 Good morning. It's Thursday, February 18th, and we are beginning our day working on H96, which is an act relating to the creation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Development Task Force. And this bill was brought forward this year as a bill. Last year we worked on this concept as a committee bill. And it was to be done in relation to JRH2, which is the Eugenics Apology. One of the things I've mentioned this before, one of the things that we learned last year was you can't just apologize for something. You need to do something concrete. And this is the first attempt at doing something concrete in conjunction with the apology. And this task force would be formed. Well, I'll let Damien go through the short form bill and then discuss what we did last year on it and the steps we would need to move forward on this bill over the next couple of weeks. So with that Damien, welcome back. Good morning. Let me turn off my mute. I will just because right over to the bill and walk you through it. It's a very short walkthrough and then we can discuss and answer any questions. Hi. So, like the chair mentioned, it's a short form bill. So the text has been left out. But the bill's purpose is to create the truth and reconciliation commission development task force, which I know is a mouthful. And that that task force would develop and submit to the General Assembly, a proposal for legislation to create one or more truth and reconciliation commissions to examine and begin the process of dismantling institutional structural and systemic discrimination in Vermont, both past and present. So, before I move on there, I think an important thing to note that came out of last year's discussion is that the issues around eugenics and other historic discrimination in the state are not one dimensional and don't affect just one group. What this bill leaves open is the possibility of developing multiple truth and reconciliation commissions, if that's the most appropriate way to move forward. And to address the, the issues that the task force sort of focuses in on the task force would be composed of both voting and non voting members. The voting members of the task force would include representatives of historically disadvantaged or disenfranchised groups that have suffered from institutional structural and systemic discrimination in the state. And then the non voting members would include legislative members. So there's a couple of important things to note here. The first is by structuring it this way with non voting legislative members. It would allow the task force to take advantage of legislative staff. So, for example, for drafting legislation they could use legislative council to help develop the report of the task force with a legislative proposal, which would help move things along when the proposals submitted to the General Assembly. The other piece here that that's worth talking about is the way it's set up with the legislative members not voting on the actual commission that the task force decides to go in and the idea here that the sponsors had was to basically give a voice to these disenfranchised groups and how they want these truth and reconciliation commissions to be set up so that it is not. It's not a situation where individuals who potentially are not from those disadvantaged groups are telling the disadvantaged groups what's best for them. So it's, it's giving the disadvantaged groups an opportunity to have a voice in what the best way to move forward with the healing process for their group is. And so that that's the idea here. And that's it for the bill so I'll stop the screen share and I'll answer any questions that you might have representative Parsons. Yeah, I just had a question. That's a process of how you explained kind of the legislative members have no voting authority. However, the commission is still allowed to use the legislative council I was just curious if that's a. Any, if that framework I guess has been used before. That's a good question. I'm not sure. If the sort of non voting legislative member framework has been used in the past. I know we've had mixed legislator non legislator study committees sometimes they do use legislative staff sometimes they don't. Using legislative members you open up the possibility of using legislative staff if that's the direction, the committee decided to take this bill in. And it won't the advantage of it is primarily what I mentioned where they can get legislation proposed that's essentially ready to go. And in the past when you've had these study committees the legislative members often one or more of them will sponsor the draft legislation proposed by the task force or study committee. But I don't know on the voting non voting dynamic. That that's something new to me, at least in drafting these representative walls. But maybe they're better suited for the sponsors present for Damian. Was there any consideration the size of this task force. So the, there was discussion about that one of the reasons why that wasn't specified in here is last year's discussion in the committee. There was a lot of debate and discussion about which groups that had historically experienced discrimination should be represented. And I think the sponsors wanted to leave that open so that the committee of jurisdiction could determine the the final sort of composition after they'd taken testimony. And looking back over the drafts from last year, each draft added new groups. That people had had highlighted, I think the initial draft, you know, started out with the abenac and a couple of other groups and then gradually additional groups were were added. So that I think the question for the sponsors was, you know, if we didn't get to sort of a conclusive idea of what that was last year, does it make sense to specify that now or just leave it open so that the committee of jurisdiction can can figure that out. I see that being an issue that could involve a lot of a lot of debate, because we're not only talking about ethnicity or religion or national origin. We're also talking about people with certain disabilities. We could have a very wide range of possibilities here. I get another question I guess this is this is going to be good for the committee to be discussing is, could you accomplish the same thing by having a minority number of legislators on the task force who could vote, but they would definitely be fewer than the non legislative members. And therefore you're ensuring that the non legislative members really do have a voice. That's another approach we could take that it's absolutely an option. And I have structured task forces and study committees where that's been the case. There you know you may have say six members and to our legislators one from the house one from the Senate and then the other four could be a mix of community members and members of the administration or some other grouping. So definitely a possibility there's there is a lot of a lot of flexibility and how this could be designed. And I think that's one of the answers specified non voting but that's definitely something that that could change in the amendment process. Yeah, and that's my last bit. I really would prefer that kind of structure because I think anybody who's involved in all the work is this is going to entail, but I have a voice in the final product. So I prefer that all task force members have a vote. Thank you. I mean to be clear the the desired outcome of the task force is to propose what a truth and reconciliation commission would would look like or structure that would allow for truth and reconciliation commissions to exist would look would would actually be not so it's it's not the commission itself it's the process to get there. That's right. You know so this this is the this is, you know, sort of the design process for the structure, and then the actual construction of that. And the building of that if you think of it as a as a building to get to the finished product is the actual work of the truth and reconciliation commission or commissions that are then proposed in the legislation and would again require a legislative review and approval before they were enacted. One of the things that has come up in the past is the truth and reconciliation commissions can vary greatly in their scope, both in terms of membership, what they're told to look into how well they're resourced, and that can affect their success to brought a scope, and the commission may just get too narrow a scope you may leave people out inadequate resources for the scope that's proposed and they may not be able to accomplish their work. Too many resources and members and they may just get stuck in sort of a, you know, bureaucratic log jam, trying to move forward so they're there are a variety of examples from around the world some very successful and others not so successful. That this task force could look at and then sort of develop a model to bring back to the General Assembly. Okay representative Murphy then collecting. Thank you, chair Stevens. I actually really support this idea of the voting non voting split. I think that allowing this way to be to the members as designed to bring something to the legislature for a vote it's not that the legislators don't end up having a vote I, I really support this concept of assisting a body of members be able to design something that really fits their needs and hasn't already been adjusted by folks that may not be as involved and interested, or certainly aware of what needs to be done. And the turn will come for the legislators to vote because this is, as you said, putting together the committee to put together a committee, and it comes to the legislature for a vote. So, I just would support this structure of voting non voting. Thank you representative Colacchi. Chair, I need a little clarification. When representatives Colston and Christie were in last week, they said they've been working with some UVM interns and they're doing more work on this to bring it forward to us. But are you, is your timeline that this would be, because it's now our, our, our committee, not, it's not them anymore correct it's us fleshing this out to make it to crossover is that what you're hoping for. Yes, and we'll hear from will if there is, if there is. I have legislative aides or interns that are working on this that may be doing some of the research that Damien was talking about like what ways worked better than others elsewhere but I am not yet aware of what that research is. And, and part of this is to is to find out from the sponsors. The other sponsors, you know, represent Colston and Christie in particular and to check in with them to see what the status of that work is. I mean, I think in this case, in this case, we're looking at not only forming this committee to form the commission but in, you know, deciding where the where the inclusivity is on the bill in terms of making sure the voices of the people who are affected are heard in the creation process as well as you know and then and then to see how that creation process plays out but you know I need to I need we need to check in with them to see what the level of research that's being done on their behalf is is like. And, and Damien, when you when you referred to work last session on this and all the different groups is that was that in it in our committee or was that in another committee. That was in your committee. Last session we got up to draft 2.2 on March 11 of last year. And as you all remember March 13 was our last day in the State House. Okay. And so we had. Five abonac members. And then individuals with developmental and psychiatric disabilities. And two or three other individuals who were disabled. An individual experience with experience working to implement racial justice reforms. A member of the French Canadian community. An individual with expertise in the protection of human rights and prevention of discrimination. An individual with expertise in the treatment of psychological trauma within communities or groups. A historian with expertise in the history of the eugenics movement in Vermont, an individual with expertise in restorative justice. And three representatives of major civil society organizations that have historically championed. Reparatory justice. So it was a diverse group and that was, that was the latest so that was 12 different entries but a total of 20 individuals and that didn't include any legislative members. So that it was a very large task force. Since it's on your screen. Do you remember the number on that bill. It didn't have a number. It was. It was still a drafting request. It was 20-0905. And I can send Ron the link. So that he can post it to the website. I'll just send it to the whole. Thank you. Yeah. Committee right now. It is posted. Oh, it is great. Thank you, Ron. Thank you. Representative Triana, then walls. Thank you. Actually, Damien just answered my question as to what the makeup of this committee might look like. It's been involved in a number of committees, initiations of committees. 20 seems a little unruly to me. You know, I know the climate action bill had 20, but they had a series of sub committees that would do a lot of the work. So, you know, I understand. But I think it's not a perceived need for him, but 20 is a fairly unruly group. And then adding non-legislators on top of that. So, I'm not sure. But the makeup sounds right to me. And I think that those are the folks that need to be heard. Thank you. Right. And that's the balance that we're going to, you know, seek. I mean, I think it's. You know, that's a knot. That's a knot we're going to tease out or untie in this kind in this process. Representative walls. Thank you. When we were discussing this, excuse me, last March, I did a very quick report on truth and reconciliation commissions that I submitted to the committee back then. You know, it's been a long time since I've been on, so it can be shared with the committee again. It's brief. It's only a couple of pages long, but it's general terms what truth and reconciliation committees are and have been and a couple of examples. So I'll send that out to Ron so you can all see it again. And taking into consideration to the comments that we just heard from Judy Dow, you know, talking about the difficulty of the Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the amount of funding that again, this is the committee to form the commission, you know, how they come up with a process. I mean, you know, there's so many pieces of this that are really unanswerable now and really should be out of our Bailey what coming to truth and reconciliation commission at heart is not run by the government. You know, the judge and jury question of how things should work. But it's not. It's unique to Vermont, but it's not necessarily unique to the world. And as, as, as you mentioned, Tommy, there's successes some places and lack of successes. It's a, it's a, again, it's something that we have to look at models. And that's what this committee would be doing would be looking at the models that worked. And not and didn't work as well. Yeah. Yes, and in my report I did mention the one in Maine since that's relatively close by, and it dealt specifically with the Wabnaki the indigenous peoples, and Judy down made a point of criticizing that process. And she testified to us. So that's, that's part of the learning, we can look at the main example and say okay, what part of that do we want to do what part do we don't want to do. I think that's all part of it. Right. And what do we, you know, can we predict in the future what. Well, not only not not not what we want to see as an outcome. I think we would have to take their output if this commission reform we have to take their output. And then we still have, we still have to pass the, the enabling legislation that allows it to happen without determining what the outcome of that commission might be. Right. And that again, that's a, that's not anything we're really comfortable and doing just easily so representative Parsons. Thanks. I just wanted to speak to representative try almost pointing about that being a rather large number for a group of people. I think that is going to be one of the challenges that we have to flesh out in the process because as the short form states it's getting members to represent a historically disadvantaged and in that process you're almost guaranteed to leave somebody out. It depends where you're going to stop your, your, your date on the history of our, you know, so hard thing to do. Yeah, and we have a history of, of the people that are affected in the testimony we've already received in the, on the eugenics apology is that people don't trust, you know, the establishment, if you will, and we, we have always had trouble. Whether it's when people say, well, you know, can you get people who are making minimum wage to come in and testify and you're like, well, they're probably working. You know, can, you know, can people that having some of our indigenous population come in last year and they'll come in again, I hope this year and testify on this bill. You could palpably feel the pain and the distrust that comes with coming into that building and trying to share their story. So there's a lot of that Joe, there's just a lot of that that that you know, who are we going to miss is is we try to cover as many bases as we can and hope that we don't miss anyone and we do that there's a flexibility somewhere that we can that we can include them and whether that's through. Sometimes we end up with situations and committees where there's a smaller committee but we make sure that the witnesses that testify are incredibly inclusive you can have as many tests that you can have as many witnesses as you can fit into your time frame. That's something that we'll look at to and Chip you mentioned that the climate commission and I think the way that that was structured was less people but more subcommittees right less people at the top and then and then people doing work below and we can see Damien maybe we can find a flow chart of how that commission was set up just to just to get an idea of of just what that looked like in a in in has would look like on a flow chart, you know, so committee. Next steps on this would be I think. I mean I'm interested to hear, you know, from you who you think we need to hear from. You know, we, it's a long list of people. And I guess I guess checking in with the social equity caucus or with Representative Colston and Christie would be the next step. In terms of what research work is being done to see if it's applicable to this process. Or if it's more applicable to an actual truth and reconciliation process. But I guess I guess I guess our next piece of work on this might be to take a look at last year's bill to take a look at the people that we put on that list and then actually start to find out whether or not they're still interested and then we would need to decide like what, again, how many people are necessary and what what structure is necessary in order to make sure that we get to where we want to go with this. Thank you. Thank you. Too many buttons. You know, I would appreciate also to hear from Representative Donahue on this. She has brought a lot of wisdom around psychiatric disabilities and it's a field she's she's worked in and has lived experience with it and, you know, so I think that she has a. A lot of thinking about this issue from that perspective and then a lot of writing that she's written a lot about it. So if we, you know, ask other people to come in I, and I can talk to her separately and I can send her a draft of our bill for input but anyway, I benefit from her thinking on this. Sure. I'm no I'm no she'll testify on JRH to as well as a as a previous sponsor of the bill 1012 years ago. And as a as a voice, I don't know if you caught that from from folks that you know, she's been an editor of a newspaper for many years called counterpoint, which is voice of the disabled disability rights community. And so. But yeah, we'll definitely call her in and see where she can lend her expertise, whether it's on this bill, which I think is key, but also on JRH to. All right, other comments for Damian questions. All right, seeing none. Joe one more. I just, yeah, I just, if you could Damian just that framework of that way we had spoke about earlier. I would be curious to know if that has ever happened before if this would be a first of having the legislators of having legislators being on voting. Yeah, non vote. Yeah. I'll reach out to my colleagues to see if anyone's ever, ever done that in the past. And I'll let you know what I hear. I appreciate that. Thank you. Okay. Well, the So let's put a period stop on each 96 for now.