 Good morning. You are back with the Vermont House Government Operations Committee. We are continuing our committee discussion and consideration of Prop 2, clarifying the prohibition on slavery and indentured servitude in the Vermont Constitution. And the committee was hoping to have an additional perspective on the history of our Constitution and on what clarifying this prohibition would mean for the state of Vermont. And so Mr. Gillies, you were requested and I am so thrilled that you had the flexibility to be able to drop what you were doing on this Thursday morning and join us. So thank you so much for being here and we would welcome you to share your perspective on the Vermont Constitution and on the proposed constitutional amendment. Well, thanks for inviting me. I'm Paul Gillies. It's pronounced different than it's spelled. I spent my life correcting one way or another. And I've had some experience with the Vermont Constitution. I've written a book about it. It hasn't been published and I've lectured on it and I think I might have caught it once or twice. So anyway, what do I know about it? Well, I know that Article 1 was one of the unique sections of our Constitution, one of the few that we didn't copy from Pennsylvania, that it has remained essentially unchanged with the exception of the change to in 1924. And when I spent a couple of years since I've looked at this question of the Proposition 2, my first reaction was that it was unnecessary that although I think there's a sensitivity here about the way things are written, it's not all true. We don't bind somebody, for instance, send them to prison for debt anymore. It's not all perfect, but then the Vermont Constitution isn't perfect. There are many sections of the Vermont Constitution that we have never respected or we've moved ourselves away from. The literature in Vermont history has recently shown that there was a lot more slavery in Vermont over the years than you would believe if you'd accepted the 1777 Constitution as eliminating any possibility that there was slavery. There's an infamous case of the judge of the Supreme Court, Stephen Jacob, who had a slave, had purchased a slave. I think they said recently that they had found the bill of sale for Dinah. And when she got older, she was thrown onto the welfare of the town of Springfield, I guess it was, or no, Windsor. And the town sued Jacob for her support and the Supreme Court, of which he was a member, all always stepped aside, said, well, no, slavery is not allowed in Vermont, so we couldn't possibly treat her as a slave. And the town had to end up paying for her wages. But there was a number of early, well, the census I think in 1791 showed that there was half a dozen slaves, and there was a professor at the University of Vermont who wrote a book about it. And yet, in all the 200 years since then, I don't, I haven't heard anyone raise a possibility that slavery was authorized in Vermont because of this section, and certainly we have the U.S. constitutional amendments which took care of that. So I suppose we could go through the constitution, Vermont constitution, line by line and strike things we don't like. But I mean, I don't think there's any objection to the way that the Proposition 2 is written, but as I say, my first reaction was, this may be a little bit more sensitivity to things that aren't law, and there I am. Thank you. Questions from committee members? Representative Murlake. Good morning, and thanks for coming. I just want to make sure you can hear me. We're getting used to some new technology here, and I know I'm not familiar with it, trusted as well. So thanks for affirming that. Kind of a bigger question. Do you see the constitution, either the state or the nation as a living, breathing document that was written in paper, not in stone? I like that sound of that. I long believe that we don't pay enough attention to the, particularly the Vermont Constitution, and I think in history, you have periods of 10 or 20 years at a time where it never appears in anything other than the decennial amendment process, but I think it's obviously a fundamental document, and the Supreme Court is treated as such. In some seasons, it has had more sensitivity to its uniqueness, as opposed to the U.S. Constitution, particularly in the area of search and seizure, and I believe it is obviously a living document, and it could be livelier. Thank you. Representative Leclerc. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Paul. How are you, sir? Good. Thank you. I think you started out by saying that you questioned whether it really needed to happen or not. We had another, I guess you would be a constitutional expert come in as well. Professor Teachout and Peter Teachout. Yes, sir. He's admitted that he's sort of been on both sides of this discussion as far as whether he feels that it's justified in changing the language or not. Would you characterize your position as that you, and I recognize we're sort of just calling you last minute here, has your feeling about this change changed or not personally? No, I guess not. I mean, I don't know that I've ever stated a position as to whether I would, I probably would vote for it. I mean, it's not offensive, but it's just, it's almost overkill, I think is where I'm thinking. It's almost too sensitive to things, but no, I guess my reaction is today the same as it was then. I recall reading what Professor Teachout wrote about it originally, and it was pretty good in summarizing how I felt at the time. I haven't read anything recently. I think constitutional amendment is an important question, and I think it needs evidentiary support for us to start meddling with the firmament here, and I don't know that there is any justification for this other than kind of cosmetics. Representative Anthony. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you very much, Paul Gillis, for coming on short notice. I have not vacillated, as has been described in respect of Peter Teachout going back and forth between reverence and practicality or sensitivity. I've always viewed the language and the act of amendment as a very serious matter, but after all, it's not for wise men like yourself or myself or anybody, frankly, to control the process is, after all, a vote of the people after, if you will, the iterations preceding the votes. And so it's not for me to project my reverence for history onto that exercise. I can't help, though, but say that when Peter Teachout did point to the change in the level of sensitivity, the level of scrutiny, the level of awareness of the history and legacy from the 19th, 18th, and 19th century, it simply reinforced my view that we have changed from even 10 years ago in respect to our attempt to, how shall I say, rescue some of the tragedies of the 19th century and failed reconstruction and Jim Crow and various things which were horrifyingly real and embedded in law, and unaddressed by the federal constitution even after the Civil War amendments had been adopted. And so my sense is that there's a lot of unfinished business that explains why the sensitivity is what it is. So I'm leaning towards respecting that sensitivity, even though I count myself as a real appreciator of historical fact and historical evolution. And that's where I am, and I suspect that's what's changed from, as I say, even a decade ago. It's an awful lot of things that the Vermont Constitution should say that it doesn't say enough, and I realize that's not before you now, but a few years ago when I was teaching Vermont Constitution, I challenged the students to design an article in the Bill of Rights that would protect the environment. And there's nothing in that Constitution that says that. And then there was the Equal Rights Amendment, which failed back in the 80s. And I think if there was a need to correct or to underscore the principles of opposed being opposed to slavery, which I think that they say train is left to station, but that there could well be a more articulate way of stating that than just taking some words out of the first article. But I'm not a believer that because it's old, it should never be touched. I think our history of just not being able to amend it, except every 10 years before the 1974 amendments meant that it became a very conservative document. And it was, I think there was only 29 amendments over the history of when it's been adopted. So I think it would be great to I think it would be great to have a more comprehensive look at the things that we don't like in the in the Constitution so that we can fix it up. You know, the Constitution says that you don't, that you meet once every two years. And that was early gotten around by special sessions. Now it's the it's the recess session. And again, it's, well, that's where I am. I'm not here to defend the original language. I think that I think that there have been several dozen decisions that have been made over time by the Vermont Supreme Court interpreting article first. And none of them have found it wanting in any way. I think Senator Benning was was the one that made the most memorable attack on it or tried to use it so that he could he could drive his motorcycle without a helmet. The Supreme Court didn't allow that to go through in part because they said that the fundamental principles of enjoying and defending life and property acquiring, possessing and project protecting property and pursuing obtaining happiness and safety did not go into the issue of motorcycle helmets. A valid attempt I can imagine entertaining. Representative Bihovsky. Thank you. I'm struck by the here by the importance of the context of history and the fact that our laws and our Constitution are and have always been written by people with power and influence. And what we heard in testimony from the people who did not have the power or the influence to be able to write the words on the page in our Constitution is that this is important and that we and I think we need to listen to the people who given the context of history had no say in what the words on the page were. I think we have to check in with our own power, our own identities and really start and ask ourselves who doesn't think this is important and why that is. You know when we look through the context of history those documents were written largely by land owning white men and we've made shifts and changes to our Constitution to include more people in those processes and the structure is still largely exclude many. And so I think it is really important to look at the whole picture here and when we're hearing from the people who didn't get a say that this is important I think we owe it to them to listen. Oh sure. I think it's important to remember that until 1870 that the people didn't vote on the Constitutional amendments that it was done through the Council of Sensors and the Constitutional Convention. But I don't doubt that self-interest plays a role in all legislation or constitutional amendments. And I certainly think you have an obligation to listen to what people have to say. But in the historical context I don't know that I agree that the say the first 100 or 150 years of Vermont history were ruled by self-interested white supremacists because I don't think they even thought of themselves as that. I think there was I think there was when I look and read about what people say when they're in our legislature and again as governors I see I don't see any of that prejudice or that that approach. I see I've been writing for the last three years and writing a book tracing the history of Vermont through the governor's inaugurals and the response of the legislature to the proposals that the governors make. And I can tell you although I was there were times where I felt a little jaded about the process that it's an extremely inspiring process and that the best words of the best governors inaugurals should be enshrined on the walls in the State House. And I don't see I think there was prejudice against women. I think there was that maybe hasn't even yet been overcome. Our race racial history is complicated with and it isn't as much the the black experience as the other minorities that were treated poorly over time by Vermont, the French and the Italians and the Irish and the Native Americans. And if they have positions you should listen to them. But I would say overall I don't to the extent that we take a lens and look at history and see it as a as a disreputable experience. I don't that isn't that isn't what I my in my experience about my reading. Certainly wasn't the characterization that I was trying to make simply that that there were that the people who wrote it that the people who wrote it was a narrow perspective and we have wider perspectives now weighing in who weren't at the table then saying that this is important. I think it would be ideal if we really believed in direct democracy that we would provide a way in the Constitution for the voters to propose amendments. For the same reason I believe that there ought to be access to public opinion petitions for town meeting but our law does not allow that. We we are a representative system and the direct voice of the people is rarely heard except on election day and that's just to decide whether somebody gets elected or somebody doesn't except for the constitutional amendment which is the last vestige of our direct democracy I think. I've written about the referendum in Vermont history in some 17 times the legislature has asked the voters what do you think we should do and in the majority of those cases the voters have said to do this and the legislature has done the opposite or the question was asked like when should the prohibition law or when should the what was it the when should we build a new state office for the Supreme Court on this date or on that date not shall we or not. Quick questions from committee members. Well Mr. Gilles I really thank you again for rearranging your Thursday morning to come and spend some time with us and and help us understand your perspective on the history of our constitution and making changes to our constitution. We are going to be holding a public hearing tonight and it is our intention to move this constitutional amendment to the floor of the house after some committee discussion tomorrow and so you should see it up for floor action next week and if all goes as planned on your general election ballot in November 2022. Well thanks for inviting me. Interesting. All right that is all we have on the agenda for this morning committee. You have some constituent service time this afternoon between lunch and work and floor will be at three o'clock. We may have up here floor debate again. I'm not sure what's on the floor. I didn't see anything. We're on the floor today. It's just got third reading of 157 and it's an adjustment but both an adjustment and then a second reading so it's yeah yeah so that'll be a debate but a long couple of questions around that. All right thank you for getting him in. Yeah I appreciate that. That was thank you Andrea. She managed to track him down while he was running errands. Pulled him right out of the hardware store and said go home to your computer and I don't think you were here but he would be an excellent resource for the fences around cemeteries discussion. Shall we? Shall. Okay I want that. So clear. Andrea would you be able to share the the fence cemetery fence bill with Mr. Gillis and ask him if he would be interested in testifying on the history of fencing around cemeteries sometime in the next week. Sure I'll send him an email. Thank you. We're still on live so just let me know when you're done. Committee any other committee discussion I think what I wanted to do before we before we wrapped for the day was a little more committee discussion on the charters that we looked at yesterday. It's my intention to build into our agenda next week a visit with the chair of the Essex Select Board the unified Select Board and the village trustees just to get a sense of how their conversations are going around the separation of the two municipalities. What else would you like to hear? There were a few things we needed to do in order to get Springfield in shape to move forward. So any other questions or concerns with respect to Springfield? The one piece of commentary that the two representatives from Springfield that I spoke with last evening was that if we were going to make a choice between truncating the language to have it reflect the edits that Tucker had talked about that they're they're a little worried they have a little bit of worry and concern that maybe some other things might get lost if we do that and that we maybe should not shorten the bill just for the sake of reducing the pages but they asked me to share that perspective. So Tucker was saying that the authority to change select men to select board or select person or whatever gender neutral term is one that would shorten it. By three or four pages I think. Yeah yeah and they were worried that if you did that it just might might be confusing to folks looking at the different iterations of the bill so we might not have that concern but that was their concern and I said I would pass a law. Okay. Did they have any requests in terms of the substance of the bill? They would think would appreciate that we pass it as as whole as it as as holy as we can. Do we have committee agreement that we would like to remove the unconstitutional we get to do anything any other community that was going to be the first thing on the chopping block and they said well yes that notwithstanding we they they understood that that was something we would probably remember. I think there was a couple other points up the question across you know brought it like I flirted the line I'd like yeah but the one that's blatant I think representative Hosey was the one that said cut it so I think it's already been right that was we did that yesterday representative Anthony. The one that sticks in my mind as most unusual I guess is the language that prohibits revisiting a further charter change and I I'd have to go back and and read our watch our YouTube to spot it but I could sense that that was really trying to reach into the future which generally I'm against in terms of binding people to enact today forward in time and that also in the revision in the reconsideration language I'd have to go back and read it to see what troubled me but it seemed to mean that one's choice of of rethinking was circumscribed in a way that I'd never seen it before in my experience in municipal charters that gave me pause I guess is the way I'm not against it it's just very unusual and flies in the face of being able to address changing circumstances thank you. Yeah I'm wondering if perhaps you could pop that into an email to you know pull that language out pop it in an email to legislative council and just ask him to flag that for some committee discussion when we look at the bill next week I would like to understand whether that is a provision that is that appears in other town charters because it does it does seem to be a little bit suspect I would say. Thanks I'll be happy to send it my inquiry to Tucker on both points. Thank you. I think Peter and I were talking about the same thing but I ran into one of the reps this morning we were discussing that and if I if I understood him correctly it's in current statute now it's in their charter currently for some reason I kind of I thought I missed that and there was going to be new language but apparently it's been there and they felt that it's worked well so far but. Okay so representative Anthony did you hear that context? Yes I did I still will ask Tucker whether or not it appears in in other charters that we're unaware of so my sense of unusualness is misplaced perhaps. Super breath quickly. Thank you did I hear Tucker say that they had gone through a long process of going through all statutes and changing you know select men to select boards and that sort of stuff so was my understanding that it may not even be necessary for them to include that in a charter change? Yes that's I believe what I heard him say yes that you know the number of pages where the only change that appears is that you know is changing select men to select board is unnecessary in this bill. Other committee discussion about Springfield. Alright now we come to the part of the show where I ask for a volunteer to be the captain of this project as it moves forward and reminding folks that I want everyone to have a first turn before before we default to people who've already had a bill. So who wants to who wants to be the captain of Springfield? Representative Marwicky how do you feel about being the captain of Springfield? Well I'm glad to do that I have reported the bill already but I'll take this. You'll take round two I think representative Hooper is going to end up reporting Burlington Charter which will keep him on his toes for the next several weeks I would imagine. I think representative Lefebvre has one in the hopper should we decide to move the cemetery bill. Representative Colston has PR 2 representative Gannon I'm holding in the wings because he's got lots of things that I want him to do. Madam chair? Yes sir. I have tag teamed before with rep Colston I'm happy to tag team with representative Marwicky if you want to partition it in some digestible way because it is a long presentation for sure. Yes representative Leclerc. One moment here. Representative Barry C had a lot of questions about the Essex Charter changes seems to be the content expert in that and that's coming. Well I was just going to get to that because that is also on our list of bills to to assign and the the default is often to give the community representative sitting around our table the first crack at presenting a charter change but given that representative Vihosky lives in the town and not in the village of Essex I wondered if you would prefer to take a pass on reporting Essex Charter change. I would prefer to take a pass and I'm happy to take Springfield as the one person who hasn't reported a bill or doesn't have a bill in the hopper if that makes more sense. Oh here we go Marwicky you might get off the hook after all. I'd also be happy to tag team with representative Marwicky if that makes more sense but I do I do think it makes the most sense for me not to be the presenter of the Essex the city of Essex Charter. Thank you representative Leclerc. I recognize I had an enormous lift with 223 trying to recover from it but in the fairness towards committee here I'd be happy to participate in the Essex Charter presentation one because having been on a select board there is a little experience I can draw from to hopefully make answer some potential questions but I'll just throw that out but I do think it's large enough that it would require so you you're suggesting that maybe a little very city very town work on Essex might absolutely yes I think that's wonderful as a as a city in town who are not currently clamoring for attention to divorce or marriage or living together or whatever yeah there you go hey we used to we used to share a sewer truck a vector of course the sharing of the vector fell apart but anyway we do share a sewage so representatives Leclerc thank you for volunteering to team up on Essex and we will have a little more testimony from Essex next week and representative Vihovsky and Merwicky you you too can work together on on Springfield and I will allow you to flip a coin or say not it or whatever in terms of who presents on the floor but what I would like to do is ask you to spend some time figuring out which parts of the charter you think the committee ought to consider leaving out or or in some other way just flagging for me for scheduling purposes where you think we need to hear more testimony and or do more work on the bill I you know now that we are back in this meeting environment where we are hybrid and I you know and and people are able to be in the building I would love to share some of the work of figuring out who else needs to come and testify so that it's not me and and representative Gannon trying to to figure out all of the witness list for the coming week I do appreciate that and I think I am also cognizant of the feedback from Rep McCarthy that I think what you were saying is that Springfield would like charter change the remaining tax for the most as much as as much as possible but I think they recognize there are some things so I would then we have to look to the sense of the committee is to what people think should be chopped today so and I look forward to working with representative Bajowski on this and we will we can email try and figure out the next step that work thank you excellent so what else do we have on our list Madam Chair when might we be taking Burlington up again I would like us to spend a little more time hearing from Burlington folks during the week next week and we'll also hear from the Village Trustees and select board from Essex next week Rep Bajowski Representative Hooper asked the first half of my question if we have witnesses we'd like to hear from on the Burlington Charter is the best thing to do to just email you what we're thinking Chair Madam Chair yes please that would be super helpful anything else on any of the charters that we were looking at I think we have those assigned and under control the only other bill that we took a look at this week that we haven't currently made a decision on or assigned to anyone is the one the cemetery bill relating to investment of the perpetual care funds by cemetery associations and I don't mind doing that as long as John helps me with that well we need to take a look at what we did for municipal cemeteries because I think we should follow I don't mind talking that through and looking at what we did for the other one and helping it do you I think what would be really helpful just in terms of getting up to speed on what was done before for public cemeteries is if you tried to make an appointment to meet with Tucker if he's meeting virtually you can pop into a corner with you know and do a zoom with him or if he's in the building maybe you can sit down with him but if you could ask him those questions and pick his brain as much as possible to understand I think it would be great if we sort of batched those two and aimed to vote them both out on the same day I know that it makes for a bit more work for you to do it simultaneously but um but I think it might make for a smoother sale through the floor if we what was the other thing we did that I'm looking right now but what was the other so we had like two different things what was the other thing we did cemeteries and something else there were two cemetery builds yeah cemetery fence oh museum it was per dm pay your guys have got commissions and that so we've got a subgroup working on boards and commissions yeah um and then that per diem bill will be based off of what we decided for boards and commissions yeah I batched that together because the board of commissions bill had a proposal on per diems and I wanted us to put all of those ideas in front of the committee and uh and make a decision on how to move forward all right am I forgetting anything no I think we've covered I think those we worked on I feel like I'm juggling that was every time it's feeling like I'm juggling you know swords where it didn't start your statement then with Alexa Alexa what have I forgotten yes all right uh representative anthony thank you madam chair uh despite all the humor am I am I correct that I've been invited to partner with my uh good friend from the town on the reportage of the city of Essex junction um yes I think that would be a very delicious um uh team you know you guys got the one two going on there so we have been yeah definitely got a sense of humor all right any other questions about work that we've done this week that you think is outstanding or lingering yes this isn't a question about that but I ran into Nick Adlerton in the cafeteria yesterday and he had said that he has set up a schedule for folks wanting to come in and look at certain maps or whatever so I just thought if people don't know about that there is a schedule that you can sign up for a certain time I guess to look at maps with him yes yes that is um that's a really good point so members of legislature can go on his uh his scheduling um app and see when he has open office hours times and so he's going to leave open um you know basically any time that he's not in here in committee with us or in senate go well no it's not go box the senate reapportionment committee so yeah he will make himself available and um and folks can meet with him all right representative anthony is is that madam chair an appropriate announcement to our colleagues because I'm sure there are some areas in the state and those representatives know full well that the current lines cannot survive and it might be worth our while to have them uh directly connect with uh and get an appointment but I'm not sure they would automatically know that unless you announced it on the floor so I'm trying to be respectful of the fact that nick is brand new to this process and I may be I mean yes ultimately we want to make sure that people know that um that they have access to that resource um but I don't really want to open the floodgates for him uh today or tomorrow because he is scrambling to work with legislative it to get our redistricting website up and running and test all of the links for the various districts so that when we send the letter out um communities will be able to look at their own redistricting and so I I want him to be able to focus on that because that is the most critical step in the process that we need in order to be able to give the communities the information so they can come back and tell us um what they think of the proposal so um I would uh not want to inundate him with individual appointments just yet and peter there already exists our current house districts with the 2020 census data which shows deviations for each of those districts and that would indicate to members whether or not it's likely that their districts would have to be redistricted I mean if you just look at we have deviations that go over 20 percent so I think as as any member here can explain that I think to another member that pay look there there's you know a problem you know if they if they say you think I'll be redistricted well your deviation is over 20 percent so yep yep it's yep it's nice to be some changes if I can too the other thing that needs to be explained to folks too is you may have worked out your district to a proper deviation but how did you do it I mean did you did you have to you know intrude on another district that maybe put them under or over so there's a lot more to it than just correcting your district and it's not all that helpful if 150 house members come in and say here this is the solution because my solution might throw his district out of deviation or vice versa and and so yeah I mean too many cooks in the kitchen like we have as people around this table we have to figure out how it all fits together totally understand and agree first things first sure yes we don't care about him he's gonna be in a rubah for goodness sake all right other any other questions about about the work that we've done so far this week all right excellent be productive this afternoon and I'll see you all on the house floor at three and then again in our public hearing at five forty five so that we can be ready to go at six