 Good morning. You are with the Vermont House Government Operations Committee. Committee, welcome back. We had a long time on the floor over the last week, which has meant a little less time here in committee, but today we need to jump back into it. This morning with an introduction to the ethics bill that has come over from the Senate. And then later this morning, we've got some amendments on some of the many bills that we have up for action on the floor. So what I'd like to do first is welcome Christina Sivrett of the Executive Director of the Ethics Commission to come and share with us sort of a view of what is contained in the Senate bill and help orient the committee to some of the issues there. We'll go over the language a little bit later this morning with, yeah, please come and join us. We'll go over the actual language a little later this morning with Legislative Council, but for now I'd like to welcome you to help us understand what's contained in the bill and any of the pressure points that may have come up in the consideration of the bill on the Senate side. So welcome. Thank you. Thank you very much for having me and say I thank you very much for taking this under consideration. So early in the process, so we appreciate it. So we've been having a lot of discussion with the Senate about committee over the last few weeks. I'm not sure if I did send out a brief summary of the bill so I'm not sure if everyone has had here. Okay. I apologize, I just, I don't know what to say. So just to give a brief overview about governmental ethics in Vermont, right now there's a fairly piecemeal approach. So the branch of government has their own policies and procedures in place. In some cases they're overlapping, in some cases they're not. So what might be considered, you know, definitely misconduct in one branch of government may not be addressed at all in another branch of government. So what this code of ethics seeks to do is to create a baseline for governmental ethics, ethical conduct that applies to everyone equally in all branches of government. So if you're a paralegal judiciary, you're subject to the same standards as a paralegal working for the agency of education. So what we have before us is a fairly modest in terms of codes of ethics, uniform codes of ethics, it's a fairly modest one. It is solid. It's based on several years of research on best practices. It's been out for public comment and it's been discussed quite thoroughly over the last few weeks on the Senate Government Operations Committee. I understand a lot of, say, discussion about specific language and what topics should be covered and concerns of multiple parties have been addressed. So going through it, I think the first main point that we feel is a very important point is that the code of ethics covers everyone in all three branches of government. I think in the past there's been some discussion whether there should be exemptions for certain branches or certain categories of people. The Ethics Commission feels very strongly that that would not be appropriate. Again, this is a very, it's a strong code of ethics, but it's very basic. So it's a basic standard of behavior that everyone should be able to live by. The, I won't call them exceptions, but when it comes to legislature, so there are core legislative functions that are protected by the Constitution. So in those instances, any official action that falls under the category of a core legislative function or duty, those will remain with the house, policies, procedures, rules that are there. Once an official action is not considered a core legislative function, then it would fall under the code of ethics. So for example, if you are accepting a gift, that's something that anyone can do. You don't have to be a legislator to do that. So therefore the code of ethics would apply and any other statutory rules that are in place over the acceptance of gifts. But when something, for example, a conflict of interest implicates whether or not someone, a legislator should vote on an issue, rules and policies and procedures would apply. So just very quickly going through what the code of ethics covers with not their applicability. The first is conflict of interest. It's a pretty standard conflict of interest provision that says that if you have a direct or indirect interest in a matter, then you should recuse yourself. There are certain situations where you may be able to go forward with an action, say it's a de minimis action. It's a silly procedural. In those cases, once you've identified the conflict of interest and you decide that, yes, I can go forward, I can act impartially, then there is a requirement to file a written statement by saying why you think you should be able to go forward. This can just be like a one page statement and it isn't something elaborate and that can be filed in accordance with the rules. The rules, the policies and procedures that the agency governing the action has in place. So, so the basic principle is directing unethical conduct. If you can't do something yourself, you can't direct someone else to do so. No giving preferential treatment to any particular person or a group unless it's allowed by law. No misuse of position for financial gain. No misuse of information for your own personal gain. No misuse of government resources. There's limitations on the acceptance of the general rule saying that you should not be accepting of a new public servant unless it meets one of several exceptions and that would be accepting gifts of diminished value. They've got a previous relationship with someone or their family member, their friend, something that's available to the general public. No making unauthorized commitments on behalf of the government unless you have permission to do so. Employment restrictions. So there are two categories of employment restrictions. One is while you're serving an office. I think that's germane, especially when the state like Vermont, whether it's a small state, people are part-time legislators and they serve in government part-time. So basically the restriction is you shouldn't be taking outside employment that makes it impossible or very difficult for you to do your job as a public servant. Post-government restrictions. This basically say that if you've worked on a matter while you're in government, when you leave government you should not switch to the other side. You should not be opposed to the state on an issue where you were representing the state previously. And so this came up in the context of the judiciary when we were discussing it with the Senate committee because there was some concern that how this would apply to attorneys. So it is actually a very limited exception. So say if you're a prosecutor and you prosecuted a specific party, you've been in court, it basically just means that you can't become a defense attorney in the next month and then represent that same defendant who prosecuted them. And then in general, you just need to comply with laws, rules, and policies that are already in place. And there is a section on the simpler protections for people who submit complaints to the ethics commission. Also right now, the ethics commission does not have investigatory powers. We don't have enforcement powers. So nothing in this bill will change that. Basically what happens now, somebody submits a complaint to the ethics commission review it to make sure that it implicates ethical conduct. And if it does, then we refer it to the relevant agency. So for example, if we have a complaint about somebody working for the agency of transportation, we review it to make sure it meets the standards for addressing ethical conduct and then we pass it over to DHR. That is a very quick review. I hope that's what you're looking for, but I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you so much. That was exactly what we were looking for. And we did a good job of sort of condensing it into the high price. So committee members, questions? Representative Gannon. Thank you for justifying today, Christina. I know we talked about this on the phone, but I just want to get it on the record. The gift amount is $100. I was wondering how that was arrived at. Sure, so I think originally, so the original amount was $20. And so that came from the federal code of ethics. There was an agreement on RM that $20 was quite low. The Senate committee was a bit concerned that that was preventing, say, giving, you know, gifts, say, flowers to somebody. If there was, you know, somebody who was a support and wanted to gift her flowers on a special occasion or, you know, for example, if someone close to them had passed away, that wouldn't be sufficient. And so, honestly, this was a bit of a last minute change. I think it happened the very last time that we met. And so there's discussion about what the amount should be. We arrived at $100. I'm not sure how tied people are to that exact amount, to be honest. I know the other commission wouldn't be bothered if it was lowered, but we did agree that $20 was too low. There's the same restriction for food, too. It's $100 of food, which is actually a lot of food. That's a lot of food. Or a really expensive restaurant, I suppose. Any other questions? No, thank you. Representative Higley. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks for being here. And the question I have is on number five. So no improper preferential treatment. Can you give me an example of what that might look like? Sure. So, say, I think this came up in a phone conversation with someone, there's a question about how you treat constituents who are asking for assistance with an issue. So if you're giving preferential treatment, say you're only giving assistance to your friends and family, that's preferential treatment that would be disallowed. But assisting a constituent in general, because you would do that for any constituent, it would not be preferential treatment. Other questions from committee members? So, Christina, misuse of information, which we discussed on the phone would include insider trading, which is trading on non-public information about a public company. The challenge I have here is unlike Congress and unlike the SEC where I used to work, where you had to disclose every single securities transaction that you ever took, we don't have a disclosure system. So how would we know if somebody was misusing information? I think we're talking specifically about the legislature. So when we're talking about conflict of interest that might implicate someone's ability to vote, the Code of Ethics is not going to specifically address that situation to be relying on the rules and positive procedures that you already have in place. And so under the Code of Ethics, if someone identifies for themselves or somebody else identifies a conflict of interest, what you would do in that situation is you would recuse yourself. And so you would recuse yourself by making a public statement. That's what it says in here. A public statement doesn't mean you have to go on the news and make a public statement about it. It means that you tell your supervisor or in some way let others know that you're recusing yourself and why. If you feel like you can still be impartial and go forward, then there is the written requirement where you write down like, this is a conflict of interest that I've identified. And moving forward, I still think that I can do this. This is why it's not filed. It's available for the public if somebody would like to look at it. I'll also say that there are the financial disclosure statements. So that elected officials or certain categories of elected officials and executives are required to file. And those are posted on either Secretary of State's website or also on the ex-commissioned website. And so that's another place where people might be able to see what public servants financial interests are as a certain category of disclosure and a certain category of public servants are required to meet those disclosures, however. I do think it's an important point to note that a lot of the interpretation enforcement of the Code of Ethics is gonna be left where it is now. So a lot of questions that may arise, those will be questions that will remain to be resolved within the agency that is covering the public, where the public servant works or is covering action in question. So let me give you a concrete example. We're in committee. We are discussing a bill that will benefit certain public companies, say technology companies. I'm in a very limited group of technology companies. We voted out a committee. It goes the floor. It's successful in the House and Senate. But one or more of us decides to trade on that information before it gets out into the public eye. So yes, I mean, that would be misuse of public information. And so I'd say like, because there's no enforcement with the ethics commission in those situations, what you have in place now, you have the House ethics panel, you have the Senate ethics panel. So it'd be up to the person in question to identify that conflict beforehand or say somebody wants to file a complaint, to file a complaint with the panels as they exist now and raise the issue. And then the interpretation of whether something unethical had happened would be left to you to have the ethics panel or the Senate ethics panel and as well as the disciplinary measures. Here's my problem. Having investigated multiple insider trading cases in my career, usually people don't come forward and tell you that they're trading on insider information. And unfortunately, no one else knows they did. It's actually, to conduct an investigation requires you to actually start finding who traded on insider information, which is usually not public in nature because it's contained at a brokerage firm. So it is hard to do that. And I mean, the reason I'm just raising this, this is an issue that the United States Congress has been dealing with and has actually passed new laws which require substantial disclosure by members. And having gone through when we stood up the state ethics panel, the opposition in this body to disclosing information about their financial transactions. I just, I'm just wondering how you enforce that or at all. Yeah. And I think right now the answer is that, you know, the ethics commission and under this particular code of ethics, it doesn't address that particular problem. So that would be something that had to be addressed at a later date. There was interest in the part of the legislature and in addressing it. I mean, obviously the ethics commission would not object to there being stronger financial, it's just not something that it's complicated currently with the code of ethics. And the, you know, ethics commission doesn't have that type of power to investigate any type of complaint, you know, instead of trading or otherwise. Thank you. Any other questions, committee members? Representative Hooper? Existing amount is $20 now. I'm wondering if Molly is gonna have to give the serve back. Ha ha ha. So what you, what representative Hooper is referencing is that representative Higley gifted each member of this committee a bottle of his very fine maple syrup. So I don't know, I don't know that that. We're in an attempt to influence our votes, I see. I don't know. I mean, maybe you'd pay $20, you know, at an airport gift shop for, a fancy bottle of like $10 or something. I was gonna say, he gave it to you folks and you just let me. Ha ha ha. Truth comes out. Okay, and I apologize for being late at a prior meeting. I'm not sure if this is an important question to ask here, but like using what the vice chair scenario was that if somebody was to bring a complaint against someone, a member say for inside trading, What's the obligation of the member to basically defend themselves at that point? In other words, a person could lodge a complaint and then you sort of take it and go with it. But the person that the complaint is lodged against, what resources and what's the expectation that they're going to have to go through to defend themselves up until the complaints found to have merit or not? Sure, I understand. And I can say like in this situation, so the ethics commission does not actually have an investigatory power. So if somebody were to file a complaint against a legislator, what we'd do is review it, it's confidential, and they would pass it over to the House ethics panel, and then it would be up to your existing rules, policies, and procedures. So whatever happens now is what would happen in the future if this was passed. Okay, good. As chair of the ethics panel, I can probably answer that question. So what would happen if you were, you can seek advice of legislative counsel in assisting you with preparing a response, which is the first step in the procedure. If we get a complaint, we ask the person who was the subject of the complaint to respond in writing. It's your choice whether or not to respond, but you can seek legislative counsel's assistance in doing that. And you know, if the ethics investigation goes further, so there's actually an investigation or a hearing, you can see, you can have legislative counsel assist you. At some point, you may need to consider hiring outside counsel to assist you. Very good. Thank you. 100% of McCarthy. I wanted to ask if there's anything about the draft bill, and I guess because it relies on House rules, probably not, but that changes the ability of somebody who's in a class, like say a teacher voting on the entire teacher pensions policy that we do to continue to serve as a citizen legislator and weigh in on those things. When they're not specifically, when they're a member of a class of teachers or a farmer voting on current use policy, for instance, if they're going to get impacted the same way that anybody else who is in their industry or in their profession, that they can still serve in the general assembly and weigh in on those issues. Sure. So I think that's a two part question. So number one, you are correct since we're relying on House rules, that will be up to you. The Code of Ethics isn't going to apply in those types of situations. However, there is language in the Code of Ethics to say the conflict of interest does not include any interest that is not greater than that of other individuals generally affected by the outcome of the matter. So that would be Representative McCarthy, rule 75. And you're right. If you're part of a class, you're still allowed to vote. I think there's a lot of confusion around rule 75, as you may remember last year. A number of people claimed rule 75 in the floor of the House when we were voting on military pensions. That was an incorrect use of rule 75 because they were all part of a class. Thank you, Representative Gantt. That is the exact kind of thing I just wanted us all to kind of be on the same page about as we're looking at the policy. Representative Hooper. If I may inquire of the Vice Chair, did not pointedly use the word represent when you answered? The question from kind of across the table when you said about consulting. Well, no, they're your legal representative for the purposes of responding to the complaint. I mean, at some point, you know, if the ethics panel falls as its procedures, you go from just having to draft a response to being part of investigation, to be part of a hearing, to going to the full House to determine. So, I mean, at some point, given the seriousness of the matter, you may want to consider seeking outside counsel, especially if, and in some instances this happens, there are civil actions or criminal actions that are resulting in the ethics complaint coming to the House, because they sometimes can get complex. Thank you for clarifying that. Representative Lefebvre. Thank you. So can, from what we're looking at here, and I guess, could I get a little bit more clarification on rule 75 and what the, you said that we'll go to House, the little rules, right? No. One more. Well, how will rule 75 and what we're doing right now? The Code of Ethics would not apply to our voting. That's a core legislative function. Nothing's changing from a vote. So anything that's a core legislative function is only, only our ethics rules, our House ethics rules apply to a core legislative function. Okay. And the absolute core legislative function is our votes. Okay. Thank you for that. No one's going to, there's no debate there. Okay. Thank you. No. Other questions? Representative Anthony. Thank you, Madam Chair. I and Ms. Sievert corresponded in the context of potentially what Vice Chair has put his finger on when there may be overlapping, if you will, standards for a particular bit of conduct. I'm particularly interested because it crosses the separation of our government. This is applicable to all three branches of government as I read it. The scenario that Rep Ganon mentioned may occur with legislative activity. But it seems to me more pernicious and more difficult is if it's within the Executive Branch. And I know the Executive Branch has its own code of ethics, again, just as difficult to, if you will, penetrate that if someone doesn't self-report or declare their financial interests in some way or another. I'm not sure that the answer of where the process goes would be the same because the Executive Branch does not have, I don't think, the benefit of legislative counsel. So for me, this is, I support this, but it's even more problematic as applicable to the Executive Branch than the legislative, it seems to me, in exactly the same fact pattern that Rep Ganon, that is to say, seeking some kind of advantage from non-public information. Not that there's anything obvious that we're going to do about it here and now. It's just a very tough nut for sure. Thank you, Chair. People in Vermont wear a lot of hats, so we'll call this a hat question. If you're seated as a legislator, you're also a city counselor or serve on some other non-state board of commission that you may gain access to a training or cast vote on something that implant. How extensive is the, or how far reaching is the hat that you wear here in terms of your behavior and other functions for other bodies? I think so, in answering your question, I guess you're talking about cases where somebody have multiple part-time employment and how they intersect with each other? Maybe not even in employment. I mean, I sit on the VPIC, so I get invited to go to trainings cost-free. I am Chair of the Retirement Order in Burlington, so I get solicitations from that, none of which come from my relationship with the voters in the state of Vermont, but it's free stuff and there's stuff in here that talks about free stuff, so where's the line? Right. Well, I think so. If you're specifically talking about free training that's related to, you know, if you're part of a board or board of commission and you're invited to a free training that's related to that board of commission, that would fall under something that you are equal to accept related to your official responsibilities, and so I think what we have now is we have a general rule on GIFs that says like, you shouldn't accept one and then there's this list of exceptions, so your first point of reference would be to make something fall under an exception, so if you're invited to a free training that's related to your profession, your job, your official role, that's clearly an exception, you can accept that. I think when you get down really into the weeds about like, where the line is, and what you can do actually is call the ethics commission and ask for advice about what we think and the answer is it's not binding, you don't have to follow it, but I do think this is a situation where it will come up when somebody feels like there's a problem and then, you know, files are complained and then over time I think the rules will become more clear as these issues get discussed more frequently. Maybe this is a good moment to turn out, I think Jason Grammint, he's the executive director of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission, I believe he's here today, Rhode Island also has a part-time legislature, it's another small and living one state, it's very similar to ours, so he has a lot of experience, 10 plus years of experience, and actually dealing with these situations on the ground, so I do think he may be able to weigh in as well and he's also the past president of the National Association on Governmental Ethics, but in general I think that if something, because there's a legitimate purpose to the GIF that you are being offered and it relates to your official position, I don't think there's much in the code of ethics that would prevent you from accepting that, it's something that's being done in your official capacity to inform your official role. And again, I'm sorry if this question has been asked, so how far, how broad reaching is this when I see that it applies to all elected or appointed officers, are we talking select boards, mentor school boards, it's just, go ahead. All right, only state employees. Very good, thank you. As a hello up to that, what is the reason it doesn't apply to all elected offices, including select boards and school boards? Because we don't have jurisdiction over municipalities. Okay, thank you for being with us, please stick around as we hear from some other folks. I think first I'd like to welcome Paul Erlbaum, who's on our ethics commission. I'd love to have you share your thoughts on the bill as it's come over to us from the Senate. All right, I'd be glad to. Can you hear me okay? Yes, we can. Great, and thank you, Madam Chair, for this invitation and gathering us to discuss this. If I can take just a few minutes, I'll point out that it's just over two years ago when Governor Scott and all the other statewide office holders signed a letter, I was going to read a couple of quotes, asking this committee and the Senate Government Operations Committee to work quote, this legislative session that was two years ago, toward a code of ethics for public servants that is backed by the force of law. The letter went on to ask that the legislature establish a code of ethics for Vermont's public servants in all three branches of government. So all through on during 2020, the Ethics Commission worked hard, did a lot of research, consulted with our expert, T.J. Jones, who's with us today, as well as seeking public input. We did so much research and we came up with a draft, we submitted it in November 2020. I think it's a really good draft. The Senate Government Operations Committee did a thorough and extensive review, got input from quite a number of people. And over the last two months, the Senate Government Operations Committee requested and considered several redrafts. And frankly, I'm delighted with the final product. It's pretty much as the Ethics Commission proposed it two years ago. And this draft is modest and concise compared to the 45 states that have statutory ethics codes covering all three branches of government. So frankly, I'm just delighted with this draft. I think that's enough for me. Everybody else could get into the weeds better than I, Mr. Graham T.J. Jones and Chris have done just great work on this. So thank you so much. Thank you for being with us this morning. Committee members, any questions? All right. Excellent. So Thomas Jones, Professor of Public Policy at UConn, would love to have you share your thoughts on the draft that we have before us. Sure. Thank you. My name is Thomas Jones. You can call me T.J. I'm currently a Professor of Public Policy at the University of Connecticut. In my former life, I was the first appointed Ethics Enforcement Officer of the State of Connecticut, and also the Executive Director of the California Fair Political Practices Commission. So I've been privileged to work with the Commission for several years now, and thank you, Paul, for your kind comments. The draft that ultimately has come through the process is a good draft. I mean, it is reflective in many ways of some of the very good codes of ethics across the United States. It is a modest code in a variety of ways, and I'm happy to go into detail if that's relevant. But suffice it to say that this is a good step forward for the State of Vermont to join the other states and the community that they form with strong ethics codes and independent ethics oversight. I'm happy to answer any specific questions at this point in time, or as we go throughout the process. Great. Representative Lefebvre. Thank you very much, and thank you for being here. And if it's allowed, Madam Chair, we would be able to get a couple of quick examples of how this is being compared modest, like just very quick examples. Certainly, one of the fundaments of strong ethics codes is kind of the three part that the triumvirate of processes. And with the stronger codes, the independent commissions have the authority to provide advice, provide training, and also provide enforcement. And this draft certainly allows for the first two, but the latter one is not so much included. The other way that this strays from a number of the codes is the independence function in a lot of the stronger codes is more fully fleshed out. For example, independence of budget, the commissions can set their own budget with legislative approval, but it takes the governor and the executive branch out of the process. And also, there are a number of provisions that are stronger in other states, but suffice it to say that the big one in terms of modesty is that there still is no meaningful enforcement authority. And that's, you know, as a step forward, this is good. It's my understanding that ultimately the legislature would consider having that independent enforcement authority. And this process by which it appears that if this is enacted, you'll have a rare opportunity that a lot of states don't have, which is to see how this sorts out in real time as opposed to putting a code together in response to some scandal that has happened in the state. Representative Anthony. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for advising us near extensive experience in two areas that I'm curious about. One is, can you, do you sense that the sections, which as was revealed to us, really are dependent on self-declaration or affirmation or providing information that otherwise would be confidential about yourself and your dealings commercially, financially? Is there something that could be, should be stronger in the sense that a failure to disclose is clear enough that in and of itself would be a violation? That's the first part of my question. The other is the strength of the request, demand for information that otherwise also would be a confidential, oftentimes called discovery, but I'm not sure I want to be legalistic about it. It's just, I want to be sure that there can be no misunderstanding of what it is that you're supposed to provide voluntarily. And then in the end, if you are asked pointedly, did you or didn't you do this or hold this position or this financial interest, that there's something as strong as it can be that you are obliged to answer those kinds of questions forthrightly, completely and truthfully? I think I understand both questions, but if you don't mind, I'll take them in reverse order. And the first, the second one I understand to mean, is there any point in time where in responding to discovery or other outside compulsion to provide information, someone might unwittingly trigger the provision that prevents disclosure of confidential information? And the answer to that is no. And the reason for that is the both the Commission and the Senate Government Operations Committee recognize this exact thing when they put together the definition of confidential information. So the definition of confidential information in the current bill is tied directly to state statute. And so when it's tied to the state statute, it gets all the protections with regard to what confidential information is that the statute provides. So there should not be any situation where the proper disclosure of information to a court or other compulsion would trigger the provisions with respect to confidential information. With regard to your first question, I think I understand it to mean that is there any time where a good faith or innocent failure to disclose a conflict of interest would cause a problem? And that's an excellent question. If I have, have not understood that correctly, I'll I'll let you jump in and stop me. But typically with this draft, I mean obviously there's there's no enforcement provisions for this draft. But there's there's typically in terms of of these types of provisions that there's a a cure potentiality, meaning that if somebody innocently forgot, say in filing a financial disclosure form, forgot to include some investment that they were unaware of, the cure provisions usually allow for that to be put in. When an enforcement code should it come down the pike, it contemplates how to deal with that situation, this unwitting disclosure. There's many of opportunities that that some states have adopted that put into those types of provisions and intentionality clause, meaning that if it's unintentional, then then there's no enforcement penalty that would be attached to that. But that's getting way far ahead of where we are right now. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Jones? Excellent. Thank you so much for being with us today. Thank you. Right. And lastly, have Jason Grammett, past president of the Council on Government Ethics Law, and would love to have you share your perspective. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I'm Jason Grammett. I'm the Executive Director of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission, another New England state. It's not so different from Vermont, I guess, depending on your perspective. I'll tell you just a little about the Rhode Island Ethics Commission. We were established in 1986 through an amendment to the state constitution. It's an independent and nonpartisan Ethics Commission that has jurisdiction over all state and municipal officials in all three branches of government. We have the authority to adopt Code of Ethics provisions. We also enforce them. We administer financial disclosure, issue advisory opinions, and provide training to everyone who is subject to the Code of Ethics. And just so you know where Rhode Island falls within the scheme of things, Rhode Island's Code of Ethics is regularly ranked among the strongest Codes of Ethics in the country with pretty powerful provisions and pretty strong enforcement authority. I'm also the immediate past president of an organization called COGEL, which is the Council on Government Ethics Laws. COGEL is a international organization made up of member agencies from the United States and Canada. And the mission is to support and provide professional development to government agencies like Ethics Commissions that provide the mechanisms of successful democracy. So Ethics Commissions and campaign finance agencies, elections agencies, freedom of information agencies. And so through that, and I continue to be on their board of directors through that organization, I do have a pretty good understanding of how Codes of Ethics compare across the United States and how Ethics Commissions operate. So I'm here today. Thank you for inviting me. I'm not here to advocate for passage or non-passage of this bill or any bill. I'm really just here as a resource to you. I provided testimony to your counterpart in the Senate. I'd be happy to provide some observations about my review of this bill and how it compares to my own state and other states. I'm available to answer any questions you may have along those lines. And I really just want to be as helpful as I can as you consider adopting a Codes of Ethics in Vermont. I do have a couple of observations I could make first about my review of the bill. The first is that as you know, most states have Codes of Ethics that apply to state officials and public employees. And it's not a new trend. It's something that started in the 1970s after Watergate. So many states began adopting Codes of Ethics and creating something like an Ethics Commission in 76, 77. Rhode Island did that also, which became the Ethics Commission in 1986. So there's a long history of Ethics Regulation and conflicts of interest enforcement in states across the United States. As to your specific proposal that I have reviewed, it is not out of the ordinary, really in most ways. And it is consistent with what other states adopt. And of course, every state is a little different. And so you wouldn't expect the exact same Codes of Ethics from in every single state. But the things that it contain, the provisions, the prohibitions are fairly standard across the country. Recusal and conflicts of interest, provisions on misuse of position, misuse of confidential information, gift limits, limits on outside employment, post government service limits. These are all standard provisions in a state Codes of Ethics that would apply to most if not all state officials. And then to use a word that I've heard both of the prior witnesses use, I will say that it is a fairly modest proposal when compared to other state Codes of Ethics. But that might be the appropriate way to start. You're starting, you're adopting your first Codes of Ethics. You'll get it on the books. And then if it needs to be strengthened, you'll strengthen it. If other provisions need to be loosened, you'll loosen. And that'll be through the legislative process. I could give you, like the last witness, if you like, I'd be happy to share with you some of the ways that it is a little more modest than some others. But again, just because they don't go as far as some other states don't mean they're not worthwhile. And definitely a step in the right direction from my view. So I guess I'll just end there and be happy to address any specific things you'd like or answer any questions if I can be of help. Representative Anthony. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is really for any of the three of you. Commissioner from Rhode Island just set the historical tone for why the 1970s have been the sort of beginning of interest in this whole topic, not surprisingly. I'm just wondering if there isn't a way to anticipate before the OG, I should have realized that this was going to happen kind of moment to work on this as a living document and avoid the historical OG wish we had kind of moment, that is to say, strengthening by historical discovery of a bad experience. Is there any way to think about progress over time for a document like this that is modest in its beginning? And I'm not arguing it. It should be otherwise just so we don't end up with the 1970s experience of saying, how could we have let this happen kind of deal? Thank you. I think I can address that a bit. What we found is that the code continues to get better and better. And it's true that some of the major changes to most codes of ethics happen after a scandal. You realize that the code didn't cover something that it should have. And I think that's just the nature of a lot of legislation, not just in ethics. We have been able to strengthen our code of ethics throughout the years in different ways. Certainly sometimes it's come after a scandal. Rhode Island is no stranger to scandal, I'm sure, as you know. But there's also the opportunity and you have a great ethics commission and you've got a great committee here and other legislative committees to regularly look at your codes and compare them to others and to adjust it and make adjustments throughout. So it's not just in response to scandal, but your commission certainly has the ability to continue monitoring developments across the country and make improvements in disclosures and transparency and conflicts of interest regulation. If I may just chime in, one of the benefits of being a part of this process is that in certain limited but significant ways, Vermont has been able to somewhat stand on the shoulders of giants in terms of drafting this. That some of the provisions, although not all, have been able to learn from the lessons that other states have had. And one of those examples is the gift provisions that a lot of states start out with a general blanket prohibition of gifts and find out over time that that is impractical in the real world. And so with this code, we have an omnibus gift provision like other states have that says you can't accept gifts, but then the exceptions therein rely on some of the best practices of some of the states with the stronger codes. Again, Vermont has this rare opportunity to benefit from the hard lessons that other states have learned. So I just offer that as an example. Representative Costa. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Griment, thank you for being with us today. How do you measure success in your ethics commission? What does that look like? That's a really great question. So I'll tell you how we don't measure it. We don't measure success in terms of how many fines we issue or how many complaints end with a successful finding of a violation of the code of ethics. And I strongly disagree with that as being the measure of success. For us, our measure of success has to do less with enforcement, frankly, and more with how many of the people who are subject to our laws, our ethics laws, seem to understand them. So we put incredible amounts of resources into training and education. The belief that we have is that people who get elected to office, people who are public servants, are by and large, honest, ethical people who are there for really great reasons. And if they know what the rules are, they will follow them. And that's the real importance of having a code of ethics, is it establishes the baseline of behavior. And so first you pass the code of ethics, then you make sure everyone understands what these rules are. And what it creates is a culture of compliance and ethical behavior. And those become the standard norms. And suddenly before a vote, people start talking about whether someone might have a conflict of interest and maybe should recuse. And those conversations just don't happen unless there's a rule that requires it. So we measure our success primarily in how much outreach we do, the number of trainings we give, how many thousands of people have received training, how many people are calling us or writing for advisory opinions or asking for advice. And that's the sign of a successful ethics commission that they have a great working relationship and trust with the regulator. Thank you. I can just briefly add on to that and only because while in Connecticut, the legislature called upon all agencies, even independent ones, to set up a results-based accountability program where the agencies were called on to set their metrics of what they would regard as success. And for the Ethics Commission in Connecticut at the time, some of the significant things were how well we were responding to the public, how quickly complaints were processed, either dismissed or brought to bear, or how quickly advice was provided when it was requested. But there were also numbers-based accountabilities that we set up, how many people did we train, and how many more was that than the previous year. So there are some very tangible metrics that if the legislature chooses in the future to place on the Ethics Commission, or for that matter, all agencies, there are opportunities to do that. Representative Higley. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Granit. The question I have, I thought I heard you say that your commission has the authority to adopt would that be new policy? And if so, is that with a final approval by the legislature, or do you have that final ability to adopt new policy? Well, prepare to have your mind blown for a moment. So early in the morning. There is a reason that Rhode Island is usually ranked number one, or maybe number two, in terms of the strength of its Ethics Commission. And there are a couple of reasons. But the primary one is that when the Rhode Island Ethics Commission was established in 1986, it was established through an amendment to the state's constitution, not by statute. And that constitution granted the Ethics Commission the power to adopt the code of ethics. And our Supreme Court has issued opinions which have explained that that constitutional power is legislative power that is that is concurrent with, but primary to our General Assembly's ability to legislate ethics laws. So in Rhode Island, the Ethics Commission, I told you, be prepared. We do not expect Vermont to adopt that same. And as far as I know, there is no other Ethics Commission in the universe that has that power. So yes, we have the ability to adopt laws that cannot be overturned by our General Assembly. That's the number one way that the second way. And again, this is not something that we expect Vermont or really any other state to adopt. In 2016, the people went back to the ballot and further amended the constitution to require the legislature to waive its legislative immunity for ethics enforcement over their legislative acts. Again, I don't know of any other state that has ever done that or that ever will do. But Rhode Island has always been a little bit different. So now I will say the world didn't end for our General Assembly. Life has gone on. But those are two very extreme examples of how we're different than other states. Thank you. Representative Anthony. Representative Hooper. I'm deferring. Thank you. TJ, I think you said we're doing well on two of the three prongs in the fork. And enforcement is where we have not ventured too far at this point. What sort of enforcement capability do you have in Rhode Island that probably after your last comment will be fairly stark? But generally, I don't think that law prevents people from doing things. It just gives you a mechanism to deal with people who are outside the norms. So how far can you go in terms of people that sit in these seats? I heard you say fine, I think. But do you remove? Do you engage? Do you what? Right. So we do have independent enforcement authority. The commission has investigators and has subpoena power. We have administrative hearings where the adjudications take place before the ethics commission. And then, of course, there are appellate rights. So anyone can appeal to the courts after a decision of the ethics commission. As far as our powers, it's primarily monetary penalty, a violation of the code of ethics in Rhode Island, a fine, a civil. These are civil cases, not criminal. A civil penalty can be imposed of up to $25,000 per offense. It's very rare for a fine to be that high, although it has happened. We do have the power to remove certain public officials from office. The limitations there are that we may not remove members of the General Assembly from office, and we may not remove people who are subject to impeachment. So those would be our general officers. If I may, there is, to my knowledge, no state in the United States that allows the Independent Ethics Commission to remove legislatures. It's constitutionally prohibited in most every state, I think all but three. But there is no state that has that removal mechanism at the commission level. So we defer to the discussed level of the voters. So the House has the ability to remove one of its members. So what would happen is there'd be a resolution put before the House with facts. And yeah, there could be a number of penalties levied against a member. If the House, the full House, found that there was an ethics violation and then determined a penalty, which could be expulsion. Now, the last time the House expel or actually punished anyone was in the 18th century. Representative Leclerc, is it Granmit or Jason? What checks and balances are there on you folks down there on your ethics commission? Thanks. Well, first, there are there are some statutory limitations on people who serve on our ethics commission and who work there. So these include none of us are allowed to participate in partisan activities. We're not allowed to contribute to state or local candidates, which is wonderful, by the way. We're not allowed to hold positions in political committees. Not allowed to work for entities that drive revenue from lobbying. So those are just some of the first road backstops. But beyond that, of course, every decision the Ethics Commission makes is subject to judicial review. So if any decisions are made in excess of law or based on facts that aren't really in existence, those decisions would be overturned and they are. It's a good process that works in Rhode Island. There are also budgetary limitations. I know that TJ was mentioning that many Ethics Commissions have independent budget oversight. We're not one of those Ethics Commissions. We go through the same budget process that any state agency would go through, including a first stop in the governor's office with a recommended budget and then going before the General Assembly. Just last week, I had to testify before the House Finance Committee regarding our FY23 budget. And so there is fiscal accountability to those entities that handle our budget. I think those are the main checks and balances. Representative Anthony. Thank you, Madam Chair. Your review of accountability checks and balances urges me to circle back to my colleague Rep Colson's question about what his success looked like. Since, as you described it, in both cases, the Connecticut instance and the Rhode Island instance, they often ask questions, what did we get for our money in front of an appropriation committee or in front of the news media. In essence, it's always troublesome for a politician because we force people to pay taxes. And then the question is, so what did we get? In this case, as you've answered it, and those are great answers, I'm so pleased that you're successful in the strategies that you've chosen because one of the questions that I'm often asked requires me to try to produce in the classic the dog that didn't bark, that is to say the transgressions that were avoided. But of course, there's no record of that. And I don't know if you have anything further to contribute to get me out of the dog that didn't bark problem. But I appreciate your answers to how you have defended your budget, how you have defended your independent stature and success. It's in the Constitution. And the Constitution no less. That's pretty heavy duty stuff. But if you have anything further, I'd love it because we always are asked, well, what did we get for this expenditure on the ethics panel? Well, it's a really great comment, I guess, and question. When you're asked to justify the foundations of democracy, it's hard to point to, you know, every single marker. But what we have learned over the last few years, I think, is that success of government requires confidence of the public in the government processes. So if the people don't believe that elections are fair, then that's bad. But how, you know, how are you going to measure that? If people don't believe, if people think that the legislature is crooked, then that's not good for democracy. Democracy can only function if people have faith that the mechanisms of democracy are functioning properly. And having an ethics commission and a code of ethics is one of the things that helps people understand that someone is out there looking at those things and that there are rules that need to be followed. So, you know, that's it's hard to measure that success unless you don't have it. And then it's a disaster. Thank you. Representative Hobsky, thank you. Maybe you don't have this number off hand, but of the states that have some kind of ethics commission, do you have a sense of how many of them are independent versus how many of them are asking the people to sort of police themselves? It's possible that TJ has a has a better understanding. I will say the models are so different. So there are some states like ours that have that are independent and have jurisdiction over all branches. There are some states that have a model where there's an executive branch ethics commission and a legislative branch ethics commission. And like the federal government, for instance, has the office of governmental ethics that handles the executive branch and then the house has its own ethics group and the Senate has its own ethics group. So there are different models, but the problem there is then you're depending on each branch to actually do it. And in many states, some of the branches don't do that. And so you only have one segment of government covered by ethics rules and you have other segments that have no rules whatsoever. I don't know the exact numbers. Sorry. You probably saw me looking around. I actually have a chart that I'm happy to share with the committee. It doesn't go into detail about the independence. And as Jason was saying, there are states that have independent commissions, but that only applied to one branch. The majority of states have at least one independent commission. A plurality of states have commissions that apply to all three branches and are also independent. They manifest in different ways. As Jason was saying, for example, in the state of Ohio, they do have an independent commission for all branches, but similar to the bill in front of you, when they get complaints for each of those branches, they're referred back out to the branches themselves. So it acts as a clearinghouse for enforcement matters. But they're independent with respect to the advice and the training that they give to everybody. That would be a helpful comparison chart for us to have. So if you don't mind sending that to our committee assistant, we'll get that up on our committee page for members to take a look at. I will do that. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Granat, I just heard something that you said that even though maybe your commission is enshrined in your constitution, if the legislature still holds the purse strings, there's definitely some recourse there. It's interesting. Yes. And I should mention, although we have the power to legislate ethics laws, substantive laws, it's the legislature that has the authority to set forth our fine structures. Many of our procedures, the composition of the commission itself and how the members are appointed to the Ethics Commission. So I should have mentioned that before in the checks and balances. Thank you. Any other questions from committee members before we shift gears and take a look at the bill language? Well, thank you both for being with us. You're welcome to stick around. We're going to dive into the language of the bill with our legislative counsel, but we do appreciate you sharing your experience and perspectives and your thoughts on the bill. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Any other follow-ons that you would like to speak to before we shift gears and look at the bill? No, I think I'm ready to. All right. Thank you. All right. Let's dive into the bill language. You sure can. I've got the bill pulled up. I'm going to assume other folks will put a record. So S171 is on the Senate calendar today for third reading. Go through second reading last Thursday, I believe. So what you have before you today posted is the draft, which is the version voted out by the Senate Government Office Committee. I have also provided Andrea with an overview. It's still four pages, but it has the main highlights of the 18 pages in case you want to click reference later on. So to begin, section one amends the definitions within chapter 31, which is the chapter on governmental ethics within Title III. You'll see the addition of a new addition for confidential information, meaning information that exempts from public inspection and copying under the public records law or information that is otherwise designated by law as confidential. The definition of domestic partner is a just to confirm. So the definition of domestic partner is actually a definition that currently exists within chapter 31, but it has been moved up into this section so that there is not definitions scattered throughout the chapter and they are comprehensive for the chapter. Then there's the removal of the definition of gift because you will see there's a much larger explanation of gifts within this shell. Then on page three, there is the addition of the definition of immediate family. This is a new definition. The changes to lobbyist and lobbying firm is a consolidation again of lobbyist and lobbying firm definitions within this chapter. So they all are within the definitions section. There's the new definition of person, meaning any individual group, business entity, association, or organization. See, throughout this bill, there's time for individual and sometimes person, meaning it could be an individual or a group or business entity for other organizations. Then on page four, you'll see the state code of ethics section one, two, zero, two. The first section is applicability. So the code of ethics applies to all individuals elected or appointed to surface officers of the state, all individuals elected or appointed to service members of the general assembly, all state employees, all individuals appointed to serve on state boards and commissions, and individuals who in any other way are authorized to act state. So you will see that the code of ethics refers to all of these people as public servants throughout this bill. So the subdivision two, the code of ethics, doesn't prohibit branches of government, agencies or departments from adopting additional personnel policies regarding ethical conduct that's not covered by this code or provisions that exceed the requirements of this code of ethics. And nothing within this code of ethics would require a lawyer or judicial officer to violate their respective professional codes of conduct. Then moving on to page five, the application of the code of ethics does not abrogate or alter the sole authority of each house of the general assembly to touch the elections and qualifications of its own members under the Vermont Constitution. And similarly in subdivision four, the application of the code of ethics does not abrogate or alter the Vermont Supreme Court's constitutional authority under chapter two, section 30. So the next sections, beginning with section 1203, sort of the main tenants of the code of ethics, it is concerning conflict of interest or appearance of conflict of interest. So subsection a, in the public servant's official family, public servant shall avoid any conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest. The appearance of a conflict shall be determined from the perspective of a reasonable individual with knowledge of the relevant facts, except as provided in subsections b and c of this section, when confronted with a conflict of interest, a public servant shall recuse themselves for matter and not take further action. You'll see subsection c and c concern those instances when you have how different public servants within different branches of government or different positions have to proceed once they find they have a conflict of interest. So as used in this section, conflict of interest means the direct or indirect interest of a public servant or such an interest known to the public servant of a family member of the public servant's immediate family or household or of a business associate in the outcome of a particular matter pending before the public servant or the public servant's body or that is in conflict with the proper discharge of the public servant's duties. Conflict of interest does not include any interest that is not greater than that of other individuals generally affected in the matter. So subsection b on page six begins a description of how different types of public servants should proceed when confronted with a conflict of interest. Subdivision one is the legislative branch, a member of the general assembly shall comply with legislative branch rules and course of action to take one confronted with a conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict of interest when it's related to core legislative functions or duties. Subdivision two is concerning the judicial branch. A judicial officer shall comply with the Vermont Code of Judicial Conduct regarding the course of action a judicial officer may take when confronted with a conflict or appearance of conflict that falls under the Code of Judicial Conduct including in situations where conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict falls under both the Vermont Code of Judicial Conduct and the Code of Ethics. Subdivision three is concerning government attorneys. A public servant who is a licensed attorney shall comply with the Vermont Rules of Correctional Conduct regarding the course of action the attorney may take when confronted with a conflict or the appearance of a conflict that falls under the Vermont Rules of Correctional Conduct including situations where a conflict of interest for the appearance of a conflict falls under both the Vermont Rules of Correctional Conduct and the Code of Ethics. Subdivision four then concerns public servants who do not fall into any or a conflict that does not fall into any of the one through three above under subsection three. So in this case each time a public servant is confronted with a conflict other than that for which the public servant's action is solely ministerial or clerical the public servant shall either make a public statement which may consist of a statement made to the public servant's immediate refusing themselves from the matter or if the public servant chooses to proceed prepare a written statement regarding the nature of the conflict. A public servant as was mentioned by Director Zippert a public servant may request either guidance or an advisory opinion from the State Ethics Commission in making that initial determination whether a conflict of interest exists or whether good cause to proceed exists as set forth in subsection C. Once recused a public servant shall not in any way participate in or act to influence a decision regarding the matter. So if the public servant chooses to proceed with the matter the public servant's prepared written statement shall a describe the matter requiring action be disclosed the nature of the potential conflict or actual conflict of interest. C explain why good cause exists so that the public servant can take action in the matter fairly objectively and in the public interest. D includes sufficient details that the matter may be understood by the public and E be filed in accordance with the policies and procedures set forth by the agency or entity governing the matter in question including any requirement that the statement in public. So subsection C on page eight provides a definition of what constitutes good cause to proceed so it may include any of the following the identified conflict or potential conflict is de minimis in nature de minimis is not defined. The conflict is a morphous intangible or otherwise speculative or three the public servant cannot legally or practically delegate the matter. You have subsection D confidential information nothing in this section shall require a public servant to disclose confidential information or information that is otherwise privileged under law. The next section is 1203A directing unethical conduct a public servant shall not direct another person to act in a manner that would be unethical for the public servant or the other person to act. A public servant who has a conflict of interest shall not direct others to act in the public servant's benefit where such actions would be a violation of the code of ethics if the public servant were to perform the act. Section 1203B is appearance of unethical conduct. A public servant shall avoid any actions creating the appearance that the public servant is violating the code of ethics whether particular circumstances create an appearance that the code of ethics have been violated shall be determined from the perspective of a reasonable individual with knowledge of the relevant facts. Section 1203C preferential treatment a public servant in the course of connecting state business shall act impartially showing no favor toward or prejudice against any person. A public servant shall not give or represent an ability to give preference or special treatment to any person because of the person's wealth position or status or because of any personal relationship with the public servant. When permitted by law and written policy or rule a public servant may give preference to designated persons. Section 1203D is misuse of position. A public servant shall not use the public servant's official position for personal or financial gains. Moving on to page 10 section 1203E misuse of information. A public servant shall not use non-public governmental excuse me government information or confidential information acquired during the course of state service for personal or financial gain for the personal or financial gain of any other person. Section 1203F misuse of government resources. A public servant shall not make use of state materials funds property personnel facilities or equipment or permit another person to do so for any purpose other than for official state business unless the use is expressly permitted or required by law or by written agency departmental or institutional policy or rule. A public servant shall not engage in or direct another person to engage in work other than the performance of official duties during work hours. Again except as permitted or required by law or written policy or rule. Before I get to the next section. Subsection A. A public servant shall not solicit or accept a gift unless permitted under this section. For purposes of the subject or gift. Tangible or intangible but is given for less than adequate consideration. And then there is a list of items that a public servant may accept. First a device or inheritance. Second a public servant may accept goods or services that are provided to a state agency for use on state agency property or for use by the public servant while serving in an official capacity. Three a public servant may accept a certificate or other ceremonial award provided the cost does not exceed the limit established pursuant to subsection B. Or a public servant may accept a rebate discount or promotional item that is available to the general public or to a definable subset of the general public. Five a public servant may accept printed or recorded informational or educational materials which remain to state action or functions. Six food or beverages. A public servant may accept food or beverages or both under the following circumstances. First the food or beverage or both is consumed on an occasion or occasions at which the person paying correctly for the food or beverage or the person's representative is in attendance provided the cost does not exceed the limit established pursuant to subsection B. The food or beverage or both is incidental to the performance of a legitimate state function. Or the food or beverage or both is provided at a charitable cultural political or civic event at which the public servant participates in the public servant's official capacity. Seven admission fees and tickets a public servant may accept tickets or admission to a charitable cultural political or civic event at which a public servant participates in the public servant's official capacity provided such tickets or admission is provided by the primary sponsoring entity. Eight private employment gifts a public servant may accept anything of value provided by an employer of the public servant provided such benefits are customarily and ordinarily provided to others in similar circumstances. Nine public servant to public servant gifts a public servant may accept a gift from another public servant in the following circumstances. First not in a supervisor supervisey relationship with the giver the public servant may accept a gift for a holiday or occasion. If the recipient is in a supervisor supervisey relationship the public servant may accept a gift for a holiday or occasion of significance provided the value does not exceed the limit established in subsection B. Now on 10 I present again and ask a question. Sorry everyone at the top of page well page 12 under food and beverage it says the food or beverage or both is provided a charitable cultural political or civic event. All right I get charitable event I get cultural what what is a political event. Political event is not defined in this code of ethics so I would probably defer to director separate on how that should be contemplated. Should it be defined because I mean political event I could see maybe a campaign event or does political event include like a caucus like for example I think the workers caucuses meeting at noon and getting pizza that somebody is paying for today. I assume it's the VSEA since they sent out a text inviting people to the workers caucus but let's hope that the workers caucus isn't eating more than a hundred dollars. Well over time it could add up to over that. Right yeah I guess that's a good question because we do have repeating events. $20 right now right here first. Thank you I'm sorry to interrupt everyone but I just wanted to put a pin on this. The member brings up an issue I've been uncomfortable with for a while and it's the amount before COVID of that kind of thing being offered to legislators in this building. The food and drink even the meeting that's going to happen today I I'm not comfortable with that hundred dollar limit but I'm also not comfortable. I don't know where that falls. I don't think that stuff should happen in this building. You're going to have campaign events places outside but to do it in this building I'm not comfortable with and I just want to put a pin in that because I want to have more conversation about it later and I know it's going to tick off some people who used to rely on that food as part of their daily diet but I just don't it does not feel right. Thank you member sir diet has little to do with that I think that the time frame consideration for event cumulative over a undesignated period of time. So there are four so four we're looking at you're talking about food and beverages section specifically. Any other kind of really that has a inference of limitation. So any time within this section that you see the third is going to be a limit either on the cost or the value established pursuant to subsection B. You'll see some of those costs and limits are within a set time frame. So we will get to that section where you'll start seeing some of those so much money within or so much cost or so much value within such amount of time but other than that there are not time limits. What does that mean it defaults to per event or it defaults to lifetime. Pretty ambiguous. Right so for example subdivision A which is food or beverage or both consumed on an occasion at which the food is in attendance and then provided the cost does not exceed the limit established pursued to subsection B. Compare that to subdivision B the food or beverage or both is incidental to the performance of a legitimate state function. So for B there would be no limit over the time that the individual as a public service but for a there is going to be a limit. So I guess to answer your questions the default is that unless a time period limit is established there is no limit. Thank you Madam Chair. Back to Rep Gannon's speculation as to what the word political means. I'd rather not speculate and ask purposely whether to apply that would require us fleshing out the statute to our guest Ms. Sivret frankly because she would struggle over it just like we have and if it requires parenthetical fleshing out let's do it. So let's stick a flag in that for now and Ms. Sivret if you could help us talk through some of those issues and what the intent of this section is from your perspective. I would like us to be able to get through the walk through the bill and then we have to shift gears for the rest of this morning. So Rep Vihovsky. So my question is related but my understanding because there isn't an independent commission and there isn't really an enforcement piece that it's up to me to keep track of how many seven five dollar pieces of pizza I've eaten in a year and report it if it goes over that. There is no reporting requirements in here. Okay so ultimately like it's there but how do we know if people are following it or not. Well as there's no reporting requirements and I think directors and Sivret could probably expand more on this. You would only know if there's a problem if someone either someone's self-reports. No obligation to do so but self-reports or someone else files a complaint. Okay thank you. All right let's go back to the words on page. I think we're on page 12. 13. 13 subdivision 10 training or education a public servant may accept attendance to training or similar events determined to be in the interest of the public servants agency or department. 11. Gifts of de minimis value a public servant may accept an unsolicited gift having a de minimis market value as established pursuant to subsection B. Personal gifts a public servant may accept gifts clearly motivated by an outside relationship family relationship or personal friendship rather than the position of the public servant. Relevant factors in making such a determination include the history and nature of the relationship and whether the individual family member or a friend personally pays for the gift. 13. Loans a public servant may accept a commercially reasonable loan made on terms not more favorable than loans made in the ordinary course of business. And then 14 is sort of a catchall a public servant may accept a gift that is otherwise expressly permitted under state law. So subsection B is the gift valuation. So for purposes of this sub chapter the value or cost limit for gifts described in subsection A shall be so beginning July 1st 2022 for ceremonial awards less than $100 for food and beverages or both 100 page 14 less than $100 in the aggregate per year for supervisors to provide the gifts less than $100 for any single gift and the value of all gifts does not exceed $200 in the aggregate per year. Subdivision D de minimis gift $50 or less per source per occasion provided the aggregate market value of the individual gifts received from any one person does not exceed $150 in a calendar year. So in subdivision two honor after July 1st 2026 the state ethics commission may increase the value or cost limit set forth in subdivision one provided a the state ethics commission presents its proposed increase to the House and Senate committees on government operations at least 180 days prior to proposed implementation and after consultation the cost or value limit is not increased more than once in a five-year period and see the increased cost or value limit is posted on the state ethics commission website and the commission sends a notice of increase to public servants not less than six days prior to the increases effective date now on to section 1203h unauthorized commitments a public servant shall not make unauthorized commitments or promises of any kind purporting to bind state government section 12035 employment restrictions a outside employment a public servant shall not seek or engage in outside employment or activities that are inconsistent incompatible or in conflict with the public servants official duties subsection b is post government employment first executive officers executive officers shall comply with the post employment excuse me post government employment restrictions prescribed in section 267 of this title and also title two section B and C two legislators shall comply with the post government employment restrictions prescribed in title two section 263 legislative branch employees except as permitted in subdivision four for one year after leaving office a former legislative branch employee may not for compensation appear before the general assembly or its subparts for the office in which the employee served in at the time of leaving service to advocate for anyone other than the state concerning any matter in which the state has a direct and substantial interest subdivision four contracting exception the limitations in subdivisions one through three do not apply to individuals providing information or services to the state pursuant to contracts of the state unless the public otherwise prefer to be so by state or federal law subdivision five representation restrictions after leaving state service or employment a public servant shall not knowingly with the intent to advocate for an outcome of an investigation application ruling license contract claim rulemaking charge arrest or quasi judicial or judicial proceeding communicate with or appear before the state on matters involving specific parties in which the employee participated personally and substantially during government service and in which the state is a party or has a direct and substantial interest section 1203 J compliance with laws rules and policies a public servant shall comply with applicable state and federal laws and regulations including anti discrimination and equal opportunity laws and comply with applicable governmental codes of conduct a public servant shall comply with any other applicable rules or policies established by executive order agency rule or policy section 1204 is whistleblower protections for ethics complaints the public servant shall be preached disclose waste fraud abusive authority violations of law or violations of this or other applicable codes regarding ethical conduct to the state ethics commission without fear of reprisal intimidation or retaliation section 1205 on page 17 mandatory ethics education and training within the first 120 days of public service a public servant shall engage in ethics training which may be in person or online completion of ethics training shall be determined by the department where the public servant is employed nice and shall be documented by the department where the public servant is employed a public servant shall participate in continuing ethics education which may be in person or online at least once every three years thereafter approved continuing ethics education providers are the state ethics commission the department of human resources center for achievement in public service the vermont house of representatives ethics panel for the house of representatives the vermont senate ethics panel for the senate the vermont judiciary and any education providers approved by the state ethics commission copies of the state code of ethics training materials by ethic by ethics education providers shall be provided to the state ethics commission eviction for training on request the state ethics commission that may collaborate with or assist ethics education providers section two is a repeal this is a cleanup of those definitions that have moved into the definition section and section three effective date this actually take effect on July 1st 2022 all right any burning questions committee representative you let into my question was cannabis use in the building brought up in any time in the senate not that i heard it's legal now maybe we should talk about it it's a public building you can't smoke in a public place well there's edibles there's other pieces i think it complicates the landscape here just saying well on the other hand um there have been plenty of times and places where beer and wine has been served in this building and you know including at the gatherings in the cafeteria with industry folks so maybe it's time we stop thinking differently about cannabis than we do about beer and wine my guess is it's going to come up oh well it may represent it quickly thank you madam chair amaran if you could go back to page 11 top of the page number two gifts to the state a public servant may accept services that are provided to a state agency for the use of state agency property or for use by the public servant while serving an official capacity can you give me an example of that what is i believe the executive director has some very good examples that were discussed in the senate government operations committee i don't know if you want to hear them now but that was a topic of conversation okay i can find that out later thanks all right let's put a pin in that as well as something we'd like to come back and discuss a bit more with the executive director