 So this is Senate government operations. It is Thursday, April 22nd. And today we are looking at what is called JRH, Joint Resolution. I don't remember what the JRH actually stands for. Two, it's Joint House Resolutions. Interesting, it's Joint House Resolution but it's called JRH. They have the Rs and the H's turned around. Anyway, we are looking at that today. It is the resolution that is the apologizing and especially expressing sorrow for the complicit acts of the General Assembly in the eugenics movement. It has been passed by the House and Michael Churnick, the drafter of the resolution has walked us through it. And so what I think I'll do right now is because many of you aren't with us every day. We'll introduce ourselves and then we'll take it away. So I'm Jeanette White from Wyndham County. I'm Anthony Polina from Washington County. Allison Clarkson, Windsor County District. Pasha Rahm, Chittenden County. And unfortunately, Senator Brian Colomor could not be with us today because he is at a very important meeting in Rotland. So he will be joining us the next time we take this up. So with that, I think Tom, Michael has walked us through the resolution. So we are familiar with the words and stuff. But if you just wanna kind of give us a context for it that would be great. I'm sure. Thank you so much for inviting me and for picking up on this important bill. And I wanted to just say out from the beginning that we're on the floor on the pension issue. And if I get texted away on votes, I'll certainly let you know with about a five second notice. So thank you for having us in. So JRH2, as you heard was a joint resolution between the house and the Senate, apologizing for the state sanction practices and policies related to the Gen X movement in the early 20th century. And we took this up last year prior to COVID. We started to work on a version of this. And when we left the building, we couldn't pick it up any further. There was no good way of doing that kind of work again. So it was reintroduced this year with a different set of sponsors essentially, but it was the same language that we left with last year and then spent our time working through what was unique. The state has never apologized. None of, no department of the state has ever apologized for actions that it's taken for policies, even if they're dissimilar to the Gen X movement. But we took this up because it was clear that the actions that we promulgated through our work as a general assembly, not us personally, but this institution, starting in 1912 really allowed for the institutionalization, sterilization and separation of Vermonters from their families. And we did this as a state policy, state sanctioned policy. And that work really hurt the people, hurt the affected communities. It discontinued family lines. And they are policies that actually have lived on in some way throughout the decades. We've seen this through some of the actions through the Waterbury State Hospital, through Battleboro, through Brandon Training Center, but also in state policies of how we treat people with disabilities, how long it took to recognize indigenous people in the state of Vermont. There's many different reasons that many different pieces of this puzzle that continued on for years and years and years after the Gen X survey, which was based at UVM, ended in 1936. So taking on what's called a public apology was something new and different for us. And even though it's in this resolution form, we were brought this bill, brought this as a bill. And we really had to figure out how to handle it. And one of the first things you had, we had to learn was, well, what's a public apology and public apologies and acknowledgement of wrongdoing. It's an admission of responsibility. It is a sincere apology. And it is a commitment to do something about it in the coming months and years. And the second piece that was really important was to listen to the affected, to people from the affected communities, the descendants of people who we hurt most directly, who were still suffering in some way from the actions that we took. And that was a broad swath of people, it was folks from our indigenous and Abenaki communities. It was people from the disabled communities. It was people from our French-American or French-Canadian communities. And listening was probably some of the most moving testimony that I've heard in the time that I've been in the building because not solely because of the people who were bringing them forward, but because I belong to that system now. And it was something that we're all capable of doing simply through our work here. And it was incredibly difficult to put our emotions aside with the work and also the reactions of saying, but wait, that happened so long ago. What did we have to do with that? And the fact is, is that laws stay on books for years and years and years until we take them off. Most of you who are in this picture here as senators probably served at a time when Representative Donahue worked about 10 years ago to get language that was still related to how we treated and how we looked at people with disabilities in particular, that only came off our books 10 years ago. And the laws regarding sterilization only came off our books perhaps in the early 1980s. So this is what we did again as a general assembly. And so by taking it up, we committed to really trying to start a process of writing that wrong. And we needed to hear the stories. We needed to hear the histories. We needed to respect them. We needed to acknowledge that in my case, I'm a almost 60 year old white male who is serving in this body. So I'm coming at this from a different, from a way different perspective. And yet we needed to make sure we took this seriously. Someone accused us at one point of doing something that was a feel good piece of legislation. And I can assure you that this was not a feel good piece of legislation. It wasn't a feel good for anybody who testified. It wasn't a feel good for anybody who in my committee in particular, who put their heart into making sure that we did this as well as we possibly could. We worked with Michael Churnick to make sure that we were doing the language correctly. We listened to historians. We listened to, there's a plethora of essays from the Vermont history journals that we used as research. That's all available. We can either provide you a quasi bibliography and whatnot. We did our research on what these policies were. We actually had a member of our committee whose grandfather served in the Senate in 1925 when one of the bills was put forward. It failed in the house that year. But her grandfather voted for the eugenics survey in 1925 and it became just a real piece for her that her family, that she had a connection and something as negative as this. I think we did our work with as many people as we reached out to who came in to advise us in the direction that we needed to go. Of course, I see the state archivist here who we did not talk to during this process and that perhaps was an oversight but we had the information from the Vermont Historical Society we had. But what was it we were apologizing for? I mean, again, we had stake sanction policies and I think you heard this in the apology from Michael that listed off a number of direct legislation some of which did not pass but some of which did. And that legislation as we know from our work these days reflects kind of the popular will at the time and how it takes time in the case of the eugenics survey and appropriating the funds and putting into statute allowing sterilization, so-called voluntary sterilizations to happen. Look at the process it took. It was introduced and it failed and then it was introduced again and it failed again and then the groups who were most interested in seeing it move forward retrenched. Did their work, they formed this Vermont commission on rural life, they issued a report that basically said, yes, if we could do this eugenic if we could do this sterilization program included with our existing separation and institutionalization program. And oh, by the way, we could do the sterilization with those people who are institutionalized. And they kind of homogenized it to a point where the legislature felt that they could pass it. And as we know in retrospect, it was probably one of the most painful errors of our time. The records that we were shared with us talked about 253 sterilizations, though there's some evidence that there were more. We know about the separated the children being separated from families. We know the adults being separated from the families. We know about the institutionalization at one point the Waterbury Hospital had over 1,500 to 1,700 people in it and they weren't there simply because they were insane. There were other issues, there was poverty issues that were involved with this. In fact, poverty was the umbrella over all of this. So it became an issue of Vermont supporting essentially racist ideas that affected a substantial portion of our population. And so when our committee took it on, we tried to understand, we listened and we tried to put forth words that resulted in what we felt was a sincere apology that can only be complete not only with the approval of the Senate, we hope, but with a public apology and then with a continuation of some of the other policies that we've been working on as a body to lift up the affected populations in whatever way we can. And due to the nature of our work, I mean, there's bits and pieces everywhere, but and it's not a process that happens just in one year, but this piece here is really important as a start for us as a body, as a general assembly to say, not only to the affected communities, but to the state of Vermont that we're capable of doing something wrong. We did do something wrong and we are not gonna do something like this again. And so it was an 11-0 vote out of my committee, Representative Rahm and Representative, sorry, Senator Rahm and Senator Clarkson, no my committee, well, and to get an 11-0 vote is an improvement over most of our votes. And we and House General Bill got a 146-0 vote in the house. So I think that's what I think in just in a short, as a short intro, I would leave it there. Certainly any of the information that's available that we use for research is available either through our website or we can provide you links. My floor report is available and I can send it to you at any time if you wanted to see that too, but I'll leave it there. So I see that Senator Rahm has a question but I'm gonna ask you a very dry procedural question. One of the questions that came up earlier among our committee was, should we choose to make any changes to this? What is the process? Does it get treated like a bill and it comes back to you? Is that the way? Okay. All right. It is a bill. It is a bill. Okay. It's just not, it's just between the house and the Senate though it does not go to the executive branch. Right. Okay. I just wanted to ask that. So I see Senator Rahm has a question. Yeah. Thanks for presenting Stevens. I think people who know me know I'd be one of the first to applaud when we name something as explicitly racist but I was just surprised that you didn't also include sexist and ableist since this was a policy that was largely carried out against women who were seen as unfit to raise children. And there was very much a component of judging someone's mental and physical ability involved in eugenics. So can you talk about how you tried to honor those pieces? Cause I was surprised not to see more about the impact on women and people with disabilities. Thank you for that. It's, and I don't, we certainly considered those elements and felt in the end that what we had written was inclusive of that and I, but I hear your point. We felt like we needed to really, it's an interesting balance between being careful, being right and being honest. And in the case of ableism and sexism, when we discussed it, I think it came up in my floor report, it came up in the testimony, but when it came up to some of the witnesses who were gonna be from the disability community, it didn't come up as a need for them to have it expressed that way. And so we didn't. We just felt like the language that we included was inclusive. Okay. Any other questions for Representative Stevens? Yeah. Sorry a minute. Some of these came up with four, you know, Michael Churnick and I was like, you know, that's a question for the committee. So I've been trying to sort of save them or remember some of them. You know, it felt a little bit like with you, if we just read through the language, you know, a lot of it was kind of blaming buildings, right? Like it named a lot of buildings where things took place. It didn't necessarily name the agencies and the departments that carried out those policies. We became interested in the governor who vetoed it and you know, what happened there? And so it just, you know, and it really definitely calls out Perkins, you know, which is certainly he was, he played a role that I just, you know, Michael encouraged us to talk to you about the interplay there. I mean, some of my committee colleagues were saying, maybe, you know, it's just we're owning the legislature's responsibility, but I think it's helpful sometimes for us to acknowledge that some of these agencies and departments still exist, you know, and carried this out. And that could be a healing and important thing for Vermonters to acknowledge that they need to own and acknowledge this past. Yeah, I don't see it as that we were just discussing buildings alone. I think we, I think that we were clear that it was our policies. You know, we can't apologize for UVM. UVM made an apology, whether it's sufficient or not for some people is up in the air, but we felt like we could not apologize for UVM. We could apologize and name Dr. Perkins because he was a primary mover in the movement. He was essentially an advocate or a lobbyist for the movement in the state house and he helped write the legislation. But that was material that I think we covered more in the floor report than in the apology. It was, you know, we decided that apologizing for the General Assembly's actions was what we could do in a public apology. The idea that we could take on even what the executive branch may have approved simply by signing, we couldn't do that. This wasn't a, this is not an apology from the full state of Vermont. This is an apology from the General Assembly. And so we were, and not to protect anybody, you know, not to say that people, I mean, there were people who were affiliated with UVM in the house who were very, very nervous about even having UVM mentioned at all. And, but UVM's, the fact that we fund UVM, the fact that we approved legislation makes UVM a part of the story even in this apology. You know, the names are like naming who the superintendent of the state hospital was at the time we deemed was not important. Because again, it was our, it was important. Again, in the floor report, in the discussed history, but in the apology itself, we chose to say that these were our actions and they resulted in this. And so, you know, we felt we got there. I mean, you're free to interpret it differently, but you know, we felt we got there with what we were trying to say that we, you know, the state sanctioned practices and policies did this. And that was the approach we took with it. So I guess my follow-up question, because maybe I'm being really dense is I'm wondering if I'm reading between the lines, did you take testimony from the administration or the agencies that had been involved and they felt that they did not want to be named and they were very explicit about that or you just assumed that it was important to only name the legislature as well? We were taking it from the legislature's perspective. I mean, again, we, on the piece of paper, on the apology itself, backed with, I mean, we put a lot of effort in the idea of what could be in an apology and what can be in the floor report. And the floor report's a fuller explanation or a fuller discussion of those elements of what you're asking about. They're just, but the apology itself, we didn't reach out to the administration at all. Again, this was not about, this was a joint resolution between the House and Senate and we're responsible, we felt the responsibility to take on that which we were responsible for, which was an interplay between all of these things. Okay, we had this kind of discussion earlier and I think it's something that we will look at. I tend to think that we can only apologize for ourselves. I kind of agree with that approach if others want to apologize for their actions, but we are the ones that wrote the legislation that produced the practices. And so, thank you, Representative Stevens. I think what I'm going to do, oh, did we just lose, we just lost Carol. We did just lose Carol. I'm gonna come back here. We have, did she have a timeframe challenge? Gail, did she have a time challenge that we didn't know about? Not that I know of, not that I was informed of. And we have two Carols on the agenda and I'm not sure which Carol they're talking about, I'm not sure which Carol that was. We have Carol McGranahan and Carol Irons. And her tag just said- That was Carol McGranahan who was here. Okay, thank you. And so I have to get back to the floor. I'm happy to answer any questions. Or like I said, if you need information, please reach out to me or our committee assistant and we'll get you the information that you might need. And if you'd be kind of send us your floor report, which sounds like it was sort of complimentary to the resolution work. So I think that would be great. Yeah, I'll email that to Gail. Thank you, sir. Thank you. And good luck with pensions. Yep, thank you so much. So I think what we'll do is jump to Judy. One more note about witnesses, Carol Irons testimony was weather dependent because she needed to get to a place where she could participate video and she is not able to make it today. Okay, so we can hear from her next week when we take it up. And how about Doug Bent? As far as I know, he will be joining us. Okay. He did submit some testimony as well. All right. So can we perhaps jump to Ms. Dow here and hear what you have to tell us? Sure, thank you. It's nice to be here. Thank you for inviting me. And this has been a journey for me because I worked on this 10 years ago when it first came up. It's kind of dear and near to my heart. I have a lot to say, so I've written it down so I can quickly read it and stay in within a decent time frame for you. Okay. My name is Judy Dow. I am a descendant of the largest family targeted by the Vermont Eugenics Survey. I'm French, Canadian, Anabeneke. My family charts were first started in Cold Spring Harbor, New York at the headquarters for the National Eugenics Movement. We were the only family in the Vermont Eugenics records to follow that path. This, the files traveled to Vermont and eventually recorded 623 people in one family, my family, 23 of these people were recorded as having Huntington's Korea, a hereditary disease that is usually passed to generation after generation. We were also identified as French Indian. This subjective diagnosis occurred without any medical records. And today, nobody in the family has this hereditary disease. These people that were diagnosed were about 20 to 30 years older than the average lifespan of someone who was having, who has Huntington's Korea and actually live. Many of these families were sterilized in an effort to prevent the spread of Huntington's Korea. And just to tag on to what Tom said, when he said there was 253 plus documentation of more, the reason for that is, if you were sterilized in an institution, they made out a certificate saying you were sterilized, but there needed to be two doctors to sign it. So if you were sterilized in the general population, two doctors would agree to do it. It didn't necessarily mean there was a certificate that was created. So there's actually many more than the records reflect. My hopes are that this example shows you how subjective and damaging the Vermont Eugenics Survey was and why all Eugenics programs in this country were later declared a pseudoscience and exactly why there is so much historical trauma that circles around these issues. I appreciate all the hard work that the House Committee put into this apology, but I still have some strong concerns around inaccurate, painful and missing statements now as I have before. Many of my suggestions were added to the apology, but if you were not, I was told, quote, that was simply because of the relationship many of the House Committee had with Don Stevens and that they wanted to maintain that relationship. This relationship comes at an expense of accurate history recorded in this apology. An apology for trauma caused by, to a group of people should not inflict more traumas, yet JRH2 does exactly that as currently written. Although Vermont participated in the progress towards modernity, it failed to reach the level of prosperity and centralization achieved in neighboring states and by 1880 remained primarily rural and industrialized. These shortcomings were attributed to that internal political struggles between two distinct groups of Vermonters, which can be described in Burlington as those living on the hill or the elite and those living along the interval and on rural farms or the poor. Fears were prevalent from the old Yankee stock of losing control of their power by the sheer numbers of the French-Canadians moving to Vermont due to the 1890 law of the 12 children of in Quebec. And this was a law that if you had 12 children, we would give you 100 acres of land. By 1895, they'd given away a half a million acres under the Lloyd de Duzan font. And so they amended the law to be $100. And during that time, they moved here to Vermont, took over abandoned farms and worked our mills. Taking a stroll down Church Street at this time would, one would most likely hear French spoken due to the fact that during the 20s and 30s, 65% of Vermonters living in Vermont spoke French, not English. And anyone living north of Route 2 that had a French surname was most likely French Indian descent. This was frightening to the progressive Vermonters and the political control, and the political control they maintained. Henry Perkins, written records reflect a strong hatred towards French Canadians for this reason. The people on the hill, Burlington's elite wanted the progressive movement, the progressive movement towards doing away with the low income hard scrabble farmers that all at one time lived in rural Vermont and were rapidly moving into the Queen city. After 1910, Vermont's agricultural acreage began to decline. Many of those hard scrabble people moved to Burlington. Local people referred to the rocky soils of Vermont as hard scrabble, a place that is difficult to make a living farming due to so many rocks. Hard scrabble became a term that has come to denote poverty and destitution here in Vermont. In addition to such maladies as physical and mental retardations, quote, Perkins defined paparism as a defective trait. The problem then was not so much a lack of commerce, but rather the commerce was founded on the, whether the commerce was founded on the values of those living on the hill or hard work will get you power and prestige or those living in the interval and surrounding the interval, which was to work for a need. Early in 1925, Henry Perkins organized the eugenics survey in the state of Vermont. Perkins tried to pass the sterilized bill, legislation bill in 27, but was unsuccessful. However, in an effort to protect the work of the Vermont country life, Perkins pulled away from the sterilization bill until 1931, the very year rural Vermont, a plan for the future was published. He did, however, write up and pushed through the state legislation or legislature, the marriage restriction law of 1929, during the Vermont commission on country life's construction period. And finally Perkins got the sterilization bill passed in 31. There needs to be recognition listed in the whereas section of the history, stating the impact of this marriage restriction law of 1929, in which it was illegal to marry a person that was poor without consent from the oversee of the poor. And by state law, his word could never be challenged or mentally ill. Considering the resources that eugenics used to determine if someone was poor or mentally ill were subjective, you can see how damaging this could have been to the folks living there at that time. The slogan of the earliest 20th century, eugenics was breed better men. And to Perkins property was a defect, one in which Vermont needed to correct. I'm telling you all this history because being poor is the one thing every person listed in a negative way within the Vermont eugenics records have in common. The eugenics records are divided into two basic categories. One being the five main families living around the integral in Burlington. These files were referred to as completed files, roughly six or more generations in these families were listed in each of the five families, excuse me, totaling somewhere around 5,000 names. These families were studied in great depth. And I'm telling you all this because I heard it come up as a question in a previous meeting you had. These five families were intermarried many times over and were listed in the records as a mixture of quote, French, Canadian, French, Indian, mulatto colored and negro. Never once in all 44 boxes is the word of any key mentioned. Of course, once again, the records are subjective but there are many letters written to reservations asking about the identity of one family or another and not one response comes back to the Vermont eugenics survey saying that someone is from a particular reservation notified. Of the approximately 202 families mentioned under these five main families in the records only five mentioned the word Indian blood or French Indian. So to use the word of Beniki in this apology would be a slap in the face to the many people who were targeted simply because they were poor or of some other Indian descent other than a Beniki or merely French, Canadian. It elevates them to a status that is that true history doesn't reflect and erases many other ethnic groups. There is a reading into the records by some people today that isn't actually in the records of the past. This has to be corrected. And of the historians that were in the house, all of them agreed that the records never mentioned the word of any key. Vermont eugenics survey represented many different studies. One being the ethnic studies done by Ellen Anderson. There isn't anything listed in the ethnicity study conducted by Ellen Anderson, assistant director of the Vermont eugenics survey for Native Americans or for Indian. Rather, the ethnicities listed in this study reflect English, old Americans, German, French, Canadian split into two categories. Those that spoke French and those that spoke English, Irish, Italians, Greeks, Syrians and Jews. However, as Anderson explains, quote, here again, Burlington typifies the state as whole for the largest single immigrant group in the city is French, Canadian, which is exactly why the largest targeted group was French, Canadians. If they were targeted, if they had been targeting Native Americans or specifically a Beniki, she would have mentioned them in her book, We Americans and she does not mention them once. Let me give you several examples. One currently recognized a Beniki woman frequently states her two aunts were in the eugenics records. She is absolutely correct, they were in the records. However, her family was not targeted because she was a Beniki. Actually, her files do not even reflect the word Indian or a Beniki at all. What the files do reflect is that one of her aunts was in prison and the second aunt divorced and moved to Burlington and coincidentally lived in one of the tenement houses in Burlington that were frequently targeted because poor French Canadians lived there. According to the Ramon Eugenics Survey records, this particular family was targeted simply because they were poor and her children were listed as delinquent and unsupervised children due to the fact that this was a single mother and she had to work to support them. In a second family that acknowledges themselves as a Beniki family today, they maintained a life of in and out of poor farms and state prisons. Their story tells of their targeting because they were poor and that members of their family frequently ended up in jail. Somehow the story of both of these families got twisted to reflect they were targeted because they were a Beniki. The records do not reflect this. It would be inaccurate to state that history does recognize the Beniki either past or present in these records. This program was not about targeting a Beniki. It was about targeting the dependent, delinquent and defective people. I'm not saying that we're not a few of Beniki families in these files because I know they were poor too. What I'm saying is that they were the minority and not recognized as a Beniki at all. Rather, the five families were listed as quote, possibly having Indian blood, colored blood, Negro or French Canadian or from Mohawk reservations. The focus on these so-called Beniki people from the records is elevating them to the position of majority at the expense of others in these records, especially since they may not have self-identified as a Beniki at the time, but rather Mohawk of Gonkwin or some other indigenous tribe. An apology should be given fairly to all ethnic groups represented in the records. Nobody should be elevated to a higher status except perhaps the French Canadians because they were the majority of ethnic groups listed. The remaining families were related by marriage to the five main families. These families were never investigated and they were listed as incomplete files. If your family name is listed in these records, you were never investigated, passed the marriage into one of the five main families. The file just exists in the records. There was never time in the Vermont Eugenics programs to finish these incomplete files, incomplete records. They closed operations before they could become completed. In addition, approximately 1,000 names came from prisons and other institutions, such as my grandmother, who was scooped up off the street, sent to Waterbury State Hospital, whereabouts unbeknown to my family. After five years missing, my grandfather filed for a divorce because he believed the family had been abandoned and my father at the age of five was placed in an orphanage. My father learned when he was 88 years old that his mother had lived until he was 16 years old and he never knew it. The traumas of the past have come forward to the present generations. Please stop the cycle. My recommendations are either to change the following or make an addition. Mention in the wear us section, the Marriage Restriction Laws of 1929 written by Henry Perkins and the impacts on supposed poor and mentally ill. And I say supposed because poor was a subjective term and mentally ill was also subjective. So you could be termed effective if you merely had hemorrhoids. On line 12, in the wear us section reflect all the institutions or make it generic. For instance, if you add the Rutland Reformatory and the others, it might bring prominence to this history, to the communities where these institutions belong. And the third one is a change on page two, line seven. Whereas state sanction eugenics policies targeted Vermonters of French Canadian heritage, persons of mixed ethnicity, poor and persons with a disability and a perceived disability. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you. That was quite a lot. Thank you. I'm sorry. No, no, no, it was great. Thank you. Could I just ask you one question at the very beginning and I don't know if I misheard or but you said that when you talked to the House Committee, you talked about making some of these changes and then you said something about people wanting to stay on the good side of, and I didn't get that, could you? Yeah. So I wanted the word Beniki removed from the records. Number one, because they weren't the majority. Number two, because they're not even mentioned in the records. And I felt that it elevated them above every other ethnic group that was targeted. And I was told that they couldn't do that because they had developed relationships with Don and Don wanted the word of Beniki in there. And who is Don? Don Stevens. Who is Don Stevens? The chief of the Nohiga. Oh, okay. Thank you. I didn't know that. That's helpful. Okay. And may I ask a favor of Judy? Yes, please. Judy, if you'd be kind enough to send us your testimony, that would be perfect because I don't see it posted today. And so that would be helpful. Yeah, I'm not that clever with technology. You could, if you have it written, you could, if you're not clever with technology, you could put it in an envelope with a stamp on it and send it to... Yeah, I can attach it and just send it to... Okay. Keisha or somebody and... Send it to Gail. Our assistant, Gail Carrick. Okay. And she'll get it to us. Okay, thank you. Okay, thanks. Senator Rom? Thanks so much, Judy. You know, it's in the papers for others who wanna refer back, but you've done a lot of work to hold current state agencies accountable for continuing to bear the names of, you know, new genesis to in some way celebrate them, including a recent request to change the name of the children's book award and going before the Department of Libraries. And I just wonder, do you feel like this kind of apology gives you more of what you need to make the case to those agencies? Or would you prefer that we took more time to bring in state agencies to see how they, you know, feel about being named as having some legacy that they're recovering from of administering new genics? Well, I was under the impression that there was a concern about the length. And so some things were left out because it would be too lengthy. I don't, they tried to condense it as you would say things. Personally, I believe there is a lot of state agencies that have a legacy here and need to acknowledge that legacy. So the Department of Libraries, when I first went to get the name change of the Dorothy Campbell Fisher Book Award, who was an avid eugenicist, served on three subcommittees for the eugenics and made publications for the Department of Tourism to encourage, quote, people who were professionally trained to use their brain as a living to move to Vermont and have a second home. Those who were not, who those who were in manufacturing and banking would not find common ground here. And she was referring to French Canadians in manufacturing and Jews in banking. And so the publications that the Vermont Department of Tourism was putting out were terrible and racist. And the Department of Ed today still follows programs that were set up in rural Vermont and written, which was created by the Vermont Country Life, Commission on Country Life was created as one of those subcommittees by the Vermont eugenics survey. And so then that gets into the prisons, it gets into agriculture, it gets into education. All of these different areas were directly connected with eugenics. And so I think it would be very beneficial to make that public. However, I don't know if that's true that there is a limit to the length of this apology. But it seems to me like it should be addressed. Representative Stevens brought up the UVM apology and he said some people don't see it as an apology. And I don't because here's what they say. They say, according, they apologize for this, we have sincere remorse for support given to the eugenics survey. That's it, that's the only apology. There's no apology for the programs, there's no apology for following through only for the support they gave for the program. And so that's why I don't believe this was a strong apology. And I think it needs to go much deeper. So I'm going to, I think that I do have some sense that we can't apologize for those other institutions like the departments and the agencies and the Department of Libraries and stuff. But we can put something in here, I would think that says that our actions, what we did led them to act in this way. I think that I don't know that there's any kind of a limit on length here and this certainly isn't a very lengthy one. So I've seen resolutions that are much longer than this. So, but I think that we can say that our actions led to many of these other things that aren't mentioned in here. Yeah, I know it's a game of semantics. I clearly saw that happening in the house. And however it works out, I do believe these agencies should, it should be brought to the attention of the public that there was this trickle-down effect. Maybe we can encourage the administration to also offer an apology for not their role right now, but that they were responsible just as we were responsible. Well, the one thing I asked was so like where does it say all this? Where does it say there has to be a limit in the length? And where does it say that you can't apologize for somebody else? And nobody could give me an answer to that. What our chair is saying is that we want to apologize for the general assembly. I think that's the objective here. I don't think you can ever apologize for somebody else. We can apologize for our own actions and we have to own them. And so I think this apology owns those actions and as much as our work enabled the state government to carry it out in these various agencies and departments, that we can say, but we as a general assembly are apologizing for our actions which led to those actions. I understand that. But I don't think it says that anywhere that you can't. I just think that's a general feeling that we have. I don't think that if there's nothing that says I, when my kids are a little, I constantly apologize for them. So we all, but I still do. But anyway, so I don't think that it says we can't and I don't think there's anything that talks about length. I've never heard of any such thing. So. Okay. Thank you. But if you, yes, Senator Rom. Oh, I'll let you finish your thoughts. Sorry, I was just gonna say that if you send us that and then if you have actual language around both, and I can't guarantee you that we'll put it in or we won't, but around the marriage restriction law and mentioning some of these other trickle down like the Vermont Country Life Report and the, whatever those other agencies and institutions were if you can send language about that so that we can actually look at that language that would be great. Okay. I would be happy to do that. Yeah, so that the marriage language, do you remember having to go get a license to get married at the city clerk's office or the town clerk's office? Yes. Yes, but they didn't ask me if I was poor or. Right. Well, right, but back then there were fines for the town clerks and the city clerks who didn't, if they knew they were poor and didn't ask for a letter from the overseer of the poor, there were fines for those people. Wow. And this bill spills that all out. I'll send you the bill. That would be great. But and so consequently, if you were defined as poor but your values were different, that controlled whether you could get married or not and state law deemed that the overseer of the poor could never be questioned. His authority could never be questioned. And so it was a restrictive law that impacted many people because they often targeted people. They believed to not be married and institutionalized and sterilized them simply because they couldn't find a marriage certificate for them in the files. I can think of one family. I've been studying these records for over 35 years and I can think of one family. They went after this family terribly. The woman they were going after was described as beautiful and and she kept having children with various different husbands. They couldn't find the marriage certificates and so they followed them all the way to Belfast, Maine and wrote to Maine and Maine quickly sterilized them based on what Vermont said in their letter that they weren't legally married. And many years later, family members found the marriage certificates. They were there. So I just think that should be brought to someone's attention and listed in the where as is as prominently as some of the others. Senator Rum. So I think this is part of what Tonya will address as well, but I think it's nice sometimes to even if it's just on the record and it doesn't show up in the resolution to have a history of the complexity of the debate of the time. And Judy, you're such a great storyteller and historian. We're starting to learn that the governor vetoed the bill originally. There may have been interesting voices who opposed the legislation. And do you think from your perspective, have you seen any stories worth highlighting in that regard to show that it's uncomfortable in history sometimes to speak up against what people thought was good social policy? Well, that was part of what the problem was 10 years ago when they started to address this. There were people who were putting things in it that had personal agendas. And one of those personal agendas was the fact that the largest people or institution that contested what was happening was the Catholic Church. And so those views were being melded into the attempt 10 years ago. So what you're saying is one of the largest organizations that stood in opposition to eugenics was the Catholic Church. And maybe was the governor Catholic? I mean, so they were the kind of. No, he was told by lawyers that it could turn into a lawsuit. So he denied it or whatever it's called. Vetoed it because he was afraid of lawsuits. I guess his mama didn't raise no fool. Well, at least the Catholic Church is consistent. Yeah, it's it's also true that, you know, he was afraid of lawsuits, but when this was going on, I'd be curious to hear whether there are people who challenged it during the time it was happening. And you know, why weren't there lawsuits? That kind of thing. I mean, why didn't somebody try to stop it? Well, because primarily the people they were targeting were people who didn't have voices. They were my friends and no money and no money and no money. Right. No money and less education. I mean, they were necessarily know they could. Right. And and remember 65% of Vermont spoke French. That that is an amazing statistic, Judy. And I struggle with all my writing and speaking today because my first language was French. So how long was that true for? When did that end? The when did it turn out? No, when exactly. But I know in the 70s and there was a lack of the opportunity to take French in some schools. So it slowly started to fade away. That direct connection with Canada and the French language. So committee, what I'm going to do is switch to Carol. And Carol, we had two carols on the agenda for today. And I understand you are Carol McGanigan. That's correct. McGranahan. I'm not, I'm not, I send apologies from Carol iron. She wasn't able to travel to my house today. We heard that. Yeah. Yeah. So I'm hoping my connection will stay. I've already been bumped off once, but I live out in the wilds of orange. So connections are not always that great. As we, we, your Senator has equally challenging. Yeah. So anyway, first of all, thank you all for allowing me time on your schedule. I wanted to say that I've given testimony a couple of times in the House committee regarding the apology. And it has been extremely educational for me, but it's also, I look at the people and the work that they've done, the time they put in, the research, the effort, the concern, the sincerity. And I really want to say that that really struck me that being a member of the Vermont commission on Native American affairs, we had talked about, you know, should we ask for an apology? Should we get that in process? And a lot of the people on the commission thought it would just be words and basically people would dust off their hands and move on. So at that point in time, that was a little over a year ago, we didn't pursue it. But then when we heard that there was actually something taking place, we got more involved. And my very first visit at the House committee was amazing. The sincerity that I felt there and the way that the people were asking questions and asking for testimony really struck me as being this is, they want to get it right. And so part of my being here today is that I want to express thanks for everyone, for all of the time and effort that you've gone to to also be a part of this process. I did send my testimony to Gail and it's out there, but I would like to read it also. And they all have to forgive me if I get a little emotional because that happens. But anyway, I'm Appanaki and my family was named in the eugenics survey. I want to outline how this has impacted the six generation sense and what it means for all the generations to come. Our culture was a land based one with a rich oral history. When settlers arrived, our lives were changed forever. The many threads that will the top histories of our identities were caught destroyed by disease, war, loss of our land, forced assimilation, legislation and documentation culminating in the eugenics survey. These are all different forms of genocide, but all are just as effective in erasing who we were as a unique people. Last year, I heard one legislator voice concerns that genocide is an ugly word and felt it did not describe what the eugenics survey did. I'll share the definition of genocide as stated in International Law Article 2 of the United Nations Convention held in 1946. Genocide is any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such. Number one, killing members of the group. Number two, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group. Number three, deliberately inflicting on the group. Conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. Number four, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. Number five, forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Documentation exists which shows the eugenics survey embraced forced sterilization, institutionalization and forcibly taking children to be placed in homes which were not Apanaki. These actions were all part of the eugenics survey but also existed long before and after. This genocide happened and was embraced by the legislature at the time. But how does one measure the loss of the connection to our ancestors, history, language, culture, spiritual beliefs, our identity as Apanaki. My own family roots were hidden and lost as names were anglicized and changed and it became unsafe to acknowledge or preach Apanaki culture and language. Through institutionalization and sterilization driven by the eugenics survey, some would never know the joy of having children effectively killing all future generations. If my family had not hidden their roots, I might not be here today and in turn my children, grandchildren and their children would not exist. As we grapple with rediscovering our Apanaki history and who we were and are, the threads must be picked up one by one and rewoven into the tapestry. But like any repair, it will always be there as a stark reminder of the damage caused by others who claimed our homeland as theirs. I believe an apology has to include the acceptance of responsibility for the eugenics survey and to ensure actions will be taken to begin the process of reconciliation and healing for all. It's hard for me to look at how my family was affected and to know that if the survey had continued, I might I might not be here. So when I look at other families who I had members who were sterilized or children were taken and I and I think that the impact of generation, every generation afterward is going to be impacted in this way. I don't feel naming people as Apanaki or Abenaki or French Canadian or Indian or whatever puts one group above another. It's just recognizing that all groups here were affected, including the original people. So I guess I'll leave it at that. But if you have questions, I'll gladly answer them. Thank you. Thank you. Does anybody have a question right off hand? Well, I hit Senator Rom. I just want to it feels like a good an important time to thank both Judy and Carol for what can be really good testimony if this is, you know, an experience that's anywhere near your family or community. So I just want to appreciate both of you for your courage and speaking today. And in speaking clearly to the House members also over the past. It is I am when you were talking Carol about kind of that. The definition of genocide and one of the things that struck me in the resolution. I was just and I hadn't really thought of this before but there's nothing in here that frames what the eugenics movement. What I mean what what it was that in fact was designed to to eliminate people who I think as Judy put it who were delinquent defective and dependent that that was that was the goal and that isn't anywhere in here. So if somebody is reading this. They wouldn't even necessarily know that there was that really kind of horrific goal of the whole thing. I don't know if that struck anybody else or if it is in here and I just didn't see it but I don't see it at all. I have to go back on Carol. I apologize the Internet crowd came and we're trying to cut us. Anyway I had to go and do deal with domestic things but we need to go and look at the resolution to see that yeah we do need to define. What it was for people understand what it is we're apologizing for and I think that the very first thing of the original one does does address that but it was it was removed. Anyway just a just a thought I had never I hadn't noticed that before until you started talking about kind of what it is and what its aim was and putting that together with Judy's testimony here I I just became aware of that but well it does quote it does quote the act and the purpose of the act which was to authorize and provide for the sterilization of imbeciles feeble minded and insane persons rapists confirm criminals and other defective. Yeah I I do see that but I anyway but you know that also doesn't I mean it doesn't they were just going after people who are pauperism paupers you know poor people I mean that's not those are just regular folks you know. I think Judy had a possible contribution yeah yeah Judy you're you're muted. Nationally the the eugenics programs were to target what they call the 3D defective defendant and delinquent and the purpose was to the the slogan I mentioned the purpose was to create a better man so the science of the time had been working on creating better race horses creating cows that gave more milk and things like that and so that's what they felt they could do with people. And part of the problem that the reason it's so important to get this correct for me now is because there's like 20 things out there. 20 genetic genetic testing groups like CRISPR who are testing. They have a toolbox to create designer babies and they're beginning to use it on various things including children. And and it's so it's important to make it clear what this was doing what this program was doing because it hasn't stopped in the 1960s. President Johnson gave all this money out for Indian health services to sterilize any woman who looked to be full blood. Millions of dollars you cut out there to what. President Johnson in the 1960s gave out millions of dollars to Indian health services to to sterilize indigenous women who looked to be full blood. And the hospital's is medical center hospital in Vermont in Burlington. They followed the Mount Sinai rule and the Mount Sinai rule the individual institutions would pick a number just say one twenty two. And if you are a 40 year old mother who went in and had three children and you went in to have your fourth child four times your age. If it went over a hundred and twenty two you came out sterilized. And my that happened to my sister in 1980. So it's important however you word this to be clear because it's not stopped. It's still going on today. It just has a different name. And I think my friend wrote to ask to speak with you. Charlene Galler know. Yes we have her testimony I think I'm not she's from New Fane right. Yes. Yeah I told her that we she could come in and testify and hopefully she'll be able to come in next week. So her appointment is with Harvard Medical. And he is taught for decades about eugenics and policies and the impacts of it. And it would be really wise for you to hear from her because this apology apology is narrow. It's only for the Vermont eugenics survey but it happened many many decades and it's still going on today. So this apology should set a precedent to anybody because we have high schools in the state who are messing around with genes gene editing through CRISPR. So you've got to make this statement mean something. Whoa. Yeah. So my guess is that we will once again be making some changes to a house bill. I can't say that for sure committee but I just get the sense from from my other four members that are three members that are here that there needs to be some some more statements in here on different things. Am I am I right committees? Yes. Okay. Well, I want yes, Sarah Clarkson. I would say the house has done to go to Carol's first point. The house has done amazing work taking this up and I I'm really grateful for the amount of time they took and I know they took a huge amount of time and effort to get this to us. So I'm also appreciative for their work. Yes. And I will say that having said that we will probably make some changes. It's always easier to make changes to something you have in front of you than to start with from scratch. So they really started from scratch and developed something and whether it was perfect or not. They took a lot of time and a lot of testimony and did a lot of work on this and it is much easier for us to be looking at this and saying what needs to be added, what needs to be changed because we're not starting from scratch. So I acknowledge their work also. So Carol and Judy, I'm very, very happy that you that you joined us today and we are our schedule is right now a little bit fluid because we're trying to deal with a number of things, but we'll make sure that you get an invite to the next time we take this up again. Also, even if you feel you have nothing more that you want to throw in, but to be part of the conversation and don't you don't have to go now. We're going to hear a little bit from Tanya and at four o'clock we're going to shift to a different topic, but Tanya Marshall is with us. She's the state archivist and she's going to just give us her words of wisdom and then next time we take this up, we will also make sure that you all are invited. Okay, Tanya. Thank you for the record. I'm Tanya Marshall in the state archivist and chief records officer for the state. I also direct the Vermont state archives and records administration. We're the official repository for permanent records of the state and listening to the testimony on this joint resolution a couple of weeks ago. I wanted to reach out to provide the committee and others with information about the records that we do have in the state archives that are relevant to the subject and I do agree with Judy. It's much broader than the resolution is worded. I really understand. So I'm just going to walk through very quickly. I did provide written testimony, but the following the last parts of the pages actually do have images of some of the records. So you have a visual when I'm talking about them, but I'm going to provide some listing of the different records that we have in the in the archives that I think and also that we are available to legislature to provide any research that you would like or information. The first set is that it's much bigger than a couple of acts or proposed legislation. You can go back from 1906 all the way to 1970 and you're going to have legislative acts that are pertinent to this topic that range from community diseases, marriage is licensed, which I mentioned children who were quote unquote bored out of wedlock in addition to sterilization. Many people do not realize or maybe, you know, dating when you had to get a blood test that was based on eugenics bills and Vermont passed one of the first ones in 1915. So although they did not pass the compulsive, you know, requirement for certain individuals to be sterilized in 1912, there were a number of other legislation that was passed that particular session or right after there that were specifically eugenics and noted as eugenics bills. We do have the records of the eugenics survey. Those were transmitted to the state of Vermont in 1952 to one of my predecessors on the hill who was the state archivist and also director of public records. At that point they were University of Vermont was you know, they were in the attic of the Fleming Museum. It's they were largely quote unquote abandoned and there's a number of reasons around that 1951 52 peak time period to which which nobody wanted to really touch those records and only he'll took them included in those records are the records of the Vermont Commission on Country Life. It's unique in the sense that the commission was not a state commission. It was it was an unofficial commission of the state to serve as a first kind of planning commission. We have those records as well. It includes their minutes, their reports, their publications. It started in 1928. It was chaired by Governor John E. Weeks who was the governor in 1930 which is pretty pertinent in terms of a name that comes up as early as 1912. We also have the record inventories that were created in 1938 through 1942 by the the Works Project Projects Administration. That's a federal historical record survey. So it tells us the details of how many records what records existed at the time and we can use those to compare. There was a number of different reports of 352 pages related just to eugenics study or the certain eugenics survey sorry and the commission. Last week we just accessioned in the archives for the first time. We're doing a large records and information management program putting on my records management hat with the agency of human services, the sterilization certificates. These were required by law following the 1931 act to be filed and duplicate with the then commissioner of public welfare. We are indexing them right now to my best knowledge this is probably one of the first times that these have been accessed. They have been in storage for a number of years attributed largely to a different agency or department that originally created them. They do include correspondence with positions over series of the poor and others. So these would be the ones that had be filed and duplicate underneath the law and the other ones would have been filed wherever the service. So quote unquote was done. We are on 117 right now we're on H and they're in alphabetical order examples of the sterilization certificates along with some of the correspondences including in written testimony. We also have obviously the legislative bills and final acts related to the evaluation reporting and registration of mental defects. Davis that was not required until 1941 by the legislature and that included census and there's a number of different things that you'll find related to that particular activity and requirements put on to the commissioner of public welfare at the time. We also have the case files are incomplete for the various Vermont state institutions. They did change names often. They changed responsibilities often. We can probably track about 25 or 20 25 to 30 different versions depending on the time frame from when they were first started. For most of them you would recognize them as Brandon training school the week school Vermont State Hospital Vermont State prison and the women's reformatory. We also have the case files of the matters heard and decided by Vermont courts. We work for the one of the only state archives in the country that we're the only state that has all state courts which means that we have all the municipal city county and now the current superior court records. These would be ones pertaining to involuntary commitments and guardianships. They all they all play a bigger part in the story here. We have the Supreme Court briefs and printed materials that's including the landmark case that came out and decided in 1978 related to who could decide on a voluntary sterilization. We have all the annual and by annual reports. For the most part for all the different boards and commissions that were required and mandated to report on the different activities of the state that were in their statutes. We also have the records of elected officials and their administrative departments generally. Formal correspondence reports and recommendations at all different levels and more recently in the last couple of years we've session from the Department of Libraries the Vermont newspapers of record. They are available electronically for people to do research. That's probably the most helpful set of records that we have acquired in most recent years. It provides the contemporary perspective of society and legislators and individuals at the time of any of the legislation even current contemporary. In addition we have the vital records that we work with the Department of Health on and there's also the federal census that will talk about different individuals and who they lived with at what time and how. Then we also have the publications and the legislative directories. So I've outlined those to kind of illustrate that there's there is a much bigger picture and you could take any form of legislation at any given time and you I mean you could just research on that for decades. And so I think the key part is for people to know that we we are available to do that or if available to provide you know the objective records for the legislators to decide how you want to thread them together. The examples and this is more for the question that came up I provided in the written documentation just an example of state government structure at the time. One comparing 1913 when the legislation failed this was largely a lot of boards and commissions there were you know departments did not exist in the same way that we think about in the institutions were buildings they had superintendents or buildings they operated on their own for the most part except for having different supervisors which were usually ex officios governors elected officials in 1930 by 1931 you see a similar structure to what we have now where you'll have an executive branch with a governor who appoints a commissioner who is who is then you know with the advice and consent of the Senate. And that case the the commissioner of public welfare was then to appoint individuals to serve as superintendents. The 1931 structure is interesting because John Weeks was coming out. He was he turned over to Stanley C. Wilson both of them from the early 1910s had been involved in different institutions through the time and had testified and were part of public hearings for decades related to different movements and Johnny Weeks does become the first chair of the I think first and only chair of the commission on country life. So I included in there the legislative directory from 1931 so it gives you an idea about how the public welfare department defined itself based on its statutes and and I should I didn't include in here but the state board of health really starts coming into play much more in that timeframe and we see a lot of changes in terms of that. I also outline starting on page five is eugenics survey and it provides different information of the types of forms that were used as part of the survey. It also includes we have a couple of different copies of Perkins a resume of 11 years which I think is very insightful and it gives you an idea about Dr Perkins perspective on that but but again that was that was a timeframe. There's a lot more in terms of legislation and activity that happened after that. I did include on page six. You can see the pedigree charts. You'll see that that one is actually about costs to the towns related to families and that is exactly what the testimony from Judy and Carol talk about of being it's about this targeted also poor. It is about costs and you do see that in the newspapers as well. And then there's family history components. That's what the survey is much bigger than that but those are examples of that. I also have examples of the the country life minutes and then also some from the Department of Public Welfare and newspapers and my looking at different acts just for a 30 year period. I was up to about 25 or 30 acts that would all intertwine in some way. Just with the view that you you had that were passed by the legislature. Not all some were bills and not past but and they all seem to you get a different picture to about what was happening and what kind of instigated or what kind of propelled that kind of legislation. Can I ask a question? So Tanya this is incredible. I mean this is a huge amount of material. I'm just curious on page six. The pedigree chart which is amazing. The towns aren't listed but the I'm just curious what is the cost? Is the cost the operation of sterilizing somebody? Is it the cost of educating people of this? Was it this was not related to sterilization or education. This was considered to be cost that an overseer of the poor for taking response quote unquote responsibility of the family. So this to some of the focus and I think both Judy and Carol got to this was that it was it was hurrying individuals that were costing money. So it was the cost to the town. It was a cost to the town and you do see it in legislation is that once the state opened up state institutions all this that fit a certain you know for certain individuals as defined underneath the laws of the time a lot of people start shifting and you can you can trace any individual and you're going to find a different story and and either way you're going to be sad about it. You know I would say you know really this so this is not about the sterilization. This is all done largely prior to to that legislation and you know now that we have the certificates we can definitely you know draw some comparisons to see how they relate. But again we just have a snapshot or we just have what was filed separately with the public welfare. We also have the case files that include that information but the sterilization is like a whole separate additional form of legislation as is the marriage you know you know like I got married in Massachusetts and how to get a blood test that was that was that was the earliest part of eugenics they call the eugenics marriage bill and that was a way of circumventing a different way. But I think as Judy mentioned to you can trace all these things and you know some things you might trace and perceive as positive. Nowadays you know there's not not about the sterilization but birth control is a good example in having you know some things if you really thread them you're going to fall into all different areas of what we have first for a state and that's just the complexity of you know the laws as a complexity of society. There's just a bigger picture and so I do want to offer that we can at least provide different records and information to you in any way that you'd like that or if you wanted a particular thread to be pulled and kind of look at the bigger picture about everything that's around you know a particular act for example or and you know there's all different things that you if there is never ending in terms of what what's what can be pulled on for that. Thank you. Judy did you have a comment. Thank you Tonya. I do. Thank you Tonya for elaborating what I was trying to express. So I want to give you an example of what Tonya is talking about how it spreads to 25 30 acts. So in the legislation today are this before it crossed over. I don't know where it is now but there was 8 to 10 it was a public bill health bill and it crossed over to the Senate and it reads to give money to the four tribes the four recognized tribes in that area. Now I testified at that meeting the organization that Gadakina that we run in this state started 10 years before these tribes were even recognized. We have indigenous people that live in this state who are not a Beniki and we have some who are a Beniki they just don't want to belong to those tribes for one reason or another but the state will not give funding for public health to anybody or many other things as well to many other organizations other than the four tribes. And so the bills just keep compounding since there's been this recognition there are tons of bill that come compound on the problem that the money is not going to many people who need it and at that house to build organ is meeting whatever they call it. I spoke out about using $350,000 of rapid response money this past year alone to help people who had no food they had no money they couldn't pay rent and not one penny of that would come from the state I had to go nationally to get that money. I get calls from agencies all the time the department of later labor frequently calls me they want me to work with the tribes because they can't give me the money to do the work they have to give it to the tribe but the tribe doesn't want me so it doesn't happen they give it to the tribe and as you read in the newspapers it's often misused so it's a compounded problem that's been going on forever where it spreads like a cancer to all these other bills. Sorry I was just making some notes. Well, I would suggest that perhaps this is a good place to Senator Clarkson. Yeah, I guess the thing I think this is probably a good stopping spot you're right but I guess I'm just puzzled that given all these bills and all this effort for so long since 1906 and before I mean Tanya says since 1760 there things were that Tom says there were only 253 documented sterilizations it sort of surprises me that number is as low as it is given how much effort was put into addressing this group of people. Well it's because of the way the law was written you needed two doctors to sign and so within an institution the two doctors signed and then the certificate was completed the certificate was mailed to Tanya could tell you who the state someone in the state. Yeah I can adjust to Senator Clarkson so the records in the archives go back to 1760 but not specifically on this subject and the 250 number actually comes from Dr. Clarence Gamble doctor and Gamble he published something in 1948 that came up with that number state officials even in nine you know shortly thereafter disputed whether or not that was correct and it did have you know so so part of it was that you know the filings that had to go to the Commissioner of Public Welfare even the Commissioner of Public Welfare in 1951 said he didn't really know too much about it and and he wasn't really sure what those numbers were they were able to provide and I do have them what they were reporting in terms of numbers per year in different reports and so forth but I think that number isn't quite known which is why we're really indexing and walking through them now that we've accessioned at least a full set of you know one copy now we can compare them to what kind of certificates do we see inside case files from some of the different institutions in our fate they're not supposed to overlap the sense would be that you know if it was through a state institution those are actually maintained by the state institution and those numbers are around 150 to 160 so I don't think we quite know but we possibly could if now with additional you know a centralization of these kinds of records and the ability to do some searching we may be able to get a better number and that's something that my staff is currently working on so that we can provide that because I think it is a you know state interest yeah and didn't Judy also say that if it was done not in an institution that there wasn't that certificate so there wouldn't be a record well no those are required those were the ones that were required to be sent to the commissioner of public welfare and they were the records that have been kind of just sitting in storage for decades and I don't know yet how they really compare to the other certificates that are on file but those would be for overseers of poor they could you know there was different ways of billing so there's an accounting trail it's all about who pays all about and and there are a lot of people who did want to be you know and there's enough evidence there that people did want to Ashley you have to think this predates a lot of birth control there were people who did and they were very clearly told no this this bill is very specific and the state will only pay if this but we've seen a lot of examples already in the certificates that they don't add up things don't add up and and and I think that's what we'd expect to just see but we're going to pull out you know more that information for you right and that's where the numbers will increase is when you start getting into those private institutions that under HIPAA law you couldn't go directly to find the infer the answer to so like for instance in Burlington there was a place called the home for friendless mothers and that's where women went who had children who were unwed and where are their numbers you know Judy I think we actually are finding those in this new box that we just acquired because we're seeing we're seeing the same doctors over and over and over and now we're now we're indexing them on based on who signed it who notarized who authorized because in some cases as guardians and we're also finding dates that you know I just found a there are 13 year olds in this index and researching some of them the certificate states that his parents signed on it on August 7th 1937 I believe his mother died on August 1st. Yeah, yeah, the newspaper show his family traveling with another woman to Brandon training school that week and I suspect that that's that it was somebody else who signed on the certificate so it gives you a really good sense when you pull all these parts together how to pull the real but they're like I said they're they're all different they're all different with different circumstances but the common theme which I think Judy said is that you're poor you're poor and that and on public assistance in some way and that became a keeper and but all the circumstances for being poor are going to vary significantly by each family and it's subjective because many of the people they deemed as poor did not see themselves as poor. There's so much subjectivity put into this on all levels that's why it was declared a suit of science. Yeah. So I am going to excuse me. Switch gears here a little bit and I again really want to thank Judy and Carol for coming forward and giving their stories. Your stories and ask you to come again next time we do this because I think that your wisdom will continue to inform us about where we go and what we might do and I will make the comment that the state of Vermont is very lucky to have Tanya Marshall as our archivist because she she really takes all of this seriously and is I just I can't say how lucky we are to have her as the archivist to thank you I appreciate that. You are welcome. It's a hidden treasure deep in the bowels. Eight archives and if you haven't been to the state archives I would suggest a visit once we are able to go places and actually see real people it's a it's an amazing building and Tanya took us through it once and number of years ago and I'm sure it's more now and it's there's it's like a huge warehouse and there's piles and piles and piles and piles and boxes stuff everywhere and she knows where they all are we're organized we're organized so you might take a trip there sometime if you haven't been I hope we have a field trip because some of us weren't on the committee when you did that last one. Well they have you it's an amazing place you really should see it. Yeah I take it Judy you used it quite a bit for your research hundreds of times this started for me in high school I was a junior in high school and my required reading was we Americans by Ellen Anderson. I recognize my family in the book and when I talked to the teacher about it she said my dear this is a textbook you have to believe what's written in the textbook and so it started a lifelong journey for me and Nancy Gallagher came to a presentation I was doing and I met her and then we researched together for at least 25 years and Nancy's book if you have the opportunity to read Reading Better Vermonters that will give you a lot of amazing statistics I know Nancy would be here if she could but she's dealing a lot with the loss of her sister right now. Yeah, we heard that we had her on the list but she said she couldn't come because she was okay so committee I'm going to switch our focus here although it's hard to do because this is a very intriguing issue and I and we will learn more about it next week and I apologize for not being able to tell you exactly when but I'm trying to juggle schedules here and meet everybody's needs but Gail will send you an invitation to all three of you who are here today and to those who couldn't come will hope that it doesn't snow next time so Carol irons can meet with us and other other folks also so. Thank you and you're certainly welcome to say we're going to talk about pensions and retirement now and it's going to be riveting so you're welcome to stay but if you don't that's we understand good luck with that. Thank you. Thank you. This is my pension. All right. I'm a retired state. So don't look okay. All right. Well, your guy is right there. Well, thank you so much for everything. Yeah, thank you Carol. Thank you. Thanks a lot. And thank you, Tonya. Phew. That was that was amazing. Yeah. Okay. So I think we have some not marching orders, but I think we have some issues that we need to get into more thoroughly here on this. So I did. Oh, there's Becky. So Becky, if you want to and I know you sent it to me, Gail has it. She didn't post it yet because we wanted to excuse me wait until we got to committee. So Gail, if you want to put that up now on the website on the committee page, I will do that. Thank you. And then a couple of minutes, but it should be there shortly, right? And then I think so what we have to do is if you're on the committee page committee, you have to refresh your page and I forget how to do that. That's a little arrow up at the top. Yeah. So in a couple of minutes, we will. So for those of you who just joined us, we are looking at the Apollo, the resolution that apologizes for the general assembly's role in the eugenics survey. And I did perhaps others, but I today learned a lot more about what this is and what it entailed and what and where we might go with this. So that's what we were. That's what we were looking at. And it's I have to say this year and last year, some of the issues that we've been dealing with are very heavy and disheartening issues. I mean, a lot of them are, but and this one and this one issues the children at St. Joseph's the the whole thing of child pornography and human trafficking and burn pits. And anyway, so Gail, just tell us when you have that up. Yeah, I have to convert it. So it's just taking a minute here. Okay. And moving. I mean, it's really the human the story of Vermont intertwined with these lives. Just very moving and just sorry. I'm just sitting here is just I'm feeling a little overwhelmed by the what we were just listening to. I'm just oh, Senator Coulomore. Welcome back. Thank you, Madam chair. Hi, you. That was incredible testimony on the eugenics piece, which we will fill you in on. Okay, it should be there. So everybody just refresh refresh your page and it should be at the top. Actually, it won't be at the top because it's under Rebecca Wasserman today. Are they alphabetical under today's documents? Yeah. If we refresh and there's back. I only see one thing on the proposed amendment. Oh, there it is. I'm posting the link on chat. Okay, but it's the proposed amendment, right? Yes. Yes. Yeah, that's all that's all I had submitted. Yeah. So if you, Becky, if you want to walk us through this. Senator Coulomore, we are just for your information. We're just switching. We just finished with the testimony on the resolution and then we're just starting the retirement one. Okay. Okay. Okay, so Becky Wasserman legislative council. I, so I wasn't sure how to present us how it would be moving. So I just put it rather than an amendment format. It's just sort of in proposed language format and I can make it. However, the committee decides to go forward with it. I think that's smart anyway because we haven't made any final decisions. So doesn't make any sense to, you know. Okay. So this is some proposals for H449, which is the, the bill that is amending the membership and duties of the, of the VPIC and also creating the pension task force. So I've highlighted in yellow where there are changes from H449, which has not quite passed the house, but past second meeting just now. So these were the first set of changes is in section one, which as you will recall is where the VPIC language is. So if I'm realizing now I don't have page numbers, which is completely unhelpful to you. So I will try to figure out. I think it is page four of the 24 page document. So the first change that I made here was to the membership terms or the commission. So in the, the language it said there was some language starting on page online 20 that referred to members and alternates being re eligible for reappointment to the commission, but they couldn't serve for more than three years and the service of alternates were counted towards the sort of total amount that could be served. So this new language is, is being changed to say that just a single term served as an alternate. She'll not be used to calculate a member's total term limit. Any questions? Okay. Next page, page five. Still in the member term section. So the members of the committee serve for, serve for four year terms, not more than three terms. The chair has different term limits. So the bill originally had 20 years. I understand that you all wanted to perhaps change that term limit. So I just left it blank for now until you come up with a, a direction on how you want to proceed with that. Thank you. Subsection D on page five. Um, the, this deals with chair, the chair and the vice chair of the committee. So I have amended the language here to clarify that the chair of VPIC has to have certain qualifications. And so the, the chair of the commission has to have the financial investment leadership and governance, governance expertise as required by policies adopted by the commission. Um, and I believe you all heard from Tom Galanca yesterday who presented the policies that state this. So this is an attempt to cross reference, which the policies that are adopted by the committee, by the commission. And just committee, I can't, I can't see anybody. I actually, I'm going to put on my iPad so that I can see you. But if you have any questions, um, just speak up please. And, um, and just for your information, Tom did work with Becky around this language. Okay. So the next change is in, um, section three of the bill, which is on page starts on page 12, but the change is on page 13. So section three of the bill deals with some fiscal year 22 reports that VPIC will be submitting in subsection B, um, the commission is hiring an independent third party to review the operations of the commission and look at how to make it, um, the original language, use the terms standalone entity and the change here is, um, to an independent entity, which as I understand it didn't make any, any, um, substantive change, but it just felt better to have it consistent to me. Yeah. So that, that language independent is now, um, consistent with the new statutory language that VPIC is an independent commission. Yeah. Okay. Sorry, I've now lost you. Oh, so this is section three on page 13 of the bill. Yeah, we don't have pages as you know. So I want a chair and it'll be yellow. So it'll pop out. Oh, got it. Thanks. Yeah. And I'm sorry. I did not realize there are no page numbers on this. Um, so I'm looking at the page numbers just through the, the PDF viewer on the top, if that's helpful. Um, so then we can jump again. The next change is not till section 10, which is the section that is creating the task force. And I have this as, um, page 18. Um, so the changes that I, uh, was asked, were asked to make, um, first have to deal with the membership of the task force. So the membership has changed from, there were three members of each body, legislative body, the house in the Senate, and that has changed to one current member of each of the house in the Senate. Um, I received a language. Oh, um, so their work, some, um, commissioners on the committee, uh, I changed this. The request was to change it to two members who shall be appointed by the governor. This doesn't have any, um, description of sort of qualification or, uh, experience that these members should have. So, um, or that it would be a, a state employee. So I just wanted to point that out. I don't know if the committee wants to consider adding some language around who the governor would be appointing, um, the, the state treasure is being added state treasure or designee. Um, and that was, and then there's still, uh, two members of the appointed by the NEA, two members appointed by the, uh, VSEA and then one, um, from the troopers association. Um, on the next page subdivision C, there was a request to say that, um, any member that appointed a designee, um, have that person be the only representative of that designator to participate. So it had referenced a couple of the members on the committee and the reason it only referenced, I think it was three members was because only three members of the committee had had the ability to appoint a designee. I'm not all of them do. Um, so I wasn't, so the request was to give this ability to everybody. So I wasn't sure if the committee wanted, uh, everybody to have the ability to have a designee. That's not usually the case. Um, so right now with this changes that have been made, the state treasure is the only one that has a designee on there. Um, so it would only make sense in the context of the state treasure now. Um, so I just wanted to point this out, um, for a sort of a committee decision on that. I think the question was, do we need this here at all? Because normally when a person is appointed to a committee, they are the ones that attend the committee and that some people had the, um, idea that we should, um, make sure that everybody who appoints somebody, whether it's a designee or not, if the NEA appoints their two people or three people or whatever, that it's the same people all the time. So it wasn't just for the designee. I think this, um, was meant to be just for designees. Yeah. Um, I think the, I think if somebody is appointed to the committee and doesn't have a designee, there shouldn't be an ability for them to, for another person to be in their place. Um, you know, I don't know that this is necessary if it's just the state treasure now that has this ability. So you could take it out. Um, it's not, it's definitely not typical language for, uh, study committees. Yep. Okay. We'll have that conversation. Okay. As we will all of them. Okay. Um, so next in subsection C, we're moving on to the powers and the duties of the committee of the task force. Um, so the first, uh, power that was listed had to do with the task force setting, uh, pension stabilization target number. Um, and there was a suggestion to change that to, um, the task force developing and evaluating strategies for the state employees, retirement system and the teachers retirement system that works to reduce those, um, two numbers, the, the, the actuarial crew liability and the ADAC by the amount that it increased, um, between the years fiscal, fiscal year 21 and 22. So rather than referencing, um, setting, uh, pension target stabilization number, it, um, is looking at developing strategies to reduce those numbers instead. This is what you work done with Chris, right? That's correct. Yes. Thank you. Um, the next change is in subdivision C on the next page. Um, so subdivision C is looking at a benefit and funding benchmarks. Um, so I changed, I changed here proposed, uh, sorry, new benefit structures to propose benefit structures, uh, with the objective of adequate benefits within the established cost containment benchmarks and added in, um, when looking at a shared risk model, looking at that model for both employers and employees. Um, on the next page, um, so just for context, there were, uh, I was asked to include some of the recommendations, I believe from Jeff, uh, Fanon. Um, so these are, these reflect, uh, those, those proposed, that proposed language. Um, so in subdivision D, evaluating the intermediate long-term economic impacts of the, to the state and local economies, um, I added in here because of any proposed changes to current, um, excuse me, benefit structures and contribution characteristics and their potential effects on retiree spending power, including retirees who identify as female and retirees who are persons with disabilities. Um, subdivision F, I struck out that subdivision. Um, I need to double check what that was. Um, it was about, um, looking at a defined benefit. Right, right, defined benefit. Thank you. Um, and instead, um, I have included here an examination of the effects of current benefit structures and contribution characteristics on recruitment and retention of public school educators and state employees and evaluation of any proposed changes to current benefit structures and contribution characteristics on the recruitment and retention of school educators and state employees in the future. Um, subdivision I, um, changed this language, um, was specific in subdivision I to OPEB. Um, so it just, it now is referring to a plan to study health benefit design innovations, um, state regulatory measures and alternate ways of providing pooled health care benefits to both active and retired school employees to lower healthcare costs for employees, retirees, school boards on the state. Um, subsection E is the assistance section. So in subdivision, uh, 1A, uh, the state treasure was providing administrative, technical and legal assistance. Um, this is changed to ledge council. Um, I just noted here that ledge council would not be providing, wouldn't be the appropriate, um, office to provide technical assistance and the, the task force is hiring an outside legal advisor. So, um, we would, we would be able to work on, you know, contracting for those advisory services, but just, I think we just wanted some clarification on what assistance ledge council would be providing. Um, and the administrative assistance is not provided by ledge council anymore. I think that is more reflected and see where the committee support services are, are done through the office of legislative operations. Um, so, so just wanted to kind of get clarification on what services we would be providing here. Um, and then moving on to the next page, subsection G for report. So the report is pushed, an interim report is pushed, um, out to October 15th of 2021, um, with an update on the work of the, the task force and then December 2nd would be the final report. Um, and that was the last change. All right. So, um, anybody want to weigh in on any of these changes? Senator columnar. Thank you madam chair. Can I just ask, Becky, if you can go back to the, um, assistance that task force, I'm just trying to clarify in my mind, it says online 16 that the task force shall have legal assistance from the office of ledge council. But then it says ledge council would not be able to provide technical or legal assistance. And I'm confused with that. What does that mean? Um, this was just more a note because my, my notes were to change office of the state treasurer to office of the ledge council. So I just wanted to note that, um, we wouldn't necessarily like the, the form of the legal assistance. So I think we would be providing is, um, is to give us the authority to contract for, there's some, there's some advisory services of the task force is, is going to need to contract for. And I think maybe that language needs to be cleaned up that that would be done by, for example, ledge council. That's on the top of peach. The next page subdivision to, um, so it's not the task force necessarily that would be contracting for those advisory surfaces. Um, but I think the idea in the, in that subdivision to is that the task force is actually going to be hiring an outside law firm to provide, um, legal assistance. So I think more that I was just more pointing out that I think the language needs to be cleaned up to say exactly what, what role we would all be playing in the task force. Right. Thank you. Yeah, I think the thought was that you're, you're the attorneys for the legislature and, and, um, you wouldn't be the attorneys for the task force, but, but for the legislative members, I mean, to be able to reflect on that. And I don't know what, what was even meant in the original bill by technical assistance. I don't know what that meant. I think organizing, well, I would assume it meant pulling meetings together, notifying, I mean, a lot of the organizing. Well, that's, I would, I put that under administrative not, yeah, I think, I think technical assistance was more for the treasure in terms of, uh, sort of technical assistance in helping with, you know, this, uh, the structure of the retirement system and, and answering specific questions related to retirement systems, which is why I say I don't think our office would be that the office to provide that, that being said, the language is contemplating and to that, that the committee would be hiring, you know, a benefits expert. So, you know, maybe that is where, and, and they be working with an actuaries. I think maybe that's where that technical assistance is actually coming from. That, that's probably true. Would you agree with that, Beth? Beth, you're muted. She's trying. You can hit the space bar or the little thing on the bottom. I'm good at this. You know, I, I don't think that technical assistance really was about the actuarial work and scenarios and, and that piece. And I, and I, I don't think we want to, we don't necessarily, I'd be happy to not do anything on that, but we don't necessarily want to exclude us from that. You know, I talked about having Chris work with us. You know, we can be part of that if you want. I just don't want to take on the whole burden. And we talked about perhaps Chris working with us on that and, you know, kind of a joint thing on those fiscal and I would say actuarial work. You're going to need to work, use the word actuarial someplace in there that the kind of work that needs to be done on this, you're going to need to either hire one or use ours. And which, you know, you can do an amendment. Certainly you can do what you did last time, which has had a house did have Chris get a allocation and use our actuary. But it's up to you. We're not averse to being part of that. We just didn't want to do all the technical, all the legal, you know, and all the actuarial work and then take the minutes and and one and all that stuff. We didn't feel that we had them the person power to do that Allison. Yes, that was actually the comment. I was going to make your best which is that I believe Beth had offered that her committee could sort of be on a consulting basis. I don't know what we how we want to but that you said you wouldn't want to take on the whole burden of all that, but that you would certainly be on call if needed. And I don't know the language that we want to develop around that, but it would be nice to at least identify that we call on the Treasurer's office. They can always say no, but for whatever we're asking, but that you want that you were willing to be viewed as a resource. Yeah, she's on the she would be on the committee. So of course she's a resource. I didn't mean her office. Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm interrupting my apologies. No, that's fine. I was the one that interrupted. I think to says the task force may contract for advisory services from an independent benefits expert and legal expert as necessary. Does that cover the actuarial benefits? Legal issue legal consultation. You know, is this is a is this discrimination? Is this legal? Does it meet IRS? And what are you? What are the parameters of what you can and can't do based on certain court actions in either this state or elsewhere? What's the trend in these things? I think that you need to. I think you should identify actuarial services and that to be coordinated with with the Treasurer's office and joint fiscal. And we can we can use mine. They can use their own although using your own it would take you two years to catch up to the nuances of our system, but we'd be happy to coordinate and work with JFO coordinate work with the actuary. We just weren't in the position. We didn't have a say to the everything here. Yeah, and I think the language can actually be as the Treasurer just mentioned can actually be changed to clarify that the consulting services you're hiring would be more would be actuarial benefits and legal expertise. It's so I don't think it actually captures everything right now that is needed. That being said, you know, not to be the bearer bad news. I'm not sure $200,000 is the appropriate amount for that, but I can let someone else speak to whether that would cover all of the the expenses that are needed. But I do think that based on I do think that JFO would need to use the Treasurer's actuary right now, as she just mentioned to have to be up to date on everything. And I think the language doesn't exactly reflect that. Well, we should then probably do that. But Becky, who would we ask to get a better guesstimate on the amount we should put in if it's not 200,000? I'm going to say JFO, Steve Klein or Chris might might be able to I've sort of emailed them trying to get a better number, but I think that they would be able to provide a little bit more of a better number for the committee to consider. We'll get that from them. I'm sorry again. My apologies. No, go ahead. As I mentioned yesterday, the last study was someplace in the 75 to 100,000. I think it might have been 100 and we use 75 obviously costs are higher than I think 200 is probably reasonable. You might want to just hedge yourself a little bit and put 250. I would suggest you verify and do a test of whether that makes sense with JFO as well. Okay. Yeah. We will do that. We will ask. Sorry. No, go ahead, Becky. And I would also suggest that I think the language does have to be updated with respect to the task force main contract for services. So really, I think that's Ledge Council or JFO has to that work. So and the money would be appropriated to one of them to or to the legislative branch to contract for those services. So I think that appropriation language needs to be cleaned up as well. Yep. I think you're right. So committee, if I can go up to a change that hasn't we haven't even discussed, but was brought up to us and I don't remember the gentleman's name John Pelletier. Okay. So if you go up to the very beginning under in under definitions, yep, the on C under the definition of an independent person, he pointed out how how independent are you if you all you have to do to maintain your to say you're independent is to sign, provide a disclosure to I mean to say something to the committee, the other members of the committee. Does that really make you I now I'm reading this. It doesn't sorry that that is just for if the person's like if a family member. Yeah, but is in beneficiary of the system, then the person who's actually being appointed to the task force could still be considered independent if they're not a beneficiary. They're in it if they're a beneficiary. Oh, okay. Okay, that but the problem with that and I agree with John is that that means you could be totally dependent on on that retirement income. I mean you could be planning your future dependent on that on that I mean that does not make you an independent person in any way shape or form I think so I actually think that should be that C should be struck. Well, I'm not sure that if you're an in-law that you should be disqualified. Have a there's an interest. I mean there's a self interest. I mean what if that's your sister and you or your brother and you know that the future their future financial planning was dependent on this. I actually think this this is something for us to consider anyway Eric did you want to weigh in on that. I think the Treasurer had her hand up first. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Treasurer Pierce. Yeah, I think we're on the same page on this. I believe the House has actually raised this issue may have been already part of their listening by the way when I'm trying to listen to all this legal lease I get a little confused and better with numbers and certainly don't want to get into Becky's world ever but I think the issue was the independence for employees that are the three employee boards meet needs to make sure that and they can disclose you're going to have employees. The members who are ready are members of the system and they may have a relative in disclosing that when you get to the financial expert the two gubernatorial can appointees the idea was to be an expert and independent and independent means something a little different there is what I'm hearing the folks want. I think that's what you folks are getting at and Senator Clarkson's nodding their head. Yes, and I think that makes some sense again getting back to what I said yesterday. If the Treasurer is a new Treasurer and you got a new governor and they are more interested in politics than stewardship on this and I hope that never happens just for the record and I don't think it happens now in either case. I think that you would want an expert there that is not associated not with the system. So I think the definition of independence needs to say for employee members of the board or how you define that members that were appointed by the employee members of the board. The definition is fine and say for the gubernatorial appointees independence would also mean that they're not they do not have a financial interest in the benefits. I don't know how you do that Becky. I think the only place the term independent is used is in the gubernatorial appointments. So it's already that's the only place in this whole bill where the term independent is used. So this whole section on the definition of independent refers to those two those gubernatorial appointments. It's the only place it's referring to. I believe there's also if an interim chair is appointed that person has to be a financial expert or independent but it doesn't refer to the other boards or anybody else. Oh no it's it's really just limited to the financial experts that are that are brought on and so I actually support the idea of get of striking that safe. And speaking of that section it says financial expert or independent and I think that that should say financial expert and independent. I think the intent and I think that's just a typo means an end of it. Are you are you with that's in the chair the interim chair section. It doesn't or yeah well you have the X and it says who should be a financial expert or independent. And I think you want the chair to be a financial expert and independent. Yes, you're I think you're right. Yeah. And if I could presume on you one more change. Let's talk about this one finish with this one first. Yeah. Just so for the next iteration is there agreement to take out C on that. So that it's clear that the gubernatorial appointees to VPIC have to really be independent. Yes. Yes. Senator Colomer. Yeah, I guess so I'm still trying to get caught up here. What does that do to change anything? It doesn't it just means that the gubernatorial appointees really have to be independent. They can't say well I'm going to sign a thing that says that my my spouse is getting my spouse is a beneficiary and I'm going to disclose that and that makes them independent. By just by just admitting to a conflict of interest doesn't make you independent. You have right to truly be independent. Can I ask a question? Yeah. Does this effectively end the terms of people already appointed and there's a transition period in there. Okay. Someone remind me where that is. Should be in section 2 of the bill. I do have page numbers because I'm looking at it in a PDF reader. Okay, so that is let me scroll down there. It is on page 12. Section 2. Yeah, I think they were actually pretty clear about the transition from the current members to the transition of member terms. Okay. All right. So anybody else have any comments on that portion of it or where we are right now? Okay. Madam chair. Yes, I apologize, but I have to leave in about 9 minutes. Just I do. I do too. We know we are scheduled to end at at five. Okay, great. Sorry. Given this subject, we could be here all night. No, we are scheduled to end at five. I just wanted to make sure that we all saw this draft that Becky has put together and that and then on tomorrow, we will actually take testimony and talk about the changes that she's drafted. We're not going to do that today except to ask kind of technical questions about what does this mean and what does this mean? We're not going to get into the details of it because we have to leave in now eight minutes. Madam chair. I think our treasurer has a question. Her hand is up. I saw that. I don't know if this qualifies as a technical. I think it does. I think it's section five 472. There's a line 19 and it says the treasurer with the approval of the board and the commission shall adopt by rules standards of conducts for the trustees and employees of the board. And I think that that's I think since we when you spin this off, we won't be doing those rules and policies. So I think and again, I leave it to Becky, but I think that the treasurer will assist because we're staffed to the to the board of trustees, but with respect to VPIC, they would develop their own rules and standards of conduct and just separate those two because that's the intent of this and it would be kind of crazy for me to be developing their standards of conduct. I'm a member, but I'm not I'm not the staff support to that. Yeah, that actually is reflected in the language of this section is just dealing with the rules as pertain to the boards. The VPIC rules and I can point you to the page. Sorry, the VPIC policy section in section one have now been updated to reflect that VPIC will be adopting their own policies with respect to standards of conduct. So that is on sorry. The no page number is a problem. I believe that. Okay, fine. That should be something in section 7. Yeah, it's on page 9 subsection D. So it's in section on 523 line 15 line 15 line 14 subsection D. There's a new subsection entitled policies. So it has the commission. The commission is going to adopt adopt standards upon up for members and employees of the commission. Okay. Appreciate that. Thank you. Any other before we have to leave any other clarifications that we need here and then tomorrow we're going to I quite honestly don't remember what we're doing tomorrow, but we're doing this. We're getting testimony. Yeah. So we'll chair. Would you like me to make the changes that we just discussed now for tomorrow or just hold off on making any changes until you discuss it? You mean like taking out C and and the yeah. Yeah, you might as well so that we have them all together kind of sure. Okay. Great. Thank you. Um. So I apologize for not taking testimony this afternoon, but I wanted to make sure that everybody saw the proposals and got a chance to ask questions about the what they meant and clarifications of them. And I think that I don't see any other questions. So what I'm going to do is say goodbye. And because I have a meeting at five and I really need to take a little tiny break before before that. Thank you everybody. Thank you and we'll see you all tomorrow.