 Good afternoon. You are with the Vermont house government operations committee. We are we're going to spend a little bit of time this afternoon. About an hour, just discussing the executive order. We've had a chance to take some testimony over the past week or so on the proposal to create an agency of public safety. And I guess I want to open this up to an opportunity for some committee discussion about questions that you that you still would like answered. Are there are there more pieces of information that you that you hope to understand are there parts of the executive order that you feel more or less peaceful with. So I'm just going to leave this time for sort of an open committee discussion and and let people raise their hand to jump in with any thoughts that they have. This is where the member from Chittenden would have jumped in and really sparked off a whole robust committee discussion so it should be noted that that we all the member from Chittenden but member from a new ski how what you got. Thank you madam chair. I guess after thinking about our, the testimony to be heard last week. The one that stands out for me is about money. And when I when I asked the commissioner of public safety about what would this cost his response was $400,000 which is basically increased salaries. And I've served on a number of boards, some large boards, two of them went through mergers. One many years ago Champlain Housing Trust, most recently Vermont PBS. And we spent at least better part of two years doing the work to figure out how this is going to work and spend money on lawyers and consultants and so forth. So, it's just hard to really imagine how this is going to cost $400,000. So, I would like to understand what's, what's the plan and what will it cost. How will this work. It was to transition into an agency. Okay. So a more detailed breakdown and more information on where, where the costs lie. Exactly. Thank you. Go ahead Peter. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm, I'm in two places in terms of my unease. One is following a question that yourself and and others have posed, namely, could you articulate what kind of statutory rearrangements are implied by this. And that the executive order properly should not or cannot short circuit. Where's the list what, how would I know what the lift is going to have to be in terms of legislative attention. I'm not going to go into the arena, so to say that I really would need to understand before I went yay or nay is the fate, if I may use a charged word of the so-called independent commissions that are implied to be rolled into this. The E 911 board and the criminal justice council. As my good friend, Vice Chair has pointed out, the latter of those who is a very new and I think important reformation, active reformation. There's a lot of, how shall I say, goodwill, but also a serious thought that went into the creation of that and one of the thought processes was to make sure that it was not hostage to a budget squabble or a power squabble. And so I would really be uneasy rolling that in E 911 is in one sense easier, but again back representative Colson's point that becomes a money issue, frankly, and and I'm uneasy as to how that is going to progress, do its duty, remain robust, knowing that it will have to undergo some technological transformations, and nobody's put a dollar sign next to any of that. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would also like to echo what Hal and others have spoken about because it is important to me to know that if we are going to be using more funds or where the funds are going to be used that we are fully aware of, like today I just want to make sure that we are getting answers and interviewing people from all over so that way, when whoever's presenting this on the floor, you know, we're not being caught with like, oh, we actually didn't hear from a certain group or a certain section of people. And so we have well rounded and testimony. Also, for me, I'm just hearing from people that are the ones working on the ground that they are nervous about the transition or they're not happy about it, really makes me nervous to say yes or no to something when I know that it's going to be greatly affecting people that are putting in the work. And I really like to put that into consideration, along with the statutes that might need to change it makes me uneasy with the amount of tension that there was last week. If something is being worded correctly or not. Thank you. Thanks, Sam. Tonya. I share concerns with the independence of the Criminal Justice Council and that maintaining independence. I also have had multiple constituents reach out with concerns and they are constituents that would be on the ground affected by this and that along with the VSE a testimony really gives me pause. I feel like they're with given the many concerns and the extensive legislative changes that would need to be enacted it really feels best to me that this go through the legislative process and be fully opened to public comment and really the ability to craft something that is thoughtful and really welcomes all voices of those who would be impacted by a change like this. Thanks Tonya Rob Leclerc. Thank you Madam Chair. Because the member from Chittenden is not here to defend himself I'm going to say that I'm not sure his questions were always relevant. They're always first but not always relevant. I would like to know more about what legislative changes have to happen. What statute are we looking at here because I'm getting into distinct feeling that this is, I'm not unsupportive of this idea, but I get the feeling that there's an awful lot more work behind the scenes than people anticipate so I would like to know legislatively what's got to happen. Bob Hooper. Thank you Madam Chair, I am unsupportive of the idea and I, you know, to address the issue that has just been raised. This is not a new proposal as the commissioner has said down this road to the point where it's fairly fairly rutted. And I think if we look back in our history we would see what needs to happen to make this proposal work and we would probably see why it hasn't gone forward in the many many iterations that it has been presented before. But somewhat along the lines of what Tonya has said, most of the people that I'm hearing from employees or generally immediately affected by this are just really uncomfortable with the ambiguity of one who is older going so far as to ask where's the beef, which takes you back to Burger King commercials from many years ago. So I, I would have to see a lot of evidence to bring me around to the point where I would not be asking us to move unfavorably on this. Thank you. Mike Marwicky. Thank you Madam Chair. I would say tradition in house government operations at times like this to look at the portrait on the wall by the door of a former chair of the committee and state that everything has been said now but not everyone has had a chance to say it. I think I have something different. A little bit from what's been said and my concern is, is the process right here. And I believe overstepping the bounds of using an executive order. My concern is it's being done here. It's being done in another avenue with Act 250 and there's concerns that there's a similar proposal on the launching pad that this will that will affect the childcare system being swallowed by the agency of legislation. And I think there are big concerns with this specific proposal but the bigger picture I'm concerned with, with whether this is this is the way to do things. Thanks Mike. Any other committee members want to jump in. Right. So, in anticipation of this committee conversation today I asked Ameron to prepare a resolution that would decline the executive order. As you recall from our discussion of the executive order statute. The decision on this needs to be made by April 14. I think given the sort of broad range of concerns about budget impacts and statutory changes that have maybe not yet been contemplated and a need to get busy doing some of that statutory work. I would like to put this proposal or this resolution on the table for the committee's consideration. If it is the will of the committee that we should reject the executive order then it makes sense to be respectful and make that decision sooner rather than later so that if the administration does want to propose legislation that there would be time for the commission to be put on our dockets here before we get too far along in this session. So, if you would go to the committee page right now and take a look at documents under today's date. And a house resolution disapproving the executive order. And so I'm going to invite Ameron to help us walk through that we'll all look at it on our secondary devices so if you can just help us understand the words on the page and then we can open up to a committee discussion on that. Sounds great for the record Ameron Abergeley legislative council. Let me open up the document here on my page. Okay. So this is house resolution disapproving executive order 01-21. This is a series of whereas statements on the first page which lay out some background on the executive order. The executive order 01-21 was submitted to the House and Senate on January 14, 2021, and provides the for the creation of the agency of public safety. According to the executive order effective April 15, 2021, the agency of public safety shall be created and shall assume all duties, responsibilities and authority of the Department of Public Safety, the Vermont Criminal Justice Council, the Vermont Enhanced 9-1-1 Board, and the Department of Motor Vehicles Enforcement Division. And that would all take place on or before July 1, 2022. Whereas the Committee on Government Operations has taken testimony and public comment concerning this executive order. And whereas the House of Representative agrees with the governor's goals of law enforcement modernization and reform and optimal government efficacy. And whereas the House of Representatives supports improving the organization of state law enforcement operations, modernizing the state's data collection and reporting technology, expanding alternative crisis response methodologies, providing enhanced statewide model policies and key areas, modernizing hiring practices, training and supervisor selection, and developing community oversight models. Moving on to page two. And whereas the House of Representatives wishes to ensure that the governor's reorganization achieve these goals without leading to unintended consequences. And whereas the House of Representatives is concerned the Department of Public Safety does not have the capacity to ensure the success of the governor's reorganization plan, given that Vermont is in the midst of a state of emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and recently reached the highest level of threat alert achieved since the 9-11 terrorist attacks in 2001. And whereas the House of Representatives envisioned the Vermont Criminal Justice Council to be an independent entity with public oversight over law enforcement, and is concerned that moving the Vermont Criminal Justice Council under the control of a state law enforcement agency could undermine the public's confidence in the council's professional regulation of law enforcement and jeopardize the council's ability to execute its mission free from undue political influence. And whereas, given the complexity of reorganizing the Department of Public Safety and other law enforcement emergency response services, the best mechanism to pursue this reorganization is the legislative process with the resulting opportunity for enhanced research analysis and public participation. And whereas part of the legislative process, the House Committee on Government Operations looks forward to reviewing and taking testimony on the administration's complete proposal to create the agency of public safety, and then it would be resolved by the House of Representatives that the House pursuant to three VSA section 2002 disapproves of executive order 01-21, and further resolves that the House of Representatives invites the administration to bring forward draft legislation for the reorganization of public safety services that can be fully considered during the second year of this biennium. And lastly be it resolved that the clerk of the House be directed to send a copy of this to Governor Scott. Thank you, Amron. Questions from committee members. Either clarifying questions or questions on the content. Mike Marwicky. I just want to say that is some fine writing. Well done. Thank you. Any other questions from committee members? Committee discussion, Hal Colston. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a process question. So, if this resolution goes, well, I may have already answered it, because it seems that the administration can't make amendments to its first resolution because it's already in the queue being processed. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. That's what I was wondering. Thank you. Mike, your hands up, but I think Sam LaFave is next. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I apologize for not fully understanding, but have we came to a conclusion or been notified of a conclusion if it is suffice for only us to send this in or will Senate need to also send it in for it to be paused? Our legislative council believes that the way the section 2002 is written means that one chamber, either the House or the Senate needs to disapprove and I doubt if there is going to be much universal appetite to have a deep argument about that instead, I would hope that we would simply move forward with the other avenue of restructuring, which would be to have the administration put a bill on the table for us to consider. Thank you. I did not know if we had any new updates from our previous discussion. So thank you very much. I will go back and just check here with Amron for a moment. Is there any update or review that you've become aware of that would change the opinion that statute as it was written means that one chamber needs to disagree? No, there is not any new information. Section 2002 is very specific that disapproval is by either body of the General Assembly to the extent that there have been conversations about the constitutionality of that 2002 is the current law at this time. So to the extent if there were ever to in the future be a challenge as to whether it's constitutional to have one body or both. There are, I think as Chief Council, Martland said there could be arguments either way but at this point 2002 is still the current law and it should be followed. Thanks Amron. John Gannon. Thanks. And just to follow up on that I think, you know, Luke was very clear that you cannot rewrite statute via an executive order. Is that correct Amron? You cannot rewrite 2002. Thank you. So we have to follow the existing statute, which only requires a single house to disapprove of an executive order reorganizing an agency or agencies. Is that correct? Our recommendation is that you follow the law as it is currently written. Great, thank you. Mark. This is more of a process question. So this resolution would go to the floor for an up or down vote so it wouldn't go to any other committee, I'm assuming. Am I correct on that? I don't believe that it needs to the executive order was assigned to our committee. And so I believe the speaker would say that it is the job of our committee to report back to the floor. Thank you. All right. Any other committee discussion? John Gannon. So I just want to point out to people that if you looked at the Luke Martin's Martin's memo, you know, we identified several other executive orders. This is by far the largest change in government agencies to be conducted via executive order. We're talking about taking over multiple agencies with hundreds, if not thousands of employees through an executive order without any sort of legislation. And so I think people have to keep that in mind. I mean, you know, you know, you look at the, the executive order around liquor and lottery, which just required merging two different agencies. And that one was disapproved as well. Yet it did lead to a successful merger of liquor and lottery. So just because we disapprove it, disapprove this, that doesn't mean this is the final step in a process. You know, I think legislation would be a good strategy to move forward with such a large and complex merger, especially in the time of a pandemic. I mean, you know how mentioned costs. I don't even know how you would work and get, you know, employee support for something when they're dealing with the stresses of a pandemic and, you know, a heightened threat level in the state of Vermont. All right. Any other committee discussion. All right. So committee, I just want to make sure that we have had a chance to, to digest the content and be convinced that we're comfortable with the words on the page as proposed. I would ask you to go back to the beginning of the executive order and, and we'll consider each whereas clause, starting with the second one, because I think the first one is pretty straightforward contains the straight facts. We probably don't need to edit that. So this is the moment to take a look at each of the clauses of the of the resolution and and make any suggested changes or, or give them the thumbs up as we go through so the second whereas clause. According to the executive order effective April 15 the agency of public safety. It comes into being. And in this just specifies the particular boards councils and divisions that would that would go into that the honor before July 1 2022 for the motor vehicles enforcement division anyway. We'll be comfortable with the accuracy of the second whereas clause. All right. Next. Yes, we have taken testimony Rob LaClaire. Rob you got to unmute yourself. Sorry. I pads. I have a process question, Madam chair and one that are we going to take is a plan to take any more testimony around some of the questions that are lingering. Or are you basically looking to move the resolution. Later. In my mind, it would be most respectful and efficient if, if it is the will of the committee to reject the executive order that we make that resolution. We're going to work on the resolution and finish and go back to working on the other bills that we're working on so that the the administration can propose legislation for us to consider. So that's a very nice way of saying no we're not going to take any more testimony we're looking to move the resolution along. I mean, based on the committee discussion so far it doesn't mean that there's a lot of question in people's minds as to whether we ought to whether whether this change ought to be accomplished through legislation versus through an executive order so I don't see any reason to keep taking testimony specifically on the executive order. Okay. All right, thank you, Magier. Mike Marwicki. Good to go Mike. Oh, you know what, if I say that three times in a day, one of you turns into a pumpkin. Maybe we should have some sort of conditioning like I was in it used to be in a committee where if your cell phone would off you had to put a dollar in a jar. Ah, interesting. Oh, I like where this is going. Or the curse jar. Yes. I respect the members concerns about more witnesses but personally I don't need any. And if we need to start a vote on this to get it even a straw vote to get a sense of the committee. I'm ready for that. So let's go through the details of the resolution since we, we had amour and go through it once but I'd like you to look at each of the clauses and tell me whether you feel comfortable with with the focus of each of the whereas clauses. And then when we get to the end we can go ahead and take a committee vote. How's that sound. All right, so whereas the committee on government operations has taken testimony and public comments. So that's that. All right, the next clause the House of Representatives agrees with the governor's goal of law enforcement modernization and reform and optimal government efficacy. So that is a quote, and I'm assuming that quote is taken directly out of the goals that were stated in the executive order. Yes. All right, everybody comfortable with that excerpt that we will be able to go to the floor of the house and suggest that that that they adopt this statement that we agree. Okay. The next clause bottom of page one supports the House of Representatives supports the improving improving the organization of state law enforcement operations, modernizing the state's data collection and reporting technology, expanding alternative crisis technologies providing enhanced statewide models policies and key areas modernizing hiring practices training and supervisor selection and developing community oversight models. People comfortable with that. Excellent. All right, page two, whereas the House of Representatives wishes to ensure that the governor's reorganization achieves these goals without leading to unintended consequences. That hits on some of the concerns that some of you voiced about uncertainty of the impacts in in budget as well as in personnel areas. All right, whereas the House of Representatives is concerned that the Department of Public Safety doesn't have the capacity to ensure success of the governor's reorganization plan given that Vermont is in the midst of a state of emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and recently reached the highest level of threat alert achieved since the 911 terrorist attacks in 2001. All right, I don't see anybody diving in to make a suggestion on that. Next whereas the House of Representatives envisioned the Criminal Justice Council to be an independent entity with public oversight over law enforcement and is concerned that moving the Vermont Criminal Justice Council under the control of state law agency could undermine the public's confidence in the council's professional regulation of law enforcement and jeopardize the council's ability to execute its mission free from undue political influence. Any committee discussion on that. Excellent. Next. Given the complexity of reorganizing the Department of Public Safety and other law enforcement and emergency response services, the best mechanism to pursue this reorganization is the legislative process with a resulting opportunity for enhanced research analysis and public participation. Any questions, comments or suggestions on that. Peter Anthony. Again, I don't want to wordsmith this and I almost didn't raise my hand but to suggest that this is the best, as opposed to the appropriate, sort of slides around, I think many of the history lessons I've had from people who've been around that this is an expansive undertaking, undertaking given the use of this statute for this kind of purpose. And I, I, again, that's a, maybe that's a policy observation. I don't know if it belongs in a whereas, but but it's not clear to me that we have honestly said what I think most of us have said in other forums or in the past days, namely, that this is a outsized attempt compared to the historical use of this statute. Again, I'm not sure what you want to achieve by these warehouses, but it seems to me, it's not only the best way. It's in context, the appropriate way. Any discussion on the use of the word best versus another word, like appropriate or proper or Tanya. I would say I agree with Representative Anthony that this does feel like based on precedence, a bit of an overreach for the use of an executive order and so it does feel to me like it is truly the appropriate avenue to go through legislation and I do think there is a significant difference there. Okay. So my suggestion that we strike best and and use the word appropriate Amron is there. Is there any concern on your part with changing that word. No. All right. Can I just take a straw poll at this moment is everybody okay with taking out best and using appropriate instead. And a whole bunch of thumbs up except for okay there we go that looks like a thumbs up and good job Sam she got her little little zoom hand up. Good job. Okay, so we will change the phrase there to the appropriate mechanism to pursue this reorganization. Ready to move on to the next. All right, the top of page three the last whereas clause as part of the legislative process the House Committee on government operations. Looks forward to reviewing and taking testimony on the administration's complete proposal to create the agency of public safety committee discussion on the last whereas clause. All right. So now therefore be it resolved that by the House of Representatives that this legislative body pursuant to three VSA section two zero zero two disapproves executive order 0121 and be it further resolved that the House of Representatives invites the administration to bring forward draft legislation for the reorganization of public safety services that can be fully considered during the second year of this biennium questions and discussion on the resolved clause. All right, Rob LeClair. Thank you madam chair. I guess, you know, as far as the wording goes I understand it. I do have a concern procedurally or process wise here that nowhere was it notified that we were actually going to be taking any sort of official action on this. And it does seem to me that this is a rather significant piece of legislation and it would seem appropriate that all interested parties at least had some advanced notice that this was going to transpire. I would think that we could at least give them a 24 hours unless you were already thinking that madam chair. I appreciate the suggestion let's continue with a committee discussion on this while I ponder that question. Peter Anthony. Oh, trifecta. Number three you got to unmute yourself. I know that you all did this weekend but you forgot, you forgot all of your zoom tips and tricks here over the weekend sorry Peter go right ahead. That's okay I apologize. Again, it's it's the reference to next biennium I don't I wouldn't want to imply that somehow this has has to wait. There is a package in somebody's hip pocket or whatever ready to to come forth. This is actually out of deference to your, your judgment about what what our capacity is but to explicitly say next, next the second year the biennium. So that achieves anything other than saying go away till spring of 2022 and I'm not sure we need to say that. Okay, let's flag that because john had his hand up before you started that line of thinking so let's go to john and then we'll come back to the question of year two versus year one. I was actually to respond to, to Peter's question. J Johnson testified when we asked her if they had started drafting any bill language that they had not. Okay. Alright, back to Peter's point on this year versus next year. If, if as of a week and a half ago they had not started drafting it as hard to imagine that changes of this magnitude would be ready for us to consider this year but committee discussion on the question of which year of the biennium Mark Higley. There, I've unmuted. Thank you, Madam chair. I agree with Peter, even though they may not be ready. I don't think that the that second year the biennium piece needs to be in there. Bob Hooper. Thank you Madam chair this is a ignorance of process question which I'm asking solely for the benefit of the new people. I've listened to committee bill since we're past the individual member submission day is there any way that this session it could be brought in. There's always a way. Okay. Thank you. The House rules do allow a committee to bring forward a bill at any time and and you know we could we could take up language that was put on the on the literal committee table at any time and introduce it as a committee bill if it was the will of the committee to move forward with something. Thank you. Thank you Madam chair. I feel that it's important for us to be as supportive to this as we are saying, and not put a timeline on it at all. Because maybe there is an off chance that things get moved around and it's not even next year or it's so much earlier. So I would support just removing that that section. Thank you. Okay. Senator Anthony. I, I, I, I said what I said about the time, timing, not knowing as representative Cooper elicited that there was a extraordinary provision for something beyond now to be proposed. I have to tell you, my acquaintances in law enforcement said, there are a melding of otherwise separate departments that would be very desirable sharing of assets amongst folks who do very similar work. And, and so a lot of folks were supported now mind you, this was not troops on the ground I was hearing from. I just, I thought well leave the door open if there is some mini version of combining pieces of this. Why not at least start the ball rolling rather than waiting until next year. Other committee discussion. Cameron, you are hearing the flavor of the discussion about removing reference to the second year of the biennium. And I guess I would feel comfortable with the rest of that resolved clause as long as it does not reference the second year of the biennium committee, can I get a thumbs up how you're feeling about removing reference to the second year of the biennium. Okay. Looks like we are ready to go make that change as well. And so I think at this point what I'd like to do is get a last glance at the final draft of the resolution. So we can sit here and have a committee discussion for a moment or if you've already figured out how to, how to do all of those changes while we're, while we're having committee discussion we can just take a peek at a clean copy of the resolution. Is it all right if I share my screen. Yes. Oh, sorry Andrew you'll have to co host me. There you go. Thank you. Can you see my screen. Yes we can thank you. So moving back to page two I have striking best out of best mechanism and inserting appropriate instead. So moving back down to page three. I, and this actually I would, some clarification would be helpful here. I can strike this end of the phrase here so that it would read that the House of Representatives invites the administration to bring forward draft legislation for the reorganization of public safety services, and it could end there. Alternatively, the committee could say something more like that can be fully considered at a future date or at a future time. So but what I have for now is to strike. Excellent. All right, any questions from committee members on those two changes. All right, thank you, Amron I think you can stop screen share and we can go back to committee discussion. So I should have done this research ahead of time but I believe that when this resolution gets gets voted out of a committee that it goes on notice, just as it would if it were a bill. We sit on notice tomorrow and be up for action on Thursday. And I'm wondering if we can confirm the timing of that. What we need to do is call in the House clerk to ask questions. I will reach out to the House clerk and see what the timing is. Thank you for for doing a little messaging in the background while we have a committee discussion on this. John Gannon. Thank you. You know, you know, I think, and we're in put together a good draft resolution that captures the comments that we heard today. I think commissioner Sherling testify what he thought the cost impact would be. I'm not sure we would hear any differently from him. I do share house concerns that that is not the only cost. You know, typically if this was a bill, we would have a fiscal note that really doesn't happen here. So I mean, I don't know. I think we all know our concerns about the independence of the Vermont criminal justice council and the 911 911 board and I don't think that's going to. There's nothing we're going to hear that's going to change at least personally my concerns about the independence of those two organizations. So I'm not sure. A lot of further additional testimony is necessary. Before we move forward with this resolution. Thanks John. Any other committee discussion. Rob Leclerc. There. I did it before I spoke. Thank you madam chair. I will agree that there's a lot more questions than answers. But this is an executive order. And I think that everybody recognizes that there's plenty of work to be done. And all the answers aren't there right now. But what I'm going to hear is is that because this is a fairly large executive order that we're short changing it a bit, and again, not allowing those, all those that need to weigh in the opportunity to weigh in. Sometimes you just don't know what you don't know. And as you learn more about this, it does prompt some more questions that answers are required to. But I recognize that there are a lot of questions out there but because it is an executive order. Those things are going to have to be flushed out as it moves forward. Thank you. Thanks Rob. Mike McCarthy. Thanks madam chair. I agree with representative Leclerc that this is a really big executive order and that's a large part of the reason why after the testimony that we heard I feel really strongly that there isn't much more I could hear that would make me think that the process of an executive order is the right process. We've gotten a little bit muddled at times between the conversation about the process and the merits of establishing this agency. Certain here and there's not much more we're going to hear that would change our thoughts on whether or not the executive order is the right process versus us taking up legislation and getting it right. If we are going to move in that direction so I feel pretty ready to move this forward. Thanks Mike, other committee discussion. All right. So I guess I would give us a moment to see if we have gotten word back from the House clerk about the timing of when a resolution comes out of committee relative to when it is considered and acted on on the floor. We were present in the building of course we could take a five minute break and members could go take a walk to the water fountain while one of us ran down to the clerk's office to ask the question so we are in this strange environment where we get to sit and stare at each other's zoom square as well we wait for the question to be answered. Yeah, while we're waiting for that answer I did want to say that Commissioner Manoli from the Department of Motor Vehicles had reviewed you know some of our questions and answers from the member or staff at DMV who had discussed their concerns about bringing the DMV Motor Vehicle Enforcement Division in under the agency proposed and you know had reassured me about my questions around the collection of the apportioned fuel revenues so I wanted to thank her for that and you know I still have some concerns about Department of Motor Vehicles and those that staff being brought in and if they would still be able to carry out the mission and if we do take this up in the future those are things I'd love to delve in on a little bit more but it was great to know that the commissioner felt strongly and it's been one of the things I've missed about not being in the transportation committee anymore is not seeing Commissioner Manoli. Well it's interesting to appreciate how much more open our process has the potential to be because anyone who wants to know what the flavor of committee conversation was about a topic can go back and watch the committee discussion. And another question that had occurred to me today that that I hadn't yet asked in committee was what about the revenue from tickets if we have DMV enforcement out there doing inspections and occasionally issuing a ticket or a citation for for some violation you know is that revenue is that revenue solely being used for the for the cost of the enforcement unit or are there other DMV activities that that would have to be funded differently. And if that ticket revenue were to move over into an agency of public safety so just another one of the fiscal considerations that we might want to understand going forward. And then I see that Amron's back. Go ahead Sam. Thank you. I was just questioning what representative will Claire was saying about giving them time or notice so this is what we are doing. Maybe that falls in with Amron's question. But if there's a way to give them notice before we post this. Thank you. I believe that. Yeah, I believe that this has been up on our agenda and that there are folks who are watching along behind the scenes it's a little hard for us in this remote meeting environment because we don't know who's on YouTube watching us but even the communications that I see in my inbox. After we end these zoom meetings, I can tell that people are generally tuning in when we're talking about issues in their area of concern. Amron were you able to get an answer for us from the house clerk about whether a resolution spends a day on notice. The process if the committee were to vote this out today would be that it would be read tomorrow and be placed on the calendar for action on Thursday so it could be voted on on Thursday and it would be a one day vote. Okay. All right. So I guess it would be my recommendation at this point, or my preference and you are welcome to to overthrow the chair if you want to. But it would be my preference that we move this out to the floor of the house to be read tomorrow and that will give us the 24 hours for for anyone with compelling new information to get that out there. And so it will be up for action on the floor on Thursday. Committee discussion on that. Rob LaClaire. Thank you madam chair. I just want to raise the point again that I find this a little unusual in that in the past whenever we had an item or an issue that we were looking to take action on that it was specified or at least indicated on the agenda. That we were looking to take action on that particular item that day, where I don't believe any reference was made about taking a formal vote on this resolution at all on the agenda. I hear your point. Other committee discussion. Mike murwiki. I couldn't resist. I couldn't resist. Madam chair, I appreciate that concern, but I feel like the clock is ticking. We have a time constraint here. And I think the more we wait the closer we're going to get to the clock ticking more loudly. And I would, I would hope we can be expeditious with this and move this out as soon as possible. Other committee discussion. Is that a motion Mike. So moved. Second. So, Rob, I do appreciate your, your calling for ample time for, for folks to weigh in if they have, if they have information that they believe would change the outcome. You know, I think the difference in my mind between a resolution declining the executive order and inviting a future legislative process is a little different than if we were voting out a bill that that we actually would enact into law. We are, we are starting a new process here by, by the, by the rejection of the executive order and the invitation to, to bring legislation to us. Go ahead Rob. I have to agree with you madam chair that I think it is a rather significant piece and that's why I am concerned that it's unfortunately being rushed a little bit and those that have. Right. And the responsibility to weigh in aren't being allowed to, but I respect the chairs prerogative. Well, in all honesty, if I thought there was something that that was missing in our understanding of the executive order that might change my mind or the minds of folks who have, have expressed different concerns about this method of reorganization. I certainly want to put the brakes on it and, and hold off to wait for that. But it's hard for me to imagine what could be presented that would that would make me say that that doing this reorganization by executive order is the preferable way. So, thank you for bringing that up mark Higley. We know if the Senate is already voted on this, because I believe they voting no as well. So have they voted on this already. I'm not aware of what's going on in the Senate today. Okay, again, I guess my point there is what if we hold off and do what representative of Claire is considering we're talking right. Sorry, you broke up there. What was the last part of that sentence. Well, just if we do what representative of Claire is considering it would be just one day of delay. Am I correct so that it would then be on the floor on Friday if we were to postpone a vote and warn it for tomorrow's meeting would just be one day. Later than done today correct. That that would be my count of the legislative days as well. Yeah. Yeah. And again, I don't really think that one day at this point is is going to make a difference, especially when we had until April I believe to actually act or not on the resolution. Any other committee discussion. Thank you, Anthony. As a seconder, I certainly would rather have a solid vote than a partisan split vote. But again, I defer to the chair on this. It just seems to me I would hate for this to turn into something that it's not. Which is to say divisive. But I just need some guidance. Thanks. Go ahead, Mark. I think for my ultimate. Yes or no on this the answer is going to be yes. I'm supportive of the resolution. The resolution to not allow the executive order to go forward so Peter if that's what you're looking for that's where I stand but again one day in the scheme of things. I'm agreeing with, you know, Rob. I don't see I don't see the imposition. Thank you. Committee discussion. I don't see any harm, I guess, in voting this on on our committee agenda tomorrow so let's go ahead and put this on for. And we can let the office of professional regulation know that we are going to have a 10 minute committee discussion and and consideration of the executive order resolution at 9am tomorrow. Any other committee discussion about that. Thank you, Madam chair. I know technically we have a motion on the floor and hopefully you all don't mind withdrawing that motion so that we can take a deep breath and be respectful of the wishes of the members of the committee who would like to let this happen. The seconders in agreement if the mover will. I'm moved. Unmoved. Okay, so I will ask Andrea to make it make it explicit that we are going to do mark up and vote on the draft resolution that we have already considered and marked up and we will do that tomorrow morning at nine. Any other questions, comments or committee discussion on this.