 Okay, so let's move to h 135 the ethics bill. So representative again and welcome. Thank you senator white. So, each one 135 is actually one of two, just so people understand for background is one of two ethics bills that house government operations has been working on. This is basically a bill with technical corrections that were recommended by the ethics commission with respect to its responsibilities. They separate ethics bill that we are that still on our committee that deals with the ethics code and putting it into statute. So that is a separate bill that we hope that we will be working on in the remainder of the session so I just want just for background I thought that's important to understand so that there's actually two ethics bills. So I said, most of this is technical corrections. It deals with staggered staggering the terms of the ethics commission, among other things. It allows the executive director of the state ethics to drop to provide both verbal guidance, as well as written guidance. And it allows him to consult with respect to that guidance with other people that may be impacted by it so for example, if he gets a request for ethics guidance from an agency head and believes that that that that guidance would be helpful to all agency heads. He can consult with those other agency heads with respect to developing his advisory opinion. So I think you know those are some of the key changes there's a many technical changes changing the name of the Department of Human Resources document that contains conflict of interest rules. It was referred to as a code of ethics that does not exist. It was changed to one of the appointing authorities to the state ethics, ethics commission. So those are very technical changes. One thing I should mention I know the executive director emailed, at least Senator White about this is that when the bill went to appropriations. The language with respect to allowing the executive director to hire someone was removed. There's a lot of confusion about when that position would need to be to be hired. Just to keep things simple. That language was removed for this this time. Remind me here, if we made this change before or if this is in here I don't have the bill right in front of me right now and I apologize, but because I only have one implement to use right now. But did we already change the language around who advisory opinions are given to, or who can request them. Yeah, is that in here. We changed that last year. I believe we did. Let's see. Oh yeah no there's been changed no there is a change with respect to this. Not only can it be existing officers and employees, but it can be also perspective officers and employees so that's a change that's made. It makes it clear that it's to the people who are covered by the, by the code by the ethics, who are subject to it that ask for the advisory opinion so an outside agency or group could not ask for an advisory opinion. Is that made clear in here. Not. Yes, it is not know that change was not made 135. If we haven't made that change we need to make that change because that's what caused the, the big flap. It's been made, and then another significant change is changing the disclosure from by annual to annual. And as, as this data ethics commission pointed out, somebody could, you know, have income in the year that they're not reporting their income that we would want to know about. And so by requiring annual disclosure, you can't escape disclosing all your income from all different sources so for example you could have a source of income that you don't want anybody to know about. In the year you don't have to file financial disclosure. So this way you can't do that, which I thought was a great catch by the executive director. I wish we could do the same thing around the rebates, the tax rebates, so that people who have a lot of under an income and who file for rebate and one year because their, their income is limited. And then next year, make all the additions to their houses and trade in their cars and buy their new motorcycle. And then don't report it. I mean they do it that year so then they don't get a rebate and then the next year they get another rebate so anyway, I wish we could do the same thing with that. But any questions for representative Gannon, yes. Thank you Madam Chair. So I've got the bill in front of me. I just want to make sure I'm clear on what the I just asked the language now reads the executive director may provide to a person will be subject to the provisions of this chapter upon his or her request guidance with respect to that person's duties regarding any provision of this chapter or regarding any other issue related to governmental ethics. So I understand what that means, but the chair was correct that this surfaced a while back because there was an opinion that had to do with someone that was running for office I believe and you say that that was struck representative again but was it struck before. Before this iteration of a bill. I believe that's correct because we took that up. A couple of years ago. With respect to an advisory opinion that was issued with respect to the governor that was sought by a third party entity. The process that should have been filed is that that third party entity if they had a problem they should have filed a complaint, and that the complaint as you know complaints are and so I believe they're what they're attempting to do was get around the confidentiality of a complaint versus an advisory opinion. So that's already in an existing one. I am almost positive that's been resolved. Thank you. Yeah, I just will just make sure that the language is very clear because I think there was never an intent to allow outside parties to ask for an advisory opinion advisory opinion was advice to us. That's what it means advice to us. And I'm not sure that it was an attempt to get around the complaint system, but I think there really was a misunderstanding both at the level of the of V perg who is the one that asked for the advisory opinion, and from the ethics commission itself because they actually issued one. And so I think that there was misunderstanding about the intent of the legislation so we'll just make sure that it, it has that it's very clear, so that that doesn't happen again. Representative Ganon is right that we may have cleared that up. I will say representative again and I'm glad you brought up that the code of ethics because I when I saw that we only got the technical changes. I put on our schedule that we're going to start dealing with the code of ethics but if you're, if you're doing that already. And we won't, we won't address that until we get it from you. Yeah, and the reasoning behind having two separate bills was this is for the most part technical changes which we don't think anyone is going to object to the code of ethics maybe another issue altogether. And so keeping them separate would not have held up these important changes. I appreciate that I just I'm glad you said that you were going to be working on that because I had already put on our schedule for next week that we were going to start dealing with it. But I don't think there's any point committee do you think there's any point to doing it until as long as they're doing it then we'll get it. Okay. Have a quick question. Sure. The advisory opinions it says at the bottom of page 11. We're sorry that you provided to a person who is or will be subject to the business of this chapter. Does that mean somebody who might be about to take a job and so they want to they're seeking an opinion about something before they take the job is that what that's meant to be. That's my understanding. Okay that's what I thought I just want to be clear. If you're going to take a job and you want to be sure whether your consulting company would be a conflict of interest somehow or against the, the ethics of the state. Or if you're going to run for office and you find that you have to give up your job or would this be a conflict or something. I think that's what it means. Okay, I would guess. Any more questions for representative Ganon. All right, we'll let you go back to your busy floor schedule. Thank you. Thank you. Do you see the picture behind him did it. Did you guys see the picture behind him there. He was. He raises turkeys and his the bear got into his turkey feed into the feed bags, and it scattered the turkeys all over the place it the bear didn't meet the turkeys but ate the feed. And so the only way he could get the turkeys back in the pen was to put the bag of feed over his shoulder and they followed him. That's what that picture is. Anyway, it's been his picture actually for a while now. Yeah, he has one of the turkeys in the summer to. Larry Novens do you want to join us and I would love to. Thank you. Good afternoon. It's nice to see you all again. It's good to see you too. On a day that feels like spring. Getting there. Representative Gannon brought up a couple of things that I'd like to address and just for your memories last year H 634 had essentially everything that was in this bill H 135 because of COVID it didn't go anywhere. So the provisions about limiting who can ask for advisory opinions or guidance. We're not in the law and they are in this bill. And the idea behind it is to make very clear that advisory opinions and guidance are not available to people outside of state government. They're limited to people who are asking about their own affairs. So I could not ask, you know, is Jim condos doing something unethical I could ask is what I'm planning to do a problem or not. But we we what we want to avoid is what happened with that advisory opinion that is being in a position to play got you and issuing statements about people who weren't involved in the process. And that is to be a resource for people in state government. Excuse me, and to be able to be responsive to them when they have questions about their own conduct so it isn't right. If I had a question about someone else's conduct and I call the ethics commission the answer would be sorry I can't address your concern with someone else if you'd like to ask them to call me, call the ethics commission, they'll be happy to hear from you. And that's what we did in this bill. That's what we asked for last year. About a year and a half ago, we adopted this as our policy and that has been our policy ever since, but it is not that never the force of law is just an internal ethics commission policy. But that's a big change and it's a very important change for all the reasons that the chair outlined a moment ago, or a few moments ago. That's, that's in this bill you're saying it is in this bill, yes. I just don't see it I'm not saying it's not there but I mean 1225. Say that again I'm sorry in section 1225, which is on page 26 of the bill as it was passed the official version. My only goes up to page 15. Yeah, that's all we have is page 15. Okay, well let me look back. So page 11 of page 11 is where section 1225 starts go back up to page 11. Thank you, amaran. 24. Yeah. Okay, so it says the executive director may provide to a person who is or will be subject to the provisions of this chapter, upon his or her request guidance with respect to that person's duties. And the question is, is it necessary to put in there that it doesn't, it doesn't ever, it's just silent on the requests from other people and is it necessary to put in here that advisory opinions or whatever they're called are not available to persons who are not covered by. I think that being proactive and actually saying that would be. Yeah, well section, excuse me, section on advisory opinions, which is on again on page. 13 section be it says on the request of a person who is or will be subject to the provisions of these this chapter, the executive director may issue an advisory opinion to that person. It's general advice or interpretation with respect to that person's duties. So it's, I think it's very clear. I, I agree with you that that's very clear, but it doesn't proactively say you can't give an opinion to anybody else. I think that even if you put in the word only may issue an advisory opinion only to. That would be fine. I have no problem with that. Is that what you were driving at, Senator Polina. Yes. Because we quickly from wrong about this but with the VP or example, the VP really had a problem with what was going on they could have like filed a complaint or something right they, not through the ethics commission but they there's stuff they could have done if they wanted to raise that issue. Not going, not asking for an advisory opinion. What the time they, they acted and requested the intercession of the ethics commission there was no code. And there was nothing really at that point for the ethics commission to a pine about. So was there anywhere for VP or to turn no in that case. No, except to the electorate, but right. Okay. Thank you. And I think that there was a, there was a real misunderstanding about the advisory opinions and the misunderstanding also existed on the ethics commission itself because they ended up giving an advisory opinion to VP. And the, so I think it's, I think it's really important to make it clear in here that they advisory opinions are only meant for those who are covered. I agree. And that's our intent and that's that was the, the issue that really compelled the drafting of this section, right, was to make it clear to the outside world we've told everybody. And it's in our policy if you want us to give you an opinion about somebody else's conduct, we're not going to do it. But we wanted to be in the statute to make it clear. So if you want to add the word only to make something that is clear, abundantly clear, great. You know, we have no problem with that whatsoever. I would like to do that. I don't know about other committee members because I want to avoid this argument again. Senator columnar. Thank you madam chair, I agree. And Larry in the sense it is belts and suspenders. I agree with the chair, and I think it appears in more than one sentence. I think it appears in two places it appears in the section on guidance appears on the section on advisory opinions. So I would suggest that we put the word only in both places. Well, guidance isn't guidance a little bit different isn't guidance. If you have three requests for an advisory opinion on a certain issue and you think oh that this might be generally misunderstood, you can issue a guidance. So it isn't just about their my own conduct but you can issue a guidance. A general guidance that says, you know if you're thinking about getting a second job you might want to make sure that it isn't in conflict with your first job or something like that. So the general guidance as opposed to specifically aimed at an individual's actions. I think it should be very clear that advisory opinions are not aimed at individuals. At all, they are to be general. And so the advisory opinion that the ethics commission issued, which related to one person would not under this scenario be issued. It is not a proper subject for a advisory opinion. If we had, you know, if we had received several questions from people in state government saying what about my second job. How does this line up with my duties as a state public servant, then maybe that would be something that would be appropriate for an advisory opinion and what we put in this bill is when if, and when we engage in that kind of activity, we're going to issue something that would be of general impact to many people that we would be able to open it up and ask for public input. Basically it's it's sort of like rulemaking you know for going to offer an opine about the propriety of people with second jobs. I want to hear not only from the person who has the question regarding their job, but other people in state government who may have the same issue who are unaware that the issues being raised with us. The more input we have before we issue an advisory opinion, the better will be, it makes the whole process more open more transparent. So uses a record. I'm, I've gotten myself all wrapped around something here. But I, I thought you just said you don't issue an advisory opinion to a person to a person else. I thought that I thought that the way, and maybe I've completely misremembered this that I call you and say, do you think this would be a violation, whatever it is, and you give me some advice. You say you give an advisory to me that this is you give me advice this is what we think this is, is you might want to think about this you might want to think about that but you're giving me some advice. And then, if. So I thought that was what an advisory opinion wise it was issued to me about that issue that I called you about. And then when, if seven people call you about the exact same issue. You at some point you say whoa this might be a general misunderstanding by lots of people maybe we should issue some guidance on this particular issue. That's the way I understood the difference between an advisory opinion and guidance. I feel the same. I agree with you that's sort of how I wouldn't have thought the language in the statute is a little misleading, and it's somewhat problematic. When somebody calls and asks me, what should I do that under this statute is called guidance. An advisory opinion is a formal opinion that is issued for general circulation regarding any number of people and something that would come up in state government, capable of repetition. That should be addressed but when I get a telephone call or a letter and somebody says, Larry I've got this problem I got this conflict of interest something that that falls under the category of guidance. Is guidance yeah. Oh, so I had it backwards. Well, I mean it did the language, the choice of words is a little confusing because when I issue guidance, I'm advising somebody and that's where the confusion comes. Maybe we should change the language. I can explain it to people when they call. I'm happy to do that. Okay, I just want to make it clear that it isn't. Then then then the guidance is also only to us and and it's very clear in our amendments that the guy. I think that's what was proposed. Okay, good. Okay, thank you. Okay, Senator Perlina. You're muted. I understand that the guidance is directed at a person. I mean there's advisory opinions. I'm just my question is whether any of these I know that I know that the guidance is never released to the public. Is there any time when a guy when an advisory opinion or something would be released in general or would it just be released to the people on the sort of on the inside they want to it might affect. If we release an advisory opinion, it is a public document it is available to everyone. Thanks. In fact, the guidance if I'm reading correctly is exempt from the public records. Correct. It's confidential. Okay, I get it now. So we only need one only. I'm sorry. We only need one only since, since guidance by its definition involves a sole person. I think the advisory opinion is the only one that we should probably further clarified by saying only. Yeah. Yeah, I think you're right. Any other questions or. I had a couple of other things if you if you have a moment. Well we do. It's great. Two things that came up. One is in section 1211 on the annual reports. The annual disclosure forms. And we're changing it right now it says by annual we're changing it to annual, which makes sense and representative Gannon explained why that is when people fill out those forms though and this is a problem that came up in January. People filled out the forms and for the income for the preceding year. They left blank, and I couldn't figure out what was going on with the form people were misreading the form. The statute asks people to give their financial information regarding the previous calendar year. And so most people they fill out the form in January and the previous calendar year is very simple it's 20 the year before. But the statute also says that if you're appointed, or you begin your position say in November. Then you have to fill out the disclosure form for the previous calendar year. So if I was appointed in November, or I would you know if I'm appointed this coming November to a job. I would fill out a form and I would disclose my 2020 income which is now almost a year old. So we're hoping we could do is to ask you if he would make an amendment to change previous calendar year to previous 12 months. That would just make it very clear that if no matter when I fill out the form I'm filling out the form for the preceding 12 months. And this is for the commissioners right. This is for anyone who fills out an executive officer disclosure. Yeah, yeah. And it's, you know, every 99% of the people are doing correctly now. But if somebody is appointed to a position mid year, then we end up with stale information. So, to me it makes perfect sense but I often think things make perfect sense and other people look at it otherwise so. But I have a hard time imagining people are going to have a big problem with that. It's just to my mind it's clarifying committee. Okay. All right. Are there other issues that you want in here? The other is the one I wrote about this morning and that is the issue of should we be able to hire part-time administrative staff. And I will admit that I have not even seen my email really today except around a potential amendment so. The bill went through, well, you know, as you know, we proposed this bill last year, the end of 2019, and it became H634 last year. And then it went on COVID pause and then was reintroduced this year. So we asked almost a year and a half ago if we could have some administrative assistance so that I am not the only person doing everything that happens in the ethics commission and what I attached to my email to you was a page from our annual report outlining the different things that as executive director I have to do every week or every month or whenever it comes up. And there's just a long list of things like maintaining the website, getting in all the disclosure forms, creating the page that they go on, loading them up. This year I think there were about 80 forms. And putting each form on the web is like a 13-step process. And, you know, I will admit law school didn't train me for this and it isn't my first choice of things to do. But I think there are probably better ways that I could use my time than doing some of those things. So it's on the document I gave you. So my position is or will be unsustainable if I have to spend a significant portion of my time doing all these other things. And I will tell you right now that if I'd known when I joined the ethics commission that I was going to be responsible for all these other things I wouldn't have taken a job. I was under a misapprehension when I started about whose responsibility that would that would be if I were to ever leave. I don't know anybody in the right mind who would take this job with all the, you know, just the administrative responsibilities. Yeah, if this it's too bad that we're doing this remotely I have a great story I could tell, you know, after hours about the three weeks it took me to get a printer. So that I could work from home after I was told after 11 months that I wasn't allowed to use a state printer anymore. It's the kind of little stuff that just eats up and nor in nor knit amounts of time. And if there was any way that we could have a part time assistant that would be very helpful and I suggested some language in my email to you. I apologize I don't believe I CC amaran on this I did CC, john Gannon, but I didn't CC amaran I consider a copy of what I sent you but that would be a big, a big deal for us. Can you explain what happened in because representative again and just alluded to some it going to approach and they taking it out because there was misunderstanding and, and before that before you do that, I saw that Senator column or head is Well, it's germane but I certainly be willing to listen to Mr. Novens is the answer I read his email. And I'm just trying to get a sense of the dollar amount. Your, you said your budget for 2022 is 113,000 I think you're looking for half time. So is that meaning that you're looking for somebody for $56,000 with With salary and benefits and getting them a computer and a phone would be about I was told to ask for $60,000. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. So now chairs question. Why was it taken out what was a misunderstanding I don't know. The only thing I have is what I got in an email from john Gannon which I quoted to you in my email this morning, and that is Let me see if I can find it here that they felt the language that was in the in the preceding draft was too vague, and that the decision could be put off since additional staff was tied to the passage of the code of ethics. Actually, I didn't know this hearing was going on and I wasn't asked to attend. So I was not able to speak up and defend that part of our proposal which had been approved by the House Government Operations Committee so I was, it was a surprise to me. And then I was preparing for today and decided to just to read through the bill that I noticed that was missing, and then I wrote to Representative Gannon and that's what he told me so it was a surprise and a bit of a shock. After asking what 1415 months ago for this for it to be all of a sudden yanked without having had an opportunity to be heard on that so the other thing is we do have some money. Currently in the first year, there was about 50 or $60,000 leftover that's in a reserve fund. And I have to say this a little over my pay grade but this is what I'm told but we were told that if we got permission to have a part time slot it would not require us to make a budget request for fyi 2020. So you know, we could do it without an appropriation for this next year. So you need permission to have to get the position, not the appropriation. Correct. And then, but your, you asked for this 14 months ago. So it is not tied to the implementation of the code of ethics, not in my mind. No. And I don't know where that came from. I mean, the day to day operation of the ethics commission requires a lot of administrative work. And if I could help for it I could dedicate more of my time to things that are uniquely within my, my skill set. You know, one of the things I'd like to do is more reach out and more education ethics education. And I hope to be doing a training for one department in a couple of weeks, and I hope to be able to, to offer it to more departments and to get out and reach out to more people. And if I'm loading disclosure reports on to the internet. It's not the best use of my, of, I think our taxpayer dollars so I think that makes a lot of sense Larry, I guess I'm also concerned in your email. After you say the, you know, the line you propose as the executive directors authorized to employ a half time administrative assistant. The next sentence says a code of ethics will not be passed this year. I don't see how it can be passed this year because we've already passed crossover. It won't be the House committee is still working on it. It was only introduced on March 9. Right. So nobody's even had a hearing on it yet. It is, there's, I don't know, I mean, I would love if there was a way it could be passed this year but it's not in my understanding. I mean, you know, magic can happen. If he's taken and if people agree to attach it to something that's applicable, these things can happen. So, anyway, okay, so that's why he's right. Yeah, I mean, I'm ready to be amazed. I would not stand ready if I were you because I think the passage of a state code of ethics is going to be take is going to take a lot of testimony from a lot of different people and I don't think it's a slam dunk. And it has to go through the house and through us. So I there is no way this is going to happen by middle of May. So the second part of my question is you refer to the American rescue plan as having money in it for this work. Is that help us understand the intersection between what we may be seeing with the American plan and your office. I received an email the end of February saying hey we may be getting some money. Do you have a wish list. Essentially is what it was. Great. I'll tell them that we've asked for a position in age 135. And we've got funding for it but if, if there's a way to make an appropriation for it, great, we'd be happy to have it. It was more of a wish than anything else but it seemed ill advised to let that opportunity go by without saying anything. That's what we did and the only reason I referenced that is to show that the state, you know, for talking about $60,000. I don't think that's the issue, the issue is. Well, I don't really understand what the issue is but in the grand scheme of things the $60,000 is not going to adversely affect the state budget if we're getting in what is at $1.3 billion for different things. For the last year, everybody thinking we are in dire straits and it's going to be a horrible year and I think everybody is equally pleased that it hasn't turned out that way. And if I may ask who let you know that there might be money that could be channeled towards the ethics commission. Let's see. The email went from Adam Greshan. Well, the receive administration people and the people who do our budget work said it to me. So that's how I heard about it. Well, I think that we can easily put in the request for a halftime position. Yeah. And then the Appropriations Committee can figure out whether it should come from where it would come from but in the, the bottom line is that if it's in a reserve fund, it can come from there if it can't come from someplace else. I agree. Does that make sense. Okay. All right. Anything else for Larry. So, and when you got are adding the word only. And requesting a position. I also have the 12 month period versus calendar year. Great. Was that okay. And for the position is this. Where did we land on whether there needs to be an appropriation for this next fiscal year. There needs to be because if it's in the, if it's in the reserve fund, appropriations will take it from there. If it's unless they take it from someplace else and leave that in the reserve fund. But I don't think we'll leave that up to the Appropriations Committee. They'll, they'll have us come in anyway and right now them where what where to take it from or we could put in that a request for $60,000. I would fund it and then pull it out. Yeah, let's put it in. And then appropriations, because then it will go to appropriations. And, and then they can figure out where best to take it from. May I just clarify, Madam Chair, Larry, your position is still not full time. Correct. Should it be. Yeah, I mean, if we're asking, and if Adam Greshan feels that there is a need for this and it will be over a certain number of years. I mean, I'm, again, I'm not, we're not fully clear on everything in the American rescue plan for states and administration, but I think this would be the time for us to actually think about that if you feel it actually needs to be particularly if we're doing the code of ethics or do we after we do the code of ethics is that the moment to make it full time. I think that the work leading up to that code of ethics is going to take a lot of your time and a lot more time than you have now. Yeah. I mean, I spent the better part of last summer and last fall putting this draft together. And now, you know, mostly in your hands, and whatever assistance I can provide during the process I will provide but I don't see that I can't do that in my, in my current half time position, once it went and if it's past and then we start talking about what happens next then at that point we might consider making it a full time job I don't think it's essential to do that right now. It's a powerful time and I had no staff I'd spend part of my time doing administrative work, which you should can tell I'm trying to avoid. Well I think it makes more sense to ask for an administrative position now. And then when the, and I think that Adam Greshan was not necessarily saying this money is here for the ethics commission he sent it to my understanding from Larry he sent it to everybody. Yeah, same if you have requests. I didn't feel I've been singled out for large s too bad. Any other questions. Larry. Yes. I just said are there any other questions for Larry. I'm, I'm both a little disappointed and relieved that house gov ops is actually taking up the draft of the code of ethics. Relieved because we have enough to do, but disappointed because it would have been fun to take the first stab at it. But if they're doing that. We'll leave it to them. And I look forward to speaking with them. So, maybe what we should do is we'll have amaran get us a copy of this and then I think we're just ready to pass this out and my right committee do we need more more testimony on this from any place really technical changes. Nope, I'm happy with it with those changes. Senator Ram. Yes. Yeah. Okay. So let's do that and then one day next week we'll just vote it out. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. We'll let you know when we put it on the agenda so that you can come and make sure that we do what we're supposed to do. Okay, I'll stay in touch with amaran. She will have it perfect the first time. Thank you very much. Thanks. Well, committee, I did not schedule anything more for today. Because I didn't know how long this would all take so I don't know if it has any turtles they need to feed. Well, it's a little early for my turtle, but you know, not saying I wouldn't doesn't deserve it. Yes, Gail. Madam chair, do we need to take a vote on the amendment for us 15. Oh, I don't, we don't need to take an official vote. Okay. I don't, I don't think we do do we committee. I think the chair will or the president will ask whether. Third reading and then you could just indicate that the committee met and considered. Yeah. Yeah, unanimously approved. What did you decide? I guess that was what my. Yeah, you didn't get to vote because you want. Oh yes. We're not going to tell you, Senator Clarkson. No, it's a secret. Besides it's like 30 pages, Allison. So go read it. No, it, it is simply asks for a report from the secretary of state by January 30 2023, which they said is very doable for them because they already know the answers to most of the questions. A report on the impact the issues related to mail out for primaries and municipal elections, and the impact on those individuals and communities who have been involved in this and franchised and for whom voting has been an issue. I don't remember exactly how that's worded, but it's whatever was in the original thing. It's on our web page now, Allison. Good. And so we did a, did you do an official vote. No, we didn't. Okay. I don't know that we need to. Okay. I mean, we can. We're supportive of it. Yeah. We do support it. The secretary of state supported it. And Senator parent was very gracious in continuing to come down from where he started. Okay. I think we all appreciate it. It's come, it's more complex than perhaps we think of at first blush. Yeah. All right. So committee is there anything else we need to do. Okay. We have a meeting to go to. I know. And Brian has a game to go. Reverie. My school playoffs. Where are they? I'm at Burton Burton.