one. So Senate government operations, it is Tuesday, April 13. And today we're going to be looking at the proposal to upgrade the or reorganize the Department of Public Safety into the agency of public safety. And hopefully, everybody has been able to access there is a new draft. It is on our committee page. And I believe most people were sent a link by Gail. And if I might just before I ask Ameron to walk us through it, might just say how this new draft came about. Last, I'm coming apart, just so you know. Last week, as I started reading this closer and closer and closer, and I looked at the original language and the language of what we had been looking at. And it said, talked about the creation of the consolidating the resources of law enforcement. And it seemed to me that this was mostly about law enforcement. And that wasn't ever the intent of this. And I made sure that I understood that with Commissioner Schirling that that really the intent of this was to to create an agency that encompassed emergency management, fire safety, and law enforcement and and elevated public safety, emergency management and fire safety to the same level as law enforcement. And currently, the Department of Public Safety is so intricately linked to the Vermont State Police, because there is no reference in the in these statutes to the Vermont State Police, it's the department and the Commissioner is the top cop. So we we wanted to the intent always was to to to get rid of that idea that the the department was and the and Vermont State Police were the same thing. So by creating an agency, we were able to do that. But the way we had it worded and stuff seemed to me to fly in the face of that. So I just started going through it and started making changes in the very beginning under the findings and under the creation of the agency. And then I said, Now, this isn't right. So in the Senate, we do not like findings necessarily, unless they're there in the eventuality that somebody in court needs to determine the intent of the legislation. And that's in in our area, that's primarily around campaign finance. Why what what was the background that led you to have to put these restrictions on campaign donations. In this case, there probably isn't a reason to to do findings. So I completely removed the findings. And then I took out the the creation paragraph and made up a new one. And so this really is a draft. Commissioner Scherling and I have gone through it. And so it makes some it doesn't make a lot of technical changes, but it makes a lot of substantive changes. So if you will have amaran walk us through this new draft. But does anybody have any questions first committee? Anybody else have any questions before we start? Okay, so know that this was done with the best of intentions and we'll go from here. Okay, so amaran, do you want to walk us through this? Certainly for the record, amaran average LA legislative council. And I am looking at draft 2.4 of drafting request to one dash zero eight nine zero. I have within this draft used yellow highlight for any wording that has either been added or modified since the previous version that was posted last week. I believe that was version 1.3. So as Senator White mentioned, Senator White, did you want me to do anything other than walk through the substantive changes? No, I don't think so. I think that where where they stayed the same. You can. I think just yeah, the substantive changes. That's what I would do. But if people have questions about the rest of it. Okay, perfect. So as Senator White mentioned, there was previously a section one that had legislative findings that section has been removed and the remaining sections have been renumbered. So moving down onto page two, section six zero zero two subsection a. This was a much lengthier statement of purpose for creating the agency of public safety. So this has been shortened and refocused to emphasize that this is for the coordination of all public safety resources, including reducing redundancies, increasing efficiencies and standardizing policies, training and data collection. Within the main structure of the agency has remained the same as in the previous draft. You'll see however that I've broken out within subdivision one, the Department of Fire Safety and Emergency Management to include a division of emergency management, the division of fire safety and then an office of training. Within the Department of Law enforcement, this still has the division of the Vermont State Police and the division of motor vehicle enforcement. There is also a standalone division of support services and subdivision three and then a new office of community relations and subdivision four that also reports directly to the agency and is not within either of the other two departments or the division of support services. Subsection C was reworded, I believe, rather than saying that all of these are attached to the agency. It is now to specify that the agencies shall provide administrative support to the following boards, commissions and councils. You'll see in this draft, the Vermont Criminal Justice Council has been deleted from this list in section 6003, beginning on the bottom of page three and into page four. You'll see that subsection C and D were deleted from the previous draft. These were sections that discussed the Vermont Criminal Justice Council and I believe the E911 board. The next revision is in section 6021, appointment and duties to specify that the secretary shall oversee and direct the activities of the division of support services in the office of community relations. The secretary shall supervise the commissioner of fire safety and emergency management and the commissioner of law enforcement. Moving down to page bottom of page six, section 6052. This is mandatory duties of commissioners and directors. The commissioner may formulate put into effect, alter and repeal rules for the administration of the department. This wording was in the previous draft, but I eliminated wording or I deleted and moved, I should say, wording relating to changing of ranks and grades to a different section of the bill so that this section is a more general description of duties of a commissioner, regardless of whether it's the commissioner of law enforcement or the commissioner of fire safety and emergency management. In section 6053 on page seven, these are all highlighted. However, for the most part, one through seven were all in the previous draft. They were just further down in the list. Subsection A is now a more general description of permissive duties that would apply to both commissioners within the agency. Subsection B on page eight outlines some specifics as to the commissioner of the department of law enforcement and his or her permissive duties. And this is where I moved the the ability to designate or change the rank or grade to be held by a member in accordance with rules, assign or transfer members within a division to serve at such stations and to perform such duties as the commissioner shall designate and determine what certified law enforcement officers other than state police officers shall give bonds and prescribe the conditions and amount. And then subsection C notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the divisions within the department of law enforcement shall not be abolished or transferred and members from different divisions of the department of law enforcement shall not be reassigned or transferred outside their division unless the member requests the transfer and the commissioner approves the transfer. This language wasn't the prior draft, but it was spaced out within several different areas. Section 6054 directors, you'll see on page nine, I removed subsection C and D. These sections were the sections that discussed the Vermont Criminal Justice Council and the E 911 board. I added that the secretary shall appoint any other directors whose appointment is not otherwise governed by law. So for the E 911 board, you'll see later within this, there is a description of how that director in the manner that that director would be appointed. And again, the Vermont Criminal Justice Council has been removed from this section. The change on in section 6083 on the bottom of page nine is a slight wording change. Change, I wouldn't say that has substantive effect. And then I have added grant management to the list on page 10 of administrative functions. Section 6084 is a new section that would establish an office of community relations within the agency. It is to be administered by the deputy secretary of the agency and does not fall within either the department of law enforcement or the department of fire safety and emergency management. I have placeholders in for the functions on at the top of page 11. And moving down to section four on page 12. Some slight wording changes the secretary of public safety shall coordinate with the secretary of administration and the following commissioners and directors as necessary to enable the organizational modernization and most efficient operation of state law enforcement divisions and resources. For the statutory changes for the enhanced 911 board, as I mentioned previously, I deleted a section concerning the the control of the secretary over the 911 board or over the executive director. The executive director shall submit a budget to the secretary. This was in the previous draft in this place. I've moved what was previously above to say that the executive director shall not be under the direction and control of the secretary, except with regard to the budget and other administrative functions given to the director or the board by law. So again, not new, but it has been moved from earlier from further up. Page 15, I noticed we were missing an and so I put the and in the following changes beginning on page 16. As Senator White mentioned, they're with the shift towards making this bill draft I guess express the intent that this is an agency of public safety and not the elevation of a law enforcement agency. The previous version had many instances where the Commissioner of Public Safety was changed into the Secretary of Public Safety. You'll see the following yellow highlights where you see Commissioner that in the previous version said secretary. So now the current functions of the Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety would be served by the Commissioner of the Department of Law Enforcement, not the Secretary of the Agency of Public Service. So that is a change you will see here on page 16. Also into 17. This has to do with the state police facilities and fees. And I'm scrolling down now through to section 12, Organization of Department by Commissioner. This previously was the Secretary of the Agency of Public Safety organizing. This has now been changed to the Commissioner of Law Enforcement with the approval of the Governor and the Secretary shall organize and arrange the Department of Law Enforcement. And in the say the next change is down on page 22 in section 14 with examinations appointment promotion probation of certified law enforcement officers. Again, we have changed the previous version said secretary. This now is back to the Commissioner of law enforcement. And we've added where certified law enforcement officer positions support the work of agencies or departments outside the Agency of Public Safety. The Commissioner shall consult the agencies or departments concerning the qualifications for the positions. Section 1912 at the bottom of page 22 has again changed secretary to back to Commissioner. And that is true also of the changes on page 23. For in 1913 uniforms and equipment, we've added the Commissioner shall consult with agencies and departments which are supported by certified law enforcement officers assigned to the Department of Law enforcement on the uniforms and equipment necessary for those positions. Again, some changes what used to be excuse me used to be secretary are now commissioner, moving into page 24 powers and immunities. This previously said the Secretary of Public Safety it now says the Commissioner of law enforcement. In section 15 creation of State Police Advisory Commission member duties. I kept these sections in although technically right now they do not change what is current law. Because it does say Commissioner but I wanted to make sure that people could see what had changed from the previous draft previously. These were the the Secretary and this would have the State Police Advisory Commission advising on not only the State Police but the all certified law enforcement officers attached to the Agency of Public Safety. I have reverted these changes back to the Commissioner and with the State Police Advisory Commission providing advice and counsel on the Vermont State Police only and not other certified law enforcement officers. And that is true also of section 1923 moving from page 25 into page 26. Section 18 on at the bottom of page 26 is a new section just to clarify this previously was the Secretary of Public Safety and then the commissioners of corrections motor vehicles Fish and Wildlife. I have changed this back to the commissioners of law enforcement of corrections of motor vehicles. So that would be the Commissioner on the Vermont Criminal Justice Council and not the Secretary of Public Safety. I will need to redo conforming revisions now that we have sort of re envisioned what is being changed to a Secretary and what is remaining as a commissioner. So there's a placeholder in there for now. The reporting section remains the same from page 27 to page 28. The effective dates have changed primarily because things have been drastically renumbered with my deletion of several sections. And then but the intent remains the same in that the bill takes effect upon passage, except that the sections relating to the creation of the agency and the conforming revisions necessary to create the agency would take effect on July 1st. And then any sections related to the E911 board and the motor vehicle enforcement officers transition into the agency of public safety would take place on July 1st 2022. Thank you. So I just I'm going to just throw in one clarification here and then I'll ask if anybody has technical questions and then go on. It might seem like in many cases that the Secretary's responsibilities were dramatically diminished and that the Secretary may have been demoted here in many cases because originally it said that the Secretary would supervise the law enforcement would supervise the state police and law enforcement would had in making this truly an agency of public safety and not an agency of law enforcement. It was really necessary to make sure that the Secretary is above all of these things and does not have direct direct supervision of the Vermont State Police or the other law enforcement. That was the commissioner's role in the Secretary. As long as the language was in there that we had previously, my thought was well if you're going to have the Secretary directly supervising law enforcement, then that person really should be a law enforcement officer. But in my mind, the director or the Secretary of the Agency of Public Safety does not need to be a law enforcement officer. It couldn't come be someone who comes through emergency management. It could be Senator Collamore. I mean, it doesn't need to be somebody who is a certified law enforcement officer to be the Secretary. And just as, for example, Mike Smith, Secretary Smith does not directly supervise the employees in the Department of Mental Health. The commissioner does that. So that's why all these changes back to commissioner from Secretary. So although it might seem like the Secretary won't have anything to do, I'm sure that he or she will. So committee, any technical correct or question? Yes, Senator Collamore. Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't know that it's a technical question. And trust me, I was paying attention. I'm still a little confused if I go I'm page 25 just looking at the top there. So there's created the State Police Advisory Commission, which shall provide advice and counsel to the commissioner in carrying out his or her responsibilities of management, supervision and control of the state police. Am I missing the section where the commissioner also has charge of other law enforcement agencies? No, this is the it is in the far a little bit earlier and Ameron can speak to that. But this is just for the State Police Advisory Commission, saying the State Police Advisory Commission does not oversee or investigate other law enforcement officers within the agency, those with DMV, Fish and Wildlife, DLC, whoever they are. This is specific to the State Police Advisory. I got it now. Thank you. Is that right, Ameron? That's correct. Okay. So any other questions for Ameron about this? And then then I think what I'd like to do is I still have two lingering questions and I think need to be resolved in my own mind. And that is about by removing the training, the training council, the council from here, which I instead of just saying that it's independent just by removing it entirely, does that also remove the academy? So I think we that's that's a lingering question in my mind. But if there aren't any other questions right now, I would just jump right to Commissioner Schirling, I guess, and just ask you to weigh in on this draft in general. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Thanks for having me in and for all the work on this over the last few days. And thanks to Ameron for really hammering out a bunch of substantive changes that I think do bring this in a good direction for the record, Mike Schirling, Commissioner of Public Safety. We're supportive of this direction. The the edits that have been made in a direction that in some cases I thought would actually occur more iteratively over time so that the move to empower the commissioner of law enforcement to have a more direct role. Initially, the drafting was done for simplicity to just transfer the initial duties of the of the current Commissioner of Public Safety to the Secretary of Public Safety with the idea that one of the reports back that would come in the future would outline sort of how to divvy out various things. But this accelerates that work in a way that we envisioned would happen at some point down the road. Removing the Criminal Justice Training Council at this stage just seems like the most logical thing to do. I think Chair Sorrell observed as well in some correspondence that it's been watered down so substantially that just providing administrative support it just didn't seem to make sense to keep a whole lot of complex language that creates more questions than answers. So doing that seemed to make sense. I did send an email just a few minutes ago. There's just one structural piece that got lost in the wash over the in the haste and the last day or just this morning actually the Division of Support Services is actually supposed to be in tandem with Department of Law Enforcement, the Department of Fire Safety and Emergency Management. And then the Division of Support Services sits parallel to that in the construct that we envisioned supervised by a Deputy Secretary to elevate those support services to ensure clarity that they weren't subsumed by either law enforcement or fire safety and emergency management. So that's one organizational component and the only comment I have at the moment in terms of edits we will have to take the next 24 hours or so and just have our legal team go through and make sure we haven't inadvertently broken anything in terms of the what would normally be a duty of secretary of an agency or but yeah that's about it. So I was just about to fire off that email in a moment but beyond that I think this is you know overall this is a good step toward what has been discussed for literally 51 years at this point without trying to throw everything in the kitchen sink in there and make it a really complicated transition. Thank you and I was very neglectful in thanking Amarin for she does my brain doesn't work very fast sometimes and so I didn't even get this to her until Friday after late afternoon and all these changes and and then the commissioner and I met this morning or yesterday morning so she has been working feverishly to get this to us and I really need to thank you. You're very welcome. Thank you so committee any other questions or observations or anything does this seem the right direction did you like it better before when did you like it better before is this the right direction what I think this is a good improvement I think your work I think you've done great work rethinking this thank you all of you who put in this extra time on it so senator pulling I saw you yeah I don't have anything I don't have any great wisdom to share I agree with what senator Clarkson just said I think it's a better direction it seems more clear I think it takes away the feeling that we're building a super super police agency kind of thing and my understanding is that the training council is now continues to be totally separate from what we're talking about is that correct yes training council sort of on its own it's it before we were trying to put in language to assure that it was independent and autonomous and it just got very very messy and kind of looked like I was kind of working backwards so instead of trying to do language to make it seem independent we just kept it independent right right and so the only question I have that about that is how does that affect where the academy lies and gets its administrative support because the council is although it is kind of the overseer of the academy it isn't the academy itself and so that that's just something in my mind that I need to work out so okay Brian senator calm or did you have yeah I just wanted to agree with the rest of the committee I think it's an improvement it seems much more focused on what the original intent was which was in my view one of efficiency and I guess just efficiency is a good good way to put it and I like that it's shorter when bills get to be 40 and 50 pages they tend to really get confusing for me so this is what is it 28 pages I think this is a great improvement thank you I just I just felt so strong that what it sounded like where like senator Polina said that what we were creating was a super police agency and that was never the intent but that is the way that was the perception so okay senator Clarkson yeah I do have concerns about leveraging well enabling or supplying enough resource for the council and the academy so I the the one plus of the of there being under the umbrella of the agency was that they would have shared that would have been an efficient use of resources I do have concerns that however we keep them independent that we supply them with enough resources to be independent yeah and I think that we'll hear from um Bill Surrell around that issue and where they where they get their resources from and I'd also like to hear him address the issue of the academy then and where it lives right so um yeah so um we I guess right now is the time to go to you Mr. Surrell and find out what you have to say to us thank you senator I'd like to join commissioner shirling and the committee members who have spoken already to this issue by saying that this draft is is is an improvement shows real progress I believe and for myself personally over the past week after your committee's hearing last week and questions from as I recall senators rum and Polina and other statements by committee members I came to the conclusion that simply removing the council from the draft was the simplest and most direct way to reflect the independence of the council and to avoid the questions put the put to me last week of well aren't you concerned about appearances of a lack of independence when you're tied in for the administrative services and such so I think that that makes I think this is a real improvement in answer to your question and I've spoken to our new executive director Heather Simons who started work yesterday in the other upper echelon of the the academy staff and it's I think it's our view that we have been conducting or taking care at the academy of our own administrative needs and s124 you know creating the new criminal justice council and with many extra duties and consequently we've only been up and running since essentially the first of January many new subcommittees and obligations on council members and others and what really sort of remains to be seen is whether the structure that we've had within the academy how stressed is the relatively small academy staff of a dozen or so by these new duties and responsibilities and so I think rather than sort of muddy the waters no slight intended with this in the agency for the administrative services but not otherwise and whatever is that the better course at this juncture is to let us continue to essentially do a status quo functioning of the academy as a separate entity out there maybe is a descriptor but as we that is in the council and the new executive director and the rest of the hierarchy of the academy sees how things evolve under s124 with the new council if we see some real shortcomings in administrative services or functions or others trust me we will be back before your committee and the house committee come next come next January i will say on the budgeting side of things and i think commissioner sure i know he agrees that the functioning of the academy has been underfunded historically now with the new duties that sort of underfunding is exacerbated if you will but thus far we'll see what comes out of senate appropriations now and what the ultimate appropriations act looks like but there's grounds for some optimism that we are going to have a couple of authorized positions to meet critical needs and quite potentially thanks to senator sears maybe some monies to assist us on meeting various of our duties so we are at least as we currently sit sitting much more favorably resources wise than we were in the governor's recommended budget so we're keeping our fingers crossed there on the draft just a couple of observations in the the new draft on page 12 section for the transition section it talks about that the secretary would consult with the executive director of the training council and the chair and speaking for myself i have no objection to being consulted but i'm wondering since the the council and the academy in this draft are out whether that needs to be in there whether that should be deleted that's over on page 12 but again if the committee thinks there should be consultation with heather simons and myself all all good with all good with that and then one other just question that came to me as amaran was going through this improved draft was over on page 22 the section 1911 and it it talks about the and this is just for my own clarification it talks about the commissioner devising administering examinations designed to test the qualifications of applicants et cetera for certified law enforcement assigned to the department and i i understand this because police departments are certainly able to have their own sort of qualifying exams to even become a member of the windham county sheriff's department or the middlebury police department center i'm just assuming that this language is that for the law enforcement officers to be within this new agency both state police and others that you can have your same standards but this does not mean that those are lesser standards than set by the criminal justice council for admission to and training at the academy that this isn't trying to change that what has historically been the case the council determines the qualifying exam or personality exams sets the curriculum determines whether john doe or jane smith and jane smith have successfully completed the curriculum at the academy but then state police or other law enforcement assigned to the this agency can have additional requirements or obligations in excess but not less than the baseline standard set by the council i'm assuming that i think that that is the case i think that they would still have to become a certified law enforcement officer through the academy and then the state police i know have have some requirements beyond yes they do and fish and wildlife or dmv might have requirements that i don't i i'm thinking of fish and wildlife for example that they they might have uh certain um qualifications that you need to to me to be working in the woods and to exactly be able to tell a bear from a a chicken or whatever and dmv might have the same thing because they do a lot of um uh truck enforcement and stuff so they might yeah yeah it's over and above it's for those positions yep that that's what i assume but i just wanted to get it on the record for legislative history purposes that that's what you intend it's certainly the way i would uh hope it would be interpreted but well and that's that is current law we're just adding other law so yeah yes yes so uh but let me summarize just by saying thank you to the committee for the changes that have been made and uh uh we look forward to the rest of the process but uh thank you for hearing us thank you and i just want to check with the commissioner to make sure i was correct in my response about the additional training absolutely madam chair um that language exists uh now in the uh the organizational statute for the department of public safety it may be altered but the intent is the same to set standards beyond what the base standard is for entrance to the academy and certification good thank you any questions committee so far so i think what i'm going to do right now is go um in the last uh time i think we ran out of time and didn't really get time to hear from um john frederico and i do see you're here although it does a little bit look like you're in witness protection again you um but we i can tell that it's you because of your um vehicle behind you so uh we did run out of time last time and didn't get a chance to hear from you so if you would just uh give some comments on this new draft and are we moving in the right direction or you still have concerns just tell us what you think thank you madam chair i can i certainly will tell you what i think i know you know i tried to lighten up the backgrounds i wouldn't look like i was on channel it's okay it's my identity um for the record john frederico i'm an employee of the department of motor vehicles enforcement and safety division um the agenda shows that i'm a vsea board of trustee members i'm a former vsea board of trustee member i'm still on the council and active there and i'm the law enforcement representative for vsea to the law enforcement uh excuse me the leab and the vermont criminal justice council uh currently um as you may or may not know vsea represents certified law enforcement officers employed by the state who are not state police uh who are represented by the as you know the vermont troopers association although we represent the lieutenants uh in the supervisory union and vsea we represent just north of a hundred sworn law enforcement officers in the state uh the you know the bulk of which are liquor controlled uh fish and wildlife motor vehicles uh but we have some attorney generals investigators medical board and practice investigators secretary of state uh investigators um the uh the department at the at the state capital um i hope i'm not missing anybody um so we i testified before the house government office committee and i think we'll i'll testify similarly today that um you know we uh sent out a survey to our members uh we had about 70 respondents it was back in the fall i believe um we had an inkling that the legislature uh might take this up this year um and 87 percent of the respondents in the survey um were against the move to consolidate um to an agency to the same agency um so i understand a lot of the the discussion about um the executive order now this bill has been um around um vermont justice council and and certainly it's understandable um but i i and and it's a new revelation that we're going to sort of change directions it seems on that and um but i would have testified regardless of whether or not you feel it's appropriate for all the other components uh of an agency of public safety uh to be uh within the agency of public safety that uh that it's our belief the rank and files believe that um that it's not a good idea to consolidate all the other law enforcement uh agencies under the same roof um we didn't parse out in that study everybody's individual ideas of why they were against it and why they thought it was a bad idea and certainly we can we can get further studies done and surveys done and get that level of granularity if it's of interest to any of the legislative committees um but suffice it to say that a lot of our discussions have been around the fact that um we're uh we're concerned over um our the level of specialization and specificity in our missions um that that those things will um will somehow be compromised or changed to a degree that um they will uh look a lot different than they look today and that's going to affect not only the the positions and the work of our of our members but also the way that we deliver those services to um the state and I understand that the that the that the whole point of this is to try and deliver the best service that we can to the citizens of Vermont and and I certainly uh applaud that uh we just don't know we just don't believe overwhelmingly that this is the way to do it um a lot of these efficiencies a lot of these economies of service I think we you know we can get done today uh without the expense of creating this um this sort of um of an agency or at least the department of law enforcement within this agency um but you know this the state has many different ways that um that we can achieve these economies of scale these these training um and these policies and that sort of thing um and uh and and so to my knowledge none of that has changed um since the beginning uh of this discussion uh back when the legislators started back in session um I can't comment specifically uh necessarily uh madam share about the specifics in the bill um except that it it confirms most of you know what people would fear would be you know a complete um ability to change um um you know their current uh their current work conditions their um their current mission and uh and and then and again a lot of the unknown um uh goes along with that so um you know uh if if we if we were to go um through with um a change like this I think you know it'd be sort of almost a full surrender on on the particulars in a in the legislation or of the bill um at that point I think we would just um you know work the best we could at at trying to uh work out the particulars on the other side of things but um but there's enough unknowns and enough uh um complication I think uh that we would all foresee that uh would you suggest to you that that we believe that this isn't the best way to to go about handling the services that we now provide to the citizens of Vermont so can I stop that I'll stop there and try to answer any questions that you have okay because I have a couple of them so first of all I'm I don't know if you are opposed to the concept of an agency of public safety that um in in my mind one of the reasons for it is to to elevate the department of um emergency management and fire safety to the same level as the department of law enforcement so in my mind that's just a reorganization but it's also changing it from being what is commonly seen as a law enforcement department to a public safety agency so I don't know if you're opposed to the concept of an agency or if you are opposed to being part of it okay absolutely uh we're not opposed to the concept of an agency of public safety uh at all to the extent that uh you everyone believes and can be shown that uh that uh all those components make sense to be under the the roof I think that's uh absolutely um something to consider our our specific um ask is that is that the agency of public safety doesn't need a department of law enforcement the department of law enforcement with all of the specialized units in the state under the same roof we believe will be a confusing and inexpensive proposition and and change the specialization that we have today that you know has been built over many years the the the the inner workings of our of our current agencies and departments took years to build and and and we think that that changing that will be detrimental to the mission that we have so I guess I need a little bit more clarification so the way it's structured is that there would be an agency of public safety and there would be a department of law enforcement and a department of emergency management and fire safety if you didn't have a department of law enforcement then that leaves the same relationship to the secretary and the agency of law enforcement so are you saying that you don't need a a department of law enforcement under the agency or that you shouldn't be part of that department I I understand that organizationally you may need two divisions in order to have one department so I don't know what you would do with the state police as a division alone standing within the agency of public safety but I we would have no problem with that we just don't think it's a good idea to incorporate fishing game liquor control whoever else in a division within the agency of public safety along alongside that group that that I think is answering my question that you you don't have any necessary sorry opposition to this reorganization but you don't want to be part of it correct okay great any questions from committee members for John I would like to um if you could give some examples of and not necessarily today but how you think it would change the way you deliver your services and your and change your mission because my understanding is that the way it would be defined here is that the you would still be assigned to DMV I mean you'd but or fish and wildlife and that that would be your that would be your mission you you wouldn't wear the same uniform as the troopers and you wouldn't wear the same uniform as the fish and wildlife the game wardens so I guess I I need some more concrete thoughts about how it would how it would change your mission and their your services well the the problem I think you know in in most people's minds is the unknown and the and the fact that you know essentially we're not going over there to exactly be the same I mean the point of going over there seems to be to run things differently to run things in a way that to someone else makes more sense efficiently to and and with all those unknowns I guess in people's minds they can't be sure of the extent of how things would change and and so they it's certainly difficult to get behind that sort of this this sort of change without without knowing a lot more specificity you know we there's going to be a lot of practical considerations like the fact that we already do things very differently from one another again as you know we are we're under an entirely different contract and bargaining unit than the state police are but we would be nestled under the same department as them and so there would be a lot of a lot of I think difficulty going back and forth with the way that we do things to run things necessarily the same way but I think I've just been thinking about you know and I thought about these things we testified for the house is you know if there's efficiencies in training if there's efficiencies in and buying things and those sorts of things I mean this data statewide contracts there's there's never been any barriers to training together certainly there you know some of our policies were so different from one another that those things can be addressed without such severe changes and I and I wonder if some people have the belief that that you know we need to we need to streamline some of those things I wonder if they're thinking in terms of today's what law enforcement is going through today in terms of changes and and in review I would argue that we don't need to squish these different agencies together in order to achieve that and if we did how would we expect the changes that the legislature is is hoping that all of law enforcement in the state is going to make because we're certainly not talking about squishing Burlington together with Springfield PD and those sorts of things in order to achieve what the legislature overall wants to do with law enforcement in terms of today's today's review so these are things that that you know we should be able to achieve separately just as any other law enforcement agency in the state should be able to achieve so I don't know if that answered your question madam chair but yeah I mean I see the I see that there is a great fear of the unknown and I appreciate that I think I see commissioner shirling's hand up I don't know if you had a response to that or a comment I do madam chair thank you I just direct the committee to the roughly 23 studies that have occurred over the last 51 years all of which come to the same conclusion that the state's efforts of public safety are over fragmented and are duplicating effort in a number of ways and this move to the agency and a reorganization of assets while it is not in any way designed to diminish the role in the core duties of the various speaking just of the law enforcement agencies because that's what we're talking about right now there are tremendous efficiencies and reductions of duplication of effort that can be achieved over time from buying equipment the nature of our facilities the security at those facilities the nature of how many people need to be up to speed on supervising and leading police agencies policy development and that list just goes on and on and on and the studies that we reviewed in order to get to this point again all have come to the same conclusion and they've been launched by the executive branch the legislature independent bodies think tanks etc so the evidence is overwhelming that there are benefits to be achieved here operationally and most importantly in service delivery to Vermont or statewide Madam Chair can I respond sure sure thanks one of the things I would say about the studies is that is it the last one one that I think that we're contending with was 2009 which I believe is old by any standards and certainly law enforcement modernization is taken on a whole new meaning just in the last year that's been completely different than anything that would have been contemplated in 2009 not that I'm arguing for any new studies at all not without specific need and effect but you know I think part of that 2009 study just for example even recommended you know one of the things that was accomplished that was recommended was that the state police shedding some of the specialization which ended up happening after the 2009 study and and when we took on all the you know most if not all the commercial vehicle enforcement duties so I I think that I think it's a lot of the goal to you know to have modernization that sort of thing but again I would I would say that we should we should we can and should be able to achieve these things while while preserving the individual missions and still working together side by side under the state umbrella we just don't have to do that within the same agency and again if we expect some of the changes that the Legislature makes for law enforcement in general in Vermont to be able to take hold in all law enforcement agencies there should be no problem in order achieving that with us staying within the Department of more vehicles and and fishing game staying with within their department etc okay any questions for john nor um commissioner I think this is yes senator rom well I'm I'm sorry to be late I'm dealing with a lot of sort of medical stuff that is my medical provider calling me back but um so apologies if this was already discussed um I came in hearing um commissioner shirling talking about you know studies have shown that this is an effective way to modernize I'm really wondering in a 24-hour period that's been particularly has poured a lot of salt into the wounds of black and brown Vermonters around their experience with police how you expect that this will increase accountability for law enforcement I don't think that people are asking for modernization as much as they're asking for accountability so I I'm going to take a stab at this because this this reorganization does not address the issues that currently exist in what we the issues that we see in law enforcement it doesn't address those at all except to set up a new office of community relations so other than agree with that proposal entirely I don't disagree community relations is accountability what community relations is an accountability I'd really like to hear that the commissioner answer the question madam chair okay all right thank you senator uh is a great question um right now we have uh disparate ways of supervising we have disparate policy um we have disparate equipment uh in some cases there's disparate training and um what both the historic studies and the current um modernization strategy I also direct the committee to this being one piece of a larger modernization construct that we put forth last uh January that we're we're well on our way to uh achieving large components of right now um the idea is to unify as much as possible all of that so for monitors are not getting um uh disparity in those various operate in those various operational lanes um what are the five what are what are five metrics that you could turn around for example you know young black men make up two and a half percent of chitin counties population and 25 of those charged as youthful offenders do you see a way that this change would turn those figures around would in any way impact disparities that we see right now that are huge and growing in the state the uh the initial answer to that is that um a lot of the work that has been done statewide in uh fair and impartial policing has done has been done in an office that is exclusive to the state police so the idea here is to broaden that level of nuanced work across all of state law enforcement and even beyond and one of the things that would happen as a result of creating the agency is the kind of specialization that john was talking about that spun off of the 2009 study could continue to occur and and even become uh more broadly impactful uh as we add uh these resources together so that um not only did they get the benefit of the work of the fair and impartial policing team which is co-led by uh a civilian um but also you know get the benefit of the policy development and all of the experience that comes with that so that's the that's sort of the tip of the iceberg in terms of improving those kinds of operations on statewide basis have you seen this kind of change have those impacts in other states what what what specifically have you seen have an impact most other states don't have this level of fragmentation that we have um Vermont has historically been uh sort of this organic local control kind of environment and we tend to add things in tandem with other things rather than bring things together so it's hard to make comparisons to other states so i i guess that was center colmar thank you madam chair so john i'm i'm sympathetic in in many ways with what you've outlined here and i have heard from other uh members of the bsea that have concerns about the proposed reorganization but i'm still trying to just get a sense and i don't mean to put you on the spot john i really don't when you if this were to happen if the reorganization were to go through when you get up in the morning and get in the truck what will change for you if things are are in the alignment that we're suggesting they be is it is it a top down um fear that you have in terms of who's going to supervise you or are there specific examples that you can give of what what is it that you're most worried about it and i know you said the unknown and i trust me i understand that too but i'm just i guess still looking for uh an opportunity for you to kind of pencil in the concerns that you have sure senator um it is difficult to say because you know tomorrow nothing would change i you know our folks would still be doing exactly the same thing in exactly the same way and for how long i have no idea all i know is that anything and everything you know would be subject to change um i think one of the house representatives colorfully put it that uh you know he's been through many mergers and that sort of thing before where they promised that the only thing would change is the color of the check of your paycheck or something um but uh it's it's so unknown that uh we couldn't say we absolutely couldn't say for us for us in particular i i guess um let me throw out there that um you know just just being under the same roof for instance um we would no longer be um making um our own in our own interdepartmental decisions uh on who we hire um you know that that would again come from you know the the organizational chart that i've seen we would go through a commissioner we do that you know we do that now a director or a commissioner and and a secretary we do that now but that secretary would uh and commissioner would also be over um the other agencies um state police um eventually efficient game liquor control so while that wouldn't necessarily affect decisions um you know made by uh by outside law enforcement uh coming in um those transfers from within law enforcement uh within the state would be um no longer uh under our own purview in terms of who we thought would be a good fit for the missions that we have um so um so that could change uh just just our recruitment uh going forward um in our ability to maintain um our ranks as we do today um the rest is so unknown i i can't tell you i mean we had it we had um uh the the truck and bus association come in and uh and and sort of uh testify on our behalf that you know again we had done a an excellent job over the years of of uh professionalizing our services um uh and uh and and they would hope that they wouldn't see much of that change and i can't promise them in any way shape or form um uh how how any changes might might affect them slowly or or uh quickly okay actually i think it was me that brought up that uh comparison that uh i've been through uh four or five owners of radio stations i've been involved with and you know the worst thing you hear when somebody new buys it is nothing's going to change everything's going to be the same and you know darn well that that's probably not going to happen or they wouldn't have bought it to begin with so i'm very sympathetic with what you're saying but again i was just trying to get a specific example of what might change for the average dnv enforcement person um and i have to say i mean this could all get changed with a statute too we could decide at some point to to pull your department out do something else with it but so i can i can understand the independence that you feel now that you might be surrendering to some extent but i think that's true for a lot of the different divisions that that possibly could be affected so i don't know how to assuage your uh you know uh yeah absolutely it's not that we're not without change i mean even in the time that i've been with dnv which hasn't been long about seven years uh i've already seen change and that change can happen with the appointment of the election of different governors the appointment of different secretaries and commissioners uh and with and i've seen that just in my short span of being here uh where wherein we've been uh more actively engaged in highway safety uh general highway safety uh then then very specific uh focus on commercial uh commercial trucking and how that affects highway safety uh so we've we've definitely broadened in the time uh in the time i've been here uh and you can see behind me a specific example is the addition of police on the bottom of the car used to say uh something different and and you know small little change no big deal um still doesn't prevent people from not even recognizing us and driving by us at like 80 miles an hour you know but um it uh um some of the impacts uh ultimately down the road uh will be uh you know um will be um just i suppose more individual and working conditions and also ultimately you know we hope that um that it wouldn't change uh the specific mission and the focus and the energy that we have on that mission uh into too many different directions um because having that focus and having that ability to focus on that specific thing um rather than a wide variety of things really uh really does help um deliver the best service we can within our focus to to the citizens of Vermont well i hope things do go well for you john this goes through and you know it could get better too right so i i'm just i'm not i'm not seeing the the the cost benefit for us at this point all right thank you john so i see the commissioner has his hand up thanks uh i couldn't agree more with uh with john that um ensuring that the specificity with which um the the enforcement team can uh operates is essential to maintain us and that's one of the reasons that uh this was framed the way it was and we would want to ensure that whatever language passes at least from our perspective uh memorializes that for the long term um i did also want to speak to the the hiring example uh and i've worked in two um state agencies at this point both commerce and public safety and uh i can't imagine anything changing um relative to hiring division directors do hiring within their divisions uh director fecos does that now for dmv enforcement um that would be the same in an agency of public safety in the same way that the division directors do that at the agency of commerce and throughout the department of public safety um as commissioner i'm not involved in hiring decisions for uh director bornman uh um director dorosha and fire safety um even in vc ic where uh it's more of a unit than a full division director wallin has full autonomy over who gets hired there i just do the final sign off so we can't imagine that kind of thing would be changing as that's the way it operates throughout the state enterprise the difference that i would see here would be that it's a becomes a transfer and not a not a hiring decision per se um imagine the the pro i can't i can't imagine the pressure um you know the state police are under currently uh and and in the future somebody doesn't uh apply to us to leave there and get hired at our place they have to apply for a transfer to a different division and if the pressure is that you know we can't afford to lose any more troopers to that side of the house then you know i'm sorry you can't go over there right now that sort of thing so it's subtle differences like that is what i was talking about yeah in one respect the the the statutory framework um that's proposed here ensures that someone couldn't be uh forced to go from one division to another but john is is right movement from one to the other um i'm not sure how exactly that would play out i can't imagine the scenario that was just given coming to pass but then again i won't be here forever so um and that part is not contemplated in the statutory framework okay um yes senator rum i thought i saw senator polina's hand but maybe oh i i did not i missed that thank you well i i did have my hand up but i i fear that we're just starting to be redundant in this conversation i wanted to tell john that i appreciate what he's talking about and i think what we're talking what he's talking about what i'm hearing this was that way is there's concerns about kind of chain of command and decision-making and priority setting and maybe resource allocation which which could be a result of the of the merger or the expansion of the agency public safety and i i mean i don't know what how to solve that concern other than to not let it happen but i just think that's what i'm hearing is that it's hard for the finger on it because it hasn't happened yet but there's concerns about being subsumed in a larger agency and losing your ability to make your own decisions and set your own priorities so i i understand what he's saying i'm just not sure what to do about it honestly those are those are all correct senator but there's also just the fact that i think considering the cost you know we we believe that we all deliver excellent service today we we we know that that can be improved all the time change can occur within the silos that we're in today these i just feel strongly that these efficiencies can be done without major restructuring and without major additional cost to the state in order to do that so i would i would add that sure thank you thanks um senator rom did you have a question yeah i don't know if commissioner shirling has to stand up for boy i think it might still be up from but yeah i just have to take it down that's fixed okay so commissioner shirling i was just curious um what would you articulate as the value proposition to this merger for communities that have been impacted by police violence and disproportionate incarceration uh the primary value proposition is that it will enable the acceleration of change what if they are not what if they're concerned about that change i mean well so i'll add the word positive enable the acceleration of positive change and and what would the that positive change be in your vision again it goes to the the overall modernization construct but better data analysis more unified statewide data collection analysis um what's stopping you from doing that now that data collection what what what historically uh the organizations have been on disparate and are today on disparate information technology systems so uh dmv efficient wildlife and state police use different data collection methodology we're working to change that as part of that modernization construct um but that is an example of how that the existing level of fragmentation leads to um fragmented decision-making and fragmented platforms of operation different policy different supervision um it's just it kind of all over let's say you know there's a disparity once you have that data what does it do to help you change that disparity you're talking about disparity and outcomes relative to people that uh law enforcement interacts with let's just say you you have traffic stop data that shows that black males are disproportionately pulled over and searched in the state uh this really doesn't go to the agency construct other than the ability to take the experience and the work that's being done through the fair and impartial policing uh team at the state police and superimpose it on the rest of state law enforcement um i'm not sure we want to go into the the nuances of fair and impartial policing is that's i'm happy to have that conversation with you but i'm not sure this is the venue for that so what would you say is turning those is turning that trend around right now versus what you would do differently in an agency i'm probably not uh communicating clearly um what would be different with the agency is that you would have more stream you'd have fewer you'd have less fragmentation in the manner in which law enforcement personnel are hired supervised the types of policy the accountability mechanisms the data that's collected and analyzed etc and then that circle goes kind of back around um all of those things are done a little bit differently across a number of different agencies and to the extent that folks think well the the state police is the superordinate agency we're just going to adopt what the state police does and make the other divisions in this case there's only one contemplated but in the future if we were to have all four or five divisions uh within the department of law enforcement that's not actually true for example the department of liquor control does an exceptional job at doing uh data analysis and we would take the their experience and the talent that they've got doing that and work to super impose that on the department of law enforcement and importantly on the broader uh agency of public safety keep in mind that the the department of law enforcement is one piece of the larger public safety construct that you want to be able to deliver great service uh to vermoners across the entire spectrum so um that is uh it's it's those kinds of um i keep coming back to the word modernizations but those improvements in the operating environment where you can take uh things that uh the dmv enforcement team does well things that liquor control does well things that state police do well like the fair and impartial policing work and you take the best practice of all those things and you cross pollinate it uh with consistency across the entire state law enforcement enterprise that's the overarching goal okay um i see that we are um running out of time on this right now i apologize to those of you who haven't had a chance to weigh in yet but i would suggest that we will take this up and i was trying to do next week's schedule that we will take this up again next wednesday if that works for people and um and what i'd like to do is have us look at the new draft and if that's the direction we want to go and um have people comment on that and then as uh john said they don't have any um opposition to the formation of an agency they just don't want to be part of it so they're they're different conversations here we're looking at the reorganization of a department into an agency that is simply a reorganization the issues that currently um are present in the department will um they'll exist they'll exist whether it's a department or an agency and we have to deal with those other issues whether we do an agency or a department and i that probably wasn't very clear but i see tony has his hand up right now and then we're going to jump thank you madam chair tony fakers director of enforcement safety for the record if you want i can hold off because i've got a lot to unpackage here um you know to respond uh with some thoughts on everything i've heard so far so if you want me to wait till wednesday i can certainly do that i think so because we had scheduled a walkthrough and i we might have some guests today to do the resolution the eugenics resolution that was passed by the house and i i did see michael churnick here a minute ago so um if that's okay with you yes madam chair that's fine okay thank you and um so any last minute thoughts or questions or comments before we jump so we'll everybody will get a um an invite to the next time we take this up and um if there are others that should also be invited let us know okay thank you all thank you thank you okay so michael you are muted no longer good afternoon madam chair good afternoon so thank you for joining us and um i have to say i printed out the uh resolution and i don't know if anybody else tried to print it out or not but the type is so small i can hardly see it so it's easier actually madam chair to look at it on the uh on our screen it gail has posted it so it's easier just to pull it up and read it online so um michael do want to walk us through this and um i don't know that we'll have anybody else here today i did think we had a chair's meeting at four but that was canceled so we don't have to excuse me end at four but um we'll go through this as much as possible and i don't know if rick's whole rich holshuck was going to join us or not i didn't um send him an invite in case he wanted to but um we will have more tests we'll hear from other people on this next week also so michael do you want to walk us through i would be glad to uh good afternoon members of the committee this is michael chernick i am legislative council and i drafted this resolution which has had a long history and to begin this resolution of course is the eugenics apology resolution jrh2 and the version that i'm going to review of you now is the version that passed the house a couple of weeks back and i'll go through it it's a joint resolution sincerely apologizing and expressing sorrow and regret to all individuals over monitors and their families and descendants who were harmed as a result of state sanction eugenics policies and practices recommends that the and the committee wreck the house committee recommended that the resolution be amended by striking out the former version and this is the version that was adopted and so and now i'm going to go over each clause and i think would probably make sense to me to read it through yep and then any questions madam chair you may have or members of the committee may have regarding the drafting as opposed remember i'm not here to speak yay or nay but simply to explain what's there and to answer questions as to the technical language that is present as of right now and my question michael my question is would you rather have if people have questions about the language or not why or why not but the language itself would you rather have them ask as you go through each way i'm happy to do that if you all prefer i'm seeing indications fine i'll stop in each clause and then if i don't see any questions or raised hands i will then move on to the next clause okay i think that makes sense fine fine and so with that understanding let us begin whereas state institutions established in the 19th century including the vermont state hospital for the insane and the vermont reform school became settings for the implementation of eugenics policies and whereas in 1912 the intent of the general assembly to develop policies that in later years would be identified as the practice of eugenics was manifested with the passage of the subsequently veto s79 of 1912 an act to authorize and provide for the sterilization of imbeciles feeble minded and insane persons rapists confirmed criminals and other defectives and through the enactment of action results number 81 of 1912 an act to provide for the care training and education of feeble minded children the law authorizing the brand in training school which opened in 1950 and whereas in 1925 university of vermont zoology professor henry f perkins established a eugenics survey of vermont with the participation of leaders within the vermont state gut within vermont state government to collect evidence of vermont's alleged delinquency dependency and deficiency and whereas i think i tried to ask the house this but i don't think i saw in there that it it highlights that he was the president of the american eugenics survey that way just that was not included in the house version if you decided to include that in the senate version you certainly could it was there like a reason that you feel comfortable no one ever raised it okay no one raised it okay okay but if you want to uh it's obviously your call completely on my just to tell you as a as a fact it was never raised or discussed in committee okay it was seen at in committee enough the fact that he was a a full professor at uvm right right where uh and with that should i continue yes please whereas state sanctioned eugenics policies targeted vermonters of native american indeed heritage including french indian and abinac families and persons of mixed ethnicity and a french canadian heritage as well as the poor and persons with disabilities among others and whereas in s in 1927 s 15 i an act related to voluntary eugenical sterilization past the senate but was defeated in the house and whereas the general assembly adopted 1931 acts and resolves number 174 an act for human betterment by voluntary sterilization for the purpose of eliminating from the future vermont genetic pool persons deemed mentally unfit to procreate and whereas act 174 resulted in sterilization of vermonters and whether these individuals provided informed consent can be questioned and whereas this state sanctioned eugenics policy was not an isolated example of oppression but reflected the historic marginalization discriminatory treatment and displacement of these targeted groups in vermont returning moving to page three and whereas eugenics advocates promoted sterilization for the protection of vermont's old stock and to preserve the physical and social environment of vermont for their children and whereas the eugenics survey received assistance from state and municipal officials individuals and private organizations and the resulting sterilization institutionalization and separation policies intruded on the lives of its victims and had devastating and irreversible impacts that still persists in the lives of the targeted groups and especially the descendants of those who were directly impacted and whereas in conducting eugenics survey the surveyors were granted access to case files from state agencies and institutions and files were made available to persons of authority including police departments social workers educators and town officials and whereas as a result of opening these files children and adults were removed from families individuals were institutionalized or incarcerated family connections were severed and the sense of kinship continuity and community was lost now therefore yes sorry um we just get in the good part but um so i might raise this just with the committee itself but a lot of that is in passive voice it says people were removed you know things did happen to them it doesn't name the agencies and institutions that was intentional there was a lot of discussion back and forth uh you may want to speak to representative totaki about it okay it was viewed as historical and there were many many versions of this and this is what the committee agreed upon okay so if you want to explore further the why's of certain language went in or out and the politics of it you may want to have a conversation with representative blackie we will thank you and the passive was it was intended was viewed as an historical not a current tense uh now resolved by the senate and house of representatives that the general assembly sincerely apologizes and expresses its sorrow and regret to all individual vermages and their families and descendants who were harmed as a result of state sanctioned eugenics policies and practices and be it further resolved that the general assembly recognizes that further legislative action should be taken to address the continuing impact of state sanctioned eugenics policies and related practices of disenfranchement ethno side and genocide and i will say that those that those last terms ethno side and genocide there was extensive conversation before those terms are ultimately selected and that's the text is passed the house okay yes senator rum um did i miss something that highlighted how many women were sterilized as no there were no numbers there was never any discussion of putting in specific numbers or percentages because to have those specific numbers there's lots of different data out there that sometimes is in conflict you may as a possibility say many or a large percentage or or something of that nature do we have a notion michael michael thank you for your work on this i know it was a long and and tough discussion in house general so i appreciate your your work on this do we have a numb notion of the number cumulatively of the people affected just total in a vermont can we say like over probably in the thousands is a safe assumption how many certainly when all is said and done in the thousands and of course all the sterilizations were female that goes about actually not i'm not sure of that but primarily but they were in the thousands we uh the actual data specific documented data with actual numbers is not necessarily present there are lots of numbers that are floating around in different publications thank you so any questions i um apologize i didn't know how long the just the walkthrough would take i should have um scheduled some people to come in and and specifically testify on it but i wanted us to all hear it first so that we could begin to absorb it um are there any questions or comments for michael i mean i don't know for michael you know but i i i will maybe talk to the committee a little bit before they come in or try to better understand context it bringly just the way it reads it feels like we're blaming a lot of buildings and one person for eugenics it doesn't really name the people or institutions who were involved in the process it says here are the buildings where it happened and these are the people it happened to so it feels strange to me in that way perhaps we can get that uh when we speak with john collacky as i if i may madam chair and in response i would recommend you have a long a conversation with representative collacky uh he just there were decisions made in committee after multiple drafts and over a year conversation i'll just leave it at that right it was a a long path and many compromises is what i understand so it'd be good to hear from representative collacky yeah i'll just say too well it might not identify anyone specifically uh senator rom it does mention the legislature more than once so there's certainly whoever was in the legislature in those years is identified if i may if i may interject one thing members of the committee i can tell you that the committee was very focused on saying that the legislature was responsible and that the legislature is apologizing and all this happened because of the legislature adopting laws over the different years and that was a prime focus of the house committee because i believe we can only apologize for our own actions exactly we can't we can't apologize for the actions of of any i mean it says clearly about that there was received assistance from state municipal officials individuals and private organizations but we can't we can't apologize for municipalities or private organizations or individuals only for our own actions what about the state i i don't know that we can apologize for the actions of an administration we can only apologize for our own role and i might be mistaken but i don't know where that's written down but okay i mean i've said decision for all of you to make yeah and and the legislature directed the state to do the thing so in in that capacity kasha i think that that that it's on our back you know it's on us and therefore on us to apologize i mean so it doesn't say anything michael about not providing the roles for many years right i mean that was a lawsuit to get the information out of the state well the if i could the existence of eugenics was obviously never a secret to begin with obviously it was there since the early 1900s and this was focused primarily on the eugenics survey and sterilization and no there wasn't discussion of more contemporary legal action it was basically focused on the legislature post these laws the legislature made a huge mistake and now this is an attempted a first attempted maya copa on the part of the legislature that was the committee's perspective when you say first attempt do you mean literally you're just referencing that there could be more apologies in the future no in terms of there being some other substantive legislation the house has been working on a more substantive this is meant to be simply an expression of an apology not any formal statutory action and so there are other things happening discussions happening in house general to which if you know in that last slide while the whereas clause while the legislature cannot find a future legislature that was also a quite a discussion in committee that the legislature that the house version states the legislature realizes that other action should be taken in the future and i i think it's when i'm reading the result and it's pretty clear that it's the general assembly that's apologizing for state sanctioned policies and practices and the legislature is the one that sanctioned those those policies and practices so that's what we that's what we apologize for is our role in in these policies i think so who would apologize for the state i don't know there could be a governor's uh an admin an executive there could be a judicial apology i don't know but well if i may madam chair and senator ron by reading that resolve clause there is it's effectively you could read it as it's effectively apologizing for the policies as your chair stated that were legislatively created so it is read that way that's for all of you decide if you want to change that wording but one way of reading it could be to the effect that it's apologizing for the policies themselves and for the practices it does also says and the practices yes because we set the bottom in the legislature set the policy and the administration carries out the policy in practice i i i don't know if it's okay why i'm asking these questions but it is critical to understand that these are institutions that still exist and this was a big part of their history and their foundation this is the agency of human services you know this is the agency of education so you know knowing what they were called at the time and what institutions hospitals agencies departments carried this out to me names the entity that caused the harm in addition to the legislature rather than acting like it was nameless faceless you know invisible forces that that caused it to happen if i may serena rom the thought on the house committee and remember i'm not here in any advocacy role but simply a reporting role the far in the house committee was that this these were policies carried out throughout state government and that all state government was effectively responsible and not just one office or department but again you might want to pursue that further with the members of the house find out i mean we're going to have john in so yeah i i mean we can we'll take some testimony on that how if we start to name state agencies and i don't know even know in nineteen whatever all nineteen it was what they were called and if they were even comparable to what we have today and and institutions themselves if we i mean every every hospital that was in the state did they take part in the the practices um i i don't know where we would anyway we can have a discussion about that about how how specific we are in um the naming i thought that they just saying that they were state sanctioned and that the state uh received assistance from state municipal officials individuals and private organizations um without having to name everybody was pretty clear but we'll talk to you madam chair as information for the committee in one draft that was publicly released so i can chat about it there was and this went through as i said many drafts as i'm looking on my worksheet here uh there was mentioned that the department of social welfare was established in 1923 and then in the end the committee decided to remove that fuzz again speak to representative colacchi as to why the committee decided to do that okay yep we will okay any more questions for michael and senator polina this is this is more of an interesting aside sure but notice that excuse me one of the first um proposals that the general assembly passed was vetoed by the governor it says and i just think that would be pretty interesting to see what the governor said in vetoing the first bill right who was that governor well who is that governor what did he say i can give you i can give you the reason why the veto occurred i hope it was a good thing uh set well the attorney general had advised the governor the attorney general at the time advised the governor that it was probably on or at least possibly unconstitutional the 1912 legislation and as a consequence the governor decided that he wasn't going to open himself and the state up to a court suit and why was there no court action right at when when it was when things did finally go through that was the pilot the uh like one can say that the environment of the time the very different world in 1931 and in 2021 in some ways yeah by the way the governor vermont in 1912 was john mead john mead mead i would love to get a historian and and better understand the dissenting voices of the time maybe they had a completely in noble reason for dissenting but i'd be very curious would do you know who that would be michael yes i do uh the house committee spent a lot of time with this book oh yeah nancy's book right nancy's book and nancy was in committee more than once yeah and this became a prime source in my writing into committee discussion right may want to hear from nancy gallinger okay good okay i'll grab thank you all right so any other questions or comments and then we'll take this up again next week great thank you michael very much good thanks michael missing you in person yes but it's nice to see you're in your office i know missing the office well we all miss being in person let's hope that we do the next january