Good evening, everyone, it's June 26th, 2023, it's 6.15, and welcome all to the select board meeting over Rochester, Vermont. We have confirmed to the open meeting law by posting our agenda in three places. We have posted it on our website and we have emailed all the interested parties, the long list of them. So we will proceed with the meeting. The first thing that we would like to do is review and accept prior meeting minutes. We have two meetings that we were at, June 12th, 2023. I have read the minutes and I move that we accept these. I second it. All in favor. All right. I, they are lodged. And we had another little meeting on June 22nd. I have read those and I move that we accept those minutes. I second that. All in favor. All right. Okay, normal regular business. We also let's get some normal business out of the way with approving the May Treasurer's Report. I did read that over and the real proof of the putting comes in the next month because this is May. So June being the last month of the fiscal year. I did read it over. I accepted it. Julie is paying very close attention to what she needs to look into a little bit more and accepting the figures. So I move that we accept it. I second that. I also read it. All in favor. I. All right. And you can sign. Okay, so we are now at number three on our list is removal of a planning commission member. This was a letter submitted to us by the Rochester Planning Commission on behalf of the Rochester Planning Commission and writing to request the select board remove Lewis Cochee. Did I say that right? Come to the planning board. We have not seen or heard from Lewis in months. He has failed to respond to numerous emails and calls from our chair and from me looking at his attendance record for the past year. We see that the last meeting he even tried to attend by Zoom by Zoom was in August of last year. We urge you to use your power under statute 24 BSA section 43 23 A. We really need a full active seven person board to do our work. That is especially true right now when we are revising and updating our zoning bylaw, which was last revised in 2009. Roll up your sleeves. So the select board can agree with the sentiment of the planning board. Is there any discussion? Yes. Yes, there is. Okay. Robert, this is Kristen. It looks like you're on both your computer and your phone. Could you. Oh, that's an insurance policy. One of the two of them. So you're not echoing. Okay. I'm gonna hang the phone on and then I'll talk to the computer. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Robert. Thank you, Kristen, as always. Patty, I received, well, there are two things. One, are you the chair of the select board? Well, why did you not introduce the fact that Dune isn't available to be present tonight before you started the meeting? He's the chair and he's nowhere. So why would you, why am I watching you on Zoom replacing Dune and approving minutes from a former meeting and the chair is not present? Because we have a quorum and we are allowed to proceed with the meeting because we do have two out of the three members here. Well, I think it would have been proper for you to say Dune is unavailable. He and his partner are whatever and I am sitting here in a quorum to approve the minutes from the former meetings and to move forward with the present meeting. Okay. So you just so noted that for me. Oh, thank you very much. It is on the record. Well, I also want to say, Dune sent me an email about an hour ago saying that Mr. Louis Gucci-Gaci, whatever his name is. First of all, I don't know who he is. Secondly, I don't know the word, what is the word ghosting mean according to the select board of Rochester? What is ghosting? I'm not exactly sure where you're picking up that word. I read the letter from the planning board. Ghosting is not in that letter. So... Well, well, I want to put forward the definition of ghosting to the town of Rochester via Dune. He said, Louis Gucci, whatever his name is, is ghosting. Is ghosting. What does that mean? I would assume that he is not visible and we can move on from that. So noted, ghosting means not visible. Well, no, it's got to be a legal statement in the town records that Dune, the chair of the select board said that Mr. Gucci, whatever his name is, is ghosting. Okay. That's got to get into the minutes and I hope Martha Slater's listening. It is in the minutes of the right now. Okay, that's good. Okay, so are those your comments on this? Well, thank you for giving me extra minutes and I hope the time clock's not running out, but there are other comments that I don't think, my voice doesn't work so well these days. So I'm sure you're happy about that. But Tim Collabro is on this meeting and these, whether it's Martha Slater or Tim, the minutes that are put into the record by Julie have to be recognized by what I put forth, ghosting. Who has the authority to say someone's ghosting? I'm not quite sure, but we would prefer to move on. We have a lot of people in the room and so... How many people are in the room? Three? 15. 15. 15 people, no? Well, let them speak forward. Okay, thank you. Does anyone else have any comments about removal of a planning commission member? Who's the member? Lewis Cotche. Oh, I've heard of, seems to be a ghost. Okay, no other comments. I think that this situation with Mr. Lewis Cotche should be in an executive session and not put forth to the public. He is not an employee of the towns, therefore, it's not necessarily a personnel issue. This is the planning commission coming to us. So it's one commission asking the select board. Well, who's... Well, Patty, who's present with regards to the planning and zoning board in the 15 people you just mentioned? What are you presenting? Dan McKinley and Sandy Haas. Well, Sandy Haas should comment and so should Dan McKinley. I think they had it covered in their letter. Do you have anything that you'd like to add to that? It's in the letter. It's in the letter that I just read. Okay, so I move that the select board and the planning commission remove the name of Lewis Cotche from the planning board so that we can appoint a new person to be in that spot so that the planning board can proceed with the work at hand. I second that. All in favor? All right. Thank you. And thank you, Lilith, for your service. Okay, to move on to use the time of the same people that are sitting here with us, we have a planning committee requisition discussion. That's what we wanted to move on to, correct? Yeah. So let's say you, I don't have anything on that. Can you hear me all right? Can you hear me all right in Zoom land? All right, I need to move forward. I'll go ahead and if folks can hear me. This is Dan McKinley, chair of the planning commission. We've been working on the revision of our town zoning for several months. It was less revised in 2009. So there was a lot to be done with it. A lot of new statutes that we had to have reviewed the regional planning commission is assisting us with doing that. They've done an outstanding job of digging deep into our existing zoning and finding things that needed to be rectified, be following the statute and just to improve the flow of the document and also to address new issues that we've had since 2009. Housing is a big one. Energy is a big one. They're really helping us move this thing forward. I think we've been going since last summer. So we're moving on a year with this process. And it's going well, a little bit of challenge with doing things remotely for some of the period, but it's moving along. We had a $3,500 contract with the regional planning commission to begin with to move this process. And we recently met with Sarah Wright, who's our person from the regional planning commission and Kevin Geiger, the regional planner, to talk about our progress and what still needs to be done. And the money that we had in there, $3,500 in the contract is not gonna see us through getting the documents revised. We're almost at the point where it's ready for a final edit, review by the planning commission and then a planning commission hearing. So we hope that by October, we'd be able to do that. And we're requesting an additional $3,500 to move us to that goal post. Once we have it reviewed by the planning commission, planning commission would have a hearing and then it would be revised by the community comment. Then it would go to the select board or review a hearing and hopefully adopting it. So we're looking for the cost to be $7,000 altogether, not to exceed. I don't think that we really had anything in the budget for this going forward. No, we did. So we may have to look around, see where we could pull that kind of funds from. I'll also note that we originally applied for a grant for $7,000, she keeps it to do this work. We didn't get that grant, so we tried to cut it short and we're realizing it's not something we should cut short. So this money, is it going to reverse? Yes. All of it. The contract, yeah. Would it be possible to move this to a next meeting when we have a full board? Yeah, I think so. I mean, we're moving into the next fiscal year. So we'll take a look at our next fiscal year budget and see where we can pull that funding. I'm not saying that it's not something we can do, it is something we can do, we just have to roll up our sleeves and see where we can pull that from. Yeah, figure out where it's coming from. So, let us do our work and I guess we will be getting back to you and we need to make this work, so. May I make a comment? Yes, go ahead Robert. I'm very concerned about the dependency on grants and non-profit organizations seeking money from Tuberuzada Quichi. Someone has to figure this out. There's something not right with the dependence of Rochester for grants and monies that the taxpayers pay all the time and the town has no money, just like Bethel and then they lean on Tuberuzada Quichi to finance new hotels, new buildings, roads, whatever. So someone has to figure it out. Robert, I'm not concerned about what Bethel is doing. We have been in between grant writers. We had one leave and we have one that's just coming up to speed. So therefore we do, in the interim, we did need to rely on Tuberuzada to bridge that gap.  So we will still continue to rely on them for certain grants. But why does the town of Rochester rely on Tuberuzada Quichi to finance the things that Dan McKinley wants to do or the school wants to do? There's too much money coming from out of Quichi. Where is that money? How do they get the money and you don't have? The people that work for Two Rivers are highly qualified people. I'm not saying that the playing board is not, but it's a wonderful double checking to have someone that is highly qualified to write grants to walk you through what you need to do. That's, Patty, that's not the question. Joni retired, she left six or eight months ago. There's a reason why she did. So I don't understand why, whether it's Bethel or Rochester, why you guys have to lean on that very important financial institution to finance road improvements, infrastructure, library improvements, and so on. What is the answer to the question I'm asking? Why do we rely on expert people? Catherine has something to say about that. That's not what he asked. Hi, Robert. You know that Two Rivers is our regional planning commission. We have a volunteer government here. We are not city planners, we are not urban planners. They have not only access to funds that pass through them, they have an awareness of all the funding available for various projects. And that's why we have a planning commission. We rely on their expert and their guidance. It's a very, very essential part to Vermont government. But should that come from the tax base of a town and not lean on to the separate operation? And who just spoke? Hey, Rochester. Who was just speaking? It's Catherine, I'm asking you that. I can't hear what you're asking. This is an issue that you have with Rochester as a taxpayer of Rochester that I would suggest you put it in writing. Well, Catherine, Catherine, it's not like Bethel is not in the same place because we use a lot of money from Two Rivers out of Quichy. But you're taking up time in this meeting for questions that we can't really respond to. And there's a lot of people here with business to do tonight, Robert, please. The point I'm trying to make is that either Rochester and Bethel raise their property taxes. Oh, here's Dune. I think he's in Canada or something. I think your point has been made, Robert. And I think we're all set to go forward from here. We're really were. Did you wanna chip in, we're talking as you probably know about the planning and zoning requests for additional funds. And you are on mute, just so you know. I got some to say. Basically looking at the budget here that we have that's ending this end of this month, it looks like the expenses we have here are 6,500 that we fiscally budgeted in July of 22 to June of 23 of this year. And so you've used only 1,500 of that. So I don't know if that's accurate or not. We need to get the accurate figure behind that. If your 3,500 is calculated into that from the past or not or if that was a grant funds, we can answer some of that. You might have funds enough in there already if we use them before the end of the fiscal year. But at the close of the fiscal year, those funds turn back into the general fund. So we'll have to get, the girls will have to take, look at that and figure that out. And I'm trying to find it through here, but it'll take me a minute. But we can definitely have some kind of answer for you down the road. So there may be money enough there already. We don't know. Okay. Yeah, why don't we do the contract for 3,500 if we have more? Yeah. Yeah. Or come visit with it. Okay, that sounds good. Thank you. No problem. Yeah. Yeah. And we'll have to reverse bill for the, what they've. Yes. Let's bring it all up to date. Yeah, bring it up to date. And then we can figure it out before the end of the month. Yeah, that would be nice if, I don't know if it's possible, but if we could get something from them, so tomorrow and tomorrow. Yeah. Yeah. So yeah. May I ask a question to everyone present in this meeting tonight? I feel it seems to have a turning point. We'd like to hear from Dune first. He's been waiting. I don't have anything to say in particular. I'm just, I'm glad I made it here in time to get in on the meeting. I've been driving through the rain pretty heavy for a while. So I'll just. We can hear you well. So stay tuned. All right. Okay. So should I ask my question, Patty? Yes. Go right ahead. Okay. If anyone in the room, including Catherine Shankman, Dune, I want you, somebody to answer this question. What is the percentage of property taxes that goes directly to the supervisory unions? What's the percentage? If your taxes are $100, how much of that money goes directly to the supervisory union? Can anyone answer that question? We're on an agenda. You have asked this question before. I'm not sure if you got an answer, but you can ask that question separate and away from this meeting if you'd like. I think that's totally improper when Dan McKinley is asking for $7,000. The answer is 85% of property taxes go directly to the supervisory union. That's what. We don't have to work on answering your question. Well, that's very typical. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to now move over into the recreation department and do you mind, Del? Yeah. I sent an email to the board on the 16th of this month. And I'm assuming you all read it, but I'm pretty much going to read it verbatim. And so the recreation department is utilizing the umbrella of the town of Rochester in the grant process. There's three of us that meet weekly working on several grants to reduce state space. Norm's worked very hard on that and we are at the Jan at this well. It's a great team and we get a lot done in an hour, but the main question is that, well, say this allows us to skirt the nonprofit criteria that most of the grants we are seeking requires. It's a long process. At our last meeting, we have decided to continue with each of the many grants but also start the bidding process of this project. As a contractor, I know that this process also takes a considerable time. We think it's imperative to move forward on many fronts to be able to possibly get the grants in place and a contractor chosen to possibly do the work before this coming week. We also have been moving forward with the land transfer of Martha Slater's property. You know, so you're aware of the uptick on that. We got an email today from the lawyer. He's meeting with, is it this week, Norm? Yeah, it actually depends on, Julian, do you have a busy week this week? Every week's busy, but doodly. Then tax bills go out next week, right? But it's probably a deed search and that kind of stuff. Yeah, we can probably work something out. Next week would be better. How about you? Okay, good. I'll set him up for that. And basically, he's drafting the deed and Martha has agreed to the actual block points on the property. So we're definitely moving ahead with that. And it'll get done soon. Probably what we're primarily looking for is stepping forward with the bidding process. Yeah, because we have... We have to kind of move in the direction of almost doing everything at once or else. So we have 11 grants out right now. We're working on it, but there's various phases over 11. But in particular, there's the state of Vermont recreational grant that requires actual bids. They want three bids from each phase of the job. And we got to get that grant in by September. So we're looking at two solid months of collecting bids if we get to bid out soon. Have you drawn up a scope of work? So I have. Okay. Did you read the email? I read the email. I did read the scope of work right away. The scope of work, if you want me to go through it, but basically I have a list here. So basically I'm requesting help formatting this particular list that I sent you into the bidding process that Rochester has. And I don't know who does it. Oh, the cricket is doing it, but I can read it verbatim of what I wrote in the email. I don't think you have to do that, Dean. I think we just have to sit down and go through the forms. I think we do have the forms in the back that we've used in the past and we can sit down and draft something out. So who would I sit down with? Well, it'll be Kristen and myself and probably Julie will be involved. Okay. So should I set up a meeting? Yeah, we can do that sometime. Probably after the fourth, if that's all right. I mean, things are kind of crazy right now. Is that okay with you, Kristen? Yeah. Okay. I'd rather make sure you're good with whatever. Yeah, just getting through the fiscal year we're trying to live right now. Yeah. Yeah, so it'd be better if we do this in July so these gals can close the books and we can move forward that way. I understand. Yeah, thank you. I think the, well, I'm trying to make clear is that we can't just get the grants and then have the money and then get the dibs out and then it all almost has to happen together. Well, you never get the grant money until after the job's complete. So that's just the way it works. Yeah. So we're working hard. We're relying also on some of the ARCA funds that you've promised us. Yeah. So it's, I think it's coming together. It's just, I think the land thing, I think it's going to happen within a month. I think the bidding process is really the missing part of the puzzle and I did write, I CC cricket on this. I don't, you know, I've never really written a bid from the point of view of the town. So that's kind of what I like to help with. Yeah, we'll get that. Yeah, we have a template where it'll all fall into place. Can I make a comment? Yes, you can, Robert. Was that Dean Mendel speaking? Yes, it was. Hi, Robert. I have total respect for Dean and he's always sharing goodness with the valley. That's been his life. But I want everyone to just, you know, just sit back and think about this. If your property taxes were 45% for the supervisory unions, Dean would not have to go through 11 grants to get money that he's trying to support the children with. We'd have 45% whether it's in Bethel or Rochester put towards the goodness of the valleys. And it's a disgrace. 85% of your property taxes go directly to the supervisory unions. And guess what? We have no school and the town of Rochester doesn't know what to do with the existing school. So all that money could be awarded to do or to Dean for his goodness to support the community. And it's something everyone should think about. OK, thank you. I mean, we do have an elementary school, and we do support our high school students to go to other schools. OK, so we're good there, correct? Thank you. Thank you very much. And so now I think I'd like to move on to Jan with shelter team and personnel issue. Oh, it says personnel. Now, can you talk about the need for us to have a budget and how we go about getting a budget back and who we talk to and what the process is to have a budget? We have 10 really good, solid volunteers. We've done really good things. And we need to all have our CPR recertified in September. It's up to 100 bucks a person. So we're going to need money for that again. And supplies to volunteers have been putting money out of their pockets for a long time. So I think the town needs to help with running the shelter, helping support the shelter if we're going to have one. So when you say you need a budget, you're asking the town to contribute money towards you or you need to structure your organization with a budget. You need to have a budget. Now, we need to have money from the town to support the shelter team function. And we always have had money. And when Vic was an emergency planner, there was a pot of money that we could use to print stuff and send postcards and all that. So I'm just looking to figure out how to get that back. How to get back on that. Submit a budget to the budget finance committee when we meet in the fall. And then we'll have you in to support whatever your budget is and justify that. You just have to put it together and bring it in when we meet. And we'll call you in. You just get Julie to know our hand in your budget when we request them to come in.  No, just you can. We don't call part of the mound.  We'll sit down with you in person and discuss it. Yeah. Is this sometime in the fall? October, mid-October? I reach out to each department and let them know that we're going to be working on the budget or whatever and give them a deadline. So when I do that, I'll add you to my list of people that I email. And then you will just. And it's OK with me if it goes in EP. I mean, Larry and I are working together all the time anyway. So. Well, we'll have to see how it depends on how the account looks at it and all that. So we have to keep everything. We have to keep everything separate as best we can. That's what I wanted to know. So and the other thing is just about knowing. And I can go on back and forth and dooms on the line. And he knows we've had many, many emails back and forth, back and forth about stuff being cut down. It shouldn't be cut down. And I send letters to the town every year. And still, things get cut down. So I put up a fence on part of my property. Just giving you all a heads up. OK. You had signs at 1.2. Yeah, I put up. No mowing. Signs. Yes, they just keep. And so he came, put her cane, he put the blade down. He got to the sign and lifted up the blade and put it down on the other side. And then he mowed it. And then he did the same thing on the other no mowing sign. I also have tape on the trees to mark the boundaries. So to this date, that all has not worked. Not done on your side? Yeah. Maybe this year will be a charm. It'll be August. Yeah. And I, you know. I don't. I take care of the ditch. I take care of all the downwood. I take care of all that stuff myself. So long as I'm able. Can't remember when you said it. And so noted to anyone else that has a part of their roadside where they do not want to get roadside mowing to contact really the town office fairly soon. Well, put me down, Julie. Do I still need to send the letter and put up the signs and all that stuff? I think they just need to move there. OK. You can mark that. Thank you. Thank you for our patience. OK, let's move on to, well, I'm going to go back up to number four, approve to abate delinquent tax amounts, which is $5 or less. The total amount of that $5 or less comes to $34.76. I move that it says 1972. Oh, I'm sorry. Last year we approved 34. So it's going down. It's $19.72. So I so move that we're the total of $21.65. One circle, but the total is $21.65. Which number do you want? This one was circled, but this is the total. $21.65. OK, $21.65. I move that we abate these small balances. I second that. All in favor? All right. $21.65. Thank you, Doom. Yep. Number five, sign the audit engagement letter for fiscal year 23. We, again, are contracting with Payson Holly certified public accountants to go through the audit of our books. They have done a very good job for us in the past. And each year it gets easier and easier for everyone. So I move that we accept. I need to reveal what the cost is, don't I? The certified public accountants, Payson Holly, to do our audit. I second that. All in favor? All right. Aye. OK, we're moving on to number seven, which is Bruce Marshall and Jeanine Weir. The subject that I have listed here is slavery in Vermont. So you do have something to say. We're ready to hear. Well, what do we have to say? We've titled something, Slavery in Vermont. What does that mean? Well, we have slavery in Vermont. Even though we voted against it and the Constitution spoke against it. Improved it, sir. Improved it, sir. People want to prohibit it. We also have laws and statutes. We have green books with all the statutes. And we have a situation where we came to the town for help. We asked the town to enforce its bylaws. The town said, we're not going to enforce the bylaws. In fact, the town made up stories about things, about facts that we brought forward. So we're just asking Dune to do his job. We're asking. We're asking other people to do their job. We're asking the town generally to do their job. We have come to the town numerous times. We came to the town. And we're not given honest responses. What we have been through is egregious, and it's unacceptable, and it's brutal. What we've received from the town, the legal system, from a corporation in Vermont and their legal counsel, all engaging in extremely unethical, brutal behavior toward us. This is not acceptable. This country was founded by the inspiration of the Iroquois League of Nations and their inspiration. And the rights conferred from the Great League of Peace comes through that Constitution today. This is not a dead thing just in the past. This is today. We have these rights inspired by the Great League of Peace, the Iroquois League of Nations, and also from the Magna Carta, whose rights comes through the US Constitution that we have here today for us. It's something protected that cannot be denied. And it's the same thing with the Vermont Constitution, which is the main charter in Vermont, the pivotal bedrock law of this state. So you have the US Constitution and Vermont Constitution, which are bedrock law here. They are law that cannot be violated. And yet, how we've seen the town of Rochester operate a court of law. It's disgusting. It's disgusting. That's what's happening. It's just a come. Look, it's just a matter of we have certain rights that cannot be molested, that come from the Vermont Constitution, the US Constitution, founding documents. And so all we are saying, and all we choose to say is there needs to be a change here. That the town of Rochester and their officials, their employees, and the boards of Rochester need to start doing their job. And there needs to be support from all parties responsible, particularly Denton McKinley and Sandra Haas, and all parties involved and responsible to support, to do his job, which is what we've said numerous times in different ways, which is for Dune to give a notice of violation to Lyman Hall Incorporated that their plat map filed in Land Records in 2003. There's also a quote unquote, corrective one that they claim is a corrective plat map. They filed in 2019 that they need to remove these from Land Records, that they violate local bylaws and law state of Vermont, inclusive of fire code. Fire endangerments are never grandfathered. Nothing with Lyman Hall Incorporated's situation was grandfathered in 2003. We have said these things ad nauseam. So all we can say at this point is you need to do your job. All parties need to support Dune to do his job because a lot is on Dune. He wears a lot of hats here. That can create big trouble. But this is how it is right now. And he has a job to do, a job. It's not within the realm of Dune's duties and responsibilities to rubber stamp the breaking of the law when lives are in danger, when people are being brutalized, when people have expressed huge suffering and major fallout from an instrument, a financial instrument in Land Records that sucks people in with a pretense of legality that they rely upon and then get really hurt. It's not okay when people come and say, I suffered from this for years. And we, you know, how much more can we say to you? These are financial instruments in the Land Records that Dune needs to be supported to give Lyman Hall Incorporated a notice of violation regarding that it's up to Lyman Hall to remove these platmats from the Land Records. They need to be held in trust of Julie Smith because they involve things. And secondly, Julie Smith needs to be supported that she needs to follow the law and not record Lyman Hall Incorporated's judgment against us, which is an legal void, court non-judice judgment that has been submitted to her for recording and she needs the support to follow the law and to stay within the bounds and responsibilities of her position as town clerk. And that's what needs to happen here. There needs to be ethics and honesty and we have not gotten that in this situation and it needs to come here because otherwise there's just a continuance of a pattern of grave brutality toward us and it's just not okay and we're just saying. Let's come to some resolution here. I have read, I have printed out, double-sided and read all the documents that you sent to us this morning. The only thing that I really see in here that I feel at this point in time we need to respond to is that we do recognize that you have issued a second notice of bogus for non-judice, judge's and the legal judgment. You asked in the paperwork that we verified that you recognized that you have filed that paper. Well, it's actually that's not what the letter says. No, all we've said is you need to do your job that our rights under the U.S. Constitution and the Vermont Constitution can be un-molested. So whatever you think of that, that's your business, that's up to you. All we are saying is that we've done this. We have these rights that come through the inspiration that you're clearly the nation that come through the Magna Cartas, writes the Magna Cartas through the Constitution. And then you need to do your job. That's all it is. At this point in time we have the right to secure counsel, which we have done. So I have a feeling this will bounce back and forth until the resolution is found. Well, there is a resolution. The resolution is in the land records. Okay, there's a valid judgment in the land records. Okay, the power, the authority in this nation comes from the people. The judge is a substitute authority. She is not the true authority. We are not going to be enslaved by any of these people who are taking away the authority from the people. And that's our authority to have a court. We are going to do it. That's all we're going to do. Yeah, we don't really need power. Yeah, we know it. Bruce had some really important things, but ultimately- Dune should quit. No, no, no, no, don't go there. All right, we're not going to do it again. Dune just needs to do his job. We're not saying Dune should quit. He should do his job or get someone who can do their job. No, no, no. Just for this point, Dune needs to do his job and I'll just further say, since we did title, you know, what we wanted to say today, slavery in Vermont, that, you know, slavery does exist in Vermont. Absolutely. And you're part of it. We've experienced it. Part of it. Let me just speak. The past four years, three and a half years of litigation from being sued by Latin Hong Incorporated, that's slavery. When no one will help you, when there's grave, brutal dishonesty and unethical behavior in courts, in officers in a town, in a corporation, in their legal counsel, having to constantly deal with the case, which, you know, we went to a contract lawyer. He referred us to a real estate lawyer. The real estate lawyer said, this is extremely fraudulent, but I can't help you, you need a whole firm. So we call a few firms. They're quoting us between $80,000 to $90,000 to take us through litigation because it's so complex in fact in law, the case. And so having to do this for a lot of pro-say parties, it's a huge amount of work. When it's such a complex case in fact in law, it's a brutal, unbelievable amount of work. And a lot of people go through eviscerating nightmares from pro-say litigation. And it's not, all I can say is it's not okay to be so unethically brutal toward people when they come to you and say, please just follow your bylaws. Please follow this law, the state of Vermont. Like there is fire safety code. Just please do your job. And that's all we're saying. Please do your job. Please support Julie to do her job. And please support June to do his job. That is all we're saying because slavery is very much a reality in this state. And the only way it will stop is to have the rights per the founding documents being molested. And for people to find a deeper sense of ethics that's beyond the sadly, what's become of too much of this country is too much of a materialistic egoic power paradigm of prestige in place versus coming from ethics in the heart. And that's all that has meaning to us. And we're just asking for people to self-reflect about being actually honest in the situation and to actually do their job. In fact, we didn't bring, Robert Finkle came here on his own accord. We had brought him in to look at our property. I agree with that statement. Yeah, and we also have a, from a Tony Dislaurier looking at it. A Tony Dislaurier. Tony Dislaurier. So it's really interesting when certain people just look at that and oh, they don't have to see anything. They don't have to see anything. You see, and that's, I don't want to go into the intricacies of law here. But I think we've made our point. Obviously we've been through a horrible situation for three years. It has been destructive to our lives, our health, and a number of things. And, you know. But we just want healing at this point. And we want people to reflect honestly because there's huge repercussions when people decide they're just gonna look away. And, you know, this is supposed to be a country of the people and by the people. And that's what stands. And in the end, frankly, only kindness matters. And you can think that's very silly and just my philosophy, but that's what's real. And everything else you can get what you want and think you're getting this and that and connections with these people. And so, oh, who cares about Bruce and Jeanine? They'll just leave Rochester. But hey, you live with yourself.  Get your time stolen. In the end, only kindness matters. Yeah. And that's all we have to say. Well, thank you very much. Counsel and they define Julie and Doome's job. That will take place. Forever. Thank you. Thank you both. Next item on our agenda is acceptance and approval of Rochester High School committee to proceed with Duboy and King's floodgate design. That would be Catherine. Acceptance and approval of the high school repurposing committee's floodgate design. Information to share. I'm just going to come up here because I've been probably hearing back there and I want to make sure you can hear me. So a month ago today, you participated in a meeting with Jamie and Sarah Wright, two Rivers and members of the repurposing committee. We talked about many things. The stage that we're at with the Brownfields environmental assessment and the flood plain mitigation plan and the removal of the tank. So that's what I'm going to give you an update today. So we were able to communicate with Grace Benson, the state environmental officer who basically said, oh, I'm waiting for the flood plain mitigation design because then I'll be able to respond whether that meets the federal HUD guidelines. We really want to be eligible for HUD funding because we're looking for a few million dollars. And Bernie Sanders has again supported our project which has gone into the Appropriations Committee. I think we learned last year that we really need to manage our expectations, especially considering the condition of Congress right now. But it's a great vote of confidence that he has put another million dollars into that funding and he's pushed us through again. So that's HUD funding. We're under the account of the USDA Community Facilities account, that's HUD funding. So Eric Law has reviewed our project. He's from USDA. All the boxes are checked positively. So you know that we mitigate the floodway by boundary adjustment, that's been resolved. And so the flood plain, the fact the high school auditorium is located in the flood plain as of taking in water during a rain. So we need an engineer. We have an engineer through DNK and DNK has been doing all the work with surveys and so forth. But the one that has really got experience with flood plain mitigation design and that happens to be in an employee of DNK. So what we have here is their invoice and scope of work for creating the mitigation design for the flood plain. And there was a sufficient funds left in our initial planning grant that we got in 2021 to cover the cost of this design. This design is very important because it's gonna allow us to go forward with everything else that we're doing. So I brought that for you to sign, Patty. The cost of this is set at $3,500. Yeah, $3,500. Can you verify that that balance is still available in that grant? Yeah, I'll verify that too. Yeah, she already did that. And that it's not earmarked for any other expense? No. Okay. No, as a matter of fact, once we get the design, then we have what we need to go to get that extra $10,000 because we'll know what the cost of this is going to be, which is still an unknown to us. Not the cost of the design, but the cost of the actual implementation of the design. So that's what we're gonna need to get that additional $10,000 that we're eligible for. So the other thing is that, all right. So any questions about that? Can I ask who's speaking? Oh, I'm sorry, Robert. It's Katharine Shankman. And I have to apologize to my tone of view earlier. Yeah, very good, bless you. Thank you. I take all that if you wanna give. Okay, so the next thing is, any questions about the floodplain mitigation? All right, so the next phase in the environmental assessment process is the testing and sampling of the site, the property. And that work plan is being developed right now. I got a grant, or we got a grant for $32,000 from the Department of Environmental Conservation to cover all of that. And we had assumed, even as recently, I think, is May 26th, that that proposal from VHS, is it? Or VHB? VHB? Yes, VHB, those are names. And that proposal did not include the cost of removing the tank. All along, Sarah Wright from Two Rivers has said, well, if their funding comes in, they can cover that. But I think at that meeting, she had just learned that the state was not allowing them at this point to use that fund for tank removal. So she's been working for the last three weeks to push that. She seems very confident, so I'm not gonna get anxious, but until I got all the T's crossed and the I's dotted, when it comes to big bucks, you do sort of, it worries the back of your mind. And she emailed today that they're going ahead with the proposal for the cost of the tank removal. Lyle Smith, who works for the school district, is working to install the interim above ground tank, and he's working with VHB together with all of this, so it's all gonna be coordinated. And they think that it's all going to be done by the end of August, so we'll see. I think Sandy emailed me wanting to know about when the Brella investigation is going to be. If that's an inspector that's coming on site, I don't know the date of that because we're still in process, but as soon as I know anything, I'll convey it, okay? So I don't know, Patty, whether you printed this out, but I just wanted this VHB thing also for your records. Sure. Okay, thank you. Thank you, and thank you for all that work. Still more to come, but we're getting somewhere. Yeah, we're getting somewhere. And I just wanna say that I don't know whether, if I had known now when I started this project, whether I would have ever jumped into it, you know? But I have to say that I have brought a deep appreciation for all the volunteer work that does happen in this town, whether it's with our government or our agencies and organizations, it is what keeps the blood flow of these towns. Our fire department, I mean, it's also meaningful, and it really is what binds us together as people in a community. So I wanna just officially say thank you. It's nice to hear. You're so lovely, Catherine. Thank you. Can I make a comment? Yes, you can, Robert. Catherine Shankman, I wanna say thank you. I also, I'm sorry about my voice, but I also wanna thank Dean Mandel for community support and the opportunity for children to grow up in this town and be responsible. I'm sorry, my voice is not good, but I don't know how we're all going to reflect on Jeanine's commentary regarding Lyman Hall and the town of Rochester and so forth. It's something we all have to ponder and think about, but it's, you know, I know you people think Robert is not from Rochester and I'm not. I'm from Bethel, Vermont, and I do everything I can every day to support the towns and going forth. I think everyone, whether it's Zoom, I don't know where Dune is. He's got an assistant up there. Hey, Dune, but I think it could be proper to request recusals from recusals. In other words, officials should say, you know what? I'm resigning. I'm done with this stuff. Thank you.  They're wonderful guys and they've done a great job. Thank you. Okay. We're going to move on to number 10 on our list of proven scientists paid for grant administration as she's getting up and running. We are going to reimburse her for time that she has spent on grant writing, which takes a lot more expertise. And so what I have here is grant administration retro pay of 100 hours at 643 additional per hour, $643. I move that we approve this. I second that. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Thank you. A lot of thank yous tonight. Okay, now we are moving on to the driveway permit for Nick Darbeloff, Rogers Peak Forest LLC. They just need to mark it. They haven't marked it yet, so we're not, we won't approve that at this point. I'll call in this next week. John's going to look at it. Ray's supposed to put some flag in up there. He's coming off the Bethel Mountain Road somewhere. I'm not sure exactly where it is. And John wants to just make sure. And it's in writing, so I think they've made the decision. You're right. Very good. So they're, I don't know whether they're purchasing property or leasing or whatever they're doing, they're coming in from. They're purchasing a piece of property so they can access the rest of their property. That's, there's a purchase and sale agreement and in the works. Works, okay. That's a wonderful solution. You didn't want to purchase until we knew that you could put it directly in. Yeah, and I think we'll just get to it as soon as John, soon as Ray puts some flag and tape up there so we'll know exactly where it's going. So we will forward this. Yeah. And I'll give him a call this week. Okay, I think we're ready to hear from our departments. We have no one here from the library. How about the highway department? John's busy doing ditching on North Hollow Road and Cooper Run and stone lining the ditches. So that's what he's been up to. Okay. So many glitches. And the bridge is coming along. They got one wing wall poured. They're going to be looking at backfillin' that this week and then after the fourth, they'll be starting on the other side. Okay. And he's ahead of schedule, so. You never know when snow is gonna come. Yeah, he said he's going at it, which is good. We do have our utilities operator here tonight. Hi, Terry. Yeah, we just got the report from P and K. I got to read it and get back to them then. They need to get it filed by Friday. By Friday. Okay, so you'll be reviewing that. You just got the firecrack back and the doctors were pregnant and lost. I think I noticed that, Bill. Really? Yeah. I was surprised that you didn't need me to know. I was glad it wasn't mine. Can I make a comment? Yes, you may, Robert. I want to put a message out to Nancy Woolley and her dear husband, Charles. He's a wonderful man. And I hope that all the improvements onto the park will maybe give light to Nancy. She's a wonderful woman. I agree. Thank you, Robert. Do we have Jeff get part? No, we do not. And do we have any grant updates? Just a quick one that we did receive our reimbursement for the high school study of $9,226.74. That was our requisition three. If they say we deserve the money, they should give it to Max. That's right. Okay, I think we rearranged the schedule a little bit, but I think we have made it through all of our business for the evening. Is there anything else? Hey, Patty. Oh, yes, sir, Robert. Don't ever call me, sir, but I do want to thank you for your diligence and your responsibility. And I know Dune is witnessing this meeting and I hope that the townspeople, whether it's Rochester or Bethel, they respect the people's words. Thank you so much. Okay, if that is it for everyone, I move to adjourn. Sorry, good. All in favor? All right.  Thank you, everyone.


Hello everyone. Today I am going to talk about triply adaptive use in NSIC. This is a joint work with Ron Kennedy and Xia Wang. So let me first define what is a NSIC protocol. So in the NSIC protocol there is a prover who has an input statement x and a witness w and the verifier has the same NP statement x. Now the prover computes a proof pi which attests that x is in the language l and w is a valid witness for it. Now after obtaining the proof pi the verifier outputs either 0 or 1. Now the protocol has to satisfy a few properties. Firstly it has to satisfy correctness that is if x is in the language l and w is a valid witness then v outputs 1 that is if the prover is honest then the verifier always outputs 1. Next it should satisfy soundness that is if x is not in the language then the verifier outputs 0 with high probability. Finally it should also satisfy zero knowledge that is there exists a PPT or probabilistically polynomial term algorithm called simulator which computes a simulated proof just given the statement x and the trapdoor for the CRS which is denoted by TD. So this proof should be indistinguishable from an honestly generated proof. Next we need 3 additional properties from our NSIC system. Firstly we need adaptive soundness in this system. In this game the prover is corrupt and the challenge samples the CRS uncents to the prover. Now the prover can adaptively choose the statement x to be proven and it also computes a proof and then it sends a statement and the proof to the challenger and now the challenger just runs the verifier algorithm. Now adaptive soundness says that if x is not in the language then the challenger outputs 0 with very high probability that is a verifier that is a prover cannot break soundness even if the statement is adaptively chosen based on the CRS distribution. Next we extend the same argument for the zero knowledge game. Here we have a simulator x who is given we interacts with the corrupt verifier. Now the corrupt verifier obtains the CRS and it adaptively chooses the statement x and sends to the simulator and the simulator again computes a simulated proof and this simulated proof should be indistinguishable from an honestly generated proof. Here the verifier is basically adaptively again adaptively choose the statement x and the x has to be in the language and we say that a protocol is adaptively zero knowledge if the simulated proof is indistinguishable from a real proof even if the statement is chosen based on the CRS distribution. Next we consider the setting where the prover can get adaptively corrupted after the protocol execution. So here we again start off with the same simulator who is given the trap to the CRS and it comes with a simulated proof and this proof is indistinguishable from honestly generated proof. Next the simulator is given the witness of the prover once the prover gets adapted once the prover gets adaptively corrupted. Now the simulator has to come up with the randomness that is used to generate that has been used to generate the proof such that the proof looks consistent with the witness following the honest prover algorithm to an adversarial verifier. So here security is adaptive corruptions says that the simulated proof and the witness and the randomness should be consistent and they should be indistinguishable from a real one. Now we define the notion of triply adaptive music. Here we require the NISIC protocol to have all three properties that is adaptive soundness, adaptive zero knowledge and adaptive security. So this kind of triply adaptive music provides realistic security guarantees because the prover uses the same CRS to prove adaptively chosen statements and it also provides security against adaptive corruptions. So this is kind of very useful in real life applications where the party can get corrupted after some like after some point of time and still you get security and then finally we require using security so that the same process CRS is reused for multiple sessions between different parties. So it's and you can also like compose your NISIC protocol inside your favorite MPC protocol. Now let's briefly check out the state of the art for triply adaptive NISIC protocol. So there is a seminal work by Grossovsky Sahay. So that work does not obtain adaptive soundness but it obtains adaptive zero knowledge and adaptive security against adaptive corruptions and they are based on pairing. They do not obtain adaptive soundness because they are their CRS is in the dual mode sitting which is not compatible with adaptive soundness. Then there is another work by Katsumata. So they are also from pairings and they also fail to obtain adaptive soundness but they obtain adaptive zero knowledge and adaptive security. Then there was this work by Abe and Fer which obtains triply adaptivity but they require knowledge assumptions for their proof. So we complete this picture by showing that we can obtain triply adaptive NISIC protocol from standard assumptions like LWE or DDH plus LPN and we do not rely on any knowledge assumptions. So to briefly go through our contributions we construct the first we first propose a non-interactive use a commitment functionality FNICOM. Here the parties can access the FNICOM functionality locally for commitment generation and verification and the functionality also outputs a commitment string during the commit phase. As a result this functionality is very friendly for MPC protocol. It does not require any interaction between the parties and between the two parties during the commit phase or verification phase. Next we construct a triply adaptive NISIC compiler how we do this by proposing the notion of triply adaptive sigma protocol in FNICOM model. Then we compile the above sigma protocol to obtain triply adaptive NISIC. Finally we also show how to apply correlation interactability for NISIC arguments. Previously it was only known for NISIC proofs or proof systems. Then we instantiate our compiler by showing that most sigma protocols which are like commit and open are triply adaptive in the FNICOM model and then we implement FNICOM with the kinetic facial and commitment scheme. And finally we obtain user security using generic or standard tricks from growth of software or the literature. Thank you. Hope to see you at the talk.


chi'n esaien canoedd yn gyhoeddIG? Felly mwch i chi'n ddylai fy nhw i ddim yn gweithgweithio ac mae bod yn gymryd adults o ddeiligiant ar gyfer y m torlau mewn lliwyr. Maen nhw dwg ni wedi bwrw i ddim yn gweithgweithio swyddan nhw ar yr aelod Dalton M Wyatt Hundert ac hwnnw Three зем兩個. Erniad, rydym ni bod wedi ch� fluffy ym Llyfrmaender i fi'n i chi'n desphaith wrth i draf mai'r swyddan nhw, o'r bwysigiau i datblyg pethau i dweud y gwaith o'r ddweud cyfnodau i'r wlad, a fel hyd o'r fathod o'r ddiolch pethau'r cyfnod. Pmithöffon y dynach yr ysgol ym Mhwzydd yng Nghymhwyllian Ysgolwch ein Feeling. Ettai, mae geslädd erbyn i'r fathod hyn y peth o'n bwysig i ddwyllian yw Ysgolwch, ond mae ydw i ddw i ddweud. Yn gyffredinolwyr hwnnw, ysgolwch ym mhwyllian y ddweud, I ask the sweet buttons and I call on Paul Sweeney to open the debate. Up to seven minutes, please, Mr Sweeney. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I rise to mark Mary Curie's great daffodil appeal, which runs throughout the month of March. It is an opportunity to raise awareness and funds to help Mary Curie to continue to carry out their vital work across Scotland. For Mary Curie, she is Scotland's largest provider of end-of-life care and palliative care for adults.  Mary Curie operates in 31 out of 32 local authorities in Scotland. However, service levels vary across the country. Miles Glasgow and Edinburgh are served by dedicated Mary Curie hospices. Outside of the central belt, it is largely hospice care at home. Mary Curie services take a significant amount of strain off of the national health service, but commissions from health and social care partnerships only cover 40 per cent of their costs. As the demand for palliative care increases in Scotland, with 10,000 more people requiring palliative care needs by 2040, that is a 20 per cent increase from the number at present. Funding for health and social care partnerships is actually being cut. Nine out of 10 Scots will need palliative care at the end of their lives, so this is something that every citizen has a stake in. Scotland's increasing population of people over 85 years of age is having the biggest bearing on increasing demand for hospice care. Unfortunately, by 2040, it is estimated that dementia as the main cause of death will rise by 185 per cent. Recruiting and retaining staff in Mary Curie hospices is proving to be difficult. Hospices simply cannot match the agenda for change pay rise, which was rightly given to NHS staff, because no additional funding was made available to them. Is therefore critical that, with demand for palliative care rising in the coming years, we have a more sustainable and fairer funding settlement for the hospices so that Mary Curie can continue to be there for people when they need it? It is no good simply having a negative feedback loop where people are stuck in acute hospitals, dying in inappropriate conditions, often without dignity, when they could have a hospice bed but they cannot be staff because the staff are not there. It is a perverse and cruel situation for people to be in. That is why initiatives such as the Great Daffodil appeal are so vital to Mary Curie. When people donate or take part in fundraising efforts, they make a significant contribution to ensuring the comfort and care that is available for those who need it at the most critical moment in their lives. The work of Mary Curie goes beyond palliative and end-of-life care. I want to pay particular tribute to the extraordinary volunteers that give up their time and become Mary Curie companions. They are trained to provide support for people approaching the end of their lives as well as their family. These volunteers are truly inspiring. They are there for people at the most difficult of times, providing practical and emotional support such as help around the house, doing the shopping or talking through how people are feeling faced with such a devastating diagnosis and the end of their lives. The dying and the margins research conducted by Mary Curie and the University of Glasgow found that one in three working-aged people who die do so in poverty. It is clear that deprivation is exacerbated at the end of life. I feel that that is particularly cruel injustice to so many Scots. I've been personally affected by the stories shared in that exhibition that came to Parliament some months ago. They should invigorate and infuriate all of us. It should encourage us and inspire us to be stronger advocates for our constituents so that they have the housing that is fit for purpose and the social and financial support that they need so that they are empowered to make real decisions with real agency about where they choose to end their lives. Last year I had the opportunity to go along to visit the Mary Curie hospice at Stogpill in Glasgow.  It was the local charity that we supported at school in Turnbull High School in Bishop Riggs where I was educated. It was particularly interesting to see the results of the huge fundraising effort, probably the biggest public fundraising effort that has happened in Glasgow in recent years, to raise £16 million to rebuild the hospice 14 years ago, half of which came from evening times readers in Glasgow. It signifies the importance of that hospice to people across the city. I was particularly struck by a patient that I met there from Glasgow's East End that very sadly passed away just a couple of days after I visited. She had a difficult upbringing. She had a chaotic childhood. She had used drugs. She had very difficult circumstances. She finally felt that she had got her life back on track. She was in a good place with her two teenage sons. She got what she thought was tonsillitis or a throat infection. She went along to seek help at her GP. She persisted for over a year with a chronic throat condition. Unfortunately, she was just fobbed off and not taken seriously. When she was finally able to get a diagnosis, it was terminal. She was facing the end of her life just in her late 40s. I believe that had she been from a more affluent part of the city and not the East End, her concerns would have been taken more seriously. She would have been approached with more agency from day one and she would be still alive today. Cases like hers put the dying and the margins research into a stark perspective, certainly for me, that we must do better. That is the essence of social justice for me. Having a conversation with her in those moments of deep frustration and a deep sense of grief of the life that she was robbed of will never leave me. That is why the great Daffodil appeal is an opportunity to promote Marie Curie and all the work that they do to improve people's lives in the most devastating and difficult circumstances. I hope that as many people as possible will support this year's appeal. Thank you. Mr Sweeney, we will now move to the open debate. I remind members that the backbench speeches are up to four minutes. I call Bob Doris to be followed by Alexander Stewart. I thank Paul for securing today's debate, which marks the 1 of the 2024 great Daffodil appeal. I am privileged to have a wonderful Marie Curie hospice in my constituency at Stalpill. As community of the cross-party group in part of Cair, I am well aware of the fantastic work that Marie Curie not only does within hospices, but also the service provided across many local authorities within people's own homes. The dedication, care and compassion of Marie Curie makes a very real difference to those living with terminal conditions often approaching end of life and important, of course, also to their families. We are also very fortunate to have a dedicated team of fundraisers within Marie Curie, many volunteers who raise much-needed resources for many of the services that they offer. Often much of the donations received will be from the family and friends who no longer are with us, but who have benefitted greatly from the services of Marie Curie. My heartfelt thanks to everyone who makes the donation, no matter how large or small. That sits at the heart of the great Daffodil appeal, the warmth and affection with which Marie Curie is held. On the symptoms of me, I will be hosting an event with Marie Curie in the Garden lobby of the Scottish Parliament, which will celebrate the undoubted success of the great Daffodil appeal. I hope that people will hope to see members at that event. Every year the great Daffodil appeal is important in securing much-needed resource. However, this year it will have never been so important. The financial pressures that our network of hospices are under are very significant indeed. It has been challenging for hospices to match the very acompay awards that the Scottish Government has made to Scotland's NHS and agenda for chain workforce. Finding funds to do so has put a particular pressure on reserves and yearly running costs, as has other factors such as wider inflationary pressures and energy costs. The Scottish Government and Scotland's integrated joint boards have been unable to respond to those pressures in a way that has been able to fully alleviate or adequately mitigate those pressures, unfortunately. I acknowledge unprecedented pressures on Scotland's budget and I also anticipate that our hospice network will continue to do a wonderful job in the year ahead despite those challenges. However, the pressures will not go away and there needs to be an agreed and sustainable funding model for Marie Curie and the wider hospice network in the years ahead. I very much hope that the new Scottish palliative care strategy will take account of that need for financial sustainability going forward. Indeed, I also hope that our new national care service will also entrench within it the explicit right to palliative care for the people of Scotland and drive adequate funding to the sector accordingly in a fair, equitable and sustainable way. The minister knows that that is something that I am keen to work with the Government on and we have discussed it previously and I hope that we can continue those discussions. However, I want to return to the great daffodil appeal because the hospice sector has, from its inception, always sought to fundraise for a significant portion of the money that they invest in services. They are up for that challenge, they expect that to be the case and that will not and it should not change but that is different from adequate support from the public sector for financial sustainability. Both those things can live together. The great daffodil appeal is fundamental to those efforts for Marie Curie. Marie Curie is a vital and valuable partner with Scotland's aging population by 2040. There will be an additional 10,000 people each year needing palliative and end-of-life support. That will be 60,000 in total each year at that stage. We need to grow the hospice network and we need to innovate new models of delivering palliative care. Both those things are required. As I said in my member's debate in December, I know that Marie Curie is up for that challenge because they have done it successfully before. So when people support this year's great daffodil appeal, they are not just supporting those approaches at the end of life and their loved ones today, they are investing in the future of palliative and end-of-life services for tomorrow. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr Doris. I now call Alexander Stewart to be followed by Carol Malkin. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to be able to contribute this afternoon and congratulate Paul Swinney on securing this debate. For many years I have also, as others in the chamber, been a great supporter of Marie Curie. Everyone deserves the right care and support at the end of life. It is tireless compassion that takes place and that happens across all parts of Scotland and very much within my region of Mid-Scotland and Fife. However, the amazing work that they do is fully committed, Presiding Officer. As we have heard today, the great daffodil appeal is a phenomenal success for that charity. We are all wearing the emblems this afternoon to do that. That has complete recognition by so many individuals and organisations. That is to be commended. I also know that Marie Curie is the largest palliative care and end-of-life care here in Scotland and across the United Kingdom. Last March, I, as many others did, supported the Marie Curie funding appeal that was here within the Scottish Parliament and met once again with the staff and the volunteers who give of their time and their talents to support those individuals and provide the care to people living with a terminal illness and also for the families and carers that support them as well. Back then, Presiding Officer, I heard of the number of people that were being supported. We have heard that today already, that in excess of 8,000 terminally ill people across Scotland are being supported in their own homes and within the hospices that are taking place. That is a fundamental process that the charity deals with and how they manage. The figures started to look like they are going to continue to increase. As Paul Sweeney commented earlier, there is a massive increase within the elderly population and those individuals who require it. In my area, when Stirling and Clack manage alone, over 250 visits were made by the charity for community nursing services within support of individuals within their own homes. Back in December 2019, Marie Curie published and released highlights that two thirds of Scots will die either from that or in care homes or in hospices by the time of 2040 if current trends are to be continued. The research that Marie Curie has had through the University of Edinburgh and King's College in London also warned about radical investment in community health and social care being required to ensure that individuals are supported because if not, there will be a continual rise in those who are dying within hospital situations and circumstances. That is something that we want to try to alleviate. I hope that the minister mentions that in her summing up. In conclusion, we need to ensure that Marie Curie nurses will be able to be supportive of everyone in Scotland if they can do that. We have heard today about the difficulties that we have when it comes to the funding of pay awards and the difficulties because of the cost of living and things that are affecting each and every one of us. The charity raises around £250,000 a week to deliver this incredible work and front-line cover. That in itself is a major achievement and needs to be commended. I look forward to hearing from the minister and others who make contributions this afternoon because it is vitally important that Marie Curie is achieving and wants to do as much as it can to ensure that a peaceful, pain-free death and what individuals receive who have that commitment and the support that they give to those people who work for those affected by dying with cancer and the death and bereavement that takes place from those individuals is also vitally important. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr Sure. I now call Cara Mocken to be followed by Julian Mackay. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you to my colleague Paul Swinney for bringing this very important debate to the chamber. Presiding Officer, I am not surprised that Paul Swinney has chosen this as his member's debate as we've discussed on many occasions the excellent work of Marie Curie and other hospices many times. Paul Swinney has fought with passion and I think today has spoken with compassion to raise the on-going issue of funding and sustainable resourcing of these essential services. As he mentioned, less than 40 per cent of Marie Curie costs are covered by commissioned income. Those events are so important, but can I be clear, Presiding Officer? The Parliament is right to encourage as many people as possible to support the Marie Curie Great Daffodil Appeal this year as in others, but it is my belief that this should be to promote the good work and offer people the opportunity to make what donations they can, but it should not be to allow us in this place of power to ignore the need to properly resource these essential palliative care services. Of course. I thank the member for giving when I think we've spoken and a few of these debates in the previous months. Karen Watkins said, I pay tribute to the work that you're also doing to highlight this issue. I agree with Karen Watkins about the sustainable funding mod, but does Carol also agree with me that the hospice sector believes that fundraising a large part of the resource that they spend is a vital part of what they do and they're not seeking to dilute that. What they're wanting is that sustainable leverage funding from Government for the future needs that we'll have to plan for. Karen Watkins. Of course. I recognise that fundraising is part of the way in which they promote the cause and the way in which they make sure people are aware of the sensitive issues around us. Of course I do that, but I just think that we need to not allow these things to detract from the fact that we should discuss how we make this sustainable and how we make sure the funding is there, particularly as a point you raised along with my colleague, as the need for these resources increases. We have to, in this place of power, take our responsibility in that. I have said this before, but it's the only way I know how to say this in order that I can express my feelings. Everyone deserves as pain-free and peaceful a death as possible surrounded by those that love them and a place that comforts them and that the choice is theirs. I think that we can all agree that at some point we will be touched by the death of a loved one. Should that loved one need end-of-life care over a period of time, palliative care, we would all wish that to be provided in the best way possible. With trained and sensitive care staff who have the knowledge, time and training needed to support both the physical deterioration but also the emotional needs to our loved one and our wider family. If the chamber would bear with me, I want to take this opportunity to mention a meeting that I had today with Paul Sweeney with Breen Tumor Research. They raised, among other issues with us, the impact of families and their wider friend network on this, which is a diagnosis often given to young people, young women, who have families and their life ahead of them. I want to thank Theo and Thomas for coming to the Parliament and for talking to us about these important issues, both about how we support people emotionally but also about the wider way in which we support research into those often very serious and conditions that can cause end-of-life. It is heartening, of course, that Mary Curie is there. We do, as we have said many times in this chamber, support the hospice care at home teams and the two hospices that they have. I recognise that I am running out of time. I want to mention about the inequalities, but they have been done. I will just end on. I simply cannot accept that someone dying cannot get the care and comfort that they deserve. In a time of need like the end of life, surely we must all be looking to find solutions to providing all the care and comfort necessary. I know that the Daffodil appeal helps to get towards that aim, and I close it at that point. I thank Paul Sweeney for securing this time for this important annual debate. The great Daffodil appeal is the most prominent awareness-raising appeal for Mary Curie and runs throughout March. I also want to take those opportunities, as others have, to thank the staff and volunteers of Mary Curie. I also want to take those opportunities, as others have, to thank the staff and volunteers of Mary Curie, who deliver services in 31 of 32 local authorities, including their two hospices in Edinburgh and Glasgow, and they at home services for those who choose to die at home. Volunteers provide support through their companion service, tackling isolation and loneliness. Companions also support families after someone has died. That is an invaluable offering, the friendly, familiar support after the death of a loved one. It is valued by many families around the country. They also provide support for planning for end-of-life. I have previously raised in the chamber in other debates that we need, as a country, to do more to support and encourage conversations about what a good death looks like for individuals. As is noted in the motion, this for many is a desire to die at home. The way that palliative care is delivered is already having to adapt to that demand to die at home, as well as our ageing population. The motion notes, however, that the demand is going to increase significantly by 2040, with 60,000 people dying with palliative care needs, which is 10,000 more per year than now. A further pressure will undoubtedly come from the more complex nature of the health conditions that patients have as a result of people living longer. That will, at the current point, be difficult to predict for the future, but the motion suggests that that will be around an 82 per cent increase, but that will vary undoubtedly by local authority and by socio-economic factors. That needs to be kept under review and services supported to adapt to deliver support to those in the greatest need. The diversity of palliative care services and the conditions that they can support are vast, but I do not know if the public, especially those who have never had contact with those services, have an understanding of that diversity. Conditions such as heart failure, for example, which can be managed for a long period of time, could receive palliative care when it is needed, and amplifying the diversity of the sector is something that I believe we should all do wherever we can. As the co-community of the cross-party group on carers, it would also be remiss of me to fail to mention the support that carers need when a loved one is receiving palliative care. The financial, emotional and physical burden is one that many carers take on without a second thought to support the person they love. Marie Curie, as many others do, provides really valuable support to families, but we need to ensure that those families are meaningfully involved in the end-of-life planning, that they understand what will happen, what support is there, and, crucially, being allowed to express how they want to be supported along with their loved one. More will need to be done in the coming years to support palliative care, to ensure that everyone receives the fantastic level of care that many people around the chamber have articulated this afternoon. I want to end, Presiding Officer, by once again thanking staff, volunteers and all those who will donate to the Great Daft I'll Appeal this year. I call Liam McArthur to be followed by David Torrance. I, like others, start by paying tribute to all the Marie Curie nurses, staff and volunteers for the Herculean efforts. They put in on behalf of dying people, but, importantly, always of their families as well. I acknowledge a number of them in the public gallery. They are very welcome to this debate. I thank too Paul Sweeney for allowing Parliament to have this debate and acknowledge his strong personal commitment to the issues that we are discussing. I think anybody reading the Marie Curie briefing for this debate cannot escape the stark warning about projected demand for these services going forward. This is, I think, a product, obviously, of an ageing population, but I think Paul Sweeney was right to suggest it. Therefore, we are all investing in this. We all have a stake in this issue. I think another point that came out to me very clearly was that it's not just about the demand and the numbers, it's about the complexity as well, that many people are living longer but with comorbidities that make that treatment more complex. I think that Gillian Mackay was right to talk to you about the diversity that is required in this sector. It covers a broad sweep, it covers in patient hospice, hospice at home, but also I think that Paul Sweeney was right to draw attention to the companion service, which I think does so much to address the needs not just of individuals themselves but their families and addresses that problem of isolation. Therefore, we are seeing a recognition of the increasing funding strain that is going to be placed on Marie Curie going forward. I think that Bob Doris was absolutely right to say that this will continue to be a mixed model where that fundraising effort is an integral part, an important part, of the work that Marie Curie does and they do not want to roll back from that, but I think that the funding requirements to provide that security, given the demands that we are likely to see on the services, is absolutely essential. I noted earlier this morning that the House of Commons Health Committee produced a report on end-of-life choices and, indeed, assisted dying. It drew rightly attention to many of the same issues that Marie Curie does in terms of the patchiness of funding in terms of some of the patchiness of access to services as well. I drew encouragement, too, from the fact that the committee found that there was no evidence that in jurisdictions where there was assisted dying laws that there was a diversion away from palliative care services. Indeed, in many instances, what you saw was a reinforcement of the funding, allowing for greater access and improvement of those services. I would want to take a moment to acknowledge the engagement from Marie Curie with me in the context of my member's bill on assisted dying that I hope to introduce to Parliament very shortly. I really have not got time, Mr Doris, I am afraid. I look forward to continuing to engage with him once the bill is introduced. For now, I want to again pay tribute to the work that all those staff, volunteers and nurses do. The contribution that is made by the wider public through the Great Daffodil appeal, which I am sure will enjoy overwhelming public support, again this year, is to provide the caring comfort that dying people need and, frankly, deserve. Thank you very much indeed. I call David Torrance to be followed by Rosie Grant. Mr Torrance. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank Paul Sweeney for bringing his motion to the chamber today. It is also a pleasure and a great privilege to speak about Marie Curie and the invaluable services of Pride. Today is no exception. Marie Curie's Great Daffodil Appeal is an issue that embodies compassion, resilience and community spirit. The appeal runs throughout March each year, championing the cause of providing care and emotional support to those at the end of lives across Scotland. The Great Daffodil Appeal is not just a fundraising campaign, it is a symbol of unity and support by simply donating to where a daft open thousands of people across Scotland demonstrate their solidarity with ways affected by terminal illness. The body and the spirit of community supported that Scotland is renowned for, volunteers for their invaluable contributions ensure that Marie Curie can continue to offer its crucial services to those in need. In my constituency of Gercordia across Fife, Marie Curie has been saving grace to hundreds of families over the past years. In 2022-23, in Fife, Marie Curie made thousands of visits to support terminal ill patients. Marie Curie visited over 500 patients, and NHS Fife is incredible lucky that 33 Marie Curie volunteers helped me to deliver such essential services to my constituents. I hear first hand from constituents about the impact that Marie Curie has made in Gercordia. Marie Curie nurses and volunteers have been comforting presence during difficult times for many families across Fife. We have heard not just medical care but emotional support, understanding and listening ear to woes in their most vulnerable moments. I am constantly in awe of my community on the impressive fundraising efforts that are held annually across the area and our community group's rare awareness every year to support those living with terminal illness. I would like to pay tribute to them and recognise the crucial role we play in organising fundraising events and activities and helping to raise awareness. As many will be aware, NHS Fife launched a fully integrated hospice at home service run by Marie Curie and NHS Fife, which has reduced the hospital costs of end-of-care life. With Fife's larger, older population and some very rural areas, hospital admissions, whenever possible, is always an important name. Response to hospital at home in Fife has been incredible. People supported by service experience 40 per cent fewer hospital admissions and 68 per cent fewer visits to A&E and were two and a half times more likely to die in the comfort of their home. However, the cost of delivering this crucial and invaluable work is increasing year on year. Prepared by our Asian population, Marie Curie research projects at 2040 and 10,000 more people will be dying with pallidive care needs. That represents a 20 per cent increase in the demand and 90 per cent of all deaths in Scotland. The complexities of multimorbidities and significant rise in dimension-rated deaths and the shift towards community settings for end-of-life care underscores the urgent need for support and innovative solutions. Our part of care services must be fully supported to respond to rising demand, stemming from these changing demographics. That is one of the main reasons why a great daffodil appeal presents such a crucial opportunity to support one of Scotland's greatest community assets. Support garnered from the great daffodil appeal goes towards several of Marie Curie's important programmes. Hospice care at home, information and support services, in-person hospice and companion and home support are just a few extraordinary initiatives that Marie Curie provides across Scotland. In closing, I urge all of us to support the great daffodil appeal in any way we can, be it through volunteering, fundraising or simply wearing a daffodil pin. Let us unite in our efforts to provide hope, care and support to all wars in their final moments and their families. Together we can make a difference in their lives of many demonstrating the true spirit of companionship and community that defines Scotland. Thank you Mr Torrance. I call Rhoda Grant to be followed by Emma Harper and Ms Grant. I want to thank Paul Sweeney for securing this debate and also commend the work of Marie Curie and wish them well with the daffodil appeal. As well as their care services and they made 1,532 visits to areas across the NHS Highland area last year, I also want to commend their work in raising awareness of end-of-life care. Because palliative care is not help to die, it's actually help to live. When days are few, they are precious and we need to savor each and every one of them. And that shouldn't depend on a person's wealth or where they live. Marie Curie and Glasgow University's report Dying at the Margins shines a light on health inequalities that occur right through to end-of-life care. There's a 24-year difference between healthy life expectancy between those who live in our most and least deprived communities. That's why I'm proposing a right to food bill because diet is so important to health and to life expectancy and I hope that that would make a difference. Because not only are the less wealthy more likely to die younger, they're also less likely to have the facilities they need to make them comfortable. Even heat is unattainable. 94 per cent of people are concerned about terminally ill family and friends being able to pay for energy and that's simply not right at the end of life. Those living in rural areas are also far less likely to be able to access palliative care because there are very few health professionals and people live a distance from services and is often down to the dedication and goodwill of very few health professionals that allow people the ability to be cared for at the end of life and indeed choose to die at home and I pay tribute to them. Paul Sweeney highlighted the difficulties Marie Curie faced with increasing demand increasing costs and decreasing funding. They ask for funding to be put on a formal footing to cut down the time spent on negotiations for funding of care. People ask that the Scottish child payment is extended to the term liel with dependent children and this would be targeted to those in most need given the lower life expectancy of those who live in the most deprived areas. For too long the need for palliative care has been largely ignored even though most of us will need it.  It is important for a person whose life is drawing to a close to have good quality palliative care but it is also really important for their loved ones to have that support. So presiding officer good quality palliative care in a place of our choosing should be available at the end of life as should support for family and friends and we all need the right to palliative care. I now call Emma Harper who will be the last speaker in the open debate. I welcome this debate and thank Paul Swinney on securing it this afternoon. The great Daffodil appeal is one of the most iconic and recognised funders and drives of the year and people all over the country wear their yellow Daffodil badges as we are today with a sense of pride they are supporting Maricuri to deliver their world class palliative care services in our communities and their hospices. I thank all the nurses and staff and volunteers that are part of Maricuri. One of the areas of interest in this 2024 appeal is around end of life poverty and improving the financial package available for palliative care and Rhoda Grant has just laid out end of life specific heating and nutrition challenges faced by some people especially in rural areas. As a registered nurse in Parliament's Health, Social Care and Sport Committee I have an interest in our social care sector and feel passionately about ensuring we equip the sector and indeed our population for years to come. Across Scotland and internationally we are seeing people ageing better and living longer lives and whilst this is welcome it does present challenges as with age comes a greater risk of health complications and a greater need for social care support and services. At health committee we have carried out several inquiries relating to social care in Scotland and the conclusions have always had similar themes. One of the main themes is that as a society we must be smarter and better prepared to deal with our ageing population as Maricuri suggests in their briefing. The evidence shows that there must be an onus on healthcare professionals to have realistic conversations with people about their retirement. People's wishes and future care must best support them staying at home and having care that is suited to their needs. That is absolutely paramount. That is why the national care service bill is so important. Maricuri is at the forefront of pioneering research in Scotland and indeed one of Maricuri's most recent publications carried out jointly with the University of Edinburgh suggests that two thirds of Scots 66 per cent of the population will die at home, in a care home or in a hospice by 2040 and allowing more people to have the opportunity to die in a place where they choose is essential if we are to meet future care needs and reduce the demands on our acute services. However, as pointed out by Maricuri to achieve this, pallid of care must have a fair funding settlement. One of the ways that Maricuri suggests that this can be achieved is through the Scottish Government working to target of ensuring a minimal 50 per cent statutory funding for independent hospice care providers including hospice care at home. Given that across Dumfries and Galloway there were 4,359 visits made to 542 people and patients by the region's 31 dedicated Maricuri nurses I'd welcome the minister's comments on this Maricuri ask. The support from these dedicated nurses allowed 72.5 per cent of those with pallid of care and end of life needs to die in a place of their choosing. Funding is crucial to enable the support to grow to meet the future demand. It is welcome that across south Scotland Maricuri have seven shops raising funds as well as over 896 volunteers. There are shops in Stranraer, Newton Stuart, Dumfries and a supporters group in Lockerby. I'm visiting the Dumfries shop with Maricuri leadership a week on Monday and I look forward to continuing to support their work. Presiding Officer, in closing I would again like to welcome this debate and congratulate and thank Maricuri for the fantastic work that they do day in, day out to support those requiring end of life and pallid of care and of course their friends and families. Thank you. Thank you Ms Harper. I now call on Minister Jenny Minto to respond to the debate. I too would like to thank Paul Sweeney for bringing this motion for this debate and also to everyone in the chamber for their contributions. I'd also like to welcome the Maricuri team that have joined us in the gallery and I'm sure you will when you go back catch the beginning of the debate on the Scottish Parliament website. The First Minister sat beside me to listen to Paul's opening speech and he said to me that this is a matter close to his heart and I think it's probably fair to say that the work that Maricuri do is close to everyone in this chamber's heart and I think Emma Harper is absolutely correct when she talks about the iconic daffodil. When I was home on Islay last weekend I had some daffodils out at the back of my house and the first thing I thought of was Maricuri so I think you get into the public consciousness very well. I'm sure members will remember in December we stood together in this chamber and celebrated Maricuri's 75th anniversary and it has been an amazing 75 years. Maricuri staff and volunteers have pioneered palliative and end-of-life care to become a significant health and social care partner providing invaluable support to people and their families at the most challenging points in their life as well as supporting other health and social care services and teams delivering palliative and end-of-life care. It is that friendly, familiar support that Gillian Mackay noted. Many colleagues across the chamber have also reflected how much Maricuri means to them personally. There is broad scope and reach of Maricuri's work and why it is so important. Both Alexander Stewart and David Torrance talked about the companionship and community which is reflected in their communities and their constant work that they do to raise funds. I think that I'd be remiss if I didn't recognise the work of the local Maricuri fundraising teams from my own constituency across Argyll and Butte. I would like to give them my personal thanks for their tireless fundraising work. The work that Maricuri and volunteers do day in and day out is often in extremely trying circumstances and it is as others have reflected are really important and in some respects a no mean feat. That's why I'd like to thank all Maricuri staff and volunteers in Scotland for their unending hard work and also for taking the time to be here today. Thank you. As Liam McArthur said, we all have a stake in this. In preparing for this debate I was drawn back to the Maricuri quote I shared during the 75th anniversary debate in December. Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more so that we may fear less. I feel that that is particularly poignant today given the subjects being raised and the ones that we have discussed from Paul Sweeney's motion. During the debate in December I spoke about the round table that I convened earlier that month with health and social care partnership chief officers and independent hospices and noted that those who had participated had welcomed the frank and open dialogue. Since then I have visited St Andrew's hospice in North Lanarkshire to hear about the care they provide and the challenges they are facing around inequalities. I know that my officials are continuing to meet hospices and chief officers to discuss the draft guidance framework to support more consistent local planning and commissioning of independent hospice care and I hope that we can resolve some of the challenges through working in partnership as Maricuri has called for. Paul Sweeney's motion highlights the increased need and complexity of palliative care projected by Maricuri research up to 2040 as well as the financial challenges faced by those nearing the end of life. Like many colleagues in this chamber last year I visited the cost of dying photographic exhibition which illustrates the impact of socioeconomic circumstances of end of life experiences and like Paul Sweeney very much touched by the poignant images displayed alongside the participants harrowing stories. I was inspired by the courage and strength of the individuals in sharing their stories during such a difficult time in their lives. We recognise that too many people are living in poverty which is why we are committed to breaking the cycle of poverty in Scotland. We are providing more support for social justice than ever before and we are putting on social security benefits forecasts to increase by nearly £1 billion in 2024-25. Further to this. Paul Sweeney. I thank the minister for giving way and for making such a constructive response to the debate. I wonder if she might consider the opportunity to improve the obligations on landlords in forthcoming housing legislation to perhaps ensure that they assist more readily people in terms of their own illness in adapting their home so that they can stay there in otherwise situations where they might end up in hospital. Minister. I thank Paul Sweeney for that intervention and recognise exactly the story from the cost of dying exhibition that he infers to there. I will continue to have discussions with the housing minister with regards to this so happy to raise exactly that. Further, we continue to support free welfare, debt and income maximisation advice services with funding over £12.3 million. Being diagnosed with a terminal illness is undoubtedly one of the most challenging things that a person can go through. No terminally ill person or their family should have to worry about their finances at such a difficult time and that's why this Government ensures that adult disability benefit applications from people with a terminal illness are fast tracked to provide them with the support they are entitled to as quickly as possible. We also I'd like to continue. We and I'll take it once I've finished this section if that's okay Mr MacArthur. We also ensure that those who are terminally ill automatically receive the highest rates of assistance they are entitled to with no award reviews. They are eligible for this support right away with no qualifying period. I welcomed the debate on dying in the margins and had a really helpful follow-up meeting with Mary Curie and the University of Glasgow in which I committed to bringing the issues raised to a future ministerial oversight group on poverty. This is another area where we need to work in partnership to understand the impact of poverty at such a difficult time in people's lives. Liam McArthur. Can I thank the minister and echo Paul Suni's comments on the constructive response to the debate? A lot of the issues she's touched on will undoubtedly be in the updated action plan on palliative care and end-of-life care. I wonder whether there was an update on when that revised plan, updated plan, might be ready. Minister. Through the new palliative care strategy which we are currently developing, perfect timing, we are prioritising work on future care planning looking at what information is available, the systems that are in place and what can be done to promote the use of the planning across Scotland. The Scottish Government is proud to be working with Mary Curie and the hospice sector across Scotland to build a new palliative end-of-life care strategy that we anticipate will be published for consultation in spring this year. I was thinking what might be helpful given the collaborative nature across the chamber and I will try to arrange a briefing for MSPs prior to that launch as well. We have all agreed a shared aim that everyone in Scotland receives well-coordinated, timely and high quality palliative care around death and bereavement support based on their needs and preferences including support for families and carers. We also have a shared principle that we are committed to equitable and timely access to general palliative care and specialist palliative care services as needed by each person of any age living with any illness in all places. As Carol Mocken said, working together to find solutions.  Thank you Minister and I would like to take this opportunity to thank members for their co-operation in recognising in their contributions the time constraints operating under this lunchtime. With that I conclude the debate. I suspend this meeting until 2pm. Thank you.