 Good afternoon. It's Friday and we are picking up some testimony on H 232 and it'll be interspersible have testimony on H 232 then H 401 and then H 232 again for this afternoon session and each 232 is an act relating to promoting land and home ownership and economic opportunity. H 401 is an act relating to promoting racial and social equity in Vermont. And so those are two bills. Committee as I mentioned earlier, H 401 we just wanted to hear from the sponsor and council, and we wanted to focus specifically on the, the elements that had to do with a housing issue within H 401. So let's get going let's let's get going today we're going to welcome right now Phil Huffman from the Nature Conservancy and Phil again we just mentioned we've had you in committee but it's been a couple of years as a member of the HCC. And the conservation side of the HCCB we don't often get testimony in this in the housing committee from the conservation side but I welcome you in today to talk about H 232 so the microphone is yours. Thank you. Terrific. Well thank you chair Stevens and members of the committee. I appreciate your making time to hear from me today and and thanks for everything that you're doing on behalf of her monitors in a really difficult time. But it's good to see again those of you that I know and have met before and nice to meet the rest of you who are new to the legislature this year. I wish we were together in your committee room and not doing this by zoom I'm sure that's an understatement relative wall be feeling these days. But anyway, hope we'll have a chance to get back to that, at least by the time things get going again next winter. And just for the record, my name is Phil Huffman. I'm the director of government relations and policy for the Nature Conservancy here in Vermont, and as chair Stevens was alluding to I'm also one of the co chairs of the Vermont Housing and Conservation Coalition, which is the collection of organizations that I think you know from both the housing and the conservation community here in Vermont that implement projects in collaboration with the HCCB. I want to be clear I'm speaking today on behalf of TNC and not on behalf of VHCC. I wanted to begin by just acknowledging a few things. One is the timing today of getting a chance to talk with you on the heels of Earth Day, yesterday, which I hope you all had a chance to celebrate in your own ways, and feels like a fitting moment to be speaking to this bill, and the really important issues that it encompasses. And, you know, as we talk about land here today, I also wanted to recognize and understand that we're here on the unceded ancestral lands of the Abeneke people, who were the traditional land caretakers of in Dakina, which includes Vermont, parts of other New England states and Quebec. Excuse me, acknowledge the importance of the issues involved in this bill and other bills that are under consideration to address historic inequities and systemic racism in Vermont, and we at TNC applaud you all for giving time and thoughtful consideration to these bills. I encourage you to give additional time to H273 and the BIPOC voices that are behind that initiative. I know you've given it some attention so far. And then the last acknowledgement is just to note the powerful testimony that I know you all heard in recent days and weeks on H232 from a number of people, including Gus Sealy, Galizka, yet Stephanie Morningstar, and Steve Don Stevens, Nick Richardson, and maybe leaving one or two out. But anyway, I had a chance to listen to that testimony I was certainly struck by it very much and learned a lot from what, from what they all had to say. Well, since TNC hasn't actually testified before this committee, before at least as far as I know, I thought it might be helpful just to give you all a quick overview of who we are, both generally and here in Vermont, and then I'll segue from there into the issues that are in front and center for H232. If you don't know about the Nature Conservancy, we're now a global conservation organization, one of the bigger ones actually in the world, working all across the US in all 50 states and in I think somewhere upwards of 75 countries around the world to advance our mission, which is to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends. So that very much includes human life as well as all of the native species here on planet Earth. We're a science based nonpartisan and solutions focused organization. We bring that approach to trying to tackle big environmental problems like climate change and the accelerating loss of biodiversity. We create a state here in Vermont and a world where nature and people can thrive together. We really see it as we're all in this together. It's essential that we create a future where we all can thrive with all the species that we share this planet with. Here in Vermont and beyond we're brought maybe best known as a land trust and land protection is still a really core part of our work, but over the years our work has also expanded to more fully meet our mission. And we like to say that we're not just a land trust anymore by any stretch. Quickly, a couple of examples of other aspects of our work includes restoring streams and rivers to a more natural function to help protect our human communities downstream from flooding and from water quality problems. We're restoring iconic native species like the American Elm, working to create a wildlife friendly road network for the benefit of both wildlife and motorists. We're developing innovative approaches to securing funding for private landowners in Vermont through national carbon markets to help the landowners keep their forests as forests and to slow climate change. So those are just a few examples. In our work partnerships are very commonly it's very central to things and that partnerships with policymakers, you all and folks from the administration, landowners, state and federal agencies, local communities, and a whole host of other non governmental organizations like ours. Among our partnerships, one of our closest ones for the last 30 plus years has been with VHCB. And we partner with them on implementing land protection projects, co holding conservation easements, for instance on state lands and I'll speak a little bit more to that in just a minute, and helping to support the statewide network of land conservation organizations that are trying to advance land conservation all around the state. Most of our land protection work focuses on ecologically significant areas. So places that have and provide important habitat for sustaining Vermont's vast array of native species in the face of climate change and other threats. We have some overlap in terms of the places that we can serve with other organizations like the Vermont Land Trust. I know Nick Richardson spoke with you about some of the focus of their work the other day. We're less in the ag space than they are, although not absent from it that's for sure too. And we've been active here in Vermont for just over 60 years so actually we unfortunately missed an opportunity to have a big community celebration of our 60th anniversary last fall but over the time that we've been active here we've had a hand in helping to conserve more than 300,000 acres here in Vermont. Most of that in collaboration with state and federal agencies who actually now own the land so often will be involved in a conservation deal, help to make it happen and then hand off the ownership to the State Department of Fish and Wildlife for instance or the US Fish and Wildlife Service or the Green Mountain National Forest. In terms of the lands that we own and this is relevant as we start looking in a moment into section five of H-232, we actually hold nearly 40,000 acres of land in fee statewide. And of those about almost 8400 acres have VHCB easement on them. We hold conservation easements on more than an additional 36,000 acres and of those, more than 31,000 acres are where we co-hold an easement with VHCB. So that's again just another layer on the breadth of our partnership with VHCB and certain parts of it. I wanted to shift for a minute and just talk about some of TNC's perspective on some of the core issues related to historic inequities and systemic racism and whatnot here in Vermont and beyond. So I wanted to begin just by noting that TNC has five core values that the organization embraces on a global basis and wherever we work. They've been in place for I think at least 15 years. I've been with TNC here in Vermont now 13 and a half years and they were in place before I got here. And the two that I wanted to flag, two of the five are first respect for people, communities, and culture. And I'm actually going to quote from these core values. We believe that enduring conservation success depends on the active involvement of people and partners whose lives and livelihoods are linked to the natural systems we seek to conserve. We respect the needs, values, and traditions of local communities and cultures, and we forge relationships based on mutual benefit and trust. And then the other one I wanted to mention is the second of the five is a commitment to diversity. And again, quoting from our core values, we recognize that conservation is best advanced by the leadership and contributions of people with widely diverse backgrounds, experiences and identities. So there are, you know, as those core values reflect issues related to diversity, equity, inclusion and justice I think are woven in very much to our fabric as an organization. But that said, we firmly recognize that we're a part of white supremacy culture here in Vermont and around the country and world, and have a lot of work to do ourselves to more fully embrace and integrate the principles of diversity, equity, inclusion and justice into our organization, and all aspects of our work from global down to local here in Vermont. So our way into that journey, we're working actively on it in a whole bunch of different ways. We know we have a long way to go and we're going to make mistakes along the way, and we're committed to doing the work. And then for a minute on the indigenous side of things, particularly on TNC globally and on down believes that supporting the voice the choice and action of indigenous peoples in conservation and natural resource management is critical for our lands, waters and communities. We have a significant and growing focus of our work around the world, and we recognize that we can't achieve a world where both people in nature thrive, unless everyone, including indigenous peoples are treated justly and equitably. So here in Vermont, we're, I'm really happy to say we're in the process of co creating a non commercial collections and access agreement with chief Don Stevens who you heard from earlier this week, and then no hegan band of the community that's based in respect and trust. We intend for this agreement to apply to as much of our lands statewide as possible, and we hope to develop parallel ones with the other veneke bands, to the extent of their interest. So again, we're hoping that these agreements will apply to as many of our lands across the state of those 40, nearly 40,000 acres that I mentioned before, as possible, there are some legal deed restrictions donor restrictions and things like that in a few cases that may limit our ability to do that but we expect that the agreements will apply very broadly. So with that just backdrop I want to shift in zero in on age 232 and as as I start in on it. I wanted to just briefly note that, as you heard from Gus ceiling, maybe a couple of weeks ago now I guess it was VHCB has done a lot through their programs and projects to help address systemic inequities, both in home ownership and access for disadvantaged populations. And I know that however things play out with this particular bill that they're committed to doing more, both directly and by helping to enable the rest of the housing and conservation communities to address these really critical issues more fully. In terms of TNC's perspective on age 232, we strongly support the bills goals and intent of promoting land access and home ownership and economic opportunity to historically marginalized for monitors who have suffered discrimination and unequal access, including black indigenous and people of color. So we strongly support the goals and intent of this bill. More specifically we support the findings and purposes in section one, the proposed addition in section four of a new criterion expanding BIPOC access to land and home ownership to VHCB statutory priorities for allocating funds, and also the annual reporting requirements in section six on actions VHCB is taking and progress it's making to remove structural barriers contributing to inequities and home ownership and access to publicly supported open spaces. So our primary focus is on section five related to VHCB conservation easements, which has a significant bearing on our conservation efforts, as is partly reflected from some of what I spoke to before in terms of our land holdings and whatnot. We strongly support the goal of section five to expand access for Vermont recognized tribes to conserve lands for traditional collections so I want to be really clear about that. And I hope that that's evident and reinforced by what I said about the, the agreement that we're working on with Chief Stevens, and, and the Nalhegan band. And that agreement with the Nalhegan band and that we hope to extend to the other Beniki tribes as well. Other Beniki bands excuse me as well would basically accomplish the same thing with respect to our lands at least as what's envisioned in section five, but through a different more encompassing mechanism for the vast majority of our land statewide, not just those that are under VHCB easement. So with that, for us at least the requirement easement provisions would be unnecessary. And I think the same might be true for the Vermont land trust based on the agreement that they've established with the event and key as well that Nick spoke to the other day. We're also not sure if the approach of including access requirements in VHCB easements is necessarily the best or the most straightforward way of accomplishing the goal, particularly given the complexity and the permanence of easements. The evolving nature of these issues and also how difficult easements are to amend. It's a really complex process to amend an easement. If there were changes that might be needed to be made at some point in the future. So there are a couple of alternative and maybe more straightforward approaches to achieve the goals of section five. We might offer one would be to this is again instead of putting a requirement into easement provisions for VHCB instead to direct VHCB to encourage all of its land conservation partners to develop similar voluntary access and collections agreements with Vermont tribes, like what we in the community are doing. Or another approach could be to direct VHCB and its land conservation partners to provide for indigenous collections on NGO and public plans that are have the ACB easements to do that through the management plans that VHCB already requires, rather than through the management provision so that's just a more a little bit more straightforward and flexible way of capturing the sorts of access agreements that I think we're all interested in here. And then just a couple last thoughts. If section five were to stay as it is, again with the requirements being in easements for indigenous access for collections. We would want to clarify that that would only apply to easements on NGO and municipal and state lands, and not on other private lands by individual private landowners conserved with VHCB easements, unless as the, the bill states the VHCB board founded appropriate for them to do. And this is a, it's a little subtle thing that just caught our eyes we were looking at the bill it might be a question for legal counsel be happy to pursue that with them if it appropriate. And then the other point just if section five were to stay as it is would be to just get clarity or confirmation that it would apply only to future easements and wouldn't be retroactive to existing easements. If it were retroactive. We would have serious concerns about that again because of the complexity of amending easements and to try to fold that provision into existing agreements for us, let alone for other conservation partners would take a major investment of staff and legal capacity and would hinder our ability to advance new conservation work. So those are the thoughts that I wanted to share with you today. Again, I want to thank you chair Stevens and all of you on the committee for the time. And your thoughtful consideration of our perspective and going to be happy to answer any questions. If you have any now and also to engage with you all more with the bill sponsors or with wedge council on any of these issues if that would be helpful. Thanks very much. Thank you Phil. Just one quick question before I get the representative Murphy how many. Well, how many acres would would have your voluntary agreement encompass. It's a good question that I can't give you a firm answer on right now because others on our team are at out right now but I think it's safe to say that it would be the substantial majority like the vast majority of our lands, which as I mentioned before nearly the only fee that would be covered by the agreements and again that the exceptions to that would be only parcels that have any legal or donor restrictions on them that might in some way preclude us from doing something like that. I'm sorry one last just the idea of allowing this. There's a thing about allowing pedestrian access and easements that's something that would have been negotiated already in a sale or transfer of property that that you have in your portfolio. But what this is also saying is that for this specific group of people. That they would be able to gather plants or flowers or what have you on their land for non commercial uses. Which we've heard about their, they've used their land that they do have in the Northeast Kingdom, the new little Egan lands for that purpose but is that something that it would be specifically restricted if this were to go through as is, would that restrict the non commercial use of plant life to the tribes alone as we have pedestrian anybody can have pedestrian access if it's allowed in the in the easement, but it's the it's it's the notion of saying that person a but not person be can then pick use those those plants or natural foods for for these purposes which is different. This is a voluntary thing you can do. I think sounds like it's more flexible is what you're saying. I think that that that's right and it may depend sort of organization organization or easement to easement in terms of what the provisions are. So it's a little bit hard to generalize that's part of why I'm hesitating a little bit but in general on our lands. Already we allow the the non commercial election of wild edibles for individual use. So there's, that's generally the case, you know, on our lands across the state, but this provision would. Focus the provision in the bill is focused more explicitly on the indigenous communities and as I say you know that our agreement that we're working on with the event a key now would be would be more encompassing them in terms of our lands where it would be not only on the 8300 acres or so that have the HCB easements but it would be on the vast majority of the 40,000 acres that we hold statewide. So, does that help to answer your question. Absolutely. Thank you. Representative Murphy then by wrong. Thank you chair Stevens. Mr Huffman. Welcome. I haven't had the chance to meet you I was over in transportation and our paths just didn't seem to cross. I was just curious. I was curious when you were speaking to a concern being the permanence of easements and and I guess I would flip that and suggest that that's probably why that's what's been requested is there has been stated more than once at least that I've seen and document and heard in testimony that there is a desire for things to be made permanent rather than being just an agreement that you have to keep a watchful eye on because it can't it may get shifted in the future. And I understand that if if an easements already been created. The, the unwieldliness of all terrain one that exists now but I would just be curious for certainly with your statement about looking for it just to be those going forward, could you support that that would be done as easements. Yeah, I think probably I appreciate your point about the desire for long term clarity about all of this and you know to not run the risk of something, you know, being reversed at some point along the way. I can't speak for other conservation organizations. But, you know, as far as the nature of conservancy goes I, this is something that I think you know we are deeply committed to as an organization here in Vermont and it reflects where where we're at as a more of a nationwide organization. There are a lot of those of our relationships with indigenous communities and so I don't feel like there's much likelihood of the sort of voluntary co created agreement that we're developing with the event that he now being, you know, reversed they're going in an opposite direction. So, again, I feel like it's in our case that it isn't necessarily imperative to establish something through the permanence of an easement, but I can appreciate the concern that you're expressing. Triggered by representative Stevens question I'm curious, did I understand you to say that currently you do allow people to access to at least certain properties for the gathering of someone finds a great mushroom lot, or whatever but just for their personal use, obviously, but that that is something you permit currently to any individual. We do generally. So, so my follow up on that would be with this actually limit because this is speaking strictly to people of the Vermont recognized tribes you have to be a member of Vermont recognized tribes so this almost sounds like it would be you'd have to pull back on your other opportunity. I wouldn't see it as as being in conflict. It would be just more explicit and to the, you know, to the indigenous communities. Okay. So, yeah, thank you. Yeah, you're welcome. Representative Byron the China. Thank you, Chair. So good to see you again. It's been a while. Like, yeah. So I think a chunk of my questions have been answered already in regards to the access to land for obviously seasonally appropriate like hunting fishing, then forging and whatnot. Now, how about like land access if the individuals want to spend a couple of days there are they allowed to overnight, obviously, not creating permanent structures of course but is that allowed on our lands. Yeah, just asking specifically to your organization in TNC. Yeah, so we don't allow overnight camping on our lands, the lands that we hold in fee at this point. And I don't, I'm not aware if that's been something that's come up in the context of the work in progress development of the act that I've touched on that we're working on with you, Benaki. Okay. Okay, cool. And then I guess my other question is, you deal with so many different parcels so back to sort of the easement rabbit hole. I mean, I mean, I know your organization tries to keep the concert to the easement similar but do you ever run into the situation where you would have aggregated parcels that have different roles and regs as to usership I know we were kind of touching on that before but it was a lot of information to just everyone's. Yeah, so if we want to go much deeper on this I might want to bring in some of my colleagues from our team who are on the front lines of our stewardship work and management of our lands on a day to day basis and who are understanding the terms of easements and other legal restrictions that we have related to answer but not to answer that but I mean I think sort of high level answer is that there are different provisions for different parcels depending and so there may be differences in terms of the, you know, the legal parameters or constraints. Yeah. And I'm just curious because of the whole concept you got two large parcels that are a butting, you know they kind of like act as one in one theory, but you somebody crosses a brook and then all of a sudden they're not allowed to do X, Y and Z when they could do it on that side. So I wanted to see if, as the conversation evolves just getting into that a little bit. So, yeah, I think it's, it's a, it's a really good question. And I think it's safe. I don't think that's the end to be corrected by my colleagues but that in general, I don't feel like that is in that is the case, typically for our lands in terms of the public access that we allow or, you know, as you were alluding to, we allow hunting and fishing on almost all of our lands statewide it's only if there's a, again, some sort of legal restriction or donor restriction. That where that's the case. So, I feel like they're, you know, generally there aren't those sorts of differences in terms of management policies or what's allowed, you know, sort of place to place within a, you know, within adjoining parcels that are under ownership. Yeah, no, I mean, you know, I'm a huge fan of getting more of these adjoining parcels to create, create larger landmass for these, these conservation efforts. You know, I just with some of the other work that we've discussed and so the other work that I've done outside of the legislature, you run into those problems, especially when you're dealing with private ownership, sometimes where people are. Yeah. Right. We both know where each other is saying, but, all right, that's all I got. Thank you. Yeah, sure. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, and I'll just maybe I'll just add one sort of footnote to that which is, I think it in terms of lands that we own it's a, it's a much different situation in terms of, again, like a more consistent policies of lands that we own that may be in different parcels but adjacent to each other than is the case between neighboring private lands or between public lands and private lands that may or may not be posted, things like that. So, sort of a different situation in terms of within our lands. Hope that's helpful. Representative try. I think even it's good to see Phil, I think we've sat at a lunch table and had some conversations in the past. I miss that and look forward to getting back to it. Me too. Yes, I agree. I agree. So, I'm just asking for, you know, the notion that you might have from your perspective is non commercial use of medicine with that include growing cannabis. That's an interesting question that have not crossed my mind before confess. I think in the case of our lands or the way that I would interpret this provision of the bill that the collections are for would be for things that are occurring naturally on the lens. It's not something that would be cultivated. So, yeah, that. I'm trying to think if there's any, I can't, I can't envision a scenario different from that is with respect to our lands at least. I appreciate that. And that, you know, I kind of zeroed in on the carve out for excluding or not including standing timber. In the mid 70s, I worked for Community Action and at occasion I was assigned to a project that some indigenous tribes from Maine came over and they built their lodges out of cedar that was thin enough to bend into hoop shape. I took them down to Bradford on a underwater cedar land, and we spent the day cutting cedar whips for their lodging so I guess I'm curious. Chief Stevens mentioned they have 65 acres of land from his band and the notion that they may have a need or a want to construct a an indigenous or native village. And wondering if that would be prohibited in your interpretation. Well, I'm not a lawyer I'll start with that. So, I would defer to others who are for illegal interpretation. But I guess, based on the, just sort of a straightforward reading of the language in the bill. It seems like something like that might be precluded. You know that that's something like that could fall under timber harvest. Again, depending upon how one interprets that term I suppose as well but Sorry to give you the hard ones though but the way I'm thinking today. They're all fair game. Thank you. You're welcome. All right, thank you so much for coming in Phil. It's very helpful to, I mean, you know there's always, you know understanding the balance between what we can do legislatively which is not that we're not going to do anything legislatively on this but that, you know that simply freeing up or allowing to start just with TNC or just with a, you know, 40,000 acres is would be a substantial increase over what exists right now so. No, thank you appreciate the explanation and we're going to we're going to check in with another witness now but I appreciate your time. Thank you very much and you know I might just add one more point that I realized I neglected to say before in terms of the extent of our ownership that I believe we're the second largest private landowner in Vermont right now. And so there, we are talking about a substantial amount of acreage that we look forward to having these sorts of agreements with the Abeneke peoples on. Again, regardless of where things go with this bill, but thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you all today I appreciate your time and your good questions and feel free to let me know if there's anything more that I can provide by way of information or for dialogue around the provisions of the bill as it goes forward. Thanks very much. All right committee I see that representative Colburn has joined us and we're going to switch gears to age 401 welcome representative Colburn. You are one of the three co sponsors I believe as the head of your respective party. Representative McCoy as well. I'm going to hold my breath for a second. Representative McCoy welcome. And we're here to get a quick introduction to the bill and the reason is we hadn't taken it off because it had been it had come in late. But we, I just want to get a quick background on the bill. And, and really, it gets a focus on section three. As part of as part, you know, I think the details we're interested in or in section three but I just want you know if you could just give us an overview and I'll let you flip a coin to see who goes first. And just explain to us why 401 came to us and what you know what we should make of it. And again, then to focus on on section three because it has the it's which is the section on putting a working group together to discuss how do we extend credit went without a credit report kind of which is an interesting question when it comes to our housing issues. Okay, so I am going to give the brief overviews on the first two sections and then representative Colburn will give the overviews on which will be section three and four but thank you. Mr chair and good afternoon, everyone for the record representative Patty McCoy. I'm here with representative Celine Colburn. And thank you for allowing us to come before your committee this afternoon to give a brief overview of this bill. This is a tripartisan bill that came through the three leaders representative long representatives Colburn and myself. We put this bill together with speaking with President pro tem and administration, and this is the bill that kind of came together with all of those individuals. The bills broken down as I said into four sections, all of which we believe are worthy of moving forward. I do realize it's rather late in the session and appreciate the opportunity to give this overview on the various sections of this bill, of which some obviously may need to take pass through his other committee through other committees and I'm not the ones that decide where this bill starts but you are the chosen one. We're hopeful we can work through this bill with an eye towards passage next session. I'll give an overview as I said of the first two sections the first of which is education. This bill proposes to develop and maintain a model curriculum for elementary and secondary schools to teach against hate speech and hateful imagery and symbols. The curriculum should include best practices for teaching these concepts. We asked the secretary of education to provide the training on the model curriculum and best practices, provide teaching materials necessary to reach students at the appropriate age levels and provide technical assistance to the districts and implementing this curriculum. The superintendent's will determine the content duration and frequency of these trainings on the issues of hate speech, hateful imagery and symbols. We are also asking the ethnic and social equity standards advisory working group to advise the secretary of education on developing the model curriculum, as well as a model racial equity policy. We're adding an additional section in the statute under the powers and duties of school boards. Representative Hango here is another school board mandate to include an additional duty of school boards to develop and implement a racial equity policy to be as stringent as the model policy to be developed by the secretary of education in collaboration with the ethnic and social equity standards advisory working group, and they shall publish this model policy which the school boards may choose to adopt. We also further creates a task force on social on school exclusionary policies with regard to suspensions and expulsions. However, this section has been dealt with an S 16, and is currently in our house appropriations committee. The employment section deals with unlawful employment practices, and I believe you may have two bills in your committee that might deal with some of these issues, H 320 and H 329 that address this issue. I'm unsure if you've taken testimony items or not so I will just briefly go through some of it. Those who have been here in the legislature a few years may recall legislation we passed a few years ago, known as the do not darken my doorstep regarding sexual harassment claims, rather than reinventing the wheel the proposed language in the bill mirrors the language in that sexual harassment claims bill, the following bullet points reference title 21 section 495 and provide that shall be unlawful employment practice to discharge an employee because the employee lodged a complaint testified or participated in any manner or investigation being carried out by the Attorney General States Attorney Department of Labor or any other state investigation agency listed in the proposed bill. The employer knows the employee is about to lodge a complaint or testify disclose the employees wages or inquired or discussed employees wages with other employees. And an employer cannot require an employee to sign an agreement or waiver of either of the number one any of the above mentioned actions or make the employee wave any procedural rights or remedies with respect to a claim of a violation of the above mentioned provisions in agreement to settle a claim with regard to this section shall not prevent the employee from working for the employer or a subdivision or affiliate etc of the employer. I will now yield to representative Colburn to speak on the remainder of the proposed bill. That was so thorough it's a perfect to follow representative McCoy just to give a little more background about just the genesis of this bill or origin story of the bill. The really these recommendations grew out of the racial equity task force that the governor put together in 2020 that had a kind of a wide range of membership and they brought some recommendations to the House and Senate leadership teams in a variety of subjects and we thought there was a lot of merit to the intent and what they were trying to get at and brought this forward but just you know want to be really clear I think we felt like great let's bring it forward but it needs to go through the legislative process and so we're not necessarily advocating this is the exact right way to do it but wanted to make sure that the administration's recommendations here you know gotten gotten front of the right committees through the process so I'm going to talk about the housing and judiciary sections the housing section as as chair Stevens noted creates a working group to examine options for allowing landlords and a housing lenders to accept alternative documentation to demonstrate financial progress and the issue that's really trying to be addressed here is just what in the language of the task forces they brought the these recommendations to us the huge disparities in our economy that affect communities of color so they talked about how the compounded discrimination and opportunity gaps is a language that they used in our in our economy and our and our systems of establishing credit so an example a prime example of that might be that color are perhaps more subject to predatory lending practices which we know you know then have disproportionate impacts and affect people's ability to build strong credit scores we certainly saw that in some of the housing lending that has happened in recent decades so the the hope the thought here is that other criteria such as timeliness of rent payments and other indicators may be more or equally valuable in establishing someone's financial soundness then simply just like a credit card history or rating and so the idea is to bring this group of stakeholders together and you have the bill so I'm not going to go through and read each individual person and I think it would be great to have input from your committee about whether this is in fact the right group of people to weigh in on this question but would come together and make some recommendations about alternative forms of documentation that could be used to establish financial soundness and report back to the legislature by October 15 of this year. So we all pause and see if there are questions about that section since I know it's a particular interest to you. Representative Colacchi. Thank you chair and and welcome Salin and Patty very much appreciate you're here. I this this alternate credit thing is interesting to me. Do banks have a fixed criteria or does every can every bank make their own credit determination. My sense just from my own experience is that it's a little above to be honest but I am not this is not my policy area and you know I'm not so I would really encourage I think if you're going to take this bill up I would really encourage you to bring in members of the task force who made these recommendations who can really deep dive on the research they already did to inform this. I think it's a little of both. Okay, thank you. Yeah. Yeah I just I thank you for punting the list back to us we were hoping that you would might give us more specific folks on the on the list of what the working group, the thing that we've learned this year is that we've known it but I think it was made it's been really clear in all the work that's being done in a lot of the committees is is making sure that the people in the room are the right people to have this conversation and not just in this particular case not just DFR and not just the bankers but you know affected community people who are people who have experienced the lack of ability a lack of access to credit in this case. For whatever reasons, so we will continue to look for that if we if we move forward with this section will continue to look for the that list of people. Yeah, and then I did just take a look at who was actually on the racial equity task force and just see up a sense of where you know who is in the room developing these recommendations it was the executive director of racial equity so I think there were some other public members who may not be named in the list I'm looking at Tabitha Palmore from the NAACP, Carol McGranahan from the Vermont Commission on Native American Fairs, the executive director of ACLU and the executive director of the Human Rights Commission so it was a it was a broad range of folks but but not necessarily folks with a ton of financial expertise and that might be kind of why in some ways their task force recommendations tilt that way but yeah I would encourage you all to think about you know how to get as many impacted voices in the conversation as possible. Representative Murphy. Thank you chair Stevens I would just add that I think that might be a bit of the point of making this a working group that looking at how this can be done in a different manner, as opposed to they they have options and they just haven't chosen to take access and with a little bit of back history of being having family connection to banking would just suggest that the biggest criteria is that there be some fiduciary aspect that does give some kind of security and so you know looking at the history of never having a late payment on your rent or you know just something that would balance. I think that quite often we look for what's easy and convenient and the credit ratings have become that type of process for an organization to be able to just pay a fee to be a member and have that checked off the book. So, just a thought. I think that's exactly right I mean I think that's exactly what this the recommendation is trying to get at that's exactly right. Would you like me to just do a quick summary of the judiciary. Sure. Great. So, the first is really relates to booking photographs so when someone has been arrested in charge Dennis, you know the documentation is happening and they're being photographed in a police station. I think it came to the attention of this group that a number of police agencies were requiring that folks wearing religious headwear remove it for those photographs. And so, and I had the sense that that was there was some concern from the task force about that and so this is asking the criminal justice council and the racial equity director so not standing up a new group but just asking existing to really look at this issue and essentially create a uniform statewide policy on this that would come forward, and then directs the joint legislative oversight committee if they are going to take legislative action on it to do so by December 1 and then have legislation ready for the 2022 session so that's one piece. And then the remainder of the recommendations from the group really concerned the Jewish judicial nominating board and process. So the judicial as the folks know probably know there's a Jewish judicial nominating board with a range of appointees that makes recommendations to the to the governor who then essentially moves forward this late of folks who become judges and then there's a separate process that we went through this year and a separate committee. And then the joint legislative committee on retention of judges. So this we're talking really about the nominating process here the process of deciding who putting forward a slate of folks for the governor to consider as potential new judges. There is a proposal and I just want to be really clear that this is really a proposal from the administration I think this is an example of one that folks had some questions about but felt like, okay, well let's move it forward and I can go through the legislative process. So this would reduce the current membership which is 11 on the judicial nominating board to nine. So it removes one house appointee one Senate appointee, and the Supreme Court appointee of a lawyer. So this is a discussion of three folks, and then adds the racial justice director to the judicial nominating board. So I think there was, I mean, we all sort of took this to our caucuses for some feedback and then came back and really decided to just move it forward and let it go through the process. But I know that in some quarters there were definitely some questions about this one and just because it does kind of tilt the balance of the judicial nominating board, more to the executive branch. So maybe the social equity caucus had some questions about just these precise recommendations as well. But there was a lot of support for the idea of trying to make the nominating process and composition of the board, more open and reflective of concerns around diversity, equity and inclusion. So the nominating process itself. There are some recommendations that are made for criteria on judicial nominating here. There's a simple change in language that changes language that says someone must be well qualified to qualified. Maybe there's a requirement that someone has to have practiced law in Vermont for five years to be nominated. This proposal changes that to two years. And then in a similar vein, we just removes the word Vermont from rules of evidence so it just says someone has to be familiar with the rules of evidence. With the idea that some of those skills will be transferable from state to state. And those recommendations really are about creating the possibility that there could be more candidates put forward that folks who are a little newer to Vermont but still qualify could be put forward and that younger candidates who might be a little earlier in their career could also be considered. So it is an attempt to think about how some small shifts in the qualifications could potentially diversify the bench in Vermont. And then the second sort of category of change here is that currently the judicial nominating board. There's some explicit direction that they may not consider racer ethnicity and that really exists to prevent discrimination. It's very well intentioned. The judiciary, the Vermont Bar Association and the legal community have all expressed the desire to actually be able to be more thoughtful about expanding that diversity equity inclusion lens in their work and feel that this might actually be have a dampening effect on that. And so you'll see that there's some explicit put proactive language here about drawing candidates from diverse backgrounds to represent ethnic communities and communities of color in Vermont. And that's really the final change that's proposed here. And like I said, I think this whole section is a good example of one, and maybe it's just because, you know, I'm on the judicial retention committee and the judiciary committee so this is stuff that I spent some time with you know I think this is a good example of like the intentions I really agree with and whether these are the exact right legislative proposals I think warrants a lot more work through the legislative process and committee process. But I think the intentions are really solid here to really think about how we can diversify the bench in Vermont. Thank you. Thank you. Um, any questions for Selena on on these two sections are on this last section representative Kalecki. I just, I want to say I appreciate this bill and that it came from, you know, the racial equity task force from the governor it came to the three heads of the leadership of the party and it's a combined piece. It's holistic that way and it, you know, it will go through many committees but I think this is a model of wonderful kind of work and conversation for all of us so I want to thank both of you and for bringing this forward to us. I appreciate it. I appreciate that and I'll, I appreciate that and I will just say you know I think one of the things when we were talking about this in our leadership group was to note that it was really important we felt it was really important to bring these recommendations forward and also really important to note that you know this isn't meant to be some kind of comprehensive racial justice package at all. There's clearly other work that the racial equity task force is doing that the administration is doing that we are doing in all of our committees to advance this work so these were the kind of, I think, the low hanging fruit that this task force perceived that like yes let's move it forward but it's not meant to be the racial justice package it's really important that we see this as just one piece in a in a much broader set of commitments as policymakers. No, but the just the fact that it was that it was presented in the way that it was it is somewhat of an endorsement of these policies at some levels which is really you know a nice indication sometimes when we got represented McCoy when we got age 320 and age 329. I was familiar with the do not darken my door stuff. It got caught up in coven last year we you know it should have been a simple thing to pass but we also weren't aware of where there may have been support for it. And so moving forward, we know now that there is, at least on the surface level, some support for this on a broad way which is which is really nice to know moving forward. Two quick two questions and then I want to go to. I want to move back to 232 and let let the lead representative Colburn and McCoy get back to work. Representative bloom Lee then triano. Yeah, thank you, Chair and and thank you representatives for coming here today I, I actually, I was so intrigued by this bill when I read it a while ago. I was assigned to the committee because I actually think that that the points that representative clackie and Stevens made is really important that like oftentimes change needs to have I mean it's, it's, it's kind of it's it's weaving things into the fabric, you know, that that ultimately makes the difference. Well it isn't one big bill isn't, you know, necessarily splashy these are, but the, these, these seem to be very. Anyway, I just, I appreciate, I appreciate what's in here and the process so thank you very much representative try. So thanks for coming in. Patty and Celine good to see you both again. Well sort of. across from each other. For human services. You know, I'm really encouraged to see the first part of this bill of threatening a speech. I sit on the racial equity, the equity council in the Hardwick area here. And starting up we've been going for, you know, six or eight months now we're still trying to kind of divide define our mission but you know we're hearing in our schools that there's certainly is are some issues surrounding this and as as you and I patty know from childhood trauma in human services days that childhood trauma is best dealt with on an early age. So the notion of, of beginning this in elementary school will hopefully make some inroads to, you know, to correct some of these notions and and some of these issues that become behavioral issues. So I think it's really fun. And many times there are, you know, family. It's family thing that, you know, young, young people relate that they don't want to get their parents angry for, you know, accepting people of color. The earlier that we can launch this the better we are and I'm encouraged to see this part of the bill in particular that will hope to address some of these issues that we're finding routinely in our schools right now so thanks very much I appreciate it from all of you. Yeah, thank you and thanks to the work of the racial equity task force and in really shaping these. Yeah, no I and I think it was very useful again to put these in a package to just sort of refer to I do think that if we, you know, if we do end up working with a section on on credit, you know, it leaves the bill open to be transferred to the next committee, you know, the next committee if there's an interest in picking up the recommendations whether it's I mean it is late in the year but even if it's early next year will certainly want to get the bill to the to the right place where people can peel off the sections or, you know, or next if it's next year perhaps people will introduce separate bills to get them into the right committees but thank you so much for coming in and talking to us about it good to see you both. Thank you and everybody. Bye Rumi. All right, and we're going to in lieu of a break we're going to pop right over to Brian pine who is here to talk about age 232 and Brian this is, I believe the first time that you've been in general housing and military affairs and I'm sorry to do this to you as the you know, it's hard. So if you can just let us know, you know, where you are how you, how you are not the new air hard how you are Brian prime. You have an incredibly long history and working in housing and in Burlington, and you bring a load of experience to this role that you're in now and I'm I'm appreciative that you picked up the baton for the time being at the least. But welcome. The microphone is yours. Thank you, Chair Stevens the shoes I'm trying to fill I kind of equate it to my older brother who were size 12 and I I've never worn a size 12 but I am serving in this role for at least a few months to help the coalition with the commission from airhards nearly 25 years of service on to his new role with Senator Sanders, and I am greatly appreciative of the work that your committee does, and I haven't been before this iteration of this committee but I'm a little on the tooth as they say so I've been before other versions of this committee in the past and I am really impressed with the work you've been doing and the focus on housing has been at a time when we need it more than ever so thank you for for all of your work. So what representative lonely asked me to speak on today was primarily on the on the bill h 232. I will touch on that in my comments, but I want to just give some sort of comments that that help to sort of put this in the context of where we are, and I hope you'll bear with me I'll try not to go on as long as some as Gus ceiling did last week or a couple but Gus is an old friend and I joked to them and said, if I can get in five minutes to say what you said in 45 minutes maybe that will be a good thing. But I think it's clear that the importance of housing has become more clear during the coven 19 pandemic which is really laid bare or long standing systemic deficiencies and inequalities, not just in Vermont but really as a as a society. We've made the unseen scene, and we've known for years that housing is is critical and is a form of health care really, and that housing is indeed really like a vaccine in a way. No one can stay safe at home unless they have a home to stay safe in right so as more and more people work at home, and the whole nature of housing and what it delivers has changed. Because of COVID, we have to look for ways to ensure housing security and stability for folks who've, who've often been left behind and viewed through an equity lens Vermont has really been a national leader. And really is at the forefront of our state's efforts, I believe, in making the strategic investments that lie at that nexus of housing and health, and I would say proudly as as one of the people who was there when VHCB was started VHCB has been at the forefront of this and really housing investments have been at the forefront of Vermont's pandemic response over the last 14 months, thanks in large part to the unprecedented investment of federal CARES Act funding with coronavirus coronavirus relief funds extended into this year. And the new federal relief from ARPA. Now on the way, our highest priority must be to continue housing programs that keep low income and vulnerable Vermonters, and those with special needs safe during the pandemic, and beyond the governor and the legislature have maintained the focus on housing that is essential to protecting the most vulnerable Vermonters. Our legislative priorities that the affordable housing coalition were formed in January of this year, and they include this following broad statements which I'll just share with you. Historically government policies to acquire land and secure housing have intentionally prevented black indigenous and people of color from full participation, and have limited their wealth creation. We must act now to understand and address the systemic inequity targeted housing investments can help bring can help write long standing racial injustice so that's our, our statement as a coalition on this issue now with respect to age 232 and and I think I just want to age 273 which the committee took testimony on earlier this week, the BIPOC land access bill, the coalition's legislative priorities were clearly established before either of these bills were introduced. Our members have not weighed in either as individual organizations or nor as a coalition as our steering committee take in a position on either of these bills, but I can affirm that our coalition the affordable housing coalition supports the goals of the bills and supports a keen focus on meeting BIPOC housing needs with respect to both VHCB policies, and really all state funded housing efforts. So I just want to share that at the start. While we're not prepared to speak to the specifics of the proposed changes to the composition of the Vermont Housing Conservation Board board as redundant as that sounds at this time. We do want to thank the governor for recently appointing Clarence Davis to the board. Clarence Davis personally worked very closely with Clarence when he was first elected as Burlington's second African American City Councilor in 2006. He worked for both Down Street and VHFA and served as acting acting Deputy Secretary of AHS and presently works with the Vermont Health Network Clarence will bring a valuable perspective to this to the board and I just want to recognize and acknowledge that. You may know that our coalition consists of over 90 organizations or members with some of those being individuals but we cover every corner of the state. Many of our members were founded, literally in part founded to address the systemic racism and discrimination embedded in America's housing market and housing policies of our government. The history of housing discrimination, redlining and racist federal housing policies has created a disproportionate wealth gap for land and homeownership. The Great Recession of 2008 resulted in the largest single loss of black family wealth in the history of this country. Let me just say that again, the 2008 recession resulted in the largest loss of black family wealth in the history of this country. Vermont was not spared that tragedy. The policies failed to adequately regulate lenders that helped to bring about this massive loss of family wealth and the last economic recovery really failed to restore black family wealth to pre recession levels. Homeownership is the main source of family wealth in America, we know that that's a fact, and many families lost that that grasp on on some part of the American dream. In the 2018 report by the Economic Policy Institute. They said that essentially structural barriers including the criteria by which homes are financed and discrimination in lending and housing markets, along with low levels of initial wealth were reported as playing an increased and racially uneven role in the manner in which Americans are acquiring homes. So for lower income black households, racial disparities and homeownership are at an all time high nationally, and that is also true in Vermont. As you heard from Dr. Suguenos testimony earlier this week, these disparities are equally pronounced here in the Green Mountain State. Our coalition members are really on the front lines and the struggle to provide housing but also to prevent the gentrification and involuntary displacement of low income and BIPOC for monitors and force foster opportunities for creating housing stability and building family wealth. Our coalition members use the Vermont Housing Conservation Board to bridge the affordability gap in both rental housing and in homeownership. When a family and this may be obvious to everybody I think it's just important to state when a family has affordable housing, they're able to set aside funds for things like down payments, maybe repair credit issues that are needed to help them qualify for a mortgage, and help them keep their finances in order to retain their homes over the long haul. Although we fully acknowledge that there's an imperative role to take more intentional and strategic measures to reverse the harmful effects of the legacy of racism in our housing market. Vermont affordable housing coalition members with VHCB support across our state are providing housing to a population that more closely reflects the racial compositions of the communities that we serve. In fact, one of our largest coalition members and a long standing grantee of the VHCB reports that 37% of the renter households and 14% of the homeowners served by this organization are non white. So 37% of their renters 14% of their homeowners lead you to be begs the question, what's the gap there why is that so different and that that these data really illustrate one of our most challenging aspects of rates of homeownership. And that is that persistently lower household incomes, lack of access to decent jobs, lack of family wealth have kept BIPOC families from from enjoying the benefits of homeownership and the wealth building that comes from that. We feel that these impediments require both more resources and a renewed and redoubled commitment to specific actions to eliminate racial disparities in housing. Specifically the Vermont affordable housing coalition supports the following steps and these are specific steps that we believe can be taken in this in this in this bill. The VHCB and other agencies in statute to conduct comprehensive assessments of policies programs and operations and report to the legislature and actions taken or needed to eliminate race based barriers, increase inclusive inclusivity and access to housing, to land and homes by BIPOC individuals, households and communities, to VHCB's funding, I'm sorry allocation priorities in the authorizing statute, which is 15 VSA section 322 expanded funding to support capacity grants and technical assistance to BIPOC organizations and lastly expanded funding to VHCB for outreach and grants for the development of affordable shared equity homes and grants for BIPOC households to purchase homes. And just to recap, our thoughts and our input on H 232, we think adding expanded by pack BIPOC access to homes and land to VHCB's allocation priorities is perhaps the single most effective thing that you can do. We also appreciate the directive to explicitly address both the board's work and the efforts of VHCB partners are members on removing racial disparities in the VHCB annual reports so an actual reporting in the report on what we're doing, what are the outcomes not just what are the efforts but what are the outcomes. We remain open to changes in the composition of the VHCB board, but at the very least feel that adding experience direct experience and social and racial equity policy ought to be a factor in appointments going forward. Thank you for your focus on addressing the role of housing and uprooting systemic racism. We are facing an historic opportunity to rebuild our economy and our state in ways that ensure full participation by all members of our communities, and your continued efforts are greatly appreciated. Thank you, Brian. Questions for Brian. The comments of the work ahead of us. The irony is not lost that you know that we've gone from a mode for the years at least that the coalition has been in existence of almost begging for money to deal with these situations to end up having this opportunity. And I'm personally worried that, you know, no matter what we're going to miss something somewhere along the way and maybe treat it as a bandaid as opposed to systemic change which is I think the demands that are being asked of us in different areas of our work. And I'm just wondering, you know, with with your experience in the field and with the ideas that are being put forward. There's a lot of speed and again what I'm what I'm fearful is is missing something is missing the opportunity to do that systemic work and I'm wondering, you know, based on and I guess this is speaking maybe out of out of term from the organization and from the experience but just in terms of we're moving so quickly. What can we do. What are the what are the speed bumps we can put in to make sure that we're, we're either making sure that the people are doing the work or doing it correctly or that we're doing it correctly so that we do build systemic change and not just band aids, very expensive in a lot of them but you know essentially what are band aids, what could be band aids if not treated correctly. Sure, I think the, the staying or the motto that I like to call up from a friend of mine who sadly has struggled in the Vermont mental health system her whole life and she's one who often reminds me nothing about me without me is what she says and and what is really important here is when we talk about providing a leg up or an opportunity to get part of that American dream in Vermont for BIPOC folks ought to be they ought to be at the center of that conversation. I think it's really important for us as, as, as white Vermonters to recognize that we don't have necessarily the answers and there ought to be recognition that the collective knowledge of BIPOC communities in Vermont should be very much at the center of that of that conversation so I just want to put that out there. I also just say that I think one thing Vermont has managed to do with the Vermont Housing Conservation Board is to be to have the guiding principles that really underpin the way we allocate dollars, and to ensure that we don't just even as tempting as it is to have the one time allocation of state public dollars and not ensure that that benefit stays in a cruise to future households down the down the road and that's the whole notion of perpetual affordability which is embedded in in Vermont policy which can be controversial. As we discussed this issue of access to families who've been left behind. There's some debate that will be had there around that issue because the feeling is well wait, you've got a form of home ownership that most of us enjoy, but you're telling us we got to do something different here and I think it's important to really be grounded in the notion that the whole idea of, of, of ensuring the public subsidy gets protected is that the next family, or the heirs of the people who got the initial benefit are able to be helped in the future and we don't have to watch the public subsidy become a rainfall to someone who got lucky enough to essentially win the lottery and housing when they got the assistance. We want that benefit to be there and enduring durable benefit much like we have things like infrastructure and parks and public public improvements that we make we want to think of our resources in that way I think is is really super critical here. The idea of perpetual affordability is something that I think the committee and if we are able to time in and get some get another housing education before we leave just to just to go through some of the vocabulary of what perpetual affordability is and why that when there wasn't any money with say pre 2020 that this battle between using state or federal funds state funds mostly to fund housing result we were always under capacity. And we know that and we put perpetual affordability on the table is saying if you take this money this apartment this unit this building has to stay affordable for ever perpetually. Which made it hard to consider the v hip program that we're talking about you know that where we're where we're loaning or we're granting money to private landlords to bring units back online. Even this home ownership program that we're considering for a 79. And I think it's important because those are perpetually affordable. Those will be affordable perhaps to the level of the amount of money that we're letting out. But it's an interesting. I think this is something that will again will try to get the committee brought up to speed on some of the vocabulary but I think that that notion, when there's so much money being becoming available is going to be an interesting one to try to balance and keep but keep balanced also to some of the proposals that we've seen from the administration we heard from Josh Hanford earlier this morning about different programs that may test that and I just thank you for that reminder, you know that that have how important that that phrase is in the work that we do in funding these projects. Any further questions for Brian. No, thank you for sharing your thoughts Brian and women represented by wrong. I just want really brief question for you Brian good to see you. Where did you score those eyeglass frames. There's a Burlington shop called eyes of the world. Oh right there. I know. Well, okay. I don't know how long where it comes from the name eyes of the world I think I'm most certainly do sir. Good to see you Brian, you too. Any other personal questions the committee wants to ask the witness before we go. All right, thank you Brian appreciate it. We'll see you soon. Great committee I'm gonna, I can't believe we finished to 230. That's awesome. So, yeah, let's call it a day I want to point out Ron mentioned in the chat that the CDC moratorium docs are now visible it's not a simple cut in pace or 17 pages. I'm not asking David to do a compare and contrast but I would, if you have a time to go find that to go find our eviction moratorium. And maybe I can ask Ron to try to find it maybe and post it before the end of the day today, so that it's available just to just to give us all that background again I know we ran through it with David a few weeks ago. The sugar there was something else I was going to, I was going to mention about it but I guess it's gone for now, and I'm halfway out the door I'm going to New Jersey now to see my daughter for the first time since October so she's threatening to barbecue lamb ribs this weekend so it's awesome. And, no, that's it I think good it's really, really busy week thank you all. We're going to have a busy week next week. I. But let's keep doing good work on on 79 and we will. We'll see you Tuesday. Can I just offer, can I just offer to the new members of the legislature that the token session on Monday truly is token, which means it just advances the calendar. So we're not expected to be there but it does mean that you want to look at both everything that's on the calendar for action but also what's on the calendar for notice becomes action by Tuesday morning. So, if you like to do your homework it's it's double duty between now and Tuesday for that. And Tom, Tom just, I'm so jealous, have an incredible time with your family. My turn will come. Yes, it will. And it's 62 degrees down there today and it'll be 70 tomorrow so I'm not packing my lined jeans. Thank you.