Steve Cook, roi'r cyfnodau ar y ddweud a'r cyfnodd ar gyfer. Rydyn ni'n fydd o'r 350 o'r cyfrifiadau ar y club, ac mae'r cyfrifiadau yn ei ddweud o'r cyfrifiadau. Felly ydym wedi ymddynt y pethau, yn 2011, mae'n cyfrifiadau ar y dyfodol, Brytyn i'r Hyfbwyr ar Lyfydd, ac mae'n gweithio'n gweithio'r Llywys Swyris. Rydyn ni'n gweithio'r cyfrifiadau ar y cyfrifiadau. Rydyn ni'n gweithio'r cyfrifiadau ar y dyfodol, Ac wrth gwrs, felly revive was nice to play a game. I didn't find out until I was in a change-room actually when Poyay and a Time were Knucking in the Team but we went a good periodically making my debut to having a few loans than making this against Liverpool and some world Kaz players, then. We lost the game but I really enjoyed the game. a'r cerddwch yn fwy o'r wych, a'r cyfnod i'n gweithio'r gweithwyr yn awyr, a'r byw yw'r byw'r byw'r byw yn gweithwyr, a'r byw'r byw'r byw, a'r byw'r byw yn fwy o'r byw'r byw a'r byw'r byw'r byw'r byw'r byw'r byw'r byw'r byw'r byw'r byw'r byw'r byw. Nid yw'n cael ei ddweud o'r gweithwyr yng Nghymru? ac mae'n dweud o'r llonellau, mae'n ddysgu mewn ffordd. Mae'r yn newydd yn yng Nghymru, 2011, mae'n ddechrau 7-2 ar Grimsbyn, ond Alun Cohnol'n dweud. Ie, rydyn yn gwneud i'r fgwrdd. A'r bobl yn gweithio. Rydyn dweud o'r Rhywbeth o Grimsbyn. Mae'r newydd i'r newydd i mi. Yn ymgyrchafol Llywodraeth ac... A'r gweithio'r 7-2 ar hynny, mae'n ddwy'r gweithio ar hynny. Dwi wedi ei wneud, rydyn ni wedi eu cyntafol yng ngyfaint. Felly â'r cyfrifithlaeth gyda'r cyfan, fe wedi bod hefyd yn gwneudio. Felly, yn ddigonol gyda'r cyfan, ond nad yw, yn y pethau hyd na ddim yn ei wneud i chi'n cwyrus mewn gallu'r cyfrifethau, a'n stryb ychydig y gallwn chyfrifethau. Felly', rydyn ni'n credu'r cwyrsio'n cynnydd yn ychydig ei wneud a'n cyfrifethau neu'n cael cynnydd i'r cyfrifethau. ac dyna i'n gwneud hynny oherwydd ydych chi'n gweld, ond dyna rydw i ni'n bod yn rhaid. Yn y gallu gweithio 350 o bobl mthwyd, mae'r ystod o'r 2111, yn ychydig yn enwau i ni, dyna i chi'n gwneud yma i chi yw'r ystod o'r golffennol ac oedd y gweithio'r gweithio. Ond erbyn weithio'r gweithio. Fe fyddwn i'n gweithio i'n gweithio i'r gweithio. ydw i'w ddweud o'ch cyflawn i'w bwysig, ond rwy'n cyfrifio'r cyfrifio'r fit yn y llwyffyr.  Felly, hoffi, dyna rhesawerd wedi'u fydd i'r ysgwrdd a wnaeth yn ysgrun o'r gael y blaen neu a wnaethu cymdeithas i fynd yn ymddangos. A bod yma, ond rwy'n gyfer'i fuig y bydd yn â'r ffordd yma, a'r mwyaf yn ymwylliant.  Yn ymgyrch gynghor yng Nghymru 2011, Borntwg wedi eu gwirio i Ynwyr 3-1, ac yn ysgrifennu i'w gwirio i'r gwmwysig yma, heddiw prepared Sarah樣 your own spell. And then he went back to Brighton it was a very strange sequence of events because you played for Brighton in a 3-0 home win against Southampton which is that next picture there. Yeah. That was a really strange time because I'd actually, the week before that went back to Brighton to discuss things and Paul I actually thought my loan was up and he told me I was on the bench for Brighton on the Saturday, I was like, well, I can't because I'm still online at Pawmer. I don't think I'll make that one, so I've come back down, played for Bournemouth and then received the phone call saying you're going to be playing against Southampton so you're coming back. But I knew a deal had been agreed with Bournemouth, so my agent at the time was like, you can't play. There's no way you can go back to Brighton and play it because your deal's done. You haven't signed, but everything's agreed. I was like, nah, this is an amazing opportunity for me in the championship. I played right back, really strange atmosphere for me because I hadn't seen anyone for Brighton for a long time and went back, played with 1-3-0, had a really good game. It was quite emotional for me actually. Came in and Poyer sat me down and was like, we don't want you to go. I was like, okay. We know you've sorted your contract out. We can give you the same if you want to stay. But I felt like my loyalty's lied elsewhere after agreeing to sign for Bournemouth and after they give me the actual proper shot that I needed to go and play. So it was a really difficult couple of hours because I had to let them know that I didn't want to stay and I had to move on and go and try and make my career elsewhere because I knew I was quite far, probably down in a peck in order at Brighton at that time I was playing right back or what I played right back and it wasn't really for me. So the best decision I've ever made. There you are holding the shirt, having signed permanently and in your first full season here, 2012-2013 that next picture was taken in September 2012. It was an away game. Have you got any memories of when that might have been? Yeah, that was a really, really bad day. Swindon it was embarrassing. I think we had a team talk at the start saying, Swindon, good team, very good wingers. Matt Ritchie scored an absolute rocket, wingers at a strength when we played a diamond which was interesting for a player that played, I played right back that at the game so it was not a good day. Probably one of the real low points in the clubs after Maxime took over. Everything started looking up and then we got hammered 4-0 and it was kind of like, yeah we're in a real, we're going to struggle this year. I think every player that day was really, really poor for the club. I think you might have handed out a few harsh words for the echo the following day which was really justified because we really let ourselves down and the club down at that point and it was a really difficult time. Eddie Howell returned to the club in the October of that season and we move on to April 2013. You got your first goal in a really important game which sealed promotion against Carl Isle. Yeah, a really, really good day. I'd always thought I could score goals and then obviously when you get play and the games go by and you don't get them and I think I hit the crossbar and that's some good saves made for that season and to get this goal on this day was amazing because we've worked on this corner a lot and Eddie actually called it the Steve Cook corner for a long duration of time. I only scored it once in eight years but I don't think anyone else has scored one so I managed to have a corner named after me and on the day that we got promoted as well was pretty special. It looks like Tommy is defending me there so I'm not sure what way he was going but I remember the celebrations with Harry Arthur and he went on to score as well and yeah, a big moment in the club's rise as well. Did you manage to get through that champagne in the next picture there with Matt Tubbs? I think Tubbs has nicked it off me and I look barely, I think I was 21 then so Tubbs is a poor rank and I think it was nearly as tall as him so I thought I'd let him have it. First season back in the championship club 2013-2014 a proud moment for you in that October in a 5-2 home win against Millwall your first championship goal? Yeah and I can remember that game quite well because I think did we go two and a down or it was two and a half time and came out and scored quite quickly and can't remember the sequence of goals but yeah it was a, again, when you're a centre half and you can chip in with a few goals here and there it's really nice and especially when you go on to win the game it's a special feeling and that first season in the championship we started quite slowly but really grew into it and we only just missed out on the playoffs in the end and the way we finished kind of set us up for the season after I think and I don't know how many goals I scored that year it might have been two or three but to get the first one is always really nice. Obviously like you said the soads were seed at the end of that season for a strong finish and the following season obviously your decision to move here from Brighton was fully vindicated April 2015 the home win against Bolton, the celebrations and the parade, your memories of that day and that week if you like? Yeah, really surreal, extremely surreal it was when that final, well when Puey scored it was a goose bump moment when the final whistle went and the crowd came on I can't really describe the emotions, it was amazing but we kind of felt that I think in this moment it happened with the fans coming on you couldn't really do it because you had to kind of like get off the pitch and then enjoy the time after the week went extremely fast and then the Cholten game I always remember obviously the fans cheering it was like okay well Shuffle Wednesday scored and it was more you kind of felt like tears were coming on rather than the emotions of joy of the Bolton game so two contrasting sets of emotions in a week that everything seems to just go right and it was one of the best weeks of my life obviously it changed everything for this club and this set of players and a lot of the players here have never looked back Talk about the highs and lows of the Premier League encapsulated in the next two pictures first of all September 2015 a 3-1, a chasening 3-1 defeat away at Norwich City you got your first Premier League goal but you didn't really have a great deal to celebrate at the end of that game that was when maybe the alarm bells were sort of sounding thinking maybe we could be one season one to see it Yeah it was a really really poor performance and like I say I scored but it kind of meant nothing which was a shame because scoring a Premier League is a massive milestone and I was really poor this day the whole team were poor especially in a kit like that you kind of exposed even more Norwich was always a difficult place to go and I think we turned the ball over every other ball and we were really really poor and like you say it was like maybe we were not good enough even individually maybe we were not good enough to play in this league and it was an eye-opener from a team that you play against the Norwichers and you've come up you need to be close you have to maybe nick a draw or grind out our way win but when you lose convincingly like that it's like ok this could be a long season but you put it quickly behind you and moving on to April 2016 a 2-1 winner Aston Villa were you scored, secured Premier League status in the first season which a lot of people didn't think that the club was going to do Yeah so if you look at that last picture and this one the amount that changed in the team was huge sometimes you look for turning points in the season and any win in the Premier League is extremely hard to get and we won three on a row three on a bounce twice that season it was a lot of points this game at Villa it was a really hostile atmosphere because the Aston Villa fans were really really against the team at the time I think when the team got announced the Villa team I always remember it they booed every name apart from one who was a youth product and we kind of thought ok we're alright today we're going to beat this lot because the crowd are already against them and I enjoyed my goal that day as well nice little flick a well-worked corner which I don't think anyone's scored from since Eva so maybe I'm a one hit one doing these corners we might need to start making up some new ones and it turned out to be a really successful season for the club and individually I got some good amount of goals and played a lot of football as well which was really enjoyable Talking of change, the head of the following season a massive change in your appearance Yeah, thinking I think it was the beginning of the end of my hair probably the amount of dye that went into it kind of frazzled it away and it started disappearing so the one thing I will say is I kind of had to do something before it disappeared obviously it's come back now but at that period of time it was like ok I need to change something up to kind of enjoy my hair a little bit before it I followed a family trait and it disappeared so I got a bit of stick but a few actually still talk about it now and say I should do it now so it obviously lasted it impressed a few people A few hair-raising moments in that Liverpool game 4-3 you scored the club's highest finish in the Premier League 9th what a fantastic day that was what a fantastic season Yeah, this day was my favourite even to this day to be 2-0 down and 3-1 down and come back and win 4-3 in the style and the manner we did was nothing short of amazing really because there were some great goals in there it was a game that really sparked the players' careers the celebrations after the team that we had was was really strong then obviously with Jack Wilshere there as well a hugely high profile obviously signing for the club then and we was in a really really good place and to this day the Liverpool match will never be forgotten because it was the first time we beat them such an amazing club with the historic future that they've had it was yeah, most of the smile I was just thinking about And the following season your penchant for important goals this one, I think this picture just absolutely sums things up really Yeah, it was I had a lot to prove this day it was the first time in my boom of career where I'd been dropped I'd obviously come out of the team for injuries and whatnot but I was dropped a few games before I was having a tough time on the pitch I just had the second child so the sleep and whatnot wasn't great and I was performing fantastically well and I came out of the team I came back into the team this game one nil away at Newcastle last-minute header was a perfect response and to send out a message to the staff then it was like okay I'm here to stay now again, it was a tough time being dropped for the first time in probably seven or eight years maybe seven years was hard to take and probably very fortunate as well a long time without experiencing that but it's never nice to score at such a great stadium as well and look up in Cedir into the distance our fans and their sedapotions was amazing From an incredible high at St James's Park to last season the incredible low at that carrow road where you said already it's somewhere that you haven't got great memories of and you certainly won't have great memories of your first sending off and you are waiting for the vile decision Yeah, I was praying I was praying for an offside or something in there a really really obviously a poor, awful decision to this day I can't really explain to you what went through my head it was maybe more of a I can't really describe it to you it was a horrific afternoon for myself really not the stuffing out of me and I'd never been sent off I'd made mistakes playing but nothing like I'd done then received a lot of bad messages that people bring me that I hadn't spoke to for a long time social media blows up because I love something like this it was tough actually it was hard to come back from especially in the season where we were struggling this was a period where we targeted a lot of points teams around us and didn't manage to get them and obviously we went on to lose this game even after having good chances in this game even at being 10 with 10 men we didn't get something and the changing room was really low after and it was down to me so something that you kind of are going to get in your career these really low points but this was very unique it was a really bad decision and then on the final day of last season here you are walking off at Goodison Park it was a great 3-1 victory but unfortunately it didn't count for anything in the end your 168th Premier League appearance to date which is the most the club's got just give us your sort of memories of that day yeah really bizarre day we went into this game confident that we would get the win but I think the damage was done the week before we had an opportunity to to have it in our control and we went from having a real high from such scoring to it being disallowed to then in this game knowing that we had to win to control the not even to control the outcome sorry to just give us a glimmer of hope but when we received the news that obviously Villa had gone one no up it was he kind of just wanted to sink into the ground and kind of have it end then because the last 10-15 minutes of that game was really really hard to think then it was possibly your last Premier League game the journey that the club had been on the season being drawn out for such a long time yeah it was an awful moment in my career but something now that I look back on and think maybe you can turn into a positive and I'd said obviously just now that you're going to get low points in your career individually which you have anyway losing games and poor performances but a relegation sticks with you performances you can kind of dust under the carpet and go again relegations the last one at the highest level never nice but you have to try and put a positive spin on it you don't want this to happen again or how do you respond to it I listen to a lot of podcasts now and the high performance ones and what not and everyone you speak to is do they fear failure or are you not used to and I do think you have to fail now to realise what you had and if you can go again so I'm really positive that we can respond to this picture it's an awful picture I don't like looking at it but hopefully in eight months time six months time whenever it is I can have another interview and say to you this defined the club and myself the final picture there is from the Nottingham Forest Game where has to be said you're a very rare breed to make 350 appearances for the same club in this day and age Steve your hopes obviously for this season you said that you hope you haven't made your last Premier League appearance what are you hoping for short term and long term this season yeah short term obviously to try and stay on this team I know it's difficult injury wise with the players we've got the competition we've got in amongst the ranks it's going to be tough so my short term goal obviously and the team and contribute long term is to get the club back into the or help get the club back into the Premier League get the first time I've asked and we've given ourselves a good start a good opportunity we're playing some lovely stuff at the moment but we know it's only early days like I say if the club this group of players can manage to bring the club back up to the Premier League I can hopefully be amongst them add to the 168 that I've made in the Premier League it would be an incredible achievement and something that I feel that the players that we have got now deserve because I think few in our ranks were let down and now we've got a chance to put that right congratulations on a memorable milestone Steve hopefully there will be many more to come in your time with AFC Bournemouth


The secret the narcissist doesn't want you to know everything the narcissist does is a lie They are pathological liars They twist the truth They deceive people So that they can get the result that they want They're in survival mode Because they see the world as a dangerous place They believe that we live in a dog eat dog world Where people will do anything to be successful Even if what they do harms other people they believe that people will step on you to get ahead So they want to do it first before someone gets them Because they fear failure and rejection So they would rather be at the cause rather than the effect At least then they're in control of it They would rather cause your failure or reject you Rather than being the ones who have failed or being rejected Because then they would feel like they have lost Narcissists have a black and white mentality Where they see people as either being winners or losers But they're not really trying to win They don't really believe that they can win They're just doing everything they can to avoid looking like they're losing Which is why they lie They deceive They manipulate Because they don't want to look like bad people They don't want to look like losers They're very concerned with how other people see them Because that reflects on how they see themselves And they want to see themselves as good people They want to see themselves as people who are not losing Even if the opposite is true They don't care about what is right or true A narcissist's faulty belief system overrides the truth And they use people that are susceptible to their manipulation to support their false beliefs They're constantly running from reality Because the truth is too painful for them to deal with They're very weak fragile people Who have very low self-worth and self-esteem Which is why they create this false image To make other people think they're something better or greater And this is a secret that the narcissist doesn't want you to know They don't want you to know that they're very insecure And that they feel inferior to most people They want you to think they're better than everyone else They want you to think that they're more intelligent than everyone else Which is why they're so envious and jealous Which is why they always put people down They act arrogant and entitled As though they are deserving of privileges and special treatment Because deep down they feel inferior to everyone They feel like they don't deserve anything Everything is black or white to a narcissist They either deserve nothing or they deserve it all You either give everything to them Or you never give anything to them You're either with them or you're against them and they may act like they don't really need you But they're actually terrified of rejection They're terrified of being abandoned Because they know that they need you more than you need them They know that you would be fine without them But they would not be fine They wouldn't know what to do with their lives Which is why if you do try to leave They won't let you go They will hold on for dear life Or they will just find someone else to replace you Or they will try to gain control of the situation By rejecting you Because they're terrified of being rejected They're terrified of being abandoned They may have targeted your self-esteem And tried to make you feel small But their secret is that they feel lower than you could ever feel Which is why they do what they do Because they're so afraid They're more afraid of you Than you are of them They attack you out of fear Because they're afraid of being abandoned They're afraid of being exposed They're always scanning the environment for threats They always think that something unpleasant or harmful is going to happen to them The secret the narcissist doesn't want you to know is that they're very insecure They're very afraid and They feel inferior to most people Which is why they do what they do Because in their minds They're just trying to protect or defend themselves Because they always see themselves as the victims Regardless of what they've done to you They don't think that they could ever be at fault Because they've created this image which in their minds is perfect But deep down they're feeling inferior to most people They feel like they're not good enough They feel like they're not deserving of anything They feel like they can't do anything right and yet they're walking the earth As though they're the masters of everything Which is why they cause so much chaos and destruction Because it really is a recipe for disaster Thank you for watching. I hope this video resonate with you Please like comment share and subscribe If you would like to donate My PayPal link is in the video description Coaching inquiries you can email me at coaching at naksafiver.uk Thank you for watching and I'll talk to you soon


Thank you, Mike. Welcome everybody to a joint committee hearing with General Housing Military Affairs from the House of Representatives at the Vermont State House and the Senate Government Operations Committee. We are here today together as a group to hear from the National Guard and from some advocates on the issue of what is the role of the National Guard, the Vermont National Guard, and the interplay with federal federalization when it comes to incidents on domestic soil. And this came up as a conversation piece and a desire to hear from the Guard as in response to some of the incidents that have been happening in the Northwest in Portland, Oregon to be precise, where we have seen public dissent being handled in a way that perhaps is not what we would like to see and certainly don't want to see from our Guard folks. So I wanted to start off today by welcoming Senator White and her committee to this hearing, Senator. Thank you and thank you for having us. I think this is a much better use of time and resources to have us all meet together rather than to have us ask the Guard and the witnesses to come and testify before both of us and say the same thing. So thank you very much for setting this up. And with that, I'm going to let you take it away and do because I'm used to moderating or facilitating a much smaller group of people. We only have five people and so I'm not used to doing all these people. And just so that people know I have to leave at four o'clock. I don't want anybody to be offended if I leave, but I'm meeting with a very unhappy constituent and the Agency of Transportation who's coming down today to meet with him. So I will be leaving at four. Thank you. Great. Thank you. And so general night, I see that you have a crew of people with you. I think the way that I would like to see today's meeting go as general, if you could do with you today, I see in a separate box we have Colonel Roberts. But if you could introduce the folks that are with us today and then what I would like to be able to do is let you make your main statements and conversation. We may have questions and committees and just maybe not have it so that it's so that we interrupt the general throughout the time that we're here. But just maybe let's but before we get to the next witnesses, maybe we can have a Q&A after that. And then we'll move to Mr. Stanek and then Mr. Ziplinski and we will wrap up. We have the Zoom until 4.30. So with that, general night and company, welcome. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate the opportunity. Welcome, Senators, Representatives. Mr. Stanek, Mr. Ziplinski. So with me today, I've got Mr. Ken Graves, our Deputy Agent General, Colonel Justin Davis, who's our State Operations Officer, Major Kurt Kaplan, who's our Judge Advocate General, Director of my Joint Staff, Brig. General Dave Manfredi, Colonel Randy Gates, who's our Director of Military Support, and Larry Dome, he's probably off the camera. Lieutenant Colonel Dome is the Executive Officer. So I've asked these folks to be here because I know a little about a lot. There may be some questions that come that I don't have an answer that would be perhaps a great enough specificity. So I've asked for some subject matter expertise to be here. Central to that is Colonel Gates, especially when I look at how the guards being used with COVID response, he is integrated with the Department of Emergency Management and the State EOC, and speaks with Director Gorderman probably on a daily basis of coordinating response there. So any questions before I jump into how we're used? So it's probably important to know how we're built. So as a guard to 54 states and territories, all of us work for our respective governors. And normally, if we were to be called initially of interstate active duty, and we do it for weekends, we do our annual training, and that's under Title 32. If centralized, if mobilized, for instance, to deploy in support of combat commanders, we would go under Title 10 of U.S. code. So it's important to remember we have supportive dual mission. First and foremost is response to the governor and to the citizens of Vermont. And then when mobilized by the National Command Authority, we prepare for our federal missions. And that's where the vast majority of our funding originates. So as an example, our guard, even as a small state, just for our pain allowances, we bring in about a pretty close to $130 million of federal payroll every year in the form of drill annual training. And of course, we've got a pretty robust full-time population with federal technicians, active guard reserve, and civilian technicians, Title 5. Those are civilian technicians that we work for the guard. They're not a uniform. So as far as how we are mobilized, that falls under Title 20 of Vermont statutes annotated in Section 601, 606, and 641. And I will get into the specifics of it. You can certainly look that up. But it's, we work for the governor, first and foremost. Even if we were to be called up by the governor, we will always be in a support role. That's what the National Guard does. We are not the on-scene commander. If it's a fire chief, if it's a police chief, you know, if I look at our civil support team, as a for instance, if they respond to unexploded ordnance, a bomb threat, or as they did a couple of years ago for the person that was manufacturing ricin, you know, a biological agent, they are still under the supervision and authority of the civil officer in charge, whoever is in charge of the on-scene activity. And that doesn't change. So if we were to look at for us, our role when it comes to civil disturbances, I think that's probably where a lot of the discussion is going to go. I see it as very straightforward. Our role, our supporting role of civil authority is to preserve life, protect property, and maintain public safety. That's it. It's pretty straightforward. That's our job. It is always in the background. It is always in support. Can you follow us to that, Mr. Chair? Well, I think if you want to move it, you know, move the conversation to one of your folks who can talk in more detail just about, I mean, let's create this scenario of what we're talking about here. You know, we're talking about a situation where we saw armed individuals with the uniform on, really take to the streets to quench a protest. And I think the question here, I don't know if it's a concern, but I mean, of course it's a concern. That's why we're here. But the question is, under what circumstances would the guard be called up for something like this? And we can then talk about whether it's likely or whether it's possible or how it would work through the system that talks about what happens here. I mean, we can go way back in time and we know the incident at Kent State stands out as a poor example of guard response to a protest. That clearly hasn't happened like that for a long time, not with the guard. But can you just discuss like, so here's the situation where the Department of Homeland Security has a crew of people. Are you in the same circumstance? Can the President federalize us, federalize the guard in a way that would have that happen? So, I'll answer part of it and then I'll probably defer to Colonel Gates. There's a very rigorous process that goes into requesting guard support through the State EOC and then Major Kaplan. We'll talk a little bit about actually federalizing the troops and that changes the dynamic altogether. For us again, it would work through the process. The governor would authorize true Department of Public Safety, for instance, if there were not a protest but a riot. We would do the support would come. We would have a quick response force that's available within four hours. How many? Without 125 soldiers and airmen available within four hours. So, that would be in case of riot. I do this, give you a nice perspective. We are the resource of last resort. So, we're called, it is not protest. It is to me, it's something vastly different. Even then, it is all very situational. And we are again taking our direction from an on-scene civil authority. And that would be in our case in Vermont, that will be under State Act of Duty. And that's funded by the State of Vermont under the authority of the governor or the on-scene commander requesting the assistance. So, Colonel, you might talk a little about the Federal 10 where we can be federalized and what that does for the gene commander. Certainly, sir. And all members of the National Guard are duly sworn as officers or enlisted in the state military force. Also, they are reserves of the Army or Air Force. And so, their status as reserves of the Army or Air Force, they can be federalized by the federal government because they are an operational reserve for the federal government. If they, if the federal government does do so, pursuant to various federal authorities for mobilization, for contingency operations, for insurrection, if they do, if the federal government does do that, then they go into what General Knight had already referred to as the title 10 status. At that point in time, they are not functioning within the chain of command of the Vermont National Guard. They are actually activated reserves of the federal military. And then they will be answering through their federal chain of command. At that point, Ray, you'll talk a little bit about the process or your question of support. Yes, sir. So, good afternoon, Mr. Chair. This is Colonel Randy Gates. I'm the Director of Military Support. But what that really means is I'm chief liaison to the Department of Public Safety for the Adjutant General. And I work closely with the Vermont Intelligence Center as well as a leadership within the Vermont State Police. So we would get, we would all concur that something is arising in Vermont that would require the Vermont National Guard to start planning for the eventual call-up of our soldiers and airmen. It's important to remember that our security capability lies both in the Air National Guard and in the Army National Guard. And we have plans that are in place that we've developed over time that we would decide we would advise the governor as to whether or not we would have to bring people on to augment state police or local law enforcement. One of the things I think that's important also remember is we would, people would know that we are the National Guard. I mean, our neighbors know that we're in the National Guard and they would see the National Guard. A lot of it's being confused in a lot of people's minds when they see all these uniformed people. Portland, for example, it wasn't the National Guard that was federal troops. But because there's such a wide array of, you know, uniform looking things that we have in different patches and things like that, we, if we were out there in the community, people would know that it's the Vermont National Guard protecting them. I think that that was important to point out as well. When you say, when you say, actually I have a question from Representative Triano and then Senator Polina. Thank you. So that was one of my questions, Colonel. It seems to be that a lot of the confusion, consternation surrounding the issues in Portland or the situation in Portland was that those troops were not, that individuals and organizations were not able to identify those troops and who they were and exactly what their mission was. So you did just clarify that for us. And I think that that's an important piece that Vermonters would know and recognize that the individuals or the troops that were deployed would be our National Guard. One of my other questions was, would it not be the governor that would be able to enact the National Guard if there was a situation in the state that warranted some sort of police action or intervention in that respect prior to any federal deployment? Yes, the governor would have to make that decision as to whether or not he would bring us on. I mean that's every dollar that goes to pay a soldier comes out of the state treasury and you'd have to make that decision as to bringing up perhaps as a preemptive action in station. Some of our troops are airmen at their at their at their armories. That decision would have to be made and I'm sure he'd be taken advice of you know all of his agency heads like Department of Public Safety and of course the Adjutant General. But that would that's clearly a decision that the governor would make, yes. So my last question would be is the is the Vermont National Guard doing riot training? I was deployed as a regular army troop to the resurrection city riots in the spring of 1968 and we had been training actually for riot control prior to that and you know when we rode into the Washington D.C. on armored personnel carriers with live ammo you know we kind of knew what well we we did know what we were doing and what we would be facing but so does the Vermont National Guard do any riot training? Yes we do and we actually just redid our civil disturbance training manual here in the Vermont Guard back in July. We have both trade expertise within our ranks and then we have expertise that comes into the ranks from outside jobs. We have a large number of law enforcement expertise that that are soldiers on the weekend but county sheriffs and deputies and town police and things like that. Most of our capability is on the air guard side. We have a large security force that guards the base anyway over there in South Burlington and they within our hierarchy we've tasked them with being the lead for civil disturbance hence they would have more training and then our other large commands sort of would augment that but also do some training. We're going to ask for a minimum of four hours a year of training that's mostly how to move formations and recently we actually had six soldiers from one of our major commands take part in civil disturbance training at the Vermont Police Academy it's about a month and a half ago. Okay so yes short answer yes we do do training and lastly it's impressive to see a table full of brass such as this sitting around in our committee thank you very much all of you. Thank you sir. So Mr. Chair just got a quick point of a clarification when it comes to our role and responsibilities and actually our authorities now that's major capital and to speak a little bit about what it is we can do when it comes to responding to civil disturbance. We can talk about a little bit about that. Certainly sir. So there is authorities to be called out in cases of riot however the Vermont National Guard has no law enforcement authority they don't have any arrest powers anything like that that's a power that would be granted by the legislature and in various states some states that power exists Vermont that power does not exist so Vermont National Guard does not have the powers of police as General Knight already said they would be in an assist role to call riot it called out by the governor however they would not be a policing agency they wouldn't be charging anyone they wouldn't be detaining anyone unless they were specifically directed or requested in assistance of a civil or okay thank you represent senator Polina. Thank you thank you and thank you folks for being here my question actually is partially answered a couple minutes ago I think Mike is my what I wanted to do is be clear that it's the governor who is our essentially our commander in chief of the National Guard we talk about we hear about federalization of the guard and I want to be clear it's sort of a question I guess I think I know the answer now that while we might hear about federalization of the guard the guard can't be called out unless the governor approves the calls the guard out so it's up to the governor to make that decision and I thought I understood that the governor's decision would have to be made with the consent of the senate so it's going to make sure we're on the same page if that's your understanding as well that it is up to the governor not the president for example the federal lot to call out the troops and that the governor would need the consent of the senate to do so this is this is major capital and because they're the National Guard the federally funded National Guard is a reserve of the army and air force they can be federalized for by the federal government they can be called out and depending on the authority there's various federal authorities for doing that some of them require the consent of the governor some of them do not and that's that's established in the federal statutes in title 10 as well as prior decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court thanks so can you list that off I mean I you know the question about you know the use of if if if the president you know tries to use the insurrection act which was talked about this past summer how does that work with how does that work with interplay between the governor's the president saying I feel that there is something at risk I feel that the government is at risk that there's some form of that there's a risk that's greater than than normal and I'm kind of soft playing what the insurrection act would be used for but but what are some if it's not that then what are some of the other things that that that overrule the governor the governor's power to call up what would the what would the president or the federal government have the right to federalize you on domestic soil for on domestic soil it would primarily be insurrection act on foreign unless there was a full scale invasion then a full mobilization of the national guard by a by act of congress and then there's there's partial mobilizations under emergency declarations for example our current operations as you're probably aware there's not a act of congress or a declaration of war but we've been operating under the emergency declaration that was made by president bush in 2001 and continuing on and accepted by by this successor president obama and then president trump have still been using that same emergency declaration for the continued international operations and that's a method that they can use for mobilization there's limits to that on the number of overall soldiers there's a limit to the number that they the length of time they can mobilize those soldiers but they can mobilize it without without consent of the governor and with the people who mobilize you're talking about 125 people um are sort of on call for something like this for monsters they folks and we know that the guard has people who are we missed the beginning of that Mr. Chair um I'm sorry I've got everybody seems to be having a little bit of a connection problem the questions I had is it seems that you have a force I'm going to turn my camera off here it seems that you have a force of 125 people who may be ready at any time to respond to something within the state of call up by the governor did I hear that correctly let's go again so we have these these entities called national guard reaction forces and those can number up to 250 and then within those organizations we've allowed the commanders to identify separate quick reaction forces I actually gave the adjunct general a bad number a minute ago that's about a 50 person um um element if you will so within those response forces there is a force that would arrive sooner uh within four hours and be ready to be mobilized to wherever they're asked to go by the governor um but they they are they are identified uh within our commands as being the ones that that before anybody else they would have the expectation of arriving first and being prepared uh to to move to wherever the governor feels is necessary and is there ever a circumstance where if a guard member is um say on the streets of of any of our towns um in as this as this kind of force where they are unidentified individually like we saw in portland with the dhs no they would be identified for the uniform and are you informed either on the air side or the army side says air force or army and it has their last name and you would have to state it um perhaps uh unit patches uh when you're in the guard you kind of know what patches belong to which command um but they would be identified there would not be um there would not be any attempt to hide their their name there wouldn't be any attempt to hide hide them behind uh dark advisors and helmets and things like that people people would recognize them we're of the community and they would see that okay more questions for the guard at this time i mean i think we're just getting a real overview here of of of how they view this i i hesitate no i'm not going to hesitate to ask um do you have someone there who can really give us a quick thumbnail sketch of the insurrection act and what it means so i mean if if i didn't know better i'd say oh is this poem posseful metatus is this i mean the insurrection act i believe is from the early 19th century um do you have a historian who can who can tell us exactly what the insurrection act is and and and how it gets called up well mr. chair well this is general night while i am the historian i am not an attorney so i will turn that over to major cabaret certainly that's a insurrection act it dates you know it dates way back uh we can talk whiskey rebellion we can talk whatever you want but the in its basic legal structure it's a determination by the chief executive of the united states that that an insurrection has occurred and that would be some sort of larger action against the government it's not defined in the statute it's been defined various ways by the the courts over the years as to what an insurrection is but the deference of that's primarily given to the the president as the chief executive as far as when an insurrection occurred it also is for enforcing the the orders of the of the united states so the pro historically the last time the insurrection act was used was the 1960s during the civil rights movement and when i say during civil rights movement it was on behalf of executing the orders of the u.s supreme court so primarily dealing with integration in the public schools uh integration at the colleges so they were there assisting in ensuring that the racial integration of both secondary schools and public institutions was conducted peacefully so that that was the last time with the 1960s the insurrection act was utilized any further questions for the guard right now senator clarkson thank you thank you all for being here i guess um channel night one of you well one of you use the word riot which i find you know is is that defined somewhere they've said that 125 were available in four hours in case of a riot um and obviously at the direction of the governor is is is riot defined and if not is it a subjective term i mean how how's it defined and and what are what what what would trigger i guess those are my questions yes ma'am so a riot would be an example but that qrf exists to support in any civic emergency whether it's a flood a fire um you know whatever the governor or on-scene commander requests we would do a quick mission analysis and assign that mission to that quick reaction force but as to the determination of when a riot is is a riot that's not something we do that's something that the on-scene commander a law enforcement official would make that determination you know that's your definition there's not there's not a statutory definition entitled right but the determination would be made by the by the one calling them out and that would be the executive the governor so there's no statutory definition of a riot nothing i won't grow up in title 20 anyway there may be in in say title 13 for purposes of a criminal yeah okay thank you representative kalaki thank you jar i just want to make sure i understood or that if you're called to help with these things the guard cannot arrest people or take people and put them in vans and bring them to jail is that correct or if the police department asks you to do that can you then do that i think we can transport them so once they're placed we have to do a little digging on that sir we do not make the arrest we may be asked in support to conduct a transport of somebody we're not the person affecting an arrest so does that just so i understand so that means you couldn't pick people up off the streets and move them into a van but you could drive them yes sir okay thank you okay further questions all right i want to take the opportunity to turn to ed stanek and if you could just introduce yourself and tell us you know how you're how you're interested in this in this issue and you provided testimony with us that is posted the link is posted in our chat box it is also on our website for today's hearing so if you can unmute yourself it's easier on your end than it is on mine um uh welcome to welcome to general housing military affairs and senate government ops thank you chairman stevens i hope am i muted still no we can hear you okay thank you my name is ed stanek i'm a resident of barry city um over many years i had caused to perform legal research on both the constitutional bases and federal and state legislation relative to the role of the national guard i thank the committees for this opportunity to provide you with my perspective on these issues um the reason i have concerns are the comments made by president donal j trump on the public record over the last several months uh intimating uh that there were certain circumstances under which uh he would intend to federalize and to use the national guard uh as he has indicated i wanted to indicate early on that i am not anti national guard and i am certainly not anti law enforcement uh in another capacity i served as the past president of the remand state employees association and our members included many members of the national guard full-time employees as well as law enforcement officers so i have no bias here against the guard and the law enforcement officers i respect the work they do for the community and i also want to note that my brother's a retired law enforcement officer in an urban area who spent a lot of time at ground zero after 9 11 uh as the chair indicated i prefiled seven pages of testimony and i'm certainly not going to read all my testimony to you i just wanted to uh comment on some highlights of my testimony uh my purpose of the purpose of my testimony is threefold number one to assist the committees with a perspective on the erosion of state authority over the remand national guard by the remand by the federal government perhaps in disregard of constitutional restrictions number two to articulate concerns for the potential use of the matt remand national guards to suppress rights of assembly and free speech which are protected under the remand constitution chapter one and number three to urge the committees to deliberate on actions that the general assembly may take in collaboration with the governor to forestall suppression of the fundamental democratic right of dissent through the possible illicit use of the remand national guard by the executive branch of the federal government during the period specifically between november 4th 2020 and january 20th 2021 and as i said i'm not going to read my pre-file testimony but some highlights on pages one and two of the of the pre-file i provide the readers digest historical overview of how laws have evolved in this country regarding the use of the national guard which we in other contexts recognize as the militia and if you get an opportunity to read my testimony which i hope you do you will see how there was this erosion that took place as to who controls the militia there are some references which i exerted in my testimony to the specific provisions of both the federal and the state constitution and i encourage you to read those provisions side by side to see exactly so to speak who's on first and who's on second in terms of what they can do this takes back to the original documents in the constitutions but after the constitutions are ratified congress was empowered to enact laws as to how the militia would actually be implemented and again to make a long story short you will read um that month not much happened uh on the congressional front during the 1800s but beginning in the 1900s and running from around 1902 through 1986 you can see in the references to the enactments how the powers of the governors were curtailed and cut back uh I respectfully disagree with the perspective offered by the members of the national guard as to exactly what powers remain for the governor of vermont it's really not that simple i mentioned in my testimony that i did not include references to case law there isn't that much case law surprisingly in either federal district courts the circuit courts or the supreme court but on page two of my submittal i mentioned a us supreme court decision us v miller decided in the 1930s and it's interesting in a sense that it refers to the second amendment which most of us think of in terms of gun rights so to speak but the second amendment has a wall in terms of militia and it's a very interesting supreme court decision that talks about the roots of the militia now known as the national guard how it should be firmly anchored in the communities from which those guard members come page three of the testimony are those excerpts from the constitutions pages four and five actually pages four five and six i provide you with excerpts from the actual federal statutes and the state statutes with regard to the guard i provide you with the actual language of the oaths the oaths that are taken by the members of the guard and the oaths that are taken by the officers of the guard and i urge you to read that language carefully the phrase or the term commander in chief is used in many different fashions in both the constitutional and in the statutory provisions and i mentioned that at this juncture because you know it ties in again with that oath that they take to who is the fidelity owed in the final analysis i guess at the bottom line on page five i provide you verbatim with the actual language by which the president united states can call the national guard into federal service excuse me on page six of my testimony i took excerpts from the vermont national guard website wherein they state their mission statement and they provide us with facts about the strength of the national guard the national guard certainly knows it's better than i do but approximately 3700 people belong to the national guard which is a combination of what they call quote-unquote traditional guardsmen and women and then they have 1121 full-time employees you might have noticed the recent media reports a couple of months ago about how the pentagon is calling into active service approximately 1000 members of the vermont national guard at a level which they said has not been seen in the last 10 years and starting in a few weeks running through 2021 approximately 1000 members of the vermont national guard will not be in vermont that begs the question about what happens if the president decides to call out the national guard when the vermont national guard isn't here or their force is depleted uh i will just mention the fact that we all saw uh in the news what happened i believe it was in wisconsin when the president moved to bring a national guard troops from other states he brought in troops from three other states uh to interact with the citizens of wisconsin on page six of my submittal i discuss what i call a dilemma i'll just read you a paragraph or two over the last several months president donald j trump has made numerous public statements suggesting that he may utilize military forces as well as other federal agents within the united states to address what he sees as quote-unquote anarchy treason and insurrection the president has asserted that he believes he has unconstrained powers to do that the apparent criteria based on his own comments to make such action or take such action includes threats to federal property and civil unrest in cities which have democratic mayors that's what the president has said of the criteria i asked that i'd be allowed to stipulate to the committee is that my summary summary of his testimony of his representations are accurate but if necessary i will supplement my testimony with actual documentation of what he said as the basis for calling out national guards in addition to an array of other powers granted to the president some of which i summarize in my submittal there's 136 other quote-unquote emergency action authorizations throughout the united states code that the president can take as he sees fit in addition to that the brennan center for justice has identified approximately 50 presidential emergency action documents which no one has really seen even congress hasn't seen these and again i won't go into great detail but in my testimony i provide you with a link to the brennan center so you can read about these 50 unseen presidential emergency action documents by which he can act vermonters have assembled over the centuries to speak at on the vast range of issues oftentimes they have assembled at federal properties such as the federal buildings that house the judiciary and other agencies across the green mountains it is reasonable to assume that they may do so in coming months should there be disputes associated with the tabulation and the results of the national election for president vermonters are not sheepish about standing up for their rights so one of my conclusions what can be expected should the vermont national guard be activated under such circumstances as president trump has threatened what actions might be taken by the general assembly in collaboration with the governor to forestall a confrontation between vermonters the guard acting at the behest of the president to suppress rights extended to other vermonters under chapter one of the wrong constitution to whom will the officers and the members of the vermont national guard owe their fidelity under their oaths perhaps committee members will be able to discern a tangible basis for an optimistic outcome under the circumstances i outlined above but i am less than optimistic due to usurpation of federal authority over the vermont lisha the vermont national guard it appears based upon the legal authorities i provided your committees with it appears that the last remaining substantive power of a state governor over the militia despite what the guard just told you the last remaining substantive power of a state governor over the militia is the ability to call out the guard during a quote unquote state emergency we now face a situation where an american president in his capacity as commander in chief may be able to turn vermont against vermont should he attempt what was once unthinkable in his quest to retain political power well history then reflect that the vermont national guard quote unquote only followed orders as the torch of democracy was extinguished so that's the highlights of my testimony there are lots of legal authorities referenced in what i filed with the committees including two very well done law reviews which i encourage you or your legal staff to take a look at they really drill down into what happened during the 20th century in terms of peeling back the powers of the governor uh and i encourage you to look at that because that's the lens through which i'm sure the president and his staff are looking at things these days thank you thank you ed um any questions for ed right now representative hango thank you um my question is for mr stanek what um what capacity are you speaking to us in today i see that you're listed on our witness list as a concerned berry citizen do you have a legal background are you representing any particular organizations in your testimony today i'm here today as strictly as a retired guy who lives in berry city uh i'm not an attorney i participated in the supreme court's four-year clerkship program when it contained the time to take the bar we found out we were going to have twins i needed health insurance i got a job with the state i stayed there for 32 years my specific experience in doing research about the background the national guard is twofold number one uh in the 1980s the issue arose about the increased use of the under hill firing range uh and the firing of the use of depleted uranium shells at the under hill firing range and a committee was formed by the towns of jericho and under hill and i volunteered to help them i used to teach legal research and writing um one of my students was the former justice maryland sculligan of the roman supreme court another one of my students was amy davinport the former now retired chief administrative judge of the superior court and another student not not tooting my horn here just explaining my background and another former student of mine was robert appell who became the defender general for the state of vermont i also used my legal research and writing skills um a few years ago when the question arose about the f-35s uh and their mission in vermont and again i did research to assist a legal team in that as it wound its way through the vermont uh court system up through the vermont supreme court so in a long-winded way represent that but i hope i've answered your question yes thank you i appreciate knowing a little bit more about you since i'm unfamiliar with your work um i do have a question though um it it's a parent that you don't feel that the president has the ability to call up the federal reservists who are um on reserve from the army and the air force so if we did have what is being called a riot in vermont um who do you suggest would be best suited to deal with helping our local law enforcement on that in that circumstance oh it's quite the opposite representative i believe the president of the united states has essentially court launch to federalize and to call up the use of each state's national guard in isolation there's really no constraints any longer over the president that's my bottom line certainly the governor has remaining powers but they do fit into a legal fimble the powers of the governor state emergencies when we had the hurricane uh the national guards called out so on and so forth but as far as dealing with what we would call civil unrest uh it really is court launch for the president of the united states so he or she can call out national guards at the drop of a hat thank you i guess i was getting a little bit different tone from your testimony but thank you i appreciate that senator white so given this you you said that you had some recommendations for um legislative action that could be taken that you thought would would curtail some of that um cart launch authority and bring it back under the control of the governor and the civil authority in vermont did you have i had not had a chance yet to read your report did you have recommendations in there for legislative action that could be taken there is no specific recommendation in my submittal because uh i really could not come up with a definitive basis in law but having said that there is that provision where the governor may act regarding a quote unquote state emergency my personal feeling is based upon the statements we're hearing from the president which are only going to increase as the as the coming weeks go on i think there might be grounds somewhere around november 3rd uh for the governor to declare a state emergency in a uh a preventative way if we have the president of the united states saying that the election doesn't count we can anticipate that vermontas will want to exercise under chapter one of our constitution the rights of assembly and free speech and if we have a president who's indicating he's going to suppress that in my opinion that's a state emergency so i think a creative interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions would allow the governor to put the state guard uh in state service and therefore preempt any potential federalization of the vermont national guard by the president of the united states and again i'm focused specifically in that period between november 4th 2020 and january 20th 2021 i think that's a very dangerous time in this country a quick question for clarification back to um back to general night or or um someone else just just to be clear when we're talking about army reservists we're not talking about the guard is that right am i am i getting that right we could we get need to unmute here we go i'm sure there are they reserve of the army and that includes the national guard so we are considered a reserve of the army and the air force as is the u.s army reserve and the air force reserves the difference is our page derives under title 32 and a guard status of reserves aligned under title 10 which is where they're paid to rise from and that's under the act of duty officers so and just to be clear for us all title 10 is fed the federal um when you're when you're federalized yes sir okay and so um representative senator white i just um because of a bill that we're doing tomorrow i just happen to have a copy of the all hazards events under which the governor can declare a state of emergency and two of them are significant event and designated special event i i don't know that that would ever happen but um it does seem that the governor could could do that if he or she so choose well it would be he because the governor scott is our governor right now and would be governor at the time so just wanted to point that out ed before i move over to richard um so let me be clear let me just see if i heard what you were saying um as to your point you were thinking you were hoping that if necessary that that the governor in this specific instance of the time period that you're you're concerned about that the governor would um if there's rumblings that the god that the president may call up the and federalize our national guard that the governor would preempt that would stop that by calling them up in order to protect vermonters um in a traditional way as as the guard has defined in their traditional way which is to protect vermonters as opposed to um waiting to be federalized uh by the by the federal government in order to stop an insurrection as determined as decided by the federal government am i am i ballparking that at all um well that's generally yes i generally agree uh it isn't except for the last part of what you said it would not be at all my intent to have the governor call up the national guard to state service to preempt the use the legitimate use of the national guard by a president because there was indeed um a legitimate insurrection going on um i'm relating to the specific comments which are coming from the president president of the united states he's being very specific in what he is saying and he's ratcheting it up and so my suggestion a few minutes ago was as i understand the case law and i i have to look up the case but i'm pretty sure there is case law that says if if a national guard has already been called out for state service that that same guard cannot be called out for federal service they can't be in two places at once so if the guard is activated by a governor uh that's the priority and until that service is complete the commander in chief on the federal level does not have access to that national guard unit now i believe i'm correct in saying that i don't have the case law in front of me but there were the work cases that went into the federal court system in the 1980s some of you may recall in the 1980s national guard units were being sent by the then president to central america and governor of massachusetts and i believe governor coon in at one point attempted to prevent the use of the national guard for those purposes and in those cases i believe there was dicta that talked about if guard units are activated for state service they cannot likewise be used for federal service so that's a long way to respond sorry to take so long okay um all right with that um i'd like to pass the microphone to richard subplanski and richard if you could just identify yourself and tell us who you're affiliated with and what your interest is in this particular um at hopefully theoretical circumstance um uh that would be what more than welcome thank you for coming thank you uh chairman stevens and for the opportunity to talk to you uh hopefully it won't come to what we're talking about here and let me tell you i am a president of the vermont chapter of veterans for peace which is a national organization we have chapters in most states and some in other countries actually and i talk to the national office regularly and and tell them what we're doing here and basically we're trying to foster peace work for peace rather than go to war um just as a as a statement us has been at war for what most of the time since we were founded as a nation i think except for 20 years and we have some very long wars going on now so um with that as an introduction um i think i'm sorry i didn't um file any testimony i wasn't aware that we had a file testimony but i think you got a copy uh mr chairman of my letter that i sent to my senators and representatives in the legislature expressing the concern about what is happening um around the country and what might happen here it's pretty clear from the conversations i have and recent ones i've had with many of the peace and justice groups where i call the meeting together and we had about 20 people talking about their concerns not only with mostly with the racial considerations in the state and the least protected people here but there is a lot of anxiety and concern and hopefully and there's division i mean and what we have to do is something prior to when it comes before it comes to a riot or an insurrection there are ways to i think avoid this kind of thing and i thank the guard for filling us in on what they are there for but one of the things they didn't mention is that which is what we need to do is protect our free speech and rallies and protests are speech and we have to be sure that that speech is protected and one way to protect that is is to work ahead of time with protesters and i may be on a street protesting or rallying to make my voice heard and i want to make sure that i'm in tune with the law enforcement officers with the national guard that we've done everything to make sure that free speech is protected and that our lives are protected and of course that property is protected and it could mean something that the national guard the police march along with us as we go along to make sure that those kinds of disruptions do not occur one of the things that i think i think i told in my i'd hope you have my letter to my representatives but i met with the new police chief in montpelier brian peat and he took the place of donnie fakus who i knew very well because his he was a classmate of my son in the montpelier high school for all all those years and i wanted to meet brian peat make sure he knew who i was and make sure that we could work together to avoid any kind of situations that might come up when we're protesting or rallying and we had a good conversation and i think we know each other coming from and i'll be in touch with him when we're planning anything and i think that's the kind of thing we we ought to be doing with the national guard with whoever we can to make sure that that free speech is protected and it's not disrupted by other elements and i'm not sure what that can be but i think there maybe is something that the legislature can do in this respect i think that's probably all i need to say and i'm sorry i could follow this up with with certain things in more detail but if there are any questions i'd be glad to answer them thank you richard i i would be happy to send the email that you shared with us and have it posted that expressed your concerns in more detail i would be i'd be happy to do that and that'll be up certainly by tomorrow um and if there is further information you'd like to share then i would be happy to post it under your your comments as well um any questions for for mr ziplinski the the group that you're with richard can you just um i know you from being here in the valley and and and can you just tell me a little bit more about this group um here in central vermont anyway that that that you're affiliated with yes it's a statewide group um we are we're a small group and where most of us are old we're from the vietnam era usually um i served in the u.s navy um in 64 to 69 my brothers were in the national guard my uncle died in world war two so we have a history you know with knowing what the military is all about and the necessary function um but our group is you know mainly um trying to foster peace work for peace and the kinds of things we do we will protest certain things that we think this country shouldn't be doing if you look on our website and we do have a website you can see that we spend a lot of time going around getting petitions to stop the drone bombing and so on effort we feel that's a counterproductive effort and we spend a lot of time on that in our national organization also does um you know there is um a lot of civilian casualty and i think we make more enemies than um we make friends one of the things we were i particularly noticed was that when president trump uh designated the iranian guard as a terrorist organization i knew immediately that something was going to be up and on just before the end of the year or right at the beginning of the year uh general suhannami was assassinated by this country and what that means is if iranians did the same thing to us they wouldn't assassinate the chief of our joint chiefs of staff that's pretty serious business and i think that is not a good thing that this country ought to be doing so that's an example of the kinds of things that we're concerned with um we can talk about um we also one of the main things i'm working on right now is the juncture between the climate crisis and how much money is spent by the u.s military i mean we spend a tremendous amount it's going up to almost a trillion dollars per year it's about a three quarters of a trillion now and there's some that we can account for and uh do we need 800 foreign bases out in the country some of that could be used here to reduce our debt and to use it to help much of that much of the things that are not now taken care of for supporting our citizens here a couple of examples for you german stevens great thank you um any further questions right now i mean i want to um be respectful of all our time of course um so general um general night i wanted to thank you for coming in um and i want to i want to thank you for um opening yourself up to this conversation and for listening um and for sharing where the guard stands i think that it's clear that i mean one one um i think very difficult witness or very difficult situation would have been actually to have the governor here or um but we we there's not a place to put him on the spot in this conversation because it's conjecture and i think um but i do think the interplay between um what what our governor no matter who that is has in this conversation is very very important um because as as i think the guard was saying is that they respond to you know they are the people of the state of vermont and so i'm just curious um you know how that would be how that might work and i don't think this is necessarily for him today but um i do appreciate your your coming in do you have any final comments for us um as we head out today welcome to chair again i think i appreciate the opportunity certainly appreciate the dialogue um and not necessarily on this topic but i wanted to make sure that all the senators and representatives received the legislative summary i sent out a few weeks ago i figured i've been in a job for a year and a half and it seemed to make sense that would keep me you posted on what it is that your guard's been doing and lastly i'd like to thank uh mr. syplinski for his service um very much appreciated during a very challenging time in our nation's history but thanks everybody for the opportunity and uh look forward to uh speaking to you again all right thank you and i'll i'll make the the really the broad comment that i can't i'm very grateful as for montan as an american citizen that we can actually have this conversation in a respectful way and um i think that's a i think that's a right that all of us who are on the zoom page really appreciate and work for every single day so um i want to thank ed and richard for coming in and sharing their thoughts um this is i i've heard from more folks um over the last month or so on this issue on just wondering what the interplay is and so the information that we receive today is very important for for for us to understand and transmit to our um constituents when we can and i would like to you know thank ed and richard for caring enough to to dedicate your time um and your and your um really your lives to the you know making sure that this balance exists and that things remain as transparent as we possibly can have them and like to thank the guard for their service um it's a tough time for all of us and and i just appreciate that um you were able to come forward thank you to senator polina and colomore um and bre who are still here and and uh senator white and clarkton had to step off so thank you very much for joining in on on this conversation and thank you committee um for for uh listening in so with that um i would call this meeting i guess and do we have any further comments and i'm gonna offer one more time before we close up one more anymore room richard yes i i wonder if the national guard would be open to uh conversations with how to head off something like this and how to work together when it should come to that with the peace and justice groups and there are quite a few that are very concerned about how this will go um that would i mean we can arrange you know we can afford the um connection and it'd be up to you guys to set it up and see what happens i think you know their testimony today shows that they're i think they're willing to have a dialogue um knowing that there are other people who are telling the guard where and when to be where they need to be so i think there's a i mean i would hope that there would be a conversation but perhaps we can um you know we can mediate a conversation or at least try to see if that that can happen but i know from the guard members in my community um that they really do take their location seriously and and the fact that they're they're at home and would would um go to all ends to protect their local people yes thank you and and one other comment we could could also do that with our local enforcement officials like i did with brian p to get to know them know where we are know who we are and how we can cooperate and i think we're at the beginning statewide of having that conversation so um thank you all right thank you everybody um have a good oh wait a minute ed you're muted sorry there you go oh you're still muted i just wanted to thank you chairman stevens and chair chairwoman white for this opportunity for us all to have this dialogue i think once again this is a the 1001 example of how things are unique in vermont we can all come together and discuss these things in the civil way on behalf of what martin with the king called the beloved community we're all in this together so thank you very much for this opportunity and again you're welcome and thank you for sharing


Thank you guys have been through a couple of tight games in the last couple of comebacks. Is that becoming a defining characteristic of this team? And what's it been like to not only do it once but do it several times? Yeah, I think it just goes to show the character we have and what we're built on. We're never out of it. That's our mindset. And we just find a way to win because that's what's most important. Yeah, absolutely. The more you do it, the more experience you get at it and you make the culture around here. It's winning and that's what we're building to. Is that impressive? How do you view what he's been able to do this year? It's impressive but I'm not surprised just from how long I've been around him. He's a pros pro. He's been like that since the first day I got here and we expect him to lead us and do a great job which is what he always does. As far as the performance, he gets the sense of everything like that and he used to say that you're just a solid guy. You can just expect the same thing out of Jake Eugen every week. How is it to hear the quarterback talk about you in that type of way? Yeah, I definitely take a lot of pride in that. It's my job to protect him. I guess it can almost get boring. You want to do the same thing every game and that's part of our job and it never gets easier. It's a challenge every week and it's a big challenge this week so we've got to be ready to play. It's going to be a tough environment but we're excited. I'm just curious man because you guys are pretty much able to Paternian, Cam, and Jordan, you and Caleb for the most part it took him about three minutes to go. How is it that just for you personally, you were able to get the guy contained for 57 minutes but in that last little bit he was able to get to Matt Run? Yeah, man, they're good players we're going against every week and he's a good player. The biggest thing is that we found a way to get it done and win and as long as we do that, that's what it's all about. We talk about it in team meetings. It doesn't matter what it looks like did we find a way to get it done, did we win? That's the bottom line so take that every time. In the past couple of years, a lot of people have talked about what the Falcons' identity is and you guys, like Scott asked it earlier about being able to pull games out of the end of the games do you feel confident in saying that that's your guys' identity whenever, no matter what the situation is you're going to find a way to win? That's a great identity to have. I think there's still a lot we can improve on and we know that. We watch the film and we know we've got plenty to work on but yeah, I know it's kind of a boring answer but the point of the game is to win and you find a way to do it no matter what and if it's ugly you take it, if it's a blowout you take that too so obviously we prefer the blowout but man, it's the NFL it's hard to win every week so that's our mindset just find a way. First off, extremely talented they've had a lot of success and they're playing well so it's going to be a challenge for us going there being on the road and we know it's going to be loud and having DQ there obviously know him well and we just got to be ready to play and it's the same story every week but it's a big challenge, they've had success and we got to execute Hey Jake, have you compared this season playing in front of crowds and the crowd noise and everything that has kind of opened back up versus last year? Well yeah, last year was definitely different it was almost kind of surreal playing with that but I think it just comes with the more you play it, the more you get used to it so that's a given and we practice it enough to where we feel comfortable where we can't hear that we can make our calls and do the right assignment and be on the same page but it just comes with reps and getting used to it and yeah I thought we did pretty good job with that in a loud environment last week Is New Orleans like the worst place, noise wise? It's up there, yeah definitely Sure Seattle, man it depends but you'd be surprised any stadium can get loud, next thing you know you don't hear anything because like I said there's a point where you don't hear and it can get louder but it doesn't matter you already can't hear so yeah you just find a way to work through it and we've always had a really good plan with our silent cadences and stuff like that We really never know you think New Orleans is a favorite against you guys I have to replay all the ones from last weekend but it just seems like every given week that's kind of always been the thing I just think that's the NFL man the margin is so close between every team, every team is so talented everyone's got an all-american stud rushing the player from, everyone's good and that's what's so hard about winning in the NFL, you can't get complacent we continue to work towards that and be more consistent in our winning


Okay. Council initiated discussion. We had such an animated talk last time in September that I feel like this hardly needs an introduction. But for the viewers on Genome TV, at this point, we stopped talking and we start listening. We've been listening all along. We're really turning over the microphones to the council members. We're asking you for suggestions of talks you might like to hear at future council meetings or reports that you want to receive. You are not only advisors to NHGRI, but you're representatives of the research community. If you know of issues that you want to bring to our attention or you see something hurtling down the tracks that we need to be aware of, let us know. I'll just follow up on what I think I just said. I think that high throughput functional genomics is something we're going to have to think about. And I think it does actually give NHGRI an opportunity to sort of, I know there's a lot of basic science that goes on in NHGRI, but this is an area that nobody else has sort of grabbed yet, I think, and it is an important one. She has a mutation in an acromegaly gene. Somebody's going to have to figure out whether that's functional or not. And given how many variants there are in XAC or Nomad, it's not going to be one variant at a time. It can't be. So that's a challenge that somebody's going to have to grab hold of. And I will say that the Genomic Medicine Working Group starts to think about that in the last GM9. I lose track of the numbers, but I'm pretty sure it was 9, Terry, right? Yeah. So we thought about that a lot, and it is a challenge. Carol was in charge of that one, so you may want to say more, Carol. Well, this echoes a point that Aviv made to some of us over lunch, which was, I'm going to make that connection for you on Aviv's behalf. That we need now that we have ever more sophisticated ways of doing functional genomics through complex multi-factorial perturbations. This goes by the guys of functional genomics. It goes by the guys of directed genetics. It's long been a compliment to population genetics for inferring gene disease relationships and gene modifiers and all of that kind of thing we're talking about, which I think Dan is limiting. Population genetics is not likely to sort of solve a lot of these diseases, even if you were to sequence until you were blue. And so the discussion is, what else do we need to complement with that population-based strategy? And a lot of us feel, and I think we're seeing that in the literature, especially as of late, that directed genetics are a powerful compliment. And in fact, in the speaker's talk, I thought she had a very nice slide at one point. Of course, she's gone, and the slide is gone. But I thought she had a very nice slide at one point where she had on one half the slide population genetics, and she had sort of NHGRI writ large on that side of the slide. On the other side, she had functional genomics and, you know, CRISPR screens and that kind of thing. And I don't think she had writ NHGRI large on that side of the slide, and the question might be, why not? Well said. Thank you. I think the National Academy statement on gene editing and ethical issues, ethical social and policy issues, I don't know the exact title, but I believe that's coming out on February 14th. So assuming that's interesting, which I anticipate it will be, might be worthwhile to have a presentation from one of those committee members to hear about their statement. So that's due in April or May? February 14th later this week. Well, I think getting into the issue of functional genomics, but from a different perspective, it would be nice to hear about some of the other biomarker screens that you could directly correlate with genomic data. So, for example, the use of metabolomics. And I think this group has probably talked about proteomics before, but the nice thing about metabolomics is you're actually looking at the enzymes on the substrate. So you have some idea of enzyme, you can infer enzyme activity from that data and then compare it to sequence data. So I think some of those where there is a biological or a biochemical readout of the patient that you could directly, or the person you could directly compare to their genomic data would be a good fit for how could you extend the analysis of genomic data. Other thoughts or comments? All right. Thank you very much.  You can access these in the ECB, the Electronic Council Book, or go to the Council webpage. They're linked there. So these are reports from the American Society of Human Genetics, National Society of Genetic Counselors, and the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. These are their reports of activities and events over the preceding four or five months, what has occurred since September Council. If you're interested in the activity of those societies, I recommend those reports to you. Okay. It's the February Council meeting, and it's time to review the Statement of Understanding. So for the new Council members, the reason we do this at February is we have a new set of Council members, and we go over the Statement of Understanding, ask for any comments that you may have about it. What is the Statement of Understanding? It's a four-page document. I recommend it to all of you. It's relatively brief, pretty easy to understand. And it basically describes the business rules or how NHGRI will interact and work with Councils. It describes what your responsibilities are. It talks about the options that you have. And it lays out the staff authorities. What are the things that we must report to you and must discuss with you? What are the things that we have the authority to do without Council agreement or consulting of Council? So I'm going to very briefly dash through this. The document is in the Electronic Council Book. And if anybody has any questions or comments, I will attempt to answer them throwing a lifeline to our GAB branch, the Grants Administration branch. So let's see. There are certain types of applications that we are required to report to the Council. And let me be clear right away when I say report, it takes the form of listing them in the closed session agenda. To get to the closed session, you'll see the majority of the applications that are listed there will be discussed. But to report them to you means to list them in there. And there will be certain types such as those applications that have a human subjects concern that we will not be discussing with the Council. They are nonetheless reported to the Council. So program project grants, cooperative agreements, training grants, the Statement of Understanding lists the types of applications that are required to report to you. There are a few hundred other applications that have been received and reviewed. They're not the type that we're required to report. You can access them once you've been fully vetted and approved as a standing Council member, again through the ECB. What are the actions that the Council can take at a Council meeting when we get to the review of applications? Concur with the IRG, the initial review group, or not concur with it. You can defer the application for re-review because you've discovered some fundamental flaw or bias in the initial review of the application. You can recommend an application for high program priority, which means pay it out of order because the research is of such high priority to NHGRI, or low program priority. This has got a very good score, but for instance you already fund enough activity in this area and we concur that this application should be skipped. Or you can defer an application for a different reason. There's not enough information, or some key piece of information is missing from it. So those are the four things that Council can do in terms of taking actions on applications. We have the NHGRI staff has the authority to conduct what's called Expedited Council Concurrence, or ECC. Now there's a subcommittee of three people and let's see if I can remember. It's Gail and Jay, and who's my third ECC member? Brent, thank you Brent. About a month before the Council meeting, there's a list of applications that are sent to these three Council members. The applications are in the SBIR, STTR, a few training applications, and LC unsolicited applications. Now these are all funded by set-asides of funds. So even if you were to look at one of these and say well that's not the highest priority for NHGRI, we could not take that money and use it to pay another particular type of research project. So we're sending these to the ECC committee. We're asking for them to sign off on these and that allows the grants administration branch to spread their workload. Otherwise they're waiting for right after the Council meeting to get slammed by a bunch of newly approved grants. So there is a list that goes to the three Council members. They approve or they have the right to say there's something in this application that I would like to be reviewed at the Council meeting. So it's pulled off the ECC. Those of you that are not on the subcommittee, the list of grants that are on the ECC are presented, again available through electronic Council book. You can ask questions about any of those. Contact me or anybody else on the staff so I would like that particular application to be discussed. But that's early Council concurrence. Staff authorities. Staff has the authority to make supplements to existing awards that can be up to $150,000 or 25% of the total cost over all years of the award, Council approved award, whichever is greatest. There's a cap of $1 million. Some of our, for example, sequencing center grants has very, very large budgets. 25% of those would be quite high. So there's a million dollar cap. Staff can make these supplements without discussing them with Council as long as it fits under those guidelines. There is a list of the administrative actions that you will see at every Council meeting so you can see the supplements that have been made. Any that don't go above these limits will be brought to the Council for Council approval. Discussion and hopefully approval. Finally, in the event of some kind of catastrophe like a major snowstorm, which actually happened five years ago, we can implement a Council meeting electronically. So it may be a teleconference, it may be some sort of secure website, but we have the authority to execute the Council meeting in a fashion other than a face-to-face meeting. This meeting, precisely seven years ago, was my very first Council as director this February of 2010. Yep. And many of us were on the phone as well because we couldn't even get out of our driveways. 36 inches of snow, as I recall. So again, I recommend the statement of understanding. Everybody take a look at it. Are there any questions? I should have told you that the changes from the last statement were fairly minimal. We clarified that LCT32 institutional training grants could not be put on the ECC, and we tried to clean up some of the language about this issue of can we make a supplement to a grant that was not HG primary or HD was assigned as a secondary to it. The answer is no, we can't. It has to come to the Council. The verbiage there was somewhat awkward, but I made some minor wordsmithing there. Okay, if there aren't any questions, then I need a motion to accept the statement of understanding and a second, all in favor. Any opposed? Anyone abstaining? Thank you very much. One last bit. I have to recite the conflict of interest statement to you. And this applies to all the applications that will be reviewed in the closed session. You must leave the meeting room when applications submitted by your own organization are being individually discussed. In the case of state higher education or other systems with multiple campuses geographically separated, own organization is intended to mean the entire system except where a determination has been made that the components are separate organizations for the purpose of determining conflict of interest. You should avoid situations that could give rise to charges of conflict of interest, whether real or apparent. For example, you should not participate in the deliberations and actions of any application from or involving your spouse, child, a recent student, recent teacher, professional collaborator with whom you have worked closely, a close personal friend or a scientist with whom you have had longstanding scientific or personal differences. The NHGRI staff will determine the appropriate action based on recency, frequency, and strength of such associations or interests, either positive or negative, and will instruct you accordingly. In council actions in which you vote on a block of applications without discussing any individual one, the on-block action being one example, your vote will not apply to any application from any institution fulfilling the criteria noted above. There's a hard-copied conflict of interest document in your folder. Please sign it, leave it at the table, and we will pick it up. And I think that's it for the open session. Do you want to gavel us into closure? Thank you. Five minutes and let's reconvene. Well, probably 10 minutes, they have to disconnect the cameras.