Good morning. You are with the Vermont House Government Operations Committee. We are here together on Thursday morning to hopefully finish off our work on S124. We've got one sort of substantive change this morning to look at that that we've invited Peter Gregory to be with us for and to help us understand. And that's the issue around municipal emergency response plans and and whether we have a different way of inventorying what what is available to different municipalities in terms of fire EMS and police services across the state. My intention this morning is for us to to hear this testimony and then to go to the fresh draft that Betsy Ann has provided to Andrea and is going up on our committee page this morning. We will continue going through that, you know making any final edits that we want to with the intention of getting to mark up and vote before we're done here today. Keeping in mind that 11 o'clock Betsy Ann and I need to take a time out and go to the Appropriations Committee room which hopefully is more fun than a time out. We will also take Nolan with us at that point because he's created a fiscal note and so we'll have a moment to review that with Nolan this morning after we talk with Peter Gregory. So you all will get a little bit of a break. Late morning, and then we'll come back to to finish the bill and voted out of committee so that hopefully we can finish that before the two o'clock floor time. And what's your schedule today do you have a an afternoon commitment with our Senate counterparts. Good morning. I don't believe so I think I'm on your same schedule. Yes, I am. No after meeting schedule. Excellent. Thank you. All right. So, Peter Gregory why don't we invite you to to share with us your Oh, Rob has a question go ahead Rob. Well it's just so. So we're we're, I didn't check the schedule so we're going to go beyond the 1030 mark in committee discussion correct, obviously, if we need to yes. Okay, because I have, I have a noon zoom with, well, with the gov. But so if we can just play it by ear, I'll let you know if that works, madam chair. Yeah, I don't think it will take us too much past noon. I think we can probably work with focus and diligence and try to get us out of here. That's my hope. If you come all the way over to our side of things, you know, debate, I'm pretty sure we can boot this out very quickly. Thank you. Oh, I appreciate your humor on a Thursday morning. So Peter Gregory we sent you some some potential language and just wanted to hear your response to that and then open up a little bit of committee dialogue about how to how to accomplish the intent of that section that came over to us from the Senate and Betsy and did you want to jump in for just a moment here. Good morning. Yeah, just so everyone can look at the language that Mr Gregory will be discussing. I emailed to you a clean copy of draft 3.1 and you can find this language on page 47 Mr Gregory it's the same language that I had sent you previously. I just emailed it to you since I had only sent Andrea the docs for posting early this this this morning when I was getting on so they might not be online yet. But everyone can look at this language together on page 47 in the attachment that I sent to you in section what's called now section 32 for regional planning commissions. All right. Good morning. Good morning, Madam Chair members of the committee. It's great to be with you. Thank you Betsy and for sending that to me yesterday. Certainly this new section is a little bit is much better I think than the section that came over from the Senate that had some concerns. So this essentially is to a task the regional planning commissions with providing an inventory within a time certain period on all the different public safety services that are available within each of the regions. Certainly support that regional planning commissions are, you know, doing inventories all the time so this is right up our bailiwick. So we have a lot of relationships with most of these emergency services personnel, because we staff the local emergency planning committees in most regions of the state. So it would be not a difficult task at all. And it feeds well into legislation that this committee helped usher through a few years ago, enabling RPC is to do shared services which is certainly kicking off in some regions of the state, not so much on public safety, but in other areas like energy like in my region. So you know I support what you've done. I think we could do a good job. I think the, the date that you have in the bill could be moved up if you are so inclined. I think we have it 2024 I think I think it could be done easily two years sooner. I think this is a topic that is very important for financial reasons for our communities but also level of service. So I think the sooner we can get this done and provide information to the communities on what's out there where they may be able to be able to work together. That is a good goal. So I would suggest if you're so inclined to agree to move that up a couple of years I don't think it's that big a task and would like to provide that information to our communities and ultimately the citizens who are well served by good services. Excellent thank you. Questions from committee members. Yes, Jim. Yeah, thank you madam chair. Thank you Peter for joining us. Appreciate the comment about the, the requirement date. I'm wondering if you share any of this information currently with the Department of Public Safety. And whether you should if we want to kind of a state collecting point as well. I don't believe we currently do because we don't really have a thorough inclusive inventory of this information I think sharing it with public safety would be a good, good thing. This would be an inventory that would need to be kept current because you know mutual aid agreements change services change. So yeah, I think sharing it would be appropriate because we have a strong relationship with Vermont emergency management we do receive some federal funding through them to do emergency planning. Anyway, that's really the source of funds that I think with the EMS blessing we would use to actually do this inventory so I think it makes good sense representative Harrison to do that. Great. Thank you Peter. Thank you madam chair. Good morning Peter. Good morning. So the, the information that's currently being required in this piece of legislation. Do you have most of it readily available now, or is there a fair amount of work to do to get it all from what you've seen. In our region I think our knowledge and our strong relationships we could probably pull it together rather quickly I can't speak for other areas of the state how how up to speed they are in some regions of the state are quite large and VDA 50 some towns and a lot of different service providers probably. So I think it would vary so it's hard to say, make a statement that yeah we have it all pretty much in hand already I would say not in most areas but yes and so. So it would require a fair amount of time and effort on some parts, but others maybe are a little more up to up to date with that information is that what you're saying. Yeah, you know, but I, I, you know, I wouldn't characterize a fair amount of work as anything that's overly daunting I think it's really important work and I appreciate who's ever idea this was to include this section. Okay. Thank you very much. All right, any other questions from committee members. All right so committee how do you feel about 2022. Am I on mute. Okay, there we go. Now I'm seeing a few reactions. All right. Good deal looks like if you have an objection on that please. Please weigh in at this moment. All right, so Betsy and it looks like we will pull that date forward. And, and Peter I thank you so much for taking a few minutes to be with us this morning it's nice to see you in zoom world I don't think we've seen you since March. That's correct so thank you for inviting me in and listening to my thoughts on this and yes it's very good to see you all as well. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Thank you. We look forward to continuing this work. It's, it's important work for on behalf of our communities and we're trying to find a way to get some of that work done without overburdening our, our small volunteer, largely volunteer select boards and, and emergency planning commissions so thank you so much for, for being with us this morning and have, have a great day. Thank you again soon. Hope so. Thank you so much. Take care. All right. I think that what I'd like to do now is take a few moments to go over the, the fiscal note that Nolan has created so Nolan when Langwell thank you for being with us this morning. We, we should just understand what, what numbers you came up with and, and, you know, satisfy ourselves that we understand how you arrived at those numbers and, and that we've looked at all possible budget implications. I haven't sent it yet because I just saw the latest version, so I'm actually changing the section numbers so I will happily do that I'm happy to put it up on the screen. But if maybe if Andrew can give me host access so I can at least show what I have now and then when I'm done I can send the clean copy to everybody afterwards. That would be great. There you go. Okay. For the record, Nolan Langwell the joint fiscal office. You'll have to forgive me I'm a little late to the game here on this. I was asked to do this yesterday so I see this together with the help of Betsy and so I will walk you through this really quick. In short, there's no major fiscal impacts or appropriations required but I'll walk you through the sections that I flag. So section for the Senate version of this would have increased the, the membership for this particular commission from 12 to 20 members. This version increases it from 12 to 24 members and would allow members to receive real per diem compensation and reimbursements through 32 VSA 1010 which is at the statutory that dictates who gets what any short people, if you are, even if you're entitled to it if you're getting any kind of compensation from your work or anything else you do not get compensation so we assume this version has your version has seven to nine public members so I estimated that between seven and nine people may claim reimbursements for up to six and that would cost between $53 and $6800 a year. Over the language does say the cost will be covered by money is appropriate to the Council so given the nominal costs, I do not believe that this additional appropriations at this time. So there's a cost but nothing that I believe you need to go to appropriations and say we need to have more money. I think this can be captured within that budget. Thank you so much for your question. I flagged this, not because this is what I heard but according to Betsy and we had there was testimony from the Council on this particular section around. I think it was certification where they said that the Council believes this restructure cannot be done by July 1 2021. I would need more staff and money to carry this out. I'm trying to have a back and forth a little bit with folks over at the Council to just follow up on this. And we've been playing phone tags I'm hoping to sort of tie this up before 11 o'clock, but I had to flag it because if we when we add things in law or in bills, where the agency says that it could cost the money I flag it. I'm not saying that you need to add more money. I'm just flagging it as a flag. I'm not saying that you need to. I just sort of highlight because anytime we do anything that changes boards, I always just flag it and say, you know, was there any per diems required and in this case there really were no per diems required so there's no appropriations required to the sections of the bill. I just put it in there because anytime we do stuff with boards I just sometimes I'll flag things even when they don't have an appropriation just out of habit. In section 17. This is the section that requires DPS to finally adopt rules regarding dispatch rates by July 1221. But it also requires the rules to provide a minimum of three years following adoption before the rates they contain are opposed so essentially it's a three year moratorium. I said, when I talk to DPS they do not, they're not currently billing local entities for these dispatch costs anyway. So there's no loss of revenue, because they're not are they're not currently billing. What they told me is that if there's an entity entities that they provide dispatch for they're not charging they're getting for free, but there's a lot of other other local entities that are getting there's a dispatch from other places, and they're quite significantly. So they're sort of a disparity in the system. So, so but in terms of DPS there wouldn't be any loss revenues. So that's the highlight and nutshell. I don't know if anybody has questions. All right committee members. What are your questions. All right, I don't see anybody diving in. I will, like I said I will clean this up and then I will send it to Andrea to post. Thank you but see on just thank you. Thank you. Thank you Nolan I just wanted to give a heads up under this draft 3.1 the dispatch language would change a bit. The House committee is considering eliminating that are proposing to eliminate the dispatch rulemaking provision and instead have essentially a moratorium until the General Assembly establishes a fee structure, the way that this draft 3.1 is currently set up. And it is in what's now called scrolling through section 25. It would allow DPS to continue to charge under current contracts it has. So that was drafted with the understanding that they did have some contracts and were charging that was based on prior testimony talking about some charges. So if it's accurate that DPS is not charging at all. Perhaps the language should be updated then to reflect that if this committee will still pursue it's moratorium until there's a fee structure. I had an email exchange with Rick Hollenbach at DPS who told me that they were not currently charging. Okay, thank you to confirm that. And I will update my fiscal notes to reflect the latest language again I'm, I'm playing catch up. Things are moving. Thank you. Thank you for flagging up for me. Thank you. We're making changes in real time here so I appreciate you sprinting to catch up and and and getting us something that we can take to discuss with the appropriations committee later this morning. Committee any other changes questions concerns with respect to the fiscal note that Nolan has gone over with us. Please dive in for their little blue hand. All right, thank you Nolan I appreciate you being with us this morning and we'll, we'll see you later on this morning and when you have a final draft of that if you want to share that over with us that would be, that would be helpful. We're going to get back to the bill language. Thank you. Good to see on you have an annotated and a clean version so probably we should run through the annotated just so that we can be oriented to to the changes. Sounds good. Hello again. Thank you to Andrea for posting these docs there on your web page now. There are two drafts there's a draft 3.1 annotated and the 3.1 clean copy, the 3.1 annotated is your running draft of changes to the bill as past the Senate. And then for the clean copy what I've done is just started to take that annotated version and incorporate the annotations and put it into a real strike all amendment format and official format. So what I have done at the direction of the chair is put together this draft 3.1 looking at the annotated version I have flagged in purple highlighting in the comment boxes the changes that you have not reviewed yet that were made since yesterday's meeting. And we can start on page one and the first change would be to change the name of the criminal justice training council to be the criminal justice council. In order to reflect the full scope of the powers and duties of the council, which relate to training certifying and professionally regulating law enforcement officers. The first change related to this topic is in section one just redesignating the name of the current council chapter with its new title criminal justice council. Section two would be a directive for legislative council to use statutory revision authority to change that name accordingly. Starts out by saying in subsection a in section to that in order to fully reflect all of its powers and duties, which relate to training certifying and professionally regulating law enforcement officers. The training council is renamed the Vermont criminal justice council sub B contains the ledge council stat rev directive, which is that when preparing the VSA for publication office of legislative council shall replace criminal justice training council with criminal justice council, as long as those revisions have no other effect on the meaning of the statutes. We would not prepare a bill, but then instead just use that revision authority to update the statutes with that name change. And I will pause there Madam chair for any further discussion on that. Right. This creates the name change and and has it permeated throughout statute wherever the council is mentioned. Questions. Comments concerns. All right. John Gannon. Well, I just thought that this was in keeping with what the council is currently doing. Even if we weren't to amend the law with respect to the training council doesn't just do training but also handles professional misconduct. And I think it would be confusing to the public. To understand what this body does if you keep the word training in there. So, that's, that was my thoughts to make it more understand understandable to the public what this does and that is not just limited to training. I think that's a good suggestion. And I, I definitely appreciate that. Any members. Feeling like we need to keep this open for discussion or should we move on to section. Three, going forward. Okay. Take it away. All right. On page two, section three. The only update here online five is just that same update we just discussed about the name of the council. You have already discussed adding or correcting the name of recruits to be law enforcement applicants and be one on line 10. And you have already discussed that be to about adding to the description of the council, it's current law duties to professionally regulate officers, you had already reviewed that language. And then online 17, you had already reviewed the language about adding in that the council also approves programs of instruction in addition to offering them. So I'm moving on to page three. And the next change that is new for today is updating or further revising the membership of the council. So I'm on page three. Line six, you'll see that updating change about the name of the council, but then the changes that would occur on line seven and eight here is to maintain the current law requirement that the commissioner of corrections serves on the council. And additionally, maintaining the Senate's proposal online eight to have the commissioner of mental health. We have a seat on the council. In addition. If you scroll over to page four. On line 16. There's a language about the public members. Your previous draft had five public members pointed by the governor, and then one public member appointed jointly elected by the chapters of the Vermont NAACP. As a follow up this instead would have seven public members, all appointed by the governor. And then online 20 and 21, stating that at least one of these members shall be a mental health crisis worker, which was a substitute for social worker that you discussed. On page five, at least one of these members would be an individual with a lived experience of a mental health condition or psychiatric disability. And then, at least two of these members shall be chosen from among persons nominated by the Vermont chapters of the NAACP. And each of these members shall represent a different Vermont double and double NAACP chapter. And in order to assist the governor and making these appointments because these would be gubernatorial appointments instead of jointly elected by the NAACP chapters. Each chapter instead would nominate at least three individuals for these gubernatorial appointments. Marcia Gardner has a question. Let's see and what's our final count. So under this. Now you would be up to a total membership of 23 members. I had previously discussed what the balance would be for law enforcement related versus non law enforcement related. And by my account, you're now up to 12 of law enforcement related and sorry, we'll have to go. I think it's 12 and 13 or no 12 and 12 11 and 12. I'm sorry, we have to go back through and count. It's definitely a closer balance. I think you should go through. We should count ourselves to confirm if you want to go through that balance. I think we should. That was, that was something that was very important to us and we want to make sure that when we present this change that we have a final count. Do you want to do that now Madam chair. Yeah, let's go ahead. Back up to page three. Can somebody else keep track of who's in what column. I'll do it too, but if somebody can double check. Yep, absolutely. Missionary public safety is one. Yeah, missionary of corrections is to motor vehicles is three. Fish and wildlife is for mental health. I think you've discussed before is the non law enforcement, a g law enforcement as you discussed. Executive director of the Department of State's attorneys and sheriffs discusses law enforcement. Executive director of racial equity, you have non law enforcement troopers association law enforcement. Police Association law enforcement chiefs of police association law enforcement. Sheriff's Association law enforcement. Law enforcement officer appointed by VSE a law enforcement. The LCT you've discussed as law enforcement individual appointed by the executive director of the Center for Crime Victim Services, non law enforcement. Individual appointed by executive director of Human Rights Commission, non law enforcement. Individual appointed by executive director of the network against domestic and sexual violence, non law enforcement. And then the seven public members appointed by the governor. It's like 12 and 12 to me 12. Yes, 24. All right, well let's continue with that unless committee has a question. Jim Harrison. Thank you madam chair. So I think as we left it yesterday we still have some differences of opinion on the chair. So I don't know if you want to talk about that now if you want to flag it and go through the rest of the bill. We should talk about it right now because my aim is to get us to a point where we give Betsy and instructions on a final draft to mark up and vote. Okay, understanding there's some differences I would just throw out again. I think that's a good suggestion from yesterday and that is to let the council continue to elect its own chair on and hopefully the because of all the changes and make up that they see the value of trying to work together and elect someone within their own body to lead them forward. Thank you for your discussion Marsha Gardner. Thank you madam chair. I just wonder what the appearance would be to the public, if out of the gate, this committee, Alex, a chair who is a member of the law enforcement portion. The public would see that as somewhat of a betrayal and look at it as, well, we just gave them lip service with all of these public hearings that we conducted. And I'm wondering if we should stick with the language as it is. Another thought is having served on a number of committees and councils when I was working for the state. Ones that are associated directly with either the governor's office or the administration seem to have more power. They can languish. If they don't have a direct connection to to the governor so I'm thinking maybe we should stick with the language as it is. Thanks Marsha JP. I would just renew my preference that the chair be elected by the console. Rob LaClaire. Thank you man chair. I guess I have several comments about this one is, I have to say I'm a little concerned about the overall number here 24 seems to be a very large board and I'm concerned it could be unwieldy. Secondly, if we're 24 and we're evenly split. We call us having a conversation around a charter change here not too long ago that there was concern about an even numbered board so I'm guessing if that was a concern that it should be concerned here. And as much as I have the utmost respect for the member from Richmond. I absolutely disagree with the fact that the current language is that you could never have anybody from law enforcement as I interpret that ever chair this. And I totally disagree that that should be taken off the table. We have changed the makeup of this group by a dramatic shift here. Imagine anybody would think that we're just gave it lip service when you take a look at the makeup of this board compared to what it was before. So I have some major concerns and as it stands right now there's very little about this particular section that I could support. But thank you madam chair. Thanks Rob how I agree with the member from Barry this is dramatic. And I think what's going on in our state and in our country with regards to law enforcement needs dramatic change. And I think we can't forget law enforcement works for the public. It works for us. And we need to have a say in how things are played out of policies formed and you need to have the community voice front and present as an equal and law enforcement that's always been in charge of its process. And this is a change this is a dramatic change. And it's long overdue. Bob Hooper. I think Marcia's points are well taken. This is about optics I mean living in Burlington driving past the encampment two or three times a day. One of the big issues is whether or not there is the perception of responsibility as how just brought up for a group of people that work for us quote unquote. And who are they responsible to even city council is now doubting that they have responsibility so the optics I think are very important and we have put two things in place here. Good optics to begin with and a review process down the road if it doesn't work the way it should. I think Marcia's point of an equal number of people. I think there's a marked difference between the governance of a citizen group that comes together as opposed to a group that is designed to represent the needs of citizens which the charter change would have done. All boards don't necessarily have their chair as a non voting member or so. I think that this group could decide themselves. I lean towards Marcia's position. Thank you. Mike Marwicky. Thank you madam chair. As I wrote in the chat I like to keep the language as is. I think that's one of the reasons why I think that primarily not to confuse the military with the police, but I was talking with someone who's recently retired from a career in the military and we were talking about the civilian role in the military and he shared there's a career. There's a person who actually teaches and still teaches. He taught at all the military academies and the war college. He says it's essential in a democracy for there to be civilian oversight of the military. And I think this takes us a step in the direction of providing some civilian oversight in what has until now been oversight from only within the group that it's providing oversight to and I think it's essential for us to start to expand that and recognize we are in a changing world. It's important that there be checks and balances. However, whatever part of government we're talking about and this is just a small way to start that process of having a more balanced perspective here on this council. Anybody else want to weigh in on this. All right since this is the first major point of divergence of opinions I think it would be helpful for us to straw poll this. We understand what we're looking at recognizing that many other sections of this bill are are sort of agreed upon by most if not all. So if you are in favor of leaving the language as is please raise your hand. All right, I see seven. And if you are in favor of pursuing one of the proposed changes. We had a couple different ideas thrown out over the last day or two. Please raise your hand. Sorry, I'm not raising my hand. That's okay madam chair you can vote twice. I'm going to show you how to do it but then I'm not going to count my hand. That looks like a seven four. All right. Thank the committee for respectful debate and dialogue about this and I understand that this is a major change in not only the makeup of the council but now proposing a change in the leadership of the council and I just want to say, you know to this group, and to this group of people who are there who's listening. If we're all back in the government operations committee room in January, I would be happy to have us pledge to keep an eye on this, keep an eye on how that balance is working. Listen to the newly constituted council and allow them to allow them to weigh in on whether this is a workable leadership of the council. I'm keeping an open mind and and right now I'm tipping in favor of the the voices who've come to us and said, we want more civilian. We want more civilian cooperation in in terms of how we train and and certify and do professional conduct oversight with law enforcement. So, that gets us through the bottom of page five, I believe, or the top of page six. Move on the language here that Nolan already discussed is to instead of the Senate past version which said that only the public members, the defined public members of the council shall be entitled to per diem compensation. The language at the bottom of page five that you had discussed. You discussed the per diem this would say, instead that the members of the council shall be entitled to receive per diem compensation and reimbursement of expenses as permitted under 32 vs a 1010 from monies appropriated to the council. What happens in practice is that under the terms of 32 vs a 1010 a person cannot get a per diem if they are already being paid by another source. So for example, the ex officios that serve on this council because they are a commissioner. They're already getting paid a state salary, they would not get an additional per diem for serving on this commission on the council. And it also says that a person any member of a board or commission can get reimbursement of actual unnecessary expenses so for example, for any purse any member of the council that drives to a meeting they would be able to claim gas mileage. No one had already worked, walked you through just the physical impact of this, but it would just use the general law authority for obtaining per diems and expense reimbursement. Instead of only saying specific members, the public members get per diems because for example, we don't know yet who the, for example, Executive Director of Human Rights Commission will appoint. Somebody serving just a virtually a public member. Okay there. Yep. We are on page six in regard to this section five transitional provision the only update is to remove the training from the council's name. There is a language that says an existing member of the council, who will serve on the council under new membership can serve the remainder of their term in effect immediately prior to that change. So it's at least possible that some of the members that will get a seat under the new council membership are already serving. For example, there is a police association appointed by the president of the association. If that same. If the, that person now is getting specifically a seat but it's possible that that will be the same person appointed by the president of the association. The same person is already serving on the council. And so in order to maintain their current terms and when they expire that language says that they can just serve out the remainder of their term. And then in section five on subsection be you had discussed this deadline to appoint the new council membership. That's currently set at November 15 of this year. You are moving on to section six. Just a reminder this is the requirement for the council to make changes in its training structure. In subsection a, there was the language you already reviewed about the council being required to adopt rules to identify and implement alternate routes to certification, aside from training provided the academy. No change there discussed from the language as past senate on top of page seven is that language you already reviewed that the council has to offer courses of instruction for officers in different areas of the state and strive to offer overnight courses whenever possible. Jim Harrison has a question. Sorry. So, can I take it that we're sticking with the November 15 on the new membership of the console. Even in spite of the short timeframe and a lot of other things going around. I did have a committee discussion about that yesterday and I'm happy to open that up for discussion again today I think the the intention with leaving the November is to have a lot of tasks that this bill is asking the council to achieve and that we wanted the new membership to be a part of some of the reports back that are contemplated later in the bill. Yeah, I understand and I appreciate that I just, I think, there's going to be a rush it's like pulling names out of a hat in a month and a half. So I would encourage us to think about postponing that to January 1 or something I just even later in December I just think we're we're rushing that but I may be a minority of one which it is what it is so. Other committee discussion on the timeline. Madam chair. Yes, do you have a little blue hand or do you want to raise your actual hand and go ahead Bob actual hand up I couldn't find my blue one I have too many things open on the screen. So this, this would be an absolute cut off date by which all members would need to be appointed but if people are appointed earlier there would be no prohibition once the law is signed to them, taking part in all decisions that are made. This is a drop dead date for. That's a good question but see on how does that work as currently drafted the effective date of the new membership is also November 5 November 15 that effective dates at the end of the bill so the, as it's currently constructed. The new membership would begin on November 15. I agree that we should have as much participation as early as possible. So, either that would need to be bifurcated or stick with early. My opinion. Well the council in an ordinary time me would meet at least quarterly and I understand that they have been meeting more like monthly in recent times. And so I don't know how many meetings, they already have scheduled between now and November 15. Just throw that out as a point of context, Warren. Yes. I basically I'm in agreement with Jim I think November 15 is just so tight with the concept of drawing names out of a hat rings true with me and I would think if we put it at the end of the year. That would be at least a little bit of breathing room. We've got so much going on between now and November 15. I mean, we may not even know who our president is going to be by November 15. The way things are looking in some states. So, I certainly like to postpone that a bit, not a whole lot, but a bit. That's it. I think it would be helpful for us to, to orient ourselves to the various tasks that we have asked the council to undertake and understand what the, what the due dates are of those various tasks so that we can appreciate how many of those might need to get started now in order to be done by the time we contemplated having them report back to us. And the bill contains reports back with recommendations and in addition to the council, for example, having to prepare for restructuring its courses of instruction as we were just discussing in sections five and six, but that those have future deadlines but right now the bill is drafted on page eight for example, that the new executive director of the council has to provide a verbal progress report on how that restructuring of those educational programs are going. And you had previously discussed in that section eight on page eight of extending out that report back to sometime in March. However, your feedback from the Senate committee was they wanted. They were hoping for progress reports early. So currently the change here for example on section eight page eight line 13 was to have a progress report back from the new executive director of the council on in January. Now that's the executive director himself or herself not the full council. One of the things you were discussing is that the council was in the progress process of choosing a new executive director. So if you look forward on through the bill and if you keep scrolling. Through the bill. Adam chair. Yes. Sorry, that in itself, to me says that we've got to push some dates back because they haven't even selected an executive director yet and, you know, I would think it'd be very difficult for that executive director to come up with any sort of formal reports I believe the commissioner said that they felt they would have an executive director on as early as October I believe. And it's somebody who remembers that conversation correct me if I'm wrong. All right, nobody's jumping in with. I could say you're, I could say you're wrong but I'm totally guessing. Let's move on and just to point out the other requirements for a council report back you can start to find those on page 18 in section what's now section 16 this was the 10 a as past the Senate. But this was this is the section that requires various entities to report back to the go box committees with recommendations. This language requires those entities to report back by January 15, your prior draft had an exception for the council to report back with a verbal progress report in March of next year and then a follow up final recommendations in April of next year. But you did hear back from the Senate committee again about them wanting recommendations sooner rather than later. So actually right now this language says that the council in section 16, the council would submit a verbal progress report to the go box committees by January, and any recommendations for legislative action by March. And so those recommendations involve a variety of topics. On page 19, there's recommendations regarding officer qualifications into officer training and in six body cam policy, and in seven, the military equipment recommendation. So that's a lot of a lot of reports back that we are hoping to get started on before the middle of before the middle of the next legislative session. And, you know, I guess I would say that if we, if we indeed want the newly constituted council to be to, you know, to be taking part in those, we want them to be appointed as soon as possible. So that they can begin having meetings on on some of these really important issues. So, Rob, your hand is up. You have something else on that. Sure madam chair know I did put it down. I'm sorry. You must be getting tired because it's been up there for a few minutes. Well I always want to participate. I appreciate that about you. Thank you for the committee discussion as Betsy on made note. And just to lay this all out there for for full disclosure on how, and how we're deliberating on this we, we have a very tight timeline with with the budget train leaving the station. By the end of next week, which means that if we find policy bills to be important we need to have them moving in time with getting them across the line. When the budget is passed, and when we finally adjourn this 2020 marathon session. And so to that end, we have been trying to keep track of the changes the Senate makes to our bills that they are working on and they are keeping track of the changes that we make to their bills. That we're working on and this feedback that we that we got initially from the Senate committee after they looked at our, I think it was draft 2.1 is that right that's the end. The feedback from them was that they, you know, they wanted these, these report backs, at least to be verbally presented to us in January and, and during the legislative session next year so to me that that necessitates that we tried to get this council reconstituted as soon as possible. Jim. Question for Betsy again. Given the tight timeline. What happens if the governor or other bodies missed that deadline in positions not appointed. I think that a council would be its full membership it as it's supposed to be with that number of seats. And so, take a look at their see if I can see any special quorum language. But if there's no special quorum language in their statute. The standard quorum requirements is a majority of the full number and one sec. Actually the council, I'm looking at 20 vs a 2354 it says the council shall adopt rules as the quorum. So we'd have to take a look at what their quorum rules are to see how they operate in that regard. But the other statute I was thinking of is, if there's no special quorum, it's in title one. I'm pulling it up to state it specifically. I mean typically a quorum would be a majority of the console, whether that's of the 24 or whether that's of those appointed. It's a majority of the full number is required to take action. I believe is what that statute says so 13. Yes, in this case. Okay, no, but I'm just what happens if the governor doesn't feel that he has to qualify candidates by November 15 and all positions or some of the other appointing bodies. Do the existing people stay on or do. No, they don't. Okay, so everybody's that transitional provision that says in section five a that says someone who get is gets to continue to serve under the revised membership can serve out the remainder of their term. So I believe people would get to stay on. If they're currently on now and they would just get reappointed under the new membership, they can continue to serve. Okay, but I guess my point is, the console doesn't cease to exist if a public member or any other appointed member is vacant on November 15. Is that correct. As long as we have 13 to make a quorum. Yes. Okay, thank you. That helps. Any other committee discussion on on this. All right. Shall we move on. Okay. Thanks Betsy Ann. All right, I'm scrolling. And so there we're on page eight now I think that we're still in the requirements for the council to restructure its training programs. Just on page eight. There's that flag of the transition to level two to level three. It's still in the as past version as past senate version of a July 121 deadline. So for the council to restructure its programs to transition from level two to level three, without having to restart the certification pro process. But moving on to section eight. There's another report back that we had discussed about the new executive director of the council providing a verbal progress report to the gov ops committees by January 15 on under a one. It's planned to replace some of its overnight law enforcement training required at the police academy and just adding in on lines 19 and 20 with specificity including its 16 week residential basic training. It's all non overnight training and training in other areas of the state. The, including its 16 residential basic training was to emphasize, I think that's according to the council testimony I believe that's the only not over. I believe that's the only overnight training that the council requires at this time is the 16 week residential basic training. So, just specifying that that's what the report would need to specifically address. And then I just noticed when looking at the language. Whether they have to have a plan to replace their overnight training with as the senate past version was with non overnight training in other areas of the state. And I don't, I didn't know if that was the requirement or what the general assembly would be wanting them to actually have to replace their overnights with non overnight in other areas. Because it seems at least possible that they could allow their basic training to continue at the academy but maybe not all parts of it have to be overnight, for example. So if that was, if it was the intent to allow them to consider replacing overnight training with non overnight training, and it may be in other areas of the state, that language was added online 20. Does that reflect what you're wanting them to address. And I'll go back again and has this hand up on that topic john. Thank you. I know that the Academy class that recently graduated that took part in the midst of the coven 19 state of emergency that the part of their training became virtual. And that captured here Betsy and that virtual training could be conducted instead of in person training, either at the academy or at another location in the state. I don't think the language clearly captures that. So, if you did want to require them to think about that. You could do two things on page seven in lines two and three you could this is the statutory requirement for them to strive to offer non overnight courses whenever possible. You could add to statute there. I have a reference to strive to offer remote remote courses. Also, if you wanted to add that language there, and then in their section eight report back, you can have them specifically address remote training. Is that something. Is that what you're hoping to hear back from them and to require of them. Oh, I think it makes sense. Yeah, go ahead john. I think to encourage, you know, you know, that as many people as possible can get through the 16 week course or other training. You know for the council to consider all forms of training whether it's in person or remote would be important. I mean obviously there's some forms of training. Which is, you know, use of force that that probably needs to be in person, there may be other parts of the training that don't need to be in person. And to make it as flexible as possible so that single parents, people who live in, you know, parts of the state that are not near the academy, or other, you know, large locations can participate. I think it's important. Rob. I agree with the intent from the member from Wilmington they're just a part of it though feels a little too prescriptive it seems like that we're kind of micromanaging here where those feel like the kind of decisions that the council would be making. But I do agree with the intent that we've got to make it as accessible as possible but it just feels a little prescriptive to me. John. Thank you. I didn't mean it to be prescriptive. Just to ensure that the council was looking at all options for training. So that the, you know, so they don't think we just mean okay it has to be at the police academy or some other location in Vermont, that they could also consider remote I did not mean it to be prescriptive at all that they have to offer. I mean, and I do agree, I agree with the intent, John, and, and maybe prescriptive wasn't the right word I'm just, is there anything in this language that would prevent them from using that as an option for the training, as it stands now. I don't believe so, generally just looking at the language for example if you go back up to their rulemaking requirement and section six on page six, they do have that requirement to adopt rules to identify and implement alternate routes to communication, aside from the training provided the academy. So that's a general requirement for them to think about training, how to provide training outside of the academy. And then on page seven lines two and three the language that they shall strive to offer non overnight courses whenever possible. At least, I think that language would allow them to offer remote courses. If you wanted them to potentially at least address this. Perhaps you could ask them to address it in their report back in section eight. In that sub subdivision a one language. John, go ahead. If that makes sense Betsy and I mean my goal was to give them as much flexibility in offering training as possible. And not, you know, tie their hands as to it having to be in a physical location, whether that's at the academy, or at some other thing I want to encourage them to think of all manners of training. So I'm going to go ahead and move forward with, you know, sort of reinventing how they train law enforcement officers. That's the end. Perhaps on page nine at the top. You can, you can include language to say that the council shall specifically address how training may be provided remotely. And meet the intent of where you're wanting to go. Rob, how does that feel to you. Yeah, I like that. I mean, because I know that's what we're trying to get to make sense. Thank you. John, that's good. Good for you. All right, JP is good. Warren's nodding. Excellent. Got it. Okay. A reminder on page nine, starting on line six, there's the language as past Senate that there's that rule making deadline of July 1 2023 for them to adopt the rules that identify and implement the alternate routes to certification. Section nine gets to that language about the council services being contingent on an agency's compliance with either the roadside stop data collection. The requirement to adopt follow or enforce any policy required under this chapter, there are a couple of them. And then you had already discussed the language on line 17 through 19 that also they would have to be in compliance with the current law requirement to report to the AG. Any law enforcement interaction in a mental health crisis that results in death or serious bodily injuries. And just a reminder at the top of page 10, the as past Senate version would say that the council has to adopt procedures to enforce the requirements of this section, which may allow for waivers for agencies under a plan to obtain compliance. So moving on unless you want to stop me on page 10 section 10. Here's that language and as past Senate version that there's nothing in the chapter prohibiting one agency, providing additional training to its officers where no certification is requester required, and language and be allowing an executive direct officer of one agency to seek certification from the council for any in service training that that agency provides to officers of his or her own agency or both. This has been discussed before was an S 273 it's essentially a technical update because it's the law catching up with current practice this is already happening where one agency can get certified to provide training to other officers of another agency. Questions on that. All right. Section 11 is that language requiring a agency that is considering hiring an officer to have to reach out to the officers current or former agency. So this is already a requirement for a potential hiring agency to contact an officer's former agency if an officer is no longer employed at an agency to find out its reason why the officers no longer employed there. That is past Senate version would add on to that that a potential hiring agency would also have to contact the officers current agency if the officer still employed at an agency. So, if an officer still employed in an agency that as past Senate version would require the potential hiring agency to contact that current agency to obtain an analysis of the officers performance there. And on page 11 line seven and eight. There's a duty to contact the former agency, if an officer is not employed at an agency. So to contact the officers last agency. What happened when that happens is that the potential hiring agency has to contact the agency, either the current or former one to obtain a disclosure as to why the officer as to the officers performance, or if they're currently employed or the reason the officers no longer employed by the agency if they're no longer if they're not employed at one. The current law and officer who refuses to execute the written waiver that's required to get this analysis cannot be hired by the potential hiring agency. That's the current law as it applies now to the duty to contact a former agency. The language goes on to say that if we're talking about a current or former agency in this state, the executive officer of that agency shall disclose the potential hiring agency in writing. It's analysis of officers performance at the agency. If they're still employed there, or the reason officers no longer employed by the agency as applicable. And the executive officer would have to send a copy of the disclosure to the officer at the same time the agency sends it to the potential hiring agency. I'm at the bottom of page 11, moving on to page 12. The language partially already exists in current law that the agency is reporting this information is immune from liability for its disclosure, unless the disclosure would constitute intentional misrepresentation and gross negligence. On page 12 line for the new language for today that was mentioned in your previous meeting is that the potential hiring agency that receives a disclosure under subsection be shall keep the contents of that disclosure confidential. So while there's this requirement to do information sharing the potential hiring potential hiring agency will be learning about either an officer's performance at their current agency, or the reason the officers no longer employed at a former agency. Once the potential hiring agency receives that disclosure. The agency has to keep it confidential. So that's a new subsection see there on page 12 line for So committee discussion on this. This is an attempt to make sure that there's disclosure between hiring law enforcement agencies but that confidential information is not made generally public. All right. Nobody's diving with their hand. I've already reviewed on page 12 line six what's now subsection be this was the language you reviewed on the 15th that I collected bargaining agreement between an agency. And I previously had an officer but a CBA is not between an agency and an officer it's between an agency and either the exclusive representative or bargaining agency of the officers. So it's just an updating terminology correction. I cannot include a prohibition on the exchange of information between the employing agency and another agency about the officers performance at the employing agency. So this was the language you had already discussed to say that moving forward, CBAs can't prohibit this exchange of information. Relatedly section 12 provides transitional provisions essentially to explain how this will work in practice because there may be agreements now that conflict with those new requirements for disclosing information. Subsection a was the language that passed the Senate, except I just added in the specifics subsections that are being addressed online 14 so that's why a and B are highlighted. But as a reminder the language has passed the Senate was that the requirement of a current agency to disclose its analysis of its officers performance at the agency. Subsections above and subsections a and B shall not apply if there's a binding non disclosure agreement prohibiting that disclosure that was executed prior to the effective date of that section. So just belts and suspenders language to not interfere with any contractual agreement, then in effect. Subsection be you already reviewed it on the 15th but I just updated the new subsection designation it was see there instead of D. So I just flagged that. But this is saying that the provisions in subsection D above and section 11 that prohibit a collective bargaining agreement from including a prohibition on the exchange of info between agencies about the performance of an officer. Any CBA that took effect prior to the effective date of that section, but shall apply upon the expiration or termination of such an agreement and apply to any CBA that takes effect on and after the effective date of this section. So moving on to page 13 and section 13 you already reviewed this language. This language would change it to be the council that comes up with a model body camera policy that as past Senate version would have said that the LAB has the authority to establish a model body camera policy. Pursuant to the authority the General Assembly already gave them in 2016. In the big picture this section is saying that beginning on January 1, 2022, each agency that authorizes its officers to use body cameras shall adopt follow and enforce. Now a model model body camera policy established by the council. And under B the council would be required to incorporate the provisions into its training. John Gannon. Thank you. That's the end. Is this language consistent with s 219. So s 219 there was. I had flagged it in the prior draft I was getting rid of some of my notes in here because it was looking so clever. In s 219. You did have I believe in section seven the requirement for all Department of Public Safety law enforcement officers to use body cameras and the language in your section one provided that the General Assembly was committing to reviewing the the standards for model body camera policy use before that DPS requirement took effect which I think is October one 2020. So as it currently stands right now if that DPS requirement to use body cams is the effective date of that is not extended. Beyond October 1. There's currently not a requirement for that used to be in accordance with any specific policy. Although I think DPS is looking at a body camera policy but I don't know the status of that. But as this, if this language were to pass as currently presented. So the Council would need to come up with a policy and then beginning on January 1 2022. Any law enforcement agency which would include DPS would have to follow the Council model policy just given that DPS is rolling up body cams as we speak. I think that's what they're doing. Can we just say that law enforcement agency should comply with the model body worn camera policy established by the law enforcement advisory board until January 1 2022. Just so that there is a policy in place. Yes. And that would apply to DPS. We haven't gotten into the specifics really delved into what that model body cam policy is from 2016 unless you have done it elsewhere. I prefer that there is some policy rather than no policy at all. Yes. Would you like me to add that. That makes sense committee said seem reasonable. So good catch. Thanks John. So it would require any law enforcement agency that authorizes its officers use body cameras to follow the leb policy until the January 1 2022. Okay. And moving on to section 14. This is the language you reviewed before about prohibiting the use of facial recognition technology. The prior draft used also biometric matching. But that could include other things it could include things like fingerprinting. So this new revised language would focus specifically on facial recognition technology and prohibit an officer from using facial recognition technology or information acquired through the use of facial recognition technology. Unless the use would be permitted with respect to drones under a provision of current law and 20 BSA 4622 that does allow the use of facial recognition technology on drones in certain circumstances, such as when it is being used as authorized by warrant or for non crime investigative reasons such as search and rescue. However, there are other limitations on the use of drones and facial recognition technology, such as when people are exercising their right to protest. So this is set forth in 20 BSA 4622. Speaking with our judiciary attorneys. There is a definition provided of facial recognition technology. This was based on prior research that was conducted in this area. Facial recognition technology. Facial recognition itself would be defined as automated or semi automated process that identifies or attempts to identify a person based on the characteristics of the person's face, including identification of known or unknown persons or groups. Facial recognition technology or semi automated process by which the characteristics of a person's face are analyzed to determine the person's sentiment, state of mind or other propensities, including the person's level of dangerousness. And then facial recognition technology would mean computer software or application that performs facial recognition. Jim Harrison has a question. Betsy and is there any prohibition on using facial recognition in the case of a kidnapping. Whether it's an adult or a child that's been kidnapped can law enforcement use facial recognition whether it's in a mall or downtown area where there might be a crowd of people and they're trying to use surveillance cameras to. pinpoint the victim. As currently written, this would only allow that facial recognition technology. If it is being used on a drone as authorized under the drone law. So drone might be drone might be hard to use in a mall I guess. I think that would be pretty obvious. Okay. Whatever I don't know the answer to it I don't know how big a deal it is but gosh if I had a child kidnapped I would want to use every tool at my disposal. So, just a concern. Any other committee questions before we move on. Just to share a little bit about what was just mentioned it would be a horrible event if somebody were kidnapped but the reality is, most child abductions are done by family members 95%. So stranger danger is not the problem here it's usually within the families and not so sure a facial recognition software would be needed or as much of a help as we might think it might be. If it's somebody in the immediate family that's already done this. I think we are ready to move on. On what's now called section 15 on page 14 line 12. I think that changes on line 12 is eliminating training from the council's title. Otherwise, you've already, we've already discussed removing this language that would change the definition of category B conduct, because you have already addressed it in S2 19, which was enacted into law. So that language would be eliminated from the bill. And on page 16, you'd move on to the topic of when officers, one agencies have to report alleged unprofessional conduct to the council. And in regard to category B conduct, which is essentially professional misconduct includes a defined list. The top of page 17 is that the agency has to report that allegation to the council. When it's a credible complaint against an officer, which is it would be a change from the current law which is they wouldn't the agency would have to report it to the council. If it's deemed credible by the executive officer, after the agency already goes through its whole investigative valid investigative process at the bottom of page. There's that new language as passed the senate online 19 at the council would provide a copy of any report it receives and relevant documents, the investigative report that the agency puts together to the council advisory committee, which would be required to provide any appropriate action to take in regard to an officer who is the subject of that report. The council advisory committee is a five member entity appointed by the governor with four members who don't have a law enforcement officer, law enforcement connection and one retired law enforcement officer. So that takes us out of the council chapter. So section 16 is report back from various entities with recommendations for to the general assembly, particularly the gov ops committees on issues relating to law enforcement. The language as passed the senate was that these entities need to report by January 15. As we discussed a little earlier this morning, there would be the exception for the council that they could, they shall submit a verbal progress report to the gov ops committees by that date meaning January 15. And then any recommendations for legislative action on a before March 15. So that's just to build out more time for the new council. So as a reminder of what those topics are. There's the first topic is law enforcement officer qualifications and here the LAB would be reporting about interviewing and hiring officers and standards for doing so and recognizing qualities that are desirable and specifically recommending standards for officers who serve in a supervisory role. So section 19, the council, sorry to find so that's why that language is being struck there online one would be required to consult with the Human Rights Commission ACLU. You discussed the other day adding statewide racial justice groups, just an update on terminology in regard to statewide groups ready representing individuals with lived experience of a mental health condition or psychiatric disability. The prior draft used similar language it was based on the mental health crisis response commission statute which was enacted in 2017 I believe so I based the terminology on that statute. This is in regard to respectful language the General Assembly in I think 2014 made a firm statement and updating its statutes to reuse respectful language and referring to people. It's a people first requirement. We're talking about individuals, and then if a person has a disability you refer to a person with an with a disability. The language that is just updating is to reflect the most recent terminology that I understand people in the peer community would like to use when referring to themselves. I checked with our human services attorney and updating this language so you'll see in a couple places, it's individuals with lived experience of a mental health condition or psychiatric disability. So I'm just flagging why I updated that terminology. Otherwise this language doesn't change. The Council would have to consult with those groups and other relevant organizations and individuals in reviewing officers, officer applicants current written oral and psychological exams for cultural sensitivities and overall appropriateness. The second recommendations regarding law enforcement training. This year would have to consult with the racial disparities and the criminal justice criminal and juvenile justice system advisory panel human rights commission ACLU statewide racial justice groups statewide groups representing individuals with lived experience of a mental health condition or psychiatric disability and other stakeholders shall review the current requirements for basic and annual in service training in order to determine whether appropriate training is provided in the areas of cultural awareness implicit bias, the escalation and recognition of and appropriately responding to individuals with a mental health condition is going to add health in there because I think that's the appropriate term. And whether that training is embedded in a training and other policing policies such as traffic stops and searches. And then it goes on to say, after considering that analysis, and in reviewing the current training requirements and how that trainings use in practice. The council would recommend any amendments to that statutorily required training that might not be necessary for all officers, the statute does control some of the training that must be obtained and in some cases the number of hours. Page 20 line three the council le a b and DPS would have to consult with the VLCT and other interest stakeholders to determine whether now two things. The council should be re established within a state agency or other oversight entity. And whether there should be more flexibility in the residential and field training required of law enforcement applicants, including whether applicants should be able to satisfy some aspects of basic training through experiential learning, specifically eliminating the language on lines eight and nine about whether the police academy should be relocated to a different area of the state, and you had reviewed that the other day. Third topic is models of civilian oversight here the AG would be consulting with the Council of Human Rights Commission VLCT Vermont Law School Center for Justice reform you discussed that the other day. Statewide racial justice groups statewide groups representing individuals with lived experience of a mental health condition or psychiatric disability and other interested parties to recommend one or more models of civilian oversight. Fourth topic page 21 is in regard to reporting allegations of officer misconduct here again the AG's office would consult with the council. Human Rights Commission ACLU statewide racial justice groups statewide groups representing individuals with lived experience of mental health condition or psychiatric disability and other interested parties in order to identify a central point for reporting allegations of officer misconduct, which may be the Council or another entity, and how to handle those allegations. Fifth topic is access to complaint information here the Council Advisory Committee that subgroup be required to consult with the Secretary of State, Human Rights Commission ACLU and other interested parties in reviewing public access to records related to the investigation of officer misconduct and substantiations, in order to recommend any changes to current practice. Jim, sorry. Sorry. Just a comment as we're rereading some of these sections and some of the new wording that's been added in. I agree with the inclusionary tone. I think one of all these various initiatives and reporting in what not. A word of caution. We're making this very bureaucratic and I really question whether, you know, if you consult with 20 people each time you want to do something, are we really setting up roadblocks to getting to the end result. And it may be, again, the minority of one that worries about the bureaucracy that we're building into each step that we're trying to take. Committee discussion. All right. Number six. Our six is body cams. Discuss the substitution of the Council being required to recommend a model body camera policy for use by agencies and officers. If you're going to have that new section requiring all agencies to follow the LAB policy until the Council is required to adopt it's the new one. So January 1, 22. Do you want to maintain the language about the LAB reporting any changes that deems necessary to its current body cam model policy that was pursuant to 2016 legislation. Committee discussion on that. John, do you have a thought. Go ahead. Thank you. Is there a date for this report or I'm just. Maybe. If you kept that in there, they'd have to provide a progress. They have to see the language in the introduction of section 16. Is a report to the gov ops committees by January 15 on the progress in regard to the following topics, including any recommendations for legislation. Okay, so, so the council be updating us on the progress. Correct. In this case for body cams. This would be a new requirement earlier in the bill for the council to establish a model body cam policy. I get that I'm just, I really want the dates of when this. So the council would have to establish its new model body camera policy by January 1 22. Okay, so. All right. So, I mean, this bill probably come effective. What October 1st, let's say, 2020. So that that would only have the current le a b policy in effect for October, November, three months. Right. The, well, right now the body cam language earlier in the bill. And I will make let's go back to it to review it with certainty. That is on page 13 section 13. It says essentially beginning January 1 2022. Each agency that authorizes its officers to use body cams shall follow the council's model body camera policy so in theory that's that's giving the council until January 1 22 to come up with a model body camera policy. As I read it. Well, okay, so I mean, so there's three months between when this bill will likely become law. And when the council will hopefully have a body camera policy. So, I mean, for me, I don't like, I mean, there's a lot of reports in this so I'm not sure the LAB needs to come back to us in the next three months with respect to any changes they make. Given that we're going to hopefully have a new policy in January. But that's just my thoughts. Did you say January 22. So, I take all that year in three months. Big mistake. Sorry. Forget what I said. So in the case of it being a year and three months you think of report back would be in order. Yes. I apologize my mind's half on this bill and half on what I have to do this afternoon. I can only imagine Marsha Gardner. Just out of curiosity, did the governor's executive order give the commissioner DPS specific timeline for recommending a body cam policy. Let's look I know the overall recommendation is for DPS to recommend a model body cam policy to the council. So I'm pulling up the executive order body cams are in section D on page two. It doesn't give it. It doesn't give a deadline. It just says the commissioner of DPS is to develop for consideration of the council, a statewide model policy and body warm cameras. Okay, thank you. Go ahead, John. I think actually our language now is more consistent with the executive order because we're asking the council to develop the policy. I guess the issue, like you had discussed earlier that you're contending with is that DPS is going to be required to have body cams for all of its officers and you had already discussed earlier in the bill saying any agency that uses a body cam shall follow the LEA bees until the council's deadline to have one on January 1 22. And so the other lingering question of my hearing where the discussion is going is that you would want to maintain the requirement for the LEA be to report any changes it deems necessary to its current model body cam policy that it established pursuant to the 2016 requirement. I believe so. Committee members want to ask any questions about that express. Yay or nay seeing anyone diving in. Right, I will add that language back in. But still maintain the requirement for the council to recommend model policy, since that will be a requirement beginning on January 1 22. Thank you. Yeah. Top of page 22. After consulting with Secretary of State, Human Rights Commission ACLU statewide racial justice groups statewide groups representing individuals with lived experience of a mental health condition or psychiatric disability. With other parties, it would be the council would specifically recommend policies for responding to public records request for body cam footage, including any recommended timelines to respond town what footage should be redacted length of footage retention and And then as you had already reviewed DPS be required to consult with the council on the LEA be to investigate the possibility of a statewide group purchasing contract for body cams and central storage locations. And if DPS recommends such a group it would detail its recommended structure and operation. Finally, the last topic is military equipment you discussed the other day that after an opportunity for community involvement and feedback, the council would recommend a statewide policy and officers acquisition of military equipment. This would change the as past Senate version which would require the LEA be to recommend one about officers use of it. Okay. All right, I'm going to move on to the next topic which is state data collection and analysis you had reviewed this language. The other day about the GAC being required to approve population level indicators demonstrating quality of life for Vermonters who are BIPOC to review again the language on page 23 would say on or before March 1. So here, GAC would consult with the executive director of racial equity, social equity caucus in the CPO and shall accept recommendations from other relevant entities. In order to approve by that date population level indicators that demonstrate quality of life for Vermonters who are black indigenous or people of color. This would relate to the current law population level quality of life outcomes set forth and three VSA 2311 B Jim Harrison has his hand up. Okay, thank you, Madam Chair. I guess we're continuing our theme of soliciting advice from consulting or a whole bunch of groups but maybe I missed it why, why are we assigning this to a legislative committee. Committee, the government accounting committee. And then secondly, why, you know why not. I mean any legislator can, I guess, interject thoughts or opinions on most anything I don't know why we have to signal out a caucus group that self selected to do that. So, a couple ramblings on the same topic sorry. I can address the first question. I just as regard to procedure so statute you can actually see it in the next section statute currently gives GAC the authority to accept recommendations for revisions to the indicators, and then to approve indicators. And then also approved the chief performance officer has to report on those indicators in the state outcomes report. The statute actually is included in the next section which is new, but if you do want to take a look at that current law language. It appears at the top of page 25. Where current law provides that annually by March 1 a standing committee of the General Assembly. Having jurisdiction over a population level quality life outcome, or the chief performance officer may submit to the GAC request that an indicator for that outcome be revised, and if GAC approves it. The chief performance officer shall revise and report on that indicator in accordance with that approval and the reporting of indicators is in the state outcomes report. So that is just addressing the current law process for allowing GAC to approve the indicators that are reported on the rest of your question is a policy discussion. Thank you. So, question Betsy and is there any other legislative caucus that that you're aware of that is consulted with in legislation. Not that I'm aware of offhand. So, I, well I understand why this was included, I am concerned about the precedent we may be setting here, because, as we know there are a number of legislative caucuses and they continue to grow almost weekly now. I am concerned about all of a sudden inserting legislators into the middle of this process, given that ultimately, you know, you know I just think it'll, I'm just really concerned about setting that precedent. Unless this is something we commonly do.  And I just don't want to all of a sudden see a lot of legislation. We're, you know, you know, different groups are supposed to consult with different legislative caucuses. It's just very other committee discussion. Rob LeClaire. Madam Chair, I have to agree with with john I am very uncomfortable about this it just seems now that we're going to give a certain group of legislators are like a second bite of the apple here and now all of a sudden are we going to be somehow addressing legislation but just in a very very different manner. And because we don't have this process in any other place I can't really support it here either. Mike Marwicky. Thank you Madam Chair I do support this and we are in changing times and setting changing precedence. Not sure if this is a good analogy but the affirmative action for many years were very controversial. For some people it signified leveling the playing field. For others it signified an unlevel playing field where they felt certain groups were being being given special considerations. I think we're in a similar time where we're trying to look at the present and the future through the lens of trying to write some wrongs and some of them that have begun on in this country for 400 years. I'm not sure if this is, as I said, directly analogous to affirmative action but I believe this is a change from precedent. These are times we were in that deserve a change from the status quo to do things a little differently. Bob Hooper. Thank you Madam Chair. Two things on line five I noticed yesterday the word accept there is that received is that implement that seems like a weird word choice but more to the point. This under the impression that the caucuses like I'm a member of the labor working Vermonters caucus and the social equity caucus and both of those have membership quote unquote that is beyond the scope of just legislators. Is that just my impression or what constitutes a caucus I guess is the question. That's a good question. Who are we including. You know, I mean, there's a number of different caucuses that that operate so it's hard to know exactly how each caucus considers its membership how did you want to weigh in on that. Yeah, I just want to point to clarification. Yes, the social equity caucus does include about 75 community members as well as about 75 legislators. So does the labor caucus look, you know, probably a balance. So we have, we have folks in the committee falling on both sides of this discussion and I think we ought to straw poll the question of whether to keep in the requirement that the government accountability committee consult with the social equity caucus. If you have a difference of opinion on this. Any other committee discussion on this question, right, if you, if you would give me a thumbs up if you believe that the social equity caucus language on line five should stay in the bill. So thumbs up if you think the language should stay in the bill. One, two, three, four, five, six. If you believe the language. Wait a minute, did I get all of those if you stay in if you're a stay in I think 123456. Okay. If you believe that language should come out. Please raise your thumb. One, two, three, four, six and four is 10. Wait a minute. One, two, three, four. We'll take the missing one that's okay. Okay. I appreciate that. Put a bit of finger. So with the missing vote that would be did I count my thumb I don't know if I counted my thumb. I thought I counted my thumb. I'm going to do it again, Madam chair. All right, if you would like to leave in the reference to GAC consulting with the social equity caucus. Give me a really big thumbs up. One, two, three, four, five, six. All right, if you believe Bob Hooper's not in his chair right now. If you believe that language should be removed please raise your thumb right up to the camera. One, two, three, four and Rob's thumb makes five so that's the missing vote. It looks like a slight majority of the committee is interested in leaving that language in there. So thank you for. Thank you for trying to vote twice, Rob. Are we ready to move along. Marsha, you are muted. I have only one device so I have to scroll between zoom and the, the bill. I have a question about the military equipment. And when it says acquisition. Betsy and does that include grants. Sometimes the federal government has grants for equipment. I know liquor control received a grant for a certain type of long gun would acquisition include that. Likely because I think it's getting at what type of military equipment agencies can acquire and then use. So, so if it's an open ended grant. I think this model policy would describe what could be obtained through that grant if it's a grant for a specific kind of equipment and this model policy would allow it then that would be okay, but if the policy would not permit it then an agency wouldn't be able to use that grant authority to acquire it. Thank you. John Gannon. Just on military equipment. You know, I would expect that as the council develops a policy with respect to the acquisition of military equipment part part of that policy is defining what is military equipment. Because we know base. I know by looking at an Excel spreadsheet of surplus military equipment that has come within the state. Some of it is, you know, I would not consider military equipment at all, such as pickup trucks, you know, forklifts, whereas some other things like mine vehicles, you know, I would definitely consider military equipment but I think part of the council's responsibility here is to define what is military equipment and what, you know, law enforcement agencies within the state should or should not acquire. Based on some definition. Anything else on military equipment before we jump back to section 17 and 18. All right. Go ahead. I think we got through 17 with GAC approving indicators and they will be reported on the next state outcomes report that comes out in September, end of September, that'll be for next year. Section 18 was mentioned when the executive director of racial equity was testifying in regard to the indicators and there was further discussion about the better or describing the point of collecting outcomes or collecting indicators to measure the state's progress in reaching our outcomes. So, this section 18 is in response to that request, it would actually amend the state outcomes report statute, which is in three vsa 2311. This requires the chief performance officer the CPO to annually by September 30 submit to the general assembly the state outcomes report that demonstrates the state progress in reaching the outcomes of Vermont's quality of life that are already established in law by providing data for the population level indicators that GAC approves. You've already, that's a current law language, you've already got your outcomes that are set forth in subsection B, which are shown on page 24 line eight. What was proposed is this new language here on page 24 line three to further explain the purpose of having state outcomes and measuring using indicators to measure our state's progress in reaching the outcomes. And this language would provide that Vermont's population level quality of life outcomes are intended to reflect the well being of all Vermonters and indicators reported to measure the extent to which outcomes are achieved are intended to represent the experience of all Vermonters, including and especially Vermonters who are members of marginalized groups. With the IB idea as I can try to explain and as I understand it is that these outcomes that are set forth in current law are the goals that the general assembly is established for our state. We have a prosperous economy we're healthy our environments clean and sustainable sustainable Vermont is a safe place to live etc. These are the outcomes that apply to all of Vermonters, and then you use the indicator data to measure the state's progress in reaching those outcomes, and what this language in a to is essentially getting it is that if a person is not in a marginalized group, one or more likely to be healthy and safe and living with dignity and settings that they prefer, whereas people who might be in more than one or more marginalized groups are more likely to be the Vermonters who are showing up as the outliers in our indicator data. And so that is why there's that language there into saying that the outcomes are intended to reflect the well being of all of Vermont, and the indicators reported to measure the extent to which those outcomes are achieved are intended to represent the experience of all Vermonters, including and especially those who are members of marginalized groups. Questions from committee. Right. Thank you. I am moving on then to page 25. Line 11. This is the section now section 19. This would amend the language that you already passed an S2 19, which provides big picture that grants are only available to law enforcement agencies if they're complying with the race data reporting requirements that are set out in current law. We discussed adding representative Donahue's proposed language that grants would also be contingent on an agency reporting death or serious bodily injury when an officer is involved in a mental health crisis response. And then I just happened. I think I discussed this the other day with you in that looking at that language that you enacted an S2 19. So that refer only to a local law enforcement agency there online 15. And my understanding from speaking with you is that you intended for you or you want that grant contingency to be applicable to any law enforcement agency not just our local ones which I would read to be our municipal police. And so the update to this section would be to strike local preceding law enforcement agency online 15. Is that where we wanted to go with that. I believe that was our intent and our discussion. Anybody want to jump in with a different thought. All right. Okay, page 26 section 20. The assistance heading online one is just being eliminated because you already had the more general description of this portion of the bill state data collection analysis. But this is the VCIC requirement in line two and the new subdivision to to require VCIC definitions that all agencies have to use when entering data into their system of records and every age officer would have to use those definitions when entering crime data into their agency system which might be Valkour Spillman and the language that you considered adding from the other day appears online 19 that when BCIC comes up with these definitions. So this is just being consultation with the crime research group statewide racial justice groups and statewide groups representing individuals with lived experience of a mental health condition or psychiatric disability. Rob. Thank you madam chair, I'm using one device as well and I apologize can you tell me what version you're working on from Betsy and I had it and then I flip screens and lost it. And I can't find it again. I'm sorry. No, it's a draft 3.1 it's the annotated version with all the colors draft 3.1 okay thank you I'm sorry thank you. All right, I'm going to move on then page 27 we've got the LAB section 21 is repealing it where it currently lives in law, not the right place, moving it to where it should be in law which is under the Department of Public Safety as it is, and it was created within the Department of Public Safety to advise the commissioner the governor and the general assembly on issues involving the cooperation and coordination of all agencies that exercise law enforcement responsibilities. There will be no changes to this you haven't discussed any from the version as past the Senate, but big picture the Senate would add several members to the LAB. The chief of the capital police is one. The law enforcement officer appointed by the president of the VSE a. And I keep forgetting to pull it up but it's in the summary I looked at it the other day there were two other ones that the Senate would propose adding to the current membership of this advisory council. I want to say it's related to fish and wildlife and motor vehicles. They don't currently have a specific seat. But otherwise the only change this would be the updating amendment to the name of the criminal justice training council on page 28. That's just the criminal justice council online 15. The only other changes to this LAB statute even though it's getting, because it's getting deleted one place and put another place is just to update the quorum in acknowledgement of the new members that would be added. No change to that from as past the Senate. Page 30 is the recodification directive basically any references so that where it used to live in statute would be deemed to mean its new place where it's supposed to be. And then section 24 would require it to report in 21 on the ways towns can increase access to law enforcement services. So I think that's the little bit of time before we're supposed to go over to House of Props Madame chair I'm going to go over to dispatch, because this was one of the last substantive portions of your bill. I think in reviewing what the approach agenda says this morning and Andrea can correct me if I'm wrong. This was expecting us at 1130 instead of 11, but we should probably double check on that. So as not to keep them waiting I would love to think we could finish our, our walkthrough of the annotated version before. Before we break for an appropriations visit. So, Andrea will contact Teresa and just make sure that we know how much time we have. Okay, so two changes that would be happening in this dispatch portion. First getting rid of the Senate language that said the Commissioner of DPS would adopt the rules that set forth the rates for dispatch functions. In addition, this would do is eliminate the current law language in the annotated version on page 31 starting online eight that says that DPS has authority to establish charges sufficient to recover the costs of dispatching, and that dispatch positions that are fully funded under those contracts maybe authorized under the provisions of 32 vs a 1035 B. So this would strike from statute that current charging authority, and with the idea that you would eliminate that authority until the General Assembly is the one to establish the fee structure. So I'm going to go ahead to the language that I currently had, based on, it was my understanding that there were, they were charging under some contractual agreements, and with direction from the chair the idea was to allow them to continue to charge under contracts but not charge more and allow them to charge less, but not to allow them to charge anybody else any new fees under any contractual arrangements until the General Assembly establishes a fee structure. But we just heard from Nolan this morning that DPS confirmed that they're not currently charging under any contracts so it seems like if that's the case. We need this new language at least part of it on page 34. Because right now this this would be a session law temporary provision that says notwithstanding the provisions of 20 vs 1871 I as amended by section 25 of this act which removed the charging authority. The language would say DPS may continue to charge fees under the provisions of any contractual arrangements in effect on the effective date of that section that it has to perform dispatch. It can have authorized under the provisions of 32 vs a 5b dispatch positions that are fully funded under those contracts and can renew those contracts with fees at the same or lower amount. It's sounding like if they're not charging any fees now you can get rid of that language. And if you want to just say they shall not charge fees you can just keep the language that begins on line 11 that says the department shall not charge fees in any contractual arrangements it enters into to perform dispatching functions. Until the General Assembly establishes in law a dispatch fee structure for those charges. I'm comfortable with with eliminating this language. I wanted that to go in just to make sure that we weren't inadvertently hand cuffing DPS in any way while we wait for them to resolve this issue of how to equitably fund dispatch services, but it sounds like that may have been unnecessary. So, are we good with removing this. I'll do that for the next draft, but maintain the prohibition that they shall not charge fees for any contractual arrangements perform dispatch until the General Assembly establishes in law a dispatch fee structure so be a moratorium until there's further legislative action to set what those fees can be. But this statute or this section goes on to say that by now March 15 of next year. DPS would be required to hold at least three public hearings and consult with VLCT the EMS advisory committee. The DPS chiefs association, the state firefighters association and local EMS police and fire agencies in order to report by that date March 15. To the gov ops committees houseways and means and Senate finance. In addition to that, the department's recommendations for an equitable dispatch fee structure for the department of charge for dispatching EMS police fire and fire and potential funding mechanisms for those charges that don't rely on property taxes. And that's something which would say that if the department after as it's going through this process of holding hearings and taking, taking consulting with those listed groups. If DPS decides to overrule substantial arguments and considerations raised against the equitable dispatch fee structure, or potential funding mechanisms it ultimately recommends DPS would need to include in its report a description of those arguments and considerations and the reasons for the department's decision and overruling them essentially so the department would have to describe what counter arguments were in lieu of what their feast proposed fee structure is and why they did not choose to pursue those recommendations. That's the end. I think that's probably very helpful for for the purposes of the legislature. Understanding all of the perspectives in this complicated landscape. Can you remind me the Vermont State firefighters Association is that a group that would represent not only volunteer fire fire agencies but also the professional firefighters. I can't answer with certainty, the State firefighters Association when looking for a firefighters group to provide advice, they're listed in the fire training service council makeup. They have a website. I can't. I don't know right offhand exactly who all is who all they represent. I'm looking it up right now. Yeah, I appreciate taking a moment to just take a peek at this we want to make sure that our smaller towns that rely on mainly volunteer firefighters are are being given a seat at the table to talk about how dispatch works and I know that. Oftentimes when when I attend town meeting at my three town meetings. There are long discussions about the line items that relate to the fire department and and I think we just want to make sure that this is a scenario where the creation of some dispatch fees in the future means that the firefighters themselves see a smaller appropriation from their town because it hits the, it hits that line item in the very tight town budget. It does look like it has a rural focus don't mean to do share screen right now on their website. Yeah, let's get Andrea to make you a co host so you can share screen go ahead. Thanks Andrea. Okay, so if you can see that okay here is their website. And they do mention. This one sentence that I was looking at the association continues to work hard to identify and address the needs of firefighters in Vermont's rural fire departments. They discuss having a diverse membership support 236 fire departments throughout the state that that sounds like a fair representation. Yeah, and I was one of the reasons it did appear that they were it says support the 236 fire departments throughout Vermont as if you know it sounds like they were intended to represent all of them. I was looking at some of the other. It also mentions that it's one of the oldest firefighters organizations in the country. And it's been around in Vermont since the mid 1800s. I looked at the Vermont fire service training council and there are other firefighting entities but here there was at least one called the professional firefighters association there's a career firefighters association and those I inferred we're not more in tune to the volunteers. Okay, this one looked more universal. But I'm not completely familiar with them in practice. Committee feel good about that. The makeup of this group to consult being fairly representative of the different interests in setting dispatch fees in the future. All right. Andrea has heard back from Teresa and 1130 is better for us to visit appropriations and so let's see if we can get through this annotated version of the bill and take a brief bio break before 1130. It sounds good. Okay, so now the bill moves into EMS. And there's really been no, there's been no changes that you've discussed here. This is a reminder what's first going on on page 36 is substituting the Department of Health for the State Board of Health. As the entity that gets to divide the state into EMS districts and recording those districts. I'm scrolling ahead, just more substitution of the Department of Health for the State Board of Health as to making recommendations about EMS districts. A more substantive provision on page 37 is in regard to qualifications for getting an ambulance license like so for an ambulance service. This is language of the Senate was considering about ambulance services having to provide their services in a nondiscriminatory manner. So in order this language provides on page 37 line 20 in order to obtain and maintain a license and ambulance service shall be required to provide its services in a manner that does not discriminate on the basis of income funding source or of health needs in order to ensure access to ambulance services within the licensees service area and Department of Health would be required to adopt rules on that provision. Senate heard about this issue from Mr. Drew Hazleton from who's on the EMS advisory committee and leads and EMS ambulance service. I'm about some of the ambulance services that have been able to get a license and it's essentially just a very good license to get because they're just working for certain hospitals for example and so it was having an impact on other ambulance services in their area service area. And there's just more substitutions of the Department for the State Board. Oh, I'm going to pause for representative Leclerc. And Rob. Thank you Madam Chair. So, that's the end. So does that mean that it would remove any and all discretion that an ambulance service may have as far as especially bits of for profit entity. There would be this new standard that the ambulance service. The ambulance service would have to provide its services without discrimination on those bases income funding source severity of health needs. This language is based on the current requirement for home health services to similarly provide their services in that non discriminatory manner. But the for details on how this works in practice. I'm going to get Department of Health to offer further testimony or further testimony from drew because I can't answer with specificity have what's going on in practice I'm just not as familiar with this. But I can do, I can say on the Senate side Department of Health did not seem to have any issues with this language and worked on it with me. Well, some concern I have is, you know, there's a huge difference in reimbursement rates between say, Medicaid, and what private insurance pay. And, especially on some of the more discretionary type of things like transfers or stuff like that. It sounds like that we're tying an entity's hands into they have to take absolutely everything. I have to think about that a little bit. Thank you. Other committee discussion before we move on. I am moving ahead on page 38. Just online 10, it's would now be the Department of Health that issues ambulance licenses rather than the state board that's in accordance with that substitution. Section 28 is for the current health resource allocation plan to have to address EMS resources and needs. You can find that language beginning on page 39 online 17. So this would require the Green Mountain Care Board when it's it developing the HRAP health resources allocation plan to identify priorities using info about EMS service service resources and needs that's identified by the EMS advisory committee. So we're moving to another part of the bill further ahead where the EMS advisory committee would be tasked with identifying EMS resources and needs. Big picture so the HRAP addresses with more specificity what the EMS resources and needs are in the state. As we move ahead to page 40 and section 29. So this is language that's a follow up to your bill that eliminated the requirement for an EMS personnel to be credentialed by their affiliated agency their affiliated agency is either it's like your hospital or your ambulance service or a first responder service. So the general assembly eliminated the requirement for that credentialing by an affiliated agency is EMS personnel are still required to get licensed and then certified. But there maintains the current law requirement that you actually have to be affiliated with an affiliated agency in order to hold yourself out as an EMS personnel and EMS provider. So the changes are just maintaining that requirement and making it clear that it's still required to be affiliated with an affiliated agency. So you'll see throughout here references to affiliation being added in just to ensure that that's still reflected in the law. As we get to page 41 line 18. There is the requirement you heard a testimony on from Professor Malone about Department of Health having to establish by rule at least three levels of EMS personnel instructors and the education of each level right now by Department of Health rule there's only one level instructor and they the proposal is to just allow more people to be able to be instructors to give different aspects of EMS training to address the EMS shortage. As we move through page 42. There is just using the defined term emergency medical treatment instead of care. That was just a technical correction treatment is the defined term. There's language on page 42 line 17 just that making explicit that there's an affiliation requirements still it's no change to current law. Page 43 is gets that psychomotor skills testing so we talked about this the other day where as a condition of national certification you do have to get psychomotor skills testing that hands on testing to make sure that you're adequately trained to be EMS personnel. That national certification does allow some of the lower license levels to either take NR EMT psychomotor skills testing, or it could be part of a course and the proposal from Professor Malone and some of the other EMS providers is to allow psychomotor skills testing either by demonstrating those skills competencies as part of your education required for license or by NR EMT's psychomotor exam. So it's an either or ability. I think replicant Leclerc raises hand. Go ahead Rob. Thank you manager. So, does that cycle motor term skill have to stay stay or can we just say hands on. It's easier for me if we said hands on reason that it has to be referred to that way. I think it actually does. Not only is it a common term but I do think that NR EMT discusses psychomotor examinations and so it probably makes the most sense to leave it in a psychomotor skills testing because that's what all the EMS personnel were referring to as and I think it's because it's that NR EMT requirement to have psychomotor skills testing to use some other term, it just might cause even more confusion than psychomotor skills testing already. Well, that term is as clear as mud for me. Thank you. Thank you. I think there's 44 line to there's just another and online eight more explicit statements to requiring affiliation with an affiliated agency. And then online 11 that's a new requirement for DOH to establish a new entry level certification for what would be called Vermont EMS first responders. The Senate proposed this. It's not a license it's a lower level certification but it would just be another type of responder to get more people involved and authorized to perform emergency medical service response. What you're seeing on page 44 line 15 is just the repeal of an outdated transitional provision doesn't belong in statute it was when EMS personnel used to be certified General Assembly a change that to licensure I think maybe in 2013 2014 so that statute just not necessary to have anymore. On page 45. There's that sunset review. It mirrors what you did for S233 the uniform licensing standards. It would require DOH to perform a sunset review at least once every five years to take a look at what it's required to renew your EMS license the education or continuing competency requirements that are addressed that are required for renewal to ensure big picture that it's not too restrictive that maybe they could be loosened in order to make it less prohibitive for people to stay in the profession. So it just uses your S233 language to require the Department to conduct this review and what it has to look at in doing so, and then amending its rules when it finds that there are continuing competency requirements that are not necessary for the protection of the public. On page 46 we get to the EMS advisory committee that's in current law and a proposal to have them start an EMS Education Council. One of the things that EMS personnel actually required was for the EMS advisory committee to address in its annual report the annual number of mutual aid calls to an EMS service area that come from outside the area. So there could be a better picture of how the EMS system is getting stretched where some EMS providers have to go outside of their normal area to respond to emergency situations. And also related to what you saw earlier in a trap that health resource allocation plan, the language was that the Green Mountain care board had to identify EMS resources and needs from the EMS advisory committee so related to that here is the language at the bottom of page 46 that the EMS advisory committee to identify EMS resources and needs in each EMS district and provide that information to the Green Mountain care board to inform the board's periodic revisions to the HRAP. That is developed pursuant to law that we already reviewed I think it's a five year renewal of the HRAP. But separately, another proposal that the Senate made is to require the establishment of an EMS Education Council, which can sponsor training and education programs required for licensure in accordance with Department of Health's required standards for training and education, and provide advice to the Department of Health regarding the standards for EMS personnel licensure and any recommendations for changes to those standards. So we try to have more resources available for providing training to EMS personnel. Section 30 is just an update so this statute provides the current funding mechanism for EMS training, it actually flows through the fire service training council. And what's going on here is on page 48 is just so this subdivision for currently provides that $150,000 gets allocated to the EMS services special fund for the provision of training programs and it currently says for only EMS advanced EMTs and paramedics. What this would do is add in the new certified Vermont EMS first responder certification that this bill would enact in the law, but then also allow it to be used for current licensed emergency medical responders the EMRs that's a current license type and they just weren't addressed and being able to get the that have access to that training funding. So let's just add that there. Section 31 provides transitional provisions to make all this EM stuff EMS provisions happen. So there'd be a rulemaking deadline of July one of next year, because there are required to adopt some rules by the provisions of this act. So as far as the ambulance service language that new requirement for the non discriminatory qualifications and being able to obtain and maintain an ambulance service license would apply beginning on July one 21. And, or it could be on the effective date as the Department of Health's rules that they adopt because they were they are required to adopt rules on how they're going to administer that non discriminatory language. And so it's, it takes effect on whatever whichever date is later the rules have to be there in place so they can administer that. So currently have a deadline of July 121 up above and sub a, but as you can see it is possible for Elkar to extend that rulemaking deadline Elkar has that authority. Page 49 and sub C is the transitional provision to address how the current instructors will transition into the new three levels so currently there's only one level of instructor. Which is saying any person who's licensed as an EMS instructor coordinator under the Department of Rules and effect immediately prior to the date of the rules establishing the new three levels of instructor licenses are going to be deemed to be licensed at the level that's consistent with the scope of practice for each of the three new levels. So it's like how to get the current people who are currently under that one license type into the appropriate license type when there's going to be three of them. So section D is talking about the development of that new EMS first responder certification. So this would require Department of Health to consult with the EMS advisory committee. University of Vermont's initiative for rural emergency medical services and any other relevant stakeholders and developing that new remote EMS first responder certification. That will be published by July 1 of next year. And then finally, for that sunset review. They'll have to undertake this language is saying DOH would have to start its first one in conjunction with its rulemaking that's required by this act and they're after proposing any necessary statutory amendments in accordance with that sunset review. So they do have to review their rules and to go through rulemaking and at that time that's when they would be conducting their first sunset review because I'll already be in there looking at the rules. All right there on EMS for now. So we're getting to the last section of your bill. Public safety planning. What this language would do is strike that language at the Senate proposed that would require each town and city to have a public safety plan. Including the transitional provision that said that happened to happen by July 1 2023 and then add the language that Mr Gregory addressed first thing this morning, which was instead to have the regional planning commissions do a one time inventory of all these resources. So to actually specifically go through this language. So this is providing the purpose of this section is to require each regional planning commission to create one inventory, identifying the public safety resources of each town within its jurisdiction, and to report that inventory to all of its towns, so that each town can have a budget better understanding, understanding editors will catch that but I'll catch that to online 14. Towns can better understand sorry I was right the first time, the public safety resources that are available to them, and how those resources may be shared on a regional basis. And so you will have a change that you discussed this morning. Online 16 to change that deadline to be July 1 2022, not 2024 as it is right now. So on 2022, each regional planning commission shall create and report to all of the towns within its jurisdiction that one inventory identifying all the public safety resources that each town within its jurisdiction relies upon for its public safety needs. And as part of this inventory inventory we need to identify the top of page 54 any mutual aid agreements for public safety resources that its towns may have. And then any of its towns that have a public safety plan, which were a couple of the items that you addressed the other day. And then at the end there's a definition of public safety resources it means the law enforcement fire EMS and dispatch entities that provide their services to attempt. Rob LeClaire. Thank you madam chair so do we know for a fact that Department of Public Safety does not already have this information and have a process in place to capture this information it seems to me that. We had some testimony that they did. Did I am I missing something here. Anybody have a recollection of the details of that I think that I think we supposed that they did with respect to policing services but but with respect to fire and EMS and the various ways that dispatch for those three emergency services categories might might be acquired it. We weren't sure. I wasn't sure that's yeah. I think we were looking at the in the context of emergency management there is the requirement for there to be those emergency local emergency management planning committees that have to identify and report up the chain. That sort of emergency management resources they have. But that's for the purpose of addressing all hazards events so real emergencies. So you might find that fine as is. I think the one distinction with this is. Is that current law requirement looks at emergency management for all hazards event. This is focused more on just addressing a town's standard public safety resources that it has outside of an all hazards event is the main distinction I see between the two it's up it's up to you to decide whether you think there's already the information out there enough as is under the emergency management provisions. Rob, do you have a strong preference on that. I mean it, it seems to me that the RPC is reporting that information back to municipalities, especially with respect to mutual aid agreements that are going on in their region might be helpful in prompting future conversations about how to collaborate with neighbors. I agree with that assessment madam chair. Thank you. All right, and then we're at the end of the bill then if you wanted me to move forward. I do have the effective date needed to change it was July 1 2020 as past the Senate. So right now it's set at October 1. But as we discussed that council membership as currently written would take effect on November 15. And then that language regarding grants to law enforcement agencies being contingent on compliance with data reporting requirements. In 2019 already had that taking effect on January 1 21 and so similarly, the amendments to that section made in this bill would also be taking effect on January 1 21. Warren Kitzmiller. Section 33 effective dates. Number one, the council membership is this the point where Jim brought up the thought that I mean that date is less than a month away and that's going to be an awful lot of appointments in a very, very short period of time. A little bit of wiggle room would probably be a good thing. I certainly agree with that if we wanted to postpone that. Some of them, maybe the end of the year, January 1. As I read this the council membership would have nearly two months because we're mid September now. The bill will be passed by the 25th and then it wouldn't be till November 15 so. That's not much time. How are we going to get that. There's a lot of people making appointments and how are we going to get the word out to them and they have to talk to their whole membership and perhaps membership of other entities. It just seems awfully tight to me. I don't know. I'd actually asked Jim if he's still holding that opinion and I'll go with the group, but just I worry that that's awfully tight. Go ahead. I might just go ahead JP and then we'll come to Jim. I might just throw out a possible compromise of December 1. It gives them another two weeks, but maybe that'll help some. Jim. But any delay works. I guess I was given a little comfort. It may not be a full console on November 15. And the console could still operate as long as they met and had a quorum of 13. I totally agree with Warren. I think we're just setting ourselves up to rush and put some people on the console that maybe we didn't do due diligence on whoever's appointing, but whatever. That's not the deal breaker for me at this point, but I appreciate Warren sentiment and I support some change. But what's the rush? Is there any reason why we should not give them a little more time? Well, I think the rationale that that I expressed earlier is that this council has some significant projects that we are asking them to embark on and that we wanted it to be the newly constituted council. As opposed to the current makeup of the council that that's really the rationale and the newly constituted council is going to be that balance of law enforcement expertise coupled with, you know, civilian perspectives so that when they're, when they're doing their work that has outlined in what used to be section 10 a what what section is it now Betsy and the all the reports back. I think 16 now. Yeah. All of the tasks that we are asking them to embark on, I think, would be better accomplished with a balance. Any other committee discussion on this. Bob Hooper. I sympathetic to warrants comment that I think, you know, so many of the positions are designated by who sits in a particular chair. I think that in the public realm, there's so much eagerness to get involved in this that. I mean, the VSE a person could probably be named tomorrow I imagine they know exactly who they would put forward as probably do the troopers. In that realm it's going to take a long time to get people, people forward because they've been looking to do this for a while and I imagine have been giving serious consideration to who would be a good candidate. I'm somewhat thinking that it's not as big an issue as we're making it. Other perspectives. Well I know you'd be disappointed if I didn't add mine so I, my objective is not to disappoint you for sure. I guess I do look at it quite differently is because we have such a diverse group. And these are folks that have never been on this council before. There is an awful lot of work that is being delegated to this council. You need to pick the right people but you also have to have the right people to pick from, and that's people who are willing to put in the time and effort to do this. I am concerned that we are get way too tight of a timeline here. This is a very, very important job. And people need to know what they're committing to. And to find the skill sets that are required out there because you know we can't have people, at least from my perspective getting on this council just because they have one particular issue that they're interested in. They're going to be asked to deal with a lot of different areas. And I'd rather take a little time, make sure that the groups that are being asked you have the opportunity to get the right people that have the interest to represent them. Thank you. Well, I will make note that that JP did offer up the idea that we would push that back to December 1, which gives basically a full month from from the time of election season to when people are transitioning away from campaigning back into their administrative roles, which might help them have the time and personnel to focus on this. So I guess I would ask the committee to consider JP's compromise proposal. Warren and then Mike. Oh, my mind is only a comment. You are my chair, and I will do as you wish. Happily, if you think we should consider JP's compromise, I'll support that. But it's also 1127 at the moment, and you have three minutes to get into a different meeting. You are correct. And I was hoping for a bio break.  Go ahead, Mike. I'm ready to go with JP's compromise there. All right, can we straw pull that. Everybody okay with December 1 for the makeup of the new council. JP's not voting for it, but he proposed it. So I'm going to assume that. All right, good deal. Thanks JP. All right, so why don't we go ahead and ask Betsy Ann to make that change. I think that with the two minutes remaining, I'm going to suggest that we, that we go ahead and go on break right now that doesn't give no one time to come back and review the. The fiscal note with us, but what we'll do that immediately when we come back. So why don't we break for committee right now until. Until I don't have a sense of how long appropriations is going to need us. And so I don't want to take a full half hour if we don't need it. Rob, how long is your noon meeting likely to be. Well, it could be 45 minutes, madam chair. If I can get out sooner, I will, I will, I will keep you posted if that works for you. Yes. Would you feel comfortable with us resuming and committee at 1230 knowing that you can always come back to sections of the bill that we may have already jogged or skipped. Yeah, I'll try to do that and I appreciate that. Thank you. So why don't we break for committee for one hour right now, and we'll come back at 1230 in hopes that Rob can be done with his noon meeting and time to join us for a final walk through with with Betsy and JP question. We're going to use the same zoom meeting thing or information. I would change it. I think that'll still work. I think we'll use the same zoom that we can jump back on the same meeting. Andrea. Yeah, yes, we can. But I can send a new zoom invitation to begin at 1230 if you'd like, we can end this one. Okay, why don't we do that. And for folks who are following along from the YouTube gallery will be back at 1230. We'll see you in appropriations in a moment.