 the ethics-built issue. So we, I'm just to lay a little prouder here, that what is your title there, Larry? Oh, and the ethics executive director? The executive director, Novans, came in last week and gave us a report kind of on where we are and where they would like us to go. And he had a couple different phases. And we didn't have time for any other testimony or anything. I don't think we took any other testimony. But in any case, we have two bills on the wall. And then we have this suggestion that doesn't, it does have a bill, one of your suggestions. So Betsy has been tied up someplace, not literally, I don't think, but she, we had about a half an hour between a couple witnesses before. And so she did a walk-through. The 197, is that the number? 198. The newest bill which Senator Polina has suggested would replace the other bill that he introduced last year. Because this would be step one and then the next bill would be kind of step two. So we have had a walk-through of that and I apologize that you didn't all have been here. But I think it's pretty simple. It suggests giving the authority to the Ethics Commission to establish and propose to the legislature next year an enforceable state code of ethics. Is that, and then it extends their, the funding mechanism for them at least another year. Because that kind of sucks. So that is what the bill is. So with that, we will, knowing that that's what we're looking at here if we want to have some testimony. And we have a lot of people here. We have Paul Verne, Chris Winter, Katherine Rader, I don't see here yet. Gwynne Zachoff, Beth Festigee. You're Beth. You look a lot like Beth. And Larry Dobbins was here. And so Paul, would you like to start off? Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee for the record. My name is Paul Burns. I'm the Executive Director of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group. It has been, you know, my pleasure to work with this committee on a number of different bills. I started my 20th legislative year here. I don't know that I've been here every year on a campaign finance where ethics were related proposal, but a lot of them. And it is fair to say that some very significant and important bills have come out of this committee. Many of them started in this committee. Many of them have become important state laws. And again, it has been an honor on behalf of my organization to work on many of those with you and with your predecessors. Included among those would be the creation of the Ethics Commission. And that legislation, of course, had other provisions in it, dealing with pay to play and other provisions that are not specifically before you today are not specifically about the Ethics Commission itself. Some of you may have seen and I recently had some comments about the Ethics Commission and my observations were fairly reflected in that article with one possible exception and it was just more of an omission. And that really was my feeling that the law as it currently stands is not working. And if the question was, what we have today, just as it is, my thought is that is worse than nothing that we shouldn't keep the Ethics Commission just as it stands today. And I'm happy to explain why I feel that way. But my preference is really to improve the Ethics Commission to strengthen it, to give it the resources and the authority that it needs to carry out the functions that I think most people would expect the State Ethics Commission to do. So I wanted to just note that off the bat that it is my hope that Vermont can join the ranks of states with a functioning Ethics Commission, a place where people can go to seek some sense of justice, to have an investigation occur, to look into a complaint, to know that a complaint would be taken seriously, would be investigated, that there would be some determination about whether the set of facts amounts to a violation of a state code of ethics and if such a violation is found that some penalty or enforcement action would result from that. I think that is a reasonable public expectation if you're talking about having an Ethics Commission. You know, what would happen if we had this body up and running? And we are an awful long way from having that today in the current Ethics Commission. You heard some of that from Executive Director Novin's last week and it's not a surprise, I think, to any of you. I mean, we knew from the start what this law was. There was conversation at the time that perhaps it would, after it's up and running that the legislature may address this question of increasing the resources and adding additional authority and responsibility. And yet, I know that among the considerations are some that, in my mind, would weaken and not strengthen the Ethics Commission or weaken the public's capacity, reduce the public's capacity to have some sort of a transparent process where they could identify some potential wrongdoing or even ask about whether something is in line with our state's code of ethics and have some sort of response from an Ethics Commission. And again, there seems to be interest in retreating from that part of the law as it exists today. The bill that you have for consideration this year, I appreciate the idea of putting the code as it exists today or in some modified form into statute. There's no argument that that should happen. No argument for me to say that that should happen. That is clearly one of the means by which some of the other functions that I was referring to earlier could then be carried out that an investigation could occur, that some determination could be made and that some enforcement action could be taken or not if an investigation determines that there is no wrongdoing there and then it remains quiet. But it doesn't seem to me reasonable that it would take the period of time that we're talking about here for a phase one which would be to ask Larry essentially to go back and come up with a plan that you would consider next year and then after that presumably come back in the perhaps 2022 legislative session to determine who that code of ethics might apply to and perhaps determine what kind of resources or enforcement capacity could result either in that session or a session beyond that. It's a very long and drawn out process and it seems to me we are where we are today but more preparation could have been done coming into this session so that you have before you something to consider. I'm not entirely sure what you need beyond you have a code right now and that would be useful to look at presumably when you're talking about creating a state code of ethics instead. There's a history about the other state codes there are something like 47 of them out there and those could be evaluated to determine whether or not you wanted to do something like one or another of those as well but to my mind the question is whether we persist and how long we persist with what is essentially a toothless commission and I would note that term is not one that I came up with but there is a report by coalition for integrity enforcement of ethics rules by state ethics agencies I will send you a link to this it's a fairly lengthy piece and you can decide whether you want to print them out but it is an examination of the state codes of ethics and the commissions and how they carry out their work in the various states that have them today some recommendations are made here and I will share some of those with you but their first recommendation is this that a toothless ethics agency serves no purpose agencies need wide powers to investigate and sanction all government personnel and this gets to my point that you may have read about which is is it really better to have nothing than what we have today does a toothless ethics agency serve no purpose I think it serves no valid purpose I think it serves some purpose and I hope it is not one that you want to pursue which is that it offers some protection to state officials to from the criticism that you might otherwise get and frankly you were getting or your predecessors were getting for having no ethics commission at all when Vermont was one of maybe it was three states without any ethics commission at all I will tell you we use that a number of others use that as a one reason why we should take some action here why should Vermont be among the small not even a full handful of states without some sort of a commission in place where people could go to issue a complaint or seek advisory question or advisory advice from a commission and so forth and I think the legislature was persuaded we should be taken and then we should join the race of states with it but if it is truly toothless then I think it gives a false sense to the public that you have addressed a problem that you really have not yet addressed right now it is a funnel you know a place where a complaint can be received and given to somebody else and in most cases very little seems to happen even at that and without a state code of ethics it is a valid question about what can happen under the current way the law is currently written it is true that no one none of those enforcing bodies whether at the attorney general or the department of human resources or anybody else could say because we have found that there is a violation of the code of ethics that the commission adopted we are going to take some enforcement action there is nothing under the current law that would empower any of those officials to act that way so again putting something into statute is a good idea but it is I think if you are going to go that route I would encourage you to move more rapidly and to at the same time consider who that could apply to and what kind of resources you might give so that some enforcement actions could be taken I also think that if you are looking at if you don't move forward to adopt a code of ethics in statute this year and you require some further investigation or study or analysis that you should look at how it could apply to all state employees including with all due respect the members sitting around this table I know what the constitution says and some have suggested that that means that only the members of the senate can take any enforcement action against a member of your body and the same for the house of representatives I'm not sure that I would agree that that means that no action could be taken certainly it means that nobody else can come in and say you are removed from office for an ethical violation of some sort but perhaps it is possible that some other means of pointing out that a violation has occurred and the question is more about what sanctions would result from that so that too would provide some benefit it seems to me if there were a commission that could at least make that judgment some of the other recommendations that I think you want to consider that were contained in this report that proceedings of the ethics agencies should be open to the public once there is a determination that probable cause exists that a violation has occurred that would be a result of an investigation and it says that there should be no difference in terms of transparency between a criminal indictment which is public and a finding of probable cause for an ethics violation that's something that I don't recall there being consideration around that last time but there is this question about when transparency can occur and it is not necessarily at the filing of a complaint for sure but once you pass some sort of measure of determination that that there is a reasonable cause then some openness to the process it seems to me is worthwhile if the ethics agency determines that a violation has occurred its findings and sanctions should be publicly available confidential letters of reprimand carry a little weight in deterring behavior and finally it notes that to increase incentives for compliance penalties should be meaningful that's a conversation for another day but I think the point is rather obvious there the question would be could any penalties come to members of the legislature for the reasons that we cite before I would also urge you to consider a time limit on the if under the current law if something is funneled off to an agency for consideration there is no time limit on when they can how long they can take they can take years of considering whether there is any violation there even if you push off the question of adopting a code of ethics in statute this year you could put a time limit on how long the agencies that currently receive those complaints have to consider whether a violation has occurred that might encourage more public participation in the process as you know the department of human resources has no code of ethics of its own right now there are pieces of what kind amounts to a code in different places again if you want to before acting on a statute a statutory code of ethics you could require the department of human resources to take some measures to put their different pieces in one place so that if somebody were to visit their website you could find at least what they consider to be their code of ethics now that would probably somebody could do that in a day and a half that would be helpful given that our current law refers to a department of human resources code of ethics and so there are almost triage measures that I would urge you to consider if can do put off for a lengthy period the adoption of a state statute I with respect to the advisory opinions I know that some of us have gone around on this a few times before regardless of whether you believe that it was legislative intent to require that or to limit those who could request an advisory opinion to current state employees that is not what the law says now that is not what you adopted and I understand that you may consider changing that but let me say that if you do that, if you make that change and you say that no longer will we allow a member of the public to request an advisory opinion don't pat yourselves on the back for that one as though you are doing it for the citizens of this state it wouldn't be good for the public to take away that opportunity for them to request an advisory opinion from the state ethics commission it would further insulate elected officials and appointed officials in the state from the indignity of having some investigation about something that they or their colleagues are doing and I don't think that my hope is that you don't view your primary job as to protect elected officials or appointed officials from the indignity of having questions raised about whether something that they're doing might be a violation of the state's code of ethics and here I guess I need to be specific as you know VPURG had filed initially a complaint about the governor's ongoing financial interests in his former construction business while that business seeks and wins state contracts when we first filed the complaint we were told that no state code of ethics existed yet so it was premature we waited until the code was adopted in the summer of 18 and then filed the request for an advisory opinion so that that process would be more transparent that timing had to do with when the code of ethics was adopted and the commission as you know issued its advisory opinion in that case and that advisory opinion found and it could have been written perhaps in a more vague manner without reference to the governor but it found under the circumstances that there really is no public dispute around that there are multiple violations of the current code of ethics given the set of facts as they apply to the governor and really I haven't heard anything from the commission that disputes the merits of that decision now there is question about whether VPURG had the right to request an advisory opinion again according to the law there is no question about it there is no restriction to state employees here there is a restriction on who can request guidance but any court would look at that and say okay this paragraph they say it is limited to state officials one, two, three paragraphs down they don't limit it to state officials that is a strong indication that there was not an intent on the part of the legislature to so limited so the commission offered that advisory opinion and then took it back not only do they say it was improper but they took it down which in this day and age is kind of comical to suggest that we are going to pretend that it never existed but the point is they said okay you can file complaints we filed a complaint and for nearly two months we have heard nothing from the department of human resources on that it will be interesting to see what they finally said but I believe that the public is better served by having an opportunity and even if the requirement is that any advisory opinions be written in such a manner it's not about a particular individual that's fine but it is entirely possible if somebody could say hey it's I see a legislator who has this relationship who is doing this kind of thing if I have a question about that it might trigger an advisory opinion that could be valuable to you to your colleagues but just because the question didn't come from you doesn't mean that there isn't some viable reason, some benefit for having that question considered and addressed by the ethics commission but another way the only person according to the changes that I believe you're considering were you to limit the focus of the advisory opinions in the manner that the commission has already done would be to say only the governor can request an advisory opinion about whether he has a conflict in this case and if the governor chooses not to do that then no one else is empowered even to request an opinion about it that would be the effect of the change that you're considering and that is not in the public's interest so that's my appeal on that question not to argue about whether it was your intent originally or not but just to say value in allowing people other than those who are in this situation to request an advisory opinion from a commission particularly given the fact that both the executive director of the commission and members of this committee and your counterparts in the house have recognized that one of the most important aspects of the commission is to educate and to get information out so that you can avoid conflicts and not to take enforcement action not to take complaints or anything else but it seems like you're missing an opportunity to potentially address some of those situations by making sure that the public is not allowed to ask even for an advisory opinion so the sum is I think it is right to move forward to put the code into statute it seems to me there's some possibility that as you were considering last week that you could move even in this session to make that happen I hope that you will move as rapidly as possible to consider the other questions about who that applies to what resources that the commission has to enforce that and what authority it has to enforce against anyone found to be in violation of the code and then I'm happy to provide other information on some of the other specific suggestions that I made and I appreciate the opportunity to share these thoughts with you today thank you and I will argue with you until I turn blue in the face about the advisory opinion because it clearly says may issue to an executive officer or other state employee upon his or her request an advisory opinion regarding any prohibition of this chapter or any issue related to governmental ethics the intent always was to give advice to the people who were covered that's for guidance no well unless it got changed in the final executive director advisory opinions it doesn't say that it comes only to may issue to the executive officer or state employee I believe refers to guidance and down below it says may issue advisory opinions that provide general advice it doesn't limit that's on the reports right no I'm getting that down but anyway that really was always was the intent I'm saying madam chair though that the plain language there is that the restriction applies to guidance not to advisory opinions I'm not debating about the intent and that may be true and it is of course your authority to change that now I would argue that it was not within the authority of the commission to make that change absent the direction absent the passing of a new law here and yet that is what the commission has done I think it's completely inappropriate okay I know and we will remain disagreeing on that and I the intent always was that the guidance would be I could call and ask for guidance is this an ethical violation could this can you give me some guidance on this so 17 of us call on the same question the commission then says 17 of you are concerned about the same thing I'm going to give a general advisory opinion about this issue and that that was the intent and if we wrote it wrong we got it wrong and we can always change it or or we can let other people give an advisory opinion or ask for one but that was the intent that is exactly the way we envisioned it certainly that makes perfect sense the description that you describe the scenario that you describe the only question is whether you want to make sure that there isn't another opportunity there for the public so if multiple people who are elected officials have a similar kind of question that a general advisory comes up of course that makes perfect sense question is whether you allow anybody to ask a question yeah I get that so Anthony do it sure I guess a couple things first of all I appreciate and I agree really with your analysis of the very status of the commission as it is it's obviously turned out to be a very weak organization probably good that any of us have hoped for or imagined so I appreciate that the quandary is how we move forward quite honestly and what we need to begin with I believe I could be wrong before we talk about who can issue complaints or ask for guidance those questions they're kind of irrelevant if we don't have an enforceable code of ethics for the commission to react to for the citizens to react to so the question is whether we can come up with an enforceable code of ethics now or whether we have it's going to take more time to do that and I don't want to move backwards because I hear interesting about the other things the triage and so not that there might be possibilities there so I would put those aside for now because my major question is whether or not we have the ability as a group and upstairs in the full senate to actually adopt the enforceable code of ethics making it into statute making it into law between now and let's say March or whatever we would have to have it done I think if we don't there would be a lot of debate that would happen and a lot of disagreement that would have to be overcome so we can form consensus I would like to bring something up to the senate and have it fail because there's too many questions and you know who all those questions could be because we've been through them before so that's kind of where I'm coming from I think it would make more sense to take the time necessary to have an enforceable code of ethics drawn off with input from DPR again the ACLU and others and have a process by which commission's belts and code of ethics that we can all then go to the senate and actually defend the enthusiastic about it and have it pass and I have a hard time believing I'm not totally flexible on this but I have a hard time we can do that between now and when we have to do it for crossover so that's kind of where I'm coming from I agree with your triage that we need to do certain things which maybe we can do some of those things as we go ahead and give them the power and power to do code of ethics but I just have a hard time imagining we're going to be able to do it in time and have it be successful I think we could throw one together but great up to the senate floor and you remember the debates we've had about campaign finance reform they go on and on and this is even harder than that I would imagine so that's the thing I bet I don't want to be redone well thank you you as a body will be considering even more complicated things where there are fewer examples of other states that have led the way I'm thinking to chairman Bray here is grappling with a few things of how to deal with the climate crisis there are only a couple of states that have done the kinds of things that we're contemplating doing now adopting a code of ethics and some sort of plan for enforcing it is something that more than 40 states have already done so I'm not really disagreeing with what we might expect to happen on the floor of the senate that it's real world politics I guess I just want to recognize from my position that that is a problem of political will more than it is a problem of not being able to figure out a reasonable proposal that could be brought to the floor and fair enough so sometimes it is the right question about strategically what will it take to build enough support in this body and in the other chamber to pass something I'm not inflexible about this but I represent the public in this as well and I just need to say that I think it is not a question of being incapable of figuring out what we need to do 45 other states have this you're right it is political will and I think in my time here the hardest time we've had in passing laws has not been the laws that affect the environment or consumerism it's laws that affect the chamber itself the legislature itself is where we've had the most resistance I agree your job is not easy in Madame Carrier as lead here I've seen you take difficult issues to the floor and I've seen you win I've seen others exact their pound of flesh I guess as well I'm not suggesting that any of this is easy I guess I'm trying to be my job is to encourage you to move as quickly and forcefully as you can in order to achieve success and that may not be this year for all that I want to see but if you put it off then my request would be that it's not limited I'm actually asking the commission to come back with a code that you can then consider next year but let's look at some of those other issues about how that can be enforced and what kind of resources we need and all those other issues so that in the 2021 session at least you're looking at the broader range of issues that could go with that that makes so if we had an enforceable code of ethics there were only 23 complaints last year I guess my question is 23 complaints isn't a lot and so I think we need to think very carefully about what we mean by the resources that go into it and the enforcement capabilities and what kind of resources need to go there for 23 complaints some of them were municipalities and they aren't even covered under here and that's a whole nother issue that we certainly aren't don't have the ability this year to address that but would we have a lot more complaints if we had an enforceable code of ethics or are we looking at because I don't know that the public out there knows that it's not they're not enforceable so I guess my concern is 23 complaints is not a lot and some of them are and only about most of them are closed so well so what do you do with that I mean you could argue we don't need an ethics commission I don't I no I think we need some place for people to go but how what we need how they need to be structured and the resources they need in terms of investigation and enforcement I think we need to look at yeah I think there's a possibility that if there was an enforceable code of ethics and more teeth than the ethics commission and there were one or two I guess I would say high profile for lack of a better way of putting in cases that would resolve that the public was aware it would open the eyes of the public up to the idea that there was an ethics commission and I think there might be more interest in bringing questions okay well we had one well yeah I mean then let's say what has happened so far is there's nothing that would encourage members of the public to think that they're going to have satisfaction by going down this path as you said they may not know that but most people aren't aware that there is a state ethics commission there hasn't been an awful lot of public outreach yet around this and there is no reason why my organization would do much to encourage our thousands of members across the state to participate in this process given the experience that we've had thus far I would say that you know by comparison according to this Massachusetts had more than a thousand complaints filed it's roughly 10 times the population I think so you know it's not as though we're going to be we're not going to have a thousand complaints filed in Vermont but you know might we have somewhere between 23 and 100 if it were highly functioning that's probably not an unreasonable expectation if you have more information out there about this process so there's more information too from other states other states closer to our size and and so again I'll make sure that this goes to all of you and it might be helpful as you consider that but that's not a decision you necessarily need to make today but I think that that would be worthwhile to consider as part of the broader process so do you have those trios I mean I tried to write them down when you were H.R. Code of Ethics and the time limit and and there would be some more and what I would like to do is follow up with some written I would be happy to share with you some written thoughts that may expand on that a little bit as well and I will do that in the next couple of days thank you thank you didn't mean to argue with you so we probably always well so Chris should you thank you for the record Chris Winters Deputy Secretary of State and I'll just start off by saying you know as someone who spent a lot of time in this building advocating for an ethics commission a couple of years ago it's really hard to see it kind of floundering and not have the tools that we think it needs to succeed so I want to thank you for the opportunity to come back and talk about the ethics commission on behalf of the Secretary of State's office as I think you know in my role as Deputy Secretary of State I get fewer calls now because we have Jenny Prosser who takes most of them but I often get a lot of calls from local officials and sometimes about state agencies and state government from concerned citizens who have questions about open meetings public records things like conflict of interest and what they would see is unethical behavior sometimes is unethical behavior a lot of what I hear is kind of one-sided I'm getting one half of the story and I'm not doing any investigation trying to figure out the other side of it but these are real issues and real problems that people have and they in the past really had nowhere to turn and now they do have an ethics commission and with respect to the you know complaints and whether we would see them go up I really think we would if we had an enforceable code of ethics if people were clear about what is expected of our state and even our local especially our local officials and what constitutes a violation we have even more complaints if they thought those complaints would go anywhere that the ethics commission had the teeth to do something about it I do want to emphasize what Secretary Kondo's often says about our public officials it's not as though these green mountains we don't think that's the case but there are a lot of people who don't know what the law is don't know where the line is so with that in that respect having a code of ethics a clear code of ethics can help educate them as to what their responsibilities are as a local official as a public official I really think we still you know a couple years ago I was arguing this and we still are at a crossroads I would say you know more than ever Americans are cynical about government in general you see a lot of cynicism pointing toward Washington D.C. but that translates into a lot of cynicism about Montpelier as well and about state government you look back at the 2016 presidential election see how many people stayed home during that election people are apathetic, they're frustrated and increasingly frustrated by what they see you know we believe that the Secretary of State's office that we really have to do everything we can in our small corner of the world to combat that apathy in that sense that government isn't representing the interests of the people we want to make sure our government is working for the people and accountable to them is the language from the Vermont Constitution so when you were discussing the original bill a few years ago we advocated strongly for it for three things independence authority and resources we said at the time that without all three of those things we thought the commission would have a really hard time and possibly fail and as we've stated we think we got one out of three we've got the independence, we don't think they have adequate resources or authority at this point so we still believe that the commission should have enforcement authority and some additional staffing to deal with we think it's an investment in good government and would be well worth the cost to see the savings to pay for the commission while we wish that the legislature gone further with that in the initial bill and the commission's authority and resources we did say and continue to say it was a good start so as a next step even if it is a small one we think that enforceable, not enforceable that state code of ethics and education on that code in particular would be a good idea as we were as we were promoting advocating for an ethics commission we did emphasize setting clear standards and that education should come first enforcement should come second and we see a lot of the problems go away so to that end we support a state code of ethics as a next step and we do hope that you would continue to look at how to strengthen the commission and give it a fighting chance so thank you for the opportunity to talk to you today I'm sorry I'm going to have to I'm very interested in your conversation did you have anything I think at this time we don't have anything to say I'm really here to listen anybody else thank you laryne ovens executive director of the two foot ethics commission carrying on from our conversation last Friday we talked about an ethics code and the need for one and the sense I got the message that I thought was that if we can get to a code sooner rather than later that would be a good thing and you asked me if I could give you I said I had a draft available I dropped it off for the committee this morning of a possible code of ethics this is a compilation of provisions taken that reflect in part the current ethics code parts are taken from other states and federal government parts are taken from the governor's executive order governing executive branch individuals and I think that would be an excellent place to begin the discussion I don't know when you would be interested in going into it in any detail it's not in a format that it's not a pure legislative format but I think it's pretty close of the content, the substance of it and I think it would be a good opportunity to start a discussion on this my sense is if we can move on this sooner rather than later that would be to everybody's benefit I agree with Paul and Chris and everyone else who talks about the need for a state legally binding code and then the discussion on enforcement should come as soon as possible whether it's immediate or the next step I will leave to your judgment my sense was I would be more interested in accomplishing the possible and I worry that making it too big and too broad and getting into all the enforcement provisions at this time might make the expression the perfect an enemy of the good and I would not want to sacrifice the opportunity to come up with a good code by getting too deeply involved in all the enforcement as I said on Friday there are many many questions to be asked and answered about what an enforcement process would look like and Paul's question exactly right you know at what point does it become public what do the hearings look like what process is followed all those need consideration and then the obvious one is if well when I hope when we have an ethics code and when we have enforcement it's going to require more resources so that's my brief outline I don't know what else to say at this point and I think I when we talked about it last time I think I was maybe a little bit overly optimistic that we could actually come up with something when I think about it we have now 23 days left until crossover so we have and one of those is going to be used for an evacuation exercise so we have 22 days and I'm sure other things will come up to take our afternoon time so when I think when I thought about it at the insistence of other people that I examine my own optimism I just look at this and I say a public servant shall not use their official positions for personal or financial gain what exactly does that mean how is it going to affect me as a legislator how is it going to affect Betsy and as a state employee how and I don't know that we have the time to we could adopt this but these are going to be public servants shall not make use of state materials funds property personnel facilities or equipment for any purpose other than for official state business unless it's specifically permitted or required by law so when I'm working at my desk can I make calls to set up my dentist appointments because that is not official state business I mean these are the kinds of questions that are going to come up and I think we need to think through each of these things very very carefully so that we know the answers because those are can I make those phone calls to make my dentist appointment to arrange for babysitting for my kids or to apply for the job that I have to have when I leave here in May and those are the kinds of questions so I think I was a little bit overly optimistic and I think that we should read through this and we'll continue some money but that's so I think I let you down the garden path I immediately followed yes you eagerly followed me but you know if nothing else if this will start a discussion I think when you look at codes of other states you will find them remarkably similar to what we have here and enforceable and the other question that I would wonder is how long it took them to do it were they done by some executive fiat or were they legislatively done and do they did it take them a year did it take them a month are they full-time legislators or do they have staff to work on these issues I mean I think that they're I don't have those answers I know there's over 40 states by statute I know that they're there and mostly in response to a lot of them followed Watergate a lot of them were in response to local problems people finding new and different ways to commit unethical conduct so a lot of them were responsive but some of them basically adopted as a body to set a standard and that's what I'm hoping we can do here whenever it happens and I think we also have to begin to ask questions about like who is covered are we going to include municipalities in here because we have not are we going to include boards and commissions because that's one of the things you pointed out they aren't covered at all we have about 300 boards and commissions and what does that mean for them to not use their when you're when your board is meeting can they meet in your office and make those personal phone calls I don't know what that means so anyway we would welcome the conversation whenever you want to get to well we definitely will get to the conversation of 197 I mean we are 198 okay 198 thank you somebody needs to keep track of me in here but so we'll definitely go that far and I think that we can look at some of the things that Paul was talking about in terms of other steps in my yeah last week and I agree with Paul I mean the variations among the states are massive and there are plenty of areas where we can sort of pick and choose what will fit for my best well he had some things like the time limit do we need to put some kind of a time limit on there if that's an issue let's look at that we certainly don't want to make it any weaker no we certainly do not want to make it any weaker no that would be difficult I think at this point well I bet we could I mean we don't want to but I bet we could so anything else do you want me to make a quick comment please identify yourself for the record yeah so Eric LeMonte I'm Executive Director at Campaign for Vermont I don't have any real prepared statements but I just want to remind you folks that when this went through the first time we had you know B. Perg was there Campaign for Vermont was there ACLU Ethan Allen Institute I mean how often do you see B. Perg and Ethan Allen Institute working together on something you know you had a group of organizations that came together from a lot of really really diverse backgrounds politically this is an issue of vital importance to Vermont. I understand it's difficult it's going to take a lot of work a lot of discussion but this matters to all Vermonters across the spectrum and please don't forget that as you're faced with both this priority and your other priorities we agree actually it is a matter of time and resources and your you've taken over Campaign for Vermont I don't think you've been in here yet and I sat in on a couple last year I was just kind of listening and getting my feet underneath me you're welcome