 Welcome. Good morning, everybody to Vermont House Judiciary Committee and thank you all for for making today work. This is not one of our usual time slots though. I appreciate it. So in terms of today and coach, I'll get to you in a second, just want to let you know that we will be hearing from the Attorney General's office at, I believe 1040 or so. I'm there. And then around 11 we will hear from Susanna Davis with the administration. And she did get get back to me last night and she'll speak to to us today. And, and then Sarah Robinson is available if needed, and I did send out an email to the to the committee regarding a supplemental memo with some kind of information that I hope answered Ken's questions and thank you, Ken for for your email so that is our plan and hopefully we can finalize our proposal and get it to two appropriations. So, coach. In reference to the, the AG piece. They hadn't come before this committee or any other committee in the past with that proposal. So this is, let's say, a first time direct. You know, ask the conversation, obviously goes along with conversations we've been having with a number of agencies across state government about equity and inclusion. And, you know, everybody, I'll just kind of throw it out there. Because I think some of the reticence that we might see sometimes is part of the problem that's been identified in the last two weeks, which is systemic racism is really at the core of this discussion. And, and that, that is, you know, the piece that is a difficult discussion to have. And it's almost like the two friends sitting together. Oh, one of my best friends is black. You know, that that whole discussion. That's not at the core, but that's part of what's going on, and what this work would help, you know, the, the AG's office identify and and it's, it's understanding it isn't like anybody's doing super wrong. It's just, you know what you know and you don't know what you don't know. And then the whole idea about being involved in learning. And when I look around this room and I see books and, you know, charts and things that people like to do. It's that there's a lot of learners and people here that want to understand what's going on. Even my buddy Ken here, you know, I mean, he's probably one of the most analytical people in our group. And, you know, look at him, look at those eyes. I saw that, you know, but, but that's what it's about. You know, if we're willing to learn. We're, you know, Vermont's going to like, you know, really like lead, you know, the way. And that's something that I, you know, in my heart, you know, it drives me from a hopeful perspective is, you know, we have that unique ability to do that. And so anyways, I'm sorry. I know thank you. Thank you very much that that's really helpful and it really is important that we do put this all into into context and and make a record a strong record for why this work is so important, and especially now. So I appreciate that coach. Ken. Thanks coach you got you got a little spark out of me this morning to help me through the day I appreciate that. But I'll fix that from now on, I'll just go on black, you know, blank screen here. Mike, the, my question is, what we're doing with all this money bill and all this stuff. I just want to make sure it's straight in my head. This is all money that we are paying the federal government that we're trying to disperse. And then it's going to break our, our, what we think should be done with it, then it's going through appropriations, they're going to break stuff up probably even more and then it's going to go to the house floor for a final vote correct. Almost. I heard you say that we're paying the federal government is the other way around this is this is federal money that that that the state of Vermont has been has been allocated. So we make recommendations. So what we're sending to appropriations are recommendations from our committee just as every house committee is is doing, and then appropriations will, we'll look at all of them. We're working with JFO and the, it's a CRF, you know, team basically, you know, to really make sure that everything is applicable and meets the guidelines. And so, yeah, yeah, and then and then yes, depending upon what appropriation comes up with that will come to the floor. It's it's it's another type of budget. So just to correct you because I am the money guy, not this lawyer stuff thing here. If it's federal government money, it is our money, we do support the federal government. You know, we do have to pay our unfair share taxes to them. Got it. Okay. Thank you. Okay, and. Good to see you, Barbara, Barbara, you did not. I saw your note. No, you did not miss much at all. Just giving in sort of a overview of who we're hearing from and the plan for today. So, so great. Thank you. Okay, everybody's here. Any before we hear from our first witness. Any other questions about process. I don't think so. Welcome. Well, Josh diamond is here from the Attorney General's office and when you're ready, Josh. Good morning and welcome. Good morning. Madam chair, I don't know if representative Christie is here in the hearing today. Members of the house judiciary, Joshua diamond deputy attorney general on behalf of the Attorney General's office. We appreciate the opportunity to discuss funding for the development of a strategic plan for equity and inclusion. As I'm sure many of you know, implicit bias and racial disparities persist in Vermont. Implicit bias as I have come to learn through my own training on this subject is really a part of human nature. And to ensure that those implicit biases do not cause harm or results in disparate treatment for those communities that we serve we need to be aware of those implicit biases, reflect on those implicit biases, and challenge those biases to make sure that when we are delivering services, they don't result in adverse impacts. So as I'm sure many of you here realize that racial disparity continues to persist in Vermont. If I may address a few data sources, which I am sure have come across your committee in years past or months past but a 2018 report done by the Department of Corrections in response to act 146 shows that 8.5% of those incarcerated are black or African American members of our community, despite making only 1.4% of those in our general population. A data from the Vermont State Police on traffic stops shows that African American or black drivers who are stopped are two to three times more likely to be subject to searches than white drivers. Burlington's police department recently issued data over seven years to show that in use of force incidents, 20% of those involved black or African American suspects versus 6% representing the general municipal population. Issues of racial disparity are not just isolated to the criminal justice system we know as well it impacts education, for example, a 2015 report done by legal aid showed that black and African American children were two to three times more likely to be suspended from school than their white peers. And these disparities, we believe have only been exacerbated through the COVID crisis. In terms of health and economic. One need only go to the Department of Health dashboard and see clearly that while the black and African American population of Vermont which makes about 1.4% of our, our census has been diagnosed as part of 7.5%, just under 7.5% of those who have been diagnosed with COVID. This has been exacerbated as well, through the economic disparities a recent New York Times report or article from June 1 showed that national on a national wide basis unemployment for African Americans are exceeds those of their white peers. And when you juxtapose that to household wealth, where the median household wealth for white families is 171,000 African American families average or excuse me median household wealth is only 17.6,000. And so that economic insecurity only exacerbates these problems. And I would be remiss not to reflect on the George Floyd tragedy that highlights once again the reality for many in our community, but they cannot rely upon the institutions that many of us take for granted to allow us to feel safe, and create an opportunity to achieve prosperity. We have the opportunity for funding at the Attorney General's office to do a strategic plan on equity and inclusion. We embrace this opportunity for funding to develop the strategic plan that addresses implicit bias and helps guide our office to deliver legal services to the people of the state of Vermont and state government to reduce racial disparity in Vermont. We know delivers legal services to many governmental functions, some of which touch on the areas where disparities have been identified. We have a criminal division where we prosecute cases, including the review of the most serious use of force cases, often involving lethal force. We have a corrections unit that defends the state involving challenges to sentencing calculations furlough determinations and other disciplinary conduct that occurs in our prisons. We staff the agency of education as well with legal services, our human service, our agency of human service attorneys amongst the work that they do includes appeals of the denial of economic benefits. But we also have a civil rights unit that's charged with investigating discrimination in places of employment and also investigating what we call our BERS, our bias incident reporting system. And we know we can do better. We all can do better. And we welcome that opportunity through the strategic plan to meet the needs of all of the communities that we serve. We believe an appropriation of about $30,000 should guarantee that we get the expert services we need to develop that strategic plan to examine implicit bias in our office and our ability to address racial disparities in Vermont. But I will note, and it would be, I would be remiss if I didn't observe that there are a lot of needs right now for these limited COVID dollars. We respect the discretion that you all need to exercise and how that money is allocated and defer to your wisdom in that regard but I just want to say we welcome this opportunity. Should you find it appropriate for us to get funding necessary to develop the strategic plan. So thank you and I welcome any questions. Great. Thank you. Thank you very much. And is your testimony I don't know if it's something that you can send to us so we could post it or I could it's a note form and I'd be happy to reduce that to a narrative. Because I really appreciated the data and the information in there so I think it I think be very helpful and would like to post it when it's when it's convenient for you to get it to us. Thank you so committee questions looking for blue hands or people just jump in. Thank you. It's so great to hear from you this morning and I really appreciate the opportunity to consider this proposal, which I really support and think is really timely and important. The questions that I know we have to answer for any COVID dollars. I'm just pulling up Eric's draft of some of the other legislation we're considering is really both why it's necessary which I think you've made a clear a very strong case for, but also why it's, it's due to COVID this necessity. And so I, I can certainly think of how I would answer that question about this proposal but I'd love to just get you on the record, a little more talking about that, just the the importance of moving this work forward as a response to the COVID-19 crisis. I would do so and, but with a disclaimer I'm not rendering a legal opinion that this year falls within the CARES actor that the grant that we've received, but I would hope that it does. I think the nexus is this that the COVID crisis has exacerbated the disparities. As a matter of life and death, to be honest with you, as we look at how COVID has impacted the communities of color, the disproportionate impact of who is getting this, this disease. And that's also further exacerbated by the economic disparities so that the reality is if you're struggling economically, it's likely that you don't have the resources to necessarily work remotely. You may not have a white collar job like I have where I can sit at home and do this job. I may have to be on the front lines, whether caring for others working in jobs that are considered frontline to sustain myself or my family. And the absence of economic opportunity also exacerbates this because the lack of accumulated household wealth also diminishes those opportunities to isolate if you will, and limit the opportunity for exposure. Selina, I just want to give you a chance to follow up if you want to. That was, that was helpful. That was helpful. And I'm sure I'm just, yeah, I'm sure we'll get more detail and encourage you to keep reminding us of the interconnection with the COVID crisis. Thank you. Coach and then Barbara. And then Tom. Actually, I'll, I'll wait. Okay, so then Barbara Tom, and coach will revisit with you coach. Good morning, Josh. How are you. Good morning. So thank you for being here today and your testimony. So, I'm following up on representative coburns questions because I think it's. This is an extremely worthwhile and important project. And I want to make sure that we're as thoughtful and careful as possible about keeping to the coat, just like you are making sure that it meets the parameters. So you have no concern about this project being completed by mid December. I think we can meet that timetable. I presume that funding would be available. This is part of the, the mini budget bill, if I understand it. And well, I don't have a consultant in mind, but I think we could probably find folks within the community quickly we could do an expedited RFP process. And I think certainly the desire of our office to work with a professional to address these issues. It's not just the front office. It's just not myself and TJ the leadership this. These are things that I think people share these values and wanting to do better throughout our office. And yes, so short answers. Yes, we can meet the timetable. And in terms of, I mean, this is helpful if you have it, but the number of people you think this project could have an impact on I think that could be a helpful range if you think you can extrapolate out that from this. We can do it from a quantitative perspective, but from a qualitative one. I mean, our office delivers legal services across state government. I mean we really touch on everything that government does in one way or another, right everywhere but in many, many places and I think to have a team of lawyers who are serving the state of Vermont that are in tune with the issues of implicit bias and looking in a sensitive to ways that we can reduce racial disparity, where there be in the delivery of services through the agency of human services through our criminal justice system through our civil rights unit. Through the general counseling services we provide to be GS or agency of education, or even the fifth floor, where we might be asked to help it from time to time at the agency of administration. We can have a positive impact. And do you see any sort of product products or tangible outcomes besides the, I guess the plan and the training. Like, will there be any, do you think materials that will be shared with the public or just, yeah, I'm just trying to look at reach again. So the draft RFP that myself and Representative Christie have been exchanging contemplates the establishment of metrics by which to judge our progress. I can't articulate what those are now I'm hoping that the consultant will help us identify those. Right. But yes, we would want measurable goals. So, right, I didn't know if there will be a web page on the AG's site related to materials or information that will be important for the public to have for example. We are committed to transparency in this process and I just don't have particulars at this time and would hope that that would be part of what we get through this strategic plan about how we could develop that as well. I guess I think of your office is being so good at interacting with the public and going out to schools or going out to local civic groups, etc. And I think thinking about that in conjunction with this project in some way might be something that the federal government might like is my thought but anyway I very much appreciate your interest and thought in this project. So thank you. You're welcome. Thank you for those questions helpful. Tom. Thank you. Morning, Joshua. So Barbara asked my questions. And there's no answer to them right now because you don't have, you haven't compiled any information which is, which is fine. But my other question was, as you're going through this, would you be working with Susanna Davis at all on on any of this. I have not spoken with Ms Davis but would be pleased to work with her and tap into her expertise on this. Absolutely. Yeah, I think it'd be a good idea that that she knows what's going on. You know, as you proceed with it would make sense to me being you know the position that she does have in the administration. That's all I got. Thank you. Thank you, Tom. It's a good time. Okay, I'll be brief. I really appreciate the questions that have been asked. Obviously as an advocate, you know, for this work. And the fact that Deputy Attorney General Diamond and Attorney General Donovan are both committed, you know, to this work and the delivery of services to Vermonters. Okay, it isn't a perfect science, you know, and in the work that we do to, but the intentionality of wanting to be transparent. The intentionality to want to be at the head of leading the charge in this work is really important. I feel, and you know, that's what we're seeing. The Deputy Attorney Attorney General did an incredible job, I feel, in sharing how important it is to all of us that if they can deliver better the services to Vermonters, the better off we all are, you know, as a state. And they, and they're at the top, you know, let's say of the grouping for law enforcement in the state. And if our leadership in law enforcement has a better understanding of the intentionality of focusing on how we can do better for more people. Again, Vermont's a better place and more welcoming all of those things, you know, I know Ken had mentioned, you know, like earlier in one of our other discussions about Vermont being more welcoming in general, and how that affects our whole economic status, as well as just being a nice place to be. So all of the all of these pieces fit, you know, I mean, when you talk about nexus, this is the nexus. So just wanted to throw that out. And Tom's point was well taken, you know, about the interaction with Susanna's work. And, you know, that that almost goes on, you know, again, you know, to the core. And, you know, having done a couple of these, you know, at a reasonable scale level. And some of the questions that were raised by both Tom and Barbara and Selena are outcomes that I've seen in those other projects in our state. Burlington went through this process, and their reports, their metrics, you know, were there. We just completed one in our community, and the outcomes are being realized as we, you know, you know, as we speak. So just thought I'd throw that out. And thank you, Josh, for, you know, coming in to to share. Thank you. Thank you. And then Tom. So morning, Josh, nice to meet you. I just want to say a couple more words. I think all this is valuable. I want to take and and make sure we appropriate part of what we do where we can do the most to try to help everybody in this situation. And especially, I think the governor had the foresight to bring Susanna on well in advance of all this stuff, which is just an extra benefit and and something that adds value to Vermont. And just just to go back I just I really want to make sure that we can take the money and appropriate to where we we think we can make a big difference moving forward. I think it's very important. Thanks. Thank you. Tom. Yeah, this isn't for Josh. This is this is more for coach, a question for him, something that he just brought up, you know, you know, that can had said about, you know, in a sense just making Vermont a more more attractive place for not only for people of color but but for everybody. And so what I wanted to ask coach as a, if I remember right you moved to Vermont when you're in your early 20s. And what was the attraction back then. And, and I guess, how much has it changed or not maybe how much but maybe what's changed. I get, I know that's not a spot coach. I love doing that to you. He's gotten a lot older. Yeah, really, that's that's for sure. I think, you know, Tom, I'm going to try to be a little succinct in all of this, because I know we've got Susanna, I see her waiting, you know, to hit the witness stand. I'm not really sure what the attraction, you know, was. I like to think about it is, it was something more, you know, inside of me. And cultural, in a sense, you know, it was, it was a more of a visceral attraction. And people would say, Well, black people don't usually go up north and blah, blah, blah, you know, and all of this craziness right. But it was the, it was just, you know, a lot of things. But I think, you know, the climate. You know, was attractive as well, because I was always drawn to, you know, like the outdoors and the woods and. And I think that, you know, even when I went to school, I chose a school that was really rural. And I don't know why that was either. But, you know, it's so the circle, because I, after graduation, I went back into the city for my first job. And then wasn't really happy, you know, and ended up saying I need out of here. And so I started looking north. Yep. No, almost stopped in North Hampton. And still felt confined. So I kept my working my way up 91. And I finally, I finally get to exit one in Quiche. And I said, this is where I'm going to be. So I, so I bought a business and started a business that I ran for a number of years, you know, at exit one. And, and then just to kind of close it out. My dad, who was from Jamaica, the first time he came to visit. He said, Man, it reminds me of the alley. You know, which was his way of saying it reminded him of the mountains of Jamaica. So, so there's something in there. Thank you coach appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else. I'd like to add before we say goodbye and thank you. Just thank you for this opportunity. And I apologize, I will need to depart for another meeting, but happy to address any follow up questions as they may come. Great. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Bye bye. Take care. Okay, Susanna. Welcome. And there you go. Good morning. Thank you so much for, for being available. Appreciate it. Thank you all. Great. All right. So, I am here to talk to you, I suppose, about the task force, the task force is work, how it relates to COVID-19 and CRF funds generally. Okay. So, thank you all for the opportunity to return to talk about this topic. You've heard a lot from different people about racial disparities in Vermont and how COVID-19 has exacerbated those disparities. So, as we think about recovery, and as we think about how to use federal funds, most effectively, one of the things that we've been able to debut and I'm going to ask if you could remind me did I speak about the task force the last time I was here or no. You did, but okay, but go ahead. Yeah, I mean, I was going to say this task force. We had already devised the idea and the planning around it last year and so that the process has been altered a bit but now that we have it. Now that we have it rolled out. It's, it's going to be taking a really, it's going to be making recommendations to the governor about how to mitigate disparities results and from code 19. And so, I've been doing a lot of thinking about how we can leverage all the CRF and other funds that are coming to us to do that work. And the conclusion I keep coming back to you is, there's a lot to do but until the task force I think has a fair chance to really evaluate the situation and make its recommendations. I don't feel comfortable making concrete proposals for, for those funds just yet so I know, I know we feel like this money is burning a hole in our collective pocket. I just ask you as sincerely as possible to, to be patient with me, and to be patient with the task force as we come up with a thoughtful, a thoughtful set of recommendations. I do appreciate your, your testimony and your thoughtfulness, and certainly look forward to, to working with you and, and, and supporting you and your work in your office. So, so, thank you. I do see some, some hands Barbara. Good morning, Susanna. Thank you for coming back to meet with us today. I'm wondering if I realized that we had several parts of a recommendation of potential funding for your office, and one part makes sense to hold back on. It's more related to the task force work. The other part came from something that you said, when you met with us last when you said you that the community organizations that you work with really need funding. And that's where I think our committee tossed around the idea of having you have a pot of discretionary money to award such grants. When situations come up related to community projects that groups are doing or would like to do and are needed. And as you said, don't necessarily have the funding to do it. Does that feel like a different situation that would be comfortable for you or I'm going to stop there. I mean, I think that that would be a fine arrangement and, you know, of course, assuming all the eyes are dotted and tease crossed that would be something I'd be comfortable with. However, I do tend to look at the fall of the funding and the money conversations that we're having from, from February through, let's say, September of this year. I'm really kind of thinking of them in two brackets. One is stuff related to coven 19 and our response to it and then the other stuff is general systemic work that needed to happen anyway. And that may have been exacerbated by coven 19, but that should exist in perpetuity and that likely will need to be funded beyond what CRF can can provide. And so, in, in thinking about your question, I would be very comfortable with that kind of an arrangement. However, I do feel very strongly that a lot of that work that doesn't need to happen is going to have to happen in perpetuity some of that work won't be defined until after December. And so what I what I don't want is for us to, to feel like we have to do something or anything now. And then and then potentially leave good work hanging because we ran out of pandemic dollars. So hearing last week from you that some people don't have the information they need to socially distance because of language barriers or they an extended family is living in a one bedroom apartment and somebody gets sick and there's no chance for the family to set up a situation where everybody may be able to escape getting coven, or I'm trying to think you gave us such pointy and stories, and having worked in the nonprofit sector. So a lot of the work, as you pointed out is sort of worked out at that local grassroots level. And I'm not seeing a mechanism for those organizations to address those immediate coven needs, I totally get your point about not mixing because we've had this come up time and time again with everybody who's come in to testify. There's some stuff that it's like, Okay, we can label it coven but it's bigger than coven and it's not going to go away with coven coven might have made it worse. But again, we know that there are very specific COVID situations where you know somebody might not have money to get Instacart, but they are sick and need somebody to. So it's it's stuff that would help people at the ground level and the organizations that are doing the work that otherwise I'm worried will get no benefit or see anything out of this coven money unless we find a way to have people who are aware of the work, being able to give the most resources. Yeah, that's an excellent point. That's an excellent point and I would agree. I will say that there's a lot of consideration of some of those topics in in the governor's proposed recovery package. And, and I think that for a lot of it, it's not. I mean part of doing racial equity work is targeting vulnerable populations, specifically, and the other part of it and other part of it is just doing things in an approach that will not necessarily targeting the population so much as doing administering a program in a way that's equitable and that people actually have a real opportunity to reach it so to the extent that any existing projects ideas initiatives or proposals would address some of those issues, I would just say that we should develop them and putting policies, you know, make structure them in such a way that they're absolutely reaching people of color and other vulnerable populations in Vermont. Right. I mean, I think the language barrier will keep some people from knowing how to reach them, unless we have. It's a little of chicken and an egg and I guess I'm wondering if you feel like you're not the person at this or not the person but your office isn't the place at this time to do that. Is there, is there somebody in office or a place that you think it should reside because I'm just worried about the people that we know we all want to be helping that are struggling right now. The number of people that have written me that have said, make sure COVID money is going to food is, you know, pretty basic. Yeah, absolutely. I mean I think that to I would be the person who centrally thinks about and coordinates these things across the enterprise, but that, but that is going to have to reside in different agencies so I'll give a specific example. You know, right now when we talk about language access with respect to updated guidance from the state and the governor's weekly orders. This is being currently funded through the Department of Health because it constitutes education and outreach related to health advisories related to the pandemic. So that's work that we were able to secure that funding through the health department for separately we have for example, the small business community which has suffered greatly under under the pandemic. I think in 2018, immigrant led businesses in Vermont generated $84 million in net revenue right there were a huge part of the business sector. And so making sure that our economic recovery package that's aimed at small business is, you know that we have translation and language access that's going to be important and that's going to reside with a CCD so for example the portion of the economic recovery package that's aimed at business outreach and grants and things like that. Having a CCD be able to carve out within that money and allocation for language access for business owners that's where that those are the ways that we can accomplish that. So I think it doesn't necessarily have to be a centralized line item but that every relevant line item contains that as an element. Okay. That means for us, but maybe it means. It means the more, the more we can allocate to those individual line items, the more we can ensure that each of those contains a language access piece, a racial equity piece, etc. And will that be happening. It's, it's my hope that it will I've been having conversations ongoing with folks from a CCD and from other agencies about. And this is just using the small business example about how we're going to ensure equity because what ends up happening in the business community is that there are certain networks that some people can tap into that allows for them to have insider knowledge or early knowledge or just general opportunities right, we know that there's discrimination in lending for business owners of color we know that there are discriminatory banking practices that shut out certain minority women on business enterprises so I completely lost my train of so, so I have been having conversations with a CCD about what we're going to do as part of the economic recovery package to make sure that that doesn't happen and that includes things like working with, working with lenders micro lenders with other agencies to make sure that they're specifically looking at equity in in considering grant money. It means making sure that all of the guidance that we put out is translated into the core languages in the state, so that everybody can actually access the info because it's one thing to say, well the money's there you can always access it but if I can't read the documents or fill out an application, that's a moot point. So, I guess the short answer to your question is it is my hope that it does happen in every sector where it needs to happen and we're going to look back on this in a few months and do a sort of collective post mortem on how we handled the pandemic. And I'm sure there are going to be things that that we're missing or that fell through the cracks. And at that point we're going to have to come back and say okay. You know round one we missed a few things let's get it right this time. Thank you. Thank you so much Selena and then morning. I think per Barbara's question. Maybe it's useful to think about any discretionary funding that we would direct to your office. And as as really COVID relief money so in like very short term. No are there. Are there ways we could flow that money out into communities. So I guess I'm trying to understand why that would, because I think I heard you say, or express, maybe not quite concerned but some caution about sort of setting up like flowing money out and then not being able to through CRF sources and then not being able to sustain longer term programmatic needs. But we know that we can really only flow money out that is kind of a direct response and need that the COVID crisis has presented anyway so I guess I just wanted to hear your thoughts on, you know, some something much more finite and much more directed at really responding to the disparities we're seeing and having some discretionary funds to flow to organizations individuals communities to try as best we can to address those some of those hurdles. The answer is yes, and the details of that I think we just, we have to let the task force do its assessment and its findings and it's difficult. Because we don't want to wait until August but you know again that really that is the whole purpose that we've revamped the task forces charge and so I don't want to, I don't want to take that away from the group because it's too many. It's too many experts who I think collectively can give you a much better layout of what money to give to whom so the short answer is yes I want to do that and I don't think it's fair to do that today. But could we allocate the funding today with the with the direction much like we sometimes allocate funding and then create a rulemaking process, I mean, because I think if you don't allocate the funding now there's a really good chance we don't have it so could we allocate the funding now and then direct the criteria and the and the for flowing that money out to the task force. Because it really as long as I'm hearing you say, you know, August would be the soonest that they would be ready for that work but Yeah, I apologize. We could allocate it today but I wouldn't I would I would be selling the work short by giving you a dollar amount without really knowing because I mean this this is something that this is something that we encounter in equity spaces in general just across the board and in any jurisdiction you look at oftentimes people in positions of leadership might say, hey, we want to do equity work. Here's a finite pot of money that we've predefined. So find equity within that number. Instead of taking the reverse approach of saying what's actually needed. And then how much of it how close to how close to all of it can we get in terms of funding it so as much as I would love to say hey please carve out this much money to my office for me and let us hold it so that we can then define the work. Unfortunately, I think that I think that the real the real equity in it is looking first at the need and saying this is our dollar amount. Again, I just I don't want to sell the work short by telling you allocate this much now. And I, I could be way off. I know this is frustrating for you because you know you're trying to give me money and I'm I'm expressing hesitation at taking it but I just, I really just want to communicate that I don't want to, I don't want to undermine a task force that has hasn't even had the chance to meet yet and I don't want to undermine the work by anchoring the number that may be significantly lower than what's been what's really called for it. Well, and I guess to speaking for myself as an individual legislator. I'm not thinking that we would allocate CRF money for that purpose. But I think that if we were to go through your office and then that would be it and we wouldn't like listen to the task force and hear what the what is needed to achieve the the map and the work that the task force puts forward and and much of that I, I imagine will be much longer beyond the immediate needs of COVID response but I have to say on record it would feel like a real missed opportunity not to direct some funds that we have available now. communities of color who are being really, really disproportionately impacted and and maybe if maybe if it doesn't feel like your, your office or the task force is the right role maybe you can help us think about other ways to do that but I'm going to go back and, you know, maybe we can identify some other avenues. I do take your point and I respect it and I appreciate it. Because I think there is a certain, there is a certain urgency to to this. And unfortunately, a lot of the disparities that we saw due to COVID-19 are our systemic issues. So just, you know, there is a there is a limited number of things that we can do in the here and now that are sort of acute responses to that. But again, I do take your point representative and I can absolutely give it more thought and come back to you with with some other options. Thanks. Thank you I see a number of hands. Let's see, Martin, Ken, coach and Tom I saw your hands I'm not seeing it now. Anyway, let's start with Martin and then Ken and coach. I'm not sure if this is going to be a question in here for you, Susanna as much as just thinking about what we've been talking about. It seems to me that what we've been trying to do is not necessarily even really in our jurisdiction. I mean what where we should be looking for money is help with respect to COVID dealing with access to justice, safety type issues which I know the borders on these issues become blurred but but for instance one of the things we've talked about is is interpretation services or having information of laying are for different languages for outreach for different communities to be able to understand where they can get help and the hygiene information etc. Well, I know that the committee on human services in their suggestion though it's not finalized is designating $600,000 to go to Africans or actually through the AHS to Africans living in Vermont and the US Committee for refugees and housing issues for just these types of services that we've been talking about that seems to be the right avenue to get the money to that and I, and I know that House General is has like $75 million that they're trying to determine how best to deal with housing issues which is a second issue which is very critical. So these things are happening. And hopefully definitely Susanna you're talking to those other committees which I assume, assume you are that that there is this money going to be going towards these services. And I think our focus should continue to be on those areas that are within our realm of jurisdiction which is the access to justice public safety etc. And if you have any ideas that kind of come up and are more narrowly skewed towards that, you know that that certainly would would be helpful. So there was a question there and I guess the same answer might be there that we have to wait a little bit for for that. So I had. Okay, and certainly it's our responsibility to talk to our colleagues and those other committees so Martin I appreciate you, you bringing that up and that's certainly part of our work. Okay, coach. Oh Ken, actually I'm sorry. Ken is your hand. No. Okay. It will be after coach speak. Okay. Good. Thanks a lot, Ken. I fully understand Susanna's point and the unique nature, you know, of, you know, her office. And a lot of us have worked hard to get that in place over the past few years. What I'm, what I'm sensing. And this goes back to what Susanna said, you know, about there's, there's a certain desire. And that is an opportunity to help to just want to help and not necessarily look at, you know, that, that broader question and the more well defined question that Martin bought up. And I think that in our desire to help. We came back to Susanna and said, please take that money. And yet, you know, Martin kind of clearly said to us, we have a jurisdictional parameter that we need to work within as well. And so, so we kind of jaded the request to Susanna in a way by not being more direct. As we were just now from Martin's description. Because if we had said, initially, I think to Susanna that give some thought to access to justice. And how can we help you help the state get there. And especially the communities of color related to the conditions that even Josh helped us the deputy attorney general with his data points getting to that point. Because we do have a commitment from leadership and, you know, approach to within our jurisdiction. We have X number of dollars and we want to make sure that they're not only spent well. But they're in our area of jurisdiction, because then that ensures that our request will be met. So, I know we're working on a pretty finite timeline, you know, as far as, you know, getting, you know, our request in and hate to put that kind of, you know, pressure on on Susanna as far as, you know, the redirect, you know, in a as far as it looking at that scope of delivery around access. You know, and how we might even through, you know, maybe, you know, a mini, you know grant program, what have you, people are going to come to you, or your office, where they might not go to the agency. So, granted, you know, you would direct them to go back to the agency, but there are times they'll come to you first and they might have gone to that agency and not gotten the result they needed either so you know there's that that other piece of access. So, you know, maneuvering that piece. I'm not sure, you know, do we set up a public private, you know, fund, you know, of some sort that, you know, you would have in the task force would have access to, to help those entities as they came. You know, to the kinds of, you know, questions, but within our sphere, you know, that access to justice piece. So, I don't know if that helped or not, but it was just a thought. Thank you. Thank you. Susanna, did you want to respond to that or Thank you, coach. I think you're right, I think representative of the land is is right there is a sort of jurisdictional tightrope walk that that we all have to do and as you all know and have seen a lot of racial equity issues lead one into the other right for example, disparate racially disparate sentencing for some crimes. It impacts people's ability to secure public housing. Right, this is this is one way that two different sectors that don't appear to be linked actually are very much so in thinking about access to justice and thinking about what, what changes need to happen, and how, how close, how convincingly can we make the argument that those changes are directly related to our coven 19 response. There will be a lot of the changes and there is a lot of change that needs to happen in in access to justice, all the way beginning from community encounters policing through the carceral system and the courts, etc. So there's a lot that needs to happen. And the bulk of it is long term work, it's structural work, and it is extremely difficult, not only as a person of color as a professional of color. As a person in this climate for me to tell you, please hold on to that cash you're trying to put in my hand is very difficult, but I believe in in in thinking through it and and wanting to get it right the first time. I will, I will leave it at that, but I, I take very deeply all of the points that you've all raised, and I do want to see Vermonters of color and visitors to Vermont of color. And I think that we have served equitably through this funding, and not just like, well, there are 3% of the population so we'll allocate 3% of the dollars because that's not how you undo inequity, that's how you maintain a status quo. So, there will absolutely come a time when I come to you and say, Hello friends, I need, I need a bunch of money right now for something. So, so that that time will come. Unfortunately, I don't, I don't know that it would be responsible with me to do that today by myself. Yeah, well thank you I certainly appreciate that and I know we're, we're pushing you. So, okay, Tom, and actually I'm sorry Ken, did you, I see your hand go up and down can I wait for Tom. All right, I'll go. First I want to thank Martin for bringing us back into focus with what our jurisdiction is very important. And what I was going to do is thank Susanna for her frugality, but I think I want to thank her more for her. For being sensible with the dollars and not just taking money for the sake of taking money. And I know for myself I got a little, I got a little piece of what the long range plan is, and, and, you know, and I do know that, you know, in any situation that that quick fixes don't stick that, that more of a long range plan is going to is going to change things in the long run and and change things in the long run and change things hopefully forever so again just want to say thank you for your work. I don't think your typical government department head by not by refusing the money but certainly looking forward to more of what the task force is looking for. And, and hopefully the successes down the road. Thank you representative but I do have to make a very, very big and important correction. I'm refusing the money. Okay. I am I am telling you have you have you all and this is a rhetorical question because you know, if you will heard of the marshmallow experiment they did with children, they sat down. Children and they put a huge one of those huge marshmallows in front of them and they said, you can have this marshmallow now, or you can have two marshmallows in half an hour. The idea was to see how children would would decide is one and you know one in the hand to in the bush type of thing. I'm not refusing marshmallows I'm telling you that I might come back to you needing to marshmallows in the future. And I'm thanking you in advance for being ready to help me muster those two marshmallows. Thank you. Okay, Ken. Can't hear you can. I just, I've been impressed with you right from the first time I met, I met you, and the more you talk today the more impressed I am with your leadership and what you're doing your marshmallow statement. That's exactly how I think, and it's so refreshing in my 11 or 12 years of dealing with municipalities or with state government money and stuff like that you're a breath of fresh air. And I'll be the first in line to help get you the marshmallows. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. I really, really appreciate it. You're a breath of fresh air. Tom. No, I didn't take it down currently. Okay, no worries. Anybody else. So, again, Madam chair. Yes, just to back up to where people know where I'm coming from. Tom it already said mostly what I was going to say on that anyway, and that's why I said just what I should say. Great. Thank you. Right. Well, thank you again. Thank you so much. And I see this as a continuing conversation and really look forward to working with you and watching your work and supporting your work and and again. I think I can speak for the entire committee really thank you for your leadership. Thank you all. I really appreciate it. Great. Take care. Okay, so committee what I'm going to propose that we take a break. And then come back and Eric does that work. I know what we have a new deadline but if we're a little bit later I think, I think folks would be good to have a just a quick break and then, and then finalize our proposal. Sounds good. So, let's see it's about a quarter of, let's, you know, about five of let's just take about 10 minutes or so. And then we will, you know, again, finalize our proposal to appropriations. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, great. Well, thank you, everybody. I thought that was a really helpful discussion. Before we move on to making our decisions. Just want to make sure that does anybody need more information from Sarah. She is available. So I'm not. Just, just jump in folks if you. Hi. So are you. Are you going to be taking a vote on this is, is like if about how this money is being spent this is projected is that what's going to happen with this. Yeah, we take a vote like we would on another recommendations. That's my understanding. Yeah. Okay. And, you know, we could do it by a show of hands. But when it gets, when it gets, when it goes out on the floor, it's going to be announced like it was like 1100 coming out of coming out of our committee, right? That's not my understanding. No, basically. So it needs to go to appropriate, you know, it goes to appropriations and appropriations. They may not include any of this. It's. So, I don't know. Martin or anybody else have. Well, I was just going to say that, I mean, we've done. We've done our vetting as far as the process goes it in appropriations will be doing even more vetting. Kind of on the same topic, but not the same topic, I guess, I'm just wondering. I know Sarah put together her, you know, her best estimates on, you know, where the money could be spent and how much could be spent, but say if it didn't say, I think one of the allocations was 130,000 or something say a hundred of it got spent perhaps the other 30,000. Is that does that go to the unemployment fund I think is that what you said yesterday Maxine would leftover money. I think you said it goes somewhere. Well what what I said was that in terms of our, you know, the pot that we're given. If we don't allocate it, then, then that goes back I'm not sure where I don't know if, if then the speakers, you know, or appropriations, you know, sees where other needs are but but in terms of the but in terms of the network. If they don't spend their full allocation I, I don't know I know that for instance some of their programs will go through doc. And so then I don't know what do you see would do with it I don't know somebody else. I don't know or can help me out on that. We can certainly find out about that. Yeah. Anybody. I did, I did hear that to the extent that some of the money was not expended by the end of the year that that there was an idea and play to have it somehow go back to the unemployment fund. Okay, great. Sure. So again. Yeah, go ahead, Kim. Thank you. So, once this money is, if this money gets allocated and it gets put into the Vermont system or whatever it's called and all that stuff, then going forward for whatever. You know, these different, different agencies or, or whatever like Sarah is a network, they're going to keep coming back and asking for this money right. Not necessarily no, no, this is this is a particular budget and remember we. Whatever happens on the house floor needs to go to the Senate and it's like any other bill needs to go back and forth and work at any differences but but I know I don't. I don't think so. This is a very, very specific use very specific guidelines. You know that that needs to be followed for this particular really moment in time. So I, I get that, but once the money is put, and it started all these new avenues, the network and I'm just using them for an example they're going to come back and they're going to want funding for that all the time. And we've just created more expense for the whole state. I'm not saying it's not warranted. Do not misunderstand me. I'm just saying that once something started, usually it doesn't go away. In my experience. Yeah, I can't, I can't speak for for the network or any anyone else. I think I think like in, in a normal budget that that usually happens when we allocate something, you know, for whatever a program or position or whatever, and a normal budget. Usually going, you know, in the following years. Those allocations if that's what you want to column or positions will continue. I think this is a totally different thing where they're, they're just trying to, you know, lack of better words clean up the mess that's been caused by COVID with this money that the best they can and move on from there. You know, that doesn't mean to say that you know going forward that they won't ask for money to continue a program but in a way that revenues are looking and budgets and deficits are looking right now there's going to, there's probably going to be a lot of asks going forward that that aren't going to be granted just because we've got less money. Well I know we've got less money than we've ever had since I've been around so in a lot less. Um, so I know Sarah, we did send her a zoom invite I believe so she, she can speak to your point your question can I don't see Sarah on the, on the screen. Well, honestly it's really not a question for her just it's just my way of thinking that's all. Because it's, it's, you know, absolutely, absolutely valid. Let's see, just looking for her. I just don't see her in the waiting room we're here yet. Mike, does she have an invite. Yeah, I sent it to her when we started. Okay. All right well while we're waiting to wait in the waiting room now. Okay, I'll admit her. And then the other. And, okay. Great. And then so we'll quickly hear from Sarah and then Eric I'm not sure if you have a document that you need to send to Mike to post but that will be there. The next thing we discuss. Okay, welcome. Welcome Sarah. Thank you for listening and your availability. I can just speak briefly to that to the question that came up. I think it's a really good one. And just that, you know, with these specific requests. It's not for ongoing funding that it's certainly not our intention to come back and request ongoing funding for these particular requests. These are really COVID specific requests on top of the general operating needs and budgets of, of these particular programs. And frankly, for most of the request that we submitted to this committee, these would actually reimburse costs that have already been incurred, you know, some costs that have already been incurred and allow those programs to kind of mitigate their funding in order to say, stay sustainable moving forward for the coming months. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Great. So while we have Sarah anything. Any other questions any other information you need to make our decisions. Sarah anything that you want to add. No, not at all. Just thank you so much for your consideration. Madam chair. Yes. I think when I put on my, my fiscal hat and think about disaggregating this for, you know, and to help, you know, you know, my friend Ken, you know, to is thinking in these terms. We had a similar discussion with our chief financial officer in the school district. And what I asked him to do was to disaggregate every single specific COVID related expenditure that has been made during the 100 day period. And then a metric that allows him to do that so that we can clearly when the education relief package is put in place. Go and say, here it is with detail. Specifically how it's related to the pandemic. And I think that that's the kind of clarity that that I personally look for, you know, as well. Knowing the federal piece as well, you know, there isn't going to be any pushback on anything that I'm going to be connected with because I expect it to be done that way. And then that way we, you know, I don't have to worry about it. And I think what Sarah just shared with us was is that the network has done that same work as far as separating where the nexus is in the expenditures. It's related to COVID. Because if there's more intensity, you know, almost like the next network, you know, they gave us a very specific data point 219%. They could aggregate the change in their delivery of the service over that period of time. And as long as the people that are coming to us can do that. So that's our position in the request a lot clearer. If that's helpful. Great. Okay. Great. Thank you. All right, so I am going to turn to Eric, and what I'd like to do is, Eric, I don't know if you have a new, a new document for us, but we have two pieces when we have the actual draft language. And then we have a supporting memo. So I'd like to turn to, to language, if that's, is that available, Eric? I'm not seeing it on my. Well, that you mean not the one I sent last night, but an updated one from this morning. Right. Right. Yeah, I just, I just sent that to Mike a few minutes ago. Yeah, great. And so what I, so committee, what I, where I think we're going based on the testimony and discussion is the, the networks, proposals, and the attorney general's office that we just heard about this morning. And I think that is it. And then in a supporting memo, we will talk about the internet crimes and supporting that ongoing work, as well as the judiciary's use of technology and enhancing access to justice through, through a remote technology and then Oh my gosh, I'm missing one. Going blank. Somebody help me with the, I know there's one other. Right. No. All right, we'll, we'll get to that because I know Eric has a memo as well. Well, actually, I don't have a memo yet. The, that's going to, that, that I think will, the committee can take a look at that this afternoon. That doesn't need to get to the committee to approach that noon. Okay. And I think, I think there was a lot of moving parts to that that I, I'm not sure that there's clarity yet. So I can, I can send you what I have in the memo is the parts that are actually in the request for money. So whatever else the committee wants to include for that, I think, you know, it would be helpful if the committee reached a conclusion on that and then let me know, and then I can cut and paste those from representative Rachel sends memo. Okay, into this one. Great, great. Okay. So should we do this posted yet, Mike or Eric. Is that draft 2.1. Actually, it's 3.1, but we could look at the only, there's only, it's the same as 2.1 except with one less one section omitted. Other than that, it's identical. And what about the, is the language is what a, what Josh diamond is that reflected in this one. Yes. Okay, great. Okay, coach, I see your hand. Thanks, Maxine. I think that, and I guess I should ask this, this question. Being that we heard very clearly where our executive director of racial equity is regarding a request. In other instances, like you had mentioned with supporting the work, you know, of next supporting the work of the judicial branch. Maybe a statement of some sort of reaffirming that, although at this point in time. You know, the judiciary committee stands side by side with the office of racial equity, something to that effect. Because like we said, we don't want to lose, even though she was clear about the fact that, you know, it's there, there's no question. But I think our intentionality around keeping the process alive for that makes sense. Okay, great. Yeah, thank you know that that thank you very much for for saying that absolutely. Thanks. Okay, so. Yeah, so I'm any I still have this 2.1 anybody else have 3.1 if not let's just. I'm the only one having issues. 3.1 is there though. It's there. Okay. What's the difference between 2.1 and 3.1 an addition. I know actually it's a subtraction. It's the section dealing with what represent Christie was just mentioning the, the Susanna Davis piece which was, I believe was section five and 2.1 is I think it was section four, but that's all right. Thanks. No. Okay, great. So I have 3.1. Thanks Eric. Sure. And I think we can do a straw poll. Do you need a motion. For sure, but I don't, I don't think. Yeah. I don't think so for a shop. Yeah, why don't we do a straw poll. And then if I learn that, that we need a more formal vote, we can come back and do it again, but. But let's just do a straw poll. Well, you know, is this a situation Maxine where we don't have possession of this? We're just looking at this piece of it for appropriations. I mean, we do that with a lot of bills. Exactly. Yeah, we don't have possession of it. We were. It's like an amendment. They're recommendations. They really are just recommendations. So it's a little different because it's not. It's not anything coming from another committee that we would look at. So that's why that's why I'm thinking that we don't need a formal vote. What's a short, what's a shop. You know, like show of hands or something like that as opposed to calling the roll. My wrist really hurts today. So you can tap the little blue hand if you want instead. I can't reach it because I don't like to spend like you. Okay, so. Why don't we take each. Each item. So I'm starting with, with section one. And yes, let's take each, each section as opposed to saying all of the networks together. Let's take each section. So their support for section one. Yeah, blue hands or real hands, you know, whatever's better for people. And then if somebody can just help me make sure I've. Why don't we do blue hands and then it's consistent with everybody. Great. Thank you if Ken can reach it. You see where my hand is. Okay. So all those. In favor, I can't raise my hand, but I am. Okay, supporting. Opposed. One is to first, can you clear all the hands Maxine as a host. I know, which is no, but, but, but, but, but Mike did well. I think let me actually let me maybe there's a more. Okay, I hear. I got it. I found it. Okay. Any, any opposed to section one. Abstentions. Are you allowed to some. I'm staying. Being a strong. You're in your seat. I'm sorry. What are the folks saying? No, I was just saying, I think. I would guess that the normal rules of voting wouldn't apply. Just being a straw. Okay. Section two. Oh wait. So Ken, what do you use your hand up for? I just raised my hand to. Be. To go along with what I really struggle with. Yes, then. Don't push it. Yeah. I don't even want to say it. But. I'm not going to get all on. I just, it's just, it's just ambiguous that's all. I guess what, and said, I'm. Going against everything I stand for right now, but. But you're supporting the. So you're saying it's a unanimous vote. Don't push it. Burt. I'm going. Well, that that's, that's what I'm saying. Yes. Thank you. I'm supporting just to make everybody happy. You're supporting your committee. Supporting your committee and supporting your chair, which I appreciate. Okay. Section 2, support. This is a blue man group again that we're doing. It is. Notice I said blue man. You people are killing me. You're just killing me. We've got 10 more minutes Ken. You can just hold on. Okay. You're killing me. Okay. Great. You know, 32 years in business yesterday for me, and I've never gone along with stuff like this. I'm just telling you. Congratulations. On the business end. Well, I'm not going to make it now. The way you guys are spending money for 33. I appreciate it, Ken. Yeah. Okay. Section 3. All those in favor. Kelly, you're a business woman. I can't believe you're going for this. You're killing me. Great. All right. Again, I see. Now I'm a support for section 3. Okay. And finally, section 4. This. All those support. Great. Thank you again. All right. Anonymous support for section 4. Okay. So now we are at the section 5, which is the office of the attorney general's strategic plan for equity and inclusion, inclusion project. And again, some of 30,000 is based on the testimony that we heard this morning, which I found very compelling. And thank you coach so much for bringing this to, to our attention and for your leadership on this. Any discussion? Any questions, comments before we take a vote on this one? Yes. Wait, wait. Guilt me in there because coach is my buddy. You guys will stop at nothing. Eight minutes. We'll stop at eight minutes. I'm going to be dead. I called the ambulance. What more do you want? I can hear the sirens from over the hill. Are we voting now on this? Yes, please. Thank you. Okay. So all those in favor of section 5, the office of attorney generals. You're welcome coach. Okay. Great. Thank you again. Anonymous. Okay. Great. Well, thank you everybody. I actually thought this was a really interesting process. Certainly out of my comfort zone in terms of like I said, being a policy chair, not a, not a money chair, but it does really reflect our values and our priorities. I think as a, as a judiciary committee. So, so Eric, thank you. So this is, this is what you need, right? In terms of, of this, and are you instructed to, to send it up? Or do I had it? What's the, what's the next step since this doesn't go with a memo? No, I will email it directly to the chair of house approves, CCing. There are two JFO staff members, Maria Belov and Teresa Scott. And that's what we were instructed to do. So I'll CC you as well on it, represent grad. So you see that it goes up. I'm going to do that in the next few minutes. But I think that's process-wise. That's what we need to do. And then you should be all set as far as the language goes. I don't think from what I understand they're expecting a memo right away with it. So I think you have some time to think about how that's going to look. So I mean, even if that got there tomorrow, I think you're fine. But I guess I would say as far as the memo goes, my thought would be to, you know, first of all, it would go through the pieces that you just outlined that are actually in the, the proposed request language for appropriations. And then it will include the balance of the memo from Representative Rachel Sten that was talking about some other committee priorities. Is that consistent with what everybody's thinking of how it would look? Yes, yes, absolutely. And I know there were some things that we took out yesterday. But if you want to, when you're able to send me what you have, and then I can just work directly with you. And then we're going to put something in about Suzanne's office and that ongoing work. Okay, yeah, that sounds good. The only other thing I think, and unless I was missing something, let somebody let me know. I think, was there anything in the memo specifically about the Attorney General's piece that was in the, that was just placed in the, in their ask, the stature language ask. I didn't see it, but I just make sure I'm not missing something. No, you're correct. It isn't there. And so I guess we do need something, right? Consistent with the other pieces because we do need a narrative for each one, right? Yes. Okay. All right, so... But again, you don't need that this minute, but that's something you will want to put in there. So it tracks the language itself that asks for each particular piece of money. Thank you. Suleena, I see your hand up. Thank you. I was just gonna say two things. One, I really appreciate that the memo will summarize some of our discussion about the bigger questions of racial equity. I would encourage us to just really urge, since we had, I think, fruitful conversations about jurisdictional issues, I would encourage us to, I would ask that we really encourage the Appropriations Committee to continue addressing and prioritizing proposals that come from other committees on relevant committees on those issues. But I was gonna just say, Eric, I don't know if you saw it, but at one point, Coach circulated in RFP that I think from the Attorney General's office that I think came from some earlier thinking about a version of this work. And there might be some really useful language in there in terms of articulating it. Yes, yes, Coach sent me that as well. So I was thinking the same thing that that would be a good resource for the memo. So thank you for that same thought. Madam Chair, especially page two, that's the scope and expectations. There's like maybe five bullet points and it nails it, you know. So if that's helpful. Yeah, yeah, definitely, thank you. Great, and I'm actually looking at Barbara's memo and she did have under B, she did talk about when we were thinking of funding Susanna's office, there's language in here that we can work with. So Martin. I just want to make sure Eric saw the replacement language for the ICAC that I emailed. I copied you Eric on it. Yes, thank you. Representative Lund, I got that too. So I was figuring I would swap out those two pieces. Yeah. Okay. So a question I have in the original memo, Barbara's memo or whatever, we had 500,000 for Susanna Davis's department what happens to that money now? So anything that we, my understanding is that anything that we haven't allocated in this, I let the speaker know and I believe she takes it from there. Okay, she may reallocate it or whatever. Yeah, she's in touch with all of the chairs. Yeah, okay. Yeah. Yeah. We can't save it for marshmallows. If we wait long enough, we can get twice as many. Okay. Okay. So, all right. Yeah. So, yeah, so Eric, when, after whenever's a good time for you to send what a draft of the memo back, let me know and I'll work on it and work on it with you. Okay, sounds good. And can circulate it to the committee. Yeah, when are we gonna finish that up? Is that later today or? Yeah, I think it's, I think because we're not, so we're not on, we're not back to the committee today. Maybe it's the type of thing that I could send it around to the committee and people could give Eric feedback or, you know, I'll take a, maybe a first stab at it in terms of making sure, you know, there are things that are not, you know, that shouldn't be in there. And then people, if people want to award Smith or whatever, make sure everything, yeah. Can I make just one other suggestion and whether we do this or not, you'll leave it to everybody else. Whether we should put anything, even a short blurb about how we support any expansion of broadband access for purposes of access to justice. I don't think Tim Briglin was gonna have time to bring in the Chief Justice to speak to that. But even if we put one liner in there, just generally to flag that there's an interest in that from the judiciary as well. Right, thank you. I, yeah, I, that should be in there. And if it's not, thank you, definitely should be. Yeah, definitely want to say that. And you're adding that, just so I'm clear, you're adding that to Barbara's memo, right? Right, just no money amount, just generally to flag the fact that any expansion of broadband internet is something that the court system definitely supports. Justice Ryber certainly brought that up as an issue. Wow, we all do. Could you, Representative Long, could you write up what you think that should look like as a first draft and send it to me? I will, maybe a little bit. I have something else going until we got on the floor. But yeah, this afternoon I'll be able to get to it. Yes, I'm not gonna be doing it till a little bit later myself, so. Okay, yeah, no problem. Happy to do that. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? Questions about this? Okay, great, thank you so much. I have one thing that probably Coach will appreciate more than most people, but I got a new mask the other day. And what do you think, Coach? Great, yay. Wonderful. A bit more than you people. I know, now I've got the song in my head, right? Yeah. Okay, great. And again, thank you, Barbara, so much for your help on this and your leadership on this, and... No problem. Great, and do take care. And so tomorrow we are gonna actually turn to S234, which is the miscellaneous Judith Curie bill. Unless something happens, it seems like between, what was it, Vermont State Colleges, everything would start to calm down, and then something else would happen. Hopefully, we'll be somewhat calm for the next 24 hours or comma, and then, and we can look to the Senate bills that we have in the time that we're still here. So was there any buzz on the Full House Caucus about suspending rules for the sunset bill, do you know? Or... It didn't come up, it doesn't sound like, let's see. So yeah, I'm not even sure if we're gonna get to it on Friday. There's no mention of the bills at all, we were not asked to report them or anything, so. Okay, okay. So that raises a question about wasn't the racial disparities, does that one end in July? Yes, yes it does, right. Which is why I wanted to make sure that we had our own sunset bill in case we don't, for instance, even though it's, even though it's 334, even though it's, yes, in the miscellaneous. Yeah, I just, I still don't know if we can actually get it back to the Senate and through all the stages of passage to preserve, you know, those, those sunsets make sure, you know, in those programs. Well, you know, that one being that it does have a date, certain, you know, my personal feelings, you know, is, is that I don't think anybody would, you know, get in the way of that, you know, so the question becomes how we raise that, you know, as, you know, even if you got, you know, timing issues with anything else, you know, there's got to be a way to attach something to something to make sure that that, you know, sunset does not kill that work because that would, you know, that would just be unspeakable. You know, but. Right. All right. Anything else on the timeframe too at all? Or now, just in general. In general. No. I don't know. No. I don't know. Selena or, or Tommy, you hearing anything? I. You know, I hear. Still hearing mid to late June, but frankly, we're already just about. Right. So we're hitting mid June now. I know it's dry. I haven't heard anything about that. As a matter of fact, I was going to ask. The same question. Because usually we do the budget we're gone and we've done the, the three month budget, but we're still here. Right. Right. So. All right. Well, we do have our chairs meeting tonight. So hopefully we'll get. Get more information and perhaps the speaker will address it today from the floor. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.