Great. Thanks. This is a joint session of the joint meeting of the House and Senate Government Operations Committees. And we thought that it made sense for us to meet jointly to hear the to take less time from the Commissioner to walk through the proposal for the agency of public safety. Once we get once we have walked through it and everybody's had a chance to kind of ask the technical questions, then we will meet in our separate committees and take testimony from from people and hopefully we will be able to start this bill in the Senate that is our plan and then be able to send it over to the House, but it made sense for all of us to hear the walkthrough at the same time. So, Representative Culpin Hans, is there anything else you want to add. Well, I just want to say thank you for facilitating this meeting. I like that we're being efficient with our time and the time of the folks who are with us here today so we look forward to hearing the bill presentation. Thanks and by the time it becomes a bill it might be very different anyway but we don't know about that but so are you done on the floor. You are okay. All right, so with that, I guess I, it is February 17. I did not say that to begin with, and we are live. Well, what our plan is today is then to have the commissioner and think it is not the bill draft is not yet put in the form that we're used to seeing it's, I think it's being presented to us by the commissioner. So we're going to look at that. And I would remind people, and this may be different than the way you run your committees but we do not use chat in our committees the only, the only reason that we use chat is if something is referred to and there's a link to that document Gail will post that but other than that, we don't allow chat to be used because we think of it as a sidebar conversation and if we were in our committee rooms. We would ask people to leave and go to the hallway or the cafeteria and have their conversations so we do the same thing here. Is that okay. All right. So with that, let's just jump right into it with the commissioner and we apologize for this being so late. We had a presentation by Commissioner Levine to the all Senate, and my understanding was that it would be from 130 to two and that we could meet it to but clearly it went a little longer. I don't know how senators are they like to keep talking and asking questions so it went a little longer than expected. So with that, Commissioner, would you like to join us and start us on a as much of a walkthrough as you can do here outlining where we're going and looking at the bill and I understand realize it's 68 pages, but if we can do that that would be great. And if, if there are technical questions as we go through. So what I would ask is if people would just speak up. And the reason for that is because, given my technical setup here, I can't both see people and see the, the bill itself. And if you have a question that you need to ask the commissioner as we go through, just please identify yourself. Is that okay. Okay, great. So with that commissioner. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee members thank you very much for for doing this together it does does help with the current pace of operations to be able to go through things fewer times so I very much appreciate that. What is before you is a draft of a bill that flows from the general constructs that we've presented to you that were outlined both in modernization plan that we've been talking about since January of 2020 and the governor's executive order that was issued earlier this year. The structure of the bill used a template that was one that was used previously by the general assembly in creating an iterative structure for the evolution of an agency. Commissioner I'm going to interrupt you for one second I forgot that we would pull people to see if they wanted it to be put on the screen for all of us to see. So I'm looking here for. People would rather have it put on the screen for us. It's on our, it's at least it's on our website on the set up so we could just pull it up. So we don't have to. Right. Well that that's my question screen does anybody. Is there anybody here who would prefer it being on pulled up on the screen. I'm seeing a lot of shaking of heads so okay good sorry about that. Go ahead. So the structure of the bill is was taken from a prior iterative agency bill that has been used previously there are probably a number of different ways that this could be structured but though that was the most recent version that was that was available. As was noted I think, possibly before we started there was a quick sidebar about it being repetitive in nature in the language that is absolutely true. The repetitive nature of the language is uses that prior construct that's been used to make alterations as time passes so there's a section about a particular structure of a Department of law enforcement for example and then there's another version of that that comes later in the bill that reflects the changes that would occur based on a point in time so that's that's why there are repetitive components. Unless it is helpful to the committees I'll spare you the the the in depth dive on the history of how we got here except to say that this is a component of our overall modernization strategy that we've been talking about which has a variety of issues, including the better organizing the state's public safety assets, in part to provide better public safety supports to communities and public safety organizations statewide. The same iterative approach is taken here in this bill draft as was contemplated in the executive order that this is a step by step approach to creating an agency so it would create the agency itself and pivot from a department. It would then take the, the operations of the Vermont police academy and connected those to the agency while maintaining the independence of the criminal justice council itself. So, essentially providing the support of the larger agency construct the operations of that council and simultaneously providing administrative and budgetary support to the academy an area that has been under resourced in recent years. It would then do much the same with the operations of 911 again, reflecting back to two years ago and the legislature instructed the secretary of administration to determine where the 911 board should exist in the executive branch. This is in part an outgrowth of that work that was assigned to the secretary of administration, again with the same general construct and play that the support of the agency and in this case the technical combination of the talent from the 911 team, our radio technology services unit and the public safety answering points that are run by the state could come together in one communications unit and leverage those assets in better fashion, while maintaining the independence of the 911 board. And then finally, within the creation of the department of law enforcement, keep the first and only piece of the puzzle to move in this as drafted here would be the enforcement components of the department of motor vehicles as we described when we were talking about the executive order. We've added language here to, at least as drafted memorialize that folks who are assigned to the two initial divisions the Vermont State Police and the division of motor vehicle enforcement would not be able to be transferred between divisions without a specific request on the part of the employee and then consent by both the commissioner and the secretary of the agency so we tried to address some of the things that came up in earlier testimony. That is the, the 80,000 foot view and I'm happy to walk through the 68 pages but in a nutshell, each component of what's moralized in those 68 pages, either addresses one of those three initial moves that's contemplated in the bill as drafted under the new agency, and and the other cross section of work that's done here is it addresses the places where the word department needs to be substituted. Commissioner needs to be substituted with secretary, a lot of administrative work in the background that flows from some groundwork we did last January, if you go back to the modernization strategy that we put forward there is an addendum at the end of that that outlines a variety of the places where statutory alterations would be necessary to create the agency and a lot of the work that was outlined there has been embedded into this initial draft of the 68 page agency bill. So that's the high level overview and I'll pause there and ask to what extent you want me to go page by page. I have one question so far I have one. Actually, I don't understand, I guess, on paid, I think it's a second just the second page it's lines one through eight. I am not sure what what that means on on page two and looking at lines one through eight, which starts with division means a major component. It must be it must be a different page then it's page three actually the so it starts with the agency shall in addition to other law enforcement duties. Right, that is simply translating the existing language that creates the Department of Public Safety, and adding the word agency so much of the construct here is taking existing language that's already in statute, and pivoting it to the the agency. Right. What is your pleasure here committee members, should we go start going through it page by page to see what is actually in here. I'm not seeing anybody nod or shake. I think we should. I'd like to get into more detail about certain parts of the training Council, the house going to be has a training will be independent while still being part of the agency that kind of stuff I think you know, we don't have to line by line but I'd like to get into some of those elements. That's my thought. Yeah, I think you're right I think we should go through it and a little more detail page by page. Happy to do that so starting on page one of the definitions again are taken from the existing chapters that create the Department of Public Safety and adding terminology that's applicable here so instead of department substituting agency. And adding secretary in addition to commissioner, and that flows all the way to page two. I should also say from the outset as we get into some of the nuances. I skipped over this part of my notes that there are areas that we are clear need additional legislative input and polish. And one that Senator Polina flagged the that separation that we keep describing. I think we've done some work on the separation between whether it's 911 board and the operations of the 911 system, and the Council and the operations of the Academy, but that's not, it's not fully polished yet it's there there is more work to be done so before I forget to mention that. Can I ask a question specifically. Yep. Commissioner, we heard from you that they would remain independent but I'm seeing here that now the secretary would be appointing the director of the Criminal Justice Council, I know I don't remember us discussing that. That was drafted in here as primarily as a placeholder and it mirrors the way that other agencies operate, however, we had a criminal justice Council meeting earlier today, and it's the pleasure of the Council and I think you may hear later from both the chair and or interim executive director that that be altered to have the Council playing a more prominent role in that appointment so I wouldn't look at this as a rigid document it's some of the areas are placeholders based on existing language that's in other agency structures. I think that if we can walk through this and raise those kinds of questions where we have concerns and flag them. And then, hopefully, before our next session which will be next week. Commissioner you and amaran can work together to actually put this in the kind of format we're used to more used to seeing. And we can go and we can go through it and start really picking it apart. Senator way. Yes, so this is representative Higley. Just wondering the document that I'm looking at doesn't have page numbers. So, how are we going to follow along. Can we stay consistent with the other numbers. I think, Mark that you are look probably looking at one that's in the email if you look at what's pub. I don't know what's on your website, but if you go to Senate Government Operations website and go to today's and go to documents. Okay, thanks. That should have it. Thanks. So, quick follow up this is representative you have ski on Senator rams question around the independence of the Criminal Justice Council it also looks like in here that the budget comes under the purview of the agency of public safety I'm wondering if that is something that also has been weighed in on by the Criminal Justice Council just in terms of full independence. If that was discussed I defer to the chair I had to come over to House Government Operations during the Council meeting today so if that was part of the discussion I missed it. That piece is intentional in the design. In large part so that the the Academy would benefit from the larger budgetary implications of the agency. Basically be part of a much larger budget, which we see as an advantage so for example if the Academy needed to half a million dollar infusion for investment in something a half a million dollars set against 120 or 130 million is quite different than half a million dollars set against the $2 million budget. That's understandable. And I can certainly see that view I think my, and I'm wondering, you know just when you start have to start asking for money that does take away some of your independence. So if the Criminal Justice Council budget is having to ask the larger agency for money would you agree that that impacts their ability to be truly independent. Yes, it would have that that side effect but the hope would be that if we craft this correctly relative the independence the council and the council chair that they would be able to act independent of the governor's budget as you're seeing. I think at least in limited fashion now with the Academy advocating for some additional resources that weren't originally contemplated in the in the governor's recommend. Thank you. So we are on for those with page numbers at the, it's two of 68 at the top. The next section 6002 is as the agency creation section this largely mirrors the creation of the Department of Public Safety so much of the language is taken from there and I think there's been some added language at the end. More creates a more modern language around reforming law enforcement standardizing training policy adoption implementation data technology innovation things of that nature that aren't part of the legacy language from the Department of Public Safety. I think there's three Senator White asked this question early on this is memorializing language that's already in existence that creates the Department of Public Safety, and that flows through the entirety of page three, and into page four. I don't believe there are any alterations to the various councils and boards that have the support of the of the agency you'll note that the criminal justice council is missing here and again that's because of the iterative nature of the way the bill is designed so right out of the gate with the creation of the agency it's not listed there but then later on in a future version. It's not listed there. Commissioner. Yes, go ahead. I'm just curious I don't see the Department of Motor Vehicles anywhere here. Not yet. Again, the, if there's a confusing piece of the of the structure that we adopted from a prior bill. That this is the initial version. And then as we go through the 68 pages, there are new versions that emerge on timelines so you know that the DMV component doesn't come in until the first of July of 2022. So it, it gets added in a later paragraph. Okay, thank you. Madame chair. So as we go through this next section, there is a piece I think on page four that says, all of these named now commissions are advisory to the commissioner. So that's now including law enforcement advisory some some commissions that are supposed to be doing independent investigation into use of force as you walk through this particular section. Can you talk about how you can have independent investigation and have it be advisory. I understand your concern I don't. I don't think we've taken anything that in this section it's it's about administrative support at the bottom of page three, and then all of these boards also have advisory capacity, unless they have powers and duties that are set in statute and so it's, it's coupling two together. And I understand that can that may look a little bit funny, but it's, that's the way the agency and department structures are created in statute so it's just mirroring that. I don't know if I said that clearly, there's an advisory component to them, but there's also language here that indicates that if they have statutory authority that that they maintain that. For example the licensing of electricians, they have statutory authority to do that the electricians licensing board could be advisory. Candidly they haven't had to advise me of anything in the last 14 months I've been here but they could be advisory to the commissioner on something but they maintain their statutory independence to function independent of the commissioner or the secretary if the agency were to come to fruition. I would just follow up on that question. Yes, please. That's not what this language sets. Well, I, I accept as here and after provided the powers and duties of the board's commissions including administrative policy making regulatory functions. So shall be vested in the secretary of the agency that is that is the current structure. As I understand it of all of these, it's, it would just say commissioner instead of secretary of the agency that's, that's the standard construct for the creation of either an agency or a department. And if, if that's considered construct but it strips the independence of any board or commission. I don't think it does only in that it lit here and after provided when we get further down in the 68 pages, there's language that very specifically calls out the the maintenance of those statutory functions. And if there's language to be changed here and 6003 to ensure that we're not inadvertently breaking something. Absolutely. We should include it there as well. So I, if I can suggest that that there will be changes to the language. I can guarantee that. And what I would hope that we're doing is looking at the intent of this and how it's done and once amaran gets her hands on this. There, I believe there probably will be a lot of clarification, and maybe the, because it was used doing because it was. There are a couple different things and old bill and the standard construct for agencies. And then this new thing plopped on top of it, if that makes sense that it. I think it's somewhat confusing here and that here and after. There will be clarified so that, but if we can get to the intent so if the intent is to not is to make sure that those commissions and boards. Maintain their statutory independence, then I think that we, we make a note of that that that's the intent here and not get into the exact language at this point does that make sense because I think if we start looking at the exact language as opposed to the intent, then we're going to get so caught up here that we will probably get through page six before we're done today and so what I'd like to do is just look at what the intent is and then have amaran work her magic and make it clear to us. And then, then we'll start then we'll start nitpicking with words is that does that make sense to everybody. And I see some shakes or nods or whatever. Okay. All right. So do you want to continue here. At your discretion, Madam chair, happy to. The, I'm now at the bottom of page four and personnel designation. This is, and again, a standard area where certain types of positions are designated as exempt well all others are designated as classified service on page five. This section creates the agency under the direction of the secretary. Again, stock. I've not been through this before so the extent I'm referring to this as the stock language it's, that's how it's been represented to me by a variety of legal staff who are working on this so the component creates the, the, the secretary and lays out the duties of the secretary. Same with budget. Then on the top of page six creating the position of deputy secretary again a standard component of an agency structure. The six zero two four on page six line 11 gives the secretary with the approval of the governor the ability to create advisory councils and other relatively standard piece of, of language. The next section six zero two five allows for the transfer of components within the agency similar language exists relative to the operations of the department now. This is where there has been very that some very mindful language added in line 19, not withstanding the section above members from different divisions of the department of law enforcement shall not be reassigned or transferred outside their division unless the commissioner approves that's designed to mitigate historic fears that these kinds of efforts were to simply create one large law enforcement organization under the division of state police and this as we've indicated that is not the intent here so there's language to memorialize that that's been added. The secretary control is subsection C page seven line three. And then it gets into multiple pages around the duties of commissioners and directors. And again this is all language that comes from the Department of Public Safety, and is, as I understand it, largely mirrored in the construction of other components of state government. So five three line five of page eight. This is language that exists in the Department of Public Safety around changing ranks and grades of members of the organization this is specific to the, to the state police and in this area we've also added the language in again that I read to you earlier about prohibiting the reassignment or transfer outside of member of a division within the Department of law enforcement unless that member requests a transfer and the commissioner approves it. It may be redundant but because as representative Gannon noted above with some language that then gets modified later on in places where we catch that we're we're trying to reiterate the language for clarity. Then the remainder of that section is all pretty standard until you get to page nine line 12. Number nine divisions within the Department of law enforcement may not be abolished or transferred. Again, trying to galvanize that. At least initially there well not initially but within 18 months or so of the formation of the agency should the General Assembly agree. There will be two components of the Department of law enforcement and they're not to be melded together without the General Assembly weighing in and doing that via statute. The 6054 and page nine line 15 outlines the duties of directors again that is directors are a standard piece of the construct of both agencies and departments in state government and that's the the language that goes with the creation of directors positions. By way of background, right now in a in a department that the directors are the Colonel Birmingham as a director director Dorosha and fire safety director born a man in emergency management director Conti in the lab and director. Holland back in administration. Just to give you the context of difference between commissioner and and director. The Department of fire safety and emergency management begins on page 10 line nine section 6082. This is the formal creation of the department rather than two separate divisions which are created within the Department of public safety right now. And then immediately following that the creation of the division of support services, and the assignment of certain tasks to the division of support services that are outlined through page 11. And then beginning at, I should pause. We've just done like eight pages so I'll pause there just in case. Any other comments or to make sure my audio still working. Are all the directors at this point of the same pay grade or relative. Relative yes, based on a couple different factors size of the division impacts that and time in service of course. Any other questions up to this point. Hi, sorry this representative Lafave can I please go back to page nine section nine. So you said that the within Department of law enforcement may not be abolished or transferred. He said unless it was brought up by legislation sorry you're referring back to DMV and such or is that something else that I missed like are you saying that that could be eventually done through legislation. So that's exactly right the Department of law enforcement's created and then initially two divisions are placed in there to division of state police and the division of motor vehicle enforcement and in the future there's you know that this is setting the stage for the contemplation of adding other components like the warden service or liquor and lottery enforcement. What this is memorializing is that once that divisions created in this case the two that would exist in the agency to start with or by 2022. That they cannot be a polished or transferred without a change in the law so the secretary can't just say all right we're we're done having multiple divisions in the Department of law enforcement we're just going to have one big state police and we're going to squish everybody together. Thank you. I don't see anybody else right now. So, because you can move on. So here is where we're at the bottom very bottom of page 11 very top of page 12. This is where the creation of the agency 6002 gets modified for the first time. And so what is added to that language is following the words operational support for the criminal justice training council is added at that point. So that that that goes to the redundancy of the language and this iterative process. And that could be addressed in a different way by taking a single version of 6002 and just creating a subsection that's effective on a particular date rather than having the language repeat but again that the the outline for this was taken from a prior piece of legislation so trying to be consistent. Yes, I could just be habit but commissioner when you say criminal justice training council it always makes me think that we're starting to look at the distinction between the training functions for the police academy and the criminal justice council, but are you just referring to criminal justice council. Thank you. It's just 30 years of referring to it that way and it takes a little while to, I think I got it about 80% of the time but I'm still tripping over the training word about 20% of the time. So is then that training piece related to the police academy should we have seen that already or is that further down. The criminal justice council is now responsible for both training and professional standards and I believe the intent of the change made last year by the legislature was to clearly articulate that that that professional standards component was not in any way sublimated to the training component so that that's why training was removed I'm extrapolating that but that's that's my understanding. So were we supposed to see the police academy somewhere. Any. No and that's a good question as well. And I would ask at whatever point is appropriate for both director sheets and the council chair to potentially address any suggestions for how to better memorialize the difference between the operations of the academy and the criminal justice council itself. That is an area of weakness in the draft that will need to be addressed. I think that that language doesn't exist anywhere yet so there wasn't anything to work from. So it is an area where I think we've got to do some, some additional work. I, I would suggest again that I, I think there are a lot of changes to the format that the way I am looking at this. I think there will change a lot of this format. And, and I think that there will be additions to the language and so what I would recommend on this particular issue is that Mr sheets and Mr Surrell work with you commissioner and amaran to come up with the like the best language to put in here for that differentiation. Does that, does that make sense to do it that way. Because I don't think if we start doing it now and trying to pick at words, we're going to be lost. If they can come up with some language for us to then look at. Can I get the two bills to either shake or nod. Yes, they're not idea. Good idea. Otherwise, we're smithing will eat us up with time. Right. Okay, they're nodding so. So we are now on, unfortunately, only page 13 section 6003 in the advisory capacity section that representative again flagged earlier with some ambiguity and as having ambiguity and added here on line 14 is at least preliminary in terms of the procedures that attempts to clearly delineate the criminal justice council retaining and exercising all powers and functions given to it. That are administrative in nature, including the power to develop training training delivery methodology administering professional standard standards. Conduct investigations and hearings and adjudicating officer conduct, etc. So that is again language that will need to be tweaked. And that is written to address the, the goals of the legislation so it's, it's probably not perfect yet but it's, it's there as a placeholder to try to address all the various components. I feel like I have some something that one could be true as wordsmithing but the council advisory committee is named as a separate item than the criminal justice council I imagine it advises the criminal justice council and then it's not mentioned as independent as well so it's seen as kind of co equal above, but then not named down below. I'm not sure I understood that because I think the, that is part of the train of the council. Madam chair I've not had any experience with the council advisory committee since I arrived at public safety so I have that there have been conversations about whether to suggest it continue or be removed and I defer those again to the the chair of the council and the, and the executive director as to whether, and then ultimately to, to the committees on whether it makes sense to keep that parallel structure or not. And then also, did you have one respond to that. I could respond if it's okay. Yep, since he's muted. Okay, for the record this is Bill sheets. Senator great question the council advisory committee was a governor appointee committee and all of those appointees expired 2019 and they never had a meeting. Talked about replacing that and would love the opportunity to introduce replacement language in this bill that formally recognizes the professional regulation subcommittee that is a subset of the council that handles professional regulation, as was intended by this council advisory committee. And if I may just add my sense at one point was that was where a lot of lay people civilians particularly BIPOC and other marginalized folks were going to be so it's not semantics it's really important I think that we know where that advisory committee lives and and what its function is and who it reports to. Senator it's critically important us to and that every that committee subcommittee that we currently have in place is well represented in doing a tremendous job. So we in some communications over the weekend articulated to the commissioner and to the governor's legal counsel that, although it appears on the governor's website that the advisory committee exists that as the executive director said their terms all ran in 19, they hadn't met, and in the inner MS 124 was enacted, and the authority to be the funnel recipient of allegations or reports of officer misconduct around the state was to come to the council, and we created this professional regulation subcommittee which is the only subcommittee, it's five members, both law enforcement and some of the outside members of the council, their meetings are confidential the only ones of our subcommittee meetings that are not open to the public or to other council members including myself so we didn't see the need to continue in statute. The existence of a an advisory committee, looking at the legislative language on the reason for the creation of that advisory committee, we saw the creation or the creation of the new criminal justice council, as being a manifestation of that same legislative intent and believe that the references in statute to a an advisory committee to the council could be removed and and what the legislators been looking to accomplish with that is to have some outsider see the allegations of misconduct there are and what's being done about it are being implemented by the the council's operations. I'm not sure what draft you have in front of you I'll need tomorrow to find that to deal apples and but I believe there is some language in the draft that specifically authorizes the council to create new subcommittees which we have committed I think at least five new subcommittees, but with an express reference to the professional regulation committee. Thank you. Okay. Do we want to move on then. Are we ready to go to the next page. Page 14 Madame chair begins more of that iterative process of adding the criminal justice council to various sections. An important here will be as ledge council is reviewing this and then ultimately you are to make sure that the intent remains clear and that there isn't any inadvertent breakage of any of the intent as we move forward. You know, the way I'm looking at this is I'm thinking about reporting this on the floor. And the way it's written, it would be impossible for me to report this on the floor in a coherent manner. So I think that as we go through this will will come get it much more streamlined and understandable and easier to report on the floor because I would now want to try to report this one on the floor believe me.  So I can, I concur. The top of page 15 is an area that will need edits to comport with the council's discussion from earlier today about appointment of the director and I think there's a number of different possibilities there. I just flagged that one for further exploration in terms of how that should flow. There are then a number of sections where there are administrative changes being made simply swapping out the secretary of public safety for the commissioner of public safety. And those go on for a couple of pages until we get to page 18. This also is around top of page 18 section 2355 is also around the selection of the executive director and that language would have to flow together with the prior section that I flag so again a placeholder for that process that would need to be galvanized moving forward based on a variety of feedback. The budgeting section that's been flagged already the director submitting a budget to the secretary that's a normal course of business within an agency or department. Whether or not we want to flag that the council with its independence may make arguments, budgetary arguments leave of course at your discretion. So moving into the end of page 18 top of page 19 the couple more just language changes and then administrative changes around financial assets and liabilities just shifting those to the to the department. There are also just as a side note I think there are assets that are part of buildings in general services and there's no language that contemplates moving them to the agency so if those relationships exist at bgs owns a building that the Academy utilizes, they would continue to own it and we would continue to pay fee fee for space as necessary so if there's no need to base. The basic version of that is there's no need to move it, the language doesn't move it. Then on page 20 we begin the third iteration of the creation of the agency with the 911 board moving and the Department of law enforcement now having done online 18 the division of motor vehicle enforcement. And the following sections again are repetitive and this is probably an area where they could be collapsed together. Yeah, in some fashion. Yeah I think they, they probably. Well, my drafting style, they would be, but the top page 24 all flag as in the area where the board is advising the secretary on the selection of the executive director of the 911 board. So, again, there may be alterations that you want to make there. I don't think we're wedded to any particular mechanism there are a variety of them that are used throughout state government for the selection of executive directors of various either independent or semi independent components. We had a number of them in the agency of commerce as well. I am just skimming through and skipping pages and through page 25 and into page 26. There's another set of administrative sections about assets and liabilities and equipment being transferred. Again, if it's, if it is in the purview of another component of state government or its rental property or something of that nature there's, there's just an adoption of whatever that relationship is without a transfer occurring. The top of page 26 section eight title 23 administration enforcement of title spells out that the memorandum of understanding to carry out duties, it should be created and there is already some language this just modifies it to acknowledge the altered nature of the relationship there but you'll see in the strikeouts that there are, there are already such provisions. Similar provisions that are in place relative to the cooperation between the Department of Public Safety and the Department of Motor Vehicles. Madam chair may ask a question. So, Michael, do you envision it's Allison, do you envision having the same MOU as you as as we go down this road with fish and wildlife and liquor and lottery. I would think that would be necessary, unless specifically memorialized and statute the memorializing the relationships to ensure that the support of the non law enforcement functions in those departments or divisions remains uninterrupted is critical. Thanks. Madam chair can I ask a question. Yes, please. Commissioner, I brought this up before early on in testimony days before. Is there any assurance here you can give for our drivers privilege card community that more deep emerging of motor vehicles and the rest of public safety won't result in some kind of additional oversight of their identity and immigration status. I can. It actually could create the opposite because we're decoupling the enforcement components of motor vehicles from the Department of Motor Vehicles that issues those cards and coupling them to the Department of Public Safety which doesn't have any responsibility for the issuance, or maintenance of those cards. Processing that. Sorry that I can take another run at it if you want. You can keep. Sorry, I don't want to hold us up. I'm just looking at the language and thinking about it. The short answer is it sounds like it's an improvement. Yeah, that that's exactly right. The short answer is I would see it as to the extent and improvement is it. I'm not sure what's necessary is I think we've got a good balance now, but it's not a threat. So, I can assure you of that. There is a section the top of page 27. That's administrative in nature switching department to agency relative to automatic license plate readers. We may actually want to have a conversation about just removing this statute all together to shorten this up in large part because there's only one automated license plate reader left in use in Vermont. And we're main we were actually about to sunset. The, the maintenance of the storage there and take that unit out of service it's not our unit but we're, we're the organization that pays to have those things archived and it's just it under the existing operating rubric that's been established in here. Basically not. They're not useful items anymore so I think we may come back and just suggest strike this all out and we just won't use that device going forward in Vermont. That could knock off a page and a half so that would be helpful. I've already knocked off about 15. Yes, agreed. They don't let me draft these things so I'm with you senator. The more administrative work top of page 30 to transfer the enforcement staff the financial assets and liabilities again. And descriptors that I gave above for the other components apply to this third component as well. Top of page 32 we begin just administrative changes, changing department to agency and commissioner to secretary that continues through page 33 through into page 34. You'll see one strike out direct on page 34 line six director of the Vermont criminal justice services division as a division that has not existed in the Department of Public Safety for several years so that's an administrative cleanup unrelated to the agency structure. A question. Yep. I feel though like it seems like it's saying that the criminal. What will be the criminal justice voice on the law enforcement advisory panel. And I'm just speaking before we go for clarity that the criminal justice services division was a division of the Department of Public Safety that had the radio technology services unit. The Vermont crime information center, and the information technology unit prior to the creation of the agency of digital services so it was actually a poorly named division it was. It's just, it's administrative it doesn't really have anything to do with what the title suggests. I think that a center around I think that the Council is not was never not have membership on the LAB, I don't believe. This was changed this that to the Council and the LAB board were changed last year the makeup of both of them. Or maybe the LAB board wasn't I thought we already got rid of that position but I don't think that the Council has membership on the on the LAB board and if that's something that should happen. Then we could look at that but this is current makeup. Yeah, I mean it aside from the strike out kind of bringing it to my attention I was just looking through the list and feeling like there's not a kind of civilian or criminal justice voice on that very important commission so maybe I'm not understanding properly what they do and if a civilian oversight voice would be helpful but that's where my mind is going and I'll just my end of my questions there. We can talk more about that. So, I'm just going to name pages where there's administrative cleanup around agency department secretary commissioner and when we get to a section that is not administrative cleanup I'll stop. So 3536 page<PHONE_NUMBER> 2243 top of page 44 there is. I've forgotten now. I think it was Senator Clarkson asked about future memoranda of understanding and that's actually called out top of page 44 line one additional cleanup continues through page 45. administrative cleanup. In the middle of page 45 that speaks to the state's emergency management plan, and I'd have to find the background to how that ended up in there but I know it's. It's administrative cleanup but I don't know the backstory for for that particular piece. There were a lot of folks involved in the drafting here. Top of page 46. This is existing language but there's been some clarifications added for certified law enforcement officers assigned to the Department of law enforcement were previously the only law enforcement folks in the department or the state police so. Well it's not just a straight substitution of secretary for commissioner or agency for department. It relates to that level of administrative cleanup. Same with page<PHONE_NUMBER> to 253. We may be we may be done with substantive changes through page 54. No there's reporting I knew there was something else in here. So we have page 55 line 19 reporting. And hesitate to use the word reporting because there have been so many reports but creating some kind of report on potential addition any additional legislative changes needed to continue the orderly deficient organization of the transition. And how we can anticipate probably 80 or 90% in the bill structure that will work through with you over the next foreseeable future. Invariably we're going to miss something so it calls out the need to report back on anything that we have missed. And an additional report about the feasibility of transferring other law enforcement assets into the agency and exploration of some VOSHA components as well that have been talked about previously and reporting on the efficacy of doing that. And one more report on two versions of the report, the 21st of November, excuse me, November of 2021 and November of 2022 after the various components. If they were to move. There are two reports do back to the governor and the general assembly on any additional work that needs to be done in the wake of those. Then page 57 makes alterations to the governor's cabinet pursuant to the change to secretary from commissioner of public safety, and then some additional transitional provisions which are language related to making other statutory alterations. And page 58, we are into emergency management language and cleanup around emergency management and fire safety that goes through the end of the document I believe and this is again just agency secretary replacements and things of that nature. There are, there's no intention for substantive alteration there. And then effective dates. The draft is July one for the operations of the Academy for 2021 and July one of 2022 for the 911 operations and DMV enforcement and that's just the draft. Okay. Where are we committees. Anybody have any question, I, I do believe that there's. I might be wrong, but I do think that there, there are ways of formatting it that will do, like, all of the last pages and all the pages where just commissioner was substituted with secretary and stuff clearly we have to have those in the statutes but in the creation of the agency itself I think there's a more efficient way of, of drafting it, but I may, I may be wrong, but we can talk about that but in terms of the, the intent of it, are there any technical questions about the intent of it and Madam chair, yes, I'm holding back because I've been asking a lot of questions. As, as I sort of take this all in, you know, in the middle of a pandemic, I feel like one of the reasons people might think we're doing this is so that there can be more streamlined emergency communications emergency operations. There are ways of consolidating our response to disasters and pandemics, etc. That doesn't seem to sort of show up in many places here. Commissioner would you, I just feel like that's probably why people would think we're, we're talking about public safety so much right now in some ways. Do you see any place to sort of strengthen the line of communication or chain of command around emergencies and disasters. It would that's a great question it would do that by design. Now unfortunately in the 68 pages it is all administrative you about the creation and structure of state government which is sort of inside baseball to that but the growth of the agency that has been flagged in reports since I was a toddler, all indicate a better service delivery more streamlined delivery of emergency operations, better sharing of assets better sharing of facilities, and more more mindful delivery of services to Vermonters, instead of, and these reports don't exist exclusively in public safety when I was in in commerce we had, we only went back three years we had 123 reports that related to the delivery of services to Vermonters and housing and tourism and marketing, and that was only in a three year window, and the themes are similar. The fragmentation with which the great state government has organically grown up create inefficiencies and and lost opportunities to deliver service and, despite the fact that we have great folks and all of the various divisions and elements we're talking about combining having them together would produce an even better product than we're able to produce now. Does that answer your question somewhat center on. What kind of does he does. I was looking through all the names of the commissioners and the titles and the departments and doesn't doesn't do we just stand up emergency operation centers and kind of response teams in an in an emergency or do you have a standing emergency response and recovery. Of your. Okay, go ahead, Commissioner, I think it's there. Okay, I didn't. It is in there. The state has an emergency operations plan and a division of emergency management that organizes all of the states assets relative to emergencies whether it's hurricane Irene or a smaller scale flood or it is. A COVID response, health operations is a branch of the state's emergency operations center, because this is a health emergency. Yeah, the size of that branch sort of dwarfs everything else that's going on relative to the emergency response so it's, it's an unusual look for a long term emergency but that same structure is used for all emergencies that we face in Vermont and it takes. It utilizes the assets of state government and all of our partner organizations municipalities counties, all the emergency assets emergency managers from around Vermont. It aggregates them together regardless of what organization they're assigned to whether it's inside state government or outside so while there are efficiencies that'll happen in that level emergency response with having a more unified agency of public safety. That's a fragmentary improvement, because of the nature of the way we run emergency operations already. And there are there are some issues around emergency management that we will be taking up after. It's not issues with them but it's just some potential changes that we will be taking up after crossover but it really has nothing to no bearing on this on this bill or this creation of this agency. And I will say that one of the kind of ironies of Irene was that our emergency operations center was flooded and could not be used as an emergency operations center. And this time around the inability to have people in one room has prevented us from using the emergency operations center so we were the first in the country to go completely remote for operations of our EOC that has now been in continuous use for almost a year on March 11. The prior record for emergency operations is 17 days to give you a sense of what the difference in scale is. I'm going to go around to see if there are any more clarifying questions and I'm sure that people have a lot of opinions and things they would like clarified in the and I'm sure that and we'll get to all of those. But right now does anybody have. Mark, are you representative Lee. Good Senator. How do you see this playing out in the sense of amour and putting things more in a form that we're familiar with and, and are you assuming and making sure that both the Senate and the House have the same drafts to look at that that would be a concern to me. Well, I the way I see this playing out is that if it's going to be a bill one of us has to start the bill. So that, and we representative Copeland Hanses and I have talked about this and we, we will, we can start this on our side. So we'll deal with the, the first draft and make changes and by the time it gets to you. We'll be a combination of amour and draft our changes testimony from different stakeholders and groups. So, while you can have the, the original draft that she comes up with that we deal with that will not be the final draft, the final bill. Again, there's no prohibition on the Senate and the House having the same drafting going through the same process so I just hope that we can either have more joint hearings to, you know, be time sensitive, because I'd hate to see at the end of all this. You know, a very late bill coming out from the Senate and the House not having enough time to act on on what's necessary so that that's my concern is again I'd like to see this move along. Again no prohibition on same bills being in the House and Senate. No, I agree with you and the draft the same bill could probably be there but I, and I may be wrong on this but I feel that if we want to have real debate and constructive thoughtful discussion on this that having 17 people be involved in the witnesses is to, does not allow for meaningful discussion. And, and so what I would anticipate is that we would take a draft and we would start working on that and we can keep, we can keep your committee in the loop on every step that we take. But a bill will has to come from one side to the other side that's just the way our process works it. It can't be a bill that's passed by, by both at the same time. So, but that that does that make sense and Representative Copeland Hansis and I try to talk with each other every Wednesday. And so we will make sure that you are, I mean we don't have many Wednesdays left actually. So, if we're going to do this we're going to have to do it and we will make sure that you're kept up to speed with every change that's made so you won't be surprised by anything. Okay, thank you. I don't know if that answered that satisfactory or not, but you're very gracious to say thank you. Thank you. I think Austin has his hand up. Who does you represent now. Oh, okay, there you are. Thank you. I just like, I have a comment slash questions to offer. And I want to build off of what Senator Rahm is sharing. I'm reminded of results based accountability and one of the questions is to the effect of how are we better off from this effort. So I hope that as this gets rewritten and put together. For me that was that's that's what's missing. You know how are we better off for this effort. And if that can be made clear. I think it'll be easier to move forward. Yeah, I think you're right. You're right and I think that we can hopefully my position is and I don't know about anybody else but my position is that we will be better off. And I could list some reasons why but I think it needs to be clear to everybody about how how we will be better off. Anybody else I see I don't see any hands going up. Senator LaClaire you're being very quiet. I'm just listening to you madam chair. With all your wisdom with wrapped attention I know anybody else. Madam chair can I just Yes, yes please. I'm concerned that this bill on doesn't address a lot of the funding issues with, you know, like the E 91 board I mean there's nothing in here to address that. And some of the underfunding issues and you know I would anticipate given how long the Department of Public Safety has worked on some of this that would those things would have been addressed in this draft bill. Because it's not like these issues haven't been raised in committee in reports. And I just don't see that here. I may madam chair. Yes, please. Not addressed in a bill representative again. Because the bill is structural to the formation of the agency we have testified. And had a number of side conversations with legislators around approaches to the 911. So this is a challenge in, in part and this is an opportunity to pitch both committees on some additional work in parallel to this. Last year as part of this 124. The bill was passed that prohibited us from executing a statute that allows for the billing of dispatch services. We had put forth a plan to phase in over four years. Fees for agencies that are reserving receiving dispatch services for free as an opportunity to try to create some parity in the investments that municipalities and others make in their emergency communications. Those conversations in recent months, starting late summer I believe have taken the form of that billing that we were planning to do was not to balance our budget. To just create that parody that I was describing an outgrowth of that it may be that you could either reinvest those dollars into the 911 operation. And that's an advantage to bolting together the operations the 911 system our radio technology services group, and the PSAPs themselves that I've described previously, or another option. It's not limited to your question but just for clarity so I get on the table all the things that we've offered as possibilities there are both county efforts and multi agency municipal efforts to try to create regional communications and upfront funding is one of the challenges there so one of the options may be to use those funding in flows to help it with startup funds for other regional communication efforts, which again are one of those things that's repetitively mentioned over the reports in the last 50 years as a best practice and has been only lightly undertaken in Vermont for a variety of reasons not the least of which is funding so we very much have contemplated how to solve some of those problems. Those solutions are not contained in the draft legislation because there really isn't a mechanism to do that these are just structural changes that are in the in the draft. I don't know that that answers your question representative again but I do know that I don't know how other agencies are structured in our statutes and if they have, if they answer funding questions in the, in the create in the structure of the agency in itself, or if those are separate separate issues that are addressed separately I would, I would be surprised if the Department of Mental Health for example, in its, the statutes that create that create the structure of the Department of Mental Health talk about the funding for mental health services. That's all I was thinking, but I don't know if that answers your question or not represent again and it doesn't, but that's, that's all right. We'll have an opportunity to look at the bill. Anybody else have Madam chair. Yes, I just want to say as I mentioned to in past sessions just in the Senate. I want to make sure that if there are people in the public who want to be heard in some way about this that we all are clear if we're making that possible and if we're doing that together who other folks have heard from. You know, open docket obviously about this and I am aware of people who wrote into the open docket and had some serious concerns, particularly from affected communities by policing and public safety apparatus and so, you know, I just want to make sure at some point, what one or both of our, our bodies are hearing from those folks as well. I, we will hear from anybody who wants to testify. I always, always tried to do that on, on every bill and so I see no difference here that we will listen to people Anthony, Senator Polina. Sorry about that. I guess I want to echo what Senator Rom just said and go back to what representative Colson said about making sure that are how are we, how are we going to measure for better off or not. And it's a lot of the conversation about setting up this agency is around efficiency and effectiveness of policing and I think that's fine that that's that's not that that's bad thing that could help us be better off. I think there are a lot of people around the state BIPOC community and others who would would want us when I think about how could we be better off they want to be feel more safe and secure in their communities. And know that we're going to have a police that force that is really responsible to the community responsive to the community so I think that that's really something that we have to look at really closely as we move to me that's the most important thing that we have to discuss is, are we really going to make this better agency be something that's more effective and more efficient police force which I'm not saying is bad. But there's a lot of other issues that she people see it through different lenses, and I think that we have to make sure that we are building a system that it's going to improve our responsiveness to people of color and other vulnerable communities. Thank you. Anybody else right now. So, can we ask if the commissioner and Amron, if we can have a another draft that's not sure how to put this but I guess I'll give you afterwards Amron because I think that there are some ways of doing this that would be much clearer. And, and also, making sure that Bill sheets and Bill Surrell have the language that we talked about. I think that we need to make sure we get in here and then we'll next week we'll hear from we'll start hearing from people who are testifying on on the draft bill itself. If that makes sense. Yeah, if I may. I think it does make sense and I've certainly heard some discussion on expediency but I do think that given a change of this magnitude and where we sit with the questions around public safety and policing that it might make sense to pursue public hearing on an on an issue this large. We, we could, we could do that let me and representative couple enhances, we can talk about that. I think that the way we would meet I don't know if how we would do that and have the testimony the public testimony beyond on the structure, or a myriad of issues out there that aren't aren't part of this structure at all but are being addressed in different, different venues and different bills. So I don't know how that would work but we can we can think about that yeah. Senator white. Yeah. Hello, represent Maraki. How are things up in your end to put me. To pick up on that thread. One of the few things about zoom that I think are helpful is that it does allow us to do things like hold a public hearing. So people from all over the state can really have access to us. The time to do it though is after you have a bill ready so people can actually comment on what we're putting forward to maybe premature to start thinking about a hearing until we actually have a bill, and people know what's going to be in it, but I, I would agree that this is something that a public public hearing make make sense and in the fact that we can do it by zoom makes it a lot easier than it might have been otherwise. That's a good, a good point. Anything else. I'm looking around and see anybody else. Okay. Thank you for, thank you for letting us invite you. I think it's a good suggestion to do it together to, to kind of go through the, the concepts and get an idea of where we're, where we might be heading. Thank you Senator white for making this meeting available to us today and if you get to a point where you're ready to do a public hearing I would love to share with you the tips and tricks that we learned in doing our public hearings last August or August, and then I'd also love for my committee to be able to participate in, in hearing from the public. Oh, I think, I think if we, if we get to that point that it will, it should definitely be both committees that that do it at the same time. Okay. So, thank you everybody.