 So I suspect we will have some more charters to move on relatively soon. But for today, we would like to take a final look at H-207. Good afternoon, Dr. Anderson, Legislative Council. How may I help you? Shall I go through the bill one more time? I did jot down the questions that came up March 27th, which was the last time this was discussed. And I can highlight the two outstanding points of discussion for me. Would you like that? That would be helpful. Let's take a walk through the bill language since it's been a couple weeks. Okay. The Charter Amendments begin by adding a new section 1501, which covers the eligibility of non-citizen voters in local elections. The first section here provides that any person may register to vote on Montpelier City elections, who on election day is one, a legal resident in the United States, two, a resident of Montpelier, and it ties the definition of resident to 17 BSA section 2122 sub B. Three has taken the voter's oath and four is 18 years of age or older. Section 1502 provides that any non-citizen voter shall be placed on a separate supplemental voter registry held by the town or city clerk, and that this registry shall be treated and maintained in the same manner as a voter checklist under 17 BSA chapter 43 sub chapter 2, which is the sub chapter that deals with these states voter checklists. Further provides that the city clerk shall develop all necessary forms and procedures for the implementation of the sub chapter and to highlight it since we just brought it up, that was one of the points of discussion that came up the last time we met was getting an idea of what the procedures that would need to be developed would be. Section 1503 provides that in any election involving federal, state, county, special district or school district offices or questions and city questions and offices that the clerk shall prepare and provide to any non-citizen voter a ballot that contains only the city questions. So on those election days where there are both the local and then those other governmental offices up for election, only the city issues and offices will be voted on by non-citizen voters. Martian has a question. Just to remind me, what did we decide on justices of the piece? Are they included? They are not included because they are a constitutional office. Okay, thank you. Section 1504 provides definitions for use in this sub chapter. First, the definition of legal resident in the United States means any non-citizen who resides in the US on a permanent or a definite basis in compliance with federal immigration laws. Second, non-citizen voter means any voter who registers and qualifies to vote in city elections under the first section we covered, section 1501 but is not a citizen of the United States. A non-citizen voter shall not be eligible to vote on any state or federal candidate or question by virtue of their registration under the first section. Jim has a question. Should that be clarified? We just talked about justices of the piece which is, I know it's in the Constitution but I don't think we think of it as a state or federal candidate. Part of the discussion around JPs when it came up was that they are a constitutional office but they are voted on locally. And at the time we discussed that, the committee did not express a desire to clarify that JPs could not be voted on. It was assumed that because they are a constitutionally elected office. Yeah, no, I understand that but I was just reading this. They're not a state office. I'm wondering if it makes any more constitutional officer of adding. I'm just one little person over here. In 1503 there's a somewhat more detailed list of the things they cannot vote on. And I just wonder if that federal, state, county, special district or school district office for question. That language should also be in 1504 or so too. That subdivision number two where we're dealing with the definition of non-citizen voter is a bit duplicative of the prohibition in 1503. So if you were to add expressly constitutional offices or even more specifically justices of peace to the list of prohibited offices, I would suggest that it go into 1503. This is a separate ballot that shall be provided and then. Yeah, I think it's pretty well understood as it is. So the final definition here is the supplemental voter registry. And it is defined as a voter checklist populated by voters who qualify under section 1501, but are not citizens of the United States. And it states that the checklist shall be held separate from any other voter list, held or maintained by the city. This is a good point to bring up the other point of discussion that came up on March 27. And that is how these checklists will be accessed by the public. And whether there are any concerns that the posting of voter checklists or the access to those checklists would allow individuals to determine citizenship status of registered voters. So we had gone back and forth about this for a while. If you remember when we were chewing on this back the end of March, you know, concerns about privacy and safety of people who might be separated out on the supplemental voter registry. And I think that is a lingering concern. Right. So I think as far as posting it, we talked about potentially posting both lists together, not separately, so that it would be less obvious. Yeah. And that ties back to the first point of discussion where the committee, while kind of trying to suss out how these checklists would be either merged, separated, posted for public access, what the procedures that the clerk in the city was going to be adopting, and whether those procedures could somehow protect citizenship status. So that's why we invited the city of Montpelier to be with us today. So I don't know which one or both of you would like to come and be in the hot seat for a few minutes, but we would love to talk with you a little bit about our concerns around the privacy and security of the dozen or so people who might be on that supplemental checklist. It's not some vault, so it's probably me. Hello, John Odom, Montpelier City Clerk, back again. If I can just dive in, my vision for posting the checklist was to fully integrate them. I mean, the discussion of justice and the peace notwithstanding, I have been assuming the entire time, that they would not be voted on since they are a state office in reality. And so that entire, so you've got three elections and two of them, non-citizens would have no access to whatsoever. So there's just the one, just the town meeting day. And my assumption was, I don't print the raw lists from the Secretary of State's website anyway, I dump them into my own system and sort them how I please. So I would, my intention was to integrate them so you couldn't tell the difference for the purposes of the city vote. You mentioned it would only involve elections at town meeting day. Last November, you voted out a couple of charter changes, including this one. So is it your intent in the future when you're voting on charter changes that may be on the November ballot that they wouldn't be able to vote on? Well, first of all, by town meeting day, I should say any town election. Secondly, that was called as a special election. It did not actually exist on the November ballot. It was a distinct ballot, to separate them. They were at the same time, doing them concurrently saves us lots of money. But they were distinct elections, and they had distinct ballots, and I would approach them the same way. So you can integrate the two checklists for posting purposes. And so you just post those whenever there was a city election or question that both citizens and non-citizens could vote on. That's correct. JP and then Jim? I understand what you just said, sir, but I don't see that here that allows you to do that. Because it says it helps separate from any other older place held or maintained by the city. They will be held and maintained separately. It's just for purpose of print out onto paper. But that print out onto paper is not where they're held. It's simply a product, it's simply a work product, essentially. And that gets posted? That gets posted, yeah. So all the names under concern here are going to be posted on that one, either. But it's not going to have the direct, the residency. Right. The difference would be, I would be in a position, if we did have a concurrent town election like we did this last November, I would be stuck with posting two copies of the checklist. It'll be a tremendous use of paper. But it's not a problem for me. Jim and then Nelson? Yeah, I guess my concern would be more for the state and the other lap. Because you interchange your lists with the state on a frequent basis. And they maintain the statewide database. I'm just curious whether or not there's any issues going to the state. No, in terms of distinct, I take that to the full absolute sense of the word. As far as I can, they will be in distinct locations. They will be on distinct computers. They will be on highly distinct platforms that don't mix. That's like, go out of my way to do some technological tricks and mix them. So they will be as completely separate. There's no opportunity for mixing them unless I were to approach it with intent. Nelson? I think that way, being ahead of the party in my town, I used to be able to go in and ask for a checklist and put out a checklist and I get it. So I understand that correctly, you would have all names on that checklist, whether they were citizens or not citizens, to get to that party that requested. It would be interesting. I'd have to be asking people, do you want a checklist for city elections or for non-city elections, and then I would provide one or the other, which is sort of an interesting extra question to add, but it then creates that separation in terms of what work product I deliver. But you at that point would make that decision and deliver based on what you're asking? Yes. So given Nelson's question, if I just ask for both, and I've got the brush reference of finding out who the non-citizens are. Yes, you could. Any other questions, committee? In maintaining the supplemental voter registry, what information is that going to contain? Well, it would contain that information that is on the voter registration form, which is going to mirror a standard voter registration form, so name, address, birthday, place of birth, the answers to the questions other than the verifying that you're a citizen. Now, I'm not sure how much leeway of the law would allow. What I would like to do is craft a form that exactly mirrors that form, but then also asks them to identify what nation they're a citizen of, but that may or may not be appropriate. I was going to have that conversation, honestly, with Jesse Carpenter of Tacoma Park, who I've really taken my cues from. I have talked to her. They don't take any information from citizenship for the concern that it may be abused. Well, I would defer to her. Because they're a sanctuary city as well, so they're very sensitive about protecting their non-citizens. Well, I'm a data head, so I love to collect data, but now my intent was always to follow the good example of the Tacoma Park folks in every possible way that it lines up. Any other questions, committee, for being with us this afternoon? Thank you very much. Committee, are we ready to act? I would move that we report favorably on H-207. All right, we have a motion on the table. Jim, did you have something? Yeah, I just wanted to explain where I am. I'm not going to be supporting this. You know, it is near as I can tell, and based on the most recent information from the legislative council, it looks like local elections were required to be citizens back to 1864. So if that's correct, we're talking about reversing 150 years of history. I am very sensitive to what local voters approved, which is why we often routinely confirm and approve charter changes. However, I think, especially working through some of the charters this year, I think one of the things we've always asked ourselves is, what are we doing for precedent? Because the next town might have a different request, and if we approve the change here, how do we say no to the next request? For example, we've already got a proposal from Brattleboro to change the voting age locally to 16. Another town may be able to decide a different age. How do we say no to that? How do we say no to a town that might want to allow non-residents to vote locally? And what are the implications of doing that? So I also think, you know, while we need to be as welcoming as we can to folks who are new to our country and new to our state, I think we should be doing things to encourage citizenship and not potentially discouraging it from providing some of the benefits of citizenship without having to get it. That's just me, and I recognize I'm only one voice on this panel. We all make choices. If I were fortunate enough to own a home in two locations, I get to pick one. That's my primary residence. I don't get to pick two. Or in the same way, different states. I think the same is true of citizenship and the benefits of responsibility set. So again, I will be voting no on the proposed charter change. Any discussion? Anybody else? Nelson? I think from what I've heard from this town, but others have been heard. I think I've heard it on the floor. I don't know if I've heard it here. But there are towns that voted for non-residents, and then they voted non-residents out and said, so if this town chose to choose this, it could change your mind in the future. It could be a problem. I think the more people we can invite to vote, the better off we are. When it comes to primary residence, primary residence is where you spend the most of your life living, to me, more so than whether you're a U.S. citizen or not. You should be given the rights of that area where you chose to live to represent your view. I do have a question for Tucker. Could you give us the rears-dictus version of what it does mean to be a primary residence? I think you referenced another statute. Do you have it open over there? The charter reference is 17 BSA section 21-22. Also, we do define what it means to be a resident is 17 BSA 21-22. Subsection B, that subsection provides that a person can only have one residence at a given time, and it means a person who's domiciled in the town as evidenced by an intent to maintain a principal dwelling place there indefinitely and to return there temporarily absent. So that's the intent. But then it goes on to say that it has to be coupled with an act or acts consistent with that intent, such as having your home there, getting mail sent there, for example. So it's intent and acts that are consistent with that intent. I'm going to support this, and the reason for it is because we're in a balling state in terms of our demographics. I represent Winooski, which is the most diverse city in Vermont, followed by Burlington, with 17% people of color, most of whom are foreign born. And I believe diversity is a business imperative, and without our democracy being born by all these diverse voices, we will eventually lose out. So times are changing, and I think to vote should be a right, not a privilege. And attain your citizenship is a process, and I think folks are on that path. But without hearing the diverse voices that are in our communities, I think they can form decisions to improve our communities. Bob. I'll support this because first of all, it's two doors down from Winooski. Been there for 30 years as a German citizen, is proud of her heritage, but wants to interact with her community more than just having had a job for 30 years as a productive member of the community. She wants to vote for the mayor. She wants to decide on the school board, participate in America, without sacrificing her pride in her heritage. That's not a need for me. I'm going to vote in support of this bill too. You know, I've talked to a number of people that live in Warrington, where I represent, who are non-citizens. They're from various countries around the world, and they would love to be able to participate in Warrington elections and town meetings. And you know, I look at the language in Woodcock versus Bolster, which is one of the Supreme Court decisions, which upheld non-citizens being allowed to hold local office and to vote. And it says, it has been a policy of our government to encourage immigration for abroad, and in early a period as may be to extend to such immigrants all the rights of citizenship that their feelings and interests may become identified with the government and the country. While awaiting a time when they can become entitled to the full rights of citizenship, it seems to us a wise policy in the legislature to allow them to participate in the affairs of these minor municipal corporations. I mean, I think rather than keeping people from becoming U.S. citizens, allowing non-citizens to vote will encourage them to participate to the fullest extent possible in our democracy and become U.S. citizens. Are we ready? Can we call the roll? Janet? Yes. Kit Smeller? Yes. Marwicky? Yes. Leclerc? No. Harrison? No. Gardner? Yes. Palacic? No. Hoover? Yes. Colston? Yes. Copland-Hanses? Yes. So I could ask the man with the folder over here of deep resources around the history of non-citizen voting if he would like to report this on the floor. Sorry, Warren. His folder is a little thicker than yours, and I have a feeling he is going to be quite prepared for any question that he might get on the floor. I was expecting to give the same answer, but he hasn't taken it down. Yeah. Did you see Betsy's email? Yes. Yeah, 10 seconds. So I thought it was up to 1907. All right, so we have 10 minutes before we have an opportunity to have an introduction to what a roadside BRE visit might look like for those of you who haven't had the pleasure of experiencing one. You really don't want that play for a reason. My other lady. So was that what you found too, John? No, I didn't throw the answers until... I had found it at first, but it said 77. No, I saw that too. It said most of it here. That's great. Yeah, Betsy has a scratch on this one. Yeah, there's also a president. Coming up. Coming up. Yeah, Bobby. Come on. Hey, how are you? I'm good. I'm just a city of life. A city of life. A city of life. A city of life. A city of life. How are you doing? I'm fine. How are you doing, sir? I'm fine, I'm fine. So things are good? You got it all right? Amy's all right. Amy and Gary are both living in Fort Leihors, Florida. Do them as we are then. My sister was bummed when she moved further south. Her husband George's passed away. Your sister knows full well that she has a whole bunch of stuff on her mind right now. I just didn't ask her and she'll tell me, that's right. Yeah. That's really good to see you. You're good to see you. How's it going? Good. Good to see you. Well, I didn't appreciate you at all. That's the edge of it. You're really terrible. That's fine. You're really good to see you. Thank you. Well, you're very good. You're having a good time. Go for your time. You're trying. I'm not going to go over here. You're telling us all the same things. You're not going to go over there. Basically, it actually looks like all the same. You're telling us how we can get a second one. If you start yawning, we're going to cut you off. You're going to cut yourself out. You're going to cut me out. Yeah, yes, yes. Yeah, I am. That's how I end up. Yeah. Yeah, I talked to David's chair and Liz never went to September. He's not going to go. And we just went there and said to him, well, we don't know top day about everyone. I'm going to go read what I have to get out of here. Oh, no, I'm good. You have some hand, though. No, but he might need a volunteer. For what? Did you have a call? Can I walk a straight line? Yeah. I never do. No, I never do. We starting right now? Let's give it a moment because I think that J.P. and John in particular would like to be a part of this. Thank you for coming out of committee to share your information and experience with us. All right, well, let's go ahead and get started. And I'm sure that Representative Cannon will join us momentarily. So thank you for being with us today. We have had in the course of talking about the cannabis bill have had a great deal of conversation about roadside sobriety. And I figured since we have someone with a fair amount of expertise just downstairs from us, we could have you explain to us what is the specialized training that a DRE goes through and what would a roadside test for impairment look like since I'm just making the assumption that none of us around this table have ever had the pleasure of having been evaluated in this way. Sure. So for the record, I'm not a machine representative of Dumberston and also relevant to the record, I've been a Vermont State Trooper for a little over seven years and I've been a drug recognition expert for about a year and a half now. And my idea of coming up here to testify is to provide you folks with the step-by-step process of what both the road officers go through and how it corresponds with what DREs do to help them out. So just to provide you some quick background, I don't want to bore you or anything, but the DRE program was created in the 1970s with the LAPD and the National Highway Traffic Safety Association. And this was done due to an increased number of incidents in which people were impaired and they were crashing their cars but they were not obviously impaired by alcohol. So this was developed as a systematic and standardized system or process that is administered the same way to all subjects and it's administered the same way by all officers. So I'll provide you with just how a typical traffic stop would go in which there would be a DUI drugs investigation. So let's say there's an officer who's not a DRE. He pulls somebody over who... I'm walking you up. Oh, yeah. Yeah, maybe. It's going to be a passive test. Maybe we'll find out shortly. Can I be there for that? So an officer pulls somebody over, let's say they're not staying in their lane or they forgot to use their turn signal, whatever the reason may be. This officer goes up and observes that this person has constrictive pupils, their speech is slow and raspy, and they also see what we refer to as a law enforcement clue. They see a syringe on the side of the seat or on the floorboards. So that officer, through their conversation, can order this person out of their car. They have reasonable suspicion that they are impaired. Order them out of the car and have them perform standardized field sobriety exercises. This involves checking the eyes for nystagmus and then it involves the one leg turn, I'm sorry, the walking turn, and then the one leg stand. And I can break those down further for you if you'd like me to. And so after this, what the officer will do is ask for a voluntary sample of the person's breath. And so let's say this person had a beer earlier in the day, they'll blow maybe a 015, which is well below the legal limit of .08. However, this officer sees that this person is acting in such a way that they're impaired and that they're worried that they may have other drugs on board, aside from alcohol. Because let's say this person failed the walking turn and let's say they, instead of taking nine steps, they took 20 steps and they didn't count their steps out loud, which is another clue. There could be the reason to believe that this person is substantially more impaired than what somebody would be if they just had one beer, if that makes sense. And so they administer the PBT, this officer thinks this person may be impaired on another drug. The DRE will typically meet this officer who will arrest this person at the police department or the barracks. And they'll perform the 12-step process for the DRE evaluation. So the 12-step process, I'll just break it down for you. And if you want to follow along, this process is, you can pretty much see it on this piece of paper that I handed out. This is what the DRE fills out every single time. It's the same piece of paper that they use. And this is part of the systematic and standardized approach. It has to be the same way for each evaluation. So the first step is you have to get a breath sample. That starts at the roadside where the arresting officer will get the breath sample ideally. And then the DRE starts stepping in where they interview the arresting officer. And it's at this point where the DRE takes into consideration what the arresting officer has seen. But it's important to note that just because the arresting officer says, I think this person has been using heroin, that doesn't necessarily mean that the DRE is going to say, all right, well, you think he's using heroin, so that's probably what that means. So what the DRE has to do is determine what drug category this person might be impaired on. And so after the interview with the officer, the DRE will begin the preliminary exam. And this is where they take the first pulse to measure the person's pulse. And then begins the eye exam where you'll see a little bit less than halfway down. If you look to the center of the page, it'll say HGN, left eye, right eye. You'll be checking for a lack of smooth pursuit. You'll be checking for nystagmus at maximum deviation. And you'll also be checking for nystagmus at the angle of onset, which is prior to 45 degrees. And after that, you move on to the divided attention test, which will be the modified rhomber, the walk and turn, the one leg stand, as well as the fingertip nose test. And then you'll move on to checking the person's vital signs. So the blood pressure, you'll check their second pulse, and you'll also check their temperature. And you'll also, after that, you'll take them to a nearly totally dark room. It's not completely dark, but near total darkness. And you'll check their eyes again. And you'll also check their oral and nasal cavities as well. And then from there, you will check their muscle tone. There are drug categories that will affect your muscle tone. So if you look at this indicator's consistent with drug categories, you'll see about halfway down, you'll see different indicators or symptoms that are created when you ingest different drugs and how it will affect your muscle tone. After that, you'll check for injection sites. And then if the person weighs their right to Miranda, you can get a statement from them. After that, the DRE will form their opinion as to what drug category the person is impaired by. And it's also important to note that the DRE isn't there to say what specific drug in a drug category that person might be on. They're there to establish that a person is impaired by one out of the seven or possibly multiple drug categories. So if somebody has been using heroin, the DRE would say this person is impaired by a narcotic analgesic, of which heroin is a drug category. And after that, the last step would be the toxicology test. And so the arresting officer would either get, would acquire blood voluntarily from the individual who was arrested or fill out a search warrant to obtain a sample of their blood to be used as an evidentiary sample. And that would conclude the DRE process. Typically, it lasts, it really depends on who the officer is and who the DRE is, but the 12-step process lasts maybe 40 to 45 minutes. It also depends on what sort of statements are being acquired. And so if somebody wants to talk for a long time, you're going to listen to them and you'll have a longer period. But when you take into consideration the time of the stock, all the way to the time of taking the person to the hospital and then bringing them back, you're looking at about three to four hours. And this is a process that will take usually at least two officers to wrap up. Now, what I've been thinking about a lot of is the saliva test that we've been thinking of incorporating into the tax and regulation. One of the, I mean, I'm kind of on the fence. I'm not really sure what direction to go in with how I feel about the saliva testing as somebody who's performed these car stops on the roadside. When I've talked to my colleagues recently about this, the main feeling is please don't create any more work for us. They think we officers feel that we are able to do these evaluations without a saliva test. But to incorporate the saliva test on top of already having a blood test, that is creating more work, especially if there is the affidavit part, this expedited affidavit being attached to it. But the general consensus is make it either saliva test or a blood test. We don't need to necessarily have both. On the other side of that, it's possible that making folks aware that the police have a saliva test as a tool in their toolbox could be a deterrent, because I'm sure there are people out there who think that if they smoke marijuana and then in an hour or so get behind the wheel, nobody can tell. But that's not the case we can tell. And so, but if they might be deterred from doing that, if they're aware that the police have a test in which they can check for the presence of cannabis. And the other concern that I would have is that the saliva test doesn't check for impairment. It checks for the presence of these metabolites. Can we interact with a couple of questions? Rob, Marcia? I actually have a couple of questions. One, can you walk back to briefly a sequence of events that did I hear you say that a person could actually be under arrest and then the DRE is brought in to the picture? Yes, if the person is impaired. So if an officer has probable cause that an operator is impaired, they'll be arrested and then they'll be brought back to the police department and then put through the evaluation. And then just to touch on the saliva strips, couldn't it also be looked at by using the saliva strips that it could show that somebody doesn't have anything on board fairly quickly and that might make the interaction in the process substantially shorter. For instance, I've noticed here one of the questions is, are you on insulin? And I know folks that are diabetic that when they're sugar level can react differently at different times. Yeah, that's a valid, that's a good question. And one of the things that the DREs do is rule out medical issues as the cause for impairment. So if you actually look at the very bottom of the drug influence evaluation sheet, you'll see that right underneath no impairment, it'll show medical. And so if somebody, I mean to answer your question, yes, the answer to your question is yes. DREs do play a role in determining if somebody's actually experiencing a medical issue as opposed to being impaired by drugs. But I don't want to divert from your question, which is, could the saliva strip show that somebody has no drugs in their system? I suppose, yeah, that is possible. But there are also drugs that metabolize very quickly, inhalants come to mind. I don't know enough about the saliva test itself, because I've never used one or really read in depth about the different saliva tests. So I don't know how it would pick up on drugs that could have metabolized already, but cause somebody who had been impaired, and inhalants come to mind because those metabolize very, very quickly. Martian. Where did you receive your training? The training was performed in Burlington, and the training is, the first pre-school for DRE training is 16 hours. And then the basic school for training, I believe is 56 hours, followed by between, I think it was 40 to 60 hours in Arizona at the Maricopa County Jail. Where we go through field certification. Is the blood test considered to be more comprehensive? So if someone has a blood test, that test will say what types of drugs may be in that person's system? Yes, a blood test is very comprehensive. What you would do with the blood test, prior to sending the request up, you have several pages of all the different drugs and the different panels that you can choose to test. And what the drug test will show you are the different levels of metabolites. So you can trace back, depending on what the drug is, how much of a drug is present in a person's system. If you get what I mean when I say trace back, so depending on how many metabolites of a certain drug there are present in there. And is that considered to be more comprehensive than a saliva test? I would say yes, but I haven't used a saliva test, so I can't really speak to the saliva test thing itself. Thank you. Jim. So you mentioned the term, and I suspect in your experience as a state trooper occasionally parked your car somewhere with a radar gun or just parked your car there, you probably notice a change in the average speed. And I would suspect that if you would disappear tomorrow from that location, that because you were there yesterday, that might continue on that the speed limit will be down a little bit. I guess I would have to think that I don't understand all the science, all the saliva tests, and I mean it certainly is not the be all end all, but if it were to be churned to some people, might that not help? I think if it were an effective deterrent it absolutely could help, but on the other hand we already have preliminary breath tests for alcohol, and that's not a deterrent for people driving out of the influence of alcohol. It is for me. That's for you. There's a lot of people who still drink and drive. But the fact, and I know alcohol is a little bit more kind of dry, the risk is too high. It's definitely deterrent. What's the average amount of time to process a blood test or start to results? It takes, you'll probably get the blood results back typically a week, I want to say. You can ask to have it sooner. Sometimes it takes a bit longer than a week, but if it's let's say a fatal car crash, you can just reach out in the lab and ask if they could hurry it up, and typically they won't say no. So could a saliva test be used to instead of like find someone that is impaired, could it be a test to show that someone isn't impaired? So for example, you know as we get to the end of the session I sometimes drive home at two in the morning, or one in the morning. I'm trying to get home quickly because I prefer to be home. I get stopped by the state police. I haven't been drinking or smoking or anything, and they give me a saliva test and it shows no cannabis, no nothing in my system. Could it be used slowly to rule out impairment? I have to be careful on saying that it rules out impairment. It rules out that you don't have drugs in your system. I mean, frankly, you have to be a brand new rookie in all respect to the word to think that somebody who's tired is impaired if you actually look at the totality of the circumstances. Because we're talking to the person when we pull them over. We're able to smell their breath. We're able to look at their eyes. I mean, typically I can tell if somebody has something on board within 30 seconds to a minute of pulling them over, if not sooner. When you look at somebody's eyes, after a few years of doing this, you recognize that the second you look at somebody's eyes, the size of their pupils, whether there's red and conjunctiva, you'll know. Or at least you'll have a firm idea as to how you should proceed. But to get back to your question, I don't want to avoid that. It won't show that you're not impaired. It will show that you have no presence of drugs in your system which could expedite the process. Similar to what you had mentioned earlier. Nelson? I understand the blood test takes a long time. Slabber test is instant. I want to hear you give them a slabber test and you can tell if that time of you have to send that voice. I'd have to speculate, but I believe that it would be instant. I mean, like I said, I've never actually used one or seen one in action anywhere. But I do believe they're instant. As in a yes or no to the presence. Those are chemical presence shows of this. Rob? Even with a blood test, though, that doesn't demonstrate that there's impairment, right? It just confirms that there's drugs on board. But because there's one no established threshold as to what would mean impairment or not. Isn't that really about the same as with a slabber strip? I guess you could quantify with blood tests how many nanograms of THC you have, but yet it still doesn't speak to whether there's impairment or not, does it? You're correct in that it provides a quantitative assessment. Yes, you're correct. Another thing I wanted to point out, something that was in the miscellaneous transportation bill, was creating the opportunity for EMTs to go to police departments to draw blood for the conclusion of these DRE evaluations. And that's really wonderful and awesome. And the reason I say that is because the most frustrating part, or the most difficult part of the DRE evaluation is when you get to the toxicology because that will oftentimes require writing a warrant, calling a judge, calling the state's attorney, typically in the middle of the night, and then after that calling a judge and then getting your warrant approved, and then you have to take the individual who's been arrested, you take them to the hospital, which is seemingly always busy, and then you have to ask these nurses, please draw this person's blood while you're in the middle of dealing with all that you're dealing with, you draw the blood after being at the hospital for an hour or two, and then you drive the person back to your barracks, and then you can release them to a silver party. However, with this new provision in the transportation bill, which I'm a strong supporter of, instead of going back and forth to the hospital and tying up resources there, you can have EMTs come to the barracks or the police department, draw blood there, and then the EMTs can leave and you have your sample right there, you don't have to drag the operator to and from, and it would cut down the time of the process substantially. So that's something I'm a strong supporter of, and it'll definitely help out the process. So I just want you all to be aware of that. How? So how would you process a person who is taking medical marijuana and their stop, but they have it in their system? So the reason that somebody would get stopped and screened for DUI is if they are a hazard and a risk to other operators on the road. I mean, if they're operating negligently, then they're not using medical marijuana in a way that is safe for other people. I'm not opposed to medical marijuana at all, but if you're using it right before driving and you're unable to stay in your lane, then you're in danger of other people and yourself on the road, and that would be a DUI drug investigation. And same thing if you're taking Vicodin because you have a surgery and it affects you in such a way that you're unable to safely drive your car, that is a DUI drug space, that would be investigated as such. I mean, like I said, if you take this Vicodin and it affects you in such a way that you're driving into oncoming traffic, that's your URE hazard to yourself and other people on the road. But if they had a tail light out and you pulled them over, and I mean, is there any way to differentiate that? Yeah, that's what... I'm sorry. No, no, no. Just, you know, would they go through the entire process because if you're using a blood test, it just detects it's in your system but not in pyramid? Yeah, that's what the first step of the process... Rather, that's what the officer who will pull that person over. That's what they're going through on the roadside at the first stage of this. They're determining if this person is impaired by putting them through the standardized field sobriety tests. Which, you know, they are administered the same way for every person. And so, if that... And so, if the officer is able to conclude that this person is impaired, then they'll be taken through the remainder of the process. But you have to show that, you know, having a tail light out is an impairment. But failing all the field sobriety tests, that is an indicator that the person is impaired. Having a tail light out is not impairment. And I think that I've heard a great deal of concern that the unrestricted use of a saliva test could end up with people who have a tail light out getting a saliva test and showing a positive result if they used last night or over the weekend. So just kind of curious at where in the steps of the field sobriety test do you actually make that judgment call? And is that made only by DRE or are there rank and file troopers who are not DRE trained who would be able to make that evaluation that someone was impaired? Can you clarify your question? I'm not 100% sure. Where in the steps of this process do you become certain that somebody is impaired? After... By substances as opposed to just being sleepy on the way home from a long week of work. So the officer who makes the car stop if they have reason to believe that a person might be impaired then they would put them through the field sobriety tests of which there are three and then after that they make the determination and then they'll also provide the preliminary breath test and if the person blows zeroes or well below a zero-eight which is to leave a limit for alcohol and if the officer still thinks that this person is impaired by a drug and they have probable cause to believe that then they will make that arrest. And that's when the DRE is coming in? Correct. Oftentimes they're called in the middle of it. Nelson and Jim. The extra saliva test wouldn't be done until we've done the breathalyzer so there's a whole process that's done to see if the person is impaired or not initially and then at that point when they think they're impaired is when they'll do the saliva test. Correct. I mean that's how I would perceive it. Because at that point if they don't think they're impaired in any way from driving and arrest I understand it correctly. They tell them to get their tail end fixed and they go away. Yes. And the process is ended at that point versus when they do a saliva test it shows up that you've had something in your system which could have taken a month or some other stuff and you don't hold them in an arrest or are impaired if he isn't impaired. Just because the test showed that he had a saliva test showed that he had a drug in his system but nowhere else did it show that he was impaired when he did the test. Yes. I think I'm not... You've gone through the whole test. Nothing shows he's impaired. A saliva test was administered by someone. It shows that he has a drug in his system. At that point is he arrested for being impaired? You need probable cause that somebody is impaired and if you have zero clues on the field tests then you can't arrest this person if there are no clues of impairment. Because as a statute reads you have to be impaired to the slightest degree and if there is no impairment whatsoever then I don't see how you'd be able to arrest that person. That word is a different word. No impairment is shown up. Do you still go along with the specialized tests or the saliva tests? If everything is shown he's not impaired from the test. I don't do that. If I pull somebody over and they've gone through the fields of variety tests with flying colors and I have no reason to think that they're impaired on anything I'm not going to ask them for preliminary breath tests. John. Somebody asked me this question this afternoon about saliva testing. If you were to take a saliva test, what do you do with this sample after it's been tested? I would have no idea. That's not... So are you asking... I guess my follow-up to that could later be used to grab your DNA. I don't think... I can't really speak to that. That's something that's... Because you know, I've done a test with Ancestry.com and you spit into a little thing from your saliva and they were able to figure out your DNA. Yeah. I don't... No, I can't really speak to that. Okay. That would be... What we would do with that I don't really know and I can't speak specifically on behalf of the state police or any other police agency as to how they would store information or a sample. I mean that's in their own rules and regulations. So I can't really speak to that. So let's come back to what a DRE does and what that test for roadside impairment looks like. Is there anything else that you wanted to walk us through in terms of understanding the training that you've had or the process that you would use to evaluate someone for impairment? I mean, what I'll tell you is that as police officers and DREs, we're looking at the totality of the circumstances. We have to take in all the information that we have. Everything from the way the person was driving to the field sobriety tests and things that we might see inside of their vehicle as well. And it's... I did go over the training that we go through. It's in Burlington. We also do the field certifications in Arizona. And I think the state has a little over 60 DREs now. Is that right? 56 DREs right now. In my opinion, I think one of the things that we could do to help roadside safety is have more DREs on the road. I think that getting this process done quicker and more effectively with... I mean, I still get phone calls to go to DRE requests in St. John'sbury and I'm in Domveston. And so, you know, we're few and far between and it's a very good program that's being run in Vermont. And I'm not just saying that because the person who runs it is sitting here, but... And it's... I think having more DREs out there would be a start. Again, I'm on the fence about the saliva testing because I think about being on the roadside. I mean, DRE, DUI drug cases are some of the most stressful cases to have as a typical road police officer. You know that you're going to be involved in this for hours. You know it's going to involve needles and drawing blood and writing warrants. And I mean, if you want to stress out your sergeant, get two DUI drug cases in one shift when it's a light shift and people get stressed out. I think having more DREs on the road would be helpful. Like I said, I'm still on the fence about the saliva testing and whether or not having this... That's actually another thing that I wanted to discuss is this expedited affidavit or expedited search warrant for saliva testing. I've asked around what that means and nobody really knows what it means to do an expedited warrant on the side of the road before administering a saliva test. So those are my thoughts there. I don't know if anybody has any questions after that. Nelson. I have a question. You said there was... I heard earlier in testimony that there was about 300 state troops in the state. And if you're saying 56 are trained in this, are they located, spread out across the state so that they easily can get to the southern end from the northern end or are they clustered in the middle? Were there any populations? So for your question, first part, it's not just troopers who are DREs. There are DREs in other police departments. And ideally, they are spread out throughout the state and at different police departments. Yes. So they're not centralized or anything like that. He points in this process, even in new sections, does the individual have the opportunity to opt out? Opt out? Yeah, you pull somebody over for straddling the lane or something, they've already got the violation. And then you start to pick up information where they have the opportunity to say, I don't think it's going to be interesting to do that. And then you might assume you have something to do with this. So it would... I mean, it's hard to speak on... I mean, you have the opportunities to say no to different things. You don't have to weigh in your Miranda and you do not have to participate in the DRE process. I forgot to mention that earlier. So, you know, after somebody gets arrested, brought back to a police department, as a DRE, I go into the processing room, I ask this person, I introduce myself and I make it clear that I'm here as an impartial observer and I'm going to make the... I'm going to form an opinion as to whether or not you're impaired by drugs or which drug category you might be impaired by. And then I'm going to report that decision to the officer who arrested me. And then after I explain that to the person who's been arrested, I ask them if they want to waive their Miranda rights and talk to me, they say yes or no. Oftentimes they say no. And then we move to the DRE process, I explain what it is, and then they say yes to that. I explain that they have the option. I've never figured out why they don't want to waive Miranda, but they will go through the DRE process, but that's just the thing that happens. But yes, they do have essentially two options that I found out during the DRE process. And then based on the arresting officers information, you may escalate it up. What do you mean? Call of state attorney. Yes. You have to... Well, you need probable cause to get a search warrant. And if you have probable cause, then you can write the warrant and then draw a letter. You did that, Bob? Yes. Marcia? How effective would you say the DRE testing is? I'd say it's... I have the exact number. I think it's somewhere at 92%. I think that it's effective. It's not perfect. And it's... Yeah, it's not perfect, but it is effective. And after the training that I've been through, I'm confident in my ability to, if I were to put somebody through this 12-step process to make a confident opinion about what drug category that person may be impaired by. Thank you. Brad? Couple things. One, it sounds like the state's made quite an investment in you for the DRE on one of the things. Do you have any idea what the cost is to the state to get you up to speed, to be a DRE? And secondly, what kind of annual training or certification do you need to go through to the state program? I don't know the cost to create one DRE. I know that Sergeant Reagan might know that. And your question was, what annual training do I have to go to? Once a year we have, I believe it's an eight-hour training that we have to attend. Would you like to direct your question to the sergeant? Well, sure. Would you like to notify yourself for the record if you have the ability to answer that? I'm Captain Gary Scott of the state police, so that's federally funded to a grant for training, so it goes to a grant process that doesn't cost the state. So do we have any idea what it would cost to get to me? Yeah, we'd have to get back to you. We don't have it off the end. And would every law enforcement officer, let's say from this point going forward, if it was going to be trained to be a DRE, would it be federally funded? I'm sure that would run out at some point. All good things. It's also, it would be tough to make every single cop in this state a DRE. It requires a certain type to go into it. Yeah, but it certainly sounds like we need more and strategically placed. Jim, did you have a question? No. Yeah, I did. I don't want to belabor the deterrent, but some, we've heard that some areas, provinces, maybe states have gone to zero tolerance for drug life. I don't know if that's good or bad, because it doesn't necessarily mean they're impaired. If they are stopped and they got anything during violation, I just, you know, for something like PhD or something, so I'm curious what your thoughts would be on that. On having zero tolerance? I mean, so if somebody, the issue is that every single person is different and somebody who smoked a joint in the morning decides 24 hours later they feel fine, but it's still freshly in their system and they decide to drive somewhere they're going to work. Would that person fall into the zero tolerance category? That would be my concern. But then also the question is, going back to the actual law of DUI itself, is are they impaired to the slave's degree? That's the question. So I'll leave you with that. Lots of questions. How? So, if this tax and regulatory bill goes forward and comes to the law and we have a retail cannabis market, how many more DREs do you think you might need to do proper roadside? I can't, I can't really, I can't tell you. Not because I don't want to, I just, I don't really know. That might be something that Sergeant Brigham could speak to but I'm going to punt that to the commissioner. Okay. Sorry, I can't give him one. Come on. Any other questions? Thank you for spending some time with us this afternoon. It was very helpful. Good job. Well, Jim, you lucked out. We didn't, we didn't make you stand and... I don't want to stand out. You're still okay? Yeah, it's my fault. That's your nose. I've seen the guy dance. I've seen him dance. There's no way you can dance for those guys. Whoa, whoa. Who is it calling for? It's CVDs. CVDs to you again. All right. So, committee, you have, you have 20 minutes although if, do we know where Michelle is because she's been in contact with you at all, she was going to try to come during our... I understand it. You, okay. Who's identifying Michelle? We, um, we had talked in concept about continuing our walk-through of the bill during the breaks, but I suspect that she's out and busy that it would be a few minutes before she could get here. So, yes. Oh, thanks. Okay. So, committee, you have a 20 minute break. Krishna, thank you for being with us this afternoon. It's great to be back. We have been working our way through the, um, language in S54, Cannabis Consumer Protection and Regulations. So, the request was made that we hear from Public Safety. Public Safety. And here you are. I will give you the floor. Okay. So, I had, uh, I wasn't quite sure what your, uh, the focus of your questions were going to be or the focus of what you wanted me to talk about. So, I sort of prepared two different, uh, tax. One was just sort of my views of the wisdom of the, uh, the tax and regulate bill. Uh, the second was sort of what the impacts would be to DPS should a tax and regulate bill, uh, pass out of the legislature. So, if you want to give me some guidance of what you'd like to hear from me, I'd be happy to try to, uh, lie to you. The second one. The second one. Number two. There. Okay. So, I tried to break this down into, um, um, sort of what I would see would be the impacts to DPS in the event of a tax and regulate bill. And I tried to break that down into three categories. One was the cost of drug recognition experts. Uh, what we might see in, in that area. The second was, uh, the cost that would be associated with reducing the black market for marijuana, which would be a key component to the success of any tax and regulate, um, scheme. And then the third was just, uh, the cost for, um, testing. I am a firm believer that if we're going to go down this tax and regulate, uh, avenue, even without it, that, uh, we need a better testing mechanism for, uh, for drug impaired driving. And I've been supporting the, it's a lot of the bill, both last year and again this year, which I think is, uh, much of which committee that is in front of right now may be judiciary. Uh, but the cost associated should that bill, uh, pass. And the impact that might have on DPS. So, taking those, uh, one at a time, uh, the, the Governor's Marijuana Commission did look at the DRE issue, uh, fairly, uh, extensively as to whether the number of DREs was appropriate in the state at this time. And if we had a tax rate, what, what the additional DRE resources might need to be, might need to be. So, we concluded that, um, the number of DREs we have in the state right now, which fluctuates somewhere between 50, 55 and 58, I don't have the exact number right now, uh, is about correct. I mean, right now we, we don't think we need additional DREs within the state. We think we've got it covered pretty well. Um, but we're keeping, the conclusion of the Marijuana Commission, we would need to keep a very close eye on that. If we, if we were to fully legalize Marijuana, we are keeping our eye on it now that, uh, small amounts of Marijuana are legalized as to whether additional DRE resources would be needed in the state. But right now, at least from DPS's standpoint, and after conversing with others around the state, we thought the number was about right, right now. That's why we're keeping a close eye on it. Um, the cost of the DRE program in Vermont right now is about $300,000 a year, which includes training, equipment, and overtime for call-outs. Um, that is, that is paid for right now by, by NHTSA, by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, through a grant from the Governor's Highway Safety Program. Um, so that is basically covered with federal money, which is, you know, it's been fairly consistent, fairly steady over the years, but it's federal money, and I'm not quite sure what's going on. Jim. Is that $300,000, just the training cost, or is that the cost of, uh, these individuals hanging out at the police station? Uh, no, so that's, I'll get to that in a minute. There's some hidden costs here, but that's the cost of training, equipment, and overtime call-outs for the, for the DRE program. So each DRE that's going out, maybe on an overtime, maybe getting overtime depending on geographically where they're at, um, they could be going out on whether they're on shift or off shift, um, whether they're current DRE that's on call, it could be an overtime situation. So that does not include other costs associated with the department on the, uh, for the DREs. That's just the, that's just the straight cost for the DRE. Mike. Just to clarify for me, for example. Yeah. Not part of that system. So that, someone's a DRE, it's something they do in addition to their regular services, right? It's not something they focus on exclusively. No, it's a collateral duty. So there are DREs that are in state police, there are DREs that are in, uh, local police departments, and I, I assume everybody knows what a DRE is. I didn't, I didn't fall back and like, you know, would interrogate recognition experts. Not just that they do. Okay. So, um, as to what they do and what they do. So, um, but it is, it is a collateral duty for, um, for troopers. It's a collateral duty for, um, you know, the local PDs that are, that are DREs. They go through a fairly extensive training. I'm sure you've covered it much better than I can. As to what that training entails and what it involves. But ultimately it's an expert, it's an expert opinion, give it in court about whether somebody is impaired or not impaired. It's not objective evidence. It's a, it's an opinion by a, somebody that's been specially trained. Um, and that's, that's what it is. They go through it. How they testify. Um, so the, I just wanted to, I do want to point out that $300,000, that doesn't, um, it doesn't, it's not sufficient to cover all the components of the DRE program. Um, state and local police agencies bear significant costs in certifying, maintaining and deploying DREs, except when deployed on overtime. In addition, when a DRE is deployed, agencies occur additional costs in backfilling of positions. If it's a shift, if they're on shift at the time. Uh, vacated by a DRE. We did an analysis of the state police budget and we estimated that our costs are approximately between $28,000 and $70,000 a year. Um, in additional costs that we incur in supplying DREs, um, statewide. It's difficult to estimate these costs across the state. It wasn't something I, I, I tried to do uh, fruitful in, in coming to that conclusion. Uh, but the state, the local municipalities and local departments have those same costs. So for example, the DRE goes out that's on shift and is going to be out for three or four or five hours. Oftentimes, we'll have to call in a back, you know, somebody in on overtime to cover that DREs. Uh, that's now vacated their normal shift, their normal shift work. And I think that occurs both at the local level also. So that's sort of a hidden cost. It's a, and it's not easy to calculate these additional costs. We calculated it out at the same between $28,000 and about $70,000 um, each, each year. Um, Bob has a question? Yeah. So are you sharing? Is this a communal poll at DREs for town and state? Yes. Okay. So, you know, maybe we'll be better understanding that. But there are, there's a, there's a, there's a whole scheduling system where DRE will be on call and we'll be reporting out. We did have issues initially, I think, of having enough DREs to be able to handle all the calls. But, you know, uh, suspected drug driving cars, we just didn't have an available DRE to go out there. So, if somebody from Burlington needs one, the BSP supplies one, you have to backfill who picks up that tab. I, I, that was just coming out. I'll just pay for that. It's, it's either an overtime cost to me coming out of my general fund budget. Um, and I'm sure for the locals it's probably the same, same reason. But it is a communal, it's a mutual A type of, uh, system where we're, the DREs, a number of DREs and we just sort of figure out who's going where and what the schedule's going to be to cover wherever needs to be covered. So, um, so they're saying, you know, it's, it's all federally funded. I mean, federally funds can be um, there's no guarantee they're going to continue at this level. And then there's no guarantee they're going to continue indefinitely. Um, and it's also, I think it's reasonable to question whether the, the federal government is going to um, continue to fund any DRE program. And I haven't checked other states now that have legalized marijuana, but it's certainly within the realm of possibility that the federal government will say, if you have legalized marijuana and we are no longer in a fund your DRE program. Um, I don't think that's beyond the, uh, the realm of possibility. Marsha. That's still illegal under federal law. But, you know, we need this program to anyway, to determine if someone is driving under the influence of some other type of drug and opioid or Oh, absolutely. And if we lost the federal funding, I'm sure I'd be banging your door down to give me general fund money to fund this program. You know, I'm confident that this would be a significant public safety issue if you know, tomorrow they were to pull the nits of money and say, we're no longer in a fund your DRE program but we're funding it to the end of the end of this fiscal year. I, you know, I'm confident I'd be banging your door down to say you can't let this program just, you know, wither on the vine and die. Um, and do you know, is there any data about the, uh, people that have been arrested under this program and what specific drugs were in their system? Um, I, I don't have that data on the head. No, I'm trying to think whether that's data we could collect and get for you. Um, it might, it might be. You know, a number of DREs that were deployed um, the number of DRE, you know, whether we then, there was a blood test that followed that that we then had a quantitative and quantitative analysis of what the drugs were. I, I don't know that. So it may not happen all the time where you've got a DRE that gives an opinion and then we're also getting a warrant. I don't think that happens. Um, except in many fables and, or significant bodily injury in cases. Maybe you, maybe you can help me answer that. Yeah, I can chime in if that's okay. Um, there, there is data that's available. Uh, it's kind of like an update as to, um, you know, what drugs were present. Um, and how many people were pulled over and, you know, the the presence of the metabolites. Like what, like was it over five nanograms or under five nanograms for cannabis, for example? I can go through my email and, uh, dredge that up for you and send it to the committee. Send me a link. But, um, correct. We don't do that in every case, not every single task. Everything will be DUI that we pull over on and use a DRE and then we're getting the blood to save it. Um, for the at least in Wyndham County where we do, the state's attorney says that, you know, if you're pulling somebody over and it's a DUI drugs case, you'll either apply for a warrant to get blood or you'll do it voluntarily. Um, that's how it is in Windsor as well. So it's, it is up to the discretion of the state's attorneys. But from what I've heard, it's generally common knowledge that you will be getting a sample of the person's blood, whether through a warrant or voluntarily. I can check that. What, you know, what the other what happens statewide on that, on that issue? Because it's in the whole blood testing and you get a warrant, which is a separate, you know, kind of use a separation. Um, so anyway, that's, um, I think Rob has a question. That's all I got on the DRA, Alyssa. Well, I do that. Do you have a rough idea what it costs to get a patrol officer up to the RE skill level? I'm, I'm confident I can get you that number. I don't have it in my breakdown of, you know, cost per officer to get them to the training. Do you have a rough idea what it would be? I don't. I mean, I do guess it. Um, but I'm confident I can get that. I just have gross numbers as to what we do. Bob, did you have a question? Not on DRE. We are, I think we're ready to proceed to item number two. You hit on, um, my particular area of interest in your introduction. Yeah. Um, the legitimate market does not succeed or does not succeed as well. There's a secondary market to retain. Um, it seems like you'd be enforcing that now. You just mentioned more money to combat that, which is puzzling how likely to expand on the wet plans that you have to enhance enforcement so that the secondary market gets eliminated. Okay, so I'm happy to segue into that. So I mean, most of the pro-marital legalization advocates claim that, you know, when you legalize marijuana, you're going to eliminate the tax and regulate scheme. You're going to eliminate the black market. I mean, that has been patently shown to be false in every state that's legalized it. Um, you know, Colorado is a thriving black market. Um, Washington is a thriving black market. Uh, in Colorado from 2016 to 2017, there were 480 felony arrests for illegal marijuana-related offenses. There were over 10 tons of legal marijuana that were seized and over 8500 marijuana edibles that were seized. Uh, in 2017, illegal Colorado marijuana was destined for 24 other states. So this idea that the black market goes away when you legally legalize marijuana is patently false. Um, so when I look at it, in order for a tax and regulate scheme to be effective, safe, and profitable, the black market needs to be eliminated or its effects reduced to a negligent uh, a negligent degree. And I look at that, there's two ways you can accomplish that. It's either through market forces that the legal marijuana is either better marijuana, it's priced, it's a better price point, and you let market forces drive the black market out. Um, or you have robust enforcement of the of the regulations and the laws surrounding um, the legal market which then is an enforcement issue to drive the black market out through robust enforcement. Or you have a combination of those two um, of those two things. Um, with respect to the market forces driving out it, that has not been the experience in the states that have legalized it so far. So um, you know, I think in order to eliminate the black market to enforce me, you have criminal investigations, you can use prosecutions, you can use civil penalties, you can have regulatory penalties, you can have barring violators from entering being in the market so that you found it to have been in violation of the market. You can use forfeiture tools to forfeit property that's used or intended to be used to violate the tax and regulate laws for marijuana. Um, I think that's what the evidence seems to show in the states that have um, legalized it. You know, right now we don't have sufficient uh, enforcement resources across the state to investigate and combat the illegal opioid market. Um, so we are stretched in on just doing that and frankly that poses a far greater threat to uh, Vermont than a black market marijuana would. Um, you know, marijuana is like outlaw has been identified as a so-called gateway drug. Um, it's typically used before a person progresses to more harmful substances. Um, that's from, that's from the National Institute of Drugs. Um, so I, you know, I think any tax and regulate schemes can have to have appropriate planning for enhanced law enforcement. It's ability to combat, combat would I think will be becoming an illegal market or a continuing illegal market um, within them. So I look at it, you're going to have to create a unit. I mean, I, I, you know, when I thought about this you'd have to create a unit somewhat similar to you have liquor control. Where you have people enforcing the laws with respect to liquor control, whether it's regulatory enforcement or criminal enforcement uh, regarding that. How big that unit would be, I'm, I'm sort of guessing at that. Uh, right now there are 12 within the, there are 12 inspectors in the enforcement division of the liquor control. I think you'd be looking at least doubling that. You know, where that would live you know, whether it lives under DPS or lives under a separate agency or whatever, you know, I think this is creating some sort of board or some sort of work. You know, where that would live I don't know. But I think you're looking at potentially doubling the size of what we have in liquor control inspectors now to be marijuana control inspectors for lack of a better word. And it could be more than that. I mean, I'm really kind of guessing at those um, those numbers. Mike has a question. At some point I'd like to if you could flesh out those numbers because users of alcohol and users of marijuana there's a wide disparity there. And yet you're saying you think we're going to need twice as many for marijuana. Well, what I'm saying is, if you're going to create a tax and regulate scheme you have to have the ability, if you're going to, if you, if you don't have that any you wouldn't have to have any. I mean, you just want to let the, let the market take care of the market and the black market flourishes, flourishes. If the goal is to get rid of the black market you're going to have to step up enforcement on the enforcement end either in the regulatory end or the criminal end to try to make it so hard to conduct the black market that you don't want to do it. But you don't have to do that. What I'm trying to say is if you, if your goal is to eliminate the black market because that's what makes your tax and regulate scheme successful there's going to have to be some increase in the number of enforcement officers, whether they're regulatory enforcers or whether they're criminal enforcers to do that. And I, I, I really don't know what that number is. I mean, it's hard to tell, you know, what that, what that number would, would be. I just thought probably looking at doubling the size of what we have right now, which is 12 liquor inspectors, they're now going to be shifted to going to be marijuana inspectors or marijuana enforcers or whatever we want, whatever we want to call them. I did break down some numbers. So the cost of hiring 12 sworn members of the state police is approximately $2.2 million a year with a total three year cost of approximately $4.8 million if you are going to be serious about eliminating the black market under a tax and regulate scheme. That's sort of my best estimate on that. And it really, you know, caution it is strictly an estimate. I wish I could give you more solid numbers on it, but we're kind of going down, you know, we're in uncharted waters right now. Do you know what other states are doing in terms of I know there has been additional law enforcement in those states. I can probably get to Colorado's and Washington's what the uptake they had in law enforcement in trying to enforce this, you know, enforce their tax and regulate scheme. I could probably find that out. I don't have that with me right now. Bob. So this is something that's currently illegal. What are we investing in it now specifically? Well that's, I think that's sort of the irony to me. It's like, you know, we don't really enforce, you know, have robust enforcement of the marijuana laws in the state. You know, we don't, I don't think we rest that off for marijuana violations. I certainly, I can't think of the last trafficking case that Transforce has done in the marijuana trafficking case. So the irony of this is like, you know, we have not, I think, had robust enforcement of marijuana laws for some time now. And now we would be shifting to a much more robust enforcement of marijuana laws because if you're in a tax and regulate in order to make that successful, you have to take some steps, I think, to eliminate this black market, which in my views, will exist. I think we agree. I just, and I'm not talking about the individual views or so much as growing in state actively pursue that. I can't tell you when the last marijuana trafficking case we did with one of the Task Force. Number one, I think will be prioritized, you know, drug enforcement of the state in the throes of this heroin epidemic. We are focused, you know, we are devoting our resources toward that. And then just sort of the general, I think the general displeasure in you know, enforcing marijuana laws, arresting people for marijuana violations. I just don't think that's an area that we focus on that. I mean, I guess the statistics, but I can't, since I've been Commissioner of Public Safety, I can't remember a case where the Task Force has been out with somebody for, you know, selling marijuana or growing marijuana or anything like that. We may have done it, but I just don't I don't recall any cases like that. We've just been focused on the heroin the heroin epidemic almost exclusively right now. Commissioner, I just want to verify what you said. If you had to put on additional troopers to to combat the enforcement of marijuana should have become a law. You mentioned the 2.2 million dollar figure, I think Yes. How many troopers was that going to get you? So my breakdown was the cost of firing 12 new sworn members troopers would be approximately 2.2 million a year in year one with a total three or cost of approximately 4.8 million. And you think you could do it with another additional 12? As I said, I mean, I've given my best estimation. That's my best estimate. Is it 12? Is it 15? Is it 10? Is it 8? I thought the reason way to look at it was we have 12 liquor inspectors right now. I would think at least it's safe to say we probably have to double that number if we're going to be talking about enforcing the same type of regulations and probably more regulations with respect to marijuana. I could be wildly wrong. But I think that's not an unprincipled way that I came up with that number. Right, I'm sure you had some data that helped you come up with that figure. You also mentioned that you believe at this point you have sufficient number of DREs. And again, just so I understand clearly, is that the current use that DREs are needed right now or should this tax and regulate become law? You don't think you need to find more DREs? No, I'm not saying that. What I'm trying to say is we think we have enough right now. We've been closely monitoring since the legalization last July to see whether we're pinched. And the way we see that is we don't have enough DREs to get out to every stop that when a police officer says I'd like a DRE to come out to this stop. And so we're monitoring that carefully. Do I think we're going to need more DREs when we go to the tax and regulate scheme? Yes. I just can't put a number on that right now. I thought the better way to do it was to monitor it and see where we're at and see if we can't figure that out as we go along. To add trainings and the number of DREs that we have in the state. That's the approach I've taken for better or worse. Okay, because I was just trying to quantify your additional dozen of troopers. Would they all be DREs? Maybe. Maybe, maybe not. Thank you. So that's what I had on the sort of the impact I thought to go down the tax and regulate. The other was just I had broken down costs of in-state testing for if we should get saliva testing if that bill should pass. Which I think is fundamentally I think the health commissioner said it would be unconscionable for that law to pass without prevention and education being part of it. I would echo that and say it would be unconscionable to pass a tax and regulate bill without a better way to test for impaired driving in the state of Vermont. I would echo what the health commissioner said on that. And I think saliva testing is a lot of misinformation about what saliva testing is, how it works and I think that is probably the best mechanism in which objective evidence and I'm not talking about an opinion I'm talking about objective evidence to be presented to a jury as to whether somebody had a drug in their system or didn't have a drug in their system. So, and I can leave the saliva bill for another day but I did break down the costs of doing that should a saliva bill or an oral fluid testing bill pass. So I have those numbers if you want to do like those. So would you imagine the spot of the test replacing the blood test? In most cases yes but not entirely. There may still be blood and fatal accidents or when somebody is unconscious obviously or in serious bodily injury cases I haven't thought that through but I think in those cases there may still be some time where you would want to take blood but in the vast majority of DUI cases that are just sort of run-of-the-mill DUI cases I think would replace it would certainly replace blood in those situations. Which is far more interesting than saliva. Far more interesting than the recommended standpoint than saliva. So I have, I did sort the cost of doing that we would estimate would be between our start-up costs would be somewhere between $290,000 and $393,000 and the breakdown of that if you're interested we have about 100 instruments that would cost about $265,000 to $368,000 there are cartridges that we deal with these cartridges are about $20,000 and then training materials about $5,000 so that would be our start-up cost our annual, we anticipated this was from the lab who was giving me these numbers the reoccurring cost would be about $60,000 a year not including personnel time but that would be for equipment would be for replacement cartridges that you would have to replace every year and then ongoing training materials and supplies that would be the breakdown of that so those numbers were $290,000 to $390,000 the start-up cost is about $60,000 a year so that would be the breakdown on sort of impacts that I see at DPS you know, personnel-wise financial-wise that would be that we would incur in connection with the attacks on regulatory system and I really got into just sort of what would be the increased road safety issues questions for the commissioner Jim so first of all, it sounds like you support saliva testing yes are there any alternatives saliva testing that we should consider alternatives to saliva testing not that I'm you know, I don't know of any as I sit here now that would give us I don't know of any I mean obviously blood, we have that we have that ability now to get blood but I don't know of any other less intrusive or very intrusive way to collect what I think is objective evidence of drug use earlier you mentioned that the states that have gone to a tax and regulate model still have a black market do you have any information that suggests the black market is the same as before tax and regulate decreased or increased I'm just trying to get my arm around if are we increasing the consumption of marijuana or is it just shifting you know black market to the legal market you know I don't have those specific studies as to whether you know you had a the same black market and increased black market but I, you know my understanding is the whole goal of this one of the things that the opponents argue repeatedly is you wouldn't get rid of the black market that's one of the pillars of why we should legalize marijuana is it would eliminate the black market it would control the type of marijuana it would improve safety of the marijuana that that's a core pillar of why we are doing this so I don't have you know whether it increased or decreased the black market but I'm not sure it matters as you know we legalize medical marijuana in the state and it's amused and have you seen an increase in any of your criminal activities due to the legalizing of that driving and etc well I did have some statistics on that so in in Vermont marijuana was decriminalized in 2013 in the three year period pre and post decriminalization there was a 28% increase for all motor vehicle crashes where at least one driver tested positive for marijuana for crashes resulting in a fatality the increase was over 30% statistics for 2018 which came out in early earlier this year I've revealed that 68 people lost their lives in fatal motor vehicle crashes in 2018 compared to 70 in 2017 and 64 in 2016 to me a particularly disturbing trend for the past two years is that by more than a 2 to 1 margin fatal crashes involving a driver suspected of driving under the influence of only drugs has eclipsed the number of drivers impaired by alcohol so that's 2 by a 2 to 1 margin the driver suspected of driving under the influence of drugs has eclipsed the number of drivers impaired by alcohol equally disturbing is that 23 of the 68 fatalities last year over one third involved drivers impaired by drugs alone or combination of drugs and alcohol just to repeat that over one third of the fatalities in Vermont as I was last year involved drivers impaired by drugs alone or combination of drugs and alcohol of these 23 drug impaired or drug and alcohol impaired fatalities 65% of the drivers tested positive for delta 9 THC the main psychoactivity ingredient in Maryland you know maybe that's coincidence but maybe to me it's maybe it's a wake up call JP Commissioner what was that figure on the THC? I'm sorry? What was the figure on the under the influence of THC? so in the of the 23 drug impaired and alcohol impaired fatalities last year 65% of the drivers tested positive for delta 9 THC so 23 of the 68 involved drugs or drugs and alcohol you know I haven't looked at it you know probably as carefully as I have I thought it was sort of a standalone agency I didn't look to me it was falling under anybody but I can't say that I've read it all I care about it so I'm currently wrong but I thought it was sort of a standalone you know not under anybody it just was kind of a new department or a new agency that was going to get stood up you know I was a minority of one party so but I was wrong to give it to you I'm still trying to figure out how we ended up with the marijuana registry but that's I have a real question oh you do you do well it was but I lost that one so your agency does the medical and one of the things that was very impressive to me was how you track every plant and your folks have access to that and follow it fairly great exactly you know I don't have any questions on such a system for a recreational field I do for a software you know I think in a perfect world yes I mean I'd have to talk to Jeff Wall and he does the you know whether from a practical standpoint that's even within the realm of possibility or what you know the cost may be prohibitive in doing that so if you stop someone and they had marijuana on them you can perhaps find out right then and there whether it was a legitimate seller or black market yeah I have to give that a little bit of thought if I just had a bag of leaves and I don't have the stamp of whatever they're however they're marking the plant I'm not entirely sure how the whole thing works but in theory that sounds good you know whether many things in theory that are you know in practicality are unworkable Nelson what would be your recommendation they have this standalone organization I understand I think I'll take a pass on that one I'm not sure I have enough information to give you a considered answer any other questions for the question Mr. Allen any time so many we're going to shift gears for just a moment and talk about the multilayer target change before we pass it in because I have information from Betsy Ann that I don't have some information from Betsy Ann I know so maybe you'd like to sure I discussed with Betsy Ann and Will the supplemental voter checklist and how having the separate lists that only identified non-citizens you know could be easily grabbed by someone so they have a proposed amendment which would basically create a city so that would include citizens and non-citizens on the list but it would make it more difficult for someone to grab a list of non-citizens they still could compare that city or local list against the general election list but it would be a lot trickier you'd have to comb through it to actually identify non-citizens so that's one modification they suggested the other modification that they did is just to make it clear that justices of the peace can't I know that was your idea Jim I listened Nelson How many voters are we talking about in this town that we're making a change we don't know I don't mean non-citizens how many in total total voters I think about 6,000 and you're talking 12 I think that covers anybody who wants to go through that many names to pick up great so this basically just puts some structure and requirement around what we talked about with the clerk in the concept by yourself Jim I think those changes make sense but I'm still not supporting but I do think they make sense and I would support so maybe a motion to reconsider our previous put up the language yes you should put up the language and is Betsy Ann able to come up not heard back from her yet she sent us I can forward it to everyone should Betsy Ann email and ask her I already did why would we have to reconsider we could just consider an amendment before I don't think she worded this in this way but we can still be in the email voluntarily send it to you too Kelly is it up there do you have it on the page it'll be it might be faster well if your ipad is there it might be faster waiting for what's it listed it's not in there she's fast but she's not quite that fast did we kind of push it just today just today nobody's just brought me this why is this why are you retching what happened freshman should be up can I gain a potential age to seven of men ready there should be a bill with highlighting it possible amendment she's on her way not going to use this anyhow she has to use her own she don't have it all set up she gets here yes we're going to continue we're going to look at revenue estimates how many of you are planning to go to the services tomorrow well it doesn't have any detail to it that's the end you can jump right into the hot seat thank you thank you for crafting some language that as we just looked at it with John and we haven't seen it up on screen yet looks to put a little bit of structure around what we had talked about conceptually with the popular city clerk with respect to how to treat the voter checklist to ensure the security of the dozen or more or fewer non-citizen voters you know please share with us what you've crafted for the record Betsy and Rask legislative council as I was listening earlier to the testimony of the city clerk it seemed that some of the testimony was that the plan was to implement the law in a manner that the language might not completely support for example the idea of having a supplemental voter registry I believe the quote was I'm coming from a different committee and I have my nose in front of me but that it would be kept as like a work product that wouldn't be made public but it's still a public document because anything produced or acquired in the course of a public entity's business is a public document so hearing your concerns about having just a list of people who are non-citizen legal residents I heard that as a concern and the plan for implementation didn't seem matched the language exactly so I spoke with the director of elections about it and got together with Tucker at the direction of the vice chair to potentially come up with some language to help better reflect what I thought what we thought we heard the committee want to do which was essentially just have a checklist of the voters that can vote at a city election because you're defining who can vote as a city election as the current voters under current election law and then adding on to that list the people who are non-citizen legal residents so those would be the people that are entitled to vote in city elections and so our idea was to clean up this language instead of having a supplemental registry containing just the non-resident non-citizen legal residents to just require the city to maintain a city checklist to be used in solely city elections so this is what we came up with as a draft strike all for you to consider if you do want to go that route to clean up the language what I've done here is this is an annotated version which shows in red striped through what language from the bill is introduced will be eliminated and then adding and yellow highlighting language that could be added so here under this language the first thing that would change is this sub chapter title instead of having a supplemental voting registry have a sub chapter just entitled city voter checklist for all the people who are eligible to vote in city elections it will start off still the section about the eligibility of non-citizen voters we discussed the language under the current bill is introduced it started off by saying in addition to our current voting qualification standard statute a person can vote if they're a legal resident and meets all these other requirements that are already in statute we are thinking to rephrase it as provided in H408 regarding 16 and 17 year olds voting in local elections to say notwithstanding 17 BSA 2121 A1 which is the specific provision of law that says you have to be a U.S. citizen to register to vote so notwithstanding that specific subdivision a person may register to vote in Montpelier city elections who on election day just like our 2121 already says is a legal resident of the United States so long is that person otherwise meets the qualifications of 17 BSA chapter 43 which is our chapter of election law that provides voting qualification standards this is a similar language to what's in H408 so notwithstanding the U.S. citizenship requirement a person can register if you're a legal resident and that's still a defined term unchanged as it was in the bill is introduced but you have to meet the other qualifications which are your resident of the city you've taken the oath and you're 18 years of age or older don't need to say that because the rest of chapter 43 applies which includes that definition of what it means to be a resident for example here in this subsection B that's proposed the language that says a non-citizen voter shall not be eligible to vote on any state or federal candidate or question by virtue of registration under this section this is just cutting and pasting from the language of the definition of non-citizen voter you can see here on the last page under the definition section that second section would be the second sentence would be struck on citizen voters not eligible to vote on any state or federal candidate or question by virtue of registration but it's under section 1501 now a couple of reasons we did this one to maintain the definition of non-citizen voter it would only be used in that section 1501 also we try to avoid not making substantive statements in a definition section leave a definition section what it's supposed to be doing defining a term so that's just a cutting and pasting of that second sentence up there put it into this 1501 about the eligibility of non-citizen voters maintaining that that clarity that a non-citizen voter is not eligible to vote state or federal elections by virtue of their registration for city elections then in section 1502 instead of having this language about a supplemental voter registry just calling it a city voter checklist going back to that same concept that these are the people who could vote in a city election so this would be entitled a city voter checklist the city clerk would still have duties to maintain it striking out from this section 1502 the language saying that a non-citizen voter is placed on a separate non-voter registry held by the city clerk and that's treated and maintained in the same manner as a voter checklist instead saying that the city clerk shall maintain a city voter checklist comprised of voters eligible to vote in city elections under 17 BSA chapter 43 which are standard current law election qualifications language and this sub chapter meaning this new city elections sub chapter which includes those non-citizen legal residents just requiring the city clerk to keep this city voter checklist separate from any other voter checklist so that for example in practice when you have a city election that would be the voter checklist that's posted that would be the checklist that's used for city elections for our general elections our primary elections there would be a separate checklist that does not contain the non-citizen legal residents maintaining this last sentence that the city clerk has to develop all necessary forms of procedures to implement this sub chapter still the city would have to figure out how to maintain these separate checklists how to populate them etc here in section 1503 this city election ballot we maintained all of the existing language and just getting rid of the non-citizen voter reference because this is just discussing that this is just going to be the city election ballot for those people who are eligible to vote in the city elections we did add at the bottom of the page except for Justice of the Peace to acknowledge that Justice of the Peace are constitutional officers that are subject to voting qualifications including citizenship Warren has a question so what ballot do the choices for Justice of the Peace appear on? well they would are to be voted on by our constitution at the general election we discuss this with the director of elections they would likely be either on their own free standing ballot just the Justice of the Peace ballot and only the people who could vote at the general election could get that ballot it's possible that those Justice of the Peace candidates would be on the back of the rest of the general election ballot but sometimes happens in some towns but the secretary of state's office prepares general election ballots that includes the Justice of the Peace candidates Bob? so does maintain a city list does anybody have the ability to query in a clerk we talked about this in the state-wide security of ballots and lists but tell me the people who are eligible to vote for tax office can you get that question? absolutely there are three kinds of checklists that a town has to include or has to have there is the one that's required by our current election law to be publicly posted in several different places around the town including the town clerk's office it helps that helps to know if you're registered to vote for example in the city election it's required by law to be posted it would still be posted under this language because it's your city election checklist there's also the entrance checklist that gets used when people check in to vote and then there's the municipalities portion of the state-wide checklist but that probably wouldn't apply here because that is for each town to help build the state-wide voter checklist of people who are eligible to vote in general elections so I don't think this checklist would populate the state-wide voter checklist big picture yes people can request the city checklist and currently there is protection in our statewide voter checklist statute providing that public officials cannot give a copy of the statewide voter checklist to the federal government or to the foreign government it's probably not captured here with this new city election checklist do the current language of the statewide voter checklist statute however that's something that you could possibly address for example in your miscellaneous elections corrections bill if you wanted to add local checklists to that same protection did I answer your question that's how I thought it's the problem we were trying to address to some degree depends upon which of us you are referring to more on than John I'm still bothered by the justices of the piece I hear we vote for justice of the piece until meeting day I don't believe so President Kitzmiller let me look up B it's by the constitution they're required to be voted on at the same time as your other constitutional officers well that makes it easy if I'm wrong then that makes it easy let me show you I believe you here we are by any all elections this is for the piece it's chapter 2 section 43 they have to be voted on on the first Tuesday after the first Monday at the general election we're almost there we just want to make sure okay good I was wrong do I have to ask a question I would thank you we had another reading last night I don't know if they have any broader questions thank you sorry I know there's an issue that a lot of people seem to have about the feds gaining access to this voter checklist and you said there's laws on the books which I know there is that prohibit the town court or the town court's office and whatever from releasing the checklist of the feds with these names but it doesn't preclude that from getting that list from somebody else a real citizen could they go into the town court and say can I get a copy of the checklist and they may have to pay a fee for it or put it on give it to them and write they can do that correct I'm pulling up the statutes so I want to confirm before I answer so let's look at the language together so this is the statewide voter checklist statute 17 BSA 2154 last session the general assembly added this B2 language to say that a public agency cannot knowingly disclose a copy of the statewide voter checklist or a menace pally's portion of it to a foreign government or a federal agency for these three purposes it's limited to these three purposes registering a voter publicly disclosing their info or comparing their info to another checklist and then any person who wants to get a copy of the statewide voter checklist under sub C has to swear affirm under the penalties of perjury that they won't knowingly disclose the checklist to a foreign government or a federal agency or to person acting on behalf of one in circumvention of the prohibited purposes for using the checklist so that's good so they have made reasonable efforts to ensure for the common then shall you know that so that when the average voter comes in and gets a copy we can't just start to show you if it's a good body of works prize correct but something I want to definitely highlight here is under this Montpelier city charter language you're adding on to the qualifications of who can vote and so as I understand it from speaking with the director of elections the city of Montpelier can't use their under this bill the whole new city checklist which includes our current law voters but also our non-citizen voters cannot use that to populate the statewide voter checklist because the statewide voter checklist is supposed to represent who can vote in our general elections so under this bill I do think that that protection in the statewide voter checklist statute is not going to apply to this language for this Montpelier city city checklist under the current language of the statewide voter checklist statute however I think it's possible we spoke with the director of elections about it if you want to apply that same protection to this new city checklist you can amend the statewide voter checklist statute to make it clear that also any city or town checklist can also not be provided to a foreign government or the federal government but I think you have to make an amendment to this statute to make that crystal clear that also sounds reasonable thank you and I think the director of elections that would be a fairly simple straightforward amendment and one we could probably make in our miscellaneous elections bill yes I think the language would just be in B2 here instead of saying municipalities portion of the statewide voter checklist would just say or municipal checklist something to that effect Jim but it seems to me we asked the clerks that question whether or not they wanted specific language last year when we did that other bill and they were in the bill maybe wrong but it was another bill that I didn't support so I'm just a negative person no you're not and that's Ian just the last thing to mention we've already addressed the definition section and removing that affirmative statement without the definition of non-citizen voter and just moving it up cutting and pasting it up above into section 1501 and then eliminating as unnecessary this supplemental voter registry since that would go away there wouldn't be a supplemental voter registry it would just be the straight up city checklist questions for Betsy and so before we knew that you were creating this nifty little strike all amendment we had a discussion on the bill so I'm just looking for a little procedural advice on what we should do to message our action to the clerk's office I think you need someone needs to move to reconsider your previous vote what is the threshold to reconsider is it a majority vote does anybody have a mason? I don't think anybody's going to object so I think it'd be a move to reconsider yes or no and then if the motion carries then you'd just be back instead of doing a favorable vote move instead I would move when we reconsider our earlier vote so you can proceed with this drink on you can't move this is just a submitting I think he was grinding some salt I know you're already down and bloody and he's grinding salt so committee let's do a show of hands all those in favor of reconsideration of our earlier action that's a unanimous so John what motion would you like to make I move to approve H207 as amended draft number 1.1 and just to clarify it it's actually draft 1.2 because this is the annotated version and then a clean copy just gets rid of all the annotations and I can show you that here so this is the draft 1.2 with all of the annotations incorporated ok so I move to approve H 207 as amended in draft 1.2 second discussion yes yes no no yes yes yes nothing changed nothing changed all they could work was reconsideration that's fair now thank you