This is Think Tech Hawaii, Community Matters here. Aloha and welcome to Hawaii Together. I'm Kayleigh Akina and we're here on the Think Tech Hawaii broadcast network. In Hawaii we have the lowest voter turnout in registration in the nation. And we wonder why is that the case? Is it the surf is so beautiful, the sky is so lovely that we're not interested at all in politics? Well, I'm not sure, but somebody here has kind of changed the impression of what a typical citizen in Hawaii is all about. She's somebody who's decided to go beyond her private life and get involved in the public world and her name is Natalie Iwasa. I admire this lady. I first saw her at a few hearings and I said, you know, that's an ordinary person in one sense, but an extraordinary citizen in another sense. And so I asked her to join us on the program today and I'd like you to get to know her. And welcome to the program. Thank you so much, Kayleigh. Well, you know, when I first learned of you, I learned of you through a nickname called Bike Mom. And that told me there was something about you that took you from being a mom into a public figure to some extent. Want to tell us a little bit about that? Sure. I started attending neighborhood board meetings and there was a police officer there who knew that I rode my bike. And he called me the bike lady and I said, well, you know, really I'm the bike mom because I have two children and I'm really concerned about them riding bikes and riding bikes together in general. So your concerns started in your own family.  What issues came to mind that drove you to get involved publicly on that issue? Well, and at that time it was a lack of facilities for bicyclists. And I think we needed more education about what bicyclists should be doing and is allowed to do. Well, you've come a long way since then because I've seen you in pretty high places. Just testifying in front of government commissions, testifying down at the city and county and at the state and you've been involved in some pretty hotly contested issues. Before we get to them, can you tell us a little bit about what you think citizens should be doing? Because you see, most of us are trying to make a living here in Hawaii. Most of us who have families have an extraordinary amount of work to do ourselves, sometimes two or three jobs per family. And yet you found it was necessary to get out of being just a private citizen. Why is that? Well, you know, first of all I want to say that it's a little challenging. I have a family as well and I'm the breadwinner and so it's not like I just have all this amount of time that I can go out and testify. But it gradually grew for me and I would say that it's just important if you have a passion to get out there and that's kind of how it started for me. You know, living here in Hawaii, there aren't a lot of people who do get engaged. As I mentioned in my introductory comments, we have one of the lower voter turnouts in the nation. Why do you think that is here in Hawaii? I think part of it goes to the fact that people think that they're not being heard. They do try to testify and then they get cut off or the bill doesn't go the way that they expect or they just feel like they're not being heard. Well, what I hear you saying is that it's not just complacency. It's not laziness. It's a sense of discouragement to some extent. When you say not being heard, there is some sense that public officials just don't really pay attention to the public. I think in a lot of cases that's the case, that people do try and they just give up after a while. You started with the issue of bikes and bike lanes and all of that. I remember once seeing you actually ride your bike down the Kalaniana Ole Highway, a lot has changed in the last few years. What are some of the accomplishments you can take pride in in terms of your advocacy? Well, not to focus so much on bicycling, but the first thing that I feel really proud about is that there was a guardrail on Kalaniana Ole Highway. It was very narrow for bicyclists and pedestrians and I brought it to the DOT's attention. They came out and looked at it and said, you're right, we can move this over. That really was an enlightening moment for me that I could actually have an impact on something in my community. That may sound small to some extent, but that's incredible because we often talk about the fact that government seems unresponsive, but here you got involved and government responded to you. What issues have followed since then? What's one that has taught you a lot in the process of getting involved? Sometimes it's not just a matter of what is actually done, but maybe what isn't done. For example, I testified one time on a bill at City Council where they wanted to expand the area for noise. It's currently 30 feet. If a car drives by and they have a loud stereo, it's 30 feet and they can be sited. This bill, they wanted to expand it to 100 feet and I said, well, wait a minute, you know, if you're talking about pedestrians and bicyclists who aren't inside a vehicle and you're going to allow a vehicle to have more noise, you know, that's not a good thing and the bill was shelved. So sometimes it's just stopping the things that are not good. You have a passion for keeping Hawaii beautiful and keeping open spaces beautiful and allowing our population to continue traditional practices like farming and so forth. That's an issue you got involved in quite heavily in your own neighborhood once. Right. So some people might be aware of Kami-Linui Valley, where the farmers are. It's back past the post office and I used to take my son through there on the bike and the grass was really tall and it was hard to get through. There was a petition going around for the cemetery back there and actually at that point I felt, oh, you know, somebody else is taking care of it and then about six months later I read it went through and that was really a wake-up call for me because I realized then that I didn't do my part and perhaps if I had, if I had said, you know what, this is really important to us to keep this open, you know, maybe somebody would have changed their mind on the decision making and that. So there was a point you recognize which you said, well, somebody else can do this or somebody else will do it and then you discovered nobody else stood up and did that. So how did that affect you? Well, that's actually when I became quite involved in political, not political, but public meetings attending the neighborhood board and then that led to going to city council and there were measures that came up that were related to that. Well, in that issue in particular we often see people pit against each other on two extreme sides, development and environment. Is it really that simple? Are people really divisible into two categories like that? You know, I don't think so. I think a lot of these issues are really quite complex and what we have to think about is balancing, you know, we need to keep our open spaces but we also have to realize that where our population is growing. People want to keep their families here so we need to make sure that we have the housing available and so it's a question of do we keep those spaces open or do we open them to development? How do we have that conversation, you know, to strike the balance between open spaces and the need for housing and that's especially critical in your part of town, East Oahu. Yeah, well, I think a lot of it starts with paying attention to things like our Oahu general plan or in the case of East Oahu, the East Honolulu Sustainable Communities Plan where it basically outlines the priorities the community has. Where do we want to have our shopping centers? Where do we want to have our parks? What kind of transportation do we want to have available? So those meetings are open to the public. That's our chance to go in there and say, you know what, we really want this over here or we don't really care for that over here. And the DPP, the Department of Planning and Permitting, then puts those comments together and they change the plan and it goes through several different hearings before it gets finalized at the City Council. What I hear you saying is that a lot of good work has already been done in the planning process and goals for the community, this input from the community and so forth has already been collected and gathered, but oftentimes our public officials diverge from that. And you're there kind of as a watchdog, so to speak. Yes, we have to be really very careful about the final product and there's an example actually in Hawaii where the board was presented with a development and, you know, we're given some nice drawings and that kind of thing, pictures. And so the board took a position and then it went to the City Council. Well, in that interim process, we, the board, didn't really pay attention as much as we should have to the final product. So the resolution passed and what happened was the development was not as we had pictured it. And the reason was we missed a little line in the resolution and it allowed something to happen that we hadn't even thought about. So we have to really be careful about that kind of thing. Absolutely. And you mentioned something which is part of your biography.  The views that we express on today's program are purely our own and don't represent any institution or agency. With that said, we can go on now and say interesting things. But I want to ask you, how is it that you got so involved that you ultimately ran for your neighborhood board and won? Well, yeah, I just kept going. It's kind of funny because I would keep going to the meetings and there was a project on Mariners Ridge, again, traffic related. And I had gone up to the ridge and I knocked on every door and I said, you know what, they're doing this petition and they're doing this project and I petitioned and I presented it to the board and there were other issues and I was then called the 16th board member because I just kept going and going and going. So as a non-board member, you were actually doing the work of a board member. You were watching the community. You were advocating for good solutions. You were testifying before your board and so they called you the 16th board member. Yes. Well, congratulations. Now, tell me a little bit about what it took to decide to actually run for the board, the neighborhood board. You know, a lot of times we don't understand what that is. We understand in a sense what a PTA is at the school and what church committees are and so forth. But in a real way, being on the neighborhood board is actually being part of the political process. Yes, it is. And you know, for me actually that part of it wasn't that difficult because I had gone so many times. I knew all of the board members. I talked to them regularly after the meetings and so it was just kind of a natural process. But I know some people are a little hesitant about trying to do that kind of thing. They see something going on. They're not happy with it and want to get involved. And it can be a little challenging and, you know, what do I do here? How do I handle this? But you rose to the challenge and you put your hat into the rink. Yes. Well, that's great. I'm sure that in addition to the satisfaction of seeing things change, you've received some criticism. You've received some opposition from people who may not want those changes. Yeah, that happens too. Sometimes, you know, I mean, it's just like everything. We need to compromise. But some people are very focused on what they want to see.  But I think it really behooves us all to remember that we have our own opinions and we are working with other people and other, you know, perspectives, other information. And so we need to consider that there are different ideas. Very good. And as you said earlier, strike a balance. Yes. Well, we're going to take a quick break. But when we come back, I want to talk about how your day job or at least your experience and knowledge from your day job as a CPA accounted influences your ability to do public policy.  I'm going to ask you about our Honolulu Rail, OK? OK, all right, thank you. So don't go away. Natalie has testified on many infrastructure and rail related issues. And you're going to get her insights as a professional as she brings her professional expertise or lens to look at public policy. I'm Kili Akina. We're on the Think Tech Hawaii broadcast network. And we'll be right back after this. We have this crazy thing going on today. I was just walking by. And all these DJs and producers are set up all around the city. I just walked by and I said, what's happening, guys? They told me they were making music. So we do it. Welcome back to Hawaii together on the Think Tech Hawaii broadcast network. I'm Kili Akina and delighted to be with you today. I have a friend, Natalie Iwasa, who has become very much involved in public affairs, political issues, and so forth, both as a member of her neighborhood board and simply as an advocate for what is good and makes common sense. I'm going to ask her a little bit about how her profession gives her insights into her activism work. She's a certified fraud examiner. And as soon as I learned that about her, I thought, oh my goodness, the state and the city and county definitely need her. And this is a time in which perhaps she's got some tools that she can apply when she looks at public policy. Let's welcome back Natalie Iwasa. Natalie, so CFE, certified fraud examiner. What exactly is that? Certified fraud examiner. Well, that's somebody who actually looks at their different types and looks at the details and sees that there are things that are happening that are not right and tries to determine things like what happened, how was money taken if that's the case. Can we recover anything and determine what the losses are if that's the case? There are a lot of different types of services provided by CFE's. Well, you know that in my work with the Grassroot Institute, we've paid close attention to the Honolulu Rail. Not so much to oppose the rail, but to point out that there needs to be a better accounting for the money spent. And I don't need to lecture you on what has taken place in a project that should have cost $2.7 billion at the start. And now we know it will cost well over $10 billion. And we have much more to expect in terms of cost increases and so forth. Just as an accountant, with that general tracking of the money, what does that tell you? Just makes me wonder why and what is really happening behind the scenes to make it increase so much. What are some of the things that you've noticed as you've taken a look at the Honolulu Rail? You know, it's kind of funny because I always thought that the information we were being provided was correct. I just made that assumption, which was grossly wrong. Isn't that interesting? Because in your profession, you're supposed to make the other assumption. Well. And in real life, however, like most of us as citizens, we kind of trust our government. Right. And so I was looking at a resolution. This was for the initial funding of the bond, the approval for a bonding. And I was adding up the numbers, and I'm like, wait a minute. This doesn't add up. And it's such a fundamental thing to have a column of numbers that is off. And it was $140 million off. So from that point forward, I always looked at the numbers and added them up and then checked references and that kind of thing. I found a number of mistakes and errors. What are some of the problems with trying to manage such a big project? A lot of times, the people who are managing it are our own government officials and so forth aren't necessarily accountants. They're not necessarily engineers. They have political interests. How does that affect their ability to manage a project that fundamentally requires a high level of accounting? Well, I think it's challenging for one thing. And you may recall that even Mayor Caldwell hired a consultant to come in and help, because this was the point where it was increasing. I think it had just gone to about $5.6 billion. And he actually had to have somebody come in and help advise him, because it is challenging to keep track of all those numbers. And I think, really, it's incumbent upon us, the people who understand these types of things, to take a look at this and say, hey, wait a minute. You guys need to look at this. What are some of the ways that you have served kind of like a watchdog with the rail or other infrastructure projects? Well, I've gone to the heart meetings on quite a number of occasions. And when I hear them say something that is inconsistent with maybe something that they told the legislature or the city council, I say, I bring it up. And I think that's one of the most important things that I can do. Again, the speaking out. Now, is that because you are naturally an extrovert who wants to stand behind a podium or a microphone and shout and be noticed and known? No, I don't think so. In fact, I was really quite shy coming out of high school. But doing this actually makes me a better person, I think. It goes back to what you and I discussed a little bit in the first segment. And that has to do with what the role of a citizen should be. What do we need to do to be better citizens here in Hawaii? I think one of the things, even though it's challenging for us to keep track of our time, our family balance things out, is to actually pay attention to what's happening. Listen to the news. Read the newspaper. If you have online news, whatever it is, just pay attention to what's going on. Well, you as a citizen figured out that the numbers weren't adding up for the Honolulu Rail. And that's not because you were a public official, not because you were privy to any inside knowledge and so forth. It's simply because you knew how to add and subtract and compare two columns with each other. And that led you to start speaking out. Now, you have an idea that you're advocating now that will empower citizens to be able to voice their concerns, their suspicions, and so forth. It's a hotline, isn't it? Oh, right. So yeah, I've heard a lot of things. Even, I think it was Senator Kim had said, people came to her and their supervisors on rail wanted them to do these things that they felt weren't right. And so I've been trying to get Hart and the city to implement a fraud tip hotline. And it doesn't even have to be called fraud tip hotline. It can just be tip hotline. But something that allows people to anonymously call in, that they can give information, get feedback that somebody's following up on it, and then there can be an investigation if needed. But I think this is really important because there are so many things that people are commenting on the side that things are going on. And people, do you feel, are they afraid if they're working for one of the agencies or working for the government, afraid to come out and actually say, I see something that's wrong? Well, yes. I mean, retaliation, negative consequences. I think that's a very real concern for anybody who might call in. And I think that's why we don't have people saying things more publicly, because they're just really concerned that either they, their livelihoods, their families might be impacted negatively.  There have been many calls for auditing the rail. And sometimes that term audit is so broad, someone can say, sure, I'm all for auditing the rail, but not really agree with somebody else who's saying, no, we really need an audit. Can you tell us a little bit about audits and what kind of audit is needed for the rail? Sure. So there are actually, first of all, different types of audits. There's the management audit, which is like the city auditor did a couple of years ago. There are financial audits, which heart is subject to every year. And then there are just investigations. So with respect to the rail, I think really what we need is an investigation, a forensic investigation, which. Now, when you say forensic investigation, you're using a term forensic that isn't necessarily a technical auditing term, but one that is often used and not really explained. So you being the accountant, help me to understand what would be the substance of a truly forensic audit? Well, basically, if you have a fraud tip hotline, and you have ideas of where there might be some questionable actions going on, whether it be in the contracting side, whether it be something else, then you focus in on those types of areas. And so it doesn't necessarily cover the entire spectrum of what is happening with rail, but focusing in on those areas and then really digging into them and checking things like emails and documents and interviewing people. So it's much broader than a regular financial audit. And then once you find something, then you branch off. I think our state auditor, last year when they passed that law to extend the taxes, they gave the state auditor subpoena powers. And so that's an important component, too, because then people realize, well, I have to comply. I can't just hide back and not be available. You have a nose for fraud, waste, and abuse.  Well, I have to be a little bit careful. Of course. Because people need to understand that one of the major components of fraud is intent. So while people have suspicions of things going on, until we know that something was deliberately done, it's not just a mistake. We can't or we shouldn't use that term fraud. But there have been a number of things that I've come across that I really question. Things like change orders or even presentations to the board where I say, well, wait a minute. You guys don't have this information here. And then by the time I get it, months have gone by, and they've moved on. So there are just a lot of questions, I think, with respect to the rail project. Well, I hope you get the hotline so if citizens can give more information. And I hope we are able to get an appropriate kind of audit of the rail. We've got a minute left, Natalie. You have a vision for our great city of Honolulu. Could you share just part of that vision? How would you like to see us functioning? Well, I think what we really need to focus on is people being more involved and raising the level of trust in the government. We've had issues with our Honolulu Ethics Commission and the executive director stepping down. So many things have come forward in the last couple of years, our chief of police under investigation. Just lots of different examples of things where people have put faith in government and then had it crumble out behind them or below them. And so if I had an option or a voice in saying what we should focus on, that would be it. Well, I hope your voice grows. You certainly do have a voice and I want to thank you for being an engaged citizen and a leader as well. Thank you, Natalie. Thank you, Kaylee. My guest today, Natalie Iwasa, goes from being the bike mom to being engaged community activist, making a difference here in Honolulu and in the state of Hawaii. I hope you'll get to know her better. I'm Kaylee Iakina on Hawaii Together on the Think Tech Hawaii Broadcast Network. We'll see you next time. Aloha.


Hi, we don't have a microphone. So I hope you can hear us over here. Good morning, I'm Sue Racknelli, president of the League of Women Voters of Vermont. Want to welcome you to what is non-citizen voting, a presentation that has been brought to you by the League of Women Voters and our partners, Central Vermont Refugee Action Committee, and First Unitarian Universalist Society of Montpelier Racial Justice Team, our host Kellogg Hubbard Library and Orca Media. The League of Women Voters is a non-partisan organization. Our mission is to empower voters and defend democracy. The right of non-citizens to vote in the United States has historically been a contentious one. Our purpose in hosting this program is for you to get an understanding of the history and facts about non-citizen voting. The League does not have a position on non-citizen voting, but in keeping with our mission, we advocate for voting rights and provide voter information. The League has a committee that has been studying non-citizen voting. Our speaker, Marguerite Edelman, chairs this committee, and she has been monitoring non-citizen voting across the country for the past two years. Joining her today is John Odom, Montpelier's city clerk, who will let you know what is happening in Montpelier, one of two Vermont cities that allow non-citizen residents to vote in local elections. Let's hear from both Marguerite and John, and please hold your questions till the end of the presentation. Thank you. I should begin by saying that I am not a lawyer, and I am not a scholar, but as Sue pointed out, for the past two years, I have been getting every alert that I possibly can on non-citizen voting, and getting as much information as I can on the topic, and reading articles and books, et cetera. I am a Winooski resident, and I think that's probably one of the reasons I got so interested in the topic was watching the process play out in my own hometown, and seeing how people reacted and what was happening there. So today, what I hope to do is kind of give you a broad general overview of where we are right now, give you specific details about Winooski and Montpelier, I'll supply Winooski, John will supply Montpelier, and then talk about the pros and cons that are being voiced nationally around the whole issue of non-citizen voting. At the end, I hope we can open it for a good civil discussion on the topic and find out where people stand and what their viewpoints are, et cetera. So I wanna begin a little bit with the history.  Race, gender, and class, not citizenship were really what mattered in voting and who got to vote. And it's interesting to note that prior to 1926, 40 states at some point in time allowed non-citizens to vote in some or even all elections. Federal law definitely prohibits non-citizens from voting in federal elections only. So that is very clear in the law at this point in time. Now I wanna go from federal law to state constitutions. In state constitutions, no state constitution currently allows non-citizens to vote. It doesn't ever say non-citizens are allowed to vote. However, some recent updates for you, Rhode Island and Connecticut have two House of Representatives members who have proposed bills that would allow non-citizens to vote in municipal elections. Connecticut, in fact, would allow illegal, that's probably the worst term, but non-U.S. Senate citizens who are not here illegally to vote as well. And the reason the legislator said that was that he really wanted to start a conversation around the whole issue of voting in this country and the complexities of voting. He admits readily he doesn't expect it to pass. In Illinois, the Senate has already passed a bill that would allow parents of school-aged children to vote in school board elections. So whether that ends up becoming a law in Illinois will be something that we can watch. It's not actually necessarily a constitutional change, but it allows parents who are not citizens to have a voice in their children's education. There are state constitutions that actually ban non-citizen voting, and it's interesting when we look at those seven states, five of those states were in the last three to four years. Louisiana, Ohio, Colorado, Florida, and Alabama are all within the last three to four years for banning it. When the topic became so controversial, voting became so controversial, and there were all the rumors about how many non-citizens had voted individuals who were here illegally. Two of the states, Arizona and North Dakota, have had legislation already in their constitution that basically banned non-citizen voting. And right now, even more states are actually considering adding banments. But there are many states without roadblocks to non-citizen voting. And in general, municipalities can expand voting rights in local elections if there are no explicit constitutional legislative impediments. And as long as the local jurisdictions have the power of home rule, this gets pretty complicated. So some states that require changes to local charters need to get approval from state legislators, legislatures, and those are Vermont and Montpelier have to as well. And so it's quite a process. It's a lengthy process. No community undertakes this process slightly because it takes quite a bit of time and work. So let's look at the states that have what I would call smooth sailing. Okay, there are 12 states that pose no impediments. And the Arkansas, Illinois, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Washington, and Wisconsin. We may soon be able to have to cross Oklahoma off. Oklahoma just recently is looking at passing a law that would purge voter registration lists that contain illegal immigrants or non-citizens and prosecute them. So that is something that's being proposed right now. It just came out in the news a couple of days ago. So the states with roadblocks to non-citizen voting are those seven that we talked about before, as well as some others. So we have Alaska, California, and that was DC, Florida, Ohio, North Dakota are all in that list. So where is non-citizen voting being considered? Well, actually in many places across the country. You'll see two places in Massachusetts, Boston, and we're, I can never say that, Worcester? Worcester. Worcester, okay, in Massachusetts. So they are being considered there. Interestingly enough, there are other cities in Massachusetts, Amherst and Cambridge, that have already passed non-citizen voting, but the legislature has just let it sit there and done nothing with it. So they're a state where they need the legislative approval for it to become an actuality. Chicago is considering it, Portland, Maine, San Jose, California, Circus, New York, and Washington, DC, which has actually already passed through its own channels, non-citizen voting, for those in Washington, and that's become a very hot topic.  So those are some of the things that you're hearing, some of the issues that are coming up, and there actually was, passed by Congress, the House, a bill trying to undo non-citizen voting in Washington, DC, because it has to go through the federal government to get non-citizen voting. But there are still a number of U.S. cities with non-citizen voting, 11 cities in Maryland, and interestingly enough, Barnsville granted that right in 1918, Somerset in 1976, Tacoma Park since 1993. So when you consider the history, those three cities, so for such a long time, there was actually no controversy until the last three or four years. It's become so controversial. Two cities in Vermont, which you know, and a third, Burlington, will have on its town meeting day ballot this year, a question about what they are calling all legal resident voting. And I will just tell you that the terminology for this, I use non-citizen because I think it's a little clearer, but the terminology varies across the country. It could be called so many different things, and we'll talk a little bit about that. San Francisco and Oakland both allow parents to vote in school board elections, but that has been contested. Fortunately, hasn't been stopped yet, but it is still under appeal. And New York City is also under appeal. So there's challenges to this across the country that are being looked at. So non-citizen voting and running for office. This is interesting because in some places, non-citizens can only vote in school elections, or they can only vote in city elections, or they can vote in both. And in some cities, non-citizens can run for the local city and or school board positions. And once again, that varies. We'll talk a little bit about the differences between Winooski and Montpelier as we get into that. So how do cities, and I'm gonna use that as an example, come to the conclusion that they even wanna consider non-citizen voting? And I think what they end up doing is kind of what I ended up doing, which is looking at the immigration data for your communities and studying that. And what I found from the various sources that I've looked at is that 4.4% of residents are immigrants and 2% of immigrants are non-citizens. So here in Vermont, that's approximately 12,000 people. The top countries of origin truly surprised me, but not when I think about it, Canada is 20%. Nepal, 7%, Jamaica's six, Philippine's six, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, 5%. This also surprised me a bit in terms of what I think of as stereotypes. And that is that more than nine in 10, 92% of immigrants reported that they spoke English very well, okay? And 50% of those immigrants had a college degree or more. Only 12% had less than a high school diploma. And Vermont in general only has, this was in 2020, 20 DACA recipients. It could be more, it could be less right now, but probably not a significant difference. So I'm gonna turn it over to John now and he can talk about the process of non-citizen voting in Montpelier and then I'll talk about Winooski. Do you want the clicker or? I'm not sure what this clicks. You don't have to point it. I mean, literally, what am I clicking up there? I don't know what to click, so I won't click. Hi, yeah, I'm John Odom. I'm the city clerk here. And if I can take a moment of personal privilege, I love telling the story of how this started here because what happened in Montpelier sort of lit the flame for this entire wave that went through Winooski. So about every year, or every year, I would have somebody, not always the same person, but somebody come up to me and say, there's always their spouse. Why can't my spouse vote? My spouse is not a citizen. And my answer was always, I don't know what to tell you. They can't vote. They're not a citizen. I'm really sorry. Well, a few years ago, I was taking a course through the University of Minnesota to get an election administrator certificate. And that year was right after town meeting. I had the same person come in as the previous year saying, why can't my spouse vote? And I said, I'm sorry, you can't. Well, about two weeks later in the course, we had a module about non-citizen voting in the US. And I was, oh, okay. So I had to pick up the phone and call her back and say, I was wrong. Apparently this is something that is done. So let's make it happen. So we started the process of doing that. I set up a couple public meetings and then very shortly thereafter, I get contacted by a Winooski city counselor who wanted me to go and speak before their city council about the issue. So I did and it was an interesting conversation. But anyway, I feel like, I mean, this is gonna happen eventually because it has become a hot issue and that's the way Vermonters are. We wanna do the right thing. But at that particular moment, if I hadn't been taking that one class, so when we did have the public meetings, I actually Skyped in back when it was Skyping, my professor to talk to the groups in Montpelier too. But no, that was great. But in Montpelier, yeah, we just do it at the municipal level. And that's because things get more complicated for us given that there's a union school district. Now I know Winooski includes the school district. That would have been great. I had folks from the school talk to me about the possibility of this. And honestly, looking at the law, I'm not entirely sure that there would need to be a charter change for school districts to do this. And I think that's worth checking out. They might be able to do that independently, but I can't say that for sure. So yeah, so now we have, and just for municipalities, it was just for the municipality, it passed by a very large margin. I heard almost no grumbling from folks in the town when it happened, there was, when the folks who were against it, there was sort of from those folks, a sort of collective shrug, but you know, it's good folks. So what that means is I have to design two ballots, which Winooski doesn't have to do because our ballot traditionally, we share ballot space with our school and with more recently, with a sort of quasi-municipal entity called the Central Vermont Public Safety Authority. So those were things that non-citizens were not empowered to vote on. So I have a whole bunch of ballots now for town meeting day. I've got a ballot for each district and then I've got another ballot for each district, that's the non-citizens. And we've got a mere 11 non-citizens registered. They're generally all Canadian or European. We have finally started getting a couple people of color in there, which is great, and this is a pretty white town. So it, you know, this is a good way. I'm hoping to actually increase involvement and have folks who are people of color feel more like they own the town as much as the folks who are all monochrome out there. I know that can be intimidating. So anyways, I have just started trying to get the word out just this year. I know Winooski has spent a lot of time getting the word out. And I went into this thinking, I wanted to treat all voters the same. That was the big pitch at the legislature. I organized a lot of the lobbying that went on for this. And that was a big thing the legislature wanted. We weren't gonna check ID at the polls, just like we don't for other folks. We're gonna treat folks just like every other voter. And maybe I took that a little too far, so I took, you know, made no action to reach out to people. I'm like, there's another voter. But I started coming around to that because I've seen the good work that Winooski has done to do that. But, you know, we do that. We have, we've had ballots in different languages. And that's, yeah, that's how it's gone for us. I don't know if there's any questions or. Did the city council have to vote for this and then refer that to the legislature? How does that work? Well, it was a charter change. And again, cause we're a Dylan's rule state, which means essentially the towns are administrative districts of the state, really. Which is how we got around the, you know, the prohibition in the state constitution for non-citizen voting. So the charter change process is either the city council can vote to approve it or it can be done by petition. City council would have been ready to approve it, but I had talked to the citizen contact I made and I talked to them and I said, you know, this could be really controversial. I think you should get a public wave going. I think, I don't think it'll be a big problem. And, you know, I can help to the extent I can, which is limited. But I think it would be powerful and meaningful so it wouldn't, people just wouldn't be pointing fingers at that crazy city council to see, look, the community wants this. So it was not hard to get those signatures and then that's what put it on the ballot. All right, thanks. I'll talk a little bit about Manuski. There are a few slides from Montelia here, which is what John has already talked about, the supplemental voter registry. If you're interested in what the actual vote was, currently I only had not the number nine, but you're at 11. So I'm gonna up that number, non-citizens registered to vote here. And in the first town meeting day, I think you had five vote. So, you know, we're not talking huge numbers, but it did pass by 65.7%. So if we go on to Manuski, which got excited because Montbelier had already looked at this topic and they called it our resident voting. In Montbelier, it's called non-U.S. citizen voting, correct? So there's an example of two different terms, which could be confusing to people, but, you know, our resident voting was meant to be more inclusive and less discriminatory in the sense that nobody really wants to be a non-citizen, but non-citizen is actually the legal term that you find in most of the legal documents. So in Manuski, one of the reasons was that it's really diverse. You know, we're a refugee resettlement community and our school district in Manuski, over 20 languages are spoken. And Manuski is a community that really prides itself on its diversity and its inclusion. You know, some of the facts about Manuski is, you know, we don't have a huge population, 6,131. Our native U.S. citizens are 5,041. Naturalized citizens, 472, and not a U.S. citizen, 618. The actual data around household income and poverty just adds to the picture of who Manuski is and why Manuski residents might have been interested in passing non-citizen voting. And as John mentioned, the process can go to two ways. It can come through the city council or it can come from a petition by citizens. I believe that in Manuski they tried it, initially via, I think it was a petition and it didn't go anywhere. But as soon as Montpelier had moved forward, the city council decided to move forward. And so the process they used was to create a charter commission and get public input. Then the council put it on the ballot and then they got more public input. Then they had the vote at town meeting day. And then it had to go to the House and the Senate for approval. And then from there to the governor for his approval and then we could have all resident voting. So, all resident voting in Manuski is very similar to Montpelier. We chose that they had to be a federally sanctioned legal category resident here. They had to have a cream card or a permanent resident visa. They had to be 18 years or older, which is just state law on or by election day. I thought this was interesting. They must reside in Manuski with the intent to stay. I've never been clear what intent to stay means, but I think, or how you prove it, but it was originally listed on the information that was sent out. So qualified residents can vote in all local elections and run for local offices. They can also vote in the water district, the sewer district, the solid waste management district, et cetera, if they're included in that. And then the city maintains two different lists. As John said, he has to have more ballots than we have to have in Manuski. So what were the politics in Manuski? The Manuski charter vote was in 11, 2020, and it passed with 71% of the residents voting in favor of it. The charter changes were approved by the Marant House and the Senate and the Governor vetoed those charter changes, saying it was unfair to have different voting rules in different communities. However, the House and the Senate overcame the Governor's veto and so it passed into law. And like Montpelier, the GOP filed lawsuits against the city and the lawsuits and the clerks individually, and in Manuski too, I think, individually against the individuals in those offices and they were dismissed. And more recently, the Vermont Supreme Court has ruled that non-citizen, all-resident, non-U.S. citizen voting is not in violation of Vermont's constitution. So, in a sense, the road is now clear. When you have the Supreme Court on your side, it's much easier, I think, for other communities to consider going forward. But as I said, it's a lengthy process and that's something to consider. So, educating non-citizen voters, as John pointed out, Manuski has done a lot. You know, they had a diversity and inclusion coordinator who was reaching out to the community. Materials were translated into numerous languages. They held community presentations with translators from various communities to sit and help individuals understand because it is a bit complicated to figure out, oh, I can vote now. Well, I get in trouble, you know, blah, blah, blah. And they made educational videos and they did outreach to immigrant associations. So, during the first time that all-resident voting took place, we had 17 non-citizens who voted. The total number of registered voters was 5,218, but on that day, 938 voted, which to me says we need to do something about getting citizens to vote, frankly. And the total number of non-citizens registered to vote to date in Manuski is 56. So, we're gonna go over together, John and I. We're just gonna read these because I think this will form a great discussion. The arguments against and for non-citizen voting. And I collected these from multiple sources. You know, we had a Boulder, Colorado league that did a lot of work on non-citizen voting and we took a lot of their materials and their studies and looked at those. So, these are some of the arguments that you hear. Non-citizens will have to self-identify, which could put them at risk for immigration action. I'm trying to take the next one. The county clerk becomes a keeper of immigration info, which could make it difficult if the federal government were to ask for the info and that resulted in deportations. Argument, citizenship is a privilege. And this is actually a main argument. This is like the argument that you hear. Citizenship is a privilege and it comes with the opportunities of voting, which shouldn't be given to non-citizens. Voting is a right for citizens and many non-citizens eligible for citizenship are motivated to apply for citizenship in order to vote. Okay, issues faced by non-citizens are different from those of citizens and are more appropriately addressed by citizens. And if you have questions about that, I'll explain that one later. Non-citizen voting might encourage those who are here illegally to register as a legal non-citizen resident and vote. Non-citizen residents who may not speak English or be able to read could have their votes easily manipulated by others. Large number of non-citizen residents voting could change the outcome of an election. Non-citizens may move to communities that allow non-citizen voting, changing the culture and the nature of that community. Procedures for non-citizen voting cost the community money, including lawsuits, translations, interpreters, processing separate voter registration forms, reconfiguring web pages and more. So then we'll briefly present the arguments for non-citizen voting. Non-citizens own property, pay taxes, contribute to our local economy, and should have a voice in local government. Basically, this is no taxation without representation. Non-citizens are affected by policies and actions of municipal and county governments the same as citizens. Non-citizen school children are affected by policies and actions of the school district. The citizenship process is costly, takes many years and has an application backlog of over 15 months. And we can talk more about that if you guys have questions about it. Our local economies depend on immigrant and refugee labor and workers should have a say regardless of citizenship. Non-citizen participation benefits all community members. Non-citizen voting was common at the local, state, and even federal levels in the U.S.'s first 150 years. In some counties, residency, non-citizenship is seen as the measure of being a legitimate stakeholder in the community. Voting rights are part of the social contract. A just government rests on the consent of the governed. The vote helps guard against discrimination and bias, often the consequence of political exclusion. The majority of Ramon's immigrants are educated and speak English. Voting participation is correlated to the voting rate of one's parents since obtaining citizenship takes many years. The sooner parents are allowed to vote, the more likely their children will later become voting adults. I've listened to a number of debates and there are more and more that are out there on YouTube and in other places. And these are questions that I still have, like where do you draw the line on some of these things? And so I'll just share them with you. Pregnant foreigners, I don't know, there were a series of articles about pregnant women from Russia coming to Florida and staying in hotels and condos three months before their due date. So they travel to the US on a visa and they have their baby here and then the child is granted US citizenship by what our law calls birthright. Is this really fair? Legal non-residents are, I didn't know this, legal non-residents are subject to selective service. So if we had a war and we reinstated the draft, they could be drafted. Why can't they vote if they can give their life for the country they reside or live in? A non-citizen can serve in the US military but US citizenship is not guaranteed to them for doing so. Should this be so? Many states don't have meaningful residency requirements for citizens to vote. This is something else I just learned. 23 states have no residency requirements, none. And most others have around 30 days. And the last one, the US allows citizens to hold multiple passports as do many other countries. Should they be allowed to vote if they are residing in another country? And my daughter is an example of that. She's a Canadian citizen and she has both a Canadian and a US passport. And I'm not sure but I think she might have voted in both Canadian elections and US elections. So that's an interesting question. Here's a couple more that I didn't have time to put up there. But we actually take away the voting rights of some US citizens. Not here in Vermont but felons in many states and people in prisons are not allowed to vote. We take away their voting rights. And we take away the voting rights in some states of people who haven't voted in five or 10 years. So if they're on the voter registration list we just purge their name. And when we do the census, undocumented individuals who are actually held in detention centers are counted in the census towards the money that we distribute and the number of legislators and all sorts of formulas that we distribute that determine so much of our government. We actually do count them. So these are just additional questions to think about in terms of the complexity of non-citizen voting. And as Sue said in the beginning, we're really willing to work with communities that are interested in learning more that want to register voters, either citizens or non-citizens, which is something that we do on a regular basis. And we have some information on the table. I put together a research sheet with websites and other information on this topic. If you find it interesting, if there's more information you want on it. So I would open it up for discussion and questions now because I think it's interesting. Yeah, one thing I think that's worth mentioning is Vermont as far as reasons against humans. I heard this in the legislature and I thought it was very odd. I heard it a few times. But I heard it again as recently as just this last week. My response probably was not to even temper because I was sort of feeling bad that day. But the equating it with this idea that business owners should be able to vote, or land owners rather, should be able to vote in towns where they own land, which is- I've heard it too.  I mean, you could talk about non-citizen voting and non-resident voting is what they're basically talking about, which is a whole different ball game. How it was getting put together in the same argument, I'm not sure. But it has been, it has been very consistently. And I think the response is that that has absolutely nothing to do with it. And it really doesn't. The only thing they have in common is they have something to do with voting. But, see, we've heard that a lot. I heard that, again, as I said last week from a gentleman who owns property in town and does not live in town. And he asked me, and I said, well, no, you can't vote in two towns, right? It's where you live. And he's broke back with a non-citizen scan. I say, I was tired, I was feeling sick. So I wrote back, I'm sorry, did the citizens of Montpelier hurt your feelings? And I didn't hear anything back after that. But anyway, that's a big, that's a big one here in Vermont, homegrown. I have a question. Can you address the reasoning against it because it costs more for translations and materials and things like that? Is that a, is that a big cost? It costs more for the ballots.  I mean, obviously, it costs to scale up in a larger town. I find that an irrelevant question. I mean, the question is, should people have the right to vote in their communities? And I mean, one of the ways I would describe it is, you know, you're not, this isn't something that goes up, right? You can vote in your municipality that doesn't mean they have some sort of right to vote in the state where the state constitution says no. And I always say, look, I'm a US citizen. I can vote in my town. I can vote, you know, state, federal. I can't vote in Idaho, right? Just by virtue of being a citizen. So we do mix and match these jurisdictions up all the time. So the Canadian example, I would just say, well, where do you live, you know?  But where do you live? What community you're a part of? And yeah, Vermont's only criteria for residency is that it's where you lay your head down, you know? It's, there's no 30 day requirement that you be here. It's just where do you live? So if you have a property owner in Montpelier, but they are a legal resident of, say, Florida, are they allowed to vote in Montpelier? They don't live in Montpelier. They don't live in the community in Montpelier. Even though they spend five months here? It depends. You can only register in one town. Okay, so it's registering one place. Right. Okay, right. So that's, I mean, that's the key there, you know? You don't get two bites at the end. I would just, I wanna go back and say that in terms, there's no law that says how much you have to spend on translation of materials on how much outreach you do. You know, there's nothing on that. Like John said, he chose here in Montpelier to treat the non-U.S. citizen voters as any person who's voting. I think Wienewski spent more because part of its kind of mission and goal and perspective deals with the fact that so much of the community is an immigrant population or asylum seekers and all of that. And so for them, I think they saw it as much more important. I've been curious who pays for the lawsuits. I've always wanted to ask that. Oh, well, the lawsuits came from the RNC, the Republican National Committee, and they're not Republican. Right, but who paid for your defense? Oh, you have a city attorney. So was the city attorney. So it's already built in expense or does it end up being extra? I mean, we put aside a certain amount for projected legal costs. Sometimes it's on the money and sometimes it's not. Okay, I'm sorry, I didn't have to do it. I got my citizenship last year and since December, I'm a Montpelier city councilor for district two and run me again for the two year term. And I really appreciate your efforts on this issue. From personal level, it is really important to include people and create the feeling of loans. As you said, I work, I pay tax, and I want to be part of the community. This is very important. So for Montpelier, my question will be, John, you said like nine people registered. 11. 11, great. So what is the total number of non-citizens here? So I'm trying to understand where we are at now. Oh, in the town? Yeah, so. Boy, I would not even know how to find that number out. That's a tough question. Because this is very good like action plan, public education, but how many people we are trying to reach out. So if we don't know how we can plan our next steps, and as a city councilor, how we can help, right? To make it like a more community thing, so. Yeah, I was expecting more folks. So why can't we know the number? What's that? Why can't we know the number of non-citizens? It's like a private thing or? The Census Bureau might have information on that. The American Home Survey, and that's where I got some of my data about Winozki. So the American Home Survey actually looks at that. What's harder to figure out is if they're of voting age. So you might find the number who are non-citizens, but sometimes you can't tell the exact age. How we can create a plan, right? So it is like, okay, we are just sending everything to the universe. Yeah, at this point, that's all. And in some communities, like in San Francisco, for example, there's a whole parent, a non-citizen parent group that works extremely hard to educate other non-citizens who are involved in the schools and how to vote. So sometimes it's taken leadership by some of the immigrant associations, or some of the groups in that community who really want to see their non-citizens vote. I mean, it was very controversial what was happening in the school boards out in California. And so there were a huge number of non-citizens voting in that. One reference on one of the slides to, you have to have federal status in order to become a non-citizen voter in Vermont. I don't know if that was really true, but I read it accurately, but CVRAN, one of the organizations involved in this, as you probably know, they sponsor many, many families from Russia, Africa, South America, Tunisia, all over. And the numbers are in Afghanistan, Ukraine, I think even. So the numbers are going up, but none of those people, I think, have green cards. And I thought I saw that on the list, that you have to have a federal status. Asylum seekers can, I believe, have a federal status from what I understand. It can take certain groups a lot longer. Like with a green card, you can't apply for citizenship until five years have passed. And then it could take, maybe you could tell us your history here, then it can take considerably longer because there's a cost for it. It's like $900 approximately. You have to take two different tests. You have to take an English test and a civics test. You have to stay in the United States for up to six months before you can actually get your citizenship after you've applied and there's no guarantee that you'll get citizenship so you can lose that money. It's a complicated long process. But somebody at the, I think it was the Fletcher Library presentation talked about asylum seekers and others who might take considerably longer to get citizenship. So, you know, if they're not specific, if they're here in a legal status and I think asylum seekers are, I mean, if they have that status, they may be, they probably are able to vote. Ours is definitely raised broadly. If they're here under any legal status whatsoever, then they're welcome to register and vote. The only reason, I mean, that's as far as we've took the conversation. Folks who were here, not under the law as such, discussion came up, but we decided at least for this point, let's just go the easier route, the one that we think less controversial for folks and then maybe return to the conversation later. And if for no other reason than it takes away all those concerns about deportation and how the checklist can be used to identify folks, I mean, if they're already here, the government already knows they're here, the government's OK with it, then there's nothing to find out. And that's a good point. Vermont has gone legal resident route. You have to be here legally. And that's an important distinction because you don't need to worry about those public voter lists getting out and someone tracking you down, which is what Oklahoma is talking about doing. And then prosecuting those individuals if they're on the voter registration list. So we've chosen legal. But as I said, in Connecticut, there's a legislator who wants to make it legal and non-legal residents. I'm a citizen of the USA. I came here 35 years ago. I was a resident of Columbia. And I've lived in Vermont for 35 years. We came originally up on, I think, an H1 or H2 visa. And then worked towards a green card, like I say, after five years. And then on to get legal citizenship. I am so pleased that we're doing, I don't like calling it non-citizen because I think that's a negative connotation. I feel as though it ought to be legal citizen voting. Because I cannot believe that this country who is so against taxation without representation, I was paying taxes for 10 years and was not allowed that representation, which I think is outrageous. But I do believe that voting is a privilege and it should not be just handed out. And I think you really need to be a legal resident. And what my concern is, making immigrants an illegal residence legal and making it easier and quicker. One thing you mentioned, the term non-citizen, that we use, there's one way that I don't like it in particular. And that's that I think the communities are saying that these folks are six of the community. And I think that's the community deciding who they're going to consider members of their community. And that's citizenship. So you know. Well, citizenship is sort of a federal official label. So it's hard to get away from it. But in the sort of context or just the term, not legally specific. Well, it could be community voting, but I think, you know. I think people sort of, wow, non-citizen, oh my goodness. I had that conversation with a local resident. They couldn't believe that I supported it. And then when I explained, they understood it. Well, and that's why I think the education is so important. And the terminology, because we've heard so much about illegal individuals voting over the past four or five years. And so when these proposals come up from communities for non-citizen voting, people immediately assume we're talking about illegal individuals or individuals who aren't here legally. And I would say, predominantly, there isn't a city right now anywhere in the US that is considering that. I talked about the legislative laws in Rhode Island and Connecticut that are being proposed. But in neither case do they expect them to pass. So that's really quite interesting. And we should consider, if you study voting around the world, it's very different.  In other words, it's considered your responsibility. And when I look at how few people voted in Winooski, I find that shocking that citizens here don't vote. And it really makes me believe we need to do more as civics education. We need to remind people of what sustains a democracy and what a democracy is all about in terms of responsibilities. Monk William can use different vocabulary instead of non-citizen, like Winooski is doing all-residents. Or it's who? OK. I mean, all-residents might open the question of, again, folks who are not here under legal status. But I don't think we can answer this. Is it too much of a mouthful to say all-legal resident? That's what Burlington said. They're using all-legal resident voting. Like something positive. Right. So that's the distinction they're making in terminology. Other questions? One thing I want to mention is the pushback and controversy. I want to make sure I put it in this context here. It's not so bad. When we got this passed, I heard from two people Well, except for the two who sued me under the lawsuit. Let's forget them. I mean, one of them was the one I just heard from last week. Other than that, the only folks in Vermont I heard from was one person called me from Rutland who didn't like it. Other than that, the only folks I heard from were from out of state. That wasn't even that many. So I think there's just more respect for the process here if this is what the citizens of the community, how they want to run their own affairs. You have fewer people that have become crashing down on their heads over the state. And I like to think about the evolution of voting, too. I mean, our organization, the league, celebrated the centennial of women's suffrage in 2020. And then when you look at the history of women's suffrage, you realize, listen, just women who weren't allowed to vote. Native Americans who are the original citizens of this country. So we're evolving and hopefully becoming more consistent and more inclusive and more civic-minded and engaged. And that's kind of what I like to think about in terms of our history, that we can always improve and do better and make things easier. How far along is Burlington? They vote on town meeting day this March. It's very interesting. I don't think this time it's going to be controversial. It's been turned down the last two times. I could be wrong. I'm just making a prediction here. They see more concern right now about policing and housing. Those are their two really hot topics in Burlington. And we did the same presentation there, and we didn't have as many people. So I was shocked because I thought we would in Burlington, given that. But we're fortunate that we have Orca. And in Burlington, we had town meeting TV. And that public access will have this presentation on the air for people to listen to and to understand the complexity and the pros and cons of the topic. And to take a deeper look into themselves on where they stand on the issue. Throw in one thing I want to mention, and I don't want to fake on you, but the idea of voting is privilege. That is not something that I agree with. I think voting is right. And privilege is something that we would be granting, essentially. But if it's a right, we're getting out of their way. I think it comes with living in the community. So that's a distinction that I'd like to make. And it wasn't actually originally used as a privilege. Voting was used as a lure. In Colorado, voting was used as a lure to get people to come and to become part of that new state. They didn't have to be citizens at all. They really just wanted them to come and get involved. Has the pushback been political? No.  Do you think that the RNC? Yeah, well, in that sense, yeah. I had great bragging rights for me for a while. I like when I'm telling everybody, I'm getting sued by the RNC. I talked a lot about that when I was running for Secretary of State. I'm getting sued by the RNC. The pushback has been political. I think the most political it's been in Vermont has been trying to equate it to that non-resident voting, the property owner voting. That's been a political argument. I first heard it in the state house and the government operations when we were talking about it. So I think that's the extent of it that I've experienced here. Well, if that's it, I want to thank you all for coming. It's really been a good discussion. And I think, hopefully, when it's on the air, more people will see it and give some thought to these questions, these issues, and about their own community. It can happen in any community in Vermont at this point if there's the will and the sense that it's right for that community. Thank you all for coming. Oh, and don't forget, if you want the pre-material, they're on the table.


Welcome here to Stanford and welcome to the Precord Energy Efficiency Center annual event the Silicon Valley Energy Summit. I'm really pleased to see this large group of people here and I know what the registration numbers are so it's gonna get filled up even more than this so when you leave your seats make sure you stake out your position because they may disappear later but I'm just really pleased to see everybody here at the event. For those energy or fiction autos it's an interesting time. President Obama made his I like to say long-awaited actual serious statement of energy policy and climate policy which in this case it's really all in the one thing because all the climate policy was energy policy actions that that he was taking. We asked him to hold it off till we asked him it was a day before he sort of messed up a little and got it a couple of days before our event but it's close as close as possible. I say when we said slow down we didn't really mean six years but but it is good that that you see now a statement that for those of us in California it's sort of gratifying. It looks to be that the rules that the EPA may end up with for electric utilities may end up looking very much like we've already implemented in California. Just as not long ago the automobile efficiency standards set up levels now mimic what we've set up a few years ago in California. The method of of tradeability among the manufacturers and the vehicles that they're now setting up looks just like we've done in California. So the pattern continues in many of these regulatory energy and energy environmental rules things start in California they're tested out here they're picked up by other states and finally the federal government starts moving in that direction and we've seen that example recently so that in itself would make this a propitious time for today's event but other things have been happening and that make this energy very interesting. California's cap and trade system is fully operational now. We have some challenges here and around the world and nuclear power. Santa Nofri plant has just been announced it will be permanently shut down and with the challenges of possibly if we have a hot summer we could have some shortages of electricity in Southern California but that's actually nothing in comparison to Korea that has 11 of their 23 nuclear power plants are now shut down based upon construction problems that turn out to be construction turns out to be not as good as they thought it was and so almost half are shut down but they're not as bad as Japan who has all but two of their nuclear power plant shut down so we've had some challenges around the around the world in nuclear power. We have a time where we're beginning to be really recognized that natural gas is the game changer right now in the energy system it's really great if you're a petrochemical firm if you were a plant planning on importing LNG it's not so good if you're planning on exporting it may be better if you're having a renewable and competing with with low cost electricity generated from from from gas you may view it as well this gives us some breathing room where we don't have we can't sell our product for a while so goods and bads the same same time we're seeing a lot of the early stage capital pulling back from the clean tech world at just the time that things are beginning to happen in Washington so that may create some interesting dynamics at the same time you have several companies around here which are really booming in the energy area. Finelite is the first of those been more under the radar but booming very well Tesla Solar City we see those as startups that no longer can call themselves startups they they're so far along now you see companies now routinely making the decision as to not whether they put in charging stations but how many and what the management rules of those charging stations are you see energy efficiency being implemented in buildings all around around here the number it's almost as if you can't build a new commercial building for a high-tech company unless it's lead certified so it's been very exciting and and many of those issues are ones that we will talk about here at at the Silicon Valley Energy Summit I'd like to before we get into our speakers I want to give some thanks to the planning committee because there's a they've just done a spectacular job and I'd like each of you to stand up as I just stand up planning committee members and I will be calling your names Jeff Byron, Alan Gartner, Mark Golden, Barbara Haydorn, Mukesh Qatar, Pedro Mocrian, Anarunda Munchi, Ralph Rene, Heather Richmond, Murek Samotij, Susan Sweeney, John Wyant, Chuck Wilhelm this group has been working since fall and I think they really need to be commended for putting together such a fine program I like to also thank Michael Killen who created the paintings you see around here as not many energy conferences have such fine art associated with them last year he he brought one of those very very large painting and it was seen by Nancy McFadden who's essentially the governor's chief of staff and as a result of that a year later it's now been set up where that painting that was here will be displayed outside the governor's office in the Capitol as well as a group of his other paintings that will be on tour throughout the California Capitol so that's just one of the follow-ups that has happened from from last year's event so thanks to Mike for Michael for bringing his paintings I'd like to also thank ahead of time all the speakers and moderators it's an impressive lineup but anybody who's giving a talk here has to have spent some time preparing had to come here have to give in so great thanks to all of you who are who are giving going to be giving talks here today just two issues that I'd like people to start working on on each of your tables there's evaluations it's very important what we get those filled out and there's some parts of it you can start filling out right now like how did you hear about this in the first place email was it a Twitter feed was a KQED announcement what are the things that that you heard about the event it helps us for future years making sure we get the word out and finally for those of you who enjoy tweeting there's a Twitter feed at SVES and so tweet to your delight to your heart's delight and outside there will the Twitter fees will be displayed out in the board outside here with that I'd like to move to a first speaker and call up Jeff Bingaman