 Good morning. You are with the Vermont House Government Operations Committee on Wednesday morning. We are gathered here again to continue our consideration of S-124. And I want to just open up for sort of a last call committee discussion this morning about who else you might like to hear from and whether you have any questions or need more information related to the parts of the draft that we went over yesterday. Mike Marwicky. Good morning, Madam Chair and good morning to the committee. I have to leave in a half an hour to go to a Senate committee. So I just wanted to chime in that I really appreciate the addition of civilians into the council. As we move forward, I think it's essential that we bring a broader perspective. Yeah, and that's a good start. So I just want to affirm that I support that wholeheartedly and appreciate having that piece in there. Thanks Mike. It makes the council quite a bit larger than it was before and I know that that's always a bit of a concern that the larger the group the harder it is to to get things done but I think the other opportunity that it raises is for, you know, for the council to to maybe task subgroups with with doing some legwork and coming back to the whole group, which is probably something that can amplify the work that they're doing. Hal Colston. Good morning, and thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning committee. I just want to echo what Mike shared. I heard through our hearings, the resounding issue in concern was trust and the fact that civilians is a growing amount of civilians in Vermont who are don't have faith and trust in our law enforcement and I think this this restructuring of this council will will speak really loudly around our commitment to build trust. Thanks Hal. John Gannon. Thank you. So, you know, has been taking a look at our version of S124 and Senator White sent Sarah and I an email yesterday with respect to some of the concerns they have. And what one of the requests from Seneca of ops is to retain the commissioner of corrections and the correction commissioner of mental health on the training council. And that's one of them pretty important persons overseeing mental health services, and the argument for corrections is, you know, that's sort of the end of the line of the law enforcement process. So that that that is Seneca of ops is top concern with respect to the bill, as we've proposed to amend it to this point. Thanks John JP. We agreed without 100% and in fact I wrote that down. Yesterday, as a note to follow up on as we proceeded to see if it was ever changed. And I was just curious why they, you know, even took it out but I kind of thought that was important as well. And so, so John, I agree with the Senate totally on that one. I was going to ask that that K put back in as well, but it's just my two cents on it. Thanks JP Jim. Yeah, thank you. I'm curious if representative again and got any insight as to if we added them back in, would they also recommend taken anyone else off or we just expanding it by two more. Senator White didn't have any comment about the size of the training council just she thought it was important that those, those two members be back on the council. I mean I do know that we've heard from a number of members of our committee as well as the public. And it's important to have public participation and I know Marsha has, you know, I think we need to do a final kind of where we are with respect to members of the public and members of law enforcement. Just to see where we are on that and see if everybody's comfortable with the mixture. Yeah, if I may throw out a suggestion. Because we're into sunsets. I'm wondering if. We're expanding the council by large to a large degree and may there be some kind of trigger that whether this has been a good change or not a good change in terms of the size in the makeup by reviewing it say and I don't know three years or something I just throw that out as a clear to come back to us and says okay we added a lot of different groups and people changed who the chair is. Was that good or should we make further changes, I just throw that out as something to consider. Yeah, I appreciate that Jim. I, I think it is always a good idea to remind ourselves as citizen legislators with two year terms. And therefore, sometimes we don't have a lot of institutional memory of what has been done to come back and look at things again. Thank you madam chair. I agree with a lot of what's already been said as far as I definitely agree that we need to expand the makeup of the council and certainly get folks with different perspectives, especially in today's times. I will say my concern though is. I don't want to see anybody get on that council that's got an agenda. I feel that it's appropriate for somebody to be on the council that that has a specific agenda, because you're there to do what's best for all. And I still have some concerns about the governor only being able to select from that small group of people as far as who can chair. And I'm sure that I could support that. But I know we still have work left to do. Thank you. Other committee members. Bob Hooper. Was that a virtual. Yeah, it was an actual hand. It's had the same sort of reaction that JP had when corrections, which is essentially the dumping ground for everything that society wants to get rid of was taken off, particularly mental health. That's where people end up that have no place else to go and society wants to hide so that opinion I think is valuable on a lot of different venues. There's probably being one. Okay. Any other questions, comments, concerns related to the draft that we looked at yesterday, or the issue of adding back in the corrections and mental health commissioners, John Ganon. So, I know Bob raised yesterday and Mike also chimed in on this about the social worker being in there. And so when we're, and when we're in committee yesterday, you know, I looked up team two, which is the group that works with law enforcement. And they reference mental health crisis workers in the people who work with the police and so not that team two is the end of the world or knows everything but you know that's just a suggestion for modifying that. Given that maybe that's a closer match to what we want. But I'm open to suggestions on that that was just I was just looking and I just want to throw that out there. Bob Hooper. Thank you for that john Mike, after Mike basically corrected my I've been out of the system too long scenario. I'm not 100% right, but my point was that social worker is pretty vague term. You never know what you're going to get. So your, your comment is is timely john. How. Thank you madam chair. I really like john's thought, and maybe the commissioner of mental health appoint such a person to mental health crisis worker. I'm certainly comfortable with adding back in corrections, but I think that would keep the parody the same so it's in the favor of the civilians. Great. So Betsy and can you help us to to just take a peek at the at the balance of civilian versus law enforcement if we add both of the commissioners back in. Thank you for the record Betsy and Rask legislative council. I was going through and comparing the current membership to the as past version of S 124. And now to the house gov ops version that you're currently considering based on your last analysis of who's law enforcement related and who's public related. Now as the draft 2.1 is currently written. There's a 21 member council with 11 law enforcement related and 10 public related. If you were to add back in both the commissioner of corrections and the commissioner mental health. If you'll put commissioner of corrections under the law enforcement related. And would you put commissioner mental health under the public related. That would bring you up to 12 law enforcement related and 11 public related. Can you because I'm juggling too many devices here. Can you just remind us who the appointing authority is for each of the 11 law enforcement members so obviously the commissioner mental health is essentially the governor's appointment but if you could go through the other non law enforcement members and I think that would be helpful. Absolutely. And if anyone wants to follow along on draft 2.1, the membership of the council is starred starts to be addressed on page two. And so if you want to look at only the public related. Is that on the annotated but yeah. Yes, yes. Thank you, draft 2.1. The first public related member would be the executive director of racial equity, then scrolling down to page three. The next one would be an individual at the bottom of page three, an individual appointed by the executive director of the center for crime victim services, an individual appointed by the executive director of the Human Rights Commission, an individual appointed by the executive director of the Vermont network against domestic and sexual violence. And then six public members who can't have a law enforcement relative or be a law enforcement officer current legislator or otherwise be employed in the criminal justice system. And this where the draft currently breaks it down to be five of those six five would be appointed by the governor. The next one would be jointly elected by the memberships of the Vermont chapters of the NAACP. Thank you so much that's very helpful. Committee members, any other questions. Committee discussion. All right, well let's let's head back to I just just also to let you know I have not other than the other than the, the reactions shared by Senator white I have not received any other requests for testimony or requests for changes to be made I did. And we're the, the draft 2.1 with representative Donahue because she had been one of the initial sponsors of one of the policing reform bills, just so that she could take a look at it, and she expressed concern about dropping the commissioner of mental health, which we're now taking care of. She also said that she really appreciates the multiple places where people with lived experience with mental health conditions are added to the bill is as much appreciated. And she flagged one issue that I don't think we went through in any detail yesterday, just related to the health resources allocation plan with respect to EMS on page 36 I guess. I have flagged that for the chair of the health care committee to make sure that he doesn't have any concerns with that and will hopefully get a response back from from the health care committee in short order I let them know that we're we are moving towards finishing our work on this bill. Jim Harrison. Thank you Madam chair. I, maybe I was frozen, but I don't remember on the EMS section of the bill, whether or not there was any red flags raised by the ambulance services or the Department of Health. Everything was pretty smooth sailing, but if someone remembers, if there were any flags raised that certainly be interested in listening. Yeah, we did hear from drew Hazelton and Dan Batsy from the Department of Health. I think they testified that they were peaceful with the EMS provisions of the bill. If anyone else wants to go back and review their notes I would be glad for someone to to fill us in a little bit on any detailed notes that that you may have from those two. Yeah, I didn't remember anything and I didn't make any notes that we should look at any particular section but it was Tuesday the eighth so if anybody has their notes in chronological order September 8 is when we had that crew in. And I'm just going to flip to that section of the bill so I can take a peek if there were any suggestions that. If you look at alternatives to psycho motor testing was one of the observations that I had written in the margins on this section of the bill. I'm not sure Betsy and thank you. So match my notes I believe that was from Professor Patrick Malone he runs UVMs rural emergency services course and that psycho the alternative to psychomotor skills testing is in here and this language was put in on the Senate side after hearing testimony from Professor Malone that there should be an alternative to the national registration and the NREMT psycho motor skills test. And so that is addressed in here and my understanding he was testifying in support of that language which you can see it starts at the bottom of page 39. Yeah, could somebody remind me of what psycho motor skills mean in this context I I'm drawing a blank I'm sorry. It's in regard to testing your skills and I think it's in order to maintain your certification. So there's to be licensed to practice here in the state as EMS personnel you have to get licensed to the Department of Health. And one aspect of licensure is that the individual also has to get a national certification from the NREMT the National Registry of Emergency Medical Medical Technicians and part of the NREMT requirements they require some of the higher levels of EMS personnel to take this psycho motor skills testing. But for the lower levels the EMR's emergency medical responder or this new that emergency medical technician. The NREMT national organization will allow flexibility in psycho motor skills testing as I understand it and Patrick Malone would say it's so much more eloquently on the Senate side to describe what it means but it's basically showing your skills to continue to be certified. And so in on the national level they allow flexibility on how to test psycho motor skills I think it's actually going through the process and hands on doing things. And so the suggestion from you Patrick on the Senate side was to allow that flexibility so that there can be on the state level and alternative to just taking the NREMT psycho motor skills testing requirements. So it's basically a paramedics or whatever they have to demonstrate kind of hands on ability maybe you know in the field type of scenario. I believe so. Okay. All right. I thought that's what it was but thank you. Thank you. Hal Colston. Yes, I just wanted to add to that I'm just reading off of a definition. Physical skills such as movement coordination manipulation dexterity grace strength and speed. There you have it. Grace, I love that. We don't get tested on our grace here in the legislative realm. But of course, we're very graceful Marsha. I have a note that says drew Hazelton said that they could be negatively impacted by this bill, but that's all I have in my notes so I don't have any more clarification than that. And Betsy and us. Thank you. Yeah, from my notes, when drew was testifying, he was concerned about dispatch fees that nonprofit EMS will be impacted by DPS dispatch fees. Because our nonprofit EMS entities are run for our, they're running on fundraising. And so my from my notes, he was saying that the potential for DPS to impose those fees for dispatch could negatively impact our nonprofit EMS entities that are already struggling. So I think it was a concern about without further action on those fees. The fees as currently proposed could be a financial burden. So any other questions from committee members. So I am going to ask you Betsy and if you can help me put the public safety planning section of the bill into into context. It calls for municipalities to create public safety plans and I'm just hoping that that you can help me put this sort of into the context of what, what was already existing in terms of towns making a public safety plan and then what this bill is proposing to expand on or direct. Sure. So this part of the bill begins on page 46 online 14 and big picture it would require each town by I think it's 2023. Thank you for that Roeke. To have a public safety plan. Yeah, July 1 2023 every town would have to have one and big picture. I think the Senate committee was looking at this from for towns, having knowing what their access to public safety services are, regardless of the size of the town. And what the language does is build off of the current annual requirement for each local organization which is a defined term in the emergency management chapter but each town is supposed to have a local organization for emergency management. And the overall duty of these local organizations for emergency management is to analyze their capability to respond in an emergency all hazards event, like such as a storm a very big storm for example. And that is required to annually analyze what their capabilities are and responding to an all hazards, and then feed that information up through the current chains of emergency management, so that if there is an emergency. It's known what emergency services are out there to respond. So you can see if you look through in this section it's amending. This section of title 20, which is in regard to public safety, the section of public title 20 that requires each town to go through this analysis of its emergency management capabilities. And if I can find the exact subsection I will point it out. Okay, so if you turn to page 48 and go to line for. Each local organization is required under current law to annually notify the local emergency planning committee of its capacity to perform emergency functions in response to an all hazard event. So these local organizations are already supposed to be looking at what their capacity is, as far as could be law enforcement EMS or fire services in order to respond to emergency. So this new language that begins on page 48 online 11 would build off of that annual analysis that's already required to happen. And require those local organizations to describe what their current capacities are in order for the town to have a town plan in order to respond to its normal emergencies. This language begins by saying each town and city legislative body so your select board or your city council would be required to adopt a public safety plan in accordance with this new subsection that describes how the town or city will address the regular law enforcement fire and EMS and dispatch resources needs scarcities costs and problems within the municipality unrelated to an all hazards event. And that could look like partnering with one or more other municipalities to address those issues. And the way this would work it goes on to say online 18 so concurrently with that annual notification that's required where each local organization is looking at the town's capabilities to respond to an all hazards event. And with that annual process, each local organization shall analyze the law enforcement fire EMS and dispatch resources needs scarcities costs and problems within the municipalities and report that information to the legislative body. And after the legislative body receives that info, the legislative body would be required to solicit and accept public comment on the current public safety plan. This is in anticipation of each one having one and consult with municipal and regional regional planning organizations, neighboring local organizations and any other relevant law enforcement fire EMS entities in order to determine how those services may be provided and shared on a regional basis and propose any revisions their current public safety plan that the legislative body deems necessary. And in that case, provide public notice of the proposed revisions, or at least public hearing, not less than 30 days after it and then finally adopt any revisions to their current public safety plan. So, right now this is a new thing towns don't have unless they've already taken the initiative to have a public safety plan, not all towns have them. So this is this is statutory language in anticipation of when this is going to be a requirement for each town to have a public safety plan. So section 20 section 24 is a transitional provision to say that each town and city shall undertake the process to adopt a public safety plan, so that every town and city has adopted one by July 123. I would say this is overall just for towns to understand what their police fire and EMS resources are just on a regular everyday basis, and they can determine whether they should be partnering with other regional entities in order to provide those services. I'm going to get here testimony from either the league or from maybe regional planning commissions about about any support that might be out there to help towns, maybe super small towns who haven't already created a public safety plan to do one. I imagine that there are a lot of small towns out there where the same five people serve on many different boards and it would be very challenging to do this. Yeah, so actually section 25 online 19 that was deleted is related to that issue. That did provide for, I think it was a total of $100,000 appropriation to a CCD for a grant program to have I think it was as proposed at least three public safety planning grants that would be for the purpose of assisting towns and developing these public safety plans but that was removed on the Senate appropriation by the by the Senate are proposed to be removed by the Senate appropriations committee. So that was one way to address it. Okay, well I can imagine adding $100,000 appropriation into this bill would send some people into hysterics at this point in the session. But I would like to open up to committee discussion about how we can come back before too long, maybe in the next legislative session and and discuss whether there are some supports that we want to try to create for our smaller municipalities. Bob Hooper. Thank you Madam chair the hand went up before you made that last comment but it's relevant I. When we talked earlier about what drew had said and what others have said and then we roll it into this discussion we're just having clear that we're trying to rely more and more on our towns and municipal governments to provide a backstop for bad things that happen. And in my mind when we start everything boils down to money. When we're continually hearing from people who are involved in this that the dispatch fee is going to impede their ability to either grow or maintain. It seems like we've got things in here that are counter productive to each other and it's just a sort of a knee jerk comment but I am uncomfortable with the discussions we've had with the commissioner about where the money is going and how it's going to be used and that whole fee thing is bothersome to me. Thank you. I did pump the brakes on that with respect to dispatch fees. Really, in my mind for the purpose of making sure that we're, we're not dumping that obligation disproportionately on to the property tax depending on what municipalities are already doing for for their dispatch fees. Jim Harrison. I want to echo your comments about small rural towns and select boards who are volunteers in some cases it's hard to get people to run for a select board because of the time commitment and sometimes they see my pillar is just throwing one more thing they got to do on their plate with no assistance to do it. So, I, but separately from that it may be a question from Betsy and a lot of small communities rely on state police for backup service or primary service in many cases. I know our town has a very limited part time arrangement with a neighboring town and using their police department, and then it's state police. What a plan be written that said that, you know, we use XYZ police department for, you know, approximately so many hours a week. And beyond that it's state police. I mean, could it say that, or is this intended to totally remove the state from this and just do it on your own which would be a huge burden to many of the communities in rural Vermont. So I think that's possible for a town to say that under its public safety plan the general description of it on page 48 starting online 11. It's just how the town or city will address the regular law enforcement fire EMS and dispatch needs within the town. And it's just says which may include partnering with one or more municipalities or entities to address those issues. So it's, it is a quite general description and if the town. I would read it as allowing a town to say we're going to rely on the VSP for our law enforcement needs for example. Thank you. Rob LeClaire. Thank you madam chair. I actually spoke to a select board member in a small community we talked about this a little bit and I have to say that it raised a lot of concerns. One for me it this is a unfunded mandate coming out of Montpelier I understand what we're trying to do. But for some communities this is a really heavy lift. For somebody had said you know we're having an awful hard time just to get members for say our volunteer fire departments or our volunteer emergency services and then to throw this sort of administrative stuff on top of it. At bare minimum, we would need to get I believe a regional planning group involved here because a lot of this, for instance, a lot of small communities, they do have mutual aid, but it's not really a formal agreement it's just sort of unspoken. You can see that resources are going to be needed to do this, but I have some real concerns about this as far as just dumping this on the smaller communities because that there's a lot of work here, and expense. Thank you. So the regional planning commissions have any any formal involvement in regional emergency planning. Question, I don't know the answer offhand. I'm not sure. Sorry. It seems that we didn't we work on some legislation a few years ago that involved them around this topic, Madam Chair, it seems like that there was something around emergency services that was this a part of the bill that was vetoed two years ago. That is 73. That was before my time on the committee but I know that there are big swaths of this bill that were that were being considered two years ago and we're vetoed. Okay. You might be might be more right than wrong on that actually, Madam Chair, there was always good when I can be a little more right than wrong. You notice I said might. Betsy I'm checking on it for me. Great. Thank you. In the meantime, john gamut. Thanks. You know, Rob's right. You know, there are, you know, town fire departments already have mutual aid agreements with other towns. I mean, and because at least my area most of the fire departments are volunteer. You know, they often backstop each other, almost on a constant basis depending on what volunteers can show up on at any given incident. So I mean that's already in place. I know our local law enforcement agencies. I'm not really sure what this gets us because, you know, we have to adopt at the select board level now an emergency operations plan every year and it's basically check the box. It's like who's in charge and stuff like that. And I just worry this is another check the box thing. The best thing I ever did when I was on still I'm on this like word but was participating in a statewide emergency exercise. Several years ago vigilant guard, and I learned more through that process about the strengths and weaknesses of our local law enforcement fire rescue. I would like to see something that encourages towns to participate in those exercises because we worked in Wyndham County with Gilford and a couple other towns and, you know, as well as with the state resources. And there was a state planner and I think it was in the Department of Public Safety that really worked with us on a regular basis basis that was housed in Brattleboro. So that's a good process because we learned a lot about that because they threw everything at us and required us to react. I just think this is going to be another check the box. So Betsy and any other information on context of where this came from. So S 273 as introduced address this and would have addressed this in a different way. It would have required each town plan to include a public safety plan that includes an analysis of the police fire and EMS resources needs scarcity costs and problems within the municipality. But as I'm recalling the testimony. There were concerns I think expressed by VLCT that a town plan is not the appropriate place to address the public safety needs because town plan is more about development and the structural look of the town and not really looking at things like this public safety planning. And so I think after hearing so then that got removed from the bill. As past the Senate I don't see it in the bill as past the Senate and I don't believe it got added back through the process. That was if I'm recalling correctly it was based on that push back the town plan not being an appropriate place for this that instead the Senate proposed to add this language that you now see NS 124 to pay back off of that current annual local emergency planning process. Do you have anything to add to your hand up from before. It is I'm sorry madam chair. No worries just, I wanted to make sure that you had an opportunity to speak if you had something to say. I will always watch for your little blue hand Marsha Gardner. I believe that there's been conversation over the years about trying to pull together statewide information about emergency services, in particular policing. So I wonder if this part of the bill was intended to pave the way for that. I agree with my colleagues. This is not a great time to be imposing yet another unfunded mandate upon our towns. But I think at some point it would be good to have an overall view of emergency services or the state. Thank you. Okay. Jim Harrison. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you chair. Maybe another option. I mean, I agree with some of the other sentiments. This is maybe another check the box and what does it really get you. If we want to collect the information asked the Department of Public Safety to send out a survey, period. We're not going to kick the time out. So we're not doing it right now, but maybe doing it sometime, you know, later next year or even 2022. It could be that simple. And if they sense that there's gaps or holes or things that need addressing they can come bring it back to us. Certainly one way to, to do that. Other thoughts from committee members. Thank you. I think Jim has a good idea there. I mean, having the Department of Public Safety basically develop an inventory of what law enforcement fire rescue services are available across the state would be helpful because I think would also serve. Serve the state in their emergency planning function to know exactly what resources are available across the state when there is a major incident such as tropical storm Irene, or something like that so that they know and have contact information for that and doing that on a regular basis just so they know how those resources change because I think as we all know volunteer fire departments can be strong in one year and then get lose, lose volunteers in another year. So I think that would be a far better way to address this than the current language in S124. So let's take a close look at what is in this section and other than simply a checkbox of what are you doing for law enforcement fire and EMS. And then there are other other pieces of information that we think DPS could or should be gathering in, in this, in this kind of a survey. Madam Speaker. Chair, sorry. Yes. Yes, for you. I just agree with the member from Wilmington I would find it very surprising. If the state, you know, DPS didn't already have a lot of this information there may be a question as to how updated it is but my goodness that's their job to know what they've got for resources out there. I'd much rather start from where we are. And the other thing is going to say is I'm also fairly confident that the regional planning commissions would have a lot of this information as well because I know, Washington County here, oh, I don't know three or four years ago we went through a major discussion about consolidating emergency services, fire police and EMS between Barry Montpelier, Barry town. Oh gosh I think East Montpelier. So I know that there was a lot of research done on that as well. So I'm thinking the regional planning commissions would be a good resource, or should be. Thank you Madam Chair. JP. I think the representative of the choir is exactly correct and so I can't remember exactly what is called but there there is this information has already been collected I believe anyway, at least it was when I was in there. So the resources available DPS has access to this regional planning has access. And I'm just wondering if this whole section isn't maybe getting into a little bit of unnecessary duplication of effort, but I understand the necessity of it and everything but I think our EOP is emergency operation plans. Representative again is already mentioned. Select Board put these out I think we do this every year. And because you have to update it. It's a, it's a, that is a checkbox form that goes back into the state and then again, this is important information to know but I think a lot of it's already known. And this may be the duplication of effort but but again I'm not sure that's the end maybe you could, maybe you could help me out and maybe you recall some some other plans. I can't remember what is called but but DPS I believe already has the data in the input that they've that that's being asked for in this section of our current bill we're discussing. I'm not wrong but go ahead. I don't know for certain but I would think so because they DPS would take up the lead role in an emergency to be able to call upon emergency resources. So my inference I don't while I don't know for certain my inference is yes that they would have this information. Maybe because the you'll see the emergency operation center in Waterbury, when they operate they, you know, everybody gets involved there and they have all that data in front of them. So the in the resources that they're taking call on. I do remember at one point we we had to provide information such as how many, how many police officers do you have how many cruisers do you have are the SUV or four wheel drives boats, ATVs equipment, specialized equipment specialized officers trained in a special tactics or different things and I know we had to do all that. I don't know what it was called now but so I like I really think DPS has got a lot of this already, or, and I believe they would be to spearhead the, the data collection on this too but I wish I could remember what that was called but anyway, thank you. John Gannon. So I just did a quick check and it looks like each regional planning commission has emergency management and actually hosts around table of of towns with respect to local emergency management. So I mean, if they're already doing that. It's a bit duplicative to, to then have every town do basically the same thing except from town up finding out what resources are outside the town that can help them if the local planning commissions or as you said the county planning commissions are already doing the same thing. Jim, thank you Alexa. It's funny. It's definition. Yeah, see Alexa woke up here because someone said Alexa Alexa. No. I'm not quite sure how to help you. Okay, don't say that. That's right. How do you tell her that you don't need her to answer you. How much trouble will we get in the Senate if we just strike this section. That's another way to go. I mean, we duplicate a lot of things and if the regional planning commissions are collecting this data, our information. Why do we need to do it again. So, I just throw that out here. You know, I guess part of it is the is the act of collecting this information and the other aspect of this is asking each community to, you know, to create their own plan there, their own emergency response plan in the event that there were a major weather event or something. And so, you know, step one inventory what you have and where you go for EMS and fire and police but step two is then writing a plan for what you would do if we had another tropical storm or if there was a big ice storm or, you know, lots of cities in the mountains in California right now experiencing wildfire events. And with the drought we've had this year I would say we shouldn't, we shouldn't consider ourselves immune to, to the possibility of fire. But Marsha Gardner has her hand up. Thank you. Betsy and can you tell us anything about the discussion that the Senate had around this section, what they had intended to do with this information once it was submitted. So a big picture, I would think it's fair to say that Senegal Ops has been focusing on whether emergency response or public safety issues should be addressed on a more regional level. Every town has a local police department and in some cases people who live in rural areas are far away from access to law enforcement in cases of emergency need. So I think it was overall just getting towns to think about how they do respond to their just standard public safety needs and whether they need to think further about how they'll get law enforcement when they need it ASAP or how their, how the citizens of their town will. So I think it was just more getting towns to think more about how they address their public safety needs. Thank you. Betsy. We're looking at responding to represent a plastics question. And maybe what you, I'm looking in the emergency management chapter and 20 vs a 32 these local emergency planning committees, and one of their current duties. So this is on a town level is one of their duties is to describe local emergency equipment and facilities and the person's responsible for them. So that might be related to what you were describing earlier about towns having to identify their current resources. Thank you and I think that I knew this out here I just couldn't remember what what it was called but I believe that's it thank you Betsy. Madam chair, thank you. I can tell you as a former select board member, and I know a 10 or 12 year member of a volunteer fire department with a fast squad. Those issues are always top of mind constantly. It's not one of those things that you just sort of put there and then deal with it. When it's in your face you're always having the conversations about that sort of stuff. And it occurs to me as I've watched my local towns here respond to the pandemic, which is very different than, you know, a particularly police or fire department emergency but but yet another kind of emergency. And it has been helpful for, for our communities not only to sort of have at their fingertips and evaluation of their own resources in town but then also collaborate across town lines and make sure that, you know that neighboring towns also have what they need You know, I definitely see the value of having a better inventory of this, and also prompting towns to, you know, to give some thought to what they have for resources but, but, you know, I think we need to, we need to be very aware that towns that police forces or only have volunteer fire and EMS are are doing it that way because that's the right size and scope for their community so figuring out how those small departments fit into the to the quilted landscape of of all of our emergency response is great and important but I think we need to right size what we're asking them to do. So does anybody have a suggestion on how we move forward I you know I think that the existing statute that that is permissive of towns or encouraging towns to to make an emergency or public safety plan is good. But I guess I would look for for some committee discussion on how to give Betsy and a direction of of what to to redraft and bring back to us. So there's a couple different ways I could see us moving forward with this one would be to push back the date. Or, or make it in some way less prescriptive to communities on what they need to do. Another way to do it would be to try to find a way to trigger us to come back and consider whether this is something that we need to have as a funding priority at some point in the future. Funding in order to support the smaller towns who who have, you know, the same five or 10 people who volunteer for every single board. But doing it regionally through planning commissions might be might be a model that we could move forward with. If we if we thought it was important for for there to be something more than just an inventory so suggestions questions comments. Yes. Well, I have two and one is sort of picking up on what you're just going is is either we strike the whole section, or we make all this language apply to the regional planning commissions and have it at least start at that level and see where where we go. And I think we're going to figure out that there's going to be some funding requirements here but I would find that more palatable if we were going to do this that it started at the regional planning commission level. Great. John Gannon. Thank you. No, I agree madam chair with you and Rob I think, you know, it's changing this language so that it focuses on the regional regional planning commissions being tasked with this. And pushing the date back would be good ideas to incorporate this with the understanding that at some point there may need to be funding planning grants that are built into this, but acknowledging that that unlikely for the time being given our fiscal constraints. Mm hmm. JP. You know, I, I really like that idea. I think that'll get to get the antenna what we needed to what they're looking for here and get it done and make it reasonable if we can pass the regional planning commissions to do it. I think that's a good idea. I like that. And so Betsy and do you do you have any quick questions or feedback that you want from us with respect to how we might change this to task the RPCs. Yeah. So right now is currently written it's how each town will address the regular law enforcement fire and EMS resources it needs. And so, how would you like to describe what the RPCs will do. Is it just to identify within the jurisdiction of the RPCs, what those resources currently are, is it just identifying the resources and so that towns will understand what will be out there to potentially be able to rely on those existing resources, or is it more of a planning for is what what will they be coming up with. Right well step one is an inventory right. And then at some point down the road if there were a need for a regional plan, because obviously we have some towns that have to rely on their neighboring towns for mutual aid and so having a regional plan would make more sense than for instance for West barely to say, you know, this year our volunteer EMS is down to one person who works out of town every day and so we're not going to have XYZ services, provided in the town. Rob. I actually very much agree with that Madam chair that part of what you know you're going to go through doing assessment where you have resources but I think the other part of that is you're going to go through and try to understand what the agreements are between communities for mutual aid. For instance, like when I was on middle sex. During the day, depending on what part of the town. The issue was Montpelier was automatically toned out. So, I think you need to understand by community what their agreements are with others for mutual aid and that's you know could be from fire to law enforcement and certainly for like EMS. Marsha. Just a thought but will the regional planning commissions turn right around and ask the towns to provide them with the information that is outlined in already in this bill. So what I'm asking is, will they collect the same information that we would be asking for. Will they help the town and anyway, will they still be responsible for collecting all of this information and submitting it just to a different entity. Good question. It's reasonable to think that some of that may happen for sure. But hopefully, the regional planning commissions, if our suspicions are correct should have a fair amount of information already. So I think that's a good question. There's going to be some involvement required from the towns. John Gannon. So, Chris Campani, who's executive director of the Wyndham Regional Planning Commission testified in the Senate with respect to these issues. And he would anticipate that the planning commissions would participate in this process. So I think heading in that direction. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question from the testimony that the Senate took. Thank you, Alexa. Jim, did she wake up? I saw you look at her. We have spent a fair amount of time this morning on this section of the bill and I appreciate it because I think that this is an important discussion for us to have as we contemplate going back to our own small towns and telling them what we, what grand plans we have made for them. I think what we should do is see if we can see if we can give Betsy on whatever she needs to direct her to redraft this section and then first thing tomorrow in committee we should try to hear from at least one regional planning commission to to hear if they have any suggestions on how to make this more workable. So Betsy on anything else you need from us feedback. Just one follow up question is that would this be an annual update that RPCs would need to perform, or are you envisioning just a one time inventory. I think a one time inventory makes sense. I think that if we want to start thinking more in terms of what I understand the intent of this language to be which is to to to prompt a more usable public safety plan in every community we we need to really understand better what who has the capacity to do a meaningful public safety plan. And, you know, a mosaic of 250 little plans might not be as helpful or usable as something that ultimately gets collated and and knit together at the regional level. And would they just report this inventory to their affected towns. And last question, what do you think the deadline for this should be. Any preference on that. John Gannon. Just more thinking about, you know, our fiscal state more than anything else I mean, I think that should drive that decision more than anything else about, you know, especially capacity of, you know, regional planning commissions and towns to do this, you know, fiscal constraints that we're going to continue to face because of the coven 19 emergency. So I, I would support putting this off at least to fiscal year 24, if not, Jim Harrison. I'm fine with that. I was going to suggest 23, but 24 fine to anyone else have a strong feeling on five minute bio break before we come back and and do see two thumbs up there and and do another jog through the bill and try at this point to come back to any details that we didn't get to yesterday, as well as sort of, you know, reassuring ourselves that that we've heard the perspectives we need to on the various sections of the bill, Warren. Hi. I noticed that Mitzi had the Burlington City Charter and the very city charter on the schedule for today. And I think it's going to go very easily and very quickly but we haven't really Bob Hooper and I haven't really discussed. I should think he would go first and do the Burlington part and then yield to me and I'll do the very city part and then announce the committee vote and say please vote. Please vote yes. Is that the way you would see us proceeding. I mean my read my report is very short, but it's not much to the very city charter. Bob's is a little more involved but even that's fairly straightforward. I just wanted to mention it before we. So, I, yep. I think that sounds like a good plan as far as the floor report goes and I would, I would recommend that you both try to keep your floor reports as brief and direct as possible given the big number of things that we have coming before us on the floor in the next couple of days. Yeah. Sound like a plan. Bob are you ready for that for this afternoon. I think you were just holding up a piece of paper, but it was hard to tell because it was being projected on by your virtual background. Great. The bio break brings us back here at 950 950. Turn your camera off and mute yourself and I'll see you in five minutes. Hello and welcome back. How we doing. All right, I think what we should do now is try to head back to the beginning of the bill and we went through in quite some detail yesterday the, the beginning sections of the redraft. We can go back through that and and also try to get through. I don't know we've got about 40 minutes. So we may not get through the whole thing. Are we starting where we left off yesterday or are we starting at the beginning again. Betsy and how many changes did we have after the point that we left off yesterday. I am not sure that we had a ton of changes left that we hadn't gotten to but I could be wrong. We've got through the whole bill or at least there weren't any changes to review in the EMS sections that are in this draft so we got through all of the annotated changes and we discussed. I have a list of maybe about seven or eight different topics for potential revisions next time. I haven't prepared yet as a revised draft but I can point out some of the, if we want to do more of a high level overview of what's in here now. I can just point to some of the potential changes that you discussed yesterday. I think we should be great. I think we should be driving towards trying to see more of a final draft for in committee tomorrow so as we go through we can. We can discuss the potential changes and and see more of a clean draft tomorrow. Sounds good. All right so if everyone wants to take a look at draft 2.1. I will just do more of a high level overview and then Madam Chair just stop me if you want to stop and discuss anything. I'll flag some of the issues that you discussed that are in my notes. I'll also try to mention some of the things that the Chair of Senate Gov Ops pointed out too. So it's on your radar. So the section one is just discussing the purpose of the council and just updating some of the language. If you scroll over to page two it's adding at the top a description of their duty to professionally regulate law enforcement officers in order to maintain statewide standards of officer professional conduct. And also that the council in sub C has the authority to approve programs of instruction, in addition to just offering them directly. So section two in regard to the council membership is it's one of those substantive areas of this bill. And you've been discussing who should be on it, and you got a little bit of feedback from the chair of the Senate Committee on their perspectives of removing potential potential removal of the commissioners of corrections and mental health. Any other questions this morning about adding them back in or is that where you're after the next draft. All things considered that's what I would recommend that we do. It does. It does make the council, a bit larger. But there are folks who believe that both corrections and mental health should have a seat at the table with respect to law enforcement. So, anyone else want to weigh in on that. All right, moving on. Madam chair. I'm hearing some feedback that someone might not be muted. Okay, now, then on page four of the bill, you'd be changing the three public members appointed by the governor to six public members. So the governor would appoint five public members, and you would describe at least two of them. I heard conversations this morning that the right now with the governor appointing one person who would be a social worker online 10. I heard sounded like a tentative discussion to substitute a mental health crisis worker for social worker. Is that where you're at. Feel free to give a thumbs up. If you're a person with a lived experience of having a mental condition or psychiatric disability would be the other specific appointee. And then the sixth public member would be jointly elected by the memberships of the Vermont chapters of the NAACP. So one piece of feedback on that on the Senate in the Senate committee was whether that was workable to have a joint election. Rob. So I have some questions around that so if I read this correctly, then the governor's actually only appointing five people, and then the sixth person. What does that mean that they would be jointly elected. So in other words the different chapters of the NAACP would elect somebody and then the governor would have to appoint that person. The groups together, appointing one person. The groups that are the commission is comprised of the Vermont chapters of the NAACP I believe there are at least three of them. They would those chapters would jointly elect one member of the council. And then the expectation is that the governor would have to appoint that person. The governor would only be able to appoint the five that are currently listed on line nine. The ex officios under the office of governor. Right so he. So he's actually only appointing five and then the sixth the person that's referred to here would be somebody that's elected by the chapters of the NAACP. Yes. Okay. So, good on how that is currently drafted. I think so unless, unless committee members have a recommendation on. I guess I do have a question about that madam chair. Why wouldn't that position. If that's the way we decide to go why wouldn't they just be automatically appointed to the commission, as opposed to going through this route. I mean, why would they be different than the human rights commission or what are the other ones there. Well functionally, the difference that I read in this language is that with respect to the human rights commission the executive director makes that decision. And with respect to the chapters of the NAACP, it, it, it implies that the membership of the NAACP is electing someone to be the NAACP's appointee to the council. And that implies that there would be a bit of a process of people wanting, you know, expressing interest in, in serving that function on the criminal justice training council and then the membership of the groups getting together and, and deciding that if there is a different way of accomplishing that from the perspective of the NAACP, I would be happy to, you know, to hear a suggestion from any of the chapter heads I don't know that. I don't know that Stefan spoke directly to this. But perhaps we could get some more feedback if we want to understand how that process might work. Jim Harrison. Is, is it just because there is no Vermont chapter of the, you know, so we couldn't just say the ND and whatever NAACP appoint somebody. There is not one Vermont chapter there is a Rutland County or Rutland area and NAACP, I think it's Rutland areas the official title, there's a Wyndham County and NAACP. And then those two are on the Secretary of State's corporations registry there's a separate Champlain area and NAACP that's been organized. So there's not one overall NAACP chapter of Vermont. So if they're not organized, they still on this language they would. Let's just say, you know, we formed one in Chittenden. Would we have to do anything to be part of this vote. I think that it would need to be, I would think it'd be recognized by the National Organization NAACP nationally but I'm not, I don't know for certain how the bylaws work for example if there's any to be able to be recognized. I'm not, I'm not certain how that works in practice. But perhaps with further if you want to just put a hold on this but for further testimony from member of the NAACP on workability. We can come back and revisit this. Yep, we did have, we did have testimony from from someone on the subcommittee on what was the name of her subcommittee I can't remember. Anyway, we did have some testimony we can certainly ask for some more feedback on how the NAACP would propose selecting a member. Sounds good. Okay. So I'm going to move on in regard to the chair. I can see if you're following along a draft 2.1 online 16 on page for I've just got the flag there for you, because right now the languages of the governor appoints the chair of the council from among the public members that are listed in A1N. And so that is one substantive distinction if you're a public member, you would be able to be a chair, but then also just note down below and subsection C online 19 that it's only the public members that get the per diem. So the flag question for you is, are all of the members that are supposed to be public members appropriately listed under this subdivision A1N. For example, your other public related members is someone who's appointed by the executive director of the Human Rights Commission, or the executive director of the Vermont network against domestic and sexual violence. So the flag as to who should be considered a public member. One qualification to be a public member is that you have to meet those qualifications listed on page four lines five through eight. You can't have a law enforcement connection or be a legislator or otherwise be employed in the criminal justice system. So that is a qualifier. No matter who appropriately should be under that public member qualification. So typically we would want to make sure someone was receiving a per diem for this if they were not already being paid by their employer to be there for. So for instance, the commissioner of public safety is a part of this by virtue of the job description. And so, I guess what I am not 100% clear on is how many of those public members might be might be serving in that role because they work for the domestic and sexual violence organization for instance. So that goes to that per diem question goes to the language that's on page five on lines three to five so it's per diems as permitted under 32 vs a 1010. And so that 32 vs a 1010 is our standard per diem statute and it says that you can't get a per diem if you're being paid by another entity to attend the meeting for example. So I think that would cover. That would eliminate the ability to be double paid. Okay. So it may, it may require a little reworking of how we define who gets per diems. As in not all public members, or non law enforcement members would automatically get a per diem but some of them might. Rob LaClaire has his hand up. Thank you Madam Chair. Well, looking at this section line 16, I had expressed some concern about this the other day where I do have some great concerns about the governor being limited to only appointing the chair of the council from, you know, somebody from the public so we're automatically saying now that nobody with any sort of law enforcement experience could ever be chair of the council. It has to be somebody with law enforcement experience but I couldn't support limiting the governor to the point where we'll never have anybody chairing that council with law enforcement experience. I think we need to broaden that. Thank you again. Thank you. So addressing the per diem issue first. That's an if we go to page four. Line 19, which do we want to delete that language that the public members set forth and a one members of the council that helps solve the per diem issue. Human Rights Commission could appoint a public member. The executive director the Vermont network against domestic and sexual violence could appoint a public member. So I just, I mean, if we have the generic language in there. If you're right, the Human Rights Commission, for example, could appoint someone who is not going to be paid by the Human Rights Commission to be there. And so if you did remove that language on lines. Line 19 at the book basically the bottom of page four, and you can just say per just keep the language on page five lines three to five to say per diem compensation reimbursement of expenses under this subsection shall be made as permitted under 32 vsa 1010. Then that would allow per diems for anybody who's not being paid to be there. And then they would be authorized and they would automatically eliminate, you know, there would not be authorized to be per diems for the ex officios, for example, because they're already getting their state salary. Okay. So we could delete all that language and just go with the language on page five starting on line three. Yes, I think so. Okay, and then maybe because made it just sent me an email with respect to this are non public members getting expenses as this is currently drafted. So all, all members of a board under 32 vsa 1010 can get reimbursement of expenses like your mileage to get there if you're take if you're driving your own car, even if you're an ex officio. They're entitled to get reimbursement of expenses. And so that I can find the specifics. It's a specific subsection of 32 bsa 1010. I just want to make sure, as we head into appropriations that we have this language right. Yes. Before we head back into Rob's questions about the governor appointing the chair from among the public members of the board does anybody want to does anybody else want to ask a question about per diems who gets them what they cover. So let's let's try to close out the per diem conversation and then come back to the members of the council who are from the public, which I think numbers 11, five of whom are appointed by the governor. How are you on chair appointment. Yes. Thank you madam chair. You know my friend from Barry just prompted a thought. And what I what I think is really important to consider is the notion of leadership. I serve on many boards. I'm a border like I'm on 64. I've served in chair on several, the V&A of Chittenden and grand out county the largest home health hospice organization in the state. I was the chair. I had no health care, you know, experience. I served on the board of the Howard Center as vice chair, no experience in mental health. I served on the board of the Vermont Health Foundation. No experience in philanthropy. And, and also this Center for whole communities, no experience in environmental, but you know, serving as chair is about leadership. So it's not about you got to have law enforcement experience in order to lead a group of community members and law enforcement, you know, officials. It's really about leadership and I think that's the quality of the governor needs to be looking for in a civilian chair of that council. Mike Berwicky. I want to affirm what my friend from Winooski has shared. As someone who's facilitated enough meetings and been chair of boards. My experience as a good facilitator actually takes themselves out of the meeting as a participant and gives them self up to having a good meeting happen. So, facilitation qualities are the most important thing rather than an experience or interest in the topic at hand. Rob LeClair. I do agree with my friend from Winooski I mean it's clearly about as good looks and talent that he's gotten all those positions. And I'm not necessarily advocating that has to be a law enforcement person, but I find limiting it limiting it to that particular group. That doesn't allow you to explore the leadership that could be on that council. It's got to be only, I guess what of the six folks that are there. What happens if you don't have that particular skill set. I just, I don't think we should be limiting the council or the governor to that narrow of an option. The committee discussion. Jim Harrison. What if we went back to the console, electing its chair. If we had a broader, more diverse console. It certainly would, they've got to find a way to work together. So, maybe, maybe that would be. And if we're going to revisit this, if we do put a caveat in there to revisit this in a couple years. If it, if it didn't play well in the sandbox, we can change it. Other committee discussion. JP. I always kind of preferred that chairs are are elected by the committees themselves. I think it gives the committee members a little bit more ownership and what's going on and what they're doing there and what they're doing. I think that's one of the priorities I've been on in the past and been privy to and everything. The chairs that were elected, I think actually worked a little bit more effectively than some that may have been appointed, but. So I like the election factor of the election of the chair of the committee. I think that's. I really like that chair, hopefully. That's the end, you know, if the council has in their current operating bylaws, any restriction against someone serving as chair for multiple years. Know that they elect them every year, but is that. Is that effectively a term limit. I'm not aware of any bylaws that they have. Um, they do have rules. But I'm not. I don't believe it's, uh, that would, that's addressed in their rules. Um, I'm just not certain. All right. Any other discussion on this question before we move on. All right. So Betsy and let's just flag that as a area of committee discussion and keep moving. All right. In section three on page five, there was, there's the current proposal to say that the new members have to be appointed by November 15th. I have in my notes, um, that one of the house gov ops members raised the question of whether that's enough time to make that appointment. Well, we do have a fair number of, um, uh, work products that we're asking the council to be involved in that come up fairly quickly. Um, I agree that it could be a little bit challenging, but, um, But I guess I would, I would err on the side of, uh, of asking for this process to begin ASAP. Um, I think that's a good point. Um, I think that as it is newly formed and constituted is able to. Get started on the next work products. Committee discussion on that. Uh, John. Thank you, madam chair. I would agree with you on that. I mean, there's a lot of work that has to be done. Um, and not having the council reconstituted. Um, um, I think that's a good point. Um, I think that's a good point. Um, I think the, the recommendations, recommendations were seeking from the council. Thanks, Jim Harrison. Yeah, I, I continue to be that committee member with. Concern. Um, on the timing, you know, we're talking about a month and a half. Uh, there's also an election in between. Um, I mean, Theoretically, we don't even know who the governor is after. Um, I, I would push back, uh, that, you know, maybe we give till January 1st or 15th for this appointment. Um, I, I don't like Russian. For the sake of filling slots and then putting the wrong people in there. Um, I think more damage can be done. Then, um, With the wrong people. So I would, I would air on a little delay. Not a significant delay here. Rob Leclerc. Um, I have to agree with, with Jim. I know that's rare, but, um, Because this council is so large, there's a lot of different moving pieces here. Um, I would agree. I think that we need to push it back. A bit so that we get the right people that have those leadership qualities and people understand what's expected of them. Um, there is a lot going on between now and then. And I, I do think it's a little too rushed. All right. Sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead. That's the end. If it's relevant to your conversation, one of Senator White's, um, Feedback was wanting to maintain the January 15th report back from the council with the progress report. So that just seems related to this conversation. So I figured I would mention it here. Rather than pushing back their first progress report to March. It does. Um, and, you know, as I consider some of the testimony, we heard in those three days of public hearings that we held. Um, a lot of that testimony was. Uh, was coming with a sense of urgency. Um, and I think that there has been a lot of focus and attention on this topic. And I certainly hope that. The entities who are tasked with being able to appoint. Members to a newly constituted, uh, criminal justice training council are, are, uh, are already thinking on those terms. And I guess I would be inclined to, to want to try to push for a more, um, More aggressive timeline, given that we, we need this entity to be, uh, joining in with us and giving, uh, giving us their recommendations on how to move forward with some pretty important, um, police policy and police reform work in the future. But we'll, we can flag that as another question to come back to. So Betsy Ann want to go ahead and keep us moving. Okay. Sounds good. So I'm on page five, section four. This is the requirement for the council to adopt rules to identify other places where people can obtain training. And then on top of page six, um, Striving to offer courses, non overnight courses, whenever possible. Thank you for testimony back from the council that they do, um, offer courses in different areas of the state and non overnight courses. Um, however, I'll just note that the overnight courses are really in the, um, 16 week basic training. That's required of law enforcement applicants. Um, So one thing that was struck stuck out to me was that if you do want to specifically require the council to consider, um, Non overnight courses during basic training, I think that that language could be potentially, um, More designed to address that issue in the council's required report back in section six. Um, So I'll just to note that. I think the council's essential testimony was we're doing this. What's, what's set out in section five. We're already doing that. But I think. My, I understood the, um, Gov office committees be focusing on in large part was that 16 week residential basic training requirement. Rob Leclerc. And chair, um, This part here, I have to say, I strongly support. Um, I think the council's essential testimony years ago. Um, from law enforcement agencies in particular about the recertifications. That it can be very problematic and expensive for them to have to send their officers down to the academy where. If the instructors could come out. And even do it regionally. There was a lot of support among people for that. Um, I think it's important to have on site. Um, I guess trainers that are certified. That should be able to meet the criteria that's required for law enforcement for the recertifications as well. But there was a lot of support. I would call from law enforcement about not having to always send everybody to the academy. Uh, JP. Um, I think it's very time consuming, very expensive to send everybody down here. So what we used to do as much in service training as we called it. Uh, by doing it in regional areas. We sponsored training. I sponsored training, uh, in my town. Uh, and sometimes the academy was able to send their staff out. Um, uh, Cindy Taylor patch the other day that they're continuing to do that. It is expensive for them to do that. And, um, But it does save the municipalities and, uh, Quite a lot of time and money to send their officers all the way down to Pittsburgh when, when they don't have to. So any, anything we can get. For the regional training. Whether it be for in service, whether it be in the city, whether it be, Hopefully in the future, maybe even some basic basic training. It would, it would be great. And I'm sure everybody, every municipal police department would love that. Well, you do have, as currently written, you do have the report back in section six, essentially for the new executive director of the council to report the gov ups committees about the council's plans to replace some of its overnight training with non overnight training. So maybe at that point you can get an update on where things are at and then just see if you need to further address it. So maybe that would work as is. Um, I'll just note on just flagging on page seven, there is that requirement, um, starting on July one, 20, 21 for a level two officer to be able to transition to level three. And I just flagged for you the council's feedback was, uh, as I understood it, they're not going to be able to do that without further resources. So I'll just, I'll just, I'll just, I'll just flagging that, um, for you. In case you want to do anything further there. Committee discussion. And I'll also, if it's related, I'm sorry, I didn't mean interrupt. I'll just note that that part of that report back in section six isn't an update on how that restructuring of programs is going. Maybe you would have an idea of how things are going at that point. Rob. Um, thank you, madam chair. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for being made, but I don't know if I recall the specifics around why they would need more resources. Cause they're talking primarily about this clap. Is that. Um, is it that they don't have the ability to go through and, and verify. The level of training on other things. State by state. Yeah. All I have in my notes. It was from the chief is that for that. I don't know. I don't know. What I have in my notes is that the council needs more. Financial resources or staff to make that happen. That's all that I have for details in my notes. Was that chief Pete. Keep Raquel, the chair of the council. Okay. John Gannon. Yeah. Yeah, that seemed to be also their issue with. Issuing waivers is the reason they're taking so long. Was they didn't have enough staff. To review. Um, you know, non-Vermont. Enforcement training. I mean, it concerns me. Um, give all the great work we've done with other professions and trying to. To ease people through a process so that we have more professionals in Vermont. That we don't somehow take a stab at law enforcement and make it easier for people. To secure either a higher level certification. Or a waiver. Um, into the state. Um, and we have limited testimony on this. I'm basically one person. Um, I really hope we could do something here. Given all the good work we've done with respect to other. Yes, it is in keeping with, uh, with what we are trying to do with other professions, which is to make it. Uh, easier for people to get to their maximum. Certification as well as make it easier for people who. Have training, um, that they got in some other location to, um, to, to get certified or licensed to, to practice their profession here in this state. So, um, I agree that this is something that we should come back to. Um, Committee, anyone have thoughts on how to. How to. Move forward with this, Jim Harrison. Thank you. Um, Madam chair. Um, I don't. I don't know what's wrong with the language that we have before us. Um, I do think we sometimes has been said before we put up obstacles. Uh, that really aren't necessary. Um, you know, I'll give you an example in my area. The killington police chief. Is a level two certified law enforcement officer. Now, killington has a small two person department. And this gentleman's got a young family. Um, with a newborn and. You know, for him to take off and go to another 16 week. Uh, training program to start all over is just not in the cards. Um, For, for multiple reasons. Uh, one, it would take up more than half the department and it'd be gone. Um, this gentleman also went to Norwich where he got some, um, Arguably appropriate training. Uh, for law enforcement. So I think we, we do what we can to. Not put obstacles and say you got to start over much like. Attracting people from out of state if they have. Good and appropriate training. I get it that we have to review it. It's not a blank check. Um, but. You know, let's, let's be open like we are trying to be in so many areas, other areas of licensing rather than put obstacles up. So I would encourage us to keep on with this pattern. Of pushing the envelope to look at it and, and make it easier to get to that next level. We should be incentivizing that. Not the status quo. I agree. Thank you. I agree. And I also recognize that we are at time. So Betsy and I think we will have to pick up where we have left off. Um, and, uh, Jim, I, I very much appreciate. What you and John just said about, um, uh, about where our focus should be. Thank you, Madam chair. I'm just wondering as the clock is ticking louder. If there may be the possibility of us having some extended time. So we can get this bill done. Before, before the week's end. Yes. We need more time. We will definitely take it. Um, my intention is for us to, to. Uh, I think we will be able to hear from a couple of different perspectives. Um, Tomorrow and, uh, and again. Uh, I'm scanning my email inbox and, uh, and Andrea is also making sure that she relays any, anybody who's expressed an interest in testifying on the bill. Uh, but we will ask for more time if we need it. Um, I think we're ready to go. Um, I think we're ready for burning questions that you would like us to resolve for you before we sign off for the day. Uh, I think I'm good for now. I guess just with next steps, getting a new draft before you. Um, I'll take with the comments that you've made so far for the revised draft, but it does seem that there's. Uh, I think we're ready to go. Uh, I think we're ready to go. Um, responding to some of the, um, Senate committee's feedback to, as to whether you want to, um, address some of their concerns also. So. I can work at your direction to come up with, make other changes for the committee's consideration. If that would be helpful to move things along and we can discuss it again next time. If you want to have, um, I think we're ready to go. Um, let's plan on doing that. And, um, and we will. Aim to put a fresh draft in front of committee members tomorrow. And I've got Andrea reaching out to a few entities for some testimony tomorrow. John Gannon. Thank you. Um, Given that we need to present this in appropriations tomorrow. Do we want to attempt to get a fiscal note? Um, I think that probably makes sense. I think we're pretty set on the council, except for how the chair will be appointed. Which really doesn't impact an appropriation. Nope. I think that a fiscal note on that would be helpful. JP. Uh, just real quick on the chair. The question, uh, I don't know if I would be able to go into the council. Uh, I mean, I could serve more than. One year. So I, I researched the, uh, Council rules. Uh, in the between things here and. It clearly states that the chair is all is, um, elected with the, with the, uh, one year term. And it's, it's done on a, on an annual basis. But it does not say. Anywhere in there whatsoever that I could find that the. more than one year as the chair. The only thing is a person has to be reelected every year. And it was very clear in that, but it didn't say anything whatsoever about a more than one year. So I think that pretty much should answer the question that was proposed earlier. Thank you. Rob? Is the fiscal note just around this question of the council or around all of S-124? Go ahead, John. I believe the concerns that appropriations have raised, and I'm sure I'll be correct if I'm wrong, deal with the proteams. Oh, OK. I mean, there seem to be appropriations in there. I think dispatch fees is probably something that House Ways and Means will also take a look at. But I don't think there are any other appropriations issues in the bill, at least on a quick scan. Well, that study that we talked about this morning, depending on how they get played out, there could be some. But if it goes the direction I think we're headed, it probably won't need any. OK, I just got a heads up that Nolan is preparing a fiscal note. Excellent. Beauty work. Good job. JP, do you have something? No. Sorry, I didn't lower my hand. That's all right. I just wanted to make sure I didn't miss you. OK, so we are out of time for today. And I guess we will be together on the floor this afternoon. Good luck to Bob and Warren on your floor reports this afternoon. And Betsy and you and I can try to touch base on when we can meet to go through this. Great. You know where to find me if you need me. Thank you all. Have a good rest of your morning. Get some fresh air. See you on the floor later.