 Good afternoon, it is Tuesday, April 13th, and we are here today on age 273, an act relating to promoting racial and social equity and land access and property ownership. And we have with us today four witnesses who were integral in putting together this bill. And as we discussed last week, it was my desire to have them come in to do this substantial explanation of what the first three quarters or 80% of what we got as a bill is, their intent, its findings, but it's more than that. And I wanted to be able to give them an opportunity to relay that to us in their own words. So with us today, we have Kenya, Luzuli, Stefan Gillum, Beverly Little Thunder, and Chelsea Gazillo, who represent, self-identify their own organizations. But I want to welcome you to the General Housing and Military Affairs Committee. And I think with that, I'll just pass the microphone over to Kenya. Welcome. Thank you. I'm Kenya Luzuli. I'm the director of every town. And I'm going to start us off by reading the first pieces of the legislative intent. First of all, equal opportunity is a fundamental principle of American democracy, equal access to land and to wealth as a human right and a priority of the state of Vermont. Structural racism, defined as laws, policies, institutional practices, cultural representations, and other social norms, societal norms that often work together to deny equal opportunity, has resulted in wealth disparities among Vermonters. Great social costs arise from these inequities, including threats to economic development, democracy, the social health of the state of Vermont. Wealth disparities are not a function of not only access to income, but also the ability to have access to land and to property ownership, which has been impacted by race, ethnicity, sex, geography, language preference, immigrant or citizen status, sexual orientation, gender identity, socioeconomic status, disability status, wealth, and disability status. Wealth disparities directly and indirectly affect the health and wellness of individuals and communities. Beverly, you're on mute. Good afternoon. And thank you for taking the time to hear us. My name is Beverly Little-Thunder, and I am the co-founder of Coombs, I'm a coach. I also am an activist who supports sitting Vermont and many other organizations. I served on the board for Earth Walk and had served on the board for a number of years at Peace and Justice. So moving on, you know, in history, the foundation of our current economic system was built on land that was taken from Abenaki and other indigenous persons. And the structures of our economic system were constructed with the labor of enslaved persons. The legacy of settler colonism and chateau slavery has been a systematic racism and discrimination embedded into many aspects of our modern way of life on this land. The relationship between all persons and the land has been used to oppress persons over the past several centuries. The laws and policies of our state and nation have severed indigenous persons from their land while denying them. Black persons and other persons of color from having the opportunity to access their own land. These actions of the state led to systematic racism that has impacted all the monitors who have historically suffered from discrimination and who have not had equal access to public or private economic benefits due to race, ethnicity, sex, geography, language preference, immigrant or citizen status, sexual orientation, gender identity, socioeconomic status, or disability status. In order to offer repair for this systematic discrimination faced by many persons throughout the state over the past four centuries, the state of Vermont must engage in the just transition to an economic system that systematically undoes racism instead of reinforcing it. Efforts to remedy wealth disparity in the United States have traditionally looked at free market economy for solutions to the very problem that is created. However, there has been an increased recognition that inequity, improving access to land property ownership will require broader approaches. In order to rectify the history of inequity, we must create opportunities for permanent land access in every town in Vermont through collective and individual land ownership options using new systems that empower and center for monitors who have historically suffered from discrimination and who have not had equal access to land on public or private. Economic benefits due to race, ethnicity, sex, geography, language, preference, immigrant or citizen status, sexual orientation, gender identity, socioeconomic status, or disability status. Thank you for that, Beverly. So I will state who I am after I finish reading, but I wanted to follow up with that and say that it is the intent therefore of this legislature to acknowledge and address wealth disparity by creating new opportunities for individual and collective land access and ownership for Vermontras who have historically suffered from discrimination, who have not had equal access to public or private economic benefits due to race, ethnicity, sex, geography, language, preference, immigrant or citizen status, sexual orientation, gender identity, socioeconomic status, or disability status by ensuring equal access to owning property, woodlands and farmland in every town across the state of Vermont. In addition to the actions taken by this act, the state must engage in a deep process of truth and reconciliation guided by the persons who have been most impacted to address the underlying wounds of colonization and slavery. And for the record, my name is Stefan Gillum. I wear many hats around the state. Most known is as president of the Wyndham County Vermont branch of the NAACP. And I've had the pleasure of meeting some of you on this call. So I will digress for the rest of the things that I have done. Chelsea. Thank you, Stefan. And hello, esteemed members of the general housing and military affairs committee. My name is Chelsea Gazillo, and I am the American Farmland Trust New England Policy Manager. Thank you for the opportunity to be a witness on H273. I also want to thank Representative Gina for introducing this important legislation. Our organization is here to lend its resources and policy capacity to support the BIPOC-led efforts behind this legislation. While I was asked by the Seeding Power Vermont Coalition to testify today, the history I'm presenting is not mine. However, it is relevant to the context of H273. Before I dive into our findings, I want to acknowledge that what I'm about to share represents the accumulation of knowledge, history, and information documented and shared by many BIPOC farmers and stakeholders, as well as a variety of historians, scholars, government entities, and other entities cited throughout our findings. H273 is a powerful opportunity to help meaningfully change the disparities and access to resources that build wealth and power, such as home ownership and land tenure. I believe Representative Gina shared a list of references that we cited in the findings section with you at an earlier date, and I resent the list to the committee late last night. I will reference some of the sources as we go through the findings. However, I encourage you to review the references, and if you have questions, please feel free to email me at seagazillo at farmland.org. These findings make the connection between historic disparities that have been carried into modern law have significantly impacted the livelihoods of certain groups of people for generations and must be adjusted in law to chart a different course in the future. The United States of America was founded as a country on a triangular relationship between settlers, native people, and slaves. This structure created an inequity for home ownership, land access, and tenure resources, and wealth related to owning properties through systemic oppression and racism for those who were defined as native or slave. Prior to Vermont self-declaring its occupation of the land in 1777, it is estimated that at least 10,000 indigenous people were living in the region, including roughly 4,000 Abenaki living in the Champlain Valley. Centuries of genocide, eugenics, broken treaties, displacement, and land disposition placed people of the Abenaki nation and other indigenous people living in Vermont at a great social and economic disadvantage. Although the original Vermont Constitution abolished slavery in the state, it would not be until 1854 that an African American would be considered legally free and not considered property in the state. It was not until 1863 that African Americans were federally recognized as free from enslavement. Several federal policies also resulted in land being stolen from indigenous people across North America and ultimately led to the displacement and land disposition of indigenous people in Vermont. Two of these prevalent policies included the discovery doctrine which came as a result of many Supreme Court cases and resulted in the ruling that indigenous people can live within the United States but cannot hold property titles because European settlers write to discovery, triumphed indigenous people's right to occupy. The second is the DAS Act which was a part of the General Allotment Act of 1887. This resulted in the federal government designing a policy to partition communal indigenous lands into individual parcels of 40, 80, or 160 acres. Under the Allotment policies, colonial settlers could purchase and own land outright by Native Americans, but Native Americans were deemed incompetent by the federal government and had to wait 25 years to gain the legal title and rights to sell the land. Today the disparities caused by the general overview of the history of Vermont's indigenous community has resulted in there being very few Abenaki left in the state. Additionally, the Abenaki are not federally recognized and one band of Abenaki are still not recognized by the state. This means the Abenaki are not recognized by the state. This means that the Abenaki that are not recognized by the state of Vermont are prohibited by law to own tribal land or receive federal financial benefits as a tribe. I'm now going to turn it over to Beverly who will further explain the importance of this history and how H273 will work to promote home ownership and land opportunities for Vermont's indigenous community. Thank you. Thank you, Chelsea. In Vermont, there are a large number of indigenous people living who do not own land who don't have the ability to own land and the laws that have been passed in the past are laws that have affected us all. We don't know all the ins and outs of purchasing a piece of land or farms. We don't have access to a place that we can call home and pass down to our children. This bill will help those people who desire to move to Vermont, raise their children here and live in the communities that are so wonderful in Vermont that we are so proud of. The indigenous people that live here would then have an opportunity to be able to move out of the poverty that they're in and become a little more self-sufficient. We have a lot of people in Vermont who fall under that category. We have a lot of people who don't have the resources. Right now, looking at what the proposed increase in income is, the 15, 70 an hour, I believe that they say is a living wage. It's not a living wage. In order to rent a home and support four people, you would have to have $35 an hour. I know that nobody makes that kind of money in the communities that we're talking about. This would provide assistance in maybe coming up with down payments with access to land, with purchasing, having technical advice going forward, helping to explain the process that needs to be taken. Hopefully, this land will be held in trust so that it will continue to be available to BIPOC people who move here. Now, I'll turn it over to Kenya. Where are you? I see you up there. I think, Chelsea, are you before me? Yeah, I'm going to continue down the path of why history matters. Of course, after the Civil War, freed slaves and their descendants obtained between 12 million to 19 million acres of land. However, federal land policies and programs denied Black, Indigenous, and people of color farmland ownership opportunities that were available to their white counterparts. The federal government's creation of early land use policies such as the implementation of former president Andrew Johnson who overturns the infamous 40 acres in a mule implemented state rights based reconstruction policies that resulted in sharecropping. Sharecropping was the federal government prohibiting Black farmers from owning property and as a result, they were forced to rent land from white landowners. Sharecropping also resulted in many Black farmers at this time experiencing unfair terms and agreements. According to Professor Robert Vanderbeck who did research at the University of Vermont on Vermont in the history of geographies of American whiteness, at the turn of the 20th century there was a lot of migration in Vermont and a lot of Yankee farmers leaving the state. There was discussion around who was the best to recruit to replace Yankee farmers. At the time, the preferred farmer was of Teutonic origin which meant German or Scandinavian. It is important to note that the state was not actively trying to recruit former slaves or sharecroppers from the south. There was an active preference and recruitment for white farmers over Black farmers during this time. The United States Department of Agriculture and Farm Service Agency loan distribution program have made it difficult for Black and brown people to own farmland. The rate of Black land loss can be attributed to Jim Crow racist policies conducted by the USDA and decades of farm bust. In 1910, it was reported that 14% of all farmland, of all farm ownership owner operators in the United States were Black or African American. Today, only 1.3% of U.S. farmers are Black. In Vermont, the percent of BIPOC farmers, farm owners remains low. According to the 2017 National Agricultural Statistics Service AG census, 142 farms in the state were fully owned by BIPOC producers compared to the 4,561 farms that are owned by white producers. Vermont producers remain overwhelmingly white. 97.7% are white and operate approximately 99% of land in farms in the state. Also, according to the 2017 NAS AG census, only 2.3% of producers in Vermont identify as BIPOC. I'm not going to turn it back over to Kenya who will further discuss why this is extremely important to the future of Vermont's agricultural sector and BIPOC producers in the state. Thank you, Chelsea. So last year, the Northeast Farmers of Color land trust conducted a survey of their 449 network members. They come together to share resources, skills, projects, and coordinate policy demands to catalyze reparations for Black indigenous and POC farmers, people of color as BIPOC, and land stewards throughout the Northeast. So 100% of the survey responses that came from Vermont were Black and indigenous and people of color looking to steward land. 91% of them were under the age of 45, and half of them were looking for land for collective projects as the other half were looking for single family units. This is why we address both land stewardship models in this bill. The majority of people who responded to that survey were young families looking to thrive and create safe space for themselves and their children in their community. The network of BIPOC land stewards here in Vermont that define themselves, okay, let me start over, there are networks of BIPOC land stewards here in Vermont that define themselves as farmers, educators, activists, and people who are looking to manage natural space. The Vermont Relief Collective is a growing network of 93 Black indigenous and people of color here in Vermont who envision a Vermont that is equitable, safe, and a just place for all of us to be involved in foodways, land, and environment and agriculture. As a member of both of these groups, I strongly encourage you to invite more of us to come and testify so you can hear directly from the voices that this bill will affect about the need for this legislation. Projects like Everytown directly address the history of removing Black and Indigenous people from land. Let me read that again. Projects like Everytown directly address the history of removing Black and Indigenous people from land and therefore removing their access to livelihood, healthcare, food security, and wealth. In collaboration with the Northeast Farmers of Color Land Trust and the Vermont Relief Collective, Everytown is focused on placing at least one parcel of quality land from each town in Vermont in trust for permanent BIPOC access and stewardship. Utilizing the Northeast Farmers of Color Land Trust, utilizing their process for Indigenous consultation, we value the positive working relationships between land stewards and the surrounding Abenaki community. Our own governor was quoted in the Boston Globe having said Vermont needs more diversity and this bill is in keeping with that goal. It is now time to allow the voices of BIPOC in Vermont to be heard in policy and signed into law. Thank you Kenya. So just a little bit more history for you. This racism and access to property was also prevalent in the housing market. Redlining was a practice of denying bank loans for mortgages to Black and Brown individuals and was used to segregate Black and Brown communities into inner city neighborhoods. And while there is no record of redlining happening in Vermont, in a recent article written by Vermont Housing Finance Agencies, Mia Watson, racial discrimination in housing still happened in the form of exclusionary housing covenants that were deed restrictions that prevented that prevented properties from being sold or occupied by members of a given race, ethnic origin or religion. In 1944, Congress signed the Service Readjustment Act, which created the GI Bill of Rights. The bill was enacted to help World War II veterans with low interest mortgages and grants stipends covering tuition and expenses for veterans attending college or trade schools. Funds from the bill were only made available to white soldiers returning for more and not BIPOC veterans. This important piece of legislation allowed many white veterans returning for more in Vermont and across the country to have access to wealth, land and home ownership that thus created generational wealth for many white Vermonters, many of whom were recent European immigrants. Despite amendments to the United States Constitution and the 1966 Civil Rights Act, systemic racism both within Vermont's housing and agricultural sector remained prevalent today. Vermont's BIPOC households are far more likely to experience poverty. Nearly 20% of black Vermonters live in poverty compared to nearly 11% of white Vermonters. Food insecurity rates are higher for BIPOC who reside in Vermont compared to their white counterparts. During the COVID-19 pandemic, it was estimated by the University of Vermont that 49% of BIPOC households in the state experienced food insecurity compared to 25.2% of white households. Property ownership rates for Vermont BIPOC continue to remain stagnant. According to the 2019 survey completed by Vermont Housing Finance Agency, 72% of white households own their homes compared to roughly 50% of BIPOC households who own homes in Vermont. Furthermore, black Burlington residents are four times as likely to be denied for a home loan as a white counterpart. This is a direct result of the wealth gap between black indigenous and people of color and their white counterparts. The median household income for a black Vermonter is a little over $41,000 compared to the median income for a white Vermonter that is just over $50,000. I'm going to turn it over to Stefan who will further elaborate on how H273 attempts to amend some of these disparities. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you, Chelsea. And Beverly in Kenya as well for I think a lot of what I would see as compelling testimony in my opinion. So I want to start off by having a short discussion or telling a short story that I hope leads to some good discussion, I should say, between all of you. And this is a story that I think I'm going to be vague about to protect all people's identities, but that I think really shows the theme of what happens here in Vermont for folks of color who decide to come here or to live here or want to, right? So this family that I knew a while back really were excited to live in Vermont. They were educated, you know, more of a traditional family in the traditional sense of the word, right? So, you know, two parent household, couple of kids. And they dug into the community deep. They really did. I mean, they became involved in the day-to-day operations of the area. They became involved in a lot of political circles. I mean, they really wanted to make Vermont not only their home, but a place that was better for their presence. And so I watched them attempt and attempt and attempt again to purchase a land or to purchase a home on some land, big and small. And I watched as their excitement happened when they were able to finally rent something. And then I watched what happened to this family as they wanted to turn that renting into something more. And I watched as they had a subtle realization that they would not be able to secure their dreams in Vermont to steward lands due to the barriers to access placed in front of them. I also watched their realization and eventual acceptance of those barriers as something that was unmovable in the state. And I watched their transcendence of that issue by acknowledging that those barriers were too much and eventually moving out of the state and finding really good access and opportunity elsewhere. They are not contributing to that other state in a way that is what I would say not only meaningful, but powerful. And I think in seeing them all of the time that that could have been us. I watched the themes. I watched the excitement. I watched the reaction. I watched the realization. And I watched the transcendence of a negative experience that I think a lot of people of color have in Vermont. I also want to draw your attention to some reasons why this bill is so special and why it took so much, I think, as someone said earlier, love and labor to create. The first thing is that this bill uses language that empowers us all, right? It's not just 19 pages of findings. It's not just many more pages of laid out plans that were thought only with structure in mind. This bill was created via ancestral spirit. And I think it's good to bring that into the room. And that language reflects that. Words such as investment in individual and collective land access, stewardship and opportunity, food justice, reconnecting with the lands are filled with the spirit of our ancestors. And thus, the nuance of this bill carries that ancestral culture of many people of color along with it. Furthermore, the creation of the this bill, you know, wants to and sanctions the creation of the Vermont land access and opportunity fund. This fund will not only be helpful, but it will comprise of monies appropriated by the General Assembly and other public or private monies that the board accepts that will allow the BIPOC board an unprecedented amount of agency over the outside monetary sources it liaisons with and their subsequent interactions with those entities. It also allows for a plethora of diverse voices from the Black, Indigenous, LGBTQ, other folks of color and food justice communities to move collectively towards the holistic creation of goals around their vision for more equitable Vermont in housing and in land access. Third, I want to point out that it is the creation of this board that is multiplex. And so the board only has the authority to promote land and property ownership of those from historically marginalized lineage lineages such as African descendants of slaves, new Americans and our members of the Indigenous communities. But this board will also award grants towards the purchase of land that is regenerative or homes that can be used as primary residences. And these grants will come with other resources that were made for us, by us and mainly administered by us. So the totality of our experiences and unique challenges can be proactively considered. The board will control eligibility, which is powerful for too many reasons to stay and I won't even try. Fourth, the historic nature of this action and what it means for the future of this nation I think can rest upon this bill. If passed, this bill will arguably be the first in the history of this, in the history of this nation arguably, especially in Vermont, to move past the conversation or exploration of land reaccess by directly acting and combating the histories detailed above. It will also mean that arguably for the first time in my life, and maybe the history of this nation, and truly this state as I said earlier, that folks who look like me, who are melanated like me, who are descendants of those who broke their backs and shed their blood on this very soil for our collective and greater good, are able to shine a light forward in what feels like a truly meaningful way towards the creation of a more adjust land future for all of us. I would like to close that by talking a little bit about my own grandfather who was born and raised and died in many ways on a sharecroppers farm. He was born on a white man's land, but that's not just his story. That's a story that he died with. What I know from oral history passed down in my generations was that my grandfather was an accomplished architect in his free time. However, his history and legacy unlike so many others never made into the history books, although it should have. I learned this about him because of my grandmother and I'm proud to know it. However, I think it is time that the oral history be made into a written one for people like me. I think it is important to mention that because arguably for the first time ever, I am taking some of the weight of my ancestors and that of the ancestors of many in this room off of my back for just a bit, and I am placing it onto this committee in hopes that you will all feel it and respect it and make the decision that you know is right, which is to move towards the creation of this act. Thank you. Thank you, Stefan. Thank you. Thank you for your time, everyone. Thank you, Stefan. Thank you, Beverly. Thank you, Kenya. Thank you, Chelsea, for that. Do we have questions for the witnesses? The question, the first question I would put out there and choose who will open this. I mean, we are in the social equity caucus meetings, there's a lot of talk about how we're trying to change the paradigm and that's a word that's to me means the way things are, the status quo in some respect. And I'm just, and this historical study is, it makes it sound like changing the paradigm here is changing the story and trying to bring different language into our conversations. I'm just curious, especially and I would like to maybe ask Chelsea in particular just for the sense of from a farming perspective, from a land perspective on the farming and in an agricultural state like ours or a state that values agriculture. If we start with legislation like this, how do you envision the change continuing? How do you envision that paradigm shifting moving forward? I appreciate that question. I don't feel like I'm the best person to answer it. So I guess I would ask Kenya or Stefan or Beverly if they have some insight to provide. This is the philosophical part of this conversation. I just want to just hear what the visions are to move forward. I mean, we're just hearing, some of us are not hearing the history for the first time, but this whole idea of what is being promulgated or proposed in this bill is pretty substantial. And so I'm just curious, I guess Kenya, you were volunteered. Yeah, sure. I mean, I think first and foremost it's not lost on us that there are three people of color here today requesting like conversation and like that our bill be looked at and acknowledged and hopefully passed by a group of white people. So like that first and foremost, that paradigm needs to shift. This bill is created for and by BIPOC. And passing a bill like that will shift a paradigm passing a bill that places huge dollar amounts in the hands of an all BIPOC committee to decide what to do with it. That's a paradigm shift. So those are the first three things that just popped into my head. I'm sure Stefan and Beverly may have things to say about that too. I do. And I would also ask, could you restate the question, please? With the ideas that what you've presented is an argument for the bill, but also a history of things that have happened which have prevented things, and I'm rephrasing a little bit here, but where things that have happened have led to a place where and a place where we are today in a case that you make in the writing. The question was specific to agriculture in this case was we have a very small number of farmers who are BIPOC and we're losing dairy farms anyway. My question is more philosophical in the sense of if this were to pass in such a way that has drawn out, what would that mean? Do you think or what are the goals of what you mean put forward for the agricultural community and how do you see that changing the paradigm change? Not changing of a being it. I hear you. I get what you're saying now. So I think it's important to enter this conversation to say that the first thing that it would create, and I'm going to come back at you from a philosophical stance, right, but the first thing that it would create is a restoring process. And what is a restoring process? A restoring process is something that looks at who we are as folks of color from a plethora of different backgrounds and different lineages and says we want to tell our own story and we want to be able to do that through the axis of our land, through the axis of land that is something that we could pass down. And I think that having this conversation right now in the way that we're having it is historical and is part of that restoring process. You are all part of that restoring process because at the end of the day, when we look at legislation like this, when we look at legacies like this, what we're really asking is how can we do better as a society? And I think that if passed, what we would see is that folks would step up to the plate and try to do better, not just people of color, but why folks who also realize that some of the land that they came into contact with was through means that there may or may not be so morally okay with. I've had a lot of conversations with a lot of my friends who are white about this very thing and they wrestle. They wrestle with it and they're looking for ways to have that conversation in a way that it's not just philosophical, but also tangible. So we want to have a philosophical conversation, but we don't want to leave it there. We want true praxis to happen where we take that theory and we turn it into practice. And I think something like this is a real start for Vermont, but also for the country as well, which is why all of your position today is so important. So that would be my philosophical answer to your philosophical question. That's fair. That's fair enough. I mean, again, we're at the beginning of a process. So it's understanding or starting to work towards that understanding is what's key right now. Yeah, I appreciate that too. So I have a couple of people have their hands up representative Blumlee. Or did someone else try to chip it or check in? It looks like Beverly Little Thunder. Beverly. Yeah, Beverly. I just wanted to say that, you know, it's as an indigenous woman, I find it ironic that land that was taken over by colonizers in the past, that we as BIPOC people are now having to ask a group of white folks if we can have access to it. You know, the land to many Native people is sacred. It's land that, you know, we survived on. We didn't have borders. We didn't have all of the things that, you know, that are in place today that have been put in place for this society. And I think that by costing such a bill and making access to land easier for all people who are marginalized, we are changing the paradigm. Vermont is changing the paradigm. Because when you do that, then you're going to get involved in the social structures of the town that they live in. More people that are going to want to sit on boards that make decisions about planning commissions within their town. More people that might fill the seats that some of you are sitting in, in the future. And, you know, it's really, for me, this is not particularly something that I feel will benefit me for a long, long time. But it will benefit my children, my grandchildren, my great-grandchildren. And that's changing the paradigm. Because in the past, that's not possible. It's not possible at all. And I consider myself very fortunate to be able to live in Vermont. I love Vermont. I love the land. I love the dirt that I stand upon. And I also love the possibilities of the future. And I think that this conversation is part of that possibility. And this conversation can change the paradigm. Thank you. Representative Blumling and Kalaki. Yeah, thank you, Chair. Thank you to all of you for coming today. And I have two kind of distinct questions. The first is that, you know, we, probably everybody on this committee got a ton of emails alerting us to this bill and celebrating it in part because of the way in which it was drafted. That, you know, was almost every email pointed out that the process was really important. And I'm wondering what, how you would talk about that process and what it actually says about the process that you are outlining in the bill, which is highly collaborative across different communities, etc. I mean, what did you learn through that process? Or what experience did you have that led you to propose this process? Well, maybe I can start. And then Chelsea, maybe you can pick up or Beverly, but first I would say, and this also kind of goes back to Rep's Stevens question is that, you know, this is not necessarily a new process for us. What we learned is that folks of color, particularly descendants of slaves and indigenous people, because of the collective nature of our communities, are really good at this. And we're really good at doing it and doing it with everyone in mind. And we're really good at engaging our white allies around it. Because we have an accumulation of, I can speak for myself, over 400 years of narrative that we have the privilege to finally try to get right. And I think that the weight of that, but also the beauty in that is what was able to drive us to the creation of what you see before you today. I think that that collaborative spirit came not only from the beauty of those cultures, but from the oppression that a lot of our lineages and a lot of us today endure. Because when somebody has stepped on you, the last thing you want to do is step on somebody else. You learn how to collaborate. But if you have been the one doing the stepping, sometimes you're a little afraid about what might happen to you if the person stepped on gets up off the floor. I think that this bill is a beautiful collaboration because it shows what can happen when white allies and folks of color come together in a collectivist way, honestly. And I think it's beautiful because of the fact that we're saying, yes, this is what happened in our ancestry. And here we are now. And how do we work together? We're getting up off the floor. We're looking you eye and eye. And we're hugging and not fighting. And that's what this bill is. This bill is not only progressive, and it's not only new, but it's long overdue. And this story is far past the beginning. I feel like, heck, hopefully we're nearing the end here, some real momentum, some real tangible change. And so Chelsea or Kenya or Beverly, I don't know if you'll have anything else to add, but I would say that's my answer to your question. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else to add? I am a chair, am I allowed to ask another question? We have in our committee talked about and actually drafted or discussed legislation related to truth and reconciliation. And those words are used in the legislation here. And then the chair talked a little bit in the opening about the need to change the story through knowing the story. And certainly we had heard a lot of testimony as it related to the eugenics issue about what is not known about the story of eugenics or the experiences of many groups of people in our state. And so I'm wondering if this bill is also intended to, would you consider this a kind of truth and reconciliation bill? Anyway, I'll just leave it at that, I guess. I would not consider this a truth and reconciliation bill because I think that process is specific and needs to happen. And we don't have any interest in skipping over any steps. But what this bill is, while that's happening, there are moves we can make in the right direction. There are moves we can make that support people throughout that process. And I don't think that this process should be determined by that process nor vice versa. I think they're really different and I think that truth and reconciliation is going to take a while and it needs to. And there's a lot there, but it doesn't mean that we can't uplift people in the meantime who have not been uplifted. I would also add, if I'm not out of turn, I would also add that my master's degree is in peace splitting and conflict transformation. So this topic is within my well house of expertise. Peace and reconciliation is often looked at as the first step when a lot of times it's the last step. In order for you to have real mediation, real conversation, people have to get up off the floor and look each other eye in the eye. You can't ask me to have a conversation with you if I'm living in an equitable way that is one of truth and reconciliation. That's not how it works. I believe that sometimes the state has conceptualized this issue wrongly, that it's actually the opposite and that tangible things like the stuff proposed in this bill actually create the ecosystem that we need for the conversation to happen and the way we want it to happen. But we have to be empowered first. And what we're offering here is a huge step towards that empowerment. Thank you. Representative Clacky. Thank you, Chair. I think this bill is very compelling, but it's incongruent for me in the focus of the impact of communities and then is race, ethnicity, sex, geography, language preference, immigrant or citizen status, sexual orientation, gender identity, socioeconomic status or disability status is a lot. But the findings are all about the systemic racism for the BIPOC community and then the board is primarily the BIPOC community and as a person with a disability, disability is invisible in all of this. So I just wonder if the focus of who this is to benefit should be refined or then the findings and the board has to be expanded if we're really to address all of these issues. Because it just, it doesn't, I like both versions, but the bill is about one piece of this. So I'd love to know how you came up with the communities, the impact of communities and how their input helped shape this. Can I comment on this? Sure. Beverly, then I saw Stefan, perhaps. I think that, you know, in the asked about process, well, the process that we use to come up with this bill was a collective process and we heard voices from, from many people and that was sort of inclusive of all these people that, you know, that were listing in this bill is because in the BIPOC community we don't distinguish between if someone's disabled or if they're non, you know, non binary or whatever, you know, they might identify as we have always embraced all people and that might have been the downfall of some of the indigenous people because they were welcoming to the new people who came from the ocean, not knowing that their intent was to come and conquer. You know, I've heard that in the history books in high school that, you know, they were here because of religious freedom, but the agenda was to conquer and take over and as an indigenous woman it is only natural for me to want to make available resources that are available to me to all marginalized people and so that's why I am glad to see that whole list even if when I'm reading it I have troubles saying it so thank you. Well, Beverly, I agree with you and I embrace that but then I suggest that the findings and the board has to be more inclusive of those people too. That's all. So I would also say that, you know, as a person sitting here before you with two documented intellectuals, they call them disability, I call them learning differences, superpowers, you know, whatnot and as a person who used to create accommodation plans for people who were neurodiverse but also differently abled, I can tell you that that is something that was considered in the conceptualization of this bill. I would also say and I don't mean this in a condescending way but really in the most heartfelt way that the reading and the theoretical study of anti-blackness I think will really point this committee in a positive direction when it comes to understanding the true intersection of race and ability. I can point you to the school to prison pipeline as a very tangible example of what happens when disability or perceived disability or neurodiversity intersects with systemic racism. Those are things and lineages that every family of color I have ever met in my entire life and I come from a pretty diverse state originally where I was born, has wrestled with and has grappled with. They've also grappled with how to embed the accommodations that they have to create for themselves in a system that discriminates against them. If my child is looked at is differently abled, if my child is looked at as neurodiverse, they're going to be funneled into a pipeline to prison. They're going to be discriminated against in a way that is problematic and I think that he just actually popped out of the conversation. I don't know where he went. Anyway, the point that I was trying to make is that those things, disability and ability rights are embedded and ingrained in who we are and it was not done by mistake. It was done for survival and it still is done for survival. If people come before a BIPOC created board with the intersections that I have just named in mind, I can assure you that they will be accommodated for. Oh, you're back. I'm so glad. I'm so sorry you missed part of that, but I'm happy to repeat if you need anything. Well, I would love to hear it, of course, but put it on the board, though. Okay. Does that in the chat? No, no, no. I mean, put on the board membership, put someone that has lived experience with disability. I mean, it is what I would suggest, but I heard about the prisoner pipeline and I heard about the neurodiversity and I'm sorry I missed the rest and I think it's important, but I'm with you on that, but I just, as I see the board membership, it's people with all of this and there's no one with a disability perspective on this board and if that's one of the impact of communities, then I think it needs to be in part of the stewardship of this as well. Thank you for that. I just want to say one controversial thing. I hear what you're saying. I really hear it and I think I just want to emphasize what Stefan said a little bit. I grew up in Vermont and growing up in Vermont as a Black person in the 80s and 90s is a little bit like having a disability. You are not treated the same. You do not have access to the same things and I think Stefan's point is that we see you, all of you, and we hear you and your concerns will be addressed fairly and inclusively, I guess for lack of a better word, but yeah, I think that if you look at the board and at the makeup of the board, it is all groups that are familiar with being left out of the conversation and that's across the board, so it doesn't matter what your ethnicity is. The makeup of the board is that of people who will have your back basically, no matter what your ability. All right, further questions at this time and again, folks, this is the beginning of the process legislatively and so we will be as we work on a bunch of different things, this will be in the mix and what we will do is reach out to the seating of Vermont group and to others to start taking, when we start taking more testimony on it to get more witnesses, folks that you had mentioned that wanted to testify as well, but I really appreciate you taking the time to come in and present this bill in this way. I'm very grateful for you to take that time and to present it like this to us, so thank you. Last comments from you, from any of the guests before we go, before we take a break? No, I'll just thanks. Yeah, I would say that we are happy to take on really heartfelt and reasonably-minded considerations and amendments and I just don't want to leave without saying that either, especially around things like ability and disability, so thank you. Thank you. I too would like to thank everybody for taking your time to listen and to be present and there are large numbers of people of color who have disabilities and who feel invisible and so it's important to include all those marginalized people in this, but we do hear your concerns, Mr. Kalaki, and we will probably talk about that. Again, I want to thank everybody for being here. Thank you, Tom, for sort of moderating this. Thank you, Representative Murphy. Thank you, Chair Stevens. I just a bit of a tangent to the discussion we've had, but not completely. I received a magazine from the Vermont Land Trust just in my mail yesterday afternoon that has an article speaking to land that's being preserved in Brattleboro and in a process with the Abenaki tribe of the area and I just really was excited with the confluence of happening on that article at lunch today, knowing we were having this conversation and like I said, it's a bit of a tangent to the bill that's on the table, but it is a piece of a bigger action and recognition that Vermont is looking at. So I just wanted to put it on people's radar that the Vermont Land Trust Spring 2021 Magazine has a wonderful two-spread article about some of this work. And thank you all for being here. Thank you all for hosting us and we look forward to working with you to see this film move forward. Great, thanks everybody. Yep, thank you.