 Welcome folks. This is House Corrections and Institutions Committing. It is Thursday, March 24th. We are going to be working on a bill, a Senate bill that's been sent to our committee past 173, which deals with the Legislative Advisory Committee on the State House and sort of reconfigures that. And also talks about the position of the State Curator. So we have with us was back with Becky Wasserman Council that will give us a walkthrough of the bill. First, and then we'll go to our Sergeant and arms and then our curator. So that's the welcome. Becky Wasserman legislative council. So this is going to walk through s 173, which pass of the Senate and has been renamed an act relating to the State House art collections. So in general, what this bill is doing is making various changes relating to the oversight of the State House art collections. So first it is making some changes in statute to the legislative membership of the Legislative Advisory Committee on the State House. By decreasing the House and Senate members and adding the State Curator. Also changing some of the role of the committee from being more of an oversight role, rather than just an advisory role with respect to the approval of the State House collections policy and then it also makes some changes in statute to the duties of the Sergeant and arms and the State Curator with respect to the State House art collection. So I can just start in section one of the bill. Is the section that addresses the legislative advisory committee on the State House so in subsection be you'll see that the membership reduces the number of House and Senate members to three each which it was previously previously for and it subdivision seven adds the State Curator. And last, I believe it was last year or two years ago. The General Assembly actually added those two legislative members so this is decreasing it back down to what it previously was. Sorry, was there a question. I wasn't sure if I know. I'm on page two of the bill. Sorry, I'm page one of the bill is also in subdivision six for the Commissioner of Buildings and General Services that that member on the committee is also allowing that this is can be represented by a design committee and not just the Commissioner. Page to make some change. Make some changes to the requirements for the committee meetings. So, first, it says that when the General Assembly is not in session, the committee shall meet at least one time. And the total number of times that the committee and any subcommittees can meet is kept at six times per year unless there's some approval of the speaker and the pro tem to meet more than that. There, the language on in subsection D also strikes out the reference to the meetings being at the State House. There's no longer a requirement that when the committee meets it has to be at the State House. Page three of the bill is amending the functions of the legislative advisory committee on the State House. So, the committee is authorized to oversee all activities related to State House collections. Previously, this was referred to acquisitions, but it has been sort of a referral to collections which my understanding is a broader representation that acquisitions are part of the collections. And the committee is also overseeing the care of paintings and historic artifacts and furnishings. This all used to be a consultation role. But the committee is still maintaining its consultation role with respect to the building and its interior refurbishing renovation, preservation and expansion of the building and its interior. We have a question back here. Is oversee a term of art do we know the difference between oversee and consult with that actually does that mean in practicality. Well, the. I mean I think that they have more of a decision making role in in those aspects of the State House art collection, whereas consultation, I think the idea here is that they would be consulted somebody else has that duty and they are consulted on how it is implemented. Yes, I guess that's what I'm asking is, who has the final say, if there's disagreement, does the committee have the final say or just the other people involved. For the collections, the, I think we'll get to this later on with respect to the duties of the state curator and the, the sergeant at arms. The, the, the state curator collections policy. Page six. Sorry, go ahead. You can wait. Oh, okay. So, in terms of Subdivision to and I think this goes to this, this question as well that the committee is now get rather than developing a plan for the collections or commission of artwork. It is approving a plan that plan for commission collection or commissions of artwork for the State House collection. And this language was added a couple years ago that it has to represent Vermont's diverse people in history, including diversity of gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality and disability status. We have some questions, but Sarah and then Karen. You may or may not know the answers. I'm just curious about where this came from because a committee it sounds like, well, maybe it'll be revealed later but what was the thinking behind a committee who doesn't have his necessarily credentials and history curatorial expertise or what was the, was there discussion about that in that committee in the Senate or but it seems, it just seems to me like this, there's a big role with the State House advisory committee there's one piece of it that we're talking about. We're going to be looking at a potentially big construction project in a certain kind of expertise. And this is about a committee that's looking at the, the, the collection, and it's now basically able to override the responsibility to the state curator is what it sounds like. I mean, it's gone from advisory to not being advisory. So I can't really speak to the intent of the Senate on this but so the advisory committee does have the State Curator on it now. So the State Curator does provide that expertise to the committee. And I think well, yeah, I think the statutory roles of the State Curator and the Sergeant at Arms have been sort of refined and more focused on what they are both responsible for. And the role of the legislative advisory committee, I see as oversight just with respect to this collections policy and approving it and giving the legislature. So that's a voice in that, in that collections policy but with respect to the other duties of the Sergeant at Arms and the State Curator I actually think those two roles are more defined in this bill and it's clear what they are responsible for. Okay, I'm sure we'll have more discussion. Yes, and I don't know if this is further and I couldn't see it but is there a timeline of when this plan for the collections needs to be done. Um, so that was, I'm just pulling it up in the 2020 capital bill. The, there was a direction for the legislative advisory committee to consult with the State Curator to develop a plan for the acquisition or commission of artwork for the State House collection, and a report was due in 2021 on this. So I think this goes to the chair's question earlier of whether someone was working on this that I mean the there was language requiring it I don't know what the status of this is now. And I think perhaps the this language, this change it the statutory change right now is trying to address moving that project along. So Becky in the capital bill in 2020 was that the advisory committee that would be doing that plan and not another committee. Yes, so it was the just pulling up the language the legislative advisory committee on the State House in consultation with the State Curator shall develop a plan for the acquisition or commission of artwork for the State House collection that incorporates the intent and policies that were laid out, and that dealt with the sort of diversity of the State House art collection. And the committee, the legislative advisory committee would consult with the public and relevant experts to research and recommend, you know, historical leadership stories that would be included in the State House art collection. The report was due on our before March 1 2021 and that was to be submitted to your committee and the Senate Committee on institutions with the plan and recommendations for any legislative action. But that never happened. That's my understanding that that didn't happen. I think that, you know, I wasn't part of it but I think that people were were and perhaps are working on it but it a report to my knowledge was never submitted to your committee. There's a timeline for the report and then I was also wondering the timeline of when the committee would approve the report so there might be some room in there to add some more clarity. Yes, and I think that the language on the report from two years ago. I think this new language doesn't contemplate the committee approving the report. So to the extent that a report is now being worked on and will follow what was required two years ago. I would have to go through an approval process. Where's before it didn't. If this bill is enacted. Keep going back. So, in turn back on page three of the bill, a subsection be the language. The committee's recommendations shall be advisory only struck out and that is because there is some aspects of the committee's work that is not just advisory. So, that language is moot. Subsection C of the bill authorizes the committee to establish subcommittees as needed both permanent and ad hoc and requires that a collection subcommittee specifically in combination with experts develop a collections policy for recommendation for the committee. So I think the intended process here is that this subcommittee is coming up with the collections policy that is required to be approved by the the committee as a whole. And then this is what the state curator will be adopting. So it only deals with a selection policy in terms of the art pieces itself. Correct. The collections policy. I, I think maybe the state. Yeah, that the curator could speak to this more I think collections is sort of like a broader term that can include acquisitions and commissioning of work and other things. You know, it's like a, I mean, yes, this is a pun, but it's a term of art that that several things would be included in that collections policy. Make clear where the dollars are coming from to purchase the art. There's got to be some financial interest here somewhere because not all the arts going to be donated, or maybe not all the art will be paid for by other entities. What about the acquisition and maintenance of the art. There's nothing in the language that specifies that I, I, my understanding is that the current acquisitions policy or policy or a way that artwork is acquired now, or commissioned might have some procedure for sort of accepting artwork so it's possible that this would too but it's definitely not specified in the law. Okay. Okay, so page for subsection D is requiring that the Sergeant and arms to state curator. The president of the friends of the Vermont State House and the chair of the joint legislative management committee, execute an MOU to coordinate the policies oversight and care of the state house artwork collection. Then we can move on to section two if there are no questions there. And section two is amending the duties of the sergeant at arms. So, subdivision six is limiting the sergeant and arms responsibilities to maintaining the state house and its furnishings in good repair. And have requiring a consultation with the state curator. And the language on providing security is moved to a different subdivision on the next page at top of page five so the sergeant arms will provide security for the state house pursuant to the duties of that of the sergeant So this is sort of moved and it's just technical to clarify the current responsibilities, but what it's doing is removing the some language that might be in conflict with the state curators curators responsibilities for the furnishings and other items in the state house like draperies rugs desks. So this has always been an issue between who has jurisdiction over the furnishings in the state house. The drapes the rugs the desk is it. Is it the sergeant arms. It's the curator. Bts gets involved sometimes the curator is under the commissioner bts. So there's been in the past. Some conflicts over this. So this is an attempt to really clarify those roles between the legislative and executive branch because with a curator being under the commissioner bts the curator in a way is part of the executive branch. So this conflict and then to stay within the historical aspect of the building, which is what the curators role is may come into conflict with sometimes what we need furnishings or do our work. So whenever there's any renovations like when we renovated these rooms. Yes, we can do some furnishings like our desk and chairs of may not that are not historical, historically correct. But when you're looking at the color of the rooms, what are carpeting or that type of thing. You really want for the lighting, you want to bring back these short aspects of the building. The curator gets involved bts gets involved. So this is clarifying those roles, or it's an attempt to clarify those roles. Okay, so subsection C on page five is also clarifying one of the sergeant arms responsibilities with respect to the sergeant arms is not responsible for structural repairs capital improvements, or for maintenance or curating historic State House the historic State House and its collections. So this is adding in the curating aspect to the State House and the collections aspect which is clarified in the next section with respect to this, the state curators responsibilities. We have a question back. Yeah sorry my question actually goes back to be. I'm just wondering where it says it's about accepting gifts. I'm wondering like I think about the, the pages or the people that worked downstairs with the sergeant of arms and like I know for example a member of our committee is very generous and always brings a box of donuts to each of the groups of pages. Would that technically be violating that because you're accepting a gift or would there be an exception for like consumable foods or something like that. So this is, yeah, this is current law, and I usually the gift policy. Actually, I, you know, I don't want to speak out of turn on this, I think that the de minimis gift is probably fine like a donut or a piece of candy, but I also think that there might be a specific policy on this so I don't, I want to see what there is, and I can pull that up and get back to you. Okay, I would just like to know because like someday I might want to bring in cookies or something and I don't want to be doing something. All right, it just it's not clear. So the federal government we had guidelines, you could accept gifts that were up to X number of dollars or donations but not good seed and they were, I'm sure we got something in the state, it's got to say the same. Yeah, and generally for the executive branch there is a gift. There's a statutory section and 32 vsa section five on about acceptance of gifts to the state and gifts under a certain monetary threshold don't have to go through that acceptance policy. And so I guess, I'm assuming that there's something similar for the sergeant at arms I just, I don't know what it is so I don't want to guess at what that threshold would be but generally speaking, something like a piece of candy was would probably be fine. It was awarded very clear, not accept any compensation, but if there's a little wiggle room in that in terms of small edibles then that's good. Thank you. I depends on the type of edibles you're giving words. Let's go on to the next topic. Section three is amending the state curators responsibilities. So, top of page six, the state curator is responsible for oversight of the historical integrity of the State House and its collections of art decorative arts and furnishings. So, this is, so this, the sergeant arms did have a reference in, in, or currently has a reference in statute to maintaining the State House and its furnishings and good state of repair. And this is the sort of clarifying that with respect to furnishings the state curator is overseeing the sort of historical integrity aspect of those furnishings and collections of art which is different than what the sergeant and arms is doing. With respect to visiting public. So the interpretation of the State House to the visiting public through exhibits publication tours and other means of communication. There is no change to the, the responsibility with respect to the acquisition management of in care State House collections of art. And new responsibility was added in subdivision for for oversight and management of the state's historic and contemporary art and collections and state buildings and on state property and I think this is acknowledging the state curators role, not just in the State House but in other state buildings and state property. So section C is changing the reference of acquisitions policy to collections policy, and is saying that in accordance with the plan and upon approval of the legislative advisory committee on the State House, the state curators shall adopt a collections policy so going back to section one, the subcommittee. The collections of committee will develop the collections policy the committee at on as a whole will approve that policy and then the state curator would adopt the policy. I have a question but it's up on number four. So the curators going to have oversight and management of the art collections and our state building. And on our state property. So when we put in a piece that is through our art and state buildings. I mean, we could have a statue and a kind of a building like at the library complex of the pure residential we've got some art pieces that are within some of our state office buildings it is now the curator that would have responsibility of maintaining those. Yes, and I think that perhaps a curator currently does this already but it just was never specified in statute that that was the role of the state curator. But this, this language is explicitly delegating that responsibility the state curator. Seeing a line item and somebody's budget of dollars to start maintaining those pieces of art that we've been purchasing and installing over the years that the art state building process has been in place because some of that. Some of those art purchases have been probably 2530 years old that are now meeting some care. So I can start seeing a line item somewhere is somebody's budget for this. I'm just putting that out so people can. So this is going back a little bit but as we're going through this it sounds like one of the reasons for this to this bill to come to be is to look at the diversity of the collections and through the lens of the history and celebrating diversity. And so I guess this goes back to page three of this under functions of the committee and it's the bottom of the page on to. This is I'm realizing this is a theme that's coming up on this, where it says that the policy show be developed in coordination with experts. Was there any like experts experts in what area is it experts in diversity experts in art and history whatever is, or is it up for interpretation. Because it doesn't specify I think it's broad enough to include any of those options. If you wanted it to include specific types of experts you can make that explicit in the language. So that's something that I would like to have more conversation about if there is a piece of like we're trying to get this collection to be more died celebrating diversity and the history of Vermont that we might want to add more detail in there. And to add to that, the language about developing the collections policy from two years ago does specify the type of experts. So, and that was session law for for specifically developing this policy but it does include Vermont historians and diverse community leaders. Right. Like there's no connection of referencing that in this bill. No, because this is just the statutory language giving the responsibility for the collections policy to be approved by the advisory committee. Another language was the direction to come up with a more diverse collections policy and it had more detail on what should be included in that policy. And that was in the green books. The other language did not want. So whenever you put anything in the green books, it's law. And sometimes when you list things, it in essence is more limiting. And sometimes you use broader language because you know it's going to change over time, or you can include more folks so that's that's something that the legislature legislative committee always grapples with the elicit. So we can flag that. Because once you put something in law, it's a little different than session law, it's there. And then if you want to change it, it's much more cumbersome. Sarah, my question can wait. Okay, can you go over. See on page six what the process was and, and who has what responsibility you did that but I was still thinking on number four. So, so on page. Page three. You'll see that the collection subcommittee of the committee in coordination with those experts would develop a collections policy that they recommend to the committee as a whole. The committee as a whole is responsible for approving a plan for that plan for the collections policy and then the state curator on page. Where is that page six adopts that that policy upon approval of the committee. So the advisory committee approves the policy, and then from there the curator then adopts. And then it is the curator that then carries out that policy. Yeah, so the curator has responsibility for the oversight of the collections of art and decorative arts and furnishing so that the curator is essentially implementing the collections policy. So there's no broad legislative input. It's just a handful of legislators six legislators speaking for the whole body and the whole building. There, there's no group of legislators speaking for the whole body. There's no general assembly as a whole doesn't weigh into it is what I'm saying. You've got six legislators total that are making the decision for the whole building. Correct with respect to the collections policy and then there's also the MOU which has the chair of the joint legislative management committee so the legislature does have a role with respect to that as well. But not the legislature as a whole that chair of that committee is, you know, the representative of the legislature. And then this would take effect in July of this year. Yeah, so that was the last section is the effective date. It's busy. Sorry, my son is playing with trucks right outside the door here. That's fine. Make it real. That's fine. Questions. Oh, Becky. Wow, everybody's so enthused. That's where my questions are for the other folks. I think Becky's done a great job in locking us through the language. One question on the language, which somebody mentioned already that on page three. I think I know what's meant, but it doesn't seem to flow a plan for the collections. And for the commission of artwork or including the commission of artwork. You're word smithing. It's word smithing. Right. That's what we're talking about. Right. Okay. That's fine. Number two. Number two. Section two. Okay. Does that, does that trick anybody else or am I just. It is a little funky. So the role of. When you say the committee here, Becky, you are referring to the advisory committee. Correct. Or the subcommittee. This is the advisory committee as a whole. Okay. And the advisory committee needs to approve a plan. For the collection of the art pieces as well or the commissioning of the art pieces. That's the intent of that. Correct. Or commission of new artwork. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. It doesn't have to be new. Well, but I mean, the state house. Yes. And maybe the state. The curator should. I'm weighing on this, but I. It's also possible that the commission of artwork would be part of the. Collections policy. So maybe it's not necessary to refer to the commission of artwork. But the, the commission of the art. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, just. Okay. Kurt. So which one of you both started on an arms of a curator, which one do you want to both come out? Yes. I think with the kind of a tandem. Yeah. Work on this. Yeah. I think David worked on his killer, right? David has more invested things to say that is it okay to say it. Madam Chair of Sergeant at arms. And I think that this all sits well with me. David and I have been working well together. And we were looking forward. We were looking towards the future. Because David's getting old. So we, I think that both for ours, both of ourselves feel like it was really necessary to do that. And I'll just cook to one more thing that the chair was saying. In years ago, just a simple example of the Senate chamber and the beautiful chandelier that hangs there now started an arms. And it ended up in a garage on Baldwin Street. So that sounds crazy, but it could still happen today. So that's what we're trying to avoid. And from my perspective, all the changes that Becky had talked about. I think uncomfortable with. How are the duties of the sergeant at arms and the duties of the curator. How they interact here in the building. In fact, in the simple terms, the inside of the state house has always been under the authority of the sergeant arms, who is an officer of the legislative branch. The exterior of the state house has always been under the jurisdiction of the department of buildings and general services, which is an executive branch function. And when my job was first created nearly 40 years ago. Yes. I go back as far as Alice. We're all. We're all. Nobody really envisioned my job. And I think that's what I would say in the, what it has to come and it has in fact, in a de facto way, always certain a certain way. But only because I've kind of ignored statute. For many of my years, because I had to. So I think what Janet is referring to is. The collaborative nature of the two of us together is allowing this to finally be rectified the way it ought to be. In other words, not having the sergeant arms in charge of everything and the state curator essentially serving within the building. In a subordinate position, but sharing that authority in the way that it should have been done. And it took a lot of years to understand how a complex building like the state house should be managed by both branches of the legislative and the. Executive branches. So when my job was. First. Created within the department in part because they wanted actually my job to have responsibility. For all state buildings that were historic, not just the state house, but in reality over the last 40 years, it has been principally the state house because back then it wasn't as recognized as a state house. It wasn't as recognized as a bona fide museum. Hiring a curator was a brand new thing, you know, not knowing quite what it means for the state house to be seen as a museum. Today we were way past that. I think nobody questions that really anymore, which is wonderful so that we can actually move on to the challenges of creating policies that make a lot of sense for this building. If in fact it is a museum and should be managed as such. And the, you know, I've had to work with quite a long list of sergeants at arms over the years. Some of them have acknowledged that role. Others have not. So happily we're at a moment when I have this amazingly collaborative sergeant of arms here who is actually willing in statute to release a little bit, just a little bit of her authority within the building so that there's a more comfortable fit between the state curator overseeing the historic integrity of the building and its collections and her rightful role, which is everything else, which is a lot. Particularly deeping up, I will say that this bill actually addresses Janet's job description of by actually making it clearer that if you can imagine this, the old language in my opinion did not really make it all that clear that the sergeant arms was in charge of security for the building, if you can imagine, they had thrown the word security into a list of unrelated tasks. And now there's new language that specifically addresses that in her description, if you notice. So it furthermore, until Chris Cole came to this committee, only what probably five years ago, I wasn't in statute at all. So the language that is currently in statute was something that this committee worked with Chris Cole to ensure. But the one thing that didn't happen at that time was addressing this issue, who has the authority within the state house in terms of its historic collections and its integrity. That was not rectified, but this bill does that. And I think that is by far the most important part of this bill, why the authors of the original bill that was submitted in the Senate were amazingly responsive to our desire to address that when the original bill actually did not. And so this is a very different bill than what they started with in the Senate. But it goes, it's because, frankly, the authors listened to Janet and me as we talked about what really needed fixing as particularly I envisioned an end date for my tenure here at the state house. It isn't going to change the way I function, frankly, but it will certainly set up a much better scenario for the second curator, which at times not been sure that there necessarily would be a second curator. So that really is so super important and something that I'm very grateful to the authors of the bill, but also to these committees, your committee, the thoughtful questions that I was just listening to tell me how far this building has evolved and the occupants of it and your recognition of what the state house is, this complex entity that is your workplace, but also a museum. It's really gratifying to be there and hearing your engagement with these very important questions. So thank you for that. David, can I just tell you what? Yeah, hang on Mary, we'll let Janet finish and then we've got some questions. So I just wanted to add this that in section nine of the Sergeant in Arms it does says perform such duties for the benefit of the legislators as may be required by any duty authorized committee thereof. So things will come up. It is still giving the legislature a voice of what is happening here in the state house but the broad language would be like saying one of the single use bathroom that we just put in and BGS wasn't able to help entirely with that. It was a coordinated effort with BGS and the sergeant at arms to do what the legislature wanted us to do. So there is that avenue, but just want to add that. So we have some questions Karen and then Mary. Thank you for explaining kind of the background and how the relationship between the different positions and stuff has evolved. And I always appreciate when folks kind of think ahead of being like, how do we maintain this? Even if the people, the actual people aren't there because we want the system to work. So in reading this looking at this over again, it seems like the MOU part is really key then because that's what's going to create the path of like, this is how we're going to work together going forward. Even if it's not these specific people. And so I guess I'm looking at that. Like, does that give the language that's there? Do you feel like that gives enough? Should there be more detail? That's where I'm because I hear what Madam chair was saying earlier too, but we don't want to be so prescriptive. But I am also hearing that we want to make sure there's enough framework there that if two brand new people are in this business, like they have the guidance. You're, you're right. The exercise of writing an MOU is really does rely very substantially on the parties that are involved and what they're willing to agree to in terms of identifying the touch points where each of them has a responsibility and where does their responsibility and somebody else's begin. And that can definitely be tense. If the parties are not as collaborative. If it wasn't for Janet, quite frankly, I would be a little more nervous about that process. But she in our working toward the outcome of this bill. I, I'm completely confident that all of the parties named there are going to be able to agree very easily on where those, where those lines should be drawn and identify that in the MOU so that it's clear to the people that follow. You're totally right. It's really about the next people in our jobs and making that clear for them. And that, that's why that's such a critical part of this bill, I think. But MOUs, you know, are only as good as the people that are invested in creating them. So they hold you to something, but it's not the whole, the whole thing. And when do you think you would be able to create it? Like if this past, did you have an MOU, you know, this year at some point or? I think so. I don't think it would be difficult at all. Yeah. Okay. Mary and then Sarah. Yes. David, I just wanted to take this opportunity. To thank you. I have witnessed firsthand in my 26 years of serving in the legislature, your eye for details, your amazing hard work and your dedication to preserving the historic integrity of this amazing historic building, the state house. So I can only thank you. And I hope this process or this bill will help. As we've always done, you've worked wonderfully with your partners in this. But thank you for the amazing job you do. Thank you, Mary. Great. Thank you, Mary. Sarah. That's great. It's, I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mary's comments too. And as a newer legislator, it's, it's appreciated how evolution has come into being in the care that both. Sergeant on the curator gives the building. And one of the, I think you heard with my questions when we were walking through the language with our legislative council. You know, I think I come from this, having worked in museums and understanding collections, but I think that's what I think is really important. And I think that's why we, we don't always want to collect, you know, there's all people give gifts. Sometimes you don't always want the gift. It's just like, you know, it's like, but also, so I think this is, this is great. And also then, you know, we talked about how we diversify the collection. And I think could be helpful for this committee to understand. I mean, I, you know, there are questions that come. Oh, is there, is this going to be something that comes up in our budget. But my understanding is that the friends of the state house is really important. I know a little bit about that, but it might be helpful to clarify that. And then I also know separately, it seemed like somebody asked about state and art buildings. And there's a whole program that the Vermont Arts Council also plays there. And I know you play role there. So, and they're part of this group, but maybe I think, you know, the, the, the idea of collections and how we do this, I think it's so important as we're, we're really a history museum and a cultural museum that, you know, can change and evolve. And does it mean you surfing or doing away with past history as you've come in and told us, as you're talking about this plan. But I think one of the questions is about like, how do we think for this, the state house, we have a tradition of expecting donations or people to do things for free sometimes. So, I'd love to hear. I think we could better understand the role of the friend. No, I, I recall that actually a few weeks ago when I came in to talk about the Capitol bill, I was, I gave you a little bio, I think, just because frankly, I'm in such a reflective mode these days. The pandemic, you know, maybe you're there too. An opportunity for a lot of reflection and an opportunity to not just reflect on the things I've always reflected on, but for a change, thinking about my own life, for example. And I started here 42 years ago as a research assistant on a project that was funded by the National Endowment for the Arts and the Vermont Arts Council, which by the way, in sections six, page one, the director of the Vermont Council on the arts should probably finally be changed since 20 years ago, they changed their name to Vermont Arts Council. So we should make that change finally to the stats. Anyway, the Arts Council sponsored this because they saw that the State House was a museum, and yet there was no management of it for the many people who back then were still visiting, nevertheless. And that's how I started. But I won't name him, but an intransigent sergeant. I stood in the way of a bill that was introduced by the chair of this committee, who was the chair of the State House preservation committee, which was the old name for what is today, the legislative advisory committee on the state up. And that committee became the key committee that advocated for a curator, which was the number one recommendation. There should be a curator. There should be a friends organization that allows for private investment in the State House, and the State House should be restored. Those three things. The legislature agreed with it, but behind the scenes, the sergeant and arms was sabotaging the curator provision. So it took another six years before my job was actually established. And that was the, you know, that was the environment. The State House had been kind of badly, badly renovated in the early 70s, and the 70s was all over the building. So we needed to purge the State House of the 70s, bring it back to its 19th century glory. And that took 20 years, frankly, working with this committee, and the, the friends group raised the first big chunks of money privately to make, to show people what those rooms could look like. And we talked about the governor's office, which is where that started. And that's where we're going to be revisiting the carpet, the drapes, the things that are ephemeral, that have now worn out, frankly, are looking a little sorry. And how do we keep that cycle going? That ensures that we never lose the glorious interiors that we gained through the restoration process. So that friends group, once they helped restore the State House, is now my right hand for helping us with the further mission of what a museum is all about, education. And so educating the public in various ways and the audience, the diverse audiences for the State House by, you know, they paid for this book. This was not a state publication. I wrote the book with Nancy Graff, one of Vermont's best historians. And this is the story of the State House and the story of the restoration of the State House. And it's now widely available here. If you don't have a copy, I'm actually going to leave this copy in this room as your room copy of intimate grandeur. So go ahead and send that around. And I thought I'd bring a smattering of our brochures because this is the audience. We're reaching out to people in different ways with the Capital District, meaning all of the galleries in the Capital District, not just the State House, but including the sculpture garden at the Arts Council and other ways of reaching out. And our audio tour, which during the pandemic was the best way to reach any visitors once they started coming back to the building last July, we couldn't do tours. And we still can't do tours, really. But the cell phones that people carry are the vehicle for an audio tour. And it's that easy. So we never was, I'm more grateful that we invested in that means of showing visitors the State House. But now we have the biggest challenge of them all as I looked ahead to leaving in a few years. And that biggest challenge is looking at the State House with fresh eyes. We are no different than any other museum in the country that has gone through a reckoning. And I am incredibly grateful that we get to look at the State House with a totally new lens by examining how it is that Vermont's increasingly diverse population ensures that they feel this building is theirs. And that is the mission of not only our changing collections policy but an interpretive plan that my office is working on now and has been throughout the pandemic. We took the pandemic seriously and the interpretive plan, let me explain how this bill works in terms of that. It's been in the works, it needs a little more time but we will be finished by July of this year. We will have a draft interpretive plan in the hands of the legislative advisory committee on the State House. Now the original bill that was proposed in the Senate had the committee changing to a State House oversight committee and all of us were a little uneasy about that. So it's still an advisory committee but the language that you and others were kind of asking about clarifying who approves or who develops is the way I think it should be and that is that the onus is on my office to develop an interpretive plan to develop a collections policy not on the committee itself because the reality is my office manages the collection. My office would be the one that would be most concerned about audiences and how we address those diverse audiences. So I think this bill has the right language to ensure that the State Curator is responsible for most of this, not the committee itself. However, they are the place to go for approval of anything regarding the collection of anything regarding a disagreement that certainly could still happen between the Sergeant and Arms and the State Curator. These things are gonna still happen. There's always tension between security of the State House and how the historic integrity is going to be preserved. There will all tension exist if you can imagine between me and the IT staff. I'm not super crazy about these things all over the building, but we're in a pandemic and I'm among, I assume that you're as amazed as I am that things like this can still allow you to operate in a pandemic, in a global pandemic so it's all about making compromises with what allows the State House to function successfully and how do we hang on to the beautifully created historic interiors that still allow the State House to read to those audiences as the great intimate and yet grand building that it was intended to be when it was built and still is today. And that's the hard work and I think you're all asking the right questions. Who has responsible for what? And yet I like the language in here because it does make it clearer that we each are accountable to the Legislative. It's not just the Legislative Committee, it has the three members in each body but it also has the Director of the Arts Council, the Director of the Historical Society. Those people have always been on the committee since it was the State House Preservation Committee because they're the ones who were most concerned about what had happened to the State House in the 70s and how they wanted to try to get it back. So David, just to follow up a little bit, the MOU was not yet written so I'm not imagining you can really answer this but there is probably a role for the friends of the State House in the commissioning of new work or helping to, if that's one of the things that will be within the scope of that group. Is that correct? That is correct. And they don't want to be responsible for restoring the State House all over again. So there are lines, I think we've had conversations in this committee in the past. Can the friends pay for this? Can the friends pay for that? I think we have to be careful that the people of Vermont are ultimately responsible for the most important things that maintain this building that belongs to everybody in Vermont, not just you people, this building more than any other building in Vermont belongs to the people of Vermont. So going forward, the friends don't want to be responsible for maintaining it but they would be responsible certainly for enhancing it, particularly for visitors. And that relationship, knowing where they should be responsible, for example, we're hopefully when we're allowed to have the events at the State House again, we're going to be scheduling the unveiling of the portrait of Alexander Twilight, which is going to be in the main lobby. We're looking forward to that. That is paid for entirely by the friends. And they did that at my request. So we have a couple more questions. Kurt, you have your hands up. Kurt, Michelle, and Marcia. This might be covered by the question that Sarah just asked, but you have a subcommittee developing a collections policy and an MOU that's doing oversight of the collection. Let's say I'm trying to envision a situation where this might come into play and a new curator is hired and it's a maple torch fanatic and really likes portraits of that elk or something and says, yes, this fits into my diversity policy. I'm going to put this portrait in the entryway. Who then says, wait a minute, that's too controversial. We don't want it. And who is in charge? Would that be in the MOU with the oversight that would be developed so that the actual pieces of art would be vetted by more than just one person? Yeah, here's the thing. I think the legislative advisory committee does have approval of things that would be in particular a permanent fixture in the collection itself. So the maple torch suggestion, which might actually bring me out of retirement as I would cause a coup d'etat to occur and the curator would be gone and we'd start over. That's my question. You're totally right. Who's in the driver's seat? And Sarah is quite correct. The collection policies themselves, by their nature, tend to be that what's different about what we're creating right now as part of the interpretive plan is a collection policy that will be conservative. And the conservatism is because we don't have all the money in the world to take care of everything. We don't have unlimited resources. We don't have all kinds of things that one thinks of in maintaining a collection. And we have a building that's already full of things. So we also have to recognize the collection that exists is one that we still have to maintain, even if it isn't deployed fully throughout the building. So storage, you have to consider all of these things as ancillary to a collection policy. But that collections policy in its conservatism would also allow the committee itself to second guess, I think, a decision that was somewhat controversial. And that in that, in that setting and with the committee's at the table, in other words, not just legislators, but the director of the Vermont Historic Society, the director of the Vermont Arts Council, these are people who quite frankly I would consider to be expert in certain areas. And that's, that's what would be the debate, right? And it may be a work of art, we're not going to, you know, maple torque is really old at the point. So it's almost like, right? The challenges of the future are who knows, right? But, but this would be, this would be in the policy or the MOU. Yeah, the policy would give the curator as the first filter the opportunity to inform a potential, you know, proposal that they didn't think this was appropriate for the state house. And it wouldn't go to the committee unless on that curator was convinced this was in the best interests of the state house and its collections. So in the one thing about the collection policy that is the reason we're doing it the way we are is you start with the interpretive plan. And the collections policy is a tool to build that interpretive plan. So anything that does not fit into that plan of interpretation is probably not appropriate for the state house. So what if, and the following up, what if the advisory committee doesn't support the interpretive plan? With a subcommittee. You're saying the collections policy builds on that interpretive plan. So the curator would have a problem if the committee did not agree. Yeah, I mean, you've got the subcommittee of the advisory committee that is going to develop a collections policy that is based on the interpretive plan. So if that subcommittee doesn't support that interpretive plan, then what happens? Because that subcommittee will develop a collections policy that then goes to the larger advisory committee for their approval. That's the way the language is structured. Yes. I would say that even that hint that the curator's interpretive plan or collection policies were in trouble with certain members of the committee would not be a good thing. In other words, we talked in the senate about whether this should be an advisory committee or whether it should be the ultimate authority. And we were more comfortable leaving the, particularly talking to, I'm sorry, Becky, about the different between the advisory committee and the oversight committee, for example. We were convinced that, frankly, the way people operate, any advisory committee is listened to. And frankly, has been giving approval all along. Our current collection policy was adopted by the legislative advisory committee on the state. That was long ago. And it's a very conservative document that basically was what Sarah suggested. Our ability to say no to lots of things is enhanced in the current collection policy. The new one is what I would call more of an aspirational collections policy that is attempting to address the vibes of an old 19th century building that has a preponderance of white men on the wall. And attempting to address the subliminal messages. As important as those men might have been, as former governors or military leaders, those are the two categories of the vast majority of our portrait. As important as they are, is that the message that the state house should be conveying to every reponder, and we resoundingly say no. But how to address that and still allow the state house to read the way it needs to read as a grand building is a little tricky. And getting there will take time and money to achieve these things. So the great thing is we will have a plan, how to fulfill that plan, it will be broad language that allows for different ideas to fit under themes that we are identifying. And those themes are about democracy, about what this building is all about and always has been, and how to do that in the 21st century so that women in particular but also other groups feel this is their building just as much as anybody else. So I'm going to push this along so we have two more questions. You've done her? For now. I'll be quick. This is building on what you were saying. His bill is important thanks to all of you who worked on it. As a teacher of history who has been teaching history to Vermont youth for many years, I know very well that what we choose to share from our granddaughter, she sees a lot of old white guys on the wall and whether they were great white guys or not, that's all she sees. And in terms of our future and in terms of our present, there are more amazing people that we need to have reflected in our spaces and I'm so happy to see us moving in this direction. So thank you. Absolutely. I will leave these as well. These are the printoffs that we used in the building. And from the Janice perspective, we're not lingering in the building too long. So this is our Appanaki exhibit downstairs. This is the women in the state house exhibit. And the lobby is a good example of what I hope the entire building will eventually be evolving toward. So the bill has two different tracks. The first is the building and the second is the building. So we're figuring out the collection policy and the policy of the arts. Art displays in the bill. That's the first piece. The other part is not really connected to it, but sort of in a very thin thread. Is the powers and duties, responsibilities of the sergeant arms and the parators. So there's two second things in the building. The first one is the power and duties of the sergeant arms. And the second one is not connected to either one. The MOU is under the statute that sets up the advisory committee, but it is not referenced in the powers and duties of the curator or the sergeant arms. And it's in a different statute. So that's a concern. And Karen brought up about the MOU and how that ties in with the curators and sergeant arms, powers and duties, but there's no reference. So the other part of the language is, is in a different title. It's entitled to. And that's connected with the advisory. Where your powers and duties are entitled 29. So we can get lost. That's a concern. There in terms of the structure. But we've got two different topics here that we're dealing in this bill. We need to be on the floor. We have a joint session at 1030. With the election and retention of our judges. So we do need to get to the floor. So folks on YouTube, we are done. We should be back here for the committee. Please come back after the boat tallies have been announced. Probably about 1130. Authorities.