 Christy, is there a lag when it tells us that it's live and when it actually goes live? There it is, a little bit of a lag, but you are live now. Okay. This is a meeting of Senate appropriations. We are continuing our work on the administration's fiscal 21 restatement budget for the remainder of the fiscal year. Included in the governor's budget was a proposal to appropriate $2 million for a stimulus equity benefit that would be paid to individuals working or their children in Vermont who were not eligible for the federal benefit. I believe that I can see the icon that Susanna Davis is here and now we have our video as well. The first place to start is to have you give us a presentation of the proposal. We know that there's been some shifting sands in terms of the cost analysis and the number of individuals who would have estimated to qualify. If you could bring us up to date, that would be very helpful in terms of the proposal and any data in terms of how the administration came forward with the original $2 million and now what we understand is estimated to be $5.3 million. So thank you for being here today, Susanna. Well, thank you for having me. This proposal, I actually just sent over a one pager that may be of use to you. A couple of you may have seen it already. It is very brief at walking you through the purpose of this proposal, the numbers involved and the estimated number of people who would benefit from this proposal. So I'll be brief because I find that this conversation is most fruitful when it's question-driven. So the proposal on the table is to create a state-level relief fund for people who were excluded from receiving CARES Act economic stimulus payments for reasons of their or someone else's immigration status. We are looking at this because the pandemic has impacted absolutely everybody. Regardless of the person's legal status, regardless of any other factor, everybody has been hit by this and yet it's become very clear that the federal government has chosen to surgically exclude certain people because of policies out of Washington from being able to recover and to be sustained economically. So the state and a number of other jurisdictions have decided that it's our duty to pick up where the federal government fell short and this is one way to do so. So this would provide payments to eligible adults of $1,200 and eligible children of $500, which is the same numbers used in the CARES Act. To anybody who was excluded from CARES Act payments due to immigration status, a note is that this does not only impact people who are immigrants in this country, it also impacts people who are U.S. citizens who may have been born here and I'll get into that in a moment. This is going to impact nationally 8.2 million U.S. citizens. It impacts children regardless of the child's immigration status and it impacts a lot of people who have really done nothing wrong other than not have a social security number, which is legal sometimes. So there's some technical information regarding exactly how the CARES Act was able to exclude these people. They used SSN, the Social Security Number, as a proxy for immigration status. The problem is there are lots of people who are legally present in the country who don't have social security numbers and so it ends up ensnaring legal immigrants and people who are affiliated with anyone who doesn't have a social security number. And if we could just get a quick scroll on this document just to make sure that I haven't missed anything else. Scroll it down. Chrissy, are you the one controlling the screen? I am. Was it not scrolling? No, we only got partway through the chart that had the numbers. How about that? Can you see that? Okay. So we got partway through, so basically what we have is an estimated universe of 5,000 identified in terms of what bucket, so to speak, that those individuals would fall in. Okay. So by our best estimates, this proposal, we would have an estimated up to 1,000 eligible children in Vermont and up to 4,000 eligible adults in Vermont. Those 4,000 eligible adults include persons who are undocumented in the US who work in dairy, persons who are undocumented in the US who work outside of dairy, persons who are legally present in the US but who have no social security number, and persons who are citizens and legal permanent residents, that's green card holders, which totals the 5,000 Vermonters. I would like to say, and this gets at that question of 2 million versus 5.3 million, this 5,000 Vermonters is our top level estimate of who exists in the state who could be eligible. Not only that, it assumes, well, the 5.3 million dollars would represent $1,200 payments to all 4,000 adults and $500 payments to all 1,000 children, which supposes two things. Number one, that our upper numbers are V numbers, and number two, that every eligible person will present for these funds. So as we consider the funding amount, I know that was a big question that was swirling around, well, is it two or is it 5.3? 5.3 really is what we see as the likely ceiling. We began the proposal at 2 million to begin this conversation. Unfortunately, this is a population that is often difficult to identify and quantify. So we don't know if 2 million is enough or too much or exactly the right amount. Yes, excuse me. You can't see it, but I have a question from a committee member, Senator Ash. Senator Ash. Thank you. And I think my question is consistent with where you're at here on this. Because we're at people who are not in the legislature or the administration are, they're advocating for 5.3 million now based on these numbers. The budget director has said 2 million now, and if we have to do more during budget adjustment because people, we get closer to the ceiling in terms of take-up rates, we'll deal with it then, with I think an implicit commitment that we'll come up with the funds then. And it puts us in the awkward position right now as we do the budget for the next three quarters of getting pressure from advocates to do all 5.3 million now, which means cutting in the governor's budget 3.3 million from something else that hasn't been identified or taking the budget director's position, which is just do the 2 million now with a commitment. We'll figure it out in budget adjustment if the numbers rise up higher. So I'm just, I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but I'm looking for clarity about what the request is right now. Not what we think the grand total might be between now and budget adjustment. Also, if I could just add to that what isn't clear from that response back from the commissioner was, if the 2 million, it turns out to be insufficient, then would the other applicants have to wait until a budget adjustment to provide the additional funding, which wasn't really clear. In other words, are we going to start a program up? And then if the funds turn out not to be sufficient, then say to the other applicants, wait until we appropriate more money through a budget adjustment. Maybe that's getting into a level of detail that we need to ask. And I don't know if commissioner Greshan is on or not. Maybe that's, but you can understand the dilemma from a budgeting perspective in terms of that response. Of course, yes. And to complicate the matter further, I would point out that your colleagues in the house just voted out this bill from committee with the number of $5 million, which would be the 2 million that's proposed from the general fund and which would add 3 million from a prior allocation that has been unused for a couple of years. That's the change program. I understand. Yes, actually that was an appropriation that was done by this committee and it was to use the tobacco settlement money as a way of doing some system overhaul to better serve Vermont children who are in the court system as a result of abuse, neglect. And my understanding is that there has been a workgroup and obvious and had presented a spending plan for some of the money that had been allocated. So I guess then the house considered the original purpose of the funds and has decided to divert the funds for the improving our child welfare system to be the backup funding for this particular benefit. Correct. With a reversion back to that program for any unused portion of the funds. All right. Well, we have to have some discussion on that. I mean, because I believe that until a kid in child custody dies and then they're going to say, why did you put money into reforming the system? But that's not your issues, Susanna, to answer. Sorry. As a matter of fact, I believe the communication that we got from the council was to go to reserves. So to fund the balance of this benefit. I believe that was the document that you provided to us on behalf of the council that that was the proposal in that document was to use. I'm sorry. Well, we had a document that was sent to us. Stephanie Barrett put it up and it was, it was, I think it was your testimony on behalf of the council. It wasn't from you as an individual basis that recommended the 5.3 and recommended that the additional funding should come from reserves. That's my recollection of that document. Obviously, the house, if what you're saying is their decision, rather than providing that backup funding from reserves has opted to redirect the money to improve our child welfare system to fund the benefit. So that's not your issue. It's just trying to understand the funding stream for what is being proposed. Okay. All right. I think that is important for the committee. Senator Sears, you've got your hand up and you're muted. Well, I want to unmute. I want to say that, you know, going from 2 million to 5 million is a big jump out of funding, but the funding of it is not the issue right this minute. It's whether or not we should do this. And I'm glad that the governor of the state of Vermont and whomever else in the administration has pushed this, has done this. And I just want to be on record with that because I think so many states are moving in a different direction when it comes to hoping folks who are working on our farms and other places, our hotels, whatever. So I'm pleased that we're actually doing this. It might sound like we're just quibbling over where did the money come from? But I think the important thing is that we're moving forward with this. I think the committee can figure out where the money comes. Okay. Other comments? I know that our Senate Ag Committee very early on had a lot of discussion around funding benefits. So, Senator Ash? Can we go back to my question just about what the administration is hoping we'll do right now? Two million and then sort of commit that we'll do more through budget adjustment if needed or asking for 5.3 or 5, whatever. What's the actual ask? It'll be a disappointing answer from me, but I think the actual ask is just whatever fills the need. The administration is committed to filling the need. So if that's greater than two, then we can come back for budget adjustment and commit more. I suppose the question is, do we tie up that money on the front end without knowing whether we'll need the full 5? Or do we allocate, and I apologize for any background noise. This is the moment when a truck decides to pass by and linger. Or do we start with an estimate and raise it as needed? And I don't really know that that's for me to say, but I would just urge the committee that if we do not, if we fund it at a lower number, that we in good faith consider returning if the need ends up being greater than that when it comes to budget adjustment time. I think, so at this point, the administration has not taken a position on the bill that the House seems to have developed, and we'll be passing out as we understand a separate bill from the budget. That's my understanding that that was their decision, was to take this particular proposal and move it forward as a separate bill. I guess we will have to ask we will ask the administration in either Secretary Young to let us know if they prefer doing what the House has decided to do, and then we can talk about obviously the funding behind it, or the first communication which was do the 2 million and we'll deal with it in budget adjustment. So we which is the current the latest communication that we have from from the agency of administration. So we need we we need to get clarification and appreciate your honesty that that is a position that it's got to be taken by by the secretary. Okay, Senator McCormick, you have your hand up. Yeah, thanks. I have a question that kind of calls for some speculation on your part, and I apologize for that, but but you're closer to the you've been monitoring this more more closely than this committee has. I'm worried about the money running out if we go to the Budget Appropriations Act route, the money running out and someone needing the money and being told yeah well it's November maybe and the Budget Adjustment Act get started in January gets passed sometime after that. So just hold your breath until we have some money for you, or will we know beforehand you know like how do we know what the what the need is. I understand we don't know right now, but we don't know until until people ask. Well, I'll let I'll let Susanna answer that if she feels comfortable. I think it's going to be a matter of timing, and I suspect you won't know around the adequacy of the money when we pass and when we adjourn September 25. If it were a CRF eligible expenditure, we're going to have a mechanism to deal with this, but we're talking about general fund which which creates a very different timing environment, and maybe that's why the House took the the position it did, but you're correct budget adjustment even under the best of circumstances doesn't get passed till February. Yeah, and that could that could end up as being a need unmet, not delayed, but really unmet. And these folks have good reason a lot of them have good reason to keep a low profile. So I understand why we don't have the information. So why don't we take advantage of Susanna's understanding, and that is once we do this appropriation, obviously there's been the whole take up issue has been a topic of discussion because so many individuals are apprehensive about connecting with government or what that might mean in terms of their own security or the risk involved. So how do you envision this payment being administered and what entity of government would do that and how do you because we don't know it's not like you've got the social security number so how do you envision administering the benefit. So, to the question of how do we estimate that that we'll be able to administer the program to enough people if we fund it at less than 5.3 million. No, no, I'm just in general, in general. Yes, yes. So just in general on the numbers one thing that we wanted to one of the one of the recommendations that I had was that we earmark the portion that we assume could go to eligible children for those eligible children. So as an example, if we were to fund this had an amount of $2 million that first $500,000 would be earmarked for children based on the upper number of how many children we believe are in Vermont who could be eligible. That leaves $1.5 million remaining for the adults. At payments of $1,200 that serves about 1,250 adults out of the up to 4,000. Now of course that assumes that there are 1,000 eligible children and that applications will be filed on all their behalf in Vermont. If that's not true then of course that would spill over into the $1.5 million for the adults, which of course is already based on an estimate of how many adults we think there are. So it is tricky and I think that we won't know, particularly I think when applications first open it will likely be a slower trickle because a lot of people might be waiting to see what happens to others who apply for this program. Is it going to be easy? Is it going to be invasive? Are they going to be identified and have targets put on their, larger targets put on their backs? So I think we may have a few people initially and then when they have successful results then we may get a bit of a cascade of people who are watching to see. Now to the other question from Senator Kitchell about trust and administration and delivery, trust is going to be a huge, huge factor here. We could put $5 million, we could put $10 million into this fund, but if nobody trusts us enough to come forward with it then the fund is useless, right? And so established, we already have established contacts with a lot of these groups just through our work in different agencies and government and what's going to be absolutely critical here is partnering with service providers and community groups on the ground who have even more intimate contacts with these populations. That means groups like migrant justice, that means groups like AALV, that means groups who are on the ground working with populations who have experienced challenges with immigration or ancillary issues. So it's going to be a huge need for partnership. There's been a lot of discussion in the other chamber about which agency or department should be handling it and I suppose I should say just as a baseline, whichever agency is finally determined to administer this program, I intend to play a very direct role and have a hand in its administration. So that means AOA is necessarily going to be involved because that's where my role sits. And there was a lot of conversation about having AHS be involved as well because of the nature of the agency work, because of the capacity that it has to administer grants and because of the public reception that it often receives from families with whom it interacts. So the thinking on the table is that the agency administration mostly via me would interact most likely with the agency of human services and would work with any partner organizations on the ground to promote and assist in the administration of this program. We have a statewide network of community action agencies that have been in place for a long time serving. And I'm just one, in terms of a structure outside of state government that might be viewed as more neutral, that has some presence. Has that been discussed or considered? Well, I guess that would be part of your discussion with the agency because they have relationships with the community action agencies. But I was just wondering whether that structure was under consideration. It's certainly an option and I think every suggestion that we get would be of great use and figuring out how to do this in a way that maximizes our reach to people is going to be really key. So I would say that and any other positive proposals that can be shared, we'd be extremely happy to include them. Okay, question. Senator Ash? I don't know if you guys have imagined the mechanism to get the assuming this passes, the mechanism to get the money to the individual knowing that federal law enforcement agencies have frequently staked out courthouses and things to try to scoop people up when they go in with parking tickets. Is there a determined effort to make sure this isn't setting people up to especially between now and November to get scooped up by agencies at the direction of the president versus the governor? Absolutely. Privacy is a huge consideration here because for a lot of people, the ability to remain invisible or unnoticed is worth more than $1,200. And so you want to be able to help people not ask them to make that kind of trade off. That means a couple of things. One, it means creating an application process that is minimally invasive. Our questions should only be as probative as necessary in order for us to be able to pay a person. And then second, in terms of the actual format, I suppose that the money would take, you know, there were a lot of conversations about well, should we issue it as a card, maybe it could be a gift card or an UT card or a check or cash and a lot of concerns surrounding that. And really the goal, first of all, I would say that we have at least, well, no, up to, no, no, no, up to at least a thousand people who are either citizens, legal permanent resident, that's being card holders, or people who are lawfully here with no SSN, which means those considerations are a little bit low, not so much of an issue for them, because they tend to be banked and they tend not to have the same issues with receiving money above board from the state. So there's a certain population that we're not necessarily concerned about. And the others, we would need to develop a mechanism to figure out what's the best and most discreet and safest way to deliver funds to those folks. And for some, that might mean a check. And for some, we'd have to get created. And is the language that's been brought forward, how does it treat public records as it relates to the individuals and the payments themselves? And are you talking about audits, is fiscal audits? To make sure that it's not an end-around way for federal agencies to track people down? Yes, there is language that states that identifying information is to be kept confidential. And that includes everything from names, addresses, dates of birth, social security numbers, biometric information, and many other identifying factors. And this is language that was largely modeled on the driver privilege card statute. Okay. Well, some of us were involved in that, getting that passed. Other questions, Senator Ash, any more from you? I'm just trying to look at my screen here. No, I know that there will be people watching. And this video after the fact, and I just hope that, you know, there's an appreciation that there's a broad desire to do this. The way we pay for it in terms of phases sounds almost cold to the issue itself. But people should not miss that to take 3 million out of fixing our child welfare system. When just two years ago, we were under a lot of pressure because of real challenges that system was under to put funds there to bolster it back up. And, you know, taking money that was there to solve one crisis to help address another equity issue can come back to haunt us. So, you know, finding the right amount of funds, of course, is important. Where you get the money from is also important. And that's where we may see this somewhat differently in terms of the source of funding, to be honest. And maybe it's because that initiative came out of appropriations, as well as the... A member of the public should say, do we want to take money that might put kids at risk in order to provide equitable funding to people who are part of the backbone of our, you know, workforce? And they would probably say no. They want the money for it. But they would not, if they knew where the source was, they would not be so supportive. So, our job is to find one that doesn't put kids at risk in order to do this other good thing. And I agree. I think that's where we're going to come down. I'm just saying that the House decision to use that funding source really comes back to a priority that we established. And we're going to have to make that determination around how the level of funding and how... And what is the source of funding? Because I will remind the committee, we also have a report coming from the University of Vermont because Vermont as a state brings more children into custody of the state, where an outlier in terms of the number of children who end up in the custody of the state, which is really concerning for many of us, that we seem to be so different than all the states around, particularly when we're making... From our perspective, we feel we're making significant investments in support and services to families. So, this... The decision of the House, and that's nothing to do with you, Susanna, please. I just want to make it clear what we're deliberating here is if we move forward and at a higher level, what does that mean and how we sort that out. And our ultimate decision may not be what is in the bill as it's sent over to us. So, that's just more for our committee discussion at this point. I see I have two blue hands. So, could somebody raise their hand? Alice, are you one? Alice and then Senator Sears. So, I'm just wondering if we know at this point how much money is in the fund that this would come out of? That's one question. And the other is, would there be an ongoing discussion in our committee as to... If we didn't go with that money right now to giving people a lesser amount of money now and then something later when in budget adjustment? In other words, the amount to get them up to 1200, that kind of thing. Is that something we would decide in our committee? I think that could be an option, but I think what we're going to be getting from the House is the full benefit and make it comparable to the federal benefit for that equity issue that has been raised. Okay. And do we know the amount of money in the fund? In terms of the, for the Chins, the Child Welfare, Stephanie knows that very well. Is there even enough money there to do it? There is. Okay. Stephanie, do you want to answer Senator Nick's question? Yeah. You have, you structured that appropriation, that $7 million appropriation, so that dollars can't go out until you actually formally do that. And the amount of money out of that $7 million that you have authorized is 1.25. So there's, you know, just shy of $6 million left in that. Okay. And we also have a plan that was provided to us by the Chins Working Group in terms of a recommendation around how some of that money would be spent. I think Judicial Masters were part of that home visitation and so forth. So that committee has been working in terms of how those dollars could be applied to serve our children in the Child Welfare system and those families better. Senator Sears. Well, I caught myself dual-tasking for a few minutes there, so this has already been discussed. In talking with people, it's clear to me that if there is another stimulus package that comes from the federal government, it will include another stimulus payment to the Monters, which I would assume once we've set this precedent that we would be looking at in budget adjustment another $5 million or like number will have a better sense of what the number is. But I think if, so I would say that it would be, I don't know how you turn this picket off once you've opened it, if there is another stimulus to the Monters from the feds. No, I would be very concerned about putting off a portion of this to the Budget Adjustment Act. Okay. The, as we know with the different funding sources and the Senate Ag Committee confronted this early on, is this is not a permissible use. And where we have money is CRF, federal dollars. Right. And our budget in 21, we've got that revenue loss of about $100. But I do remain hopeful that Congress and even the President would come up with a new package of help to people in the United States, which would include more money for Monters, but will also include another stimulus, a jack of $1,200. Actually, my wife and I pretty much spent ours in anticipation. So I just want to point out that when that, if that comes, one would expect that we should do the same again. So we'll be looking at another appropriation. Whoever's here, I mean, I don't know, I might not be here. Oh, well, okay, that that that is an argument to move forward, do it and do it at the same amount. The larger issue is the extent to which the State General Fund has the capacity to do additional payments is a potential one out there. And it creates an expectation, I guess, is what you're saying. I'm saying I don't know how you would not do it. I don't know how we're funding it at this point. I know, I don't know how, but I'm not even, I don't like the funding source that the House is using. So that is something we're going to have, we're going to make some decisions on that because it isn't the only funding source that would be permissible. So we may have a difference of opinion in terms of the importance of continuing to proceed with improving the way we serve children at risk of neglect and abuse. So, but then that gets us to, you know, where do we go? And is it reserves? Is it some other way? We free up General Fund? Don't know that as of now, but I think that's going to be right there as a committee that we're going to have to consider. Senator McCormick. Thanks, but the fact that we're even talking about money that had been allocated for for children in jeopardy, I take from that that even though it's been appropriated, it hasn't been spent. We haven't had the cause to spend it. Is that correct? What I'm saying is that there's been a working group to put forward proposals that would move us forward toward that improved system. And we have a spend they submitted in just as we left in March, a proposal that would use some of that money for the judicial masters, which was viewed as really important in getting timely decisions and dealing with the delays in the court system, home visiting models that have been proven effective in working with families to prevent the need for children coming into custody. And then we've got another report that's coming out of the University of Vermont looking at cases to get a better understanding as to why Vermont practices are bringing children into state custody at a much higher rate than any others. So there is work underway in terms of how that money that's been appropriated and it's and a plan has been presented to us as to what would be the next steps and the next use of those resources to improve the system. So this is not an unused fund. No. This is a competing. Yeah. Yeah. That's important. I think one way or another, though, that we've got to air on the side of not leaving people out in the cold and saying, well, hold your breath till February. And so you're reaffirming Senator Sears' comment about moving it forward and following up. Well, I just, I'd like to, I understand that Senator McCormick and Sears' argument and I know the activist politics right now on the House side have been persuasive to put all the money in, even if it's not all going to be needed. But we don't always put all the money on the table for the maximum potential utilization. And I think recent actions on using federal care funds for business relief as an example, where we wanted to see how it went before we decided how to use the remaining funds. So I say that only because I'm very worried about where this money is going to have to come from. And it's not about the commitment. It's about the trade off. And everyone loves the spending side. And we have an administration that doesn't want to put another penny on the table, which means it's going to compete with something else. We could just as easily put a microcharge on milk. People have been profiting off of this, off of many of these workers, not all of them, but a portion of them, the 1250 or 1000 workers that are on that spreadsheet, have them pick up some of the cost where they've benefited from these workers all these years. But I don't suspect we're going to see that. Other comments, Senator Westman, did I? I'd like to say that I'm a little concerned about putting all the money here when we aren't sure how many people are going to avail themselves of the program. And this is a very different conversation than what's gone on nationally. This is a conversation of everybody saying, in the end, we want to get to the place where everybody gets their 1,200 and a 500. And that's a very different conversation than the arguments of exclusion that have been going on at the federal level. And what I would say to my colleagues is, if you put the full amount in and there's money left over in the pot and there's some new benefit that comes along, that money will be seen as money as a target to make sure that we have a pot of money to start a new program. Well, I think we can be careful about if when we make a final decision of writing that language, and maybe you do it as contingent and that it's only as needed or something. So it's very clear that if we, depending on the source, if we use reserves, then if you only need 2.3, then it's very clear that that's all that's being obligated. But I understand that. But what I am saying is, if you put it in a pot, which it sounds like the house is doing at $5 million, if we spend $3 million on this and there's two sitting there, they're going to see this as stealing the money away from these groups. If you take it out of that pot, come January. And I'm fully committed to making sure that they get this. That we fund the benefit. But okay. All right. Senator McCormick, you have your hand up again. I have two blue hands on my screen. So one is Senator McCormick. Is there a second? Yeah, it's probably mine that I didn't lower. Okay. All right. Essentially, if we appropriate the money, and then it turns out we don't need it, but we appropriate it too much, it's not going to burn a hole in our pocket. We would then have it for other things. Or we would have language that would revert it back if it came to reverse or whatever. We can deal. But it's an issue that we need to be conscious about, as we're deliberating this. Might I ask joint fiscal folk who might know what the other body is doing? Are they voting this bill out ahead of the budget? I believe they are. They voted it out of House of Probes today. So it's actually going on the calendar, notice calendar then. I believe so. Okay. All right. All right. Other questions of Susanna while she's here? I have a question totally unrelated to this. And that has to do. Are you a member of ICAR? No. And that ICAR is the administrative group that looks at regulations and proposed rules. And the reason that I ask is I believe in Kentucky, they have a system where they're really trying to look at when a law is being developed or regulation to have a presence in terms of is there some bias here? Is it doesn't have some negative impact that might not be even thought about and to bring the perspective of why your office was created to that process as either statute or legislation is being drafted or the administration is proposing a regulation? So I'm just wondering. That's why I was asking if you were currently a member of ICAR, because it seems like the perspective of your office and that you would bring could be helpful as we're thinking about regulations that have the force of law. So I just want to let you know, I think I'm going to be recommending that you be part of that review process so that we can get the full benefit of your perspective. Thank you for that. Yes, what you're talking about is an equity impact assessment. They are so tremendously important. They are gaining currency around the country and different jurisdictions and State of Vermont has developed one and we are working to finalize it and implement it, not just in the executive agencies, but with hope with our friends in the legislature and in the judiciary as well and it would be an effort to make sure that in the same way that we consider the fiscal impact or the operational impact or what have you of a particular measure that we're also considering whether it's going to have a disparate impact on populations, especially historically marginalized groups. So thank you for that. We are very big on wanting to do that analysis and I hope that that's something that we can roll out really quickly. I will say that the State of Vermont is a member of GAIR which is the local and state government alliance on race and equity and we did take advantage of that membership and the benefits that it provides to help inform the equity impact assessment that we have developed. Oh, great. So we are incorporating best practices into the development of that policy. Great. Well, that's good information for us to have. I don't know, I'll have to check on it. I don't know if ICAR membership is, I think it's done administratively. I don't think it's prescribed in statute. So it just seems like that would be your presence on that review committee could be very beneficial and particularly as you're talking about the equity impact assessment. So great. Other questions of Susanna or comments while we are lucky enough to have her with us today? Doesn't have to be related necessarily to this but Bill? No? Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate your coming and so if you find yourself a member of ICAR don't be surprised. Okay, excellent. Thank you all very much for having me and of course I remain available to you if you have follow-up or other questions. If you find yourself being a member of ICAR, leave the room. Thank you. Tim, I know regulations are dry but sometimes they can really have impact that we don't even think about. There were some who were born to lead, others born to follow, others born to be on ICAR. Listen, I have to say one of my favorite cases from school was a case that hinged on the presence and the meaning of a semicolon. So people like me like that kind of thing. Oh my goodness, you're going to get McCormick and his comma, right? All right. Thank you very much for being with us today and we will be getting the bill over then from the house and obviously we were originally thinking it was part of the budget but moving separately. So we'll go back to our budget work then. Thank you very much, Azana. Thank you. Next on and I don't know.