun guy, but I think we should be able to have guns. But yeah, whatever that thing is called, I agree that there should be federal. All the rifles in the world, all the pistols in the world, all in one. Because you can only shoot one or two bullets at a time. Yeah. Nobody, so we could be here right now, and somebody across the street could pull one of those things out of the bullet ball. In a matter of seconds. And a gun came from out of state. Well, whatever. Yeah, whatever, they came right. The gun has to go away. Another thing with regard to people purchasing guns on the dark web, that's another issue. It's already illegal for someone to ship a gun to a private person in a state. In other words, somebody in New Hampshire wants to ship a gun over here. That's illegal without going through a gun dealer here. In other words, if a gun shop in Vermont selling guns and someone comes in from out of state, the person can purchase a long gun. But if they want a pistol, the pistol, they would purchase it at the store, but they would not be given it. It has to be shipped to a licensed dealer in another state, which runs the person through the record check before it can be turned over to the resident of that state. Because I just got a letter from someone saying, everybody's getting their guns in Vermont, taking them to Massachusetts. We had that looked into, and it's not the case. Yes, somebody might come here and get a pistol, but as I say, it has to go through a licensed dealer in the house before it can be turned over to the person. If I had a 15-byte in pieces online, do you have one? Yeah, you can make one with a 3D printer. You know, there was a guy that said, I'm burling to the bottom of a parking lot. Yeah. You know? Yeah. I just do it. I know there's a lot of money behind these the gun control things, I know there's a ton. That's why one of the questions I asked about, can you see who's getting money from that? You know, from lobbyists. You can. We've got a very powerful organization out there right now that's really, it's, I don't, maybe protecting our rights, our second amendment rights, and I always say this, the second amendment was written when you had muzzle bumpers. Right. It took three minutes to reload. People shooting at their births that were. The other issue is the bomb-making materials that you can buy in your local hardware store. Oh yeah, for free. You know, there's little kind of, very hard to. The third, desperate, that's incredibly hard, but. But that will be, you know, as I say, it's a little bit of a war, it should not be in somebody's hands. It should not be in somebody's hands. That's like a success, you know? Yeah. And if you're caring about the government and the military, well then you've got bigger problems. Because I hear that, well the military's going to take us over, you know. I need to find myself against another thing. Well, well, I know, I was getting certain cases that I couldn't find people to follow. Well, part of this, Dave, is the reflection of how we, as a nation, utilize these weapons on other countries and people, it's a reflection, and all this is a reflection. Oh yeah. And that's not being talked about as a result. Columbine, those kids were raised in a community that built nuclear missiles. That was their consciousness. That's what, who knows what triggered them to shoot up that school. Maybe it was the overwhelming thought that we could blow up the whole planet, maybe. Because our parents went off to work to make nuclear triggers. I mean, there's an insanity that's related to all of this. It's just my opinion. Just want to say one other thing. It bothers me, the glory that it's given and some people talk to these kids. When I saw the kid, the Sphere Haven situation, there he is on the front of the round, several days in a row. Now, for someone who disturbed other kids who sees that and says, ooh, look at this. Look at the glory, look at the camera. It's really very disturbing. Now, I guess some places and some papers have decided not to print the names, not to print a picture, not to give these people the glory that they get. Because, you know, if people are watching, the stories repeated open, it's pro-line news. Well, that's, you know, we have too much news. No, too much news is, plenty of good news that nobody reports. Here, someone here in Bethel, Main Street, we're going to be all over this, one of our kids, who gets the ratings. I'll tell you one thing. I'm not a Mormon, but Heidi loves to watch Channel 374. And their motto there is, see the good in the world. If we can try to focus on the good things that happen in the world, in our state, in our town, things will be different. But you look in the paper today, open it, see something, everything is never there. Yes. If you want to control something, try to control that. If you report good news. I agree with you. Well, I think the problem that's happening is because we have so much news coming out. 24-hour news. They have to fill hours of nothing. Because there's not enough news to fill. They're just shut all over. It's over, yeah, over, yeah. So, yeah, I think, I always thought that was a big problem. We have to go back to the, you know, six in the morning news, six at night, or a half an hour, that was it. Plus a communication. You're in Florida, so you have to pick up your uncle's house burn. We knew it when his house was on fire in Florida. He said, all right, well, yes. Immediately. So, this seat belt law, are you involved with that? Seat belt law. Yeah, it's not like law, the seat belt law. Primary stop. Yeah. What do you think of that? Not involved, I don't like it. I don't either. How about the VVV? We agree on something. Yeah, we agree on a lot of stuff. We just don't know it. Here, I have to tell you this story. This is crazy. Last week, I delivered meat for North Hollow Farm. Drive 300 miles every Wednesday to all these stores and places. I'm in Colchester last week, and they have cameras on all those. And I, with the weight of the truck and everything, I went through a light that quickly changed to red. You know, so I'm driving, driving, and all of a sudden, I get pulled over. And I'm up high in a van. And this officer fish comes up to my window and he said, how are you today? I said, fine, how are you? He said, do you know the reason I'm stopping you? I said, I have no clue. I thought it was because he saw me just get through that light. He said, a mile back, you were driving down the road with something light in your hand. And I'm like, what do you mean, the color? I said, no, I'm looking at a pad of paper because that's where my directions are. Right? I still insisted that I was texting. Now, I'd think, would I like to put forth the three guys for texting? I think it should be a $1,200 first time thing. First time charge to eliminate. I see the texting going on all over. It is really bad. But this officer, he actually- Thought you were texting. He thought I was texting. And I said, officer, that's my phone. It's a little flip phone. He said, my heavy license, please listen. Absolutely, he takes the license, comes back to the car and he goes, you know, I'm not gonna give you a ticket. And I looked at him and I said, you know, while you were sitting in your cruiser officer, I realized I don't even know how to text. My family is gigantic. They text, and I'm not, I'll never text, I don't want to text them. So he's standing there looking at me and I said, that is my little phone. It's a little flip phone. It's like 10 years old. But going to this intrusion of the seatbelt primary stop, it's scaring me from an intrusion. Well, I think the worry is that if it's a primary stop, then anybody at any time can't stop me from the intrusion. So I think that- What is the primary kind of- Primary stop means an officer can hold you over. He thinks you don't want your seatbelt on. In other words, now the seatbelt will ask you, they have to stop you from somebody else. If you don't have your seatbelt on, you can be silent for that. Well, I didn't have my seatbelt on, but that officer- I know, and he didn't know this. He didn't say, you don't even know where your seatbelt- But I think, you know, the house passed an overwhelming. We haven't, it hasn't been taken up in the Senate, so I don't know what's going to happen there. The House passed an overwhelming. We did, but I understand that Senator Mazza doesn't like it, so it's not going to be that standard. He doesn't like it either. The chair of Senate transportation. Why doesn't he like it? He says the Senate, he can't say that anybody can be stopped for any, for police officers if they want to stop you. It can always be that they don't have their seatbelt on. And I think that if we have compliance, and we need to have a high rate of compliance in order to not have that happen. In other words, that most people are wearing seatbelts. So if you don't wear one, so we don't have to wear this. The number of distractions that are common are huge, and they're only getting, they're only increasing, and the speeds they're traveling at are increasing. It's a terrible equation. I see it on 89 during my week's liveries. There's people doing 80 miles an hour texting. Or talking to somebody, or listening, or listening along with the radio. They could still talk, like you can still talk on your phone, Bluetooth, you know. You can just read, yeah, yeah. But you were also got these cars with computer screens and no-readers in the dashboard. There are some things to stretch it out. One car I passed an SUV two weeks ago, they were in the high-speed lane, and they were both on, the driver and the passenger were both texting. To make cars, the cars lined up behind them. They didn't even realize they were in the passing lane. They got 10 cars, everyone's trying to pass, and they were both texting. I can tell that we're just about done yet. But I'd like to thank you for passing the coyote belt. I don't object to somebody being able to shoot an animal that's become a pest. I'm not a hunter myself. But I think those contests are a terrible, are a terrible, terrible idea. It's not a game. This is somebody protecting their property or their income. This is not something where people should be taking pleasure in how many animals they can shoot just because they happen to run across them on the countryside. And I want to thank you for taking up the issue. But on the other hand, there's a lot of coyotes in our area and it's really killing the small fawns out too. So in a small game, they're hardly any any more. Well, as I said, it's always open season. How about when they deer hunt and they have a contest for the most points and most weight, is that not a problem? This doesn't touch, it's only like this. Because a lot of them are fundraisers. I know, but I didn't know if they wanted further than just coyotes, they wouldn't give them any ideas. Yeah, no, I know. Yeah, I agree with that. Anything else? Thank you for your time. Thank you for your time. Thank you for coming.