In 1973, the federal government began keeping records of fatalities when victims went in by supported roof. From 1973 through 1979, there were 139 fatalities. During the 1980s, 141 miners were killed by falls of unsupported roof. Widespread use of automated temporary roof support, ATRS, has reduced the number of deaths caused by falls of unsupported roof. However, this type of accident is still a very serious problem. During the first half of the 1990s, there were 25 fatalities involving miners in by supported roof. Why do some people go in by? At one time or another, you have probably heard people attempt to justify why it's okay to go in by. Let's examine some of these myths. It's my life, so I'll take risks if I feel like it. Please stop to consider that several people besides yourself may be harmed or put in danger if you are caught in a roof fall accident. If you are killed, your spouse, children and others who love and depend on you will suffer. The accident will have devastating emotional and possibly financial consequences on your loved ones, and your co-workers may be in serious danger if they try to rescue you. Listen as this miner tells us of the danger he and his crew were in when they started to help a fellow miner who was caught under a fall.  He was in good shape. We decided rather than have him wait, we would get him out as quickly as we could and sort of threw caution to the wind. It wasn't the best thing to do to go underneath an unstable roof like that, but we thought it would be better to get him out after I got him outside. The roof came in three more times as they were trying to pull the miner out, and we had all been standing there just moments before. Before you step beyond the last row of roof bolts, stop to ask, besides myself, whose lives am I putting in jeopardy? After working underground for a few years, you learn when the roof is good. It's only young miners who don't have much mining experience that get caught by falls of unsupported roof. If this myth were true, we would expect to find that most miners who have been killed by falls of unsupported roof had less experience than other miners. A study was recently performed by the Bureau of Mines on the various attributes of 53 miners killed by falls of unsupported roof between 1986 and 1993. It was found that their average age was 35, with an average of 12 years mining experience, including four years working in their current job classification. Miners who are killed by falls of unsupported roof appear to be no different from other miners in terms of age and mining experience. In fact, most of these victims had a considerable amount of mining experience prior to their accident. I've been a miner for over half my life, and just because I'm going to work at a new mine, my chances aren't any greater of having an accident. In the Bureau of Mines study mentioned earlier, it was found that even though they had a lot of mining experience, most of the 53 miners who were killed by falls of unsupported roof had only worked at the mine where they were killed for a very short period of time. Half of the victims had worked for less than eight months before they were killed. This is very disturbing, especially when you consider that nationwide the average length of time underground coal miners have worked at their present mine is about nine years. This suggests that miners need to be especially cautious about avoiding unsupported roof when they start work at a new mine or when they change job classifications at their present mine, even though they have had a lot of prior experience. Researchers are not sure which factors are responsible for the startling finding. Some speculate that it may be a result of different mine conditions, equipment, and mining methods. Such changes could result in new potential safety hazards of which miners should be aware. For example, there can be substantial differences in the stability of the roof from one mine to another. Miners who are used to working where falls of unsupported roof very rarely happen may develop the habit of doing certain seemingly safe jobs under unsupported roof. If these miners should go to work at a different mine where falls of unsupported roof are more common, it may take some time for them to change their old habits. Once established, habits can be very difficult to change. Unfortunately, miners may be killed by a roof fall before they ever have a chance to realize that these old habits are much more dangerous in their new work environment. If you are assigned a job near face areas, you should be aware of the dangers of unsupported roof. This is especially important if you have recently worked at mines where roof conditions were stable and therefore may have developed a complacent attitude about going under unsupported roof. As long as I stay close to the last roof support, I'll be protected from falling rocks. As part of the Bureau of Mines study, researchers looked at how far beyond the last row of supports each of the 53 victims had gone at the time they were killed. Most of them were found no more than 4 feet beyond the last row of supports. This clearly indicates that it is not safe to go even a short distance beyond the last row of roof supports. If I stay close to the edge of supported roof, I'll have time to jump out of the way if it starts to come down. The following coal miner tells us how quickly a roof fall can happen. I just turned to start walking back towards the back end of the miner, and I just got a glimpse of something out of my right side there, and it was like the whole cut came down. I sort of seen it, got a little glimpse of it coming down, and I tried to jump at the same time. I tried to yell over the berry for him to get out of the road. But before we had time to do anything, it was down who came down really fast. We have very good roof conditions at this mine, so there's really no need to worry about unsupported roof. There are several well-documented cases in which a mine's first reportable roof fall resulted in a fatality. Remember, it only takes one roof fall to cause a fatality. The myths we have just presented are only a few of the many that people may want to believe in order to justify why it's okay to go in by roof supports. You may have heard of others. But as you can see, these myths are obviously not true. The reality is that there are no good excuses for going in by supported roof. Government, industry, and manufacturers of mining equipment continue to work together to develop new technologies that will provide a safe work environment. These developments have had a large impact on protecting miners, but they haven't eliminated all unsafe conditions. Miners who operate machinery equipped with an ATRS or a canopy should not have a false sense of security. ATRS systems have greatly reduced the need for individuals to venture in by permanent support to manually set temporary support. However, to be effective, the ATRS system needs to be used properly. Likewise, canopies have protected miners from roof falls, but you are still required to stay under supported roof, even when you are under a canopy. Miners usually expect to derive some benefit or advantage by going under unsupported roof, or they would not do it. Often, they believe it will save them some time or effort or will in some way make their job a little easier. Talk to your foreman, co-workers, and or safety representative about situations that may tempt you or others to work or go under unsupported roof. Because you work underground, you are in an excellent position to understand the kind of situations that come up that make it tempting to go under unsupported roof. After discussing these problem situations, miners often come up with good ways to eliminate some of them. Although going in by might make life a little easier for you today or tomorrow, in the long run, it may cost you your life. Unsupported roof is an unpredictable killer. No one can require you to go in by supported roof, except in special situations for the sole purpose of setting temporary supports. You are protected under the Code of Federal Regulations and Section 105c of the 1977 Mine Act. For further information, read A Guide to Miner's Rights. A copy of this booklet can be obtained from the National Mine Health and Safety Academy. Remember, the next time you are tempted to go in by supported roof, the odds are always against you and against those who expect to see you back home at the end of your shift.


So Senate government operations on Thursday, May 21st. And thank you all for being here and thank you for covering me this morning in the Rules Committee, Anthony. And on the floor if anything had happened, I assume you were ready to take control. Always. That's what I thought. So we are going to walk through what's left of 124 and see what it is that we want to do with it, what we want to pass and what we want to leave in there. And we have the bill back from appropriations. That seems the cleanest way to do it so that whatever we do will be a strike all. And we'll just send a new version to appropriations because there will still be, I assume there will still be an appropriations in there for the pilot plans and if not, I mean we'll deal with that when we get to that section. So, are there any questions before we get started. Okay. So, Betsy Ann has a summary of it in our document page. So Betsy Ann would you like to walk us through this and tell me committee here what makes most sense to you. If we look at each section and taking each section and discuss it and get comments on it as we go so then we can just agree or disagree on that section and if we disagree then we can come back to it but if we agree on it then there's no point in coming back and do it that way. Yep. Already spent quite a bit of time on it. Yes. But I want us to just start making some decisions then. Okay. So, Betsy, Betsy, would you like to walk us through. Sure. Further record Betsy Ann Rass Legislative Council. Thank you to Gail for posting that just it's the same section by section summary we reviewed the other day in regard to S124 as it passed Senate Gov Opps so the bill is separated into law enforcement dispatch EMS and public safety planning as topics. And the first thing that would happen, subjectively is amending the membership of the Vermont criminal justice training council. This would increase the membership of the council from 12 to 16 members. It would specify who 13 of those members are, and then the governor Senate and House would each be able to appoint one public member who doesn't have a law enforcement connection. And then the members could get per diem compensation the $50 standard per diem. And there's a transitional provision to allow people who are currently on the council to continue to serve under their existing term if they would continue under the new membership. Okay. I guess what I'll do is ask if there are any questions from the committee first or comments Allison. I believe Matt, our chief of the Capitol police would like to ask if they would be able to have a seat on the training council. I think he did. I think that Matt may. I would, I would suggest that that may be one addition if he anyway he had spoken to me about it and I was just wondering if he'd spoken to you Jeanette and it maybe it would be a good thing for us to just reach out or see if it was appropriate. Anyway, I believe that that is something he'd love to speak to us about. Okay. I have not I don't remember that I've heard from him about it. I want to ask him and ask him if he's interested to reach out to you. So, Betsy and if I wanted to look at the, the best place to see the bill itself. And thank you again to Gail because she posted what I am just calling an annotated potential strike all amendment that this committee could offer as a substitute to your current strike all.  It's labeled as draft number 5.1 annotated. It's annotated because what I've done so far is to make sure that it's annotated or revise some of the language that you have you discussed at your last meeting in regard to changing. But okay, Madam chair, specifically in regard to your question that the current proposal to amend the council membership starts on page one line 16. So, other than that comment. Do any of our witnesses. Let's see who's here with us bill mark is Matt with us. Chris Brachel is here. Do any of you want to comment on the makeup of the training council as it has been changed. I don't, I can't, I can only see nine people at a time so if I don't see you put your hand up just to try and get me audio audio Lee. Bill. Sure. What's the reason behind adding the four. For people. The way it used to work. What we didn't add. For which four people.  And who else.  All right. Yeah, if you want to take a look at the main changes happening. Well, first thing you'll see on page one, the commissioner of corrections would be removed from membership and the commissioner of mental health would be added instead. Then on on page two, the executive director of the Department of State's attorneys and sheriffs would be added.  And right now under current law, the governor. You can see on page two line seven that the governor appoints five additional members and right now it doesn't say exactly who those members would be only that it would provide a broad representation of all aspects of law enforcement in public. And there will be required to solicit recommendations from certain people. And if I'm recalling this committee's discussion correctly, there was some specific groups that really wanted to ensure that they had a seat on the council. And so if I'm recalling your conversation correctly, this would add the people who said, and that the committee agreed should specifically hold a seat on the council. And then the, there was the requirement or the suggestion to add those three public members. So those begin on page three line three. But the specific people who wanted a seat and who this committee had said before would get a seat is the director executive director department of states attorneys and sheriffs. It's a member of the chiefs of police association. It's a member of the Vermont's sheriffs association. A law enforcement officer appointed by VSE a an employee of VLCT and an employee of the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services. Yeah, I think we took a lot of testimony on this. I think we took it a few years ago and passed it. And unfortunately, it, the whole bill got vetoed and one of the, one of the reasons, although I think there were more but one of them was that we had inadvertently, when we put a member of the sheriff's association on there, we inadvertently took off the department of sheriffs and states attorneys and we didn't mean to do that. We meant to, to specifically have someone from the sheriff's association. Thank you. Any other questions or comments or concerns. I'm just emailing Matt that get in touch with you if he is interested. He wouldn't fall under any of these. Is he a member of the chief of police association. No, he'd have to answer that. Yeah, I wouldn't think so that's just in regard to municipal police isn't that right. Yeah, I think. Anyway, I'm going to let him speak for himself. I do recall that in the course of informal conversation that this was a subject that came up. So I'm just reaching out to him. Okay, but other than that, are we all okay with this section. Yes. Anthony. Chris Allison. Yes. All right, so that's the end. You may move on. You're muted. I'm moving on to still under law enforcement. Still in regard to the council. And starting with section four is the requirement to have different training options at the council. Section five would require the council to adopt rules in regard to alternate routes to certification, aside from training provided the police academy and also would require the council to strive to offer courses in different areas of the state and non overnight courses whenever possible. Section five would require the council to restructure its program so that by July one 2021, a level two certified officer. Let's let's do one at a time because they are kind of separate questions so we also had a lot of discussion about this and given what we're going through right now. I think it's something that I'm hearing that the training council is working on anyway but so training council people would you like to weigh in. So Chris. Yes, can you hear me. Yes. Okay, so for some reason I was raising my hand but you didn't see me before on the prior section if I could very quickly, just mentioned on the membership of the council. I have not clear on whether there was much more discussion about that but I know that there had been some opposition. On behalf of the council to be adding another member of another labor organization where you had the VSE a edit in. And I do remember hearing their concerns and the fact that they were representative of another group of, although it be a minority another group of law enforcement officers that wasn't represented by another union that was on there. However, they also would be represented by the police association. So that was the council's perspective on why they didn't believe that another union membership into a training council was really appropriate. Just offering that for for comment. Okay, I think that we got pretty strong testimony from people from the I think it's about 120 officers that work for the state, but that are not part of the troopers association, and they might. I don't know if they're members of the police association or not, but that they had pretty unique jobs and anybody, any committee member have a comment on that. Okay. I think that it was pretty clear that we had all agreed and I at the time I don't remember the council having any problems with it but And again, you've already had that discussion many times. So I just wanted to bring it back to your attention because that wasn't done. That wasn't the conversation at the council level and we were more concerned with the fact that the other group that was being represented by the VSE a certainly has as much input to any other law enforcement agency that wants to regarding the training aspect we just didn't understand where the union issue really was the issue for the training council to be concerned with. Yeah, yeah, I do see that I think that you could make the same statement about the troopers association. Right, you could. So, I think that there was a feeling there that if the troopers were going to have a special representative on the council then the other Union State Union members should also. Right. That's okay. Is everybody okay with that. Okay. All right Betsy so the section five then is the asking for there to be more flexibility and this Chris for your No, not section five where which one is it section four on page four of that draft 5.1 is the alternate routes to certification. So, Chris I know you weren't probably with us a lot when we had this, we did a whole tour of the state and visited eight places and heard from about 4500 people and that is 425, not 4500 people and one of the things that we heard from almost everybody was that we needed to be more flexibility in the way that the residential program is run and offering more things regionally and less overnight and we heard that again this year with people who are from law enforcement officers and are probably well qualified and just cannot do we heard in particular from the mayor of was it community I think it was when uski that mayor of when uski who has a single mom who wants to do it but she simply can't leave for 16 weeks and leave her child so it's something that we talked a long time with it with Rick about so that that's where it came from it came from the field and so anybody have any comments about that, but section four. The conversations that I've had back when Rick was still at the academy was it kind of more between section four and section five. I know that the academy did offer much more outsourced training for any agency that actually asked for it was just a matter of them letting them know that they needed specific training in a specific topic and they would send instructors to that agency or to that location regionally where that training could be done again it couldn't be done probably to everyone satisfaction because of the staffing levels at the academy and they just don't have the available people to do it where that more further was in your section five of the really the path to level three certification from level two and just to kind of update you on that that we worked on that quite a bit last year. There was an active group that was formed for finding a pathway to go from level two to level three training for those people specifically that couldn't commit to that time level that couldn't make it to a full time academy. And we did come up with a scope of practice that did go along the club model. We came up with a fairly rigorous and authenticated process that people would have to go through to show that if they were going to be doing the same sort of training that level three officers were doing without going through an academy. They had to show proficiency in the standards of what everyone else was doing. We completed that task and I assume that Rick reported that back to you what we got and when we pushed that out to the staff at the academy. There were a couple of issues that that working group had put together that they wanted to have feedback on and to have a little more input into thinking that there was a couple of things the committee was missing. That feedback was given back to Rick but that committee meeting has not gotten back together since the fact that he's been gone and there's been a vacancy in the executive director's position. So there's been significant work on it. It just needs the process of our academy getting back to normal and having an executive director. So committee what I mean we can leave this in here if it's all it hasn't been totally accomplished we can leave it in here and when we come back in January or when somebody comes back in January they'll be able to say. Mission accomplished. Yes or and we can get an update on all the fabulous alternative training options. Yeah. I think I yeah we really heard this so loud and clear in the field that I would hope lots would and is there not an interim director of the council know. If I can interrupt for one second here on the director's position and I meant to say this before we started. We've I have heard and I talked about it with the committee yesterday that the there is a freezing a hiring freeze we know that. Right. The hiring in well in my opinion a hiring freeze is that you can't hire new positions. But this is we feel very strongly that there needs to be some kind of a waiver for this position so that at least there can be a permanent interim so that. Ruling by triumphant is sometimes very successful and sometimes not. And I think that you all have so much to do in all your other positions that it's unfair to ask you to continue to try and oversee the training council so do you want to comment on that Chris. I'd absolutely love to. The the council voted to have a panel of three one of them being myself. The other retired sheriff Steve Bernard and major Ingrid Jonas from the Department of Public Safety to oversee a management team that is now currently in quarantine with the Academy class so they've been working nonstop. Working nonstop since two weeks before May 4 when they went into quarantine. And you are absolutely correct that it's an enormous amount of work and tasks for three people to coordinate and to work hand in hand with the staff that's currently working and doing everything that we're asking of them. I did request from the administration the position of an interim executive director and was denied. I also requested that we move forward with our we were in the midst of a executive director search and then that we very got we got very clear direction from the administration that we were to stop that executive director search. And that was due to as it was portrayed to me it was due to the fact that the administration did not have the time giving everything else that they were trying to handle to focus on that position. As many of you know I am not I am not a political person so I tend to say things as I see them and I get that I don't see them from everyone else's point of view as well at the same time but the way the way I see that process is that is exactly what the council's not only position but responsibility is to do is to advertise that those people out and then put that person out to the administration and they always have that ability to say no thank you. But we're essentially being told that that's not what we are to do so we're kind of stuck in a holding pattern. Working as best as we can. So not that we have any clout at all but I believe our committee would be willing to write to the administration emphasizing the real importance of doing this and doing it so that when we actually get a little bit more back to normal we can be farther down the road. Law enforcement is in a bad position right now. Primarily I mean because of COVID but also because of a lot of other things but I don't know if that would be committee. Do you have any feelings on that? Absolutely. I think we ought to do that. Essentially personnel we will be so backlog if we put this off it will be none. I absolutely think this is an essential position. I agree and I can't imagine that it was done for any sort of budgetary reason. I don't know exactly do you know who did you talk to Chris? Well we received that word through the commissioner of public safety on behalf of the administration. We should move our letter back up the chain that way because I'm equally puzzled why this would have just not been sort of a standard operating procedure if somebody leaves you replace you search however you decide to do that come up with the best person and then you make the appointment and be done with it. I can't imagine it's kind of like having a rowboat with only one or in my view out there and it doesn't make any sense to me. Anthony? I agree. I mean this is replacing a position that is necessary. It's not a new position but I always thought of the hiring freeze means you're not going to hire anybody else but any additional person. And especially one that's essential. Chris? Yes. Yes so I'm agreeing especially I mean this is one of the most troubling things that we end up doing sometimes in government where we ask people to do a task and then we don't give them the resource to do it. So I would love to see us fill that gap. And I would also include in that the ability to appoint an interim so that because we currently we're asking three people who also are doing something else to coordinate and run the ship. It's hard enough to coordinate. Allison did you have Allison did you have something to say? Yes. Okay so we will we've been writing a lot of letters lately. Some of them have had some impact and some of them haven't but we'll try again. I will send the letter to all the committee members. I'll send it to you Chris. I believe Mark you're on the training council. Okay. And whoever else wants to look at the copy before and make comments on it so that we get it right. Okay. All right. Sorry I meant to meant to ask about that at the very beginning because of my sitting in traffic and so I'm glad we got that result. So now let's go back to section four and five and committee do you and just I will try to say Senator Bray because there seem to be a lot of Chris's in this world and every time we have a meeting we have more than one Chris so I will try to make it clear. Whenever I call on Chris either both people answer or nobody does. So I will try to make it clear. Okay. Thank you. So back to four and five committee members do you have any feelings on leaving it there and coming back with a report and Senator Callum or I see you unmuted yourself. Yeah. I'm wondering whether Chris for Cal not great is comfortable with the language that basically it's a nudge from us to say look, we're really serious about trying to find an alternative way to attract people into this profession. Are you okay with that language Chris for Cal. I'm absolutely okay with that. I'm fine with that too. And the next section does have a date and I mean I suppose we can move that it's a year and two months away that you would by that point have to restructure your programs in terms of moving people on certain levels and I don't know where that stands given the current situation. I'm guessing that wasn't in your top two things to be working on the last two months. It hasn't been and a lot of things have changed in the last two months but I think that we're one of the things that I know Academy staff has struggled with is and I know you've heard it many times before but it's just the funding and personnel in order to achieve what this committee has been asking of and it's not that they don't want to provide it to you they when you just don't have the personnel to provide it there's it becomes a very difficult path to try to follow. We are constantly especially now looking outside the box at what does training for law enforcement look like we've shifted a lot of training in this current Academy class to online training. We get a lot of feedback and sometimes not positive feedback from the instructors that this is not the proper way to train law enforcement online for certain topics and some I can agree with and some I disagree. I think we have to look at everything differently nowadays and we have to we have to make it we we already struggle in getting law enforcement officers in this state and retaining the ones that we have so we've got to make every possible measure that we can to make it more accessible to people yet at the same time there are certain things that that our citizens in our government expect of us to do and some of that is physical training without being able to do that training and a hands-on location and being properly observed and trained to we're only opening up our state and law enforcement officers to more litigation for improper uses of force and things of that nature so there are there are some some things that would are easy to say that we need to do and make it easier and more accessible to people outside of a training Academy yet at the same time there is a portion of that that is critical that it is trained to very specifically perhaps at a certain location to make sure that we're not creating you know bad law enforcement. I see Mark. Mark looks like he might input to that as well. Mark. Thank you Madam Chair. Not only do I want to echo everything that Chief Prekel just said I also want to say from my perspective as an instructor for the Academy for radar and LiDAR and talking with other instructors for various subjects this is the current Academy is going through a very unique set of circumstances. I'm a strong believer in regionalized teaching and as an instructor I provided the class that I teach regionally throughout the state. Usually our metric has been where there's more students than instructors especially in the geographically centered area let's send the instructor to those students rather than the students to the Academy or to the instructor so I've taught up in I forget the name of the town but it's Swanton I think I've taught in St. John's Barry I've taught down in Bennington as well as in Bradwell so we've moved our program around and we've done it with great success. There was something that Secretary French from AOE I think it was a tweet actually so sorry for quoting a tweet but it was something to the effect of right now with our public education with high schools and elementary schools right now we're not doing distant learning we're doing distant teaching and talking with some of the instructors around the state with their different subjects it's really the feeling has been they're doing distant teaching how do I provide a curriculum that's a lecture with engagement over zoom when someone's mic cuts out and we have the rubber banding and they're doing those things so through my education I had the experience of learning in both the online environment as well as learning in both in a in-person in residence type classroom and they are entirely different beasts and so to the point that Senator Collin Moore made with regards to section five and I apologize if I'm jumping ahead of where we're at but I'd really encourage that that deadline be pushed out several years there's people who are experts in developing online curriculums and developing the online environment who can really take what is not the skill set of an in-residence in-person teacher to provide that ability in that bridge I'd pick five years arbitrarily but I think that this needs a lot of time and we need to bring the right people in to develop it because I think it's too important and we're seeing right now it's too important to provide these these trainings in other more accessible ways especially as we start to come into a very digitally native generation those will eventually be police officers and we need to take advantage of their learning and the academy's been working to accomplish that but now we're dealing with it while the airplanes flying but it's certainly not built thank you that makes sense to push out the to leave it there and to push it out and it says honor before so it doesn't mean you have to wait so so would everybody be okay with pushing that out to like it's if we push it out to 23 that's three years let's start there and then and then push it out farther if we need to I given how many resources we have on learning and training I think five is long I do three let's start with three and I think that mark is right about the and Chris was right about that there are some some things that simply you will not ever be able to teach online like use of force I don't see any way you can actually teach that online you could have some preliminary these are the this is the intellectual reason we do this this is the but when you get down to it you've got to you've got to do it so so to confirm when we're talking about extending out the date section five is the transition to level two to level three is that what you're saying should be extended to July one 2023 well because I think that they're going to have to come up with I don't know if that needs to be extended because Chris it sounded like you were pretty far along with that but we can extend it to 2023 that we are we were very far along in taking the transition from somebody already certified as a level two to level three but it also sounds like you're speaking about somebody fresh out of the boat to start law enforcement training as well so what and to echo what Mark said there is a lot of stuff that we can do and push out to online learning especially for somebody that's brand new into this field but what section five specifically refers to is the level two level three path so here's a suggestion let's leave that at twenty twenty one because that's 13 months right yeah 14 or 14 months and if you are well along on the way to be honest we've had these in here these two things in here for about three years and we keep then getting reports about where you are and as Brian column or said I don't you didn't say fire under the feet I think you said a gentle nudge I did I would never use that other expression I know I shouldn't really not with law enforcement sorry guys so what if we left that date for there and the other one has the other one has no date it's just an ongoing Betsy Anne yeah I just wanted to point out actually that section four that has that's a requirement to adopt rules regarding alternate routes to certification and that actually does have a date oh turn to section six there's some transitional provisions that discuss moving to these requirements at the top of page seven of the draft number five point one those rules right now are required to be adopted by July one twenty twenty one oh yeah so is that what is that what the sheriff Anderson you were saying we're suggesting should be moved out the alternate routes to certification I guess I think chief Brachel said it well that I'm talking about the fresh off the street training as opposed to transitional stuff I'm not familiar with the work that's been done on the transitional I agree Betsy Anne I think I think you're right there that's the proper section okay and that's twenty twenty three instead of twenty twenty one yes I would be fine with that got it and then I understand the notch I mean there's just so much there now so is it would everybody be okay with putting that out an extra two years and that that would because that's that is your right mark that is the section that deals with people coming just straight off the street and wanting to be trained and there there needs to be a lot of thought on that okay so we're okay with up to this point okay section seven alrighty section seven is mostly cleanup but it explicitly permits one law enforcement agency seek certification from the council for any in-service training it provides to its own officers or officers of another agency it's clear right now that an agency can get certification for training that it provides to officers outside its own agency and my understanding and correct me if I'm wrong here that is that this kind of is the practice it just isn't clear in the statute is that right chief yes that that is the current practice anybody that receives training outside of the academy submits that training to the academy for approval and they they essentially check the criteria to make sure that it's up to date and current best practice and then that training is approved if there is any kind of deficiency in it that's clearly worked out with the with the academy and the agency that that has done that instruction so that there is no disagreement I think this was put in there just to make it clear that there is no disagreement and I think that's a little uncomfortable about that am I right about that committee yes okay I can't I can't remember that discussion right now it was it was a brief discussion and because it was mainly a it really wasn't a policy change at all it was just a kind of a codifying what really happens all right so if you're looking at the summary with the top of page two and this is in regard to a new requirement for a potential hiring agency to contact an officer's current agency to obtain an analysis of the officer's performance at that agency the law currently requires a potential hiring agency to contact an officer's former agency so this would add on to that language to say in all cases contact either the former or the current for this new language in regard to contacting the current it's to get an analysis of the officer's performance and so how this would work in practice if you want to switch over to the actual draft five point one amendment seven starting online sixteen the section eight and it's found in yellow highlighting you'll see a couple fixes I found that might be necessary to clean up the language one's just to the title because there's this is now about a duty to contact the current agency so this language would say that prior to hiring a law enforcement officer the executive officer of a potential hiring law enforcement agency would require that officer to execute a written waiver that explicitly authorizes the officers current law enforcement agency employer to disclose analysis of the officer's performance at that agency if the officer still employed there and then what also have to contact that agency I'm on page eight nine nine to obtain that disclosure which is the reason the analysis of the officer's performance and provide to that agency a copy of that written waiver so that agency the current agency knows that it's authorized to disclose it there be a maintenance of the current law that an officer who refuses to execute one of these written waivers shall not be hired by the potential hiring agency online thirteen if the current agency is a law enforcement agency in this state the executive officer of that current agency shall disclose that potential hiring agency in writing its analysis of the officer's performance at that agency and the executive officer would send have to send a copy of the disclosure to the officer at the same time the executive officer sends it to the potential hiring agency so that the officer knows what is the current agency is saying about officer's performance and then you can see at the top of page nine there's just language saying the current agency is immune from liability for its disclosure unless that disclosure would constitute intentional misrepresentation or gross negligence so yellow highlighting just shows some places where it needs some technical corrections but it's very similar to the current law except that in this case an officer would have to let his or her current agency know that the officer is seeking other employment versus the current law where where the officer is no longer employed at the agency so this came from the council training council one of the things that Mark brought up last time was first of all you have to let people know that you're leaving someplace and going someplace else but does this impact transfers between Vermont and New Hampshire at all and how would it impact that so I am not sure and it sounds like a good idea but we've done the same thing for teachers but since this came from the training council I guess we should let the you comment on it and say if it is the right way to go and why or why not so Chief would you like to I can't speak specifically to the issue with an out-of-state agency in discussion with the executive director the main concern here was the fact that it was only limiting the council to look at issues where agencies were contacting a former agency rather than a current one and it was a big gaping hole in what they saw as the potential for someone that had misconduct issues to go from another agency that we covered a former officer or someone that had left prior to an internal being done but we didn't cover the issue of a current so that was the main question behind that and so you're still comfortable with that language I am as it's been highlighted here the only thing that I was not pretty to any discussion on would have been with an out-of-state agency yeah and that I don't think it's specifically addressed in here at all but Mark did bring it up to us the other day and since we're in our county we're relatively close to a couple other states and they seem to want our officers right it's the poaching the out-of-state poaching and the interagency poaching I think this has less to do with poaching than with making sure that people who are currently in a position and are having a some kind of investigation or being let go for a certain reason but they're still employed there but the hiring agency has the ability to talk to the current agency right this is important I think you're still okay with that language as it is and we'll have to deal with the out-of-state question I don't know how we address that because we can't control Mark Madam Chair thank you I guess my question from the last meeting was more clarification if I get a call from I'm going to pick a town just across the river in New Hampshire if they call me saying they'd like to conduct a background investigation regarding one of our officers do I need to respond under this section or do I need to respond differently and it's not opposed to the language as it is in fact I'd be perfectly comfortable sharing the information I would desire to have a conversation with you so I'm okay with that actually being I'm just not sure if it does say that that's Ian what do you think let me just confirm you're talking about an agent let's call it a New Hampshire agency wants to hire your Vermont officer so subsection a would not apply because an executive officer of a potential law enforcement hiring agency law enforcement agency is actually defined term in the criminal justice training council and it means an employer of a law enforcement officer law enforcement officer in turn is defined as only Vermont officers so subsection a is not applicable let me see I think it would let me just look at subsection b again that current work see subsection b I read it as relating to subsection a because it flows from it because it's saying if that current or former agency is a law enforcement agency in this state the executive officer has to disclose its analysis of the officer's performance so I feel like this is really focused on addressing the potential hiring agency's request if the potential hiring agency is in this state so I'm not seeing this I'm not really reading this is applying to responding to for example a New Hampshire agency I think it would if this doesn't apply then it would just be a matter of whether there's any other provision of employment law that would prohibit it I don't think that there is because this language is permissible so it seems like it would if you could respond to a New Hampshire agency so long as there's not like a nondisclosure agreement that you have already you already have with that officer to not disclose any information about the officer's performance that's how you wouldn't be in trouble under this law if you didn't but you would if it was a request from Wilmington yes does that answer it enough gray enough okay so we're still okay with this language then okay I'll just note that exactly madam chair that section nine is related to section eight it's essentially a grandfathering clause to say that the requirement of a current law enforcement agency to disclose its analysis of an officer's performance at that agency does not apply if there's a binding nondisclosure agreement prohibiting that disclosure that was executed prior to the effective data that section so if there's already an effect some sort of nondisclosure agreement that would prohibit the agency from disclosing the officer's performance then this requirement wouldn't apply because that contractual obligation controls yeah okay then we move into unprofessional conduct still in regards to the council's authority we're on page two of the summary in section ten the first item in section ten is clarifying that the list describes what constitutes category B unprofessional conduct is that the current examples of category B conduct are those that category B conduct shall include the list provided in A through E to make it clear that those are definitely category B unprofessional conduct but it's not an exhaustive list it's just that the current law says such as which is not as strong of language then the next thing that this gets into is that change of category B including excessive use of force first offence rather than second offence and that has the rippling effects throughout several issues in the unprofessional conduct sub chapter it deals with when conduct gets alleged category B conduct about excessive use of force gets reported to the council when the council can take action against an officer's certification for category B conduct because essentially right now the way that the language is structured council can't take action on a first offence of category B and a first offence is defined as including excessive use of force second offence that means the council first of all might not find out about excessive use of force first offence and even if it did it's not really able to take any action until the third known offence of excessive use of force big improvement and this this actually also came from the council are we okay with that absolutely well I'm okay with it but I just want to understand so somebody engaged in misconduct including excessive use of force I may know I may hear about it because we're all in the same place in a sense but I can't do I'm a superior I can't do anything about it even even if I become aware of it that just seems seems odd to me interesting I mean I understand why it's there but it just seems interesting well the law enforcement agency itself the employer of a law enforcement officer can of course take whatever disciplinary action against the officer at that agency itself it's just that the council regulates officers overall like OPR regulates its professionals so this is in regard to the action that the council can take against an officer I wasn't so the employer could take action I don't quite get that thanks and the the council doesn't wouldn't take action necessarily on the first one but it they they can take action on the second one but if their first one is never reported then there's not a second one until of third one actually who's on first exactly I don't know I really miss Betsy and explaining this the triple whammy okay are we all okay with that then chief are you okay with that still I'm good with that as well okay great thank you okay yeah are we done with law enforcement almost at the top of page three just another issue in regard to the council is when the when law enforcement agency has to report category B conduct alleged category B conduct to the council and if you look at the actual language of the bill at the bottom of page 11 current law says that the agency is to report to the council alleged category B conduct when the agency receives a complaint against the officer that quote is not credible by the executive officer of the agency as a result of a valid investigation alleges that the officer committed category B conduct so right now the current law is contingent upon the agency itself deeming a category B complaint credible and conduct after it conducts a valid investigation so it's really relying on the agency to conduct its own valid investigation and deem a complaint credible so it gets reported to the council so what this language would do is delete that language if deem credible by the executive officer as a result of a valid investigation so that an agency would have to report alleged category B conduct to the council when the agency receives a complaint against the officer that alleges that the officer committed category B alleges that the agency itself in most cases would still conduct that investigation and would report its results to the council but by eliminating this language the council would be made aware of allegations of category B conduct and it's just a better way for the council to track these allegations and to track the status of the agency's valid investigation of that allegation so let's look at this from the other side of it then instead of asking if the council still agrees with this since this came from the council we have three executive officers here of law enforcement agencies Sheriff Anderson, Sheriff Bonyak and the chief so as as executive officers let's ask you if you agree yes Sheriff Bonyak absolutely we want to maintain that transparency and with the way social media is set up today and our current news, the media whenever there's an incident like this we want to make sure we're being 100% transparent so we want to make sure all the law enforcement executives are following these rules and we're aware of what's going on thank you Sheriff Anderson you're muted I am muted thank you madam chair I do agree again it makes sense in terms of the component transparency the only concern I have with it is what implication it would have on the academy or the council's staffing and what volume would be handled by this I'm not sure that there's an answer to that question it's just a comment but my concern would be that this could be an enormous burden on the academy considering offering an investigator to the academy or the training council to perform these types of duties might be necessary in the future I may have misunderstood either your question or the I thought that it just will receive the complaint not that it will investigate it will just receive the report of the complaint I guess my question is if we receive if the training council receives a report of a complaint but does nothing with it does it achieve accountability or transparency if we have a stack of 100 bankers boxes of complaints that we do nothing with the council could be placed in a position where it's saying it's dusting things under the carpet and while I don't mean to insinuate that the council would try to sweep things under the carpet I also have concerns that that could become a future concern and if I could madam chair I can also speak to a portion of that again getting back to the original intent that was proposed by the council was that exactly as Betsy Ann had described was that you were really looking at a third offence before anything came to the council it does put the onus and it's actually easier for agency heads to move to this method because if they know that they have to make a complaint or they have to make a notification to the council upon the complaint of category B conduct that's much easier for them to do an easier for the council to track and then follow through with that progress a lot of times the agencies this is all completely new to them that they're still trying to you know understand and then they get started into an internal investigation and they get wound up in that and by the time they get that done and then they take the ration there have been some agencies that have forgotten to then forward that information onto the council so it's a council catch up phrase that they have to go forward with so this makes much more sense to have it reverse as soon as the complaint is received that they notify the council but to Sheriff Anderson's point as well the council can cause an investigation to be done if there is deemed an investigation that wasn't a valid investigation and that is another resource on the council that the council does not have available to them at this point that we definitely have the availability of tracking it and taking action but when it comes time to and there will be times that the council will be tasked with doing its own investigation or contracting out these are in these budget times that we're facing now these are things that are going to be critical to the academy and to the training council doing the proper way and making sure that we're we're doing those investigations if they have to happen so yes Brian thank you madam chair I'd appreciate it whether Chris or Bill or Mark would allay my concern I'm thinking of a situation where a fellow law enforcement officer becomes irritated and upset with a fellow officer and just starts making complaints left and right which are probably unfounded is there a mechanism here that I mean you can't prevent that I guess from happening but does this happen a lot is it is it a concern I should have or does it rise to that level I can only speak in hypotheticals to that I can tell you that yes that does that potential exist and that there could be the possibility of that and that exhausting a lot of law enforcement time needless law enforcement time and I guess that there really is no way to vet that out yet until we start to see these complaints and the agencies how they begin to handle them but that is that is definitely a concern I assume that's why earlier the existing law needed the deemed credible by the reporting agency before it got to the next level but maybe not in all honesty I think that that was in there due to the fact that sometimes there are erroneous complaints made against law enforcement just for retaliation or someone's not happy with the way that something worked out for them I don't believe that it was looked at from another law enforcement officer or agency to complain about another officer or agency but that again that potential does exist and I'm not quite sure how how you could restructure that to eliminate that thanks Chris so I agree with Chris especially internally if you say you had a promotion and the person was overlooked and also that person just starts making erroneous complaints about the person who is getting promoted so we have to make sure internally we're ruling those making sure they're not valid you know so but everything's being looked into that's I think that's what has come out in the last couple of years more and more I think just about every complaint that comes in statewide is being investigated in one one form or another and that's I think that's the biggest thing that came out of out of that act 56 and remember this isn't all complaints this is category B complaints right so this this doesn't refer to the hopefully the minor the kind of retaliation kinds of complaints Mark and just to build off of what Sheriff Bonac just said if I received a complaint toward one of my deputies and I thought it was erroneous and baseless I think it's important to note that I think it's important to note that that I have the counsel who's still able to receive notification and agree with that provides me some some reassurance I'm human I'm infallible or not infallible so I think it's important to note that thank you all thanks thank you all thank you all whatever Betsy has in store for us next let me just say chief when you were talking you you mentioned budget and I we had not discussed this before but we've been talking with those areas under our jurisdiction to about whether there are or should be addressed in the CARES Act money CARES Act CARES money I guess whatever it is and what those what those might be we've had information from EMS we're getting information from the sheriffs so I would say that if the Academy itself has budgetary needs that were impacted by COVID you should get those to us as soon as you can and then if you if there are others that couldn't be specifically COVID related but our budgetary needs that have been shown to exist get those to us too and then we will try to get that to the appropriations committee that's what we're doing and try and let them sort it out so if you if you can get that to us that would be great and we'll try to get it to the appropriations committee that would be much appreciated and just so that you're aware there are a lot of COVID expenses that have impacted this public safety has been instrumental in helping us with that and applying for the grant funding to cover these costs that we're going to be incurring for this but but I agree not not just only COVID related issues but some of the some of the legislative issues that the council is being tasked with come with associated costs and unfortunately they can't continue to be done at the level that they're going to be able to do that and or not done well I can say that and so it's really critical that if we want to be able to do exactly you know what the committee is looking for and doing it in the right way but at the same time with all all other issues being equal we still need to have that even just level funded budgeting to continue with what we're being tasked to do but I will get those numbers out of that and you know we we often mandate different types of training that's a there's a cost to that that and we've done a lot of that over the last couple years so we need to know what those are so that would be great and I do believe the commissioner is joining us tomorrow to talk about some of the what he sees as budgetary issues in the department and maybe he'll talk about the academy also all right so and if you can do that unfortunately the appropriations committee is starting to deal with the budget adjustment next week so we would love to have anything you have and we could you probably I don't want to put more work on you but as soon as you can get into us the better actually I'd like to just thank Sheriff Anderson he sent the Excel spreadsheet out to all the sheriffs and actually my staff at the beginning of our meeting she walked in and she handed me my my department's all of all the pertinent information so it is it is interesting and so hopefully we can get some assistance that would be quite helpful well I was going to write up a for I was hoping to get it done for today but I didn't some of the losses and this is specific to the sheriff's departments but I've got a bunch of information here so I'll write that up and send it out to you and you can see if it makes any sense very good really really do appreciate it okay thank you I have to go to another we got to get something going on on the other side of the county so I have to drop off are you actually physically going to the other side of the county I will be yes hopefully it's something good though yeah it is it's one of the graduations we're helping out we did Randolph Brookfield brain tree Chelsea and then on the other side of the county so it's been interesting you know one other thing that has come up actually we made an arrest last night of a female intoxicated out of control and she spent on three of my officers so I reached out to our state's attorney and also right now I got the attorney general's office involved with this because we're hitting this new gray area could we mandatory force her to do covid testing it's a huge right now so you know right now we have to wait and I'm one of the people I got home four o'clock this morning we're we have to wait seven days and they're going to test five of us we have three we're dealing with the actual incident and in two of us we end up transporting her but one of the things that if you look in this green uniform I'm wearing I call this our covid uniform I purposely purchased a couple extra uniforms for each deputy so if we run into an incident like this we get changed before we go home so we don't possibly contaminate our families so it's been interesting well we did talk about whether the law enforcement should get hazard the essential persons hazard pay and the way they do it at the state level seems a little bizarre but I don't know how else you'd do it but it started out with this lady last night 48 years old she decided to stab her ex-boyfriend so he had multiple stab wounds on his body and he gets a medical assistance but he'll be fine but it was just a wild night she tore one of our offices too well I hope you're all okay everybody's fine it's just the unknown now you just want to get tested yeah next seven days we have to wait seven days we have to wait but she should be tested immediately you're absolutely right right so that's why I called the attorney general's office and I guess we're going to be we might be a test case so I don't think we're else in the state so we hope that after the intoxication war obviously we're going to have to wait I hope that after the intoxication war she'd just do the right thing and get tested and not force you to be in that position but we're sorry for your troubles it's part of the job that's what we do being spent on it takes on a totally different meaning now oh yes but it did with AIDS too it was thank you go have good graduation Betsy Ann are we done with law enforcement now we just have a few more sections I'll go really fast section 11 is in regard to the treasure proposing a retirement plan for municipal officers that's similar to the state officer plan did you want to leave that I think that we're going to have to have some conversations with I'm not sure the treasure about this I'm not sure that she's ready to we'll have some conversations with her because it is something that's important to us and important to law enforcement but and I do know that she at the very least would want the date changed okay section 12 is that just real quick on this there's a group C retirement then there's a group F retirement and then there's also the beamers retirement some shares are in the group C some shares are in the group F and some are in the beamers retirement so I would like to ask that something be considered in terms of how we're considered because this has been an issue we've been trying to straighten out and Madam chair I know I've spoken directly with you about and I know that the treasure has has promised to do something I just I don't know where she is right now so I think what I'd like to do is kind of leave this here for more discussion and have her come and meet with us you're here and Sheriff Anderson will make sure that you get a notice of when she comes all right section 12 is that requirement for the Vermont crime Information Center to establish the definitions that all officers would need to use when they're entering data into their criminal record system whether that is Spillman or Velco or the point is for all officers to use the same definitions anybody have and I think they Jeff Wall and he isn't with us is he he has said that they're working on them. No I think this is still important so keep it. Yeah definitely it seems we shouldn't have passed a law to do it but certainly should keep it. Well I don't know that we have to it as I I think of this as the same as Senator Collomore's nudge. Something that should be done and let's just keep the the momentum going. All right. Okay. Section 13. Oh sorry. Is that requirement for the VCIC to provide on a quarterly basis to the legislative body of each town without a municipal police department a report describing the crimes alleged to have been committed in the preceding quarter. I guess we should hear from VLCT and VCIC about whether that's not really a law enforcement issue it's mainly a reporting issue and how they do that and whether it still makes sense to have there we know why it's there does that make sense committee. Okay. All right sections 14 through 17 are in regard to the law enforcement advisory board just moving where it resides in statute and then amending its membership to add when you were still at the state house you had added the director of the enforcement division of the Department of Fish and Wildlife to the LEAB and then Madam Chair you had requested last meeting to also add for the committee's consideration add the director of the enforcement and safety division of the DMV to the LEAB so you look at your revised draft 5.1 that the director of enforcement at DMV would be added on page 16 line 16. And we had that request I had that request from the from DMV. And Madam Chair I having emailed our chief of the capital place he has responded to us and I think this is the area that I had mistaken it LEAB is I think was Matt's first choice but he feels anyway he sent you an email so yes he'd like inclusion where others are but on the LEAB first and foremost on LEAB second read the email yes okay I okay all right did everybody get the email he sent it just to you and me because I emailed him okay he says I think it was the LEAB that said if you ever see DMV enforcement game wardens liquor and lottery somewhere and we aren't it would bear consideration to add us the four small state law enforcement agencies with unique missions often get left out so we do not have those on the on the training council we do have a member from the BSEA right a law enforcement person from BSEA but we don't have specifically DMV or game wardens I thought on the council I think the commissioner of fish and wildlife is there I can quickly go to the front page yeah commissioner on the criminal justice training council the commissioner of DMV and the commissioner of fish and wildlife are members of the criminal justice training council yeah anyway I know Matt would like to chat about it okay all right we'll have him come the next time we do this okay and the last thing in regard to the LEAB on page 19 of the amendment is to say that in their 2021 report to the general assembly that the LEAB would need to specifically recommend ways that towns can increase access to law enforcement services we all agree with that still yeah yes and I think when is on the call with us are you there when do you still think we should have this here we do I guess hi there hi sorry I was muted I apologize what was the question so we're asking the LEAB to come up with suggestions on how towns can without telling them that they all have to have contracts which is what we would like to do we're telling them to come up with ways to improve access to law enforcement for towns it's just right so I think there's like three different sections in the bill that sort of speak to this including the reporting from VCIC and then in the latter portion of the bill with the town you know sort of plan not plan but sort of the emergency plan right so I think they all speak to each other so I don't I think that I don't think we have a problem with this I think that there's already an ongoing discussion so it's sort of a it's moving a little bit of a snail face given the current times but it's it's been an ongoing discussion so I don't I think I think the timeline I won't jump to the later section but I think the timeline set out for the sort of town emergency plan stuff is workable as well so okay great well we're used to snails we just as long as they have the little shells on them so we love it because those grubs never move we want them to actually be snails rather than grubs okay committee any any comments on that section well we did okay so I think other than other than having the discussion with the chief we are all okay with the law enforcement sections am I right about that and the treasures report those two yep yep okay all right I yes Chris did you Chris Bray did you start to say something yes okay hold on Chris Bray I like your new background it's a little more springy it is tell us what we're looking at well so I'm a little sad because that's where we don't live but that was the view at the farm of the turnouts in the hayfield behind Oh lovely yeah yeah yeah yeah okay so I think that with those two exceptions and some potential budgetary information from the academy that and then we'll get this I'll get the sheriff's budgetary committee so those four things are kind of what's left with law enforcement but the and the two budgetary ones aren't really part of this there to go to the appropriations committee am I right here okay all right so I am going to while the well Sheriff Anderson is still with us I am going to tell you that I wrote to Ted Brady and secretary curly yesterday about the fingerprinting issue and here's what I got back thanks for the note if an operation can occur without physical contact such an activity to current concur currently occur under low or no contact professional services services operating with a single worker in a single office environment such as may operate if they can comply with the mandatory health and safety requirements listed above with no more than 10 persons present at a time remote work is required whenever possible operators must maintain a log of customers and their contact information for 30 days and if as I suspect physical contact is required we hope to have an announcement about coming days that may report may impact them if that doesn't work can we revisit it then so it sounds like they're looking at it and I would suggest I suggested to him that the only physical contact that really is necessary is this right when you and you could wear gloves and you could do a plexiglass at the grocery store so anyway Madam Chair yes it does require physical contact we do have PPE to help shield our person operating a fingerprint station this is a station used by law enforcement as well as for civilian contact it isn't close proximity so while we hope that the restrictions in terms of could be permitted in some way, shape, or form. I think there's really more of a desire to ask the various agencies and departments in the state government to extend their requirements for fingerprinting. It's not that we're saying we need to be able to fingerprint, we're happy to fingerprint, especially a central personnel. Our concern is that we have teachers, nurses, doctors who are reaching out to us saying our license is about to expire, when can I get fingerprinted? We just turned down the security for the judiciary saying we are being advised that this is not a necessary thing to be done. And so we have notified judiciary of that as well, but the concern is that there comes a day where these licenses do expire, there will be a lot of angry Vermonters who are pointing at me saying, why am I not getting fingerprinted? And I'm just, because your agency isn't doing something about it. So we wanna be a team player in this, we wanna try and get where we can, it makes sense for us not to do fingerprinting right now. We agree with that. We're just encouraging agencies and departments to look at the required ETF, HSAOE and say, you know what, let's grant a 90 day extension similar to DMV extended driver's licenses, registrations and things like that. Okay, we had this conversation yesterday and it seems simpler to just allow than to get every one of the licensing agencies to agree to it. But I think that we'll continue to pursue it with ACCD. Allison. Mark, in our neck of the woods, fingerprinting becomes very important for summer programs with kids. And those are going on and DCF was ridiculously requiring teachers to get fingerprinted again. I mean, when they're already fingerprinted. So the reason that actually, I think you may hear more about it is summer programs because with kids, they're required to have fingerprinting. So it actually may be time sensitive. Thank you, Senator Clarkson. Yes, I agree. And I think that the purpose for fingerprinting is really to preserve the safety of our children. And as we permit these things, we should encourage it with proper PPE like they're requiring law enforcement to wear PPE and close contact. This is a similar safety standard. And so in my conversation with Madam Chair, it made sense to say, everybody wears a mask. We wear gloves. We do proper cleaning and sanitizing and let's push through with this. It's a safety issue through and through. Well, we'll keep up the conversation with ACCD. Thank you. Okay. Are we ready to move on? So Madam Chair, may I just ask before we launch into dispatch? Yes. Are we, for those of us, are we gonna aim to be done about 504 so that we can join the transition Senate call, Senate meeting? I think we should. This actually is taking a little longer than I thought it would, but I think that we should and we can take this up again. This is not, and I apologize to people who are sitting around waiting for us, but this is not a time sensitive issue and I wanna make sure we get it right. Yeah, I agree. So yeah, we will conclude about that other meeting is at four. Yeah. Okay, we'll conclude about 10 minutes of so that people can have a chance to move and get a cup of water and whatever else they need to do. Great, thank you. Yes. Okay, Betsy Ann. All right. So we're on page four of the summary in getting into DPS and dispatch. There's some cleanup language going on in there, but in regard to dispatch, that language is in, let's see, is it section? Section 18. Okay, so if you're looking at the actual draft language, it's on page 20 and it's a requirement for the commissioner of DPS to adopt rules in regard to two dispatch issues. First, the rates that DPS charges to perform dispatch functions by contract. So it's own rates. And then second, a requirement for the commissioner of DPS to adopt rules regulating the technical and operational standards that shall apply to any entity performing dispatch functions in the state on and after July 1, 2021. So I'm gonna throw out a couple of things here. We, Senator Caldmore, you said that you had some information from some of your towns that said put off the setting of the rates. And I am not sure I'm right here, but, and we can hear from the commissioner tomorrow, but they can set rates and start charging without this. I think that what we're asking them to do is to adopt rules around that. They've already, my understanding is that they've already come up with the rates. And this is saying they should, they need to adopt rules about how they're gonna apply those rates. And this is for dispatching of not just police? This is whoever they dispatch for their DPS dispatches for different services in different towns. And the towns that don't want this to happen are the towns that haven't been paying for it at all, but my understanding is that the commissioner told us he came in with a chart and told us how much they've come up with. And what we're asking here, I believe is for them to adopt some rules around the setting and adopting those. It's said to set rules around them so that they have some consistency in how they're applying them and whether they're gonna let towns who wanna, when you know my feeling about this to begin with. Yes, I do. So I won't repeat it, but they need to have some rules around how they're gonna do it. Are they gonna have a phase in? Are they going to, for towns that aren't paying anything now are they gonna have a less of a phase in than for towns that they might be dispatching for that are paying something? So I think that's what we're asking here. Is that right Betsy? Yes. So if you wanna look at the actual current law language on page 20 at the top, so it's already current law authority for the commissioner of public safety to enter into contractual arrangements to perform dispatching functions for state, municipal or other emergency services, establishing the charges sufficient to cover the cost of dispatching. So that's their current law authority. And so what you would be adding here is a requirement to adopt rules that set forth the rates that they charge. So it'd be set out how they would establish the charges for the contracting for dispatch that they already do. And if they have to do it by rule, that means they have to have public input. Okay, thank you. The other, okay, so that section, the other thing that came up is about number two there, lines eight through 10. And that DPS, originally we had thought maybe the E911 board should do it. They felt that it was not the way they were structured, they didn't have the resources to be able to do it. And so we just threw it at DPS. One of the problems out here in the field, well, Mark maybe I'll let you just weigh in here instead of me trying to interpret what you said. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I've spoken with a variety of people including Chief Hazelton from Rescue Wink, our local EMS squad, Chief Fitzgerald from Brattleboro Police Department, Chief Bucasi from the Brattleboro Fire Department, Assistant Chief Cagliano from the West Amurston Volunteer Fire Department. None of us are here saying we disagree with this. We're saying we disagree with this right now and for a variety of reasons. But reason number one, conversation with the Department of Public Safety, these rules have not been created yet, which I don't think they would be simply because this isn't a law yet. However, we don't know what those rules would regulate. The Department of Public Safety currently oversees law enforcement and fire agencies, but they don't oversee EMS agencies. The nature of dispatching across fire, law enforcement and EMS are starkly different for a variety of reasons that are far more technical than I care to take the time today. However, that being said, another question then becomes when we talk about technical and operational standards, to what boundaries are those? For example, just very quickly, Motorola radio systems are one of the most expensive radio systems on the market. And if the Department of Public Safety said, we're gonna go with Motorola radio systems and everybody has to use that system, it could put a lot of towns, sheriffs, as well as other entities such as Fire and EMS in a position where they're looking at multimillion dollar upgrades without any way to fund that cost. My personal opinion is to remove this from this year's bill and ultimately look at this in the future year so that we can have a full discussion over what we're really looking to regulate. Another question might be rather than to establish regulating standards that apply to any entity performing dispatch, rather apply it to any entity performing the 911 dispatching and the state dispatching and leave local municipalities, local ambulance services, sheriffs and the organizations that don't really come under state funding to their own devices to try and do this. So that's the first part. The second part is, if you disagree with me on pulling that out, then let's talk about a committee of committees made up by the Fire Service Training Council, the Criminal Justice Training Council. And I believe, forgive me for getting the name wrong, but the Vermont Ambulance Advisory Board, which is the closest analog to the training councils, let those each council pick one person to represent each council and that be the entity to develop these rules and again, stick it out a couple of years so people have time to plan. Dispatching is a complicated thing involved heavily in technicalities with radio systems that we bring engineers in for, we plan over a long time. So it asks that we at least have time and that we bring a committee of these entities in. Thank you. Thank you. So are there, I think Drew is with us. Do you wanna weigh in on this, Drew? Yeah, so I can weigh in mostly from a personal perspective down here in Southern Vermont where we're dispatched out of two different areas. We use Key Mutual Aid Dispatch, which is out of Southern New Hampshire as well as Broward Road Dispatch Center. Dispatching is very complicated and I certainly can agree with the sheriff that if a standard was adopted that would require a certain type of example, switching over to all digital or switching over what we would P25 compliant, the cost and associated infrastructure would be cost prohibitive for us just because of the area that we work in and the fact that we don't receive the state funding for those assets. So I would definitely support looking into and understanding more of what these standards are gonna look like before being forced to, try to budget for massive upgrades in infrastructure. Committee. Sounds like I'm in agreement with both Mark and Drew. Anthony. Chris Gray. Yes ma'am. Right. Okay. Allison. This is not my field of expertise. I would defer to those who are recommending this plan, I guess. I think that we should have standards. So, but I do agree that the DPS is probably not the most appropriate. So maybe since nothing's gonna happen before January anyway, really. Right. We know that rather than setting up this committee, maybe we should put it in next year's bill. Whoever of us happened to be around next year and make sure that there are standards that are set so that not standards that say everybody has to use the same equipment or anything, but some minimum standards so that people around the state are getting equal, equal access to dispatch and does that make sense? So maybe it's standards and equitable service. Yeah, well it's standards for it's, the way it says is technical and operational. And I think that one of the fears is that the technical, what Mark was pointing out about the, like the Motorola system as opposed to the other systems and then the technical with dispatching for EMS is very different and dispatching for fire is very different. So you need to have people, I would say that next year when we look at this, we should look at having representatives from those, those three major dispatch services. And maybe it would be a field trip.  I just had to file. If we were in the room, I would kick your shin. I know, your legs aren't long enough now though. I know, that's Brian. So are we proposing to strike lines eight, nine and 10 from that section? I think that's Mark's first proposal, Andrew's first proposal. I agree. I disagree with striking then at least set up this other group to set the standards. I would like to strike it. So Chris strike, strike, strike little two. That's what the proposal is. I'm on the actual bill. I'm on the actual bill too. So it's, it's lines eight, nine and 10 on page 20. Yeah, it's little two. Okay, great. Chris Bray. Well, there's a joke about computing related stuff for electronics, you know, we love standards. That's why there are so many of them. And the problem is when we don't standardize enough, we end up with inner inoperable incompatible stuff that in the end drives costs higher. So some sort of balance between not driving everyone into something that's too pricey, but finding a way to help interoperability. Facilitate that. And I think that was, that was the point of this of having some kind of, but we may have picked the wrong place to put the data. Yeah, this may not be very helpful help. So. Right. It wouldn't be a fact. If we put the date out, it wouldn't, that wouldn't. No, because the DPS is the wrong place to have it done. So if we wanted to put it in there and put the date out, it would have to be composed of a different group. And if we were going to, we would have to take a lot more testimony from those three groups. Got it. I believe. So we'll table it till next year. Anthony. Yes, although it's important that we get it done. I mean, I don't mind what we're talking about here in terms of deleting this part from the bill and giving it more time, but then we say we're gonna do it next year, which is, you know, I just hope we do it. I think it's gotta get done at some point. It seems like we've been putting it off. Yeah. Maybe, maybe what we could do is so that it doesn't get lost, is ask the training council representative from the training council, from the fire council and from the EMS advisory committee council and the ambulance, whatever that organization is, to consider how best to address the issue of standards for dispatch. Not to come up with the rules, but then come back in January and say, this is how you should address it by having these people actually adopt the rules or you should address it by having the president of the United States adopt the rules or, but having that group come back to us so that it doesn't actually get lost. Well- Yeah, I hesitate to say this, but it makes me think that you should write a letter. Well, but also, Jeanette, the plus of doing that is it not only doesn't get lost, but it advances it. I mean, and begins a lot of the conversation out of the room, so that the parties that are the stakeholders that are key to the successful setting up of those standards are engaged and proposing a solution. Well, I don't think we want them to start adopting rules. What we want them to do is to come to us with a proposal about how to best approach the setting of standards. Yes, I think that would be great. Does that work for you, Brian? Yeah, I would support that. As long as you get equal representation from law enforcement, fire, EMS and municipal folks, because they're the ones that are gonna have to come up with the money to purchase whatever the equipment is that meet the standards. I just want to broaden, I don't need United Nations numbers in terms of a group either. I just, it should be a small four or five member group that can begin to look at what should the standards be and to prevent a municipality from already have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on something and then be told, guess what? That doesn't meet the standard. So what if you had somebody from the VLCT, the Training Council, the Fire Academy Council, EMS and the Ambulance Service organization? That would work. Madam Chair, could I interrupt for one minute? Yes, please. I'm sorry, I couldn't raise my hand on my computer for some reason. Well, I can't see it. I can't see it anyway because your hand is raised on here, but I don't look at the participant list. So you just have to shout. At the risk of not sounding interested, because I do have vested interest in this topic. I don't think that a member of the Training Council is an appropriate agency to discuss this issue. I do think that perhaps somebody from the Chiefs Association or the Sheriff's Department, the agency that would be affected by these changes, where the Training Council would really only pertain to training, not dispatching, per se. Yeah, I think that it was said to the Training Council because they do law enforcement training and the thought was they would appoint somebody, like I'm echoing, but yeah, Sheriff Anderson? Madam Chair, my proposal was to turn to the Training Council to appoint a person to represent law enforcement interests. It's not a training council issue, but rather turn to the Training Council, which represents, or maybe the LEAB is a more appropriate choice, but to something that represents the eight to 16 different organizations that are gonna want representation, which could serve as a sole voice on behalf of law enforcement, opposed to inviting Senator Calamore reference, the United Nations Council, where the law enforcement executives are gonna want 15 people, the fire chiefs are gonna want at least nine, and I don't know what a EMS will ask for, but at the end of the day, everybody's gonna wanna have a voice able. I think at least nudging the football forward in this context allows us to say who does need to be involved in the conversation. Does Leagues of Cities and Towns represent the municipalities well enough, or does Leagues of Cities and Towns, somebody else's more apt to have that conversation on behalf of the municipalities? I don't know that answer, but I thought that that could be a starting point to figure out who the right people would be. And since we're not actually setting the standards or the rules here, where this group is going to come to us and say, how is the best way to go about setting the standards? So is the LEAB and asking them to come? Is that, that is me echoing, isn't it? No, it's the person who's number is an 010. Is that the YouTube going? There you go. Thank you. Oh, they were watching it on YouTube while they were with us. Oh, okay, I see. So if we said some, the LEAB should appoint somebody to represent the law enforcement community, the fire council would appoint somebody to represent the fire community. And that is fire community. That isn't, we're gonna have one who represents chiefs and one who represents paid people and one who represents volunteers. And then the VLCT and then the EMS advisory council. And they will come to us with a suggestion of how best to go about setting standards for technical and operational dispatch services. And who needs to be involved in how to go forward? That way, as Anthony said, it doesn't get lost. That's Ian. Got it. Okay, Brian. I'm fine with that. Chris Bray. Sorry, gotta hit the, yes, I like the, a good solution. Anthony, I assume you agree with it since you suggested it. That's a great idea. Yeah. I wish I had thought of it. Allison? Absolutely. And we can leave the date there. Yes, July, 2021, because that'll give some time for people to try and figure out how, but not to set the rules, not to start adopting rules, but just telling us how it should be done. That way, if none of us are here next year, we hope that doesn't happen, but if none of us are here next year. Where are you from with the homeless? It didn't get lost, huh? You going to the Bahamas? What are you doing? You're not coming back? Well, we're all hoping we come back, I believe. And Betsy will be here to remind people anyway. And what did you mean about the July 1st date? Well, I think there was a, it said that he should adopt rules by July 1st, 2021. And if we just say that they should come back to us with a report by, or report back to us, not with a report. We don't ever want to say with a report. But what date do you want them to report to you? I would say that they should report to us by end of the session in 21. Yeah, because otherwise July 21 makes no sense coming back to us, because we aren't around. So Madam Chair. Or maybe, I'm going to just excuse myself because I have to stand up or I'm going to go. Oh, we're, we have to also. I have, yes, I've sat for three hours. Can we just agree on a date for Betsy? Yeah, yeah. What I'm going to do is ask Drew and Mark and Chris to come up with a date for when they should report back to us. And then we'll deal with that next time we address this. And we didn't get to any of the other issues here, but we will. And I apologize to Drew and to Gwen and Matt and 075, whoever that is, and Portal, whoever, Patrol, whoever that is. That could be it. But so we'll put this on the schedule again for next week. And I'll try to get a schedule done by tomorrow so that we can, okay? Yeah, I won't be joining you on that other meeting I have a meeting with the governor. Yes. Give it our best. Yes, and tell them to let the training council hire somebody, go forward. Actually, I will write that down. And we'll write a letter to Mark. This committee has many things we'd like to say to the governor. No, but right now that's what we want to say. Interim director of the training council. Yes, and go ahead with the search. And they won't hire anybody, but they should be going ahead with it. Okay. And do you want any of us to come along with you for moral support or anything? You're welcome. All right. Mark, were you raising your hand or were you waving goodbye? Madam chair, I'm taking off. Thank you for your time. I also want to thank the committee for designating me as a doctor on the agenda. Oh, yes, I forgot about that. The doctor and representative of the nature conservancy. That's why he's outside. I'm happy to support.  I thought I was going to look at you with totally new eyes. I'm sorry to hear you orange. Maybe one day. I'm glad to hear you aren't. Thank you. I have to go. I was going to demote you. Okay. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye.