 Good afternoon, you are with the Vermont House Government Operations Committee. Committee we're going to shift gears now before the 230 floor session to hear from Representative Donahue we have already taken a look at the the substance and the words on the page and I just need to let Representative Ganon know that we are coming back to S-25 right now and then Rep Donahue we will welcome you to give us your pitch on why you'd like us to consider this. I'd like Representative Ganon to be able to get back here though so hang on just a moment. He is in appropriations on another bill. Representative Anthony. Not to revisit your decision, but I assume it would be okay if Tucker actually started to figure out where he would go when we return to this in January in terms of what pieces are contingent on other pieces that we have agreed with him to delete or to go ahead with the technical changes. Nothing stops him from essentially beginning to create a draft that we will look at in January or is that just implicit in in our decision Madam Chair. Well, I would guess that if we're not dividing out the easy technical changes in order to move them now that he would want to have more guidance from the committee about how to move forward on another draft. It seems to be not consensus but the leaning of the committee towards delaying that I think we can give him permission to set it on the back burner. Let's see I have not heard back from Ganon yet. All right, I don't want us to take two excellent representative Ganon has run back from the Appropriations Committee down the hall so Representative Donahue take it away. Thank you. So I understand you've looked at the language and just a quick background. Obviously, I was disappointed yesterday by decision not to enhance the statute regarding the General Assembly's priority to not promote increase in use. So I did say a small way to still enhance that priority. And that would be to restore the Department of Health as the source of health information in the labeling requirements that were adopted by the house last year. Last year, your committee asked the Health Committee Health Care Committee for input on the bill and this had originally come from our recommendation that the health information should be developed directly by the board by the health department, not by the board just consulting with the health department. And that got removed by the Senate so obviously the question would be if they didn't agree why would we think there'd be a different outcome now what would be the point. And I think we've had a year's worth of history that tells us a lot about the issue of following the science. We've seen the difference across the country between following the science versus authorities that allowed other interests and pressures to influence what the health expert opinions work. In Vermont, we chose to follow the science the expertise of the Vermont Department of Health, even if there were some folks who disagreed and thought there were other entrance interests that needed to be balanced in. I think it goes back to therefore the Commissioner of Health should be the source of health warnings, not it being a board decision based only on consultation with the Department of Health. So the proposal only addresses those places where the House proposal had made that recommendation there are other places in the bill where there is in consultation with the Department of Health rather than warnings developed directly by the Department of Health but this proposal is only addressing where the House adopted that, which means the warning on labeling that's required under the statute by cultivators and by manufacturers, and storing the warning information to patients from the Department of Health under the medical cannabis existing statute which was removed by the Senate in its position and ultimately in the conference committee. So that's that's the background and and why I think it is a way that we can help ensure that accurate health information is what ends up rather than information that comes via a balancing of interest by the board. When we could choose to make it the health expertise of our Department of Health. All right, thank you representative Donahue questions from committee members for representative Donahue representative cannon. Thank you. And thank you representative Donahue for presenting this amendment this afternoon. Why do you think that the cannabis control board if it consulted with the Department of Health, instead of having the Department of Health design these warnings do you think there's going to be a difference, a different outcome with respect to the warnings. I think there could very well be because they will be hearing from and having pressure from other, other stakeholders, who may say, Well, you know that sounds a little scary, it might scare away some buyers, if they get that that full a set of information. I think the board is in a position where it's supposed to be listening to different input and consulting with the Department of Health does not mean following all of its recommendations. And I think this is an instance where it should be the health information provided by our Department of Health that would be on the specific health warnings that we're requiring. Thank you. Which which which was what we, which was what the health care committee recommended last year and which on that rationale last year that the government operations committee supported that language on that rationale. Now, and Representative Donahue, I realize that and I appreciate the work of the committee on health care to look at S54 last year. One of my primary concerns right now, given that we're within days of adjournment is that this could serve as a poison pill to the Senate. And I am truly worried about that. I mean, they were opposed this language in the conference committee just last summer. And I am not aware that they have changed their position today as of today. As I reference I understand that concern I really think that that the past year has taught us a lot and that we've seen the difference between states that balanced interests versus states that followed their health departments expertise. And I think we've all learned from that we all large variety of majority of Vermonters believe that our health commissioner was the right person to be listening to and that Vermont did well by following that. So, I can only assume that members of the Senate would also have felt that way and that that would affect their decision making about following the health science. So, Representative Donahue, can I offer a possible compromise. And I actually have not discussed this with anyone else on the committee so I may get in trouble for even. But what, but what if we had the Department of Health report back to both, you know, House and Senate, GovOps and House and Senate health care with respect to the collaboration between the Department of Health, and the Cannabis Control Board with respect to these warnings, so that we would have an opportunity to assess whether in fact the appropriate collaboration occurred, and whether the warnings that the Department of Health wanted were acceptable to the Cannabis Control Board and were implemented. So you're suggesting that we would specifically ask the Department of Health to come and tell us whether it was an acceptable collaboration. That's correct. Yeah, I mean I think that obviously that's not as clean cut as saying that they should do it but that's certainly a very reasonable way of, I understand the concern about the timing of the session and not, you know, not blowing up the whole process. So if the committee felt that that was, that was more acceptable and that was not likely to create the problems you're identifying I think it, at this point in the session it probably would be a reasonable way to address it. Thank you. How's the committee feel about that. I'm seeing some thumbs ups representative Higley has his hand up. I just wanted to say I think that's a really reasonable compromise and I can certainly support it. Okay. Let's see if we can speak with legislative council. And are you inclined to make a substitute amendment. Yes, I would be. Okay. Michelle just want to make sure that you understand the direction the committee is heading. And that is to ask for the Department of Health to give us a report back to both House and Senate government operations committees, January 15. I mean we're not going to get to it on the first day of the session and will those be developed by then so that the feedback is representative of an outcome. I don't know for sure, because I don't think it had I don't think that that packaging material and inserts and educational material would necessarily be required until sales start in when in May that would be my concern I would push the date back a little bit more distance so that the process that actually occurred to be able to, you know, tell us how they felt the process went. So Michelle, do you have a sense of the timeline or do you have it in front of you or if we just wait long enough representative again and it's going to look it up. I mean, I think they right now they didn't change anything with regard to the deadline for rulemaking and so rulemaking is supposed to be completed by March 1. And so, you know those types of things with regard to what's going to be included in the labeling right that it's going to be in the rules so you can do it in January in the sense that they will be well underway with rulemaking and the proposed rules will be out there or you could wait until the final rules are adopted. It's your choice. What would be the estimated date for final rules being adopted. It's supposed to be March 1. I mean, I, March 1, March 2, yeah. Yeah. Okay. They haven't asked for more, but you know, realistically, you know, we know how long rules can take and especially on something like this where there's going to be a lot of comments a lot of public input, you know a lot of voices, you know, March 1 might be a good way a little bit of a delay. I don't think it's going to be a good place. I don't think it's going to be a good place. I think the first would sounds like a good place. And then if there's a delay, we could, you know, say hold off a little on the report, but it's probably a better place to start than January 15th. That's my reaction anyway. Make sense to the committee. All right. So we don't have a substitute amendment in front of us. But I believe since we all understand what we're going for, we're going to have to make sure that we get the right. And we do need to be back on the floor in about seven minutes. So I would prefer to take a straw poll and let. Representative Ganon and. Representative Donahue and. Legislative council. Work on the final nuances of it. Does that make sense? Committee. Okay. I'm going to give our physical thumbs up on the screen. So all those in favor of asking for the department of health to give us a report back in March as to their collaboration on the design. I'm seeing 11 thumbs around the table. Okay. Excellent. I thank the committee and particularly representative Ganon for helping us figure out a way that we can. Have a check back on this important issue. All right. Michelle, is there anything else you need from us before we sign off? Probably not. She's probably already ready to start drafting the new amendment. So. All right. So committee. Thank you so much for your hard work this afternoon. And that completes our committee work for the day. And chair. Yes. I see representative. Again, I may have the same question. Do you want to. Advise the speaker of the status of. Because I'm not sure, but I think it may be called up soon since it was supposed to be up this morning. Yes, it is. I think it's supposed to be first on the docket at two 30. So I will certainly communicate with her. Madam chair, I just wanted to update the committee on house appropriations, house appropriation reviewed H. 135, the ethics commission bill. And approved on a straw vote. The. Half position. So we're ready to go. On that as well. All right. I will let the speaker know that we are good to go on that as well. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I will let the speaker know that we are good to go on that as well.