 Thanks. Okay. Here we are back committee remind me. If there were issues with h 135 because I'd like to do two things today I'd like to get that off our table. I thought that I was not here. The last time you looked at h 135 that was when I was sick with my shot. So, can somebody remind me if there were issues with 135 or Amron do you. I don't know whether I say there were issues there were two things we talked about which was getting clear about the difference between the guidance and advisory which is something we're having an ongoing like need to like continue to clarify. So this question about whether to insert the word only in guidance right Amron is that my saying that right. I'm not sure where what page it's on or whatever. Can you tell us where that is. Yes, I can. Page 11. Page 11. Line 15. The executive that executive director may provide guidance only to a person who's subject to the vision of this chapter, etc. I don't know it seems like it's only one word but we talked about it for a while. And what was the outcome we decided to put the only in there that was it was not there before we inserted the only. Then we talked about whether it should be inserted by the by the advisory opinions and we decided not to put it there. And then the other thing that we added that you were not here for or the Amron added was the. It's not a funding request but it's an ability for them an authorization for the commission to hire a part time staff for an administrative person. There's no money needed because they have money in their budget left over that they're going to use so it's not an appropriations issue. But it's an authorization that they should hire somebody part time half time. So unless I'm forgetting something I think those are the things we talked about when you were here. And they are captured they are captured in the draft that's on our website now. Right, which is draft 1.5 is that right. Yes. Yes. And Anthony you did a great job, though. And we clarified that the position would be. We further clarified the part time thing right that it was half time. It would be stuck with somebody considering part time a quarter or a third. So we put only in front of guidance because guidance only goes to the person who is covered by it and requested. But the advisory opinion can go to others because it's a more generic guidance. And it's public. Yeah, okay. The director gets the director gets a sense that there's something going on he's been hearing things being said by various people or has an idea that maybe there's some somebody's crossing the line he can issue an advisory opinion based on what he feels people need to keep in mind and that would be posted on the website and put out publicly, whereas the guidance is only for that individual who says, is it okay if I go to Hawaii with Vince Luzzi, you know, that kind of thing. And the guidance would be no, you can't go there with Vince Luzzi. Are we assuming here that Vince Luzzi is paying or that I'm just going along with him. Well, that's that's just on the circumstance I was presuming he was going to pay. All right, so is that committee and Larry, does that meet your needs. Yes, I think we're fine with it. Okay, so the only other change that was made that I think is on on your plate today is the language having to do with the financial disclosure reports to make it previous 12 months calendar year. Okay, so can do we have that. Is that all in the new draft. Yes it is. So can we get that off our plates. Sure. Somebody want to move that. Brian's the movers. Yeah. Allison had her hand up but she's muted. I did I was moving while I was muted I was moving that we amend h1 what number is it again. 135 135 draft 1.5. Okay. Senator Ron, do you have your little stuff with you, or can you. Okay, stuff with you. Are we ready to vote. Okay, Senator Clarkson. Yes. Senator columnar. Yes. Senator Polina. Yes. Myself Senator Rom yes, Senator white. Yes. I would now move that we pass out h1 35 favorably as amended. Senator Clarkson. Yes. Senator columnar. Yes. Senator Polina. Yes. Myself Senator Rom yes, Senator white. Yes. Would somebody like to report this. I'd be willing to I feel like I haven't been carrying my weight lately with the reports. Well, that's because you've had a cold. I still have a cold. I'm so contested. It's incredible. Better than yesterday though. It's a nice weather. It's sort of annoying. Make a suggestion for you. Okay. I don't want to use the word overdose in a bad way, but really, really take a lot of both. And I guarantee in about two days you will, the cold will be gone. All right. I'll let you know if it works. Okay. I have another suggestion. Yeah. Traditional medicinal brand. Gypsy cold care tea. Okay. And then there's, there's of course the old fashioned while we're giving advice and counsel on YouTube. That's true. Bourbon and honey. Or bourbon and honey. That sounds like the number one. I'll try that first. And a little lemon or honey. Okay. I'm just going to present this bill as mostly sort of technical changes and little tweaks to what we're talking about. It's nothing controversial in this bill that I can see. I think that's fair. I think that's one thing I would like to get Larry from you, Larry. It's just a reminder as to what your budget is and how much money you have left over that kind of. Because I can see, even though it's not an appropriation, I can see somebody asking why do they have this money left over that kind of a thing. So you can just send me an email at some point. Okay. It talks about, you know, where the money, how much money you had and how much you have left. That kind of a thing. So we can answer that question. And he's likely to need it by Wednesday or Thursday. What's the draft number? 1.535. Okay. That's what Gail wrote down. I just didn't, I've never seen a 1.5. It's 1.5. Okay. Let's, let's start now. We, um, We had a little confusion. I admit that it was probably my fault. I'm taking a lot of fault today for things. With the house, because I thought they were going to take up the. Whole ethics issue. And as it turned out, what they were taking up was H1 35, but not the code of ethics, even though they had it drafted. So we have H. Three. Four. That was drafted. For the house. But we, that's what we're going to walk through now. And, um, if. If we. Are okay with it in the end. What we'll do is we'll make it into an S. A committee bill if everybody agrees or an S bill. Okay. But we're going to use H. Um, 384. And. Amron, would you like to walk us through this? I know that this. We got the huge. Packet of information. I printed it out. It took almost a ream of paper. Um, From Larry with the. Report and the comments and all the comments that they received on everything. So we have that. But if we can walk through. H. 384. Yes. For the record. Amron average. A legislative council. I did also send to Gail, which I believe is posted in very high level overview. Uh, for this, just so that is up there as well. So we can see what this is. That's a really easy reference of what this bill covers. Um, as you move forward with your review. Good, thank you. But I will start with the bill as introduced. This is H. 384. An act relating to adoption of a state code of ethics. Section one. Would amend the definitions in three. This is in chapter 31 on governmental ethics and you'll see there are a few additional definitions in here, number three defining confidential information that which is information that is exempt from public inspection and copying under the public records law, which is otherwise designated by law as confidential on page four. You see there's a definition of conflict of interest which you will see throughout the code of ethics itself referenced. You see that towards the bottom of page two. This would delete or repeal the current definitions of gift in the chapter on governmental ethics and instead replace it with gift as that is defined in the lobbying regulation statutes in title to section 261. On page three towards the bottom you'll see a new definition concerning immediate family. You'll see this referenced in the code of ethics on page four, a new definition for person and a new definition for prohibited source, which you will also see in the code of ethics. Section two, this would repeal the current requirement that the ethics commission create and maintain a state code of ethics, and places the code of ethics into section 1202 of title three. Section a beginning on page five lays out the applicability of the code of ethics, which shall apply to all persons elected or appointed to serve as officers of the state. All persons elected or appointed to serve as members of the General Assembly, all state employees, all persons appointed to serve on state boards and commissions, and persons who in any other way are authorized to act or speak on behalf of the state. You'll see that within this code of ethics, all of these individuals are referred to as public servants. It's important to note that the, that this code of ethics while applying to all of those persons does not prohibit branches of state government agencies or departments from adopting more stringent provisions regarding the ethical conduct of their employees. Section B lays out exclusions. The code of ethics does not apply to the functions of state legislators that are protected under the Vermont Constitution. Those exercising judicial power under the Vermont Constitution and members of the General Assembly, unless the code of ethics is adopted by rule by each house of the General Assembly. Subsection three lays out what is considered to be ethical conduct under this state code of ethics. Division one is situations where there's a conflict of interest. Each time a public servant is confronted with a conflict of interest. The public servant shall either recuse from the matter, or prepare a written statement that describes the matter requiring action disclosing the nature of the potential conflict or actual conflict. The reason for this cause as set forth in subsection D exists so that the public servant can take action in the matter fairly objectively and in the public interest and include sufficient details that the matter may be understood by the public. I don't know about that. On line 15 on page five. None of this applies to the General Assembly, unless the General Assembly actually adopts the code of ethics for its code of ethics also. Is that, and then because the reason I asked that is because the conflict of interest, our conflict of interest, the way we deal with it in the Senate is very different than this. We don't, we don't write anything up. We just stand up and say under rule whatever it is. I believe I want to disclose that I may have a conflict of interest and then the Senate decides whether we have a conflict of interest or not, but we don't write anything up. As this is currently written, this would not apply to members of the General Assembly unless the state code of ethics has been adopted by each chamber. Okay. So I guess my, sorry, Madam Chair. Who does it apply to and what kind of burden are we placing on that person? I'm, I'm trying to listen to the language and understand is the local select board person. If anybody writes in and says they have a conflict of interest. Is this just statewide constitutional officers and doesn't apply to municipalities. Okay, so it, so it applies to statewide constitutional officers and employees and employees. People who serve, people who serve on a board of some sort, if you're on the state library board or something like that, it would apply to you as well right. Yes, this is at the state level. And what is the burden on the person claiming a conflict of interest. What do they do they just write in say you have a conflict. So, the, if there's a conflict, then there is, there are two options either to recuse from the matter, or to prepare a written statement. And the requirements of that statement are listed in subdivisions a, at the bottom of page five through D on page six those are the requirements for that statement. It doesn't relate to the legislature. It would relate to somebody let's say who maybe is serving on the public service board who might think they have a conflict with somebody who's bringing a matter before the public service for something that's, and it's not called public service for it anymore but it's commission, it would apply to those commission members. Or if I'm a state employee if I work for the Ag department, and there's a farm that spilled a bunch of manure and it turns out to be my uncle's farm that kind of a thing. I'm not going to go into that one again. If I'm an employee at the Department of Agriculture, just regular employee department culture, and I'm an inspector, and I'm not going to, I'm not going to be able to inspect a farm that's owned by my uncle. That could be an instance that could be perceived as a conflict of interest. Why don't I get a little bit further. Okay, in this, before we get too far into the details because I know they're going to be a lot of questions on this. I want to know, because the line, what line 15 says members of the General Assembly. The line 11 says state legislators. State legislators in general assembly thought it was the same thing. It is. You're looking to repeat those line numbers please. In page 11 space five exclusions and the line 11 says those. The line 11 says the functions of state legislators that are protected. And then in line 15 says members of the General Assembly. Not trying to be a pain it's just I thought they were the same thing. That language could probably be more consistent. There was edits going on at different times between those two. Okay, I just want to point that out. Also it's just interesting about consistent references. I mean, we're referred to as each house in other legislation it's each chamber or each body. So it would be helpful to get us consistent all the way through. Like, are we in a chamber? Are we a house or are we a body? And why should we be different from anybody else is always a puzzlement to me. If I can suggest that we let Amron walk through this and why we're different is because we set. If it's a legislative core legislative function, it's regulated by the Constitution. Right. That's why we're different. I know, I just think it's right. I don't like being different. I don't think legislators should. We can have that conversation. It's not relevant to this because it's not going to change. I'm using myself. Constitution says. Got it. I know it's just always sticks in the craw. Okay. Amron, do you want to move on? Yes. Thank you. I believe we were on page six subdivision to directing unethical conduct. A public servant shall not direct another person to act in a manner that would be unethical for the public servant or the other person to act. A public servant who has a conflict of interest shall not direct others to act in the public servant to the public servants benefit where such action would be a violation of the code of ethics for the public servant. Subdivision three conduct after recusal once recused a public servant shall not in any way participate in or act to influence a decision regarding the matter. Subdivision four. Appearance of unethical conduct a public servant shall avoid any actions creating the appearance that the public servant is violating the law or the code of ethics. Whether the particular circumstances create an appearance that the law or the code of ethics has have been violated shall be determined from the perspective of a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts. Moving on to page seven. Subdivision five preferential treatment a public servant in the course of conducting state business shall act impartially showing no favor toward or prejudiced against any person. A public servant shall not give or represent an ability to give preference or special treatment to any person because of the person's wealth position or status or because of any personal relationship with the public servant when permitted by law and written policy or rule a public servant may give preference to designated persons. Subdivision six misuse of position a public servant shall not use his or her official position for personal or financial gain. Subdivision seven misuse of information a public servant shall not use non-public government information or confidential information acquired during the course of state service for personal or financial gain or for the personal or financial gain of any other person. Subdivision eight misuse of government resources a public servant shall not make use of state materials funds property personnel facilities, etc. for any purpose other than for official state business unless the use is expressly permitted or required by law or by agency department institutional written policy or rule. A public servant shall not engage in or direct another person to engage in work other than the performance of official duties during work hours except as permitted or required by law or by other policy or rule. Subdivision nine concerns gifts. When gifts are prohibited unless covered by an exception a public servant shall not and then there is a other lengthy lift list of gifts except a gift under circumstances that could be inferred as accepting a gift that is intended to influence the public servant and the performance of their duties. User permit the use of the public servants government position or any authority associated with the public office to solicit or coerce the offering of a gift except gifts from the same or different sources on a basis so frequent that a reasonable person would be led to believe the public servant is using the public servants office for personal gain except a gift in violation of an applicable law rule policy or executive order or and or directly or indirectly solicit a gift from a prohibited source or solicit a gift to be given because of the public servants official position. There are exceptions noted in subdivision B. The first is gifts of $20 or less. A public servant may accept unsolicited gifts having an aggregate market value of $20 or less per source per occasion provided that the aggregate market value of individual gifts from any one person does not exceed $50 any calendar year. And then there are some exceptions to the exception. It does not apply to gifts of cash or of investment interest such as stock bonds or certificates of deposit. Where the market value of the gift or the aggregate market value of gifts offered on any single occasion exceeds $20 the public servant shall not pay the excess value over $20 in order to accept that portion of the gift or those gifts worth $20. Where the aggregate value of tangible items offered on a single occasion exceeds $20 the public servant may decline any distinct and separate item in order to accept those items aggregating $20 or less. For personal gifts a public servant may accept a gift given by an individual under circumstances that make it clear the gift is motivated by an outside relationship family relationship or personal friendship rather than the position of the public servant relevant factors would be history and nature of the relationship and whether the person family member or a friend personally pays for the gift. So here's the first slide. So here's the first slide. Event attendance of public servant. Does it makes sense to differentiate between like the governor and other people? I mean, I just feel like the president faces a very different bar than someone on the National Parks Commission. You know, I don't know if there's been any contemplation of like difference when you have as much power as say the Yeah, I mean, I'm just thinking about very extensive gift giving policies for executives, you know that doesn't apply to like a commission on a board the same way. I frozen. Well we can have that discussion. Okay, when we, when we get to the discussing the bill itself but right now we're just going through the bill. So right now it applies to everyone equally who says public office public servant. Yes, to clarify this is the same standard for everyone under this policy regardless of sort of where they fall in the hierarchy of state government, but not to legislators. Unless this is adopted. We are covered under a different policy for gifts. And we couldn't choose to accept this as our, as our state. We're not going to have that conversation now. Okay. Shall I continue. Yes, please. She's getting fed up with us, or me. No, it's Friday afternoon and I, we want to have this conversation about these things. And we want to have it with all of our colleagues in the Senate, but I think that we need to walk through the bill first to figure out what's in the bill. And I just point out it is such a beautiful afternoon. I, for the first time I've put my nose since the fall. It's so exciting. Yes. So the sooner we get through with this, the sooner we can get out there. Okay. Right. Moving along to event attendance at the bottom of page nine, a public servant may accept a gift of attendance to a training or similar events approved by the public servants supervisor and determined to be in the interest of the public servants agency or department. Again, a last exception otherwise permitted by law, a public servant may accept a gift were expressly permitted to do so under state law. Moving on to page 10 unauthorized commitments, a public servant shall not make unauthorized commitments or promises of any kind purporting to bind state government. In 11 outside employment, a public servant shall not seek or engage in outside employment or activities that are inconsistent incompatible or in conflict with the public servants official duties. Subdivision be post government employee employment for executive officers, except as permitted in subdivision. In Roman at four of this subdivision be an executive officer shall not for one year after leaving state service, be an advocate for anyone other than the state for compensation before the department division agency board commission body or office in which the officer served at the time of termination of state service, concerning any matter in which the state has a direct and substantial interest. In Roman at four of this subdivision, a former legislator shall not be an advocate for anyone other than the state for compensation before the general assembly or any of its constituent parts until the end of the biennial session following the legislators departure from the general assembly. The legislative branch employees, except as permitted in in subdivision. Roman at four of this subdivision, a former legislative branch employee shall not for one year after leaving state service be an advocate for anyone other than the state for compensation before the general assembly or any of its sub parts. Or the office in which the legislative branch employee served at the time of termination of state service concerning any matter in which the state has a direct and substantial interest. Roman at four which has been referenced several times above is the contracting exception, the limitations in subdivision one through three of this subdivision do not apply to individuals providing information or services to the state pursuant to contracts with the state unless the public servant is otherwise prohibited from doing so by state or federal law. Roman at five representation restrictions a public servant shall not after termination of state service or employment, knowingly make with the intent to influence any communication or appearance before an entity of the state. On behalf of any person other than the state in connection with any investigation application request for ruling or determination rulemaking contract controversy claim charge accusation. Arrest quasi judicial judicial or other proceeding in which the state is a party or has a direct and substantial interest in which this public servant participated personally and substantially as a public servant. That involved a same party or parties as at the time of such participation. Subdivision 12 compliance with laws rules and policies a public servant shall comply with applicable state and federal laws and regulations, including anti discrimination and equal opportunity laws and comply with applicable government codes of conduct. A public servant shall comply with any other applicable rules or policies established by executive order agency rule or policy. Subsection D request for state ethics Commission determination, a public servant or the public servant supervisor may request that the state ethics Commission review a statement prepared under subdivision C one, which is the subdivision. A public servant believes they may have a conflict of interest. review a statement prepared to determine whether a conflict of interest exists, and if good cause exists, whether good cause exists such that the public servant can proceed in the matter without violating the code of ethics. I would say, the person can submit this to the state ethics Commission to get a determination in order to determine how best to proceed. In terms of the state ethics duty to respond the ethics Commission to ethics Commission responses to request shall be in writing. As used in this section good cause to proceed in the matter may include any of the following. The identified conflict or potential conflict is, I believe actually that should say de minimis but it says de minimum de minimis and nature. The action is to be take the action to be taken is ministerial or clerical. The conflict is amorphous intangible, or otherwise speculative, or the public servant cannot legally or practically delegate the matter. Subsection E whistleblower protections for ethics complaints consistent with three vs a section or 971. The public servant shall be free to disclose waste fraud, abusive authority violations of law, or violations of this and other applicable codes regarding ethical conduct to the state ethics Commission without fear of reprisal intimidation or retaliation. Subsection F concerns mandatory ethics, education and training within the first 120 days of public service, a public servant shall engage in ethics training, which may be in person or online. Shall be documented by the department where the public servant is employed. A public servant shall participate in continuing ethics education, at least once every three years thereafter. Approving continuing ethics education providers are the State Ethics Commission. Continuing ethics education providers are the State Ethics Commission, the Department of Human Resources, the Center for Achievement in Public Service. The Vermont House of Representatives ethics panel for House members and the Vermont Senate ethics panel for Senate members and any education providers approved by the State Ethics Commission copies of ethics training materials shall be provided to the Ethics Commission on request the State Ethics Commission may collaborate or assist ethics education providers. Section three repeals two sections of Well, a section in title three to 67, which is the post employment restrictions, and then also a section in title two section 266 B, which would repeal a legislator or an executive officer for one year after leaving office shall not be a lobbyist in this state. In section four effective date this act shall take effect on July 1 2021. Bravo. Thank you. Thank you. Now, I suggest that what we do is, and I know we all want to get out of here. But I also know that we do have some limited time and so I would ask the committee can we spend another until four on this. Yeah, I try to have a constituent meeting at four, but yeah absolutely right up. But if we could, if we could do this so for we can get a long way into it I believe, and Okay, thanks. Is that okay with everybody. No, Brian just fell off his chair but that's okay. He's right with us. Okay. So now let's maybe what we should do is start going through it and have Larry. We can ask him the questions that we were actually asking amaran, because she didn't make the decisions she drafted it. So we can start going through it and asking Larry, those kinds of questions. So okay Larry with you. That's fine I had a couple of introductory remarks if I can. Okay. You want me to do it now. Yeah, yeah. Okay, so I'm Larry Novens from the ethics commission. I'm also here with TJ Jones, who has been consulting with us he's with the Connecticut ethics commission and then after that with the California they're equivalent California he's now a college professor and still consulting with us. The draft that you have is very, very similar to what we submitted to the legislature there were a couple of major changes. The part excluding the legislature from this until and unless it's adopted by rule was not our idea that was put in at the very last minute. So we that is not our recommendation or our proposal on there may be a justification for it that I'm unaware of and I just don't know what it is and if there is then maybe it makes sense but I don't know that. The other thing and I didn't notice this until just now is the definition of gift in what you have before you is very different from what we submitted in our proposal, and I think I sent you all a copy of what we sent you back in November, and our proposal that we sent to you in November is slightly different format because things had to be changed to fit the statute but pretty much everything tracks very well with those two major exceptions. But the definition of gift is substantially different. And we referred in our proposal to several statutes and and other places in our current laws that talk about things being gifts. So that instead of just saying that it's as defined in in section 261 of title to we have an overriding definition I can send that to you separately if you want if you don't want to get into the weeds on it today. And we have examples of what is included within the definition of gift and what is not included. But basically it says anything that one gets for less than adequate consideration is considered to be a gift. And then there are certain exceptions after that things that aren't considered gifts would be if you inherit something things like that. So if I have the ability to share my screen. If I do I could show you what we had, or I could just refer you to what we had earlier or I can send it to you separately. So you can see what the differences are but that's that's a major difference. A couple other things that came out during Amarons presentation that you had questions about was what happens when there's a conflict of interest and whose burden is it to recuse. And what we had contemplated was if you have if you see a conflict. You announce it, you recuse, you're done. There's nothing else you need to do. If you have a conflict and you decide that it's appropriate to go forward and continue, whether it's me or you or anybody else in state government. Then you fill out a short form say I have a you know what looks like a conflict in this particular issue. And I think there's good cause for me to go ahead and do it anyway. And what we proposed is that if you have a conflict, and if you then proceed after finding that there is a conflict then you fill out one of these forms and it's available we're not saying you need to send it to the ethics commission, or that we approve it or disapprove it, but it's available to the public. So people can see why is it that this person proceeded in this matter, when they had a conflict and the exceptions and the times when you wouldn't are set forth in that section D. So that's a major difference. So base the bottom line rule is, and the preference would be anybody has a conflict, you recuse. If you don't recuse then maybe you write a short statement and what we were thinking of is, it doesn't have to be more than a paragraph, and your agency or your office or whoever keeps that. So if anybody from the public had a question about it they could ask sometime in the future. We didn't want everybody to feel they were under an obligation every time there was a conflict to have to fill out a form and send it to the ethics commission that's, I think, silly and overburden some. So if people see a conflict and they recuse and move on. That's it we just life goes on and they they recuse. So that was those are the major differences that I wanted to highlight and the one and that major question that you had earlier that I wanted to answer today. And the rest of it, I'll just wait for your questions. You know, the version we sent you in the fall is annotated in the sense that you can see looking at it where we got the ideas that we used. A lot of them come from current Vermont statutes. Some come from statutes of other states, some come from federal regulations, the code of federal regulations. If you look at it, you can see we just make this up out of whole cloth and say this is our great idea. There is a basis for everything it is here. So our hope would be that if you have questions like where did this come from that will be able to answer them. But it is available to you if you want to look at them whenever I know you've got way too much on your plate to be able to do that kind of background work so if there are particular questions, please address them to us. We'll be happy to to respond to them and answer them. So, what I would wear those are commanders, I wear those. You said November documents but on our webpage, Larry all I have under. I have drafts amendments and legal documents with. Is that under that early. It was the November 12 report that was sent to us. And then I repeated I sent it to you in an email and preparation for last Friday hearing. Right, thank you. So it was sent about a week and a half ago now. Right. Yeah. And I think I addressed it to each of you individually. You did. Yeah, and to Gail so. So let's, since we were talking about conflict of interest, since that was kind of your, the last thing that you brought up here. And there's a difference here with what you proposed and what's proposed in here committee can we have a discussion about conflict of interest. At this point and just say, try and figure out what the differences are and how we would resolve that. All right, because I do have. First of all, the. I think that Senator Rom had a question about how the impact it would have on somebody who has to do this and, and knowing that it's less burdensome than what is in here your suggestion was less burdensome. I'm not so sure that somebody who is on the state library board. If they're in a board meeting and their wife is a, an author, and the board is trying to decide whether they should buy this book or not for the library system. I may have, I may have a conflict of interest, but really should they have to recuse himself or do they let the rest of the board members say that really isn't a conflict, because it doesn't impact you. Or do they would they have to write somebody on a, I can see if it's a state officer or even an employee but if it's a volunteer board member. Disclose the potential conflict and let the other board members decide. Could I respond. Yeah. Yeah, I think in that situation if you look at the definition of conflict and what's in the statute is essentially what we set over so there's no change in that language. If that person. And an immediate family member. If they're going to make a decision that is going to financially profit and immediate family member that to me sounds like a conflict of interest. And that should trigger trigger a recusal. The, the, what we have in what we've suggested in the code is if somebody feels that they want the ethics commission to weigh in on this, then they can ask us, and we'd be happy to weigh in on it. I don't like deciding these things without some kind of context but on its face that would look to me like a conflict of interest. And I think if it was say a voluntary board. The idea of having an ethics code is not to leave it to each board to make up their own rules about what is and is not appropriate. I think I could defer maybe a little bit to TJ to talk about how how this works in other contexts but my, my gut sense is that that would be a conflict and the person should recuse and if they're people who work with them that's not a problem that I don't to me not a good response. I guess I should have clarified that a little bit they're buying one copy of a book for 2995 for the state library. There isn't the person. The author is actually going to get about 42 cents royalty on that book. It isn't a big financial boon to the, to the family. And I guess maybe maybe they would just write a paragraph and stick it in their files that says, you know, we're not really standing to benefit from this humongous sale of one book. Or maybe. Right. I just have to say, if it's they're going through a list of books to buy. They come to the book that's written by your spouse. You can simply say I'm abstaining from voting on this particular book. I'm recusing myself in this particular book. And that would be the end of story right. Unless you vote then on all of them. It's like voting on the budget in the legislature. We all have a conflict on something. But if we all recuse ourselves from voting, voting on the whole budget, there wouldn't be anybody left to vote on the budget. Well, and this is a conflict we see in everything in this small state. I mean, this is a, this is a perennial conflict challenge we face, which is many of us wear many hats. There aren't enough of us to serve on, you know, we're always going to bump something where we have an involvement. It may not be a conflict of interest, but we may have some interest. It may not be a conflict. I don't know if you want to hear from TJ on this or not. Sure. Sure. Thank you. I had the pleasure of meeting several of the few a couple of years ago when I visited Montpelier to talk to you. So, thank you for having me back. It's been a privilege to navigate through this. It seems like there's really two things at issue. There's whether the conflict exists, first of all, and second of all, whether you can irrespective of the conflict, go ahead and take action on it. And typically the way that conflicts are viewed are that they either exist or they don't. It's kind of like being pregnant. You're not kind of pregnant. There's, you either have a conflict or you don't. Now, the situations where you can irrespective of the conflict, go ahead and act usually fall into three categories. The first is de minimis situations like 42 cents. Maybe of such a small nature, the state might want to carve out a de minimis exception for something, you know, under $30 of value. The second situation is one of impossibility. And those are more rare, but they're, they typically arise under the statute where a single person has the authority to do something, you know that the statute says this individual is entitled to take this and responsible for taking this action. And the action has to be taken. But if it's not taken by that individual, it can't happen. And again, in those situations, the conflict exists. But the disclosure practices are, listen, I know I have a conflict here, but I have to take action and, and these are the steps that I'm going to take to make sure that I don't benefit from the conflict. The third area is one in which, like the budget situation where everybody benefits the same, you know, if you're a tax commissioner, and you have to do an interpretation on how, you know, what the value of a car tax is. Well, you own a car, you're going to benefit from whatever interpretation you do, but everybody in the world is benefited or everybody in Vermont is benefiting from the same thing. But if you separate the idea of the conflict, you know, and define what a conflict is, then that's going to stick no matter who's operating in what agency on what issue. But then focus again on are there situations where irrespective of the conflict, we want this person to go ahead and be able to act. For, for that it becomes a lot simpler to because those are the situations where you write out the statement that says, Listen, I have this conflict I wrote this book. It goes, using your example, the retail value is 2995 I get 40 cents commission. I think it's a good book. I've disclosed everything to you. I think that I'm able to vote on this, because it's of a de minimis nature, then it's all disclosed it's a matter of public record. And, you know, for bonus points, you make sure that you've contacted the executive director of the State Ethics Commission and kind of cleared it through him. It really benefits to get sort of brief written advice in advance from somebody that you can say I listen I talked to the data ethics commission, they think this is probably de minimis. But, and then you know the choice is kind of yours and the agencies at that point as to how to go forward. Yeah, that makes sense. Anybody else have. So what you're suggesting Larry is that people would, if they felt they had a conflict of interest that was greater than the rest of the population that they just write a write an explanation and that that be kept by the agency or the, if they choose to accuse themselves. Correct. They write that explanation if it's, if it seems major, then they can ask for an interpretation by the ethics commission, if they wish. Yeah, they wish they're not obligated to it, or say it was some mid level person and an agency said I have a conflict on this and their boss says I don't think so either could ask us for our opinion on whether it's a conflict and whether or not they can proceed. Well I think that I don't I actually don't see a con a conflict with the way this is written with what you're saying because this says that they would write that paragraph. They would just write this little short thing containing these four elements. And it doesn't say what it would what would happen with that, but they could then request. It doesn't say they have to send it to the ethics commission for advice. They could, which is exactly what you're saying. So I'm not sure I have no problem with that provision that provision mirrored what we sent over and that's fine. I don't see a conflict with with the, I thought you said that they're you, you disagreed with this preparing this written statement. No, no, no, no, no, not at all. That was our idea we're 100% behind it what I took issue with was the took issue I wanted to raise the issue is the exclusion of the legislature. So I wanted to raise the issue with members and house members from coverage of the ethics commission that we did not ask for. No, I got that but you raised four issues and one was the conflict of issue conflict of interest one was the general assembly exclusion and one was the gifts. Yeah, there were three. Yeah, and if I said I had a problem with the conflict of interest problem then then I misspoke because I don't think that and I certainly didn't intend that. So that's our definition what's in there is fine. Oh, okay. Good because I, I completely misunderstood that I thought that when you pointed that out that you were. No, I was just trying to respond to the question that came up in your discussion that's all. Okay, got it. Yeah. So let's go back to the issue of the general assembly not being covered. If we go to page five lines 11 and 12. It's very clear. It doesn't apply to that. Correct. Right. Yes, because that's our that's what's considered our core function and we regulate ourselves. And you're absolutely protected by the Constitution from anyone else questioning what happens in that capacity. Right. And then they it was the you didn't put in lines 15 and 16 but the requester of the, the requester of the draft must have. I believe that's the case yes. So. Committee where you know where the it very clearly said someplace that we are subject to suit to the ethics. Violations under the and I can't remember the term I never can remember the term. Actions governed by law, or something like that. And there's like 10 or 12 of them. Yeah. Yeah. So that that isn't anywhere in here. Where's that. It isn't anywhere in the conflict in the code of ethics. But where are those 12 points. Oh, they're there in different places in the law, one of them says you can't use your, your position for personal gain one says you can't take a bribe what there's 10 or 12. What are they called Brian actions governed by law. Yeah, something that phrase is in there something governed by law. That phrase is entitled three this the ethics commission statutes, and they have those specifics, right conclusions bribery things like that. Yeah, right. So, so remind me then the difference between the ethics laws and the code of ethics. Well, the ethics laws as it currently exists. It's about what laws apply to each of us. Right. And what the code does is it makes it greater. And make clear that these other things are also covered by would be covered by state law and applicable to everybody within the state, except for those excluded individuals or groups specifically constitutionally excluded. So, the fact that the statue says, you know, thou shot not take a bribe is in no way changed by the ethics code. Okay. All right so that that is part of the law. Yeah, and what the code makes very clear at the end is that everybody is subject to the code is also subject to any other applicable codes or laws. And if I'm, if I were an agency head, I would be subject to the ethics code but I would also be subject to the governor's executive order, seeing what is expected. And so if, if the public utilities commission has specific and more general specific requirements for them, they would apply to them. I mean basically what this ethics code says is it creates sort of a baseline that everybody applied that applies to everyone. There may be more specific and more comprehensive prohibitions or considerations elsewhere in law or statute or rule or executive order, and if there are then those things apply. There's the baseline. So, given that I do have some issues around this covering legislators and I'll point out a couple examples. When there's a when we're going to take a vote on something. And he stands up and says, um, our, our, our rules say that the way we do that is we stand up and say I believe I have a conflict of interest here under rule whatever it is. And the body then votes on whether there. There's enough of a conflict to ask the person to recuse themselves. We don't write it is the rest of the body that decides we don't write a statement saying why we thought that the rest, and that's in our rules. So this, this wouldn't apply to us. It depends whether I mean, there are two ways to go about this one is to say the code doesn't apply to you. The first one is you adopt it as a rule. The other is to say the code applies to us and then to put an exemption in the code for conflicts of interest for members of the General Assembly. So you have a general rule that applies to the world and a specific rule, or sorry, I don't misuse in the word rule, a general provision that applies to everybody. And then you could have a specific one that applies to legislators and so in the case of a conflict of interest of a legislature. This will be our policy this will be our procedure that will follow and that would be in the statute. That would make me more comfortable. So I have the same question about the gifts. It's $20, but under gifts are defined as a political contribution. You're not going to tell us that we can't take a political contribution of over $20. No, but they are gifts that are permitted by law. You're allowed gifts that are permitted by law. And that's just a weird thing in title two, where they defined gifts or political contributions is gifts. Yeah, it's an unfortunate use of language and words I mean I don't know what the better one would be. I mean it's not going to me political contributions to a campaign or something like that. We should be called one thing to me a gift is something that comes to an individual. Well if they come to you as a candidate I mean I don't, I'm not an expert you know much more about this than I do but if you have a campaign committee and the money comes to your campaign. If I put $100 in your pocket, that's a little bit different and that should go to the campaign and you know, trying not to let this balloon and escalate out of out of control, because of the possible breath of these things but as I think we've defined it and is a gift would be something permitted by law. And if a political contribution is permitted by law, then it would be okay. Well, I mean, I might have to look more closely at the language when I'm not balancing my computer on my deck and trying to enjoy the sunshine but I'm, I think a lot of boards and commissions would want a little bit of flexibility to write this slightly differently for themselves. I mean, I'm just thinking about, for example, Jeanette and I, the chair and I both served on the UVM Board of Trustees, and you know, at the end of our service they give you a chair, everybody knows I have a chair from UVM that I got as I left the board. It is, does that count? I mean, should what, I'm still not clear, you know, if every board you could say, here's a gift for the end of your service, here's, you know, an acceptable gift because we wrote it down in our code, like, I just want to make sure every board or commission has the ability to say, hey, we too would like to vote as a group on a conflict rather than have that person just write a letter and have it. So that's not particularly satisfactory to some entities. So how, how much can they depart from this code to sort of meet their, their own flexible needs? I think there's room that if you, I guess the board of UVM wouldn't be covered because they're not part of state government, but if you were on. You're elected by the legislature though, so. No, we're on the board. It has nothing. We don't represent the, we don't represent the legislature, we're on the board of trustees, we represent the public of Vermont. Right, but you're a legislator receiving a gift. No, you're receiving the gift as a trustee of UVM, not as a legislator. The fact that you were. Hat, every time you accept a gift. What? You're a different hat every time you accept a gift. No, what I'm saying is that you are not, when you're on the UVM board of trustees, you are not there as a legislator, you're there as a public trustee, elected by the legislature, you may or may not be a legislator. So you're not, you're not in that role as a legislator. But are you not considered a public official in that role? No, because this is state employees only. UVM is not, they are not state, a state entity. They're an instrumentality. They're not a state entity. Well, the state agricultural board though is a public board. I think, I think that the entire UVM board is considered an instrumentality. They're not. Yeah, but I, this is what I'm saying. I feel like there's a lot of unique situations and I'd want, I'd want a board or anybody to say, Oh, good, the state has like a draft code of ethics, like a template for code of ethics. And we're going to modify it in some way to meet our needs and sort of publicly agree upon how we want to use this code and where we want to depart. And we're going to amend it in other places. Or we can check in with the, with the director of the code of ethics and make sure that whatever we're doing is okay. We're, but, okay, here, let me, let me stick back a little bit here. I, I do not believe that UVM is covered under this at all. Right. Okay, they're not covered at all. The state colleges boards would not be covered. The SAC would not be covered. These are elected or appointed to serve as officers of the state, or of the general assembly. Does the judiciary have its own judiciary does have its own and there is some suggestion that judiciary might be. They are exempt from this. Yes. Which is also odd. Well, Can I respond to that? Because that's a great question. I've given this a lot of thought. There is a constitutional separation of powers that's recognized in Vermont. Except the judiciary is in a position where can second guess anything they do in as they do their jobs in a judicial capacity. When we submitted this draft code to you we included a memorandum about why the ethics code should apply to non judicial members employed by the judicial branch for say a court clerk. Or a, you know, an HR person in the judiciary department. I just moderately long memo about that. There are I believe some 40 or some odd statutes that talk about where the legislature has told the judiciary what to do and this is separate and apart from defining what are crimes and not crimes. I would think that if you had a member of the judicial branch, say a clerk in the Chittenden court, who was giving preferential treatment treatment to his friends or something like that. It would be properly part of the ethics code and not left to the judiciary to be the sole judge of the propriety of that conduct. You know that we're getting a little bit ahead when we start talking about enforcement who should enforce it that's a separate thing. But in terms of who's in the best position to define the conduct that is acceptable. I think a general code that applies to everybody except those specific instances you when you're legislating judges when they're judging, but everybody else should be covered. I, I'm not sure if chapter two, section four of the Vermont Constitution might might be might cover that because. And Amra and you can help me here because it says she'll be vested in a unified judicial system which shall be composed of a Supreme Court, a superior court and other subordinate courts. So it clearly says it's the court, and that implies to me, the people who are acting in a judicial manner but we should we should so that that number two there. Exempts the judiciary, the people who are judges, I don't know that it exempts the entire judiciary branch. Yeah, that doesn't sound like it exempts the employees, the clerks. Well that's that's we would have to I think ask judiciary how they interpret the section four of chapter two. Right they commented. We do have comments from them. They admitted that was, it was interesting. I was made in the first or second comment we received was from the judiciary. My memo that I sent you and I can send it well I think it's in the packet I sent you last week. 98 pages from November. I didn't I don't think I sent you the whole thing. Actually, then maybe I did. You know, in state government, there are accountants it people planners clerical staff who interact with the public and with their coworkers. There are people who buy, you know furniture supplies computer computer programmers. They maintain the buildings they furnish their facilities they do studies to determine policy decisions. It occurs in all three branches of government. It occurs in the judiciary it occurs in the legislature it occurs in the executive branch. And when you have employees who have broad discretion. They're subject to the same temptations the same distractions the same influences as anybody else in government. The statewide code of ethics should be in a position to guide them all and having a consistent independent source of ethics advice when somebody wants it would benefit us all the the judicial power and the exclusion in in the earliest part of this draft legislation draft code of ethics. There are two constitutional limitations that is judicial departments shall be separate distinct so that neither exercise the powers properly belonging to the others. So what is the power properly belonging to the judiciary. It's deciding cases. And so the judicial power is basically the right to determine actual controversies between litigants. The power to decide and pronounce a judgment that will carry into effect for the people who are parties to the case that it's deciding. But as, as some Supreme Court Vermont Supreme Court decisions have said in the past. Those powers are not hermetically sealed off from the other branches. The, there was one case that I cited. The constitutional provision that the legislative executive and judicial judiciary department shall be separate and distinct. So that neither exercise the powers properly belonging to the others does not mean an absolute separation of functions. Since of necessity there must be a certain amount of overlapping or blending of the powers. And the question be what are the limits of judicial power, and you know, can you the big question here is can the legislature apply a code of ethics to state employees, same employees of the judicial branch, not judges, and would having a non judicial public servant follow the same code as everybody else intrude on that separation of powers. And my belief is it doesn't. And the Supreme Court has also said that the, and this is a case state versus 100 hundred versus state 2004. The focus of separation of powers inquiry is not whether one branch of government is exercising certain powers that may in some way pertain to another branch. Whether the power exercised so encroaches upon another branches power as to re usurp from that branch, it's constitutionally defined function. So if you were to say, we have an ethics code that should be applying to state employees of the judicial branch, are you encroaching on their constitutionally defined power, which is deciding cases. I would submit but no you're not. So the core power of the judiciary is determining controversies. And it's interesting that there are five places in the Vermont Constitution that obligate the Supreme Court to adopt rules. Before those five, the rulemaking involves the legislature. So they're not separate and sacrosanct. They don't have carte blanche to do whatever they want to do. And so there, I would comment or recommend I guess that that you take a look at my memo because I think it says it much more than it can off the top of my head, but there are lots of statutes that tell the legislature what it should do. Let me think here. Well, and we get involved with the judicial employees all the time and when we've just gotten involved with them with their arbitration and with with unionizing and with, and then we weigh in all the time with them. This seems part and parcel of what we already are doing fairly regularly. Right. The judicial branch clerks and staff are subject to collective bargaining, as you said. And they're entitled all fringe benefits and compensation, according classified state employees who are similarly situated. And that's from the Vermont Employees Labor Relations Act. And it was interesting it was the legislature and title free of that act that defined what judicial employees rights and duties and prohibited acts are. So I would submit if you can determine what are prohibited acts for them you can certainly say this is the code of ethics to which we should all adhere. And that does not include on a core function of the judiciary. Right. So some of the powers granted by the Constitution are shared. Some are not only the Supreme Court can grant licenses to attorneys or discipline attorneys that's theirs, it's unique to them. The primary authority over state employees, who are attorneys is shared so for example when I was an attorney working for the Office of Professional Regulation, or working before that as a public defender. If I did something that my employers didn't like, I would be subject to employment, or into any kind of sanction that they felt was appropriate. The fact that I'm a lawyer doesn't enter the picture. And so it's just like you have rules over your members, including attorneys but it doesn't mean that the Supreme Court can't share authority over attorneys who are in the legislature. So, as an attorney who works in state government I have to apply by Department of Human Resources rules. And so there is all sorts of overlap here. And my point basically is that a code of ethics is, you know, for state employees it's it should be a practical reality for state government. There are other states whose codes of ethics do apply to judicial employees. In some cases they even apply to elected judges. So it makes it a little bit different than what we have here in Vermont. So the judicial branch has its own personnel policy code of conduct and employee discipline, so long at it as it is not inconsistent with law. And I would submit that there are plenty of bases for to conclude that a statutory code of ethics does not in any way conflict with judicial branch employee dictates. They may have their own code it may be more specific and more stringent than than the general code of ethics that applies to everyone else and if that's the case great, so be it. I think it would be very helpful that it would be good, you know, a very good policy idea to say this applies to anybody who's going to buy furniture for their office. Whether it's in the judicial branch or the legislative branch or the executive branch shouldn't be dealing with a brother in law. Down the road we if you know when we talk to enforcement the question is, who's in the best position to enforce these things is it the judicial branch, it might very well be. Would it be someone outside the judicial branch, it might very well be we don't need to decide that right now but the standards that members of the public should expect of us all should be the same for everybody, unless they are specifically excluded. Isha did you have a question. Well, I kind of wanted to move on from judiciary. Sorry. I said, I sadly have to leave in about four minutes. Right. I apologize. Hold it, I mean it. I'm just, I need hypotheticals in this situation like even though I know those can be problematic but you know I'm let's okay so. I don't know that Tom helped me sorry Tom but you know, you were like kind of like you're either have a conflict or you don't. Well, so okay, let's say we were voting on pensions in the legislature and changes to pension, and five senators out of 30, you know have a spouse or personally benefit from a pension as a retired like who. What we just, we just have a listed that at the beginning of session so that's sufficient do we, I don't know how the Senate currently handles that I don't think do people get up and say I'm not taking this. The way the way it's currently handled is that first of all, they that those senators would not have any more interest in the outcome of that than everybody else in the pension system. So it doesn't even apply to them there is no. That's very clear in our rules and in this definition, and in mason's right, but the way anyone who is vested in that pension system, they are not getting a personal favor right. They're getting the same benefit that everybody else in that system is getting right if. One that I remember distinctly always is that Jim condos would always stand up whenever there was a anything that dealt with public utilities, because he worked for Burlington gas or Burlington Electric or one of those. And he would stand up and say, under rule, some such and such, I have to disclose that I may have a conflict here. And then the decision wise, does the chamber feel he has a conflict, and there would be a vote. No. And then he would sit down and he would proceed to vote on the issue and when if we voted in Vermont as you pointed out it is very small. Claire and I once took it everybody who had a conflict in the budget that select board me nonprofit people, school boards, everybody and we took all the legislators and they're ended up being about five people left to could vote on the budget, because they all had some kind of a conflict. So it's all it's pretty relative and some of those had more significant conflicts than others but as long as they're disclosed, and then the body votes on whether or not they feel it's a conflict. That's the way it's always happened in the Senate and that's the way our rules say. Well, I mean what's helpful about that is that the public knows that as well right because there's a perception issue and I would hate for somebody was a particular interest in a topic to say those three senators, you know, are conflicted and sort of force them to do something that other senators don't have to do all the time. Like we may all know that we have these various conflicts but someone who's trying to use a very specific conflict against us for political reason. You know they file this complaint or whatever and then we're obligated to speak to that in some way. No I don't think that when we're voting on something or doing something people, if somebody wants to file a complaint. First of all, that's our core responsibility so it isn't even covered by the, by the, the code of ethics. Voting is our core responsibility and that is, we set our own rules around that, according to the Constitution. So, we, the, they, somebody couldn't file, they could file a complaint with the ethics commission that says, I think Senator white has a conflict of voting on this renters registry because she has an apartment. Yeah, but that would exclude half the Senate more than I know it but I'm saying they could do it if they wanted to but first of all the ethics code would say it's not our responsibility. It's covered by the Constitution and their core duties. And secondly, it wouldn't be a conflict, and you're voting on it at that moment. So, I conflict of interest is very different for legislators I think, except around those things like using your position for to advance your personal financial gain or giving contracts to your family member if you're the person that's giving the contracts or that kind but voting is our core responsibility. So, anyway, I've flagged a couple places in here that I think we need to have more, I mean a lot of places that I think we need to have more conversation. So what I'm, what I may just say Madam chair before I have to leave, it's exciting to actually be dealing not with the technical changes but actually with the code of ethics. Yeah, I have to say to finally be dealing with the substance of a code of ethics is really great. It is. So, and I think I have this on for next Thursday. Great. TJ thank you for making the long trip up from Connecticut we appreciate. Goodbye everybody have a great weekend. So I think that that's Gail we have this on for next Thursday right. We do. And Larry is already confirmed that he's going to attend. Okay. And so what we'll do then is go start going through it and looking at the areas where we need to have more conversation I think the judiciary the general assembly that the gifts the conflict of interest and the how we deal with those boards and commissions that might be small and just have volunteer people on them. And those are the ones that I highlighted. And, and we'll ask people if they want to come like we'll ask. If they had Gable and judge Greerson, if they want to come and so they can talk about the, about that. We might want to ask. Secretary Bloomer at some point to weigh in on the general assembly issue. Yep, Beth this digi. Okay. Does that make sense committee. But it is exciting to actually be talking about something other than the technical changes. Yeah, been a long time coming. Thanks to Anthony. Thank you, let me just invite if anybody has any particular things that you'd like me to prepare extra for for next week just let me know. Yeah, go ahead. Well, I really, I just feel like there are different tiers of gift giving, etc. If you're in your major statewide office holder versus like you're on, you're on the parking commission or something, you know, so I just, I really would like to be to hold people to the same ethical account as the governor feels like a big burden to ask volunteer public servants on various boards and commissions, especially as we're trying to diversify them, etc. It just feels like there should be a different burden. And I would love for to see more research on what it looks like in other states. Okay. Thomas could do. What is that something Thomas could do. Probably get from BCL. If I could NCSL. Yeah, okay. I think we have, in fact, I think maybe the ethics commission did a number of reports for us last year on different ethics standards in different states, but it on this very specific one I don't know that we did. Let's have the conversation and see what what it means I mean if, if $20 to the governor is nothing but $20 to somebody else maybe a lot. I don't know. I don't know how to how to tear that. Okay. Okay. Thank you have a great weekend. Thank you very much.