 This is a strike all amendment and two things that would change from the bill of introduced and we've got this amendment would get rid of the purpose in the 10th section and just get right into the requirement which would be in section one for the state ethics commission by November 15th to submit to this House GoVox committee a proposed state code of ethics for statutory enactment that would apply to the executive branch and the legislative branch for non-core legislative duties and then options for implementation and enforcement of that proposed state code and in doing so the commission under B would be required to seek input from the executive and legislative branches advocacy groups and the public prior to submitting those recommendations. Section two is the extension of the current funding source for the commission which is currently scheduled to run out at the end of this school year so this is the summit for another year with the effect of date on passage. And just I think that advocacy groups could include a lot of different, they could include the media, good government groups, municipal, it could include a lot of people. It just seems better than for straight advocacy groups then. Sorry, try that again. Anybody want to, would like to comment on this draft? Can I ask a question? You may ask a question. Okay, I had version 2.3 and I'm not sure what the difference is between the Friday version and the 3.1. We included the time for the purpose and five days we was redundant because it was also stated in lines 8 and 9 and 10 through 12. And we switched implementation and enforcement from enforcement and implementation. It made sense to do implementation before enforcement. So we switched those. That really was the only thing. So the only other thing, again, I don't mean to open this up, but judicial branch, we can't make references to that in this bill. So I think it raises constitutional concerns to do so. It's the same reason why this bill says for the legislative branch for non-core legislative duties. The judicial branch has administrative control over the courts of this state and disciplinary control over judges and attorneys. So attempting this general assembly can only control by statute what the Constitution does not. I think that language of the Constitution provides the judicial branch, particularly the Supreme Court, with the authority over judges. And what should be conduct that would subject them to discipline and how they administer their courts, including their judges. And that umbrella would also include attorneys. Yeah, with that language with, I mean, I think there is a distinction between administrative control over the judicial branch, arguably is a broader umbrella than disciplinary control. Thank you. Disciplinary control over both judges and attorneys. I did have a conversation with the court administrator out in the hallway today. I think I believe she's going to be putting some thoughts together on the suggestion I heard on the way to work today, that all of the statewide executive branch officials are suggesting that the code apply to all three branches. I do think that raises concerns. I expect the judicial branch to weigh in on this at a future time. On the letter. Yes. Because it very clearly says that the Supreme Court shall have administrative control of all the courts and disciplinary authority concerning all judicial officers and attorneys in law in this state. So they discipline all attorneys and all judges and have administrative control of all the courts, which seems to imply that they have been in control over their staff. Isn't that what Kennedy ran? That group oversaw the discipline of the lawyer of the state. Yes, it did. That was like Kennedy's. I can't laugh at that. But anyway, so I would actually think that ours is, if they want that in their letter, that's their letter, and they'll have to deal with the judiciary. We don't have to deal with the judiciary. Would a courthouse clerk fall under a statewide employee? Well, I would think that there would be a difference of opinion there, because it does say that they have administrative control of all the courts, which could be interpreted to mean that they also have control over the actions of all their employees. And I think that's something that the courts are going to have to work out with the statewide officers that signed that, but we don't have to wander into that at all. So what's our plan to respond to that letter given its address to you? What's your plan to respond? I'm not going to respond at all. I mean, what is there to respond to? I'm just asking. Is it online? It is online. I sent Doug Hoffer a note and said thank you for doing this, and I don't know what else we need to... Well, I think it would be appropriate to respond and say thanks for this is what we're aiming to do in 198, and the judiciary is not in our purview. I mean, you might identify that the Constitution explicitly says that we aren't able to... I guess we could do that. I think that would be helpful. Okay. I took this as just their letter saying they're going to abide by a state code of ethics. That's what the six people that signed it said. They're going to abide by the state code of ethics. Right. Well, I think... They're saying they will abide by a state code of ethics. Do they have to abide by a state code of ethics? The current state code of ethics? Well, it's a new one that's going to be developed. Enforceful. I mean, that's a conversation you're going to have in the future. Because under this bill, the commission is going to propose one with the police. And it's going to cover the executive and the legislative branch for non-court legislative duty. So the executive branch, does that include the state-wide office? Yes. Yes. And they're saying we intend to abide by it. So I think we can have this constitutional conversation now, or we can have it later after you get the proposed code. You could include the judicial branch now in this recommendation. I think at some point, you'll probably want to have a full constitutional conversation that includes the judicial branch to get their perspective. But I don't think we need to have that now, because we're not including the judiciary in ours. We're not mentioning judiciary at all. And the fact that they mentioned judiciary is their issue, not ours. I agree, but it's a letter directed to address to you. Right. And I think we should respond by letting them know what we're doing, and that in fact, constitutionally, the judiciary, nice for them to abide by that, but that our work can't include the judiciary at this point. And they didn't say it should. Okay. No, I'm just saying it raised it. It's fine. Yeah. It sets the expectations of the public, that somehow we are going to have a state code of ethics that also addresses the judiciary. And I think it would be helpful for the public to see a public response from you and Sarah that says, yes, we're moving forward on this, and we are unable to do that. Okay. I don't know that any public out there really cares, but we can do that. That's their, they'll have to deal with that. If the judiciary goes to all their offices and says, that's their issue, not ours. Okay. But we can send a letter to each of them, I guess, address it to each of them and say, I'll write a letter. And we're right with you if you want to do it with the committee. We're here. Well, when I write letters, I write it from me for the committee. That's right. Because it doesn't mean it's... But can we get back to 198, which is what we want to deal with, not their letter and what they think. That was nice of them to do it, but... In some ways, it's a continuing conversation. It's good because it reminds me why we're choosing to give this data to the commission until next year to come up with a statutory code of ethics. Right. Exactly. So we're trying to do it all this year. Right. Because that's some pretty basic stuff that needs to continue to be paid. So with that in mind, I'd like to move that remote overdraft 3.1. That's 198. Can you help me? Larry, did you have something to say? Yeah. I could be heard on that. Sure. Thank you. Thank you. We have to... We have to... How do we do this? Okay. Larry knows from the Ethics Commission. I have one major concern about the changes to S198, and that is the part that requires the Ethics Commission to submit to you options for enforcing and implementing the code by next fall. Well, I... And this is not a... This is more a political concern than a legal concern. I'm very afraid that if we are discussing enforcement at the same time we're talking about a code, that it will kill the code. I'm very afraid that the... there'll be so much attention to who is, you know, under the enforcement who might be the victim or the subject of enforcement and what that enforcement might look like that the focus on having a good working code will be lost. I'm very concerned about that. That's why we proposed it the way we did. That I think we really... And this is... This mirrors or echoes the comment that I made for S157, is really... It's a chicken and egg situation. And until we have a code that everybody agrees on, I think discussion of enforcement is premature. I understand and I share the desire to have something in place. But where we are right now and where we need to go and the route that we need to go to get there, I think, requires a step-by-step approach. And, you know, I... I was thinking back early when I was in law school I was given the knee-jerk liberal award for my class because I was always on the left end of things. And here I am taking a very, I think, conservative approach to this which seems out of character for me. I think the most realistic way to getting a code is to focus on the code and then have a discussion down the road about enforcement. It would be great if we could do it all at once. I don't see that happening. And I just hate to give anyone who might not be a firm supporter of an ethics code something to tie to it or use to defeat an ethics code. That's the long and short of it. So I'm sure everybody wants to weigh in on that. But I see this as it says that you're going to do a proposed state code of ethics. That's pretty clear. You're going to have a draft of proposed state code of ethics. That it's... I mean, it'll get debated and changed and wording will get changed and everything. It doesn't say you're going to have a proposal for implementation enforcement. It says you're going to throw out some options. It could be implemented this way. It could be implemented some other way. Maybe we should do it the way New Jersey does it. Maybe we should do it... That's the way I see that. So that because those questions will come up when we look at the adopting the code, I believe there will be questions from our colleagues and from us about what does this mean in terms of implementation or what does it mean in terms of where we're going to go. And I may be wrong, but I think that what we're asking you to do is look at different options that might be there. Not come with a proposal of how it would happen. Anyway, so I may be wrong about that, but... I think you're right. I agree. I would be... I think that people outside this room who don't understand the kind of mindy conversations we've had about this over the last couple of years think we're moving too slow. And I think they're right. And we are moving pretty slow to make this ethics commission as strong as it needs to be. And I think if we just do the code of ethics and then start a conversation about how we're going to implement it just I'd be really afraid that we're slowing it down too much. Because I think we've already slowed it down quite a bit. For a good reason, I'm not being overly critical. I think we've had reasons why we've slowed it down. But I think that to further slow it would be a mistake. I agree with Anthony. And it has been since the beginning in draft 1.1 and I'm trying to find the original that enforcement was mentioned. I believe but anyway it's in draft 1.1 and it is in draft as originally introduced it has that would be enforced by the commission. So I think how it's going to be enforced is critically important. And it's certainly one of the questions we have and have had. I guess a chance to have second eyes on this I'm questioning why non-core has appeared. It wasn't in draft 1.1 and it was in as introduced. Yes, but what is non-core legislative duties? The constitution says that we have control over our core duties. Our core duties are so anything that has to do with voting like conflict of interest and when you should vote all of that is a core duty that the constitution says we control ourselves. We rules for that a little bit. Yes, it's there. Our non-core duties are things like whether we're misusing state property or stealing money out of the these jar upstairs or whatever those non-core there's a list of about 8 or 10 of them that are specifically come. And non-core duties was in the original one and it wasn't in 1.1. That's what that means. And that's why we have the senate ethics panel or whatever it's called. There's a question about whether you voted on something that you were not supposed to vote on. It wouldn't kill the ethics commission but it would be dealt with by the senate ethics committee. Or if you took money for a vote or something like that then the core duty is the vote and creating legislation to vote on. So, that's why that's there. I'm sympathetic to what Larry's brought up. That said, I will probably go with the rest of the committee on the vote. You're suggesting, I assume, that we take out lines 13 and 14. If I'm looking at the right version. Yes. Yeah. Here's a minor point. It's just interesting in the dynamics of this. You're asking the ethics commission I'm assuming a fairly comprehensive list of options. They could come up with two or four. They're going to be debated. And we're going to change them. Well, I would be shocked if they weren't. The way I see it, the code of ethics that the commission comes up with. I'm imagining that's going to go to the floor of the senate in the house next year. We're going to be debated and adopted. The options for implementation enforcement are like a mini report that you bring back here to the committee to have discussion about. It's not necessarily going to go to the floor. At least I don't think so. Unless we get really company. And I think there might be just as much political fallout if we don't put this in here. As if we do. But I may be wrong. I may be wrong. In terms of the timing, then I don't see the difference between leaving it out and leaving it in. In the end, we have a code that we could get adopted next year. But then you're saying that the implementation enforcement will come at a later date. It's still going to be... It may or may not. It won't necessarily go to the floor in the same way as the package. But it might. It might come up with a staggered implementation. We don't know until we're presented with what there were. That's why having lines 13 and 14 is good because we may decide that we're ready to bring it off to the floor. Or that we're ready to bring it to the floor in stages. We have the code of ethics. This part will be... We would like implemented by this date and this part who is going to take longer to implement. So I don't know. But I think it's important to have that information. And really it's asking you to come back to some options. Not a recommendation and not a proposal but just some options. Your best thinking though. Right. I certainly have reviewed enough statutes to have some ideas and I can put together a list of things. Where I am most troubled is the idea that a conversation on the code will be distracted by a discussion on it. The conversation here in the building or the conversation. Oh, well I think we have to be responsible for managing that. Well, we can. Right. Yeah. Yeah. And the other... You see how well we manage. Let's say it has laws that affect other people. Right. We're good at that. So it's easier. I've never seen a piece of legislation before and I don't claim to be a fully informed historian on this that imposes or seeks input from an organization that is staffed by a half time one person no staff in usual. What do you mean? The statute basically says Larry give us the options next fall. With your commission. Well I'm doing the work. Right. And so I would much have preferred to say I'm happy to give you a list of options rather than to have it being a statute. It feels like I don't want to say a burden but it is a lot to put on a half time position person that's all. If you pass it, it'll get done. If you take it out, it'll probably still get done. Are there overtime options? No. Yeah. So I finished my hours for this paper early this morning and the longer I spend them, it's just the more more depth to the state of your mind. Yeah. Hopefully you have a lot of input from advocacy groups and others to make your job easier in terms of coming up with a forceful idea. I don't know. We'll see. I'm sure that some groups that we can have to be involved. I think there's very good models out there that we can choose from. Hopefully you don't have to reinvent the wheel. No. I don't see any reason why we would have to have a clear appearance is that the models are all over the place in terms of how far things are enforced and who is the subject to enforcement and what that looks like and whether, for example, if we're talking about the state officers, statewide office holders, would an ethics commission have a hearing and then make a recommendation to the general assembly and they would take care of the sanction and the commission or someone has that if they even themselves it's a long list of options that might happen. So I can suggest that this is effective upon passage. You've already done a lot of work on both of these, on the state code of ethics and on options and that's eight months before it's due. Assuming that you don't get 400 complaints that you have to deal with it seems to me it's doable in eight months and you could just call NCSL and ask them to send you a list of all the things that all the other states do and there's your list of options. So there's your list of options. I mean because you're not making recommendations. Right. I said that you will vote, you will do whatever you want. And we wish you well. Thank you. It's non-compensate as often. I'm ready. I know. No, I'm supportive of moving ahead. That's for compensation. You're asking for compensation. I wasn't asking for compensation just kidding. It's not a rational group. Well it's not a I think we're I think we're reasonably rational. We're just under compensation. Well don't anybody for a moment believe that the minute we start talking about enforcement we're not talking about dollars. Oh yeah, no we know that. And that's the concern. A dollar bill will kill the code. But we're not asking for a recommendation about we're just asking for some options that we could do and we may say the best option is to do it exactly the way we're doing it. But it's hard for us to make that first of all until we see the thing and then we look at the options. Anyway. Maybe suppose we go home for the year and talk with the precations maybe they'd be willing to invest at a higher level. No, they wouldn't. I know that. You know the opportunity here is great to build in mechanisms that require serious whole time. So you also might call UVM they have a couple different programs that have internships for students and a student might be a really good resource to do a lot of the research on options. Speaking of which we have two UVM interns right here who have just walked into the room recently. We have two UVM interns this afternoon Moira who is working with me. I'm Carter. So I'm also going to be working with Lucy Rogers on the social equity focus. So I see some of your colleagues might want to work with Larry. Potentially. And Richard Watt's program. We can put you in. Thank you. We have a promotion on the floor to approve draft 3.1 of S198. Okay. Brett. Yes. Clarkson. Yes. Paulina. Yes. White. Yes. Motion carries. And then I think we need to do the final motion which is to approve S198 as amended. I would say Brett. Yes. Clarkson. Yes. Paulina. Yes. Great. Would you like to drink with this? Since it was your belt. We have to look at it. I didn't think so. I was just looking at it. He was doing it. That's right. We've already signed it. This is true. Thank you. Thank you Larry. I appreciate your time.