Thank you. So, the Senate government operations coming back for a little break, a couple little breaks. And we now have a draft 1.1, 1.5, I apologize, of JRSJRH2. And it is on the committee page has been posted so anybody can follow along if they want. And so committee I think that the thing we need to do is to start looking at it and see where we are. And hopefully pass it out today. Yes, Senator Rom. You want to do questions clause by clause or. Yes, I think so I think that that's the best way to do it so that we can answer any questions we have make any changes we need to instead of going jumping around and going back and forth. Does that it said okay with everybody. Yeah, we do it that way. I assume you do it that way. Okay. So we didn't change the, the introduction or the Madam chair, if I may offer, I would be able to be happy to go clause by clause with you tell you whether there's a change in a particular clause and what that change is, and then all of you and the committee can have your discussion on that clause. That's perfect. Thank you. And with that understanding, I'm ready to begin whenever you are. We are ready. Very good. And for the record, my name is Michael Churnick. And I am one of the legislative council staff attorneys and the drafter of this resolution. And the title remains the same as Madam chair indicate a moment ago, all the introductory language is the same as you saw yesterday. No change. The first new clause I did change last night and I alerted the chair to my concern that I wasn't sure where the 1906 state came from. I know we had to discuss there were discussions in the house about 1906. And there wasn't one point in 1906 clause that was then deleted on the part of the members of the House general committee. And then through my materials recession law through the various historical articles through Nancy Gallagher's book and I just wasn't finding a specific 1906 reference. So I thought saying early 1900s effectively does the same thing. I think it's great. I think it's well written I think. And then we had the discussion last night and this morning, regarding breed better men from the scientific American articles, say to Ram. And to be a mall I was chatting with one of the editors to be a motto. It actually has this was the associations motto for say or the organization. And then I saw in the various emails that went back and forth this morning a reminder, and it was sitting right in front of me a Nancy Gallagher's book. And it just seemed to be a good match. The same purpose. Yes, I would just say we should. We should say breeding better vermonters by Nancy Gallagher I just feel like it's not really fair to leave her, her authorship out. I'll do whatever you want. The reason I left it out was I didn't, I wasn't sure you wanted the name of an individual within the resolution within the whereas clause, but that's your cause. Decision completely. It's unusual to do that but to do what I'll do to add to have people's names I think. Yeah. Yeah. However you want it. Is it normal to just put sight of book without the author. I've gone both ways over the years I just thought that the reason I did it the way I did is that the resolution as it well there are a couple of other names concerning the governor and lieutenant governor. But since she's an author not a historic figure I wasn't sure what you wanted to do on that. If you wanted in I certainly can. I don't have strong feelings either way. I have kind of strong feelings that you know she, I mean her body of work came at a time when a lot of people weren't listening or paying attention to this part of our history, and she's, you know, she's one of the foremost experts and has, you know, really had to pull a lot of things together, starting at a time when we were not ready to have this conversation and I feel like if we're going to cite her book she deserves to be named. Let's do it. I'm fine with me. Okay. I have so noted in mind and so noted. The next. The next clause is basically as you suggested yesterday. I took the quotes out. I had a discussion with editing and the editing was asking me. What are you quoting. And I thought about it, and I made, we discussed that these concepts and other clauses, but it's not a direct quote from anything. So I pulled the quotes. I think I'm going to have a lot of little, little comments but I went once you take that out I feel like then we are then the accuracy sort of falls to us to make sure we're accurately describing what the eugenics movement was and it was elimination, maybe and it just, I mean, you know, if you just read that clause alone, it would seem like we were having like, you know, death squads or something this was through the process of sterilizing people so it just feels like elimination and sterilization would make sense. Right. Eliminating. Why did you do sterilization. Or what about elimination through sterilization. That's fine. Because I think Kasia's right.  Yeah, that's what we probably did that too. Exactly. And we started doing this way before 1900, just saying. I don't think and I don't think it was just through sterilization. I think that there were other methods of elimination here I. I think that you could say elimination and sterilization but not elimination through sterilization. How about elimination, including sterilization. Yep. That's why you're wrong with that word for you. That sounds good. That's why you're the professional here. Michael. Okay, going to the next. Okay, so I had those two changes so far. I'm going to go through the clauses. The next clause is basically as you gave it to me yesterday, except I corrected the names. Oh, okay. It's actually out governor Allen Fletcher I went back, and I had his veto message, and the attorney general was Rufacy Brown. I went through my materials. Those are the right names, because by that point, Governor Fletcher had succeeded governor weeks. Okay. Perfect. That was an historic correction. Are we all right? Okay. The next clause, I made two changes from what well three changes, one minor and two, maybe a little bit larger, as was suggested to me yesterday, I added the word nevertheless right at the beginning, because it seemed to connect better to say nevertheless after the bill had been vetoed state agencies institutions, etc. There was a better flow of continuity. Yep. I like that. I capitalized the S on state because with our protocol whenever we're dealing with the state of Vermont per se we capitalize the S. And I also spoke of the vetoed legislation to be really clear about that. Yeah. And that was curious. So, so even though, even though the governor vetoed it, we didn't override the veto we didn't. We didn't reintroduce it. The house did not. Okay, we're both chambers don't override there isn't an override. And that's what happened it was still vetoed, and it's listed it's officially I can tell you that I had the veto message and on the official list of vetoed legislation, and what it became that the Secretary of State we maintained. It's listed as a legislation that the veto was upheld. I like the idea of following what with after the veto nevertheless they carried out the adopted policies and procedures to carry out the intent. Yeah, I like that. That's largely your phrase, Senator what I just made those two minor changes. Well, a reminder you want to look at them. The next clause 1925 clause is the same as you've seen before there's no change there. Um, I got a spelling mistake I think online for isn't it zoo ology. Yes, that's how you spell it. That's spelled correctly it's been checkered it's been through our senior editors. Unless you want to put another oh in there for a zoo. I have a, just to satisfy everyone's concerns. I have a dictionary right in front of you. I think it would be the same with biology, you have bio. I mean biology is I have a, I have a sort of substantive thought about the section I raised it early in our process. I think it's important to note that because the Americans was the president of the American eugenics survey in 1927 he had influence nationally and I just feel like it's important to note that because Vermont ended up being one of the intellectual power houses of this national eugenics movement that way. Oh, that makes it even more insidious. So what I could say is that in 1921 I could say, University of zoology professor and president of the, I would, you could say establish the eugenics survey of Vermont and later became president of the American eugenics survey. So what I could say then, give me just a half sec. In 1925 University of Vermont zoology professor Henriette Perkins, who. It's established. Okay, we'll leave that established the eugenics survey. Why don't we say who I think we need the word who you could say who later became president of the American eugenics survey, then I think that's I think that's the way to do it. Yeah, yeah, I think so and who later became. So leave it just like that but after Vermont put who later became. Okay, and I have plenty of documentation on that. Thank you. It's in there and I do do do do do do. And I put a big, big asterisk and a yes so I know what what that means. Ask the obvious, but was it later or was it, was it before she said 1927. Why don't we just, I may suggest why don't we say and who is, and who served as president of the American eugenics theory how does that work. Yeah. Okay. Well, avoid a question. Because obviously he wasn't president his whole career but at some point so that takes care of that. And I have that and can do that. Next clause. This is probably the most controversial of the entire resolution. So what we'll go over this, these state sanctioned policies primarily targeted individuals, families and community so far the same, whose heritage was French Canadian French Indian, or other mixed ethnic or racial composition. I use both of those terms if you want me to take one out I will, but for the moment I put them in. And here comes the more the point where your world you will need to discuss. I use extended families, successor generations. Now identify either as abinac or as members of other indigenous bands or tribes. The one common I will make is that they can't be their direct descendants because if they were subject to sterilization there weren't any descendants. They have found their, you know, brothers and sisters their descendants. That's why I spoke of well it's a descendant is normally that direct line from parent to child to grandchild, and that's why I use extended family. Perfect. I have a just a couple of small corrections for I don't know thoughts I would put out there. Yeah, go ahead. One is, I would say, whose heritage was documented as French Canadian French Indian or other mixed ethnic or racial composition like that articulates that that was just how they were noted in the record, not that they had to be that because they may not have been mixed, mixed ethnicity that was just how they were documented if they didn't want to be more specific or their indigenous heritage. And then the other thing I would just personally say it's a small point but successor generations now identify as abinac or as members I don't know either feels weird to me there. And in this morning, it's as a connector. It was transition I can take it out. I would take it out. If I may ask a question, Senator wrong. Okay, documented as preferable over the word characterized as. Oh, I don't know. I leave that to you I just suggested. It seems more historically accurate they had roles and records and that's what they wrote down so characterized feels more like you're describing it to someone else but documented feels fine. Yeah. So in that clause I've added the documented, whose heritage was documented.  Right. Yeah, the next following clauses. Next five or six clauses anyway are the same. You had eliminated one clause from the house version but it was gone yesterday. And then page three is the same. And till we had that new clause at the very last whereas clause the bottom of page three. So this wording that's madam chair you suggested yesterday, and it's verbatim what you suggested. I didn't make any changes to it. Okay. Anybody that lines 18 and 19 you're saying, yeah, you suggested that language yesterday and I just plugged it in. No changes no comment out of the past anything you suggest. And then page four. I've now split this into two. And as I wrote madam chair to you last evening I made your additional whereas resolved because it's an action statement and it made more sense to resolve but let's go over this again carefully. And that is the language that you had suggested yesterday verbatim. Well, I think that that language I thought was in the house version. It's close. It's close. The second one was what I suggested. But maybe not. No actually it is the same as the first what you would be proposing is a different second. Right. So I did make a change and I want to explain why I did. You had should you had will, and one general assembly can't bind another general assembly. I made it should. This was quite actually quite an issue in house general earlier in the winter. Generically speaking, you really can't say will in a resolution that a future legislature will. But should you certainly can say, but Michael that seems so contradictory we create laws that we have to all abide by every future legislature has to buy. But you, this is that language effectively binds in a resolution, a legislature, you can't do that in a resolution. I know this could be like not good for resolve clause but could you say strives to. You could do that. Or will will strive. Yeah.  And just it. The general assembly continue to work continues you mean in the past tense, in the present tense continues to work. Yeah, I like that. That answers the problem entirely. And that makes it active. It's it active you're not committing a future legislature and yet you're expressing the same idea. Right. All very doable. I think it does change. I don't know if anybody has comments about the second resolve that the house had, but it does eliminate the. I think it's stronger about. And I hadn't thought of this before until, well, I mean I should have thought of it before but when rich was talking to us and he said, when you're when you're looking at policies and procedures and laws. You need to make sure you're listening to and working with the affected individuals and communities. And so I put that in there and then that kind of removed this whole second part of that. The last resolve of the house which talked about. It's my print is so little I can hardly read it but. To you madam chair. Yeah, that is very wrong. If you read the second resolve from the house. Sure, I'm happy to have it right here. Thank you. General Assembly recognizes that further legislative action should be taken to address the continuing impact of state sanctioned eugenics policies and related practices of disenfranchisement, ethnic side and genocide. I like ours way better. I act, but I also think this is a very strong ending to I mean I. Could we have both. Why can't we have both. Yeah, that's your call. I'm fine with that. I would, I would end with this last resolve clause of theirs because it really is so one. But leave in your second. I am hearing. Yeah, that's totally fine. It's fine. We could have 10 resolves if we really wanted to have policy resolution short. So Michael, can I ask why it's drafted more like a bill and a resolution. It is drafted as a resolution. One of the things, well, two things. Number one, I mentioned to the chair last night because it started in the house. It remains in the house font and format. You have different, there is, there are different formats for resolutions that start in the house and start in the Senate. Once a house resolution goes to the Senate, it keeps the house format. Similarly, when a Senate resolution goes over to the house, it keeps the Senate format. Okay, but it's drafted as a bill as a resolution. It's you have an opening here because you're amending it. And actually the, the lead in language is a little bit different than for a bill. We are working on that and this is the language that we basically come up with and let's console the one we're amending or a policy resolution. When you, when it comes to us to be voted on by the Senate, it will look like this, but there'll be more crossoffs and then our language underneath it. That's correct. Yeah. Senator column art may look like a bill to you because it does have that introduction. Yeah, it was just curiosity. No, no, no, sure. That's the answer. Okay committee where are we. We're pretty good. I think we're ready almost ready to vote it out. Madam chair may I read through what all your corrections are one more time so there's no misunderstanding. It would give me a greater sense of security. Yep, sure. They're not that long. Okay. Yeah, in the first row, whereas clause. After bed ever monitors, I'm going to add in by Nancy L Gallagher. Ported up. And then after elimination, including sterilization. Do you want me to say including through sterilization or including. Okay. So we have that going on to page two. The next thing that I have is after eugenics survey of Vermont and who served as president. We left the who out I think in the end know and who gets right and who served as president of the American eugenics survey. Correct. Yep. I'm asking folks to read. Okay. On the next clause, we're going to whose heritage was documented as French Canadian, et cetera, et cetera. I'm going to go. I'm going to make one more comment here that I kind of missed. I'm going to collect evidence and of delinquency dependency and deficiency. But I think that we very clearly heard that. In addition to the policies aimed at targeted French, these, these groups of people. It also really targeted.  And I, I know that we talk up here about that. The dependent, the defective and the delinquent. But I, I would like a separate whereas. Before this one with the groups of people that just says whereas. They really were targeted the poor mentally ill and disabled to be very, very specific that that was. They weren't just kind of an afterthought. They really were targeted as well as these group communities of people. Absolutely. Would you consider putting them all in. Do you want to keep that. In the next class, you're saying primarily targeted. Would you consider putting that into. That clause or no, I think too, I think it needs to be too separate that they. They targeted these groups of people, but then they specifically targeted. Families and communities. Of these groups of people. So in my mind, they're two separate thoughts. We want all the poor people gone. And we're just going to get rid of poor people and disabled people. But we are going to. We are going to target these families and communities. I have two questions then. Yeah. At first, what do you want me to say? The poor is one of them. Yeah. And whereas these state sanctioned policies targeted the poor mentally ill and disabled. Do you want both of them to say these state sanctioned policies targeted. Yeah. I don't want to say the harm and. Repeating that, but if. You might add an also in somewhere. Maybe in that second, whereas, okay, let me. Let me get the first one done first. Yep. These state. Targeted. And then what the groups that you want meant. Poor. Mentally ill and disabled. So people with disabilities. People with disabilities. Okay.  Susan's here in case she had some thoughts on. Oh, yeah. Susan is here. Susan, what would you say? She might have stepped away. I had an mute. Thanks for the question. People generally like people first language. And so if you said people with. Physical and mental disabilities, I think that pretty much captures the developmentally disabled, psychiatric disabilities and people with physical disabilities. But I. Senator Polina was right. Hatching the people first. Language. It's definitely. That's because he was the founder of our respectful language bill. Yes. How about. Persons. Since they're technically.  I think that's fine too. Or for monitors or residents or other. Possible terms. I don't want to favor monitors. I don't care at all as long as we have it in there. I don't care what the. Modifier monitors with mental. And physical disabilities. Yeah. So we have the poor. And then the poor. Yeah. And then the poor. And then the poor. And then the poor. And then the poor. Okay. Keisha. More and. Yeah. Senator Rom, you have a cool. So I'm really, I'm really not trying to fatigue people here. But the, you can sterilize both men and women. And the largest group sterilized were women. So. I mean, first and foremost eugenics. Targeted women. So it just feels like now they're kind of. They're kind of those targeted were women. I'm here's my feeling on that. I think that. That women were not necessarily targeted. Who was targeted were poor people. People with a physical and mental disabilities. And these groups of people. So they were the ones that were targeted. The result was that there were. Many women who were. People with a physical and mental disability. Were. Sterilized, but they weren't targeted. That was the way of getting at these. These other people that were trying to be eliminated. You don't. They didn't target women. Because if we said they targeted women, that would also mean the women as. Judy pointed out that lived on the hill. So they weren't women were not targeted. Right. They were not targeted. They were not targeted. And the PR has done a lot of national pieces on. Eugenics. I don't know if people have heard those and they. They often did target women. You know, they were really. Kind of focused on women that they thought were troublemakers. Or were. You know, talking back or sleeping around town. Like they were really quite focused on women. But none of those were the defectives. Yeah. I think it's a good question. We actually asked us to specifically call out women. I think we're calling out everybody. Who was affected. I mean. We. Do we have this?  Grounded in this. I mean, no one's asked us to specifically call out women. I mean, is there. I mean, we, we. Everybody who was affected is. It's bad all the way around. I don't, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't have a strong feeling about it, but I do. I think that by saying women and we're women were targeted. That we're. Yeah. I don't. Men were targeted to, I mean. I don't think. We're targeted. Right. Groups of people were targeted. People were tight. Right. There are there. There are statistics out there. I don't know if it's, I can't remember if it's specific. About how many. What proportion of people sterilized for women. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Of course. Like I feel like it needs to be said because you. Men were sterilized. You can sterilize. Both types of. Women were sterilized in much greater numbers. I don't know how. Do you have a suggestion about how we would do that? Madam chair. Yes. Could we go back. Okay. To the. Second. Third clause. This movement targeted for elimination. Bruce. Of. For a. Targeted for elimination. Well, I'm very going to say. Elimination. Or. Sterilization, especially of women. I don't know. How would that work? That's a lot of, that's a, I'm looking at language around the country. And it says these are the groups that were targeted. And it especially impacted women. A lot of them are saying women of color, but that was, you know, where it would be addressed that with the indigenous. Peace here. It's an idea. How about if you said this movement targeted for elimination, including through sterilization, thus. Dramatically impacting women. So it impacted the women. It didn't. Right. Yeah. That's what they're all saying. It's a minute. How to disproportionate impact on women. Yeah. No, that's something you carry differently. I would be if I wrote it, including sterilization. That dramatically. That. Dramatically doesn't seem to be right. That primarily impacted women. Okay. Portionately or. Primarily. Yeah.  We've just used it so much that I think it's lost any. Any meaning. Primarily impacted women. Yeah. Well, well. It impacted. All those people.  The data. The data that I remember seeing from looking over all the documentation. In terms of sterilizations, there were at least. Document. I'm not saying this is what happened, but the documentation I saw seemed to indicate that there were more far more female sterilizations and male sterilizations. Oh, I'm sure. Oh, it had had to be. So it. Okay. Whatever you want. Great. I'm fine with that. Either one. Putting it there instead of a separate whereas primarily impacted. Okay. With that being said. The second clause. And I've noted just for the record again, that you're eliminating the word either just before his Abenaki, but getting back up to the top of the. Do you, since we now have this new. These state. Sanction policies targeted. That maybe you could say these policies. Also targeted. Yeah. I would say that instead of primarily, I would. Yeah. Also targeted. About leave the state sanctioned in as an appointed emphasis. Okay. What's the clause before that, Michael? The new clause before that Senator. Which is only in my scribble for the moment. These state sanctioned. Policies. Targeted the poor. And the other one. And the other one. And the other one. And the other one. And the other one. And Vermonters with mental and physical disabilities. Perfect. Thank you. So I was taking the primarily out of the second. Because I didn't think you wanted to weigh one higher than the other. Also in. Yep. Good. Okay. And the only other change if I quote, two other changes that you were asked for. In the. In the last couple of years, I've been making the word continues in the plural. Or bring it into the present tense. And then finally, I'm adding verbatim. The original final house resolve. The one that has gen, genocide and ethnicity. I'm fine with that. Yep. Yep. So, um, committee and Michael, here's the question. I want to, um, give some time here for a final, um, version to be put before us and then we can vote on it. Yeah, that's a good idea. Given. Yeah. Madam chair, if I may, given that this is a policy resolution. Of extraordinary sensitivity and importance. I would feel much better. That the elected legislators saw the absolutely final version. Before it goes into the camp before it's introduced. Goes to the calendar. Sounds perfect. So how much time should we allow here? Given the pressure that our stretch staff is on in terms of editing. It would really be helpful if I could have the night. Oh, sure. Um, okay. And then we can post it tomorrow. Voted tomorrow. Yeah, I was. And because part of the issue started away. Yeah. That there are a couple of instances where I have new statements of fact that I know I have all the documentation, but I need to pull it out of my file and give it to the editor. Put it all together. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you. So if we had overnight. So what I would suggest is that we do that. And then we voted out first thing tomorrow and send it to. House general so that they can, and everybody else so that they can. Look at it and even begin their deliberations on whether they're going to agree or ask for conference committee or whatever. And then I would ask that we do the same thing and ask for it to be put in all stages of passage so that we can get it over to them. And I also, at this point. Would like to ask if. Senator column or would report this. Sure. Yeah, I'd be glad to. Michael, if you can get the final. Version, we could actually post it today. That was my point. Why I was making that. If you wanted to work version for yourselves, obviously I could turn that around very quickly. But in terms of a clean, final edited version. I've already pushed editing, I think, for one day to its limit. In terms of making changes with. Other things going on. Yeah. I'd rather not push editing any further for this afternoon. If I possibly could not. Had the night. It would definitely be appreciated in the edit. By the editors. All right. That's fine. We have to be very careful about pushing our staff. So I appreciate that. It's not a matter of my simply writing it and getting it down there. They have to go over it with a fine tooth call one more time. Language. I've already asked them for quite a lot this afternoon. Okay. So are we set with that? So what time tomorrow, madam chair, would you be meeting on this? One o'clock. Try to get this to, you know, later than noon. How's that? Sounds perfect. And okay. I think that's. I am going to ask. The rules committee to release one more. Charter change. It's a relatively simple charter change. Allowing. The water district of Wilmington to. Merge with the. The town of Wilmington. And they would like to be able to do it. Now. You know, I know that waiting for a year. I noticed there were a couple of others. Burlington had one Springfield had one, but they never came across. Thanks, Susan. Yeah. I think the only two that are in. Rules right now are. Wilmington and Brattleboro. And we're not going to have time to look at Brattleboro this year. Just. But I did go back through the house. There was a Springfield charter change. Burlington's charter change.  Well, what I'll do is ask for a rules committee meeting. Right after the floor tomorrow. And if there are any other, if they've sent over any other charters. We can ask for them. And then tomorrow. After when we're finished with this, we'll just look at those charters. Does that make sense? Yeah. So that we can just get them off our plate. So we, we should be able to do that. So that we can just get them off our plate. So we, we should be pretty good. For next week. And I don't know if we want to. We don't have. I would like us if we, if. You all have the stamina. To continue. There's two issues that I know they're not going to be. I don't know if we're going to be able to finish this year at all, but there are two issues that I. Want to keep us kind of moving on. And I don't know if one is the agency of public safety. I don't know where we are with that. And the other is the ethic code of ethics. As we, we've sort of, we had to drop those quickly to deal with pensions. So. Yeah. And it would be. I don't know if the stamina.  With around the agency of public safety, because it's clearly not going to happen this year anyway, and just kind of try and get it into a good. Good position for so that we can act quickly in January, one way or the other, but the code of ethics, do we have the stamina to. To start to take that up next Tuesday. That's how to thought though. Okay, Gail. Oh, it's not necessarily a thought. I was just wondering about 122. Isn't that still out there? What is 120? I think it's boards and commissions, right? Oh, right. We still have to conclude our work on. H122 or whatever. Oh, um, yeah. What did we. We never finished it. I was the board of education thing. No, we, we dropped that because, um, education never got back to us. And then they said they were going to deal with it in another way, but it was the climate council. Oh, that's right. They're for Dems. Okay. So I decided to just leave them alone. Weren't there, weren't there other things in that bill? We did. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That your board's and commissions, wasn't there more in that bill? I thought. Well, there's more in the film. Yeah. Not that we did. I think the only thing we were going to do was do the thing with the state board of education. And, uh, Senate ad didn't want to do anything. They said that they were going to have a different way of dealing with it. So. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Okay. So we should do that tomorrow and get that out of the way. What order are we going to tackle these in? Let's do the resolution pollution first. Okay. No, we, it might give Michael a little more time. You know, to that, the board, the board bill also included that man, emergency management stuff. Yeah. Emergency management districts or whatever they've called. Oh. I forgot that. Yeah. Erica Bornman's part. Yeah. I. That seemed so non controversial to me that I didn't even. It's hard to get worked up over it. Yeah. Okay. Let's do one 22 first. And then any charters. And then. And then the resolution. Madam chair. Yeah. When we are done or sort of resolved as much as we can, other things. Does it make sense for us to. Be briefed in any way on the state house. The kind of reopening plan or I don't know if that, because I know before you had thought about what some kind of plan was going to be. I don't know. So I just didn't know what that relates to us at all. Well, you know, I said, I sent then. The suggestion to appropriations. And she said that. The, the joint management legislative committee or whoever they are. I don't know who's on there. The joint management committee. And I don't know who that is. But they're doing it for the Senate. They're doing it for the Senate. They're doing it for the Senate. They're doing it for the Senate. Jane Kitchell. And Joe Benning. Okay. So there's four and four. Is that what it is? Yeah. And that they are actually doing it. So it's the same. It's exactly the same that I was proposing. Except they already have it set up. But we should. And I have no idea where they are. But I have a comment that I have. I have a comment that I have. And I have said that. She briefed us a little bit on it. I think that was at a chairs meeting. Yeah. Or in caucus in the Tuesday caucus. Oh yeah. I don't. Oh, yes. Because she said, look at that. Study. But that study is not. The final word. That's just some suggestions and people were getting exercised. We did. Did Carolyn send it to us? Yeah. Gail. Gail has. Yeah, as far as tomorrow goes, Amarine's not available until 130. And then she's unavailable after 230. And Tucker is not available at 130. His only availability is from, let's see. It seems so hard to read. It's like 130 to two. He's available from 130 to two. Yeah, let me, let me open this up. It's too hard to tell on this chart. Okay. He's in Senate finance until 145.  So 145 to 215. That'll work. And Amarine is available from 130 to when? From 130 to 230. No, that's not going to work. Okay. It's 115. To 230. That she's available. Yeah. Or that she's not available. Oh, she is available. Yeah. So much at one. At 115. Okay. Let's do H one 22, because that's when we need her, right? Yeah. And then at 145. That'll give us half an hour on that at 145. Let's do. Underhill. At two o'clock. Williston. And at two 15. I don't know. He's leaving. I'll set to 15. Yes. Okay. So we'll do under hill and Williston. And. We'll just, we don't have Wilmington yet anyway. So we'll do those two. And then at. Two 15. We'll do the resolution. Yeah. No, I have 145 to two. Underhill and two to two 15. So if we start 145. That only gives us half an hour to talk about one 22. Is that enough time? No, we're going to do. Oh yeah. If we do one from 115. To 145. Okay. And then we'll do. We'll do H one 22. That gives us half an hour on that. That should be enough, right? And then at 145. We'll do under hill. Okay. And at two o'clock we'll do Williston. Okay. And then Tucker will leave us. And Michael will join us. And we'll do the resolution. And then. And then next week we can schedule some time. We can schedule some time for. To continue our conversation about the ethics. The code of ethics. And I know we're not going to get it done, but I'd like us to not completely drop it. This year if, if there's any possibility of us doing something next week. Yeah. We pushed him out the door twice. So I agree. I think that would be a good, I think that would be a good idea. I think that would be a good idea. I think that would be a good idea. But for what it's, for what it's worth, we passed out of committee, a bill that. Changed some technical changes around the ethics commission. Which I think sent to the, got sent to the finance committee. No, I think it got sent to appropriations. Got sent somewhere. Time. So no, there was no appropriation needed though, because they already had the money. We just have to approve the position. Right. Right. Okay. That was one 35, I think. I'll double check for you. And Gail, if you want to, you can ask if the. Reporters from under hill and Williston want to come in. Okay. Just. And if they do, that's fine. And if they don't. All right. I think it was one 35, wasn't it Brian? Yeah. I think it was. April 14th for rule 31. And there's no action after that. Why would. Why would it have gone to finance? I don't know, but that's what the. Okay. I will. Check with them. Find out where it is. It's actually, I had a conversation with Amarin a little while ago. And she said that I said, why is it in finance and Amarin said, I don't know. Why is it in finance and Amarin said, why is it in finance and Amarin said, why is it in finance and the staff person of finance. Who asked Amarin why they got sent to finance. Amarin said, I don't know why it got sent to finance. It may. It may be God forbid have been a mistake. I'm trying to remember if there was anything relative to finance in there. I don't remember. I've seen it in front of me. I don't think so. You think Anne would have said, why is this here? And I mean, it's almost a month ago. I'm going to send a note to Anne and Jane and Bloomer. And ask and Becca and ask them. To clear this up and get it to us so we can get it passed. Okay. Sure. Cause mostly it has to do with like. Doing disclosure statements and stuff like that. It was not very controversial at all. Right. Right. Okay.


Hey, your overall assessment of today in practice? It was up and down. We did some great things, and then we did do some great things. So just inconsistent overall. Thought we did some really good things in 7-on-7, made a lot of plays, had guys open, guys making catches, got the team, did some good things in team against the defense. Then the second team came back and wasn't as clean. Then into that two minute, we just weren't playing at a high level, what we expect offensively. So just too inconsistent for today. You don't have to learn from it, clean it up. They're throwing a lot of different looks at us that we really didn't prepare for, just coming out for a half practice with them. So it'd be good learning tape. We'll be able to take a look at it, learn from it, and be better moving forward from it. Can you take a picture of the Phillips? You guys connect really well. During two minutes, there was a bit of a struggle. What was behind that? It seemed like there was a disconnect. Really annoying to think of one of them. One I threw away, I was getting quick pressure. He was about at five yards, and we needed to go 50 plus yards. So for the time, it wasn't worth the five yard completion on a short one. So I just kind of threw it away in his general direction. Another one, I think we had a quick beat inside. So I had to get the ball out of my hands on an option route, I thought he was going to set, he broke out. So that was a miscommunication there. But yeah, overall I feel really confident in Kyle and his ability to read defenses and be on the same page with me. Any root cause or similarity in what was going wrong in the disjointed two minutes? They were doing a lot of pressure. In the looks we hadn't talked about, usually you go into a game with a game plan, a protection plan. And we didn't really have one for the looks that they were throwing at us. So it's a good learning experience. That's not an excuse. We did have opportunities if we would have just done our jobs. And we could have been effective and moved the ball down the field. We had a couple of procedural penalties and holding penalty, which obviously will kill two minute drives.  So have to clean those things up. You have to be able to get the play started and play clean football. But a lot we can learn from and look forward to doing that. Combination.  A little bit in the two minute, they're playing leverage. A couple of times we had plays that have been effective for us and just ended up being bad leverage against the coverages that they were playing, which made it tough. So I don't think they were playing overly aggressive. They played aggressive in the one on one period and in two on two period. A lot of contact and going to be contested catches, which is what's going to be, especially down there low in the red zone, they're not going to call that contact. As receivers, as an offense, we have to be able to play through that contact and make a tough catch with somebody on your back. Combination or were you just maybe the Ravens in the joint practice last week and this week? Maybe it helped to get this team ready for the season? Oh, it's great work. Like I said, last week, it's looks and people that you haven't been going against. So you're getting exposed to more defense, more personnel, which is only going to make you better. Come out here, compete. Everything's not going to be perfect, but you can learn from the tape and next time a similar situation comes up and hopefully we can nail it.  And I guess also, do you see some elements of that? You're going to start to have it for the offense? Yeah, I think our guys have been making some plays. I think if you look at the past few weeks, what we've been able to do out here and some of the play action game and guys going up and making plays, we've had that. So yeah, excited for the opportunity to be better in that area and really compliment what we do in the run game. Route running beyond just the go routes and the deep post. How much has he improved his short and intermediate route running? Yeah, he's become much more a rounded receiver. Obviously, he has that size, that strength, that speed that everyone knows he has, but he's becoming more and more rounded the longer he's here. So getting more opportunities, he's made a bunch of plays for us, so he's gotten more opportunity and just hope to keep the foot on the gas of them and keep developing. What's the development of Nick as he grows into that right tackle position? I mean, it's kind of twofold, right? Just leading, encouraging, and then also holding him accountable. Obviously, if he's in there, we're going to need to play at a high level and operate the way we expect to operate. And then also, it's loving him up and letting him know when he does a good job and that we have a lot of confidence in him being able to block effectively both in the run and pass game. We shouldn't make too much of what basically amounted to be a half-practicing step on it, but can you learn a lot from, I guess, the new mistakes that happened today? Yeah, no doubt. Like I said, we didn't come out with a full plan against all the looks that Arizona was going to throw at us. There's an aggressive coordinator, aggressive defense, and threw a bunch of different looks at us.  We're going to get up being things that you don't see too often in the NFL. But it's good work for us. A lot of looks we can learn from. And we're going to play other teams that have pressure packages and personnel packages where they're moving guys around, playing downline and backer, nickel, safety. And we're going to have to be able to identify those and block them when we get those opportunities. Ryan Kiles has had such a good camp. And he had an update today. He said it himself seemed extremely frustrated. But how much maybe can that benefit sometimes? Just having that update, going back and looking at the things you didn't do right, or maybe what went wrong? Right, everything's a learning experience, right? Especially on days that maybe things didn't go the way you wanted them to, you take a real critical look and have more than one thing to say, OK, I can fix that tomorrow, right? Some days on a good day, it's only like one or two little things. You say, OK, I fix this, tweak that. Day doesn't go your way. You might have four, five, six, seven things. You can say, OK, I can do this different. So it's all an opportunity. And as long as we're learning from those opportunities and not making the same mistake when it comes up again, we're getting better and we'll be better for it. At this point in your career, Ryan, how do you self-assess days like that that you may have out of camp? Same way as I did whenever I was younger. I think you look at situations for what they are. I think when you're evaluating plays for me now, it's like, OK, was my decision right? Was I in the right spot? Did I make the right adjustment? And does the ball in the right location? And so just constantly going through play in, play out, talking with the coaching staff on what led me to a certain area of the field, what led me to a certain read, and how could I fix that? What's my thought process? Making sure I'm on the same page with those guys. But yeah, it's constant, whether it's little things with footwork or adjustments in the pass protection, adjustments to the route, getting back to a certain part of the read quicker. It's all fluid, so it's a constant learning experience. Can you give a good assessment of pass pro, Ryan, and days like today when there's obviously no contact with the quarterback? Do you still get an idea of what the pass pro is like for you? Yeah, no doubt you feel it, right? You feel proximity and colors of jerseys in your area. So yeah, just like everything out there today, there was some good, and there was some things that we needed to improve upon. So good opportunity for us to take a real look at the tape and make those adjustments. Talk about seeing what's being prepared for. How often over the course of the season does that happen in a game? And what is the process for adjusting to that so that perhaps you don't have what happened out there in too many when you're seeing something you're not ready for? Yeah, it happens occasionally during the season less, definitely way less during the season, just so you have a lot of tape to look at, and it may be one look as opposed to a bunch that you weren't prepared for. So just be able to, when those situations come up, stay true to your process, try to make the best decision, protection-wise, with the rules that we've been given to make, and then take care of the football, whether it's thrown it away or just being safe with it, just making sure that you're not making a bad situation worse by doing something reckless with football. Do you think you need to play in the pre-season, or do you feel like the work you've done so far has gotten you ready? I don't think I need to play. We'll see what Coach Vareble wants me to do. I feel like I've gotten a lot of really good work out here with the guys, excited about what's in front of us here this next couple of weeks to keep tuning up things and learn from days like today. So we'll see what happens this weekend, but I feel really good about the progress we've made and hope to continue making it as we move forward. Ryan mentioned inconsistency, but what were your overall takeaways from the joint? Well, I mean, I thought that there was some good stuff. I thought seven-on-seven was good. I didn't think the, you know, down here in the red zone, I think the one-on-ones, it's the same stuff.   And that's what it's gonna be. It's tight, it's quick. Thought we got some good work in the team against ourselves. And then, you know, offenses didn't do much there. In the two minutes. So we'll have to figure that out. The officials work a little bit counter to what you wanted to get done at certain points in terms of, you were talking to them about wanting to move on with things.  Again, they're doing what we're asking them to do, right?   So, you know, that's how it goes. Officials are out here, they're working. And, you know, we have to know, you know, have to get a good idea of how they're calling the game. Are you kind of pleased with the way that the defense kind of held Murray in the pocket, didn't let him escape very much in the two minutes and made him dump it down?  And they worked it a little bit in seven on seven. And, you know, each week it'll be a new challenge about, you know, where the quarterback is, what he can do and, you know, what his ability level is. Specifically these reps. Yeah, these are great.  Fired and Hooker were heavily involved in one-on-ones today. What prompts you from time to time to send those guys there? Because they're gonna have to be involved in all-site sorts of coverage. And, you know, I think their tight end numbers were probably down, so probably contributed to it. Brian said that there were a bunch of looks that they gave today that you guys obviously didn't prepare for before one practice. He said that doesn't happen much in the regular season, but it does occasionally happen. When they do get a look that they're not familiar with, what do you want them to do? Well, I mean, I think what we want all of us to do is try to be as poised and instinctive as possible, let your rules help you and sort things out.  You're just trying to avoid, you know, if it's something new, it's a new scheme, you know, safety's got to be able to try to figure it out and get the guy on the ground and save a touchdown for those bad things that come up. With two weeks in a row and the two-minute drill against another team giving up a sack.   That's something that we're going to have to look at and make sure that we're all on the same page and what we're doing and how we can help those guys in the route and not only, you know, in protection. But you and Cliff go back a while with your teammates on that three team. What's the relationship like and what do you remember about Cliff as a young quarterback back then? Well, I mean, obviously it was great work. I mean, Cliff's great to work with. This was easy communication, open communication about what they wanted to get done, what we wanted to get done. Came over this morning, met, you know, talked with the officials, thought things ran smoothly. So, you know, our playing days are long over, you know. So we're going to try to be better coaches than we were players. Okay, we've got the ball out today. How's he improved maybe from the start of camp? Oh, I mean, just make a progress, Jim. You know, I mean, it's new looks in there each day for linebackers, especially young ones. But I think to see the guys that are practicing the stuff that we're coaching, we talked about the number of attempts that we had coming out of that football game last week defensively to see that carry over.  We have to be strong to the talking. You know, take care of the football. We know how critical that is. And that'll be the case the entire season. Like, Derek getting some team period reps today. How is that process coming along as far as just getting him ready for the season and making sure that he's up to speed? Good. I mean, he's involved in all the meetings and I'm gonna try to have a plan with him and try to, you know, get him prepared and thought today would be a good day to get him some reps. Might get a little bit of work tomorrow. We'll see how that goes. So, but I think he's in a good spot. Is that something that you more or less like you monitor from day to day?   Frank and I and Todd and, you know, we monitor each and every player and their health and, you know, where they're at. So, you know, ultimately a lot of that falls on Frank and his staff. I kind of oversee it and decide, you know, when he'll enter back into practice. There was one course down, Mike, where Malik, looked like he threw the ball away. Loose track of downs there or? Should ask Malik. How much, back to Derek for a minute, how much do you take input from him as far as putting him out here in the team periods and things like that? Well, he wants to, I mean, Derek wants to be as involved as possible, you know what I mean? So we have open dialogue and, you know, he's been great and he's been all for, you know, whatever it is that we decide we think is best for him and ultimately the team. Theo out for a little while that reemerges and is moving around again. The versatility plug right back in or is the guy when he misses time kind of lose out on some of the ability to play multiple positions like that. Well, a lot of that is just necessity, you know? So, started working at safety and then, you know, got to look and see what you have and try to figure out if somebody's got to go there and, you know, you got to have at least two deep. So we figured we'd try him at nickel today. What do you think of Malik's poise, accuracy and decision making in the seven on seven period? I thought it was improved. I thought that there were some good timing. You know, we talked about something that came up yesterday against zone and how quickly that ball should be delivered and where it needs to go. And so I thought that there were some accurate balls, you know, standing where I was in the seven on seven. The players talked about the fact that mistakes happened. What you hope is they're new mistakes, not repeat mistakes. Does a day like today expose some of that as a great teaching lesson off of it? I mean, mistakes are going to be part of this game. It's part of life, how you handle them, how you come back and not trying to make, like you said, the same mistake twice or let them kind of mount up, you know, let them start to snowball and continue to think about, you know, what it is that you, you know, did wrong and we got to move on. There's a lot of snaps in the game. There's a lot of ups and downs and we got to try to find a way that no matter what the result of the play was, just get back to neutral, get back centered and find a way to do our job. The next snap, figure out what the situation is. Is it third down? Is it second and 10? Where am I at on the field? What personnel group there?  So, you know, we'll look at it and we'll continue to coach it. And, you know, I thought it was a good day of work. Stone has proven to be an effective player. Is that kind of a wash in terms of the competition? Yeah, I mean, Stoney, I think is, doesn't have as much experience as Brett does, but, you know, that's why we're working them in there and trying to get them as many of those opportunities as we can. Traylon at this point with the lack of consistency? You know, I don't really try to get overly concerned. You know, I mean, I try to coach and try to figure out who's available each and every day. I mean, we've been through a lot. There's gonna be, it's a long season. And whether it's Traylon, whether it's Deshaun Hand, whether it's, you know, go right on down the list of, you know, guys that, you know, may or may not be there. We just put the next guy in. That's what we've always done. That's what we're gonna continue to do. And that's how it goes.


to our show. We're the voice for the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce where it's our aim to create an inclusive platform that celebrates diversity, fosters connection and amplifies the voice of our Latino business owners in Hawaii. My name is Barbara DeLuca, co-founder and president of the Hispanic Chamber and joining me today is my co-host Marisol Ruiz, our vice president and co-founder. Welcome Marisol. Hello, thank you so much for having me today. And today's episode is going to be straight out of husk more than just ono Mexican food. We have a special guest with us. Her name is Maden Luevano and she is straight out of Tijuana, straight out of LA. And more importantly, the owner of straight out of husk located in IEA. Maden is not only serving delicious Mexican food but also has a heart for the community. So we're going to share today about her restaurant, straight out of husk, her initiatives, aunties helping aunties and her recent trip to Maui. So welcome to the show Maden. Thank you for having me ladies. Hi, we love having you. We're so excited Maden. Thank you. Yeah, Marisol and I are our first time visiting straight out of husk. We just fell in love with the food. You can smell it as soon as you walk in.  She's ready to serve you. Can you tell us a little bit about your location and your hours? You know, even before we get into that, like how did you get into this business? Can you tell us a little bit about that? Give us, tell us all about Maden and your background and your journey and your passions. It's so fun to hear about you and your story. Okay, so obviously I was born in Tijuana. All my family's from Ensenada, Baja California. I lived with my grandma for a little bit in El Rancho in Ensenada and she had a little restaurant herself right there. And she always put us to cook when we were young. So that's where the learning came. But of course, came back to California, came here to Hawaii. The way I started actually selling tamales was my husband was deployed in 2015. And we had like fraudulent something going on with all our bank accounts. And I had no money. So I literally had like $75 to my name. We lived at the AMR housing right here. And so I just said, I'm going to make food and I'm going to sell it. I made tamales that day and walked around the neighborhood in the stroller with my baby and my kids. And that's how I started selling tamales at AMR. So from that day, everybody started ordering. They would just come to the house and we left 2017 to Oregon, continued selling tamales there from the house. I joined a little farmers market in Oregon and they sent us back with orders here 2019. And that's when I said like, I want to do something bigger. I was a stay at home mom. So I wanted to do something. My trade was, I was a radiologic technologist. So I've always worked in the medical field for years or 15 years. So when I got here, staying at the hotels, you know, how we were there for like a whole month, driving back and forth, dropping off Sam to his work and saying that Sam Island, I was like, man, there's a lot of homeless people like with families with kids. And I just started like buying a bunch of breakfast and on the way back to the hotel was just feeding people, feeding people. So at the hotel, my sister helped me come up with a name. I said, I want to start something.  My sister helped me. It was literally like three o'clock in the morning because I was like, I want to open up something like I want the name I want to help me. So we came up with aunties helping aunties. Soon enough, I just started going and talking to families and they needed this and needed that.  That's when I realized that people here are not necessarily homeless in the street without a job. They're homeless in the streets with jobs. That's what opened my eyes to want to really get out there. And I was just, wow, you know, it's huge that, you know, it's the affordability factor that you have people that are working and they're still kind of for the whole home, housing, housing, yeah. Yes. So through doing that, I would get like, hey, this person needs something. We open up aunties helping aunties Facebook. People would reach out, there's a single mom here. She needs this. She needs formula. Like I was like the go-to person for a while. And we would join as a community because it wasn't just me, right? It was a community of ladies and just everybody here that would just pour out be like, this lady needs diapers. This lady needs clothing. And so that's how that happened. I got directed to go to IHS in town, Institute of Humane Society. And they did a tour. They did kind of like a sit down with me to let me know how I can help out because I really wanted to pour out. That year we were able to take a barbering school and get all the kids a haircut before they started school. Dunkin' donuts, donated donuts. I made tamales. Like just kind of like pouring out because it was very important for me for these kids to feel like, man, we are in this shelter but people care for us. Because like I said, their parents are actually going to work in the morning, but that is housing. Wow. Yeah, I was looking at your mission on aunties helping aunties on Instagram and it says that you want to help people that want to help themselves. So they want to help themselves because they're working. So, you know, it's important to create sustainable change rather than just offering temporary assistance. Correct. Yes.  I like empowering women. That was my goal.  We would, you know, with a supervisor from the facility, we would go celebrate, take her on a shopping spree, lunch, makeovers. So kind of like that route too as well. So that, you know, like they also be empowering because they're young, they're going to venture out, get out of these shelters now because they're about to turn 18. Now they're going to be out in the streets, right? For a job. So, you know, you got to have that fresh haircut, some nice clothes. Yes. Right. And so I started strictly selling to help to earn money for that because I wasn't working. So just doing that and that's how Straight Out of Husk came about. I was working as a radiologic technologist at a facility in town then got laid off because of COVID and that's when we decided like you're not going to, I'm not going to go back. I'm just going to stay home and started doing the Straight Out of Husk in 2020, got the LLC. And the next step is to go to the workforce and try to start getting people to come to us and be like a stepping stone. You know what I mean to get them out there. So I'm in the process of doing that, getting all the legal things set so that I'm able to do that. There's like a training program, like an internship program where if they're interested in culinary or something like that, the military pays them and they work for you. You know what that is? I know what you're talking about. Like even my husband, before he retires, he applies for it. It's an application that I have to apply for and then they can come and do the work training through me. Yeah, it's been mentioned to me. I have to get certified for that. So yeah, my attention. But yeah, that's something great to consider, right? Because if that's something they might be interested in when they're transitioning out, right? And it's in culinary, it's like a win-win for everybody. It sounds like you're addressing a wide range of needs, you know, from haircuts to clothing to feeding and empowering individuals. So let's talk about your recent trip to Maui because your heart for the community comes across in your business. And I love, you know, your post that the day after the fires, you were getting all of your resources together and whatever husk you had, you're like, I'm just, I'm using all my ingredients, I'm making tamales and I'm going to go over to Maui and feed whoever needs help. Like, tell us about your trip. I got messaged through Instagram to reach out to Emma that was setting it all up with all the clothing and stuff. And I just reached out, I said, do you need help cooking? Do you need any help? She said, yeah. She asked, can I fly out on Friday? I didn't hesitate. I said, yeah, just tell me what flight to book. And as a Mexicana, I know the things that can go a long ways, like burritos, right? We know the legacy of a burrito and my husband right away went to Sinaloa to go get the masa, but they donated it, you know, they're like, no, take the 50 pounds of masa. And I fly to California to bring on my ingredients. So yeah, my tub of hojas, I was like, let's go, you know, I already had like a huge tub. So I was like, let's, let's do this. And again, you know, my friends came, joined, helped and make tamales. And yeah, when she said like, I said, can I take food?  So I was like, easy game on. And we started doing the tamales.  So we did that. But I just couldn't not go, you know, when it comes to feeding people and annoying, like how tragic this was, it was just like, there's no thinking about it. There's no like, oh, let me let me check my calendar.  So it was a really, really good experience, sad experience. But I was glad that I can go over there. And we were welcomed really nice, like everybody was really nice. But we had to search for the people because when we got there, it was like they were it seemed like a ghost town. But when we would be knocking on people's doors, then they would come out. And then like, you saw the community coming out, there was a food truck there feeding people.  They were just going peanut butter and jelly. They had warm meals. So we would like, drive and stop, drive and stop. And like, okay, let's go. Let's, let's serve everybody. You know, do you need water? And they had a flat bed. It was very organized for having the time that she had. I was so thankful that she allowed us to come for the ride, you know? Yeah, you mentioned as you were driving through the neighborhoods, you even came across families that were just displaced overnight, you have a home and the next thing the next night you have no home, no clothes on your back, nothing.  They didn't have it. There was nothing out. Yeah, there was nothing out. But, you know, I, I was trying to be careful of the things I was posting. I did not want to come out trying to be distasteful and be like, look at what I'm doing. But unfortunately, when you're asking people to help you, they want to see. I mean, I kind of like did, you know, clips here and there, especially when they would be like, okay, you need to go do a run right now. And it's like, okay, let's go. You know, that's what I said. The very last hours, the lady said we need tents. So that's when we went and people started pouring out just sending money and we went across from about like what was it like eight or nine tenths, you know what I mean. So we were able to do that. And like I said, this has nothing to do with me. It's the love that everybody else pours out. Like that's what I want people to see. It's sometimes you could tell yourself, oh, I just can't help enough. What I'm going to help out, it's not enough. It is enough. It starts adding up. You know what I mean? So yeah, it was, I wish I could, you know, just keep doing more. And that's why we're going to have farmers. No, it's the Duke's car club. I will be there September 10 on Sunday. And we will be doing a fundraiser for Maui. That's great. That's great. We also have a fundraiser with the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. Like we're all doing our part. And since we are 501c3 nonprofit, we organized a fundraiser through GoFundMe. And it's called the Hawaii Business Relief Fund. And so far, we have $4,000 that we can use to help our brothers and sisters on Maui. It's not, it's not a lot. But you know what? It's it's building every day and it's something like every dollar counts. It does. It really does. And when you see the post, there's an Instagram page. I believe it's called. So the goal is to donate to just pick a family. You know, whatever it's going to be, I just want to, $500 can go a long ways to one person. You know what I mean? So that's the goal to just kind of go through that Instagram page and Venmo, Venmo family and let them get blessed. Right. So there's a family that I've been following, the Fuentes family. And it's the family that lost their boy, right? He was supposed to be 15 years old and they had his pretty and found his remains and carried him to a half mile down to the police station. Yes. It's just, it's tragedy. And we're here to help. And at the same time, we don't want to be bragging about what we're doing. But like you said, our our donors want us to share where the money's going. And since we are the Hispanic Chamber, we're looking at Hispanic owned businesses. And one of our members, his name is Jesus, he owns Amigos restaurant on Maui and has three locations. One of them was in Lahaina. So he lost his whole business there in Lahaina. And we also have another member. And his name is Kevin Block. He's an immigration attorney. And he's been boots on the ground at the Memorial Center, helping all of the the documented workers that lost all their documents in the fire.  And you do have a, just real quick, we have a higher population of Latinos in Lahaina. There's 13,200 residents in Lahaina. So can you imagine how many people have been displaced? And of those 1800 of them are Latinos, which is, you know, 13%. So here on Oahu, we're 11%. They're 13% on Maui and Big Island. It's a higher population because of the service industry. We got to see a few. And when we, when we turned around to the park, I heard them speaking Spanish, and I said, turn around, let's go see if they need me to contact somebody like, you know, when we need, we didn't have no service. And they were saying like, man, they're offering us jobs, but they want me, they want us to leave our family behind. And they're at a park, like they don't have a home. And as I was there, I can hear him on the phone.  Like, where, where, how do you think I'm going to go? That's not an option. Yes. And it was so heartbreaking to hear how insensitive people are, you know what I mean? The reality of everybody in Lahaina, like, we will never understand it, only they know the reality, what they're experiencing, you know what I mean? So very, very tragic. And yeah, like you said, we're not here to brag, but we're here to, to bring awareness and to, to let people know, like, pour out, you know, pour out, even if it's $20 to put on these Venmos that are trusted Venmos, you know what I mean? I feel good to do that, to, to, to get in there and just be like, okay. And that was one of the Venmos that came up to me because of, you know, him being out right now, the Cifuentes family, right? Yeah, we did see that. So thank you. Thank you for sharing, Madan. And it's really inspiring too, because it's so easy. Like, we know it's next door, another island, and sometimes we get detached, right? It's next door, but it's still far away. So to be able to put yourself, you know, in somebody's shoes, helping them, you have children, you have a business, you have a husband, like that's a lot, right? And to be able to just kind of table that for a moment and just say, hey, I'm here selflessly is like, is really inspiring actually. So I appreciate you sharing that with us. And it's not bragging. I think it's wonderful. And there's so many people coming together to so many go fund these and Venmos and like you said, find a trusted source. And you can't go wrong wherever you donate, right? As long as it is a trusted source. Yes, exactly. Right. And speaking of children, 22% of the children that attend Lahaina public schools are Latino. That's that's a lot. Like 25% is one every four children. So just just sharing facts, but they're all they're all important. We're all one big family. We're all one ohana. We're all indigenous to our land. And we want to help everybody in the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce is for Latinos and those who love us. I want to give a shout out to Hennessy's Market in Lahaina. A military spouse actually connected us.  And can I get them for me? Can I buy them? Because I need to warm up all these tamales. And he said, come on through, didn't charge me, but I went ahead and bought a bunch of supplies from him, supporting as well, right? Right. But such a good person, you girls should reach out to him. Hennessy will. In Lahaina. Like me. Yep. I also want to give a shout out to the Burrito Kid, Alex. Yes. So they had a fundraiser over the weekend and they raised $1,000 and I reached out to them and I shared our fundraiser and he donated $1,000 to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, our Hawaii Business Relief Fund. And so of course, we want to keep them updated on how the funds were applied. And yeah, 100% of everything, you know, goes to the victims. So, well, we also have, moving on, so sorry. How do I segue into this? You know, thank you for participating in the community. And we also have a community event coming up in October. Let's talk about that. It's the Latino Business Expo. It's going to be at Aloha Tower Marketplace October 7th. And we'll be celebrating Hispanic Heritage Month. And you can find mod in there with Straight Outta Husk. Why don't you tell us what you'll be serving? Tamales. You guys signed me up for tamales. Surprise, surprise. Yeah. So, strictly tamales, I will not be serving anything else. And of course, my horchata. And yeah, I'm going to have tamales de piña con elote, my famous chila relleno tamales, I pork tamales, and mole tamales. What? I never had a mole tamale. Like red mole? The chicken mole. Yeah, the brown one. Brown mole. Stop. I know I had your pineapple corn. I was like, what is this? And I was like, it's so good. So, Madden, let me ask you, so I'm excited you're going to be there. And when Barbara and I, you know, we were stalking you and went to your venue, can you tell us a little bit about like when you're open? Because, you know, I feel like it's limited, right? So we got to get there when we can. Tell us a little bit about that. And then do you have any plans of maybe extending or adding a day or, you know, share a little bit about that. Okay. So I just added Tuesdays. So Tuesdays, Friday, Saturdays. Tuesday, Saturdays, 11 to six. Fridays, 11 to four, because I have to prepare right for the next day. I'm thinking of opening for lunch. I want to test that out as soon as the girls open, go back to school. So I enrolled them in school. So I want to see how the 11 to like two works out. Right. The shopping center, that's the hype, you know, people go there at lunch and then it dies out. Where is it located? We're at the Waimalo shopping center across Best Buy. But we are literally inside the Palama market. Everybody's like, where are you? Where are you? We're working on a banner. So if you have anybody who does like banners or something, we want to put a banner up outside. We, you know, we don't have one yet. But yeah, we have a little takeout window outside. But everybody laughs because they're like Mexican food inside a Korean market. Even in LA, I went to LA to the fashion district and I'm buying clothes wholesale and they're Latino and they're speaking Korean and the Koreans are speaking Spanish.  It's like that's how it is in Korea. Korean burritos is a thing. Yeah. But that's what I love about, you know, the people who are following me, they have either known me for a while, they're connected with me because of my personality and the one thing that is not going to lack is great customer service. Yeah. So it's made out of husk represents just that like, you're going to come in. I'm going to go greet you at the table.  It's what I was taught, you know, it's a culture, like it's 283 square feet of just culture and good food, you know what I mean? Oh yeah, we're not exactly what she meant. Oh yeah, it's a vibe. I think Barbara wasn't Barbara there once like three times like in a day. We're open three days a week. So I mean, I think three times in one day, not three times a week. Oh, I was, that's right.  I left it there on accident. Yeah. And on IG, that's where you can find straight out of husk and you have 9,202 followers. We just looked it up. So really quick. Can I just ask how did how did how did that name come about straight out of husk? My sister also helped me.  I was like, I need to come up with a name. I don't want it to be like lupus tackles and I don't want to do that.  Like straight out of constant straight out of husk. I love it. You're so funny. And I was like, I like that straight out of husk, you know? So that's how that came about. And I love it. I love the name like I don't want to I have no regrets. Like I think it's awesome. Well, it's a fabulous name. Yeah, I love it. Thank you for sharing that. Thank you so much for joining us today. As we close out, we're going to just talk about some upcoming events. September 13. We have our next episode of Olat Yeloha by Think Tech Hawaii. Thank you for next Tuesday, September 12. That's going to be at Locahee Brewing. Locahee Brewing is located on King Street and it's a Latino owned brewery. Who would like, I love that we're so diverse and, you know, have businesses in different areas. So that's going to be from five to seven 30 upstairs in the loft. And as we mentioned earlier, we have our Latino Business Expo October 737. So come and then September 23 through the 26. Marisol and I will be in Orlando, Florida for the United States Hispanic Chamber National Conference. So we'll be doing a Think Tech Olat Yeloha from Florida during that time. I think it's the 27th. And what else? Oh, we have our annual membership meeting next Tuesday, September 12. That's going to be at Locahee Brewing. Locahee Brewing is located on King Street and it's a Latino owned brewery. Who would like, I love that we're so diverse and, you know, have businesses in different areas. So that's going to be from five to seven 30 upstairs in the loft. And as we mentioned earlier, we have our Latino Business Expo October 737. So come join us Latinos and those who love us, you guys. This is Barbara Olat Yeloha and Think Tech Hawaii. We've been talking with Martin Lee Juvenal at Straight Out of House. Thank you, Martin, for joining us today. Thank you, ladies for having me. Of course. Thank you. Thank you, Marisol, our co-host. And thank you to our viewers for joining us on Think Tech Hawaii. Adios, Yeloha, everybody. Adios.