 So as Senator Lyons is saying, this is a bill that hasn't yet been introduced. It's still in the draft form. But what the bill would do would be create, it's kind of two-fold. First, it's asking for a collection of information. It's asking that the agency of administration collects information about how every department that played a role in responding to COVID, lessons learned, gaps in services, what went well, what didn't go well, and to deliver all that information to the agency of the administration. And then the second part is to have a task force evaluate Vermont's response to the pandemic and to use all of the information collected from the departments to create a strategic plan for addressing any future healthcare emergencies that are occurring on a statewide basis. So to look more specifically at the language, this subdivision A1, this is the data collection piece. So we're asking that by January 1st of next year that the secretary of the administration consolidates all this data collected by each department and agency involved in Vermont's response to the pandemic regarding the respective department and his role in responding. And then there's a list of specific information that the departments and agencies shall provide to the secretary of administration. So the items on the list include policy modifications implemented in response to COVID, including the effectiveness and limitation of each modification, identification of any populations, regions or infrastructures that would have benefited from a more timely or robust state interventions or both. And subdivision C, alternative responses and policies that would have better served Vermonters, opportunities to prevent, mitigate and better respond to future health emergencies. And then a catch all in subdivision E, any other relevant information necessary to ensure that Vermont's experience during the pandemic informs future statewide health emergency responses. And then in subdivision two, starting on line eight, this is that by September one of this year, the responsive departments and agencies are to submit the required information to the secretary of administration. So just to give you a sense of this timeline, on September one of this year, agencies and departments are submitting their information to the secretary of administration. And then four months later on January 1st, the agency of administration has consolidated all of this information into one package. Also on September 1st, so the same day that the agencies and departments are submitting all this information to the secretary of administration, the secretary on that date is also convening the task force for the purpose of evaluating Vermont's response to the pandemic and developing a strategic plan for addressing future health emergencies. In subsection C, we have a list of members. The secretary of the administration is to service Chair. Other members include the secretary of human services or designee, commissioner of health or designee, commissioner for children and families or designee. The commissioner of Dale or designee, commissioner of V or designee, commissioner of corrections or designee, commissioner of mental health or designee, commissioner of DPS or the designee, Secretary of Education or the designee, Commissioner of Labor or the designee, Secretary of Commerce and Community Development. I'm noticing here it doesn't say or designee, so that might be something we wanna add. The Secretary of State or designee and in subdivision 14, any other persons the Secretary of Administration believes would be helpful. So flexibility for the Secretary to add other individuals to be members of this task force. In Section D, we have the responsibilities of the task force. The task force is to review the data submitted by the departments and agencies to create the strategic plan for addressing future emergencies. And by February 15th of 2022, the task force is to submit a proposed strategic plan to the General Assembly. And the plan is to highlight any legislative changes necessary to implement the final strategic plan. And the proposed plan is to address ongoing state and local hazard mitigation planning efforts. And then in subdivision two on line 18, by July one of 2022, after soliciting input from relevant subject matter committees of the General Assembly, the task force is to adopt a strategic final plan for public health emergencies. So what you'll notice here is the General Assembly doesn't have to act or have to approve the plan. What this language says is that the task force just has to submit their proposed plan on February 1st and so solicit comments from the relevant committees with subject matter jurisdiction. And then once that information has been gathered, the task force is to propose or to finalize their plan on July one of 2022. And some administrative issues. The task force has the administrative technical and legal support of the agency of the administration. And the task force is to convene not less than four times to carry out its charge. And majority constitutes a quorum. And that's it. The act takes effect July one of this coming year. Okay. And that's to thank you, Katie. Going through it, I see all kinds of things. Just as a reminder, this Senator Cummings will remember, this was a bill that the committee last year started to draft in the, I don't know when it was, it was April or probably May. We decided that all this work is going on. And when you look at the hazard mitigation plan to the state, there wasn't a significant amount regarding healthcare or pandemics. So that's kind of the motivation for putting a bill like this together. Then we had Suzanne Young from the governor's office come in and she was not negative about this. It was just bad timing. And you can well imagine trying to do this. And I'm even thinking the dates that we have in that bill are somewhat aggressive. So let's put those dates aside for a minute. And then also Mike Schirling, who also was extremely overwhelmed during that time. And I think he still is particularly with the next issues that he's dealing with. So this isn't meant, this, the timing of this is not something that I think let's not get too bogged down with when and how, when the dates, what the dates are. But the concept I think is something that we felt was important to consider. I still feel it's important to consider. And then after reading some articles sent out from various folks about the lack of preparation that we had as a country and as individual states that really reinforces I think a need for some type of strategic healthcare planning upfront for the next health emergency. So that's the history and I bring it to you. It's something that we can work on as a committee and build as a committee bill that we talked about last time. If you're still interested in doing that, we'll move forward with it as a committee bill. Otherwise we can collect signatures and introduce it. There's no guarantee that if we introduce it, it'll land in our committee. So I'm thinking let's take first crack at the healthcare piece and then we can see what happens. So open for discussion. Go ahead, Senator Hardy, then Senator Cummings. Thank you, Senator Lyons. I didn't this committee or the last year's version of this committee also work on two other, maybe one other, two other planning bills. This isn't actually the one that I remember you working on. And maybe this was, because it was, this one was toward the end. Well, we never, this was never a public, it was just within the committee. And I doubt very much whether folks knew about it. I think the one you're thinking about is a bill that we do have in committee, which is the climate change healthcare. Right, okay, okay. So that was, I remember it being broader and that we did pass that as a full Senate, right? And it went over to the house. That was- It went to the house and then it ended up in pandemic. Right, exactly. Okay, I guess specific to this bill, I'm wondering if this one seems much narrower or just focused on the pandemic, which may be appropriate. I agree that the timeline is too tight, but I guess I would also like to hear and this we would do, of course, if we did the bill get some testimony about what's already in place. Cause I'm not as aware of what's already in place in terms of our planning. Cause we as a country did a really terrible job of responding to the pandemic, but as a state we've done pretty well and sort of what worked and what might we need to improve. I guess I would like to get testimony on that if we're moving forward. So you're absolutely right. And that's the whole point I think that we did a good job. And so let's institutionalize that. Let's put something in place that says for the next pandemic 40 years down the road that we have something we can rely on. So Senator Cummings. Yeah, my first thing was the timing we're not out of this yet. And we don't know when or if, I mean, if the vaccine only works for six months we could be back here next year. But again, just listening, you know it's sitting back and listening to me it's very prescriptive. It tells the administration what they shall do and who shall be on it and when they shall report. As a Senate, we set up a committee to say, okay, what did we learn? You know, lessons learned. And I think I'd rather work more cooperatively I mean, if history is repeated it's gonna be a hundred years before we get hit, you know, or at least 50. I know if there's no talk about traveling these things are gonna go through every three months but the changes in medicine. I mean, this is a very new kind of vaccine that, you know, it's not the old just dead polio virus we're putting in here. I think I'd rather start with just more of an informal, you know, report back to us on what the people that were doing this found was lacking. You know, I mean, I keep sitting here and saying, yep, you're required by, you know, executive order to wear a mask in Vermont. But the governor can't put a, you know, a 50 or a 200 or a $500 fine on that. He can't send you, so there's basically no penalty if you just say, tough, I'm not doing it. There is no, and that to me is one of the things that is lacking. We have no penalty if you drive up here, coughing and sneezing and, you know, check into an inn and go out and go skiing and don't wear a mask. We can do public shaming. We can say, you know, you need to go home but there is no, there is no legal penalty for violating the public health order. And is that, I think that's, that is, that would be an issue for us. I think that certainly is the question we have. And I think the comment that Ruth made about what do we already have in place is an important one because we do have a hazard mitigation plan and we do have the head of that emergency director, Bornerman, and we would, for testimony, we'll certainly have to hear from all different folks on what the current plan is and the administration, I do know, has been calling and collecting information to work on some of this. I would feel better if we just got a report rather than telling them they shall set up a commission and these shall be the people on the commission. So, Anne, it's Senator Cummings. I couldn't agree with you more. This, remember, this, though where did this come from? This came from some urgent sense, a sense of urgency in the middle of May. And so I'm throwing it out on the table for us. It's not something that I have strong feelings about. The only thing I do think we should do is have something that is public health centric statewide planning. I think we should, but I think I feel better if it were a little more low key. Well, let's, let's, we can work on that. That's an excellent suggestion. Maybe it's because I'm Irish, but when someone tells me I shall do something. Oh dear, that sounds like our family. My first response is make me. Go ahead, Ruth. Yeah, I mean. Let's stay in discussion mode. So just, you know. I think it's a good idea. I mean, I think we don't wanna lose the lessons that we've learned and the ability to improve our response in 10 years or 20 years or two years or two months. You know, so I think it's really important that we seize this moment and learn from this moment and have the people who did the work document what was done well and what wasn't done well. I think that's super important. And we don't wanna do it too far in advance because they'll forget. But we also don't wanna overwhelm people during when they're actually working to do the, you know, respond to the pandemic. So certainly there are timeline things. I guess to Ann's point about, you know, what level of sort of urgency or authority or how low key do we wanna be? I don't know yet until we hear from them how low key I wanna be. You know, if we hear from them, oh my God, we were not prepared and we just got lucky because we kicked butt, then we know we need to do more. But if they were like, well, the reason we responded well is because we have this in place and this in place and this in place and we have it all, you know, then we know we wanna be more low key. So I guess I'm not even sure yet what level of low keyness. I don't know why I keep using that word except for Ann used it. So it seemed like to go with it, you know, how low key should we be? So maybe it's, we need to hear from Erica and our director, Bornamon and Commissioner Shirling and others for- Yes, but not right away. Yeah, yeah, and we have other issues we can work on also. So, but I think it's important to move forward with something because we don't, it's all about the lessons learned. We talked about that a lot last session. We had a whole like subcommittee in the Senate about lessons learned and we can pull that out and look at it too, but also not overwhelming them during their direct response to the pandemic. So, okay, I'm hearing both of you. Josh or Senator Taranzini, Senator Hooker, I can see the wheels are turning. Senator Alliance, just taking it all in right now. I mean, good discussion, you know, I could see it both ways. It's information that we need to retain and learn from this and do better. You know, we've done a good job as a state so we can always do better and it needs to be archived somewhere that we can pick it up and say, all right, this is what we did great, let's do it again. Hopefully we never have to do it again, but. That would be a good bill. Please archive everything you've done well so we can pick it up again, period. I could go for that one. I'll co-sponsor that. Okay, that may be what comes out, I don't know. That's easy to read, but Ruth, Senator Hardy mentioned the lessons learned subcommittee from the Senate. And I know that there's a list that Senator Brock has. And certainly we've learned a lot. And I think that a bill like this would guarantee that we know, we hear or see what we've learned. And also, I would hope that there would be recommendations that we could implement within the plan. But I think, you know, Vermont has been a leader, has been a role model, and we have to take some comfort in that. So I guess, you know, some of the stuff that, some stuff was already there. So yes, we need to hear from the players. Right, so I know that I was asked by the lesson learn group to give some information. And I wrote seven or eight pages worth. And so, but there's nothing in this bill that, and I'm happy to share that with everybody, probably gone by the by by now, we understand everything, but what I'm hearing you say is I also hearing you say that this is an administrative thing, but it's also dependent on us as legislators to be able to look through and see what response we gave. Now, the question I have then, do we want to add something in wherever it is, and however it is, loose, tight, prescriptive, non-prescriptive regarding a legislative response. So, I mean, clearly we responded. And we went into remote and we had rules and we've continued to work collaboratively with the administration and others. Do we want to have a section in there? And it seems to me that whatever we do, it's gonna travel to another or other committees which is one good reason why we can maybe get our fingerprints on it early on. But it seems to me that whatever the legislative response is would go through Gov Ops or some or even rules. And so just some thoughts there. Senator Hooker, then Senator Hardy. It did, as we were looking at the bill, it did strike me that there wasn't anything there about the legislature. And I think that you have a valid point there because we did do a lot and we have the authority to do stuff. So I think that that has to be indicated in anything that we put out. Whatever we do, we don't wanna violate the constitution or the state laws. I guess I would say that there are two tracks we could take with it after we hear from people. So we could keep it very, very focused on the sort of health response or health and human services response or we could broaden it out and be more like the state response. And that would include the legislature and local governments and all that. And I think- Can you explain- Yeah, we have to be clear about this. Can you explain what you just said a little bit better? I don't understand what you mean by focused on health and human services but not state or local government. So the way it's written right now, it's focused, I'm just looking at it on my other screen, it's focused on a health emergency. And the health response to that emergency, there were other side effects to this emergency that came about because of the health emergency like the economic emergency, the financial emergency, the employment emergency, all these other things that came out of it. And I'm just thinking about scope right now, whether we wanna focus on the health emergency specifically or do we wanna have it broader in which case other committees may wanna weigh in. I mean, just thinking about my committees from last year because they're still in my head all the time, the sort of how did agriculture respond and the food situation and how did we deal with farm workers and all of that and the sort of agriculture economy and agriculture and you have on the bill right now, the secretary of education is in there. So do we wanna talk about local schools and how local, or do we wanna keep it very tightly focused on the health emergency? And I think that's different, like I said before, we're trying to figure out what scope we want. And I don't know yet until we hear from other people about sort of the scope that we wanna tackle. And if we are gonna go broad, which I think there's certainly arguments for wanting to do that, then we would wanna get input from other committees. If we're keeping it very focused on the health response and health planning, then that's definitely within this committee only or primarily. So you have raised the very issue that I think is important. And I asked the chairs of the other committees if they would be interested in sponsoring the bill so it would travel committee to committee. I do see this as an opportunity for a statewide response to the COVID pandemic. And that does include food and security, which is partly our bailiwick, but also economic development and also agriculture and transportation. So I'm not sure you can segregate out, unless you're thinking only about putting in place the rules that have come to us or the guidelines from CDC and Department of Health. I'm not sure we can segregate out the public health emergency from other aspects of life. You know, once you quarantine or you say, stay home, stay safe, that raises significant other issues. And that's, so getting at kind of the statewide thinking, administration-wide thinking, that was the goal. So we can certainly, as we're listening to testimony, we'll certainly consider what's the best way to go. Fine with that. Senator Hooker, did you have a comment? I just think that ultimately we're going to want a report on the whole of our response to the pandemic and that will inform whatever needs to be done for our management in the future. So I think as a committee, our focus obviously should be health and hopefully other committees will join on and have their focus come together as a complete and plan in the end. So... Yeah, I have no desire to go in and look at all the activities that ACCD has done. No, don't even go there, but I do have a desire to know that there are policies that they've put in place with things that they've done that they feel are critical in response to a health-related emergency. And it might extend to other emergencies as well, which makes us right. Social distancing in public places and that type of thing. So yes, yeah. Well, but when you close lodging places, when you close restaurants, when you open them up again, they're all public health guidelines, but they all have implications for our economy. And then how the economic organizations, how the restaurants and how others responded and what they did, what was the work that really allowed for them to survive or not. So there's a lot of issues there that we aren't going to get into. And as Senator Cummings stated, the obvious, we're in the middle of this pandemic. We don't know how long it's gonna last. We don't know what the rest of the effects are gonna be. So I would just caution us to not get too consumed with this when there are so many other things that we need to look at. So this is, thank you, and Ruth also brought that up. And I think that's a really good idea. The goal with this thing is, I think, to put it, bring it in, put it on the table, think about it as a committee bill, take testimony from when we have opportunities to take testimony and when people are feeling a little bit less stressed, especially those who are boots on the ground, the administration in particular, and gather information. We can look for outside resources and folks to come in who might be able to. I'm thinking of some researchers or others who have thought about this issue. And then gradually through the session, and by the session, I mean this year and possibly next, get to a place where we feel comfortable. And in the meantime, I'm not gonna feel shy about talking with other chairs about working similarly. So, but I think we have a vehicle that will serve us and serve the state well. If we get to a point, look it, if we start feeling really good about where we are, we won't, but if imagine that we were in March or April, I mean, we could work more wholly on this, so. That's good. Any other comments? So, could somebody summarize what they think I just said? Okay. Go for it. That it's good that we have this on the table and that we will keep it in the sort of middle of our minds, maybe not the back and not the front, but the middle of our minds throughout the next couple of months as we get testimony from various people and that we will work on other things, but keep this in the hopper. And that as the pandemic hopefully moves forward positively, we could get back to it hopefully this session so that we don't lose the momentum of wanting to learn the lessons we need to learn. And I will just add that I think it makes all kinds of sense to have our committee take the lead on this, not another committee because we're the health committee. So I think. Well, everybody thinks they're the health committee these days. So. Well, we are. So I think this is an important bill for us to start with and sort of come back to every once in a while. So that's what I think I heard you say. Yep, that's good. I think that says it pretty well. We don't have a middle burner on our stove, but maybe you guys do. We need one. Okay. So no, but I think you misread what I said. I think we're going to take it up and pass it out by February 2nd. So no, that's a joke. Bad joke. Anything else? Katie, did you understand what we just said? Are you still there? I'm here. Yes, I'm listening. Are you enjoying this? Do you have any comments that you'd like to add on anything structural in the bill that you, you know, you've heard less prescriptive, more prescriptive, or not really more prescriptive, but less prescriptive. And it sounds like it's policy decisions for the committee at this point. So I'll just stay tuned until I have a little bit more guidance to draft something for you. I had a thought earlier. And as I was working on this bill, thinking about it, certainly the structure of the bill at this point is anything but complete. I think it's a really good start. And I really appreciate the work that you've done on this, tell you the honest truth. But I was thinking that it might be helpful to reach out to CSG and or NCSL and to see if they have researchers or work that is going on about this. And I do understand that other parts of the country and other parts of New England aren't feeling as successful as we are in mitigating COVID. But it would be helpful if, Katie, do you mind just making an inquiry? And I keep my eyes open for this a lot. And I have read a couple of articles, a one from Stanford in California, but I'm wondering if there's something thoughtful going on in those two organizations that would be helpful. I'll reach out to them. Yeah, that'd be great. Something came out from the Federal Reserve Bank. Huh. Which I've, and I think it was related, it was a COVID report. So I will pull that up. Yeah, dig that out. I'll look for that Stanford report I got. I read it and I said, oh, yeah. So now somebody actually agrees with me that we should have had a statewide plan. But I think, it wasn't any big in-depth analysis. Ruth, go ahead. Yeah, I just wanted to, for Senator Taranzini, you may already know this, but the NCSL is the National Conference of State Legislators. And CSG is the Council of State Governments. A lot of these alphabet soup is hard to keep track of when you're new, believe me, I remember. And I think that one of the things that is important, an important reason for us to do this also is because other states can learn from what Vermont did. The NCSL may say, no, we don't have anything yet, but Vermont, please do it so that we can share it with other states. So that's important. And it's also important to remember that we are not through this pandemic by any stretch of the imagination. And we had 172 cases and four deaths yesterday. So we can pat ourselves on the back a lot, but we also need to remember that people are still getting really sick and dying in our state. And we have to stay focused on that.