 Good morning, everybody. It is Wednesday, March 17th, and we are here today on JRH2, which is our apology for the Eugenics Survey, for the legislature's actions in the Eugenics Survey. And I invited everyone who has testified thus far on this to come in and join us in this conversation today. Just to discuss, it's been a few weeks really since we had a conversation, a deeper conversation on this. And I wanted to be able to open the floor up to the conversation specifically about the Eugenics Survey and about this apology. And I have, I know that some of the witnesses have to leave prior to 10am, so I will prioritize them in the queue here. And but I guess my concerns are, or the things that I want to focus on is to say, and I purposely haven't, haven't put Nancy Gallagher's revisions up there. They're not, they're small, but they're not minor changes. They don't change the intent of the apology. They make it stronger in places. And I just, but I'd rather than try to rush that out, I wanted to have the conversation today, and then share that language, and we can talk about that language in a little bit. But I wanted to be able to really open it up to the witnesses first, just in a little bit of a free form or the committee as well, to discuss the language that as it exists and just to sort of create the path to finishing our work on this over the next week or so. I'd like to see us pass this resolution by March 26th is what I'm shooting for, which would put it on the floor on the final week of March. So with that, Chief Stevens, since you, you have to leave at 10, I just wanted to open this up to you first, and ask if there's anything else you'd like to share on Jr h2 as we start to move into this final stretch. Thank you, Mr chair. Yes, I just wanted to say again I've worked on this way back when with the end on a you and you know we worked on this a couple of for a couple of years now and I think that my, my statements have been consistent in the fact that you have to acknowledge something in order for you to start the healing process. And I think it's very important to when someone does something wrong, regardless of what the situation is at the time that it is both morally and ethically right to say you, you're sorry and, and you won't repeat it and how do you move forward. And that's just common courtesy if I did something to my wife I would apologize for that if I did something to another person I would apologize for that so I think it's, I think it's the right thing to do. I think this is a beginning, because there are many things that can move forward in partnerships, and like I had mentioned before. My goal is that the state of Vermont never tries to cause our people to go extinct ever again, whether it be physically or legally or legislatively, because you know we have worked hard to get our recognition or acknowledgement and, and to be the people that we are. So, I want to thank you and hopefully the legislators follow UVMs lead and people pretty much know how I feel and, and this is a big deal because I don't think Vermont has ever apologized for anything. So I think that this is an important first step. And thank you for your time. Thank you, Don and some of the language that we will consider tomorrow I want to read it because it's going to be hard for me to share the screen is, and if I'm, and I just for everybody if I'm a little foggy today I had a, I had my COVID vaccination shot on Monday and I'm having. I'm having a return to brain fog, basically. So, if I'm a little slow in my synapses today forgive me I'll try to keep up with myself. Chief Stevens you provided some language early on that I just want to read, and it's something that the committee will consider tomorrow as we as we start to come up with with final language or start moving towards that and one resolution one resolve that you had written was that the General Assembly recognizes the need for conscious and deliberate efforts to help uplift these affected populations by creating legislation and state policies to help repair the trust and state government. While providing equal representation for all of its citizens. And the second resolved was that the General Assembly has recognized at least four Abinac tribes in Vermont and commit to never creating legislation or state policies to cause their extinction or remove their legal status as Indians ever again. Would you like us to still consider Ella, if not these in particular elements of these because you just kind of verbalized a lot of what those resolves. Sorry, the mute button takes a while to undo. I just want to say, I don't care about the exact language I'll leave that up to you and the legal team. It's the spirit of it. I mean, we saw what happened with the eugenics survey when somebody thought something was a good idea we know how hard that we work to achieve recognized status and the legislative body also has the power to take it away at any time if they feel that they want to, which would legally cause us to go extinct. Not that non recognize people are any different. I'm just saying is that we had to follow a process we proved ourselves. We never want to have us going extinct ever again. Whether it be physically through another sterilization program or some other type of thing or through legislative extension, because we're the only race of people that have to sell that can self declare that have to go through a process to become an Indian. And we worked really hard to do that and and we just don't want someone to be upset some point and wipe it away with a, with a stroke of a pen and deny our kids that heritage ever again. So, and I think we should always work together to partner where it's not it's not a us versus you it's a partnership, right. If you've noticed we've come a long way since the time that we've, we've got recognized we've made some really big strides and partnering with the state of Vermont and others so I think let's continue that good work. And let's find ways to get us more involved and have more representation, because we currently don't have anybody really doing this full time. We kind of need to work so we're resources for you and others. So anyway, I'll leave it at that but that is my feeling is what I just stated and what's in those resolutions I suggested. Okay, and what would you, and chief one more for me, you know, what would you view as representation here I mean we've talked in the past about, I mean, this particular form of government relies on in particular, the work that we're doing is relying on on individual representation of districts so it's set up in a way that there's electoral. And that's not what we're talking about here we're talking about a connection between the indigenous population and this particular kind of government, you know, whoever the governor may be it's about. It's about having a voice is that is that is that right. Well it's it's not only a voice but it's if you if you look at we when I say we don't have any full time representation. So, you find that we're almost like you folks in a sense that in order to serve, you have to be retired. You don't have the time available, or you have to be an owner of a business or independently wealthy in order to serve because no employer is going to give you four months off to say okay go ahead and be a resource. We'll see in four months, because that's not what they're paying you for. So like people like myself do this when we can and have to make up that time or take vacation time to be a resource or. And then you see that the same people are on the same boards because they have the time to fill it right I mean there's a lot of people that can't participate because there's no full time representation. And I think being sovereign our tribes have a government to government relationship with the state of Vermont so we should be having access to you and vice versa. There are too many people in state government that declare themselves as being have an ackee that actually worked within the legislative bodies, or within state government departments that can be a resource or even an education. So what we you, you know, Rob Stevens we worked many years on trying to get an office of Native American Affairs that that people can go to as a resource, or, or if you're working with with tribes directly. We're not we don't have the national backing like the NAACP can back, you know, some some of the black and brown communities or some other national organization that can fund full time positions to lobby on behalf of their citizens. So we find ourselves falling farther and farther behind, because we don't have that full time representation that are directly linked to the tribe so that's what I mean by having people that work specifically on native things. It's a full time that can be a resource for educators K through 12 that can be available to the local state and federal governments to work on things to work on health care to work on all kinds of types of opportunities to uplift us to continue to put us on the level playing field. Right now we're kind of suppressed, and we do it as we can and as time allows so I think that there's any opportunity for state government to be able to include us and not just stipends I'm talking about like actually, you know, actually having the ability sort of like the zone of Davis has, who can put full time representation into into things. I think that would be really beneficial to the state and to our people. Right now thank you for that. Any questions before for the chief before we before we let him go and. All right. So I want to move to Carol, if you're there Carol McGranahan. Thank you all for inviting us back to participate in this Carol irons is also with me. I believe she had sent a written testimony. I do want to mention that there is the Vermont Commission on Native Affairs and we do both of us are on that. We have seven other members who are working full time, but they also do volunteer work on the commission. They are charged with helping the Apanaki and other indigenous people in Vermont when it comes to legislation on health education and welfare so it's pretty much volunteer. Yeah, we don't get state funded for anything so money does become an issue when you're trying to complete projects or to advocate for Apanaki and other indigenous people. I think it's important that we recognize that there are the Apanaki are the original people in Vermont but there are also other indigenous groups that need representation. So, you know they, I guess that's that I just wanted to share that information with you that there is, there is a group that's kind of the umbrella for all, all four of the tribes. Plus though, the ones that aren't in recognize tribes. I appreciate the changes that Don has outlined and I agree with that that, you know we need to ensure that the Apanaki are not targeted again and that we don't lose recognition with a swipe of the pen. You know, I think that's very important. That's all I have. If anyone has questions I'd be glad to answer them. Carol, Carol Irons. I just received your written testimony. Yesterday came forwarded I guess from the State House. Thank you. And is it something we can post. Yes, sure. Then I'll make a copy of that and send it to Ron to post it and so that it's on our, on our web page for people to see. The Native American Commission is something that has existed before recognition even started. And it's actually been pretty stable over the last few years. And if, if there were some forward movement that would allow the commission to do. Well, to continue its mission. Do you envision something like the Office of Native American Affairs I mean we did introduce this years ago once recognition became became possible. The question is, you know, the question would be how do we set it up or how do we make it work so that it works is not just a liaison but as a partner. With the commission. Do you have any thoughts about that either Carol on how that might work. Well, I, I hadn't heard that proposal and from from chief Don Stevens and I felt like that's what the commission was trying to do. The statute we're not allowed state funds so it does put some real restrictions on what we're able to do but we've tried to work on cultural regeneration and we've tried to engage with legislative process on things and we try to network with other groups that are working with racial justice and we've we've made some connection with the New Hampshire Commission on Native American Affairs and so we're trying to work on behalf of all the indigenous people in the state and the restriction tends to be that, you know, if, for instance, a few years ago and I wanted to do a camp experience to teach people a real foundational knowledge of our culture that it spent me a lifetime trying to accumulate that, and I was able to pull in some teachers and specialized areas and but I had to raise the funds myself. The statute does allow us to apply for apply for grants and those places that responded at all said no, we don't give money to state agencies. So it was extremely difficult to get funding. Working within a state appointed body. Without any state funds and we did what we could do, and that's been the primary restriction but we have people who are not affiliated with tribes we have tribal representatives. We have people who are are dedicated to doing what we can for all the native Native American people in the state. I, I, I guess I'm a little thrown about the need for another body. Because I would hope we were all working together already. So I, this is just not clear to me. If it would be duplication or one upsmanship or those kind of problems that arise when you have kind of two different bodies trying to do some of the same stuff. That's that's that that would be a question for, you know, further steps. To ask exactly those questions to see if this is duplication or if it's, you know, from from a, you know, my impression of the commission is that we created it and we had hoped that it would be all those things. But we haven't funded it yet. At all. And the other, the other side of it is, if the state is recognizing bands and tribes, should we not have some kind of formal relationship of, you know, between between the state government and the tribes and so it's just a it's a question it's been out there since recognition started. And it's just a, you know, for me it was a question today not as a, not as a set proposal but as something to discuss and how it would work with the existing commission. Yes Carol. I guess that was my take on what the commission's role is that we're charged with working with the legislature. And so I guess I would also have that concern that there would be a duplication of effort that you've already got a body in place it's just a matter of how many of you were aware before last year that the commission even existed. I think that that's been one of the issues is that many legislators don't even know that there is a Native American commission. And so in order to work in a collaborative way, because we do have representatives, and we do. And that's my concern is if you are to develop another group of people. Then why are why were we charged with what we're charged with doing. So I guess I'm a little confused as to why, why that, you know, another entity would make sense. I think that we're already in place we're already charged with certain commitments so we're here and it's a matter of how do we how do we open up the lines of communication even more than they have been in the past and I think that's been the biggest problem the line of communication. What's happening. We did have a representative China who was working with the commission to notify us when bills were coming up that affected apanaki and other indigenous people, which was very helpful because I am not savvy about the legislative process. I've learned a lot the last year but I really am not an expert so having that sort of go between I guess was very helpful but I think it would be even more helpful if we could work directly as a commission. Thank you for that that's I mean we're, I think the idea here is, is one of the ideas of an apology is, you know, is to clearly apologize for past actions but also to make sure that the affected groups that were apologizing to become full members of our the society that we've excluded them from or that we targeted them within you know and and so having this kind of you know touching based on the representation is just it's important it's it's important to hear how how you've done it through the commission. That's part of where we need to go after this apology. Representative channel. Thank you chair Steven scow I just curious how or where would you see lines of communication that need to be open. You have anything specific in mind. I'm just a little curious. A lot of times I'm not aware of the bills that are coming up or where they are in the process and you know Brian China, I'm sorry representative China was very instrumental in keeping us informed last year. So, you know it's when I'm not aware of things that are coming up. It's very hard to give witness or to be involved in the committees when they're having discussions so that's one really important line of communication so like I said I'm not really a legislative expert so any, any type of communication that we could develop would be probably the most helpful. Okay, thank you. All right. I see also Douglas bent is here. And it looks like Judy Dow had to step off. And Douglas, do you have, would you like to make any further comments on the apology and miss Lucy's here. Would either you like to make further comments on the apology. This is Doug. Can you hear me okay. We can hear you. Yep. Okay. Yeah, I agree with what Don and both Carol just said that the communication needs to be there. More so than it is now. I talked to Brian China, the tribe has, and he's been, he's been good to us and trying to keep us informed some but we've, we've lately seemed to lost that line of communication with him as well but Yeah, I could see the commission as, as being, you know, more involved, and I believe that's what it's there for. And I don't know how you know that would happen between the legislators and the commission but something definitely needs to happen or the communication is better than it is. I've only been on the commission a couple months now but I have, I assumed that it was better than what what it is but it apparently isn't. So I, I guess. Yeah, that's all we have to say here from a cow or suck tribe. So we thank you for for doing what you're doing. And hopefully it sticks and stays that way. And hopefully there's some more former reconciliation to in the future. Thank you. Thank you. Lucy, do you want to chime in? There you go. There. Okay, thank you. I agree with what everybody has said thus far. I think I'm thrilled about the apology. Number one and thank you for having us all to speak. You know what, when I was on commission, which I am on the commission again, I was chair, and I think it was like six years ago. We did visit with the governor Scott. And I think he was surprised at what we had accomplished so far, and that, you know, we just said who we were, what our goals were, but our accomplishments have been since I was on the commission anyway. And since the commission existed. And I think he was taken aback by some of the accomplishments that we had made. Again, Carol does have a valid point in not having resource money to accomplish some of these things. One of the things we did back in the day was a conference called affirming traditions. And we wound up hosting it at the Boy Scout Reservation in Eden. We had approximately 250 people attend. And we had to figure out the funding. So no grants were available. Again, like Carol said, because we were a state entity. So there needs to be a little good take here somewhere so that we can do what we need to do to educate our community our population and the state of Vermont. So I'm to go right back into the educational phase and and say we need to have more education. So, but thank you all for listening and it was a pleasure to be here. Thank you. Representative Murphy. Thank you, Chair Stevens. I just wanted to say that listening to the witnesses all speak to the need to be kept current and to be connected in made me really do not that I wasn't aware of the commission. Jeff Bonnet is not only a constituent but a friend so I've been aware for a while of the commission but looking it up if you if you actually do the Google search. It's in our historic division for historic preservation. It's not in an active present. It's part of our state's daily daily actions and I think that potentially that isn't something we would be addressing with our apology, because we certainly are apologizing for the past for actions that have occurred. I think it's something we might be able to link to or certainly as we look at the next phase. Think about this being in a area of our state government that is funded for day to day activity and needs as opposed to preserving the historic status of something. I just see it as jarring with our intent to be present with this action. And that's all I want to offer. Thank you. Representative Blumlee. Yes, thanks chair. First off, I really appreciated your invitation that Carol extended to me to attend one of your last meetings and I think, you know, in in the meetings that we've had in our committee and at that meeting it was really clear that you are underfunded to provide the kind of education and testimony and leadership that I think we would want to come from the commission. So I'm just I I'm wondering I, I'm new to the legislature and I know that not all commissions have paid staff but some do, and I am wondering what about this. I mean is is having someone who can play an administrative role and be a liaison to the legislature. Is it is that something that would actually help facilitate the kind of communication that you're talking about. Thank Carol question for Carol. I guess it is yes, certainly would. It comes down to individuals but it also comes down to how it's structured. It's hard to say because even within the Abenaki community there's politics and there's certainly political shifts in the legislature as well so it would have to be very carefully worked out whether it's an actually a commission member whose functions as a liaison or whether it would be a separate entity. I'm not sure or a staff staff to the commission. It does work in the Division of Historic Preservation because they've been so very supportive. I realized when I first heard that I thought well we're being treated as artifacts. The state archaeologist and the division leader have been very supportive and, and, and helpful to us so I find that arrangement has been really beneficial but in terms of direct connection with the legislature. A staff person would probably be extremely helpful. Yes. Thank you. And before I shift over to Susan, just last question for, for Lucy and for, and for Carol, the carols. The emphasis on an apology for me is to begin healing between that which we've done. And, and I can't speak to the, the feelings of, of mistrust of hurt of where you've been as, and I'm just curious to know, do you view this as the beginning or another step in the healing process that may have started, may have started with recognition, but with an acknowledgement that of what this cost. I mean, simply saying it and saying we're sorry is one thing. But will it, will it feel like it's the beginning of healing to you. Carol. Yes. Lucy's yes. Okay, yes, I think it's the first step. And I think it's a continuation of a healing in a relationship that will only, for me, progress and grow. Carol. Thank you. I, I have to say that I've seen such a shift in perceptions of, first of all that recognizing that we're here. And, you know, there's been some very important steps taken at this point we have, you know, Indigenous People's Day, we have our display in the State House. Apanaki Heritage Week was declared. I mean, all of these give us visibility and make people aware that we're here, that we're not stuff cat mounts in the museum. That we are a viable community. And for me, this apology is, is yet another step in the healing process and people being aware of who we are, and that we are a separate culture, a separate people. We have our own beliefs, we have our own culture. So for me, this recognition that something happened, and even though we were not all directly involved, it's impacted generations of Apanaki and other people. So it's a first step, you can't right a wrong unless you admit and identify what the wrong was. And the apology does that and the last little section where you were talking about taking action. That's the most important thing, words are words, but actions are really important. So, I am very much in support of this being another step in the healing between Apanaki and the rest of the folks in Vermont. I agree with everything Carol just said and what Lucy just said so strongly agree. Thank you. Susan. Any questions go, but I also want to ask you, you know, to kind of give us a review again of what this apology is. And what it means to the disabled community. And what does it mean to, what does it mean to move forward from this. Good morning and for the record my name is Susan Aronoff and I am the senior planner and policy analyst for the Vermont Developmental Disabilities Council. And unlike the indigenous people of Vermont, people with developmental disabilities do get to have a paid, I'm not supposed to be a lobbyist educator advocate. And so I just need to, for the record just say that I'm speaking, not as a person with a disability so answering what it means to people with disabilities to apologize I will do my best at that. I just want to say that I was raised a Jew and lived my life really closely with Buddhists in Connecticut of Japanese and Vietnamese origin. And right now in our country. I feel like this apology could not be more timely and I could tell you what it means to me as a person whose people were impacted by policies like eugenics and whose friends are currently being impacted by the kind of xenophobia and just hate based on that eugenics reinforced and developed so I want I've heard your committee struggle a lot with this work ahead of you is it enough to apologize and what else we can't just apologize and as a Jew I'm just going to give you a little dose a little bit of Talmudic wisdom that I think applies for this juncture that you have and it goes like this. It's not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but nor are you free to desist from doing your share of the task. So I just want to say to you as a committee, I want to thank you for this discussion that you've opened up. I am the policy person for a council that's made up a majority of people with disabilities. There are actual disabilities, developmental disabilities, a wide range of disabilities, and I will say that educating my council members about Vermont's history of eugenics in plain English plain language, so that everyone could understand that we had to adopt a position of this on this on our platform, and we can adopt a position on our platform, if people don't understand what they're voting on. And so I had to explain eugenics, I had to explain why the decision for a bill, I had to explain a lot, and I will need to hear about what life is like, and what matters, and things like that. And I just want to say, this isn't a side, but Mr. Chair, if you could do anything about this. The health of people with disabilities is really caught in limbo at the State House. Mr. Chair, the first time you and I ever spoke was when I was trying to get an airing of the brilliant work the Health Department has done on health disparities in 2018, our health department looked in 2018 at four groups, people with disabilities, people of color, by what we're now calling BIPOC people, people of low income, and lesbian, gay, LGBTQ, Dermoners, looked at the health disparities of those four groups, and found incredibly troubling information. Pre pandemic, and we desperately tried to get an airing of the health disparities people with disabilities in the human services committee. Well, that's healthcare. Then we tried getting it in the healthcare committee. Well, that's about all those human services. And so thank you, thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing an opportunity because lo and behold, what the pandemic has forced over in the healthcare committee has led. And it's Brian Cina. Again, a star in this area of intersectionality has forced H 210, which is the health equity or health disparities bill. And there's a through line being connected and Donahue's testimony in your committee was brilliant and she brought it over to her colleagues in the healthcare committee and the reason why I sent you Mr. Chair and Ron this morning, a little section of each is she's made the through line between eugenics and the health disparities. So for our folks for people with disabilities for everyone you've heard from eugenics isn't over eugenics isn't over and if there's any take away eugenics isn't over. And so apologizing it is the first step. It is a huge step. I would encourage you to do it and not worry so much about what's next, not doing it, because you don't know for sure what's next, I would say just do it. And one simple thing that I would propose as a what's next because I think it's so powerful. I've seen it in the healthcare committee this year. I've seen it in your committee is the power of a listening tour. I want to say Mr. Chair. Last year when you took testimony on this, our member, Kay Stambler, who's been coming to the State House for more than 25 years, and who was recommended that her daughter be put in Brandon, and who has advocated on her late behalf and so many other people's behalf and served on our council. She had to turn her limit so she's no longer on our council but anyway, when she testified last year in your committee. So she'd been coming to the State House for more than 25 years. That was her first time testifying. That was her first time telling her story. When you earlier took testimony from people with disabilities, you had a woman who lived in Brandon testified before your committee. He's never told her story before an audience as of the stature of the legislature listening to her story. I would not tell you how important you make people feel when you just listen to their stories. And so the stories that health, house health care has been hearing about health inequities and the stories that you, your committee has been hearing. I would say, especially with this zoom technology, if you did a listening tour, and then maybe directed Vermont Folklife Center someone, not to capture the stories as though they're relics, but to capture the stories as though they're important. They are. And so, I would say, please apologize, do it as soon as possible. Don't worry about getting it perfect. And, you know what you've done so far is tremendous you've launched amazing discussions you've laid the groundwork for more. You've opened so many people's eyes. And so it's very powerful and if we could be of any of assistance so the other thing I did want to say is one thing that Council is really good at a lot of people you on this committee I know are familiar with the Council all 50 states have them. We're federally funded. We exist to connect people with disabilities to all the services that impact their lives where they live, work, learn play, if a policy impacts someone with a disability, my job is to bring them to those policymakers. But if we can serve as ambassadors. This issue, the school exclusion issue health disparities issue has been forcing our Council to recognize and grapple with what people call intersectionality in new and really exciting and challenging ways and so if there's a way that we can help support bringing people together, not just the disability community, but all the people impacted. That's a role that we're very happy to play. Thank you. So I sent the H 210 language. If you were. If you wanted to add anything to the apology my suggestion would just be to say to bring it to the current that the language that I sent over is what. And got added to each to 10 is just the impact of eugenics on creating these disabilities, these disparities. So that would be my own. And we will share that with the committee as well. I think. Thank you Susan. Your focus on this has helped shape. All of that. And, you know, I appreciate your, your connecting with you and for making this. Matter. One of the things, and this is mentioned in the first whereas in the in the document, and it's throughout the Gallagher book is while we focus on specific groups, the general group that all of these folks were in or considered to be in. The Gallagher book or the language of the time was popular ago is off. It's not coming through. You cannot hear me. Now it's my downtown Waterbury Wi-Fi. I can hear you. The, the issues that the broader issue here too is, while there are specifics. Specific groups that we, we know were affected the larger group the poppers the poor is another piece that is. Really quite an umbrella that, that this policy chose. Not in theory, but in action. To focus on the poor of which these other groups are very much were a part of and still are I think is what you're saying with the disparities language. Is some. Not a great mark for us. Yes, you just kind of hit on what my thoughts were and relating to Nancy Gallagher's research, which went back to the late 19th century in the first three or four decades of the 20th century that poverty was as much of a driving factor as anything was and that the drive toward separating families who lived in conditions less than what were thought to be acceptable and separating families and incarcerating parents and locking up children in a way that or with the intent to improve their lives is just really stressing to read. But of course we're looking at it from our 21st century view. But what you say, Susan is, you know, it's right on point. If you know the notion that poverty, poverty links into this whole situation is very obvious and it continues to be, you know, from the Northeast Kingdom. Over my career and working for 15 years with Polish folks up here in the kingdom, certainly ties into this whole thing as well. I just wanted to thank you for bringing that up and for being here and being such a great advocate and, you know, like I said before you and I go way back. One thing I'd like to add Mr. Chair if I can, not so much for the apology but if you do start incurring with membership of any commission going forward, the federal law that creates developmental disabilities councils requires that one of our members have the life experience of having lived in an institution or currently be living in an institution. And I would just like to say because of the impact Vermont's institutions, particularly the Waterbury State Hospital for people with psychiatric disabilities and Brandon for people with developmental disabilities and I know those were the only institutions in Vermont. But particularly because the impact is had, I would suggest adding that someone who had either has or has had because people living in nursing homes now, especially people with disabilities living in nursing homes are considered to be institutionalized. Some sort of institutional experience, because it's just such a different lived experience than anyone who hasn't lived in an institution can imagine. Okay, thank you. Further questions for Susan. And Susan, can you follow up with just a quick email for that just reminds us where to look for that. Yes, we'll do. Thank you. Kim Chase. Are you with us still. I am. The same questions to you. This is a I so appreciate coming forward earlier this year when we were seeking out comments on on Franco Americans or people with French Canadian heritage to comment on the apology and what it might mean to you or to your community as a whole. I think it's a group that was targeted as a group that was really by this kind of targeting excluded from membership in the larger community. And just if you have thoughts on where we've where we are with the with the apology with the work that we're doing and again we'll have another draft with some enhanced language in it later but we'll open the floor to you. I think everyone is. Are you can you hear me. Yes. Okay, I think that people have been incredibly articulate and eloquent about this being a good beginning. And so I just want to say I, I, I support all of that. I think it was of the, the commission for for Native American affairs if that's what it's called. So there was a French cultural commission that was, I guess, was that it was unfunded but I think I sent you some a couple of articles about basically decommissioned at a certain point in time and so I, I do feel that that was an important that that would be something to do moving forward, because we don't currently have have a commission and also kind of the scope of the apology but in terms of our connection to Quebec and our own history so so really just a commission within which we could work to, you know, raise awareness about the French presence in Vermont, our contributions because it is important and we are very, very numerous, but I, I do feel like that that is something that is not recognized and that, you know, there's, there's a gap now where there once was actually a commission that was there was decommissioned so. So the comments about disability and poverty those are very much part of the French Canadian experience because we had very large families for a lot of reasons, and a lot of poverty a lot of children working in mills and so forth. And so, all of those things affected us, and we have. Again, we, we all believe we have native, you know, ancestry but but these things were hidden and and are not are not easy to find but I think there's a general feeling that you know the term French Indian is there for a reason so. So I would just like to say that I'm very pleased that, and I feel like the spirit of everybody, speaking is. I'm happy that it's not, you know, recriminating, but one of partnership as people have said, and it gives me a lot of hope. I'm thankful to be a small part of this process. Thank you. Questions for Kim. Okay, I just know, thank you, thank you for your words Kim I you know as I. The more we work on this and you know I've gone back to read a lot of the Gallagher book in particular. As a touchstone and it every time I read it it has more context because I know more. I've learned more I've heard more and it's on one hand. I've seen comments by by Susan air off started off with the notion that there's still so much happening today that when I look back and read the Gallagher book and I read about Vermont and 19 from from the 1870s really to the 1930s, and I, you know, outside of the preponderance of paved roads and overt policies that we choose to follow, you know, so much about humanities is the same the other ring that the desire to say to someone, you're not from here. What it means. It's not just what it means to the groups that are being other but what it means to us to feel like we have to. It's an intro it's it's it's it's kind of one of the American stories that is covered in a lot of different context histories. I'm not going to go into the fourth but I, I am appreciative that you've been able to share your story. And your as a, as a, I guess as a vessel for the French Canadian or the Franco American story on in this context. It has helped me look at some of this history with a deeper view and a deeper understanding, no matter. My own so called ethnic background is different than than what was experienced here. So, thank you. Thank you. Committee we're going to take 10 minutes on this break. I'm going to come back care the carols and Lucy and Kim. Judy down, maybe coming back to join us again, it would be, it would be great if we got some comments from her as well. So we'll be back.