 All right. Good morning, everybody. This is Wednesday, January 19th. And we are here this morning on age 96. Age 96 was introduced to us last year as a short form bill. And it was introduced as a short form bill because the concept of what a Truth and Reconciliation Commission had not yet been fully discussed or developed. And we wanted to get the conversation started, especially in conjunction or to follow the idea of the apology, which happened. And now we're at a position following up that apology with other actions, which may include a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, may include other issues that are in bills that are before us. But we're beginning work on this. So I wanted to bring back the two sponsors. Representative Colson is with us in 3D. Representative Christie is with us via Zoom. I think what we'll do, Representative Colson, just because this is really the first 3D meeting, you're like the first outside witness. Sure. I'd like to go around the room. It's a tradition to introduce everybody in the room while we're here. So we'll start with Representative Byron, and then we'll do the people on the room and then the people on the screen. And then we'll get going. All right, come on. Representative Matt Byron, Virginia, Representative Northwest Addison County. Good to see you. Good to be here. Good morning. I'm Representative Lisa Hango, and I represent the Northern border of Vermont, Highgate, Franklin, Berkshire, and Richford. I'm Representative Bloomley, and I represent the South End of Burlington. Representative Hal Colston, I represent Winooski, and a sliver of Burlington. Representative Joe Parsons, I represent Gary Thompson. John Blasek, I represent Elton. Good seeing you again. Good to see you. And Coach Christie. Representative Barbara Murphy, I serve Airfax, Franklin too. Representative Steven Serbs, I represent Waterbury, Volta, Huntington, and Buells Gore. Representative Kalanke, from South Burlington. Welcome, everybody. Representative Triano, he's reading. Representative Walls. Thank you so much. Oh, you're muted. Two clicks. Representative Walls, representing Berry City. And Representative Howard. Good morning. I'm Representative Mary Howard, and I represent the Southwest part of Rutland City. And Representative Christie. Representative Kevin Coach Christie, representing Hartford, and the five villages therein. Thank you. Okay, that's a bit of an awkward way of going around the room. We'll acclimate. I think, yeah, I think the difference between us, you know, before times and Zoom times is simply that in Zoom, everybody's already identified. But here we are just in the room. So welcome, Representative Colston. If you'd like to just, as a kind of a sponsor, co-sponsor with Coach Christie, if you could just take us through kind of a reintroduction to what your vision of this bill is. Sure. And then we'll have, we do have a version of amendment to the short form. And the attorney, Damian, is here with us to walk through it. Great. Well, thank you for having me. And as the chair of Stevens stated, this bill started out as a short form bill. And the intent was to be able to eventually stand up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. In this earliest design, the thought was to have a development task force that would explore what this might look like, make recommendations for future legislation. But once the bill came to this committee, there was a concerted effort to really look at, well, what would it take just to stand up the commission, as opposed to going through extra steps, time, and resources? The reason that I think this bill is important, we're already seeing proposed bills to deal with reparations. And even in Burlington, there's some strong efforts underway to deal with reparations, but regardless of chattel slavery. So I think eventually this body will be tasked with going down that path. And I believe it's important to establish the why, why is this needed, reparations. And I think a Truth and Reconciliation process will bring voices together. Those who have been harmed by our systemic systems of racism and discrimination to have a deeper understanding of the harm that's been caused and what might be possible to repair that harm. So TRC, as we all know, had its origins in South Africa many years ago, and since then many countries and here in the US states and even cities have taken on Truth and Reconciliation processes. So that was really the intent of this bill is to establish kind of a baseline of understanding of why reparations is an important thing to consider. And I think for people to get their head wrapped around this, I think a TRC process will get us there. When the one word that always hangs up is Truth, what does it mean to determine one's Truth? I think having a space that's created to allow those voices to be heard and felt and to express their Truth with regards to the impact of our history, in particular here in Vermont, of how past policies and practices have harmed certain groups of people. And I think it's certainly important for the oppressed to share that, but more importantly for the oppressor to hear and feel and understand what was done. So that Truth becomes, I think, that kernel of hope in order for us to do something different and to do something to reconcile, to repair, to bring us together as Vermonters to move forward. And we'll hear how the draft plays out. But you did mention that there's a bunch of parallel paths, it seems, that's developing, which is one is a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. One might be reparations, one might be discrimination laws that we've taken testimony on already here. When do you view them to be linear processes? Do you have to have one before you have the other? Or do you view these things just constantly working in balance? I really think it's the latter. And I think that when our constituents start speaking out and asking and demanding that we take action, I don't think it's wise to postpone that, but to understand how that can hopefully support this effort of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission so that we can all understand how these all are connected and can take us forward if we do the work. Okay. Representative Christie, do you have words you would like to share that would compliment Representative Coulson? I think Representative Coulson did an incredible job prefacing the discussion. The only thing I'd like to add is a tale to the constituent piece. Last night, fairly late, I was on a call with several constituents from the BIPOC community, and a number of our BIPOC brothers and sisters in the state feel that yesterday wasn't soon enough to start this discussion. And growing a little weary of being patient, and as you can imagine, after 619 years, patients can run a little thin. So that would be the only addendum that I would add to our discussion. And it isn't in a mean spirited sense of the word. It's like, come on, let's get moving. We've heard it'll take time for a long time. So that was where the conversation ended last night. And I think that we're on the right path. And I hope that we can come up with a proposal from your committee that will move us forward. So thank you very much. And I really appreciate the attention that House General is giving this work. Yes, sir. If I could add, Representative Christie's comments reminded me of some words from civil rights activist Fannie Lou Hamer, who once said, we're sick and tired of being sick and tired. So how do we move forward and begin this healing process? I appreciate you coming in and restating the mission of the bill. I know that we've had conversations for two years now. And it's not enough to say it's not enough time. And as coach, as Representative Christie just made clear, but it's interesting. I think when we hear this draft, we'll hear the problem that we're trying to solve very clearly. So thank you for reintroducing the bill. You're welcome to stay while Damien doesn't walk through the bill. And then we'll take questions after that and have a quick discussion. And then we'll see where we go next. Mr. Chair? Yes. Before we jump off back to our respective committees, if I could just add before we get started for those who haven't been directly working in the subcommittee with House General, I'd like to thank Espresley, Chair Stevens, Representative Bloomley, and Representative Kalaki, who've been working, oh geez, over time on trying to help formulate this draft. There's been a lot of research that went into this. They've had interns doing work, the Council of State Governments has helped all of us in preparing this draft with Attorney Leonard. And also our Human Rights Commission Executive Director was actively involved in putting this document together. So it's been a Vermont effort with a lot of history from around the world actually. And we took testimony from our Native American brothers and sisters in Canada even. So I'm really proud of the work that you've done thus far. And I just needed to put a shout out to our colleagues. So thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. Thank you, Coach. Thank you, Representative Christie. I'm sorry, I'm going to get back into the formal thing here. Thank you again, Representative Colcy. You're welcome to stay or get back to, I don't know, you guys don't have much. Well, I could enjoy a break, so I'll stick around. All right. You're on government operation, as I imagine that you've worked overtime as well. So, Representative Damien, sorry, I didn't mean to. With due respect to everyone in this room, no, thank you. I'm not interested in elected office. I think the pay cut would be devastating. It's pretty gastronomic. Yeah, totally. Yeah. Thank you for the record, Damien Leonard, Legislative Council. Do you want me to go right to the amendment draft or to start with the underlying bill? If you could start with the underlying bill. We've built in time for that. All right. Let me just pull up that bill. And where's the address? It's 1.3. If you go to today's. Oh, it's in today's. Okay. Today's. Thank you. But we're doing the underlying bill first. I was introduced. All right. So I shared it on the screen as well. So this is as Representative Colston and Representative Christie mentioned, this was started out as a short form bill. And the bill proposed to create a Truth and Reconciliation Commission development task force to develop and submit to the General Assembly a proposal for legislation to create one or more Truth and Reconciliation Commissions to examine and begin the process of dismantling institutional structural and systemic discrimination in Vermont, both past and present. So that is one thing to just note here is that this looked at the possibility of a task force that would design proposals for one or more Truth and Reconciliation Commissions that would then have to be acted on by this body. The task force would be composed of both voting and non voting members with the voting members, including representatives of historically disadvantaged or and disenfranchised groups that have suffered from institutional structural and systemic discrimination in our state. And then the non voting members would have included legislative members. And the reason for this was to ensure that the voices at the table who had a vote in the final proposal put forward represented the groups that the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions were designed to help begin the process of hearing about the discrimination suffered both past and present, but then adding in non voting legislative members so that there was a voice and champions within the building here who had been participating in the process and bringing their knowledge of sort of the legislative process to the table there to help inform the conversation and then also being able to bring their participation in that conversation back into the building for when we developed the legislation. So that was the underlying proposal. Are there questions on that? I guess I have a question if that's okay. So after something would come out of this quote, it would come to the legislature and then be formed into a bill and go through the regular process of the bill? Yeah, exactly. Yeah. So very similar to what we've done in the past with issues like merging the Lottery Commission and the Department of Liquor Control where it was a big issue and there are concerns about would there be enough time in a session? So if you form a separate task force, you can just focus on that issue and then have the process sort of have a head start on that when you get back to legislative sessions so that you can form something. And so I think the draft you're going to see comes out of the conversations that occurred during the off session this year which jump started that task course's process. Yes. I have another question to follow up on that. The task force, can you remind me if that was in the resolution that we passed that task force would be formed? No, I don't think that was specifically addressed by the resolution. This was thought of as one of the further steps that would be a follow up to that resolution. And in that case, that task force, I assume, is very informal. So those meetings were not recorded or that might be a question for Representative Calston or Blumley. There wasn't a task force by name. It was the Representative Callacchi and Representative Blumley expressed an interest in working on the bill as if we were working on any other bill throughout for introduction. So it wasn't an official it wasn't an official summer study committee or summer task force. There wasn't a question being paid. This was this is work that they took on that they expressed an interest in it that I let them just said it best is what you want to do with your summer. And this is the homework, you know, this is the research that you can do. This is the work that they and then they as legislators are allowed to ask the attorney to create a bill. And that's by the end of this case, it's an amendment to this bill. So this bill really wouldn't even be necessary, H96, if the the group has already been meeting and has already come up with draft 1.3. Right. So the proposal you see in front of you would be a strike all amendment replacing the underlying draft with a task force proposal. Rather than doing the task force and then coming back with a proposal. I was asked to draft up the proposal that they came up with based on their work during the off session. And H96 was submitted last year or yeah. Okay, that that all makes sense. So it's first year of the biennium. And then just as a further side to this, so the title, the title of H96 with the Commission Development Task Force is something that will probably change with the introduction of amendments to come forward. Yeah, I'm pretty sure I remember to include a title change at the end of the amendment. But that would be something that you if you move this forward, I would recommend changing the title because otherwise it would be pretty misleading for folks who are looking to see what we did over the year and to see the development task force rather than the actual Truth and Reconciliation Commission if you move this forward. And so I think for our purposes today, if we allow Damien to walk through the bill, hold our questions to the end and then spend some time with questions on this would probably be the best, the best form for today. Okay, well, I'm going to share the amendment with you now. And this should be posted on the committee's webpage at this point. So this is a standard strike all amendment. And because it's a short form bill, there's no real text that we're striking out. So this is the standard way that we fill in text on a short form bill anyway. So it would add section one, which is an intent section providing that it's the intent of the General Assembly to establish the Vermont Truth and Reconciliation. I think that should be oh yeah Truth and Reconciliation Task Force to examine and begin the process of dismantling institutional structural and systemic discrimination in Vermont both past and present. And that it would be composed of members of historically disadvantaged racial, indigenous and tribal populations that have suffered from institutional structural and systemic discrimination. So you'll see that language is echoing below the original purpose language. Section two creates a permanent statute because this will be going on for several years rather than just for one summer. This adds chapter 25 to title one. And it would be the Truth and Reconciliation Task Force. Section 901 of that new chapter creates and establishes the task force as a body corporate and politics known as the Vermont Truth and Reconciliation Task Force to carry out the provisions of this chapter. This is standard language that we use when we're establishing an independent subdivision of the state. We use this language for the Housing and Conservation Board, the Student Assistance Corporation, etc. So this is establishing it as an independent body of the state. The Truth and Reconciliation Task Force is constituted of public instrumentality, exercising public and essential government functions, and the exercise by the task force. The power conferred by this chapter shall be deemed and held to be the performance of an essential governmental function. Again, this is the boilerplate language that we use to establish these bodies. The subsection B describes the 14 members who are currently proposed to be members of the task force. This is something that is definitely a policy question to be discussed by the Committee of Human Forward. Who would be on the task force? How many people should there be? The current proposal is for 14 members, including the Executive Director of Racial Equity or Designee, the Executive Director of the Human Rights Commission or Designee, and 12 members to be jointly appointed by the Governor, the President, Pro Tem of the Senate and the Speaker of the House. I'll pause right there just to note that that appointment structure is unusual for any state body. I am not sure if we've used it in the past. It is definitely unusual, but it is possible that you could have that structure go forward. The challenge with that is the potential if they disagree and can't reach agreement on some of the members. Just something to keep in mind, but there are a variety of ways that you can get at the appointment. This looks at joint appointment and with the idea of everybody coming together on a consensus. The first four members would represent the Native American Indian tribes that are recognized by the state pursuant to one VSA Chapter 23 with one member from each recognized tribe who would be appointed in consultation with the Commission on Native American Affairs. The second grouping here is two members who identify as Native American, but who are not members of tribes recognized by the state pursuant to one VSA Chapter 23. Then the final six individuals are six individuals with experience working to implement racial justice reforms or representing communities of color in Vermont who shall be appointed in consultation with the Legislative Social Equity Caucus. Just backing up here, the first four members are in consultation with the Commission on Native American Affairs. The last six are in consultation with the Legislative Social Equity Caucus and the middle two are selected without consultation with outside bodies and they would be done in the normal way that you seek appointees where individuals could express interest to the speaker or the president and the governor and then they would discuss and they could also seek out individuals that they believe would serve well in that role. So again, as with the other things, the consultation could be changed. You could add groups to consult with. You could remove groups who are being consulted with and so forth. The next subdivision two here speaks to the members of the task force and the requirements to be a member. So each member who is appointed shall be a resident of Vermont, shall have knowledge of the problems and challenges facing racial, indigenous and tribal populations in Vermont, shall have experience advocating in relation to the issues of racial, indigenous and tribal populations in Vermont and shall have demonstrated leadership in programs or activities to improve opportunities for racial, indigenous and tribal populations in Vermont. So this is really narrowing down the requirements to be a member of the task force and focusing on people who have advocated and worked for or on issues of racial, indigenous or tribal equity. The next subdivision here B provides that to the extent possible members of the task force shall come from diverse backgrounds and represent geographically diverse areas of the state. This is aspirational language, but it's language that we've started including in more and more groups that the legislature creates. And it's looking to represent not only diverse backgrounds, which can mean a number of things, socioeconomic, educational, work backgrounds, as well as racial, religious, etc., and also representing geographically diverse areas of the state. So we're aiming not to have, for example, 12 members from Chittenden County or something like that, or to spread people around the state understanding that Vermont's different regions have different needs, different histories, different experiences. And then the next piece here is providing that a majority of the members shall be members of a racial, indigenous, or tribal population in Vermont. So it doesn't require all of the members, but it does require a majority of the members to be members of those populations. Again, these are requirements that can be tweaked, adjusted, added to, or trimmed back as the committee sees fit. So the next section here, because this is going to be an ongoing group, there is the concern that what if you appoint someone and they fail to actually fulfill their duties. And so this provides that members of the task force may be removed by the appointing authority for incompetency, failure to discharge their duties, malfeasance, or illegal acts. So really what we're looking at here are the first two deal with how well they're doing their job as a member of the task force. And then the second two are looking at are they engaging in inappropriate conduct outside of their work in the task force. For example, it could be harmful to the credibility of the task force if one of the members was convicted of a felony while serving on the task force, and then you would have a public trust issue. So at that point, however unlikely that is, you would want to have the authority to remove them and then replace them with someone else to avoid those concerns. And this is similar language to what we use for state boards where people are appointed for multi-year terms. And then what this is doing is it's really narrowing the causes for removal. So you'll notice what's not included here is that the appointing authority disagrees with opposition that that individual is advocating for on the task force. And then vacancy and then vacancy occurring during the term shall be filled by the appropriate appointing authority for the remainder of the unexpired term. Annually the task force would select the chair and a vice chair from among its members. This allows the task force, if for example someone serves as a chair for a year and then is worn out from that work, they could step down and someone else could step in to fill that role. And then meetings would be held at the call of the chair or at the request of five or more members. So not a majority of the task force, but still a significant number of task force members could call a meeting if the chair was not willing to call the meeting on their own. And then a majority of the current membership would constitute a quorum. So you need eight members based on this current draft. But then actions could be authorized by a majority of the members present and voting at a meeting. And that's fairly standard language for bodies like this. And then a requirement that the task force meet not less than 10 times per year. So this is looking for them to be meeting on an almost monthly basis during their existence. And nothing prevents them from meeting more often than that. So you'll notice here in subsection F, we've not withstood the standard per diem language. And we're providing that members shall be entitled to per diem compensation of blank amount. The feeling and draftingness was that they should be entitled to more than the $50 per day, because working on a truth and reconciliation commission involves a lot of emotionally and mentally difficult work and may also involve a lot of work outside of the official meetings. But when we were working on the draft, there wasn't a number that folks were ready to settle on. So this is left blank and just highlighted as something that for the committee to consider and come up with an alternative amount or come up with an amount, excuse me. And then plus reimbursement of expenses for attendance of meetings. And this is something that the committee will probably want to take testimony on. There are different models for these task forces. Some of the task forces constituted in other places are professional, where you have full-time members, but a smaller membership. And others are citizen boards where it's broader membership like this proposal. And they're compensated on a per diem basis for their work. So these are different models you could consider. And you could look at what the per diems are from some of the different models. Section 902 creates the powers and duties for the task force. Subsection A is the duties. The first is to conduct research necessary to determine the current status of the historically disadvantaged racial, indigenous and tribal populations, including qualitative and quantitative examination of data related to things like business ownership, household assets, income and debt, housing, land ownership, employment, education, healthcare, access to benefits, and access to wealth and capital. This is a broad list of topics to research. Certainly something for the committee to look at as you're figuring out whether this is appropriately broad. Is it too broad? Is it too narrow? Or are there things that are left off this list? But this was the list that was come up with in the initial draft. The next is to develop and implement a process for truth and reconciliation to address the institutional structural and systemic discrimination experienced by the historically disadvantaged populations both past and present. And this is recognizing that we don't have this process for truth and reconciliation right now in Vermont. And so step one for this task force is going to be establishing that process. How are we going to conduct our meetings? How are we going to conduct interviews? How are we going to reach out to these populations? How are we going to dig into state records and state archives in order to determine the sort of documentary facts surrounding historic practices within the state that have affected these populations and so forth. Number three is to promote, implement and coordinate programs and activities to create and improve opportunities for or to eliminate disparities experienced by members of the historically disadvantaged populations. So this is looking at the reconciliation part and looking at promoting and implementing or coordinating programs to help with the process of reconciliation as you develop that truth during the work of the task force. The powers for the task force to carry out their duties. So one is to adopt rules pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act as necessary to implement the provisions of this chapter. Two is to adopt procedures as necessary to carry out the duties. So rules are that's got sort of a binding force of law with respect to how the task force carries out its work. Procedures are essentially what are the steps you follow when you're collecting evidence, when you're hearing testimony, when you're conducting hearings and it doesn't necessarily need to go through the drawn out process of notice and comment that's required for rule banking. So it's just two different levels. Third is to establish and maintain a principal office. Fourth is to meet and hold hearings at any place in the state. Five is to issue subpoenas to compel testimony or access to a production of records, documents and other evidence or possible sources of evidence or the appearance of persons provided that the subpoenas issued pursuant to an investigation commenced by the task force pursuant to this chapter and that there is reasonable cause to believe that those materials or the testimony are relevant to that investigation. This language is drawn from the Human Rights Commission and what this does is it prevents the task force from being stonewalled by a state agency or another entity that doesn't want to share records that may be related to an issue it's causing. A lot of the records that they're going to be dealing with are potentially sensitive and so this allows them to get access to those records. It also creates a process for a body to say no you've gone too far and then to have a neutral party in the courts adjudicate whether this is an appropriate request for records. So this is something that is available to quasi-judicial panels in the state and again it's available through the judicial system and is something that's used in discovery and for example a civil case. You might issue subpoenas for records that are being withheld or for testimony when someone's not willing to provide that testimony. This includes notice that the individual has the right to contest the subpoena and then the initial right to contest the subpoena is before not less than half of the task force and then that they can bring that appeal of the subpoena to a court and then that this would be enforced in the same way that a subpoena under our administrative procedure act is enforced. So that sets out existing procedures for a state entity that has subpoena power to bring a subpoena and then attempt to enforce it and have a court determine whether the subpoena is appropriate or whether it should be quashed. The next power is to consult with local national and international experts on issues related to truth and reconciliation and restorative justice. So this is acknowledging that we're following in the footsteps of other bodies that have been doing this work and this allows the panel the power to consult with those experts as it develops its process and also as it moves through its process and develops proposals for the legislature. The next power here is almost doesn't need to be said it's to hear testimony from members of historically disadvantaged populations members of the public and persons with knowledge of institutional structural and systemic discrimination experienced by those populations and this is this is really the core mission of this body. The next is to study research investigate and report on the impact of state actions in relation to the historically disadvantaged populations and if the task force determines that the actions constitute institutional structural and systemic discrimination against a population or populations regardless of whether it was intentional or or adversely impacted the population. The task force can propose legislative or administrative action to the general assembly or the governor to remedy the impacts on the population. So this is part of the reconciliation process for the panel here. So if they determine that there was a particular action that was discriminatory and affected a particular population they can propose some sort of action to remedy that whether that's something that's within the governor's executive authority or something that requires legislation and then bring it to the appropriate body. The next couple are based on their powers as an independent state entity. So the first is to enter into cooperative agreements with private organizations or individuals or with any agency or instrumentality of the United States or this state to carry out the provisions of this chapter. So this allows them to work with consultants to work with individuals who are experienced in this work as well as to work with for example a body like the the EEOC or the Human Rights Commission or any number of other private organizations that work on issues of racial equity or racial justice that might be able to help them in fulfilling their mission. Number 10 is to make and execute legal documents necessary or convenient for the exercise of its powers and duties under this chapter. This goes along with there being an independent entity with the authority to carry out their mission. Number 11 allows them to hire consultants and independent contractors to assist the task force and number 12 is to take any other actions necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter. This is catch all language that basically says if there's something that's necessary to do your job and to carry out the requirements of this chapter such as the next section hiring an executive director you can take that action. We don't have to enumerate it in here specifically. But it also is limited that it has to be necessary to carry out the provisions of the chapter so they can't do something that you know is is not related to their mission as the truth and reconciliation task force. So section 903 gives the task force the authority to appoint and and requires them to appoint an executive director who has to be an individual with experience in relation to racial justice or advocating on behalf of historically disadvantaged groups. The executive director would be a full-time state employee exempt from the classified service and would serve at the pleasure of the task force. This is very similar to Boreang's role over at the Human Rights Commission as executive director. She is a state employee. She's exempt from the classified service and she serves at the the pleasure of the commission or Bryn Her over at the cannabis control board. So the same thing where she's appointed by the board and then serves at their pleasure and it's really their their full-time staff person who runs the office. The executive director is responsible for supervising and administering the implementation of the provisions on behalf of the task force assisting the task force and carrying out its duties. Employing staff as necessary to carry out the duties of the task force and preparing an annual budget for submission to the task force which would then if they approve that budget submit it to the governor for inclusion and the budget proposal in the same way that the independent bodies currently existing within state government do. So a couple of important things to note here. So numbers one and two there relate to the fact that this is a citizen task force and then they would have professional staff to assist them in carrying out their duties. These staff could include attorneys, social scientists, social workers, administrative staff, researchers, paralegals, other folks like that who can help them with research, can help them with interviewing individuals, can help them with crafting proposed legislation, organizing hearings, drafting agreements, etc. Number three, we already covered that. So number section 904 provides for two different reports. One is an annual report on or before January 15th each year which is basically an update on what did you do this past year, what were your findings, do you have any interim recommendations for action to further the mission of the task force or to address instances of discrimination that you've identified. And then the final report is scheduled for on or before June 15th of 2025. So there would be three annual reports in January of 2023, 2024 and 2025. And then a final report in June of 2025, which would detail the full findings of the task force and recommend actions to address instances of discrimination that the task force identified. Section 905 creates a special fund for the task force. This would, the fund would be, would consist of appropriations from the state and then any gifts or grants received by the task force. So the task force could seek out grants from outside organizations to further its work. And then the fund would be available to the task force to carry out its duties. And then interest on the fund balances would be credited to the fund. That's a provision that the committee may want to consider further. It's a provision we add a lot. Depending on the size of the fund, it may actually cost more for the state to keep the interest in the fund and do the accounting than you would actually earn interest on the fund. So that's just something to flag there. The accounting for these funds is actually fairly expensive because there are literally hundreds of special funds within the state and each one, they need to track the interest and then if it's reverting to the fund, they have to credit that back to the fund and so forth. So, and when you're earning interest at you know, whatever the ridiculously low amount is fraction percent, it may not actually be that much money. Section three is a prospective repeal of the task force. So this would repeal it on July one of 2025. So it would really be a three-year task force and the effective date would be July one, 2022. So that's when it would be established. One thing to note is that with the July one establishment date, you may want to set a deadline for appointment of the members because otherwise one of the issues we have here is that after we adjourn, it's very hard to get people together unless there's a deadline. So you could see a three or four month delay and actually getting members appointed and getting the task force to a point where it can function. So that's that's just something else to keep in mind with the task force. So I'll take questions. I see representative Wallace with that hang on. And then after these two questions, I want to take a break. Thank you for that, Chair Stevens. I could use the break. I have a question about the composition of the task force. And I'm thinking, especially here in Barrie, but applies to many communities in Vermont. At the beginning of the 20th century, oh, excuse me, what I'm thinking is about the immigrant population. So at the beginning of the 20th century, for example, here in Barrie, French Canadians and Italians came to work in the quarries and they were not always greeted with open arms. And in some cases, that was because religious differences. But more recently, in Barrie and other communities, we had Bosnians groups of Bosnians arrive ethnic Turks from Russia who were a different religion, often didn't speak the language. And of course now, we have folks from Afghanistan coming in. And I don't know what sort of issues they're facing. So I'm just wondering if maybe there should be representation of the immigrant population. And I would represent if Colston might have thoughts on that since his community has significant immigrant populations, lots of folks from Asia, for example. So I'm just throwing that out. I wonder if there should be somebody representing immigrants. So I think this is a better question for either Representative Christie, Representative Colston, or Representative Blomling or Kalaki. I think it's I think it's a political decision. So it's, you know, I mean, that's a, you know, coming from during the conversation about who might be included. I mean, I have a question about flexibility that I'll ask after the break. But which may talk about that represent while. So we'll, we'll, but I do think that's a political choice of how big the umbrella is for these, for this kind of study. Representative Hango. Thank you. I have a few questions. One of them should be really easy to answer. Did I miss somewhere in here the length of a person's term that's serving on this task force? You did not, but that is a, that is a good catch. The term is currently set up as, as the full length on the task force, but it should be spelled out in there. I noticed that as I was going through. Okay. And in, in relation to that also then what about legislative members who may not be reelected during that time period? They are non voting members, but so that that was taken out. So that was in the original underlying proposal and in this, the membership doesn't depend on your being a member of the legislature, although the appointing authority could change if we get a new speaker or pro term. So this, the amendment draft proposes four representatives of the recognized tribes, two other representatives of Native Americans and Vermont that who are not members of the tribes and then six members with a background in racial justice work. I missed that. Sorry. Nope, that's okay. It's going from the original. It's confusing when you walk back and forth between the two, especially when you have something that would run through two bienniums. And I see that I even took notes before we started saying draft 1.3. Sorry. My last question is really that multiple populations could be served by a bill such as this. So could this bill be used to set up more than one truth and reconciliation task force for specific things? Like for instance, if we wanted to investigate reparations for slavery, that would be one task group, or for reparations for the eugenics legislation, that would be a second one. Right. So this particular draft focuses on the issue of racial discrimination, whether that's against racial minorities or indigenous or tribal populations in Vermont. And you could have a task force focused on specifically the issue of populations impacted by eugenics, or you could also have a task force focused on discrimination against immigrants like Representative Walts brought up. The choice here was to focus on the racial discrimination aspect. But there's nothing that prevents us from setting up multiple task forces or setting up a single task force. And then after it finishes, it's initial three years work appointing new members and continuing its work on a new issue. So there are a variety of ways to sort of address that. So this is really a broad scope, a very broad scope? Well, so this is narrowly focused on racial discrimination. And it's not getting at the issues of, for example, the impact of eugenics on disabled populations in Vermont, or the targeting of discrimination against Italian immigrants in Barry, or French Canadians in Vermont, except to the extent that some of those individuals may be part of families that also belong to a group that would be represented in this task force here. So this is strictly racial or indigenous and tribal populations, which could have been affected by any number of incidences throughout history in Vermont. One last question, because this is something we could debate for hours. I'll switch gears. Are there other examples you mentioned for Yang's position at the Human Rights Commission? Are there any other examples of an office like this that maintains an office space with a paid executive director, paid staff, and whatever else we would be paying for? Sure. So Green Mountain Care Board, the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, Vermont Student Assistance Corporation, and then you can look at also other quasi-independent boards like the Cannabis Control Board, where that's an independent body within the executive branch. Is the Climate Council one also? Yeah, the Climate Council is a little different, though, I think. But I think the Green Mountain Care Board, they have specific authority, the Housing and Conservation Board, they have a specific, is probably even a better one, because they have a specific mission related to the development of housing and the conservation of land in Vermont. And they have their separate budget, their separate legal authority, and so they're sort of, they operate within this building, but they're also independent from both this building and the fifth floor in carrying out their mission. Thank you. All right, I think we'll stop there. I think, Representative Peggy, thank you for the last question, especially the flexibility, or your penultimate question, because the flexibility of what this is is a great answer. Representative, let me have your hand up for a minute. I think, I mean, you just got to it. And I think that as we talked with any number of people, I think that there, you know, who this process addresses and how the actual task force functions is, you know, for this committee to really debate and also for the task force then to determine, too, because it may well be that you have a task force that then kind of breaks into separate groups to pursue different topics and that, you know, that, so it's all debatable and there isn't one right way. That's partly our job and partly the task force job, as I understand it. Okay, we're going to stop working on this bill right now. Take a seven or eight minute break till 1030. Thank you, Representative Christie and Representative Colson for guests, for guesting here today and visiting. And we will be back at 1030 to take up conversation on page 329. We have Sandra Davis with us to talk about that particular.