Have you ever wondered why the cost of liberty is eternal vigilance? A profound question, isn't it? This is a concept that has been passed down through the ages. A powerful assertion that rings as true today as it did centuries ago. In the historical tapestry of human civilization, the words, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, weave a compelling narrative. This quote, often attributed to Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States, has been a rallying cry for those advocating for freedom and democracy throughout history. However, the first known usage of this phrase was actually from Irish politician John Philpot Curran, who spoke these words during a speech in Dublin in 1790. In the context of Curran's time, the quote was a stark reminder of the need to constantly safeguard the hard-earned freedoms from the encroachment of tyranny. In a world where power was often seized and maintained by force, vigilance was the only defense against the erosion of liberty. Fast forward to the 21st century, the relevance of this quote has not diminished, rather it has evolved. Today the threats to liberty are not just physical but also digital. In an era of data breaches and cyber warfare, the concept of eternal vigilance extends to the protection of our privacy and personal information. The video delves into the historical context of this quote and its relevance today, exploring how the concept of eternal vigilance has evolved over time. It explores the idea that liberty in its many forms requires constant protection and vigilance from safeguarding civil liberties to protecting digital privacy. The video also highlights how these words have been used as a rallying cry for various movements, from the fight for independence in the 18th and 19th centuries, to the struggle for civil rights in the 20th century. It also discusses how in the digital age, these words remind us of the need to safeguard our personal information and privacy in the face of increasing cyber threats. The video concludes with a reflection on the enduring relevance of this quote. It emphasizes that while the forms of threats to liberty may change, the need for vigilance remains constant, whether it's standing up for civil liberties, advocating for transparency in government or protecting personal data online. The price of liberty truly is eternal vigilance. In essence, the video is a journey through history and into the present day, exploring the enduring relevance of a quote that has shaped the discourse on liberty for over two centuries. It serves as a reminder that the preservation of liberty in all its forms requires constant vigilance, a timeless message that is as relevant today as it was in 1790.


Good morning. You are with the Vermont House Government Operations Committee. We are continuing our consideration of S-124. Today we have a couple of municipal chiefs of police to talk with us about their perspectives on the various aspects of the bill. And so first off we have the newly minted chief of police of Montpelier, Vermont. So thanks for coming all the way to our Zoom room. Thank you so much for the opportunity to be here. I'm honored and humbled. So we have various aspects of S-124 that we would like to hear from local law enforcement on because we recognize that some of these reforms when fully implemented will hit differently on smaller departments than on larger departments or the Vermont State Police. So we would love to hear any thoughts that you have to share on on the various aspects of the bill. Okay, I sincerely again thank you very much for the opportunity it was it's a it's a it's a lengthy bill so I guess I would I can start in with some general thoughts, if I may. And then then if there are any specific questions I can answer in relation to any of the topics I would definitely can definitely do that as well. In regards to overall I think that what I've found since I've been here is that the culture here in the within the institution of policing in the state of Vermont is making it on board with 21st century policing concepts and that's that's very encouraging that it's that's we're trying to be proactive and moving forward in this direction we just want to do it in a very smart way. So that that's given me a lot of it's it's given me a lot of faith and confidence that that our institution will will implement the changes that we need to do. So, in looking at data collection requirements that I think, from my understanding we have to primary case and records management systems which are Valkor, and spillman, and that each one of those systems has from my understanding of both has the flexibility to build in points in which this data needs to be collected, but it's. So the question is what data needs to is want to be collected and then just to make sure so that data is captured. You make it so that it's just it's a mandatory field to be to be put in. I think with smaller locations that may not be able to afford these these systems if there are some that don't have them that gives more opportunity to gather this data that you otherwise may not have and more rural locations. If the state were able to help that agency in getting those case and records management systems and that would be that would give you more opportunity to collect the data to mandate that data. Regarding to dispatch fees I understand that this has been. This has been an issue that's been this the state has been trying to work through. I do know that and talking to some of my peers and meeting them. They're like everyone else is dealing with fiscal restraints. It's it's it's difficult for them but then I understand the burden that it's putting on, for example, like state police and doing dispatch services. So, I think some of the things that here that are outlined in the bill. Some of them are, you know, thought well, but I would have to probably defer to anyone, especially in the more rural locations to see how for their specific input for that. And then allowing non law enforcement members, I think, I think civilian oversight is the crux of what government should be. And so I believe that there should be definite civilian oversight that there should be definite civilian involvement. And I'm not. It depends because it's there are two in my perspective you already have an elected officials in each town or in each city that is that are responsible ultimately for they have the direct control. If anything happens within that agency, they may not have the control, you know, or the opportunity to if you have a like a direct oversight board that the only thing they're responsible for is police discipline and, and strategic planning and and everything else above how can they be held liable they have no control over the department if it's given to a another board that's not elected. So I think that there, there definitely needs to be civilian involvement in law enforcement and moving forward and strategic planning, but I'm not sure if direct civilian oversight control is going to be fair to anyone who has been elected constituent elected by the constituency and who is held accountable to the people rather than a board that may be appointed that that may not be. And I think in regards to, there's a lot in here that talks about training and talks about certification. Vermont, coming here again was a was a breath of fresh air and how the, the, there were there were more times culture was emphasized over everything else it was the foundation of this is what we do in Vermont. This is how we police this is mutual respect this is dignity, and then everything else is built on that so when we talk about use of force, we talk about those things personal stories were being shared again like putting adult based learning practices like how would you want, what officer do you want to respond when your families in crisis that's the officer you need to be when you show up. So that was I was extremely impressed with what the Academy was doing but they're the resources there are. They're they're a little far for you in between for what they have to operate with which is concerning because if you don't establish a strong base if you don't, don't invest in that foundation. So everything else afterward is just going to, it's going to be trash in trash out respectfully. But those these types of things have to also be weighed with adult again adult based learning practices that I think there are younger folks who are able to do things like devote 18 or 16 weeks to come down to the Academy but then there are older Americans who have a higher emotional intelligence base who have lived experiences and who may be able to interact and deescalate more. And so, you know, you also want that mix of experience of life experience and police agencies as well. Can these folks who maybe single parents come to the Academy come all the way down south, and then then learn. So, so looking at adult based learning techniques looking at how do you, if there are community colleges or their other learning institutions that folks can go to a CJ program, get specific training in, in coordination with the Academy, what the requirements can do something like an ROTC type of program that every weekend or these different weekends you come down and then you learn, you know, the the other aspect the hands on aspect of use of force of firearms training or just that that personal interaction and understanding that culture of service and first response. So I think that just that flexibility will also allow for for more for a different cadre of officers coming into the Academy that can bring different life experiences. So it's, it's, it's very hopeful, I think, and that way shape or form. And then there's also looking at for like, like team to team to is great. It's, it's, it's working with everything that we can possibly work with with the resources that are available in the, in the state I personally haven't gone through it yet, but I've spoken to folks here in Washington County Mental Health, Gary Gordon, and, and I think that it's a phenomenal plan but I would like to take that up personally in my period we're going to take that up another notch and we're going to bring in actually a CIT program. And once we establish that CIT program we're going to open it up for all law enforcement agencies again and understanding the fiscal constraints that we as a state and all agencies are facing. We're going to try to do this for free and just bring in officers so the more people we can train and crisis intervention and de-escalation, the better I think our entire state will be especially since that law enforcement officers here have statewide jurisdiction. And I'm sorry if I'm all over the board, but if there are any specific questions, I would would be stand ready to answer them. Thank you, I appreciate your, your touching on a few different parts of the bill I suspect there will be some questions for you. Jim Harrison has a question. Thank you chair, and thank you chief for joining us this morning and a related welcome to our capital. So, we wish you the best. You talked a little bit about civilian oversight, and I'm wondering if you could elaborate what might be the appropriate boundaries of civilian oversight. Yeah, in the sense that right now, I assume you were hired by the and I don't know how Montpelier is set up I assume you were hired by the Montpelier City Council.  And if they don't like your performance, they two years from now they'll hire somebody else. And that, you know, tell you who to hire and fire and do other things other than approve your budget so what, what, what more should we be doing in terms of civilian oversight. I think, well, in Montpelier, one of the things that we've that we're looking to institute is going to be a strategic planning committee is going to be getting the community involved with the, with the issues, especially that have been highlighted recently within the problems of our institution, which there are some. There are a lot. There's a lot of work in proactively for them but with what with this with the strategic partnership that represents especially traditionally marginalized communities. That's going to help the police department and developing and adopting policies and programs and changing I think the biggest thing is changing culture. And that immersion and that knowing that that kind of forces us to get out there and be part of that community because the dangers of law enforcement is one of them is developing that us versus them mentality. And if we force ourselves to get out there into the community and realize that these are the people that we serve these are the people that we love and these are the people that we're, we're, we have to, you know, the guardianship mentality. I think that having that that partnership will will bring us all closer together. And then when we're looking at things like we want to increase diversity within our ranks to be, you know, solid representation of our communities. How do how are we doing that are we still just putting out ads in the newspaper or just on indeed or we actually partnering with like for example Montpelier the rainbow coalition of central Vermont. And asking them and tapping their resources and their membership and saying hey is there anybody here in the organization that wants to join the police department so again we can have that diverse representation so I think that with with having those partnerships and, and then having these these groups. It just brings about more of an opportunity. But if, if I think one of the essential elements and doing that is each understanding the others point of view. We need to immerse ourselves and learn more about other communities again the vulnerable populations, for example, the unique problems that people who are maybe coming out to their family and the family doesn't accept it then what does that look like afterwards is that does that relate to truancy issues that relate to alcoholism and drug use. Does that relate to you know, running away from home. We need to when we understand the plights that what people have been going through in their lives it's easier for us to look at things and not not a judicial perspective and putting people in this, the criminal justice system, but finding the resources to get them the help that they need and in return. We also need to educate the public on what our job is and the dangers that we face so it's not as simple as one of the biggest things that I hear all the time is, when you use force, why can't you just use mine the arm of the leg why you have to. That's it's not that easy so how do we bring that education and that experience to them so everybody has a very good understanding of what each other should be doing rather than making assumptions of what the other side, other side should be doing. I appreciate that explanation, but I'm wondering if, you know, if I assume Montpelier doesn't have a police commissioned I may be wrong. But if you did and you had a community group, you could have some of those conversations, which might be helpful to both sides understanding your job and how you need to do it. And their concerns in terms of what they perceive as your interaction so any I don't I don't know the answer to this I'm just fishing for information. Thank you. Thank you sir. How Colston. Thank you madam chair, and thank you chief for sharing your thoughts about this bill. I have a follow up with representative Harrison's questioning around civilian oversight.  So what could that look like so that there's a there's an equal sharing of power, because it all comes down to power. And if civilians who have a lived experience, whether it's positive or negative with law enforcement, how can their voice have equal weight with the elected officials who are directly responsible for for for your performance. I think that that's that there are provisions built into the current system to make sure that does happen. It's just going to be a matter of whether they're acting in my humble opinion acted upon by the elected officials that if my if my performance is not up to enough, if it is not satisfactory then I believe that they're going to make their voices heard through through my boss so we do not as representative Harrison had alluded to my period does not have a police commission, and that who hired me was the was Bill Frazier who's our city manager with me going through various panels which included several with members of the community. But I think that that that's baked into the current formula. If my performance is not up to snuff so my expectations were laid out by by bill of that community involvement. But I but in regards to if you don't have a system like that that's already set up or if it's, you know, more of a traditional way. I think that what that should look like is. That's a very tough question. It's a very legitimate question I think it's something I think our again our institution is struggling with but I think that that oversight and it needs to happen in the way that. So in President Obama's and I'm sorry I'm if I'm fluctuating here so so looking at the six pillars of 21st century policing when we talk about legitimacy legitimacy boils down into. We don't have power and it's understanding we as a police department don't have power and I think that what's going on in the nation right now proves that no, no society is going to allow you to police them if they don't trust you. It's if you're not setting that example and I think that that cause being heard now more than ever. So if you have an agency with a respectfully I'm speaking for Brian Pete with with dinosaur type concepts that just says okay we're going to maintain an isolation type of thing. And we're the police we're here to protect you and we know how to do it best without getting that input in that bind from the public it's incumbent upon the public to say, we demand a different type of strategy we demand somebody who's going to be collaborative and who's going to come in here, and who's going to speak with us and who's going to do that so I would say it would be incumbent upon that that local jurisdiction to say these are the cultures and the values of what we want our police chief because, and this is what we want to do and these are part of the conditions in which this person should be should come on board. Maybe in pushing for that type of thing. The state can again dangled those carrots and saying if you adopt this type of, you know, we're looking at giving funding in these areas if you have a department that does have a collaborative relationship with this community and not just saying oh we meet and we do coffee with a cop because that's just that's honestly just checking off the box. We actually have established groups, we actually have you know this is how this is their input into the policy, and then those groups that do that we have those establishments or relationships with part of that grant thing could be it's like okay well I want to see you know Pete you know you do a talked up a real good game. So you just implemented this real this strategic advisory group in Montpelier. I want that group to issue me a letter saying what your relationships that is like. I don't think about giving you state funding. So I think that in using that care type of approach will probably facilitate that change, because it's going to be dangerous mandating. This is a one size solution fits all because what works in Burlington is probably not going to work in Montpelier what works in Montpelier probably will definitely not work and with what's going on in in very city. So, but I think just finding out what that solution is going to be and just pushing people to that culture. So good. This is just off the cuffs are. Thank you. I appreciate that. Yes. All right, next I have Bob looper with a question. Good morning. Say hello to Tim to because I'm running out the door, but one of the things that's happening in Burlington is the push and shove of civilian oversight. And my question is pretty concrete in both your municipalities does the civilian oversight extend to the city council, you were hired by a town manager but the city council actually approve the changes to the police officers contract on a regular basis. As far as the police officers contract I think that's negotiated between the police union and the city itself. And city council has input in. I believe that they do I'd have to talk to Bill Frazier about that one but I'm pretty sure that bills looking at looking at from the interest of the city and then bringing it back possibly for many feedback from the council as needed. That's my assumption sir. Okay, thank you. I'll pick up Tim's answer later and I'm out of here for a while. Thank you. John. Thank you. And thank you, chief P for testifying this morning. I'm going to focus on section 10a of s 124 of it. That's the section that makes a number of recommendations about various policies from models of civilian oversight to reporting allegations of law enforcement misconduct to access to complaint information body cameras military equipment. And, and just for your opinion, what group should be involved in recommending the General Assembly. Various policies, so that we have inclusion. I think every group. I think the, I think everyone who everyone every stakeholder but especially specifically those of that those of whatever specific community that that this is going to involve. Everyone should be at the table to discuss and to me the problem has been trying to get everyone to to sit down with each other and instead of playing the gotcha games, trying to come up with with real life solutions to everything. There are a lot of good points, I think that are in this bill. But I think the danger comes into just making sure that it's flexible enough. It allows room for, for whatever specific town or city to implement what's going to be best for them. So I think going into the weeds too much would be dangerous, but just keeping it a broad overview is to the culture that you want to establish that culture of inclusion would be the best bet. Would you be concerned if the Department of Public Safety was dictating all these policies to local law enforcement. Maybe I'd be concerned if it got down into the weeds again, I'm going to learn what's going to be best and what the expectations are of the people of mob healing. But I think that it's again it will be dangerous for them. I'm going to look at at the commission to tell me what are best practices this is what I have can you tell me if it's if it meets the culture of it meets the guidelines that meets the spirit of what we're trying to do here in our month, but going directly down to when we talk about day to day operations there are certain things that I'm going to need the flexibility to do that I might not get if I'm getting somebody else's policy that I have to adopt it here. I'm going to be accountable to my people and I'm going to be held to the standard of that's not going to work here. Thank you. Yes. All right, committee any other questions for chief Pete. I'm going to stick around with us for a few minutes, because I expect there may be other folks who have questions for you after we hear from Barry police chief bombardier. So I hope you can hang out with us for a few more minutes. I've got Warren Kitzmiller who would like to say a few words and Warren your, your hand is up, but you're okay there we go. Now I can hear you. I'm sorry I got drawn away I had a peter knocking on my door for a second there. I don't have a question for the chief I just wanted to recognize that you're there with us and say thank you very much for being here today. It's good to see you. Thank you sir you as well. Yeah. All right. So, chief bombardier, please share with us your perspective on the bill. Good morning everybody thanks for asking me to come for me on the zoom meeting. There's a lot in here. I think chief Pete hit the nail on the head when he said there's a lot in here, but I want to kind of start where chief Pete left off in the conversation of civilian oversight. We have a new committee here in very city. I first came here and for folks that don't know me I've been in law enforcement in Vermont for 40 years now. I was state police for 26 years and change in the last 12 years. 12 here and one in St. Albans so 40 years. We have a lot of civilian oversight civilian input. I think we have a good model at the state level with SPAC, and a mixture of individuals sitting on SPAC to advise the commissioner of public safety. That same model with some tweaking could be done in a regional model. We have a three person police department. And you have 2400 people in your village or 1200 people in your village. You're not going to have the resources to have a robust oversight committee. And if it's too small you're not really going to get the viewpoint of everybody in your community. And more importantly, you're not going to get the viewpoint from people that visit etc.  And a lot of times if it's a real small area. Most everybody's like minded, and you're not getting the differences of opinion and input. I think you need to take care of everybody who comes to your area. A regional model that was supported financially for at least a few positions at the top could work in Vermont. You could have civilian input from multiple jurisdictions and have the same advisory function that SPAC has. I'm very familiar with SPAC. I was the director of internal affairs for the state police and the SPAC model works. Both when it comes to police allegations of police misconduct and how the commissioner doles out punishment or corrective action. It also is a good resource for input of how to make changes. When I first came to Barrie I had a small group of Barrie individuals that I trusted to tell me what was going on in the community and we met quite regularly but that kind of went by the wayside when a lot of the problems got addressed that I was given input for. So I think there's a need for an advisory committee. One of the representatives asked about the sharing of power. I don't think that went very well. I mean that's the advisory role and the way our things are written now that's what our thing is, is advisory to the council. But there's mechanisms in council in place at the council level that as Chief Pete mentioned that if they don't like my performance, they can get rid of me. And they should be listening to their constituents. They should be listening to an advisory council made up of different individuals within our community. I think if you throw a cast a bigger net and you look at a regional model, you also help support those smaller departments and those smaller communities that don't have the resources and the people to put such a group together and to really get input from a wide variety of individuals and differences of opinions. So I think a model similar to SPAC with a regional approach that was advisory that could act as a sounding board for the citizens and also for the police chiefs. Police chiefs need sounding boards. I have people within the community that I call to say, am I still within the tracks, or am I going too far one way or the other. I think it's something we definitely need. And it's, we don't really have to reinvent the wheel we have to look what's around and do it differently. I don't think it's a start from scratch type model. Let's talk about all the rules and different tweaking in here. There needs to be some consistency with major things from department to department. So that your expectations when a police officer rolls up, regardless of what they're wearing for a uniform is the same. There are other things that we have for policies and procedures here in Barry, that cheek Pete might not necessarily need, or Berlin might not necessarily need, and we have 30 something neighborhood watches here. Berlin doesn't need something like that. You have to look at the individual communities and you have to kind of cast a larger net, but not try to catch everything down to the micro managing point of things to keep it simple with an overview. Hit on the major areas of concerns, the major areas of input. And go and go from there. I think there's a model that could be some municipalities have actually drafted one and distributed to bake up the Vermont Association of Chiefs of Police. So I know that's going to surface here soon. Talk about resources within the community and what's out there and getting people help. Because the reality is that's what most of law enforcement is, is about is helping people. Yes, we arrest people we guess we give people tickets. But if you looked at the majority of the calls even people we arrest, we try to get them to help and resource navigation. When I look in central Vermont there are 60 something resource providers for things that a lot of people take for granted like a roof over your head food, financial support, or training, you know, like net basic needs and navigating those resources is a task and a half. People get sent in different directions, and a lot of people throw their hands up in the air. That's something that's not available to every community. And it's a public safety function to make sure people are taken care of on that needs to be more robust with regards to looking at where the duplications of efforts are and making sure that people don't have a rat needs to navigate to get, get the help they need. The same thing with other services involving mental health and substance abuse people get the help, but it's always not a direct route and they end up. Using the police departments and emergency services as their first avenue to get in the system, which we are not supposed to be people's first group of individuals to get services. Looking at the, yeah, looking at the part about alternate approaches to certification for to get to level three. I think if we had had this conversation five years ago, I would have been more resistant to that. But I also hear Chief Pete about the alternate things that if, if done right and get there. And I'm also realizing with the struggles that the Academy is going through now. With staffing and with COVID restrictions that there needs to be alternate methods out there to get good qualified certified level three officers. I like the concept that Brian throughout about an ROTC actor for the hands on part like a two or three week portion to do the hands on and I think that's something that the committee should look at supporting and when I say supporting that also includes supporting the Academy with regards to making that happen. Data collection. Data collection needs to be easier for the officers. I mean you look at what we require our officers to do and what expertise they're supposed to have. Anything we can do to make their job easier with regards to that and also one of my big concerns with the data is duplication of data so that the information that we're giving out is skewed and it doesn't take into consideration things. Like, one, one individual and I'm going back and I think it was 16 or 17. We have one individual in town they've got arrested like five times in a month happened to be a person of power, but persons lived here all their life. They're known to every police officer. They're called by first name and vice versa, and the person was criminally suspended. That skews the numbers in a community like very city. So those kind of things, multiple tickets on a stop getting getting counted. Data collection systems need to take those things into account so that we have the best data possible when making decisions. Both in how our officers are conducting themselves and what we're going to do for, you know, problem areas because we also use our data for problem areas, etc. Not just the race data. So looking at that, there needs to be to be consistency there between the two systems. In a perfect world we would have one system statewide. It would be under public safety and all the information would be in one spot and everybody be doing the same thing. Rather than picking and choosing. I have a lot of our issues is the inconsistencies. And I've worked with both systems filming and balking. The dispatching thing, right. That is a hot potato. To say the least. Again in a perfect world I think it would be a public safety function at the state level. I think it would be a public safety function with regional dispatches, but we know that these conversations have gone on for as long as I've been a police officer and the smaller communities that are struggling with financial issues and have been getting dispatching for free. Don't really have the money to do that. If you're a very city resident and you're looking at what our dispatch center costs or my failures dispatch center costs. You have citizens saying, well, why don't we get anything from the state for this because we're paying for dispatching for other people. So that's a hot potato. I like to see some level a level playing field for everybody. And I'm not sure that that's an argument I want to be in the middle of. Oh, candidly, I agree with you on that. I can identify with that. Do you have time for a question here. Oh sure I got plenty of time. Okay, so how Colston has a question. Thank you madam chair and thank you chief for sharing your wisdom and your 40 years of service. I have two questions. You talk about SPAC as a very successful model. Can you be more specific about why that is. And then my other question is, you mentioned that there was an effort to share power in terms of civilian oversight. And it didn't work. And I wanted to know why did it not work. Okay, I'll answer the first one. The first question. So the SPAC model, my exposure to SPAC has been ongoing for, you know, 26 years. I really got to know more of the details of the state police advisory committee. It has a mix of individuals from the community. They're there for the commissioner and the colonel. They re they review all the internal affairs investigations. They're presented to them at monthly or bimonthly meetings. I'm not sure what their meeting is now. But by the director of internal affairs, they get to ask questions. They get to have input with regards to where this is going. In regards to discipline. They also act as a sounding board for the commissioner. When you have incidents or concerns brought to the department. There's also an there's an educational piece there between the police and the civilians and the commissioner. And it's a two way street. I can remember incidents of talking to SPAC and having to go through use of force policies and levels of force use what was acceptable and not acceptable. As it was based to what the impression was versus what actually happened and educating SPAC and having members of SPAC being backing what the decisions are made and having that input. Just it seems to work. And I think on a regional model for SPAC that it could work.  And I think I think it's got potential. My interaction with SPAC wasn't always, you know, we didn't always agree. But everybody was respectful. Everybody took input and help the commissioner and the colonels make their decisions on how they were going to do things, whether it was a new policy and procedure, whether it was a new special team, whether it was discipline. And I think that outside input from outside the department is a positive thing. With regards to, I don't think I said there was an incident. I think I said, I can see some pressures with an elected official group and an advisory committee or oversight committee bumping heads. And I've already seen the conversation being going that, well, the rules say your advisory only. You can call yourself what you want, but the rules say your advisory only. So I've already seen that going on just in conversations here. So I imagine that's going to happen in other places. And there's a recourse for people if they don't like what their city officials do.  So I think there's there's avenues to deal with that. Thank you. All right, I don't see any other committee members with questions were there any other aspects of the bill that you wanted to share your thoughts with us on. Just let me look here real quick. More more of a comment. The issue of cameras. I personally think body cameras are a great thing. They are also an expensive thing. And we have, we have some serious limitations with regards to when and where we can't use them. We need we we being as a state need to find good hard rules with things like storage, where we're going to get the money form access to storage, etc. We had cameras in the cruisers here, and they died to replace them was tens of thousands of dollars, and they really weren't where my officers needed video.  And that creates a problem. But, and they're not that they're not the end all answered to everything, but they are another tool and another valuable resource. Questions from committee members. All right, so Chief Pete, I wanted to just come back to you and see if the if this conversation or any of the questions have sparked any more thoughts. Yes ma'am thank you so very very much there just three and I'll just be brief. In regards to in section 10 again I believe that there's a line that says after consulting with the Secretary of State the Human Rights Commission the American Civil Liberties Union, and other interesting parties I think that's, that's a great start because that does talk about that inclusivity about who should have that seat at the table. But I think one of the other mandates that should, especially when when talking about request for body worn camera footage and recommendations for timelines. I think that it should probably be also the state's attorneys included in that because they're going to see it's not just going to be like for example if there is misconduct or a lawsuit that stems from an officer's performance or behavior. It's also going to be the state's attorneys are going to also have a very good idea on what they've seen in law about how long footage should be retained. And also the, I did have a concern in personally coming here to Vermont. I've been through the federal law enforcement training center, Chicago Police Academy within the state, and then I also had certification New Mexico. But when I came here pretty much every bit of training that I had is, I have to go through even more lengthy certification by waiver process I think that there's difficulty in attracting officers who may want to come to this beautiful state. But the process is kind of convoluted and it doesn't take into consideration the experiences or other additional trainings that the other other officers may have so it's much more difficult. Like I have to have 20, 120 hours of training of on the job training from somebody who have more than likely been law enforcement, you know, twice the time they have and they're going to teach me about traffic stops and everything so I get it. I get the you know we got to do things the way that's, you know that the state requires us to do, but I think there needs to be more flexibility into what carries over for certification. And then the last thing is, and looking at, I would think you may want to look at language that talks about early warning systems as well. So when you're, I think the spirit of what some of this is talking about with data collections when you're looking at things like road stops when you're looking to say okay which officers have stopped people of color. And if, if we're seeing officers who are having a combination of complaints, a combination of you know, this is the same officer that's giving you know when they're stopping somebody of color. They're giving eight tickets instead of when they're stopping somebody else are giving one. So these types of early warning systems, these. Those are things that can be, you know, I think that when you talk about a regionalized effort and gathering that those data system points. You probably want to hit on early warning systems, and you would probably talk to the commissioner. Because I think my chilling has probably has a very good grasp of what's going to what are the indicators that you're looking for it so it's not just data it's not to me it's, we're taking one foot one step forward saying, we want collection data on traffic stops and, and, and what the, you know, who we're stopping people of color and everything. I think the next step is finding out, you know, specifically, what are the trends in these traffic stops and then using those towards early warning systems because that also goes towards the trailer of policing 21st century policing is officer wellness. We're seeing things that, you know, if performance is plummeting at work and they're having problems at home, that's going to translate into other areas so these early warning systems also helps you identify the bad actors who nobody wants, but it also helps you identify the people who are crying for help. So with everything that's in this bill, I would also beg. Personal standpoint, I would beg you to put something in here that talks about what we're going to do for officer wellness and officer and officer health. That that's I think is is crucial because we're we're getting hammered. And we're dealing with the sins of our of our profession. No doubt about it there there have been sins, but there are some people who are struggling in this career that also need your help. And they need the ability to get counseling they need the ability for advanced EAP they need check well being checks. They need everything because if you can help them get their home life and their personal life in order you're going to have an officer that's going to come out there and they're going to bust it but for the citizenry so I would implore you to also look at something like that as well. Thank you so much. So I appreciate you bringing that up because that has been sort of a consistent nagging worry in in my heart as we've been talking about police reform and particularly as we've been talking about the details of some of the instances of use of force that you know it just cries out to me that untreated PTSD could could very well result in somebody having an outsized reaction to to a threat that that might actually cause an escalation of use of force instead of a de-escalation and so you know Vermont was one of the first states to pass a mandate that PTSD coverage be be included explicitly in in workers comp coverage. I understand from conversations that I've had with some folks who have tried to access PTSD coverage. Not in the law enforcement community but in the in the fire community that they have found it really difficult to to actually get coverage for the counseling that they need to help them work through their trauma and and that's very disturbing and and hopefully we can get to the bottom of of where those barriers are because when the legislature passed this bill two years ago, we intended very clearly that there would be there would be a presumption of it being work related. And so that that officer or that firefighter or that EMS person could get the coverage they are the counseling they need. Thank you ma'am. Thank you so very much. I was really proud when I saw that back in Chicago. If I also may touch that again the dispatchers as well and are dealing with that and one of part of part of since we're talking about police culture. One of the things that literally kills us within our culture is is that that officers are afraid they think that if I come up and I say I'm having problems. I lose my gun I lose my job. And that's forcing people to come through and if and if and again like as we're looking at laws and policies to to push our culture change in our profession. So that part of that should be making sure that police leaders like myself, take care of the people were charged to oversee. And so that when we when when there are fitness for duties. We do fitness for duty assessments or when someone comes forward of their own accord that we have protections for that person to get better. Because, because everybody in our career feels pretty much operating with PTSD so we can do this job correctly but nobody should be afraid to think that if I save I have a weakness that I'm going through something, then I'm going to lose my job for that just makes a difference for everybody and then, then the, the, the second part of that one. Again, I'm sorry I lost my train of thought. But the second, the other thing I would also encourage is when we're talking about the duty to report and duty to intervene that we also put in whistleblower protections that the state protects those people because, again, in organizations I haven't seen it since I've been here but I've only been here a little short amount of time but there are cultures that are going to be out there that if I say something. I'm going to get ostracized by my career I've seen it in Chicago I've seen in other places that if I report that person. I mean, look at Minneapolis. I'm afraid that if I do something say something about somebody who has seniority. So what are their protections as well. So I think that the state should also consider whistleblower protections that that will protect people who do come forward internally as well. Thanks. I appreciate that. So, when you started talking about early warning systems I saw chief bombardier not his head. And so that tells me that a he's, he's identifying with that but, but, but be the con the, the, the title early warning systems doesn't really relate to me so chief bombardier if you would help us with a little context on what an early warning system is I mean that sounds to me like a for weather phenomena but tell me how it applies to law enforcement. And I kind of got off on a tangent when we were talking about SPAC and community oversight and I forgot one of the other portions of what I've been talking to the Chiefs Association about with a regionalized oversight advisory committee and internal investigations within police departments. Early warning systems as they're connected to that guardian tracking is what the state police are using to track that it tracks complaints against officers, there's some built in components that if officer Smith or officer Jones keeps getting these little, what would end up being miscellaneous complaints. You know, after X miscellaneous complaints, it generates a warning that something else may be going on. It may not, but it might be in and it gives the administration and supervisors. A chance to look at what's what if any are underlying things that are causing these miscellaneous complaints. We talked about SPAC model regionally but also one of the things and that smaller departments have suffered from, in my opinion. In Vermont is when complaints do come in, how they get investigated. Internal complaints have always been investigated by outside agencies. Most of the time state police detectives from another area of the state, but investigations in house when you're a five person police department. Get put people on edge after a while, Sergeant Jones can only investigate patrol officer Smith. Five or six times before there's some built in tension there. And along with an oversight a regional approach to oversight or advisory civilian advisory component would also be a regionalized internal affairs investigation component with trained investigators and they don't have to be detectives, usually more senior officers have good investors investigative skills from the different agencies in the region. And then a supervisor over them, and then a director over that who would be present. And the director and the supervisors along with the chiefs of any municipality would be going to the advisory committee and going over all the internals, so that you had that extra layer outside look at things. I've got a draft written up of actually giving it to Commissioner Schroerling and the chiefs association of a type of oversight and internal investigations based on a regional model involving all municipalities with larger ones having the ability opt out.  So that early warning system. If, if you're a department that's got the resources, and you have your own internal affairs thing and it's one person in Vermont that departments are small enough so that when I was director of state police if I kept getting multiple complaints on a trooper I would know right off. Same here, I get multiple complaints on an officer back to back. And I'm going to check on is there an underlying problem here is something else going on. But when you talk about tiny departments abilities to do their investigations, etc. I think the more robust of a program you can put together and pooling resources, it's going to be a better thing. So the early morning is just a way of tracking incidents and giving command staff and supervisors a heads up that something may or may not be going on. Excellent. Thank you. Committee any questions for either chief. All right. We have Gwynzak off from the League of Cities and towns with us this morning and would love to invite you when to to share your thoughts with us today. Good morning everyone. Nice to see you. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. The dog barking in the back. I apologize. It's trash day. So whenever they roll up is a little loud. So I asked to come back to the committee because I was listening to testimony from yesterday and felt it was probably important that VLCT poke their head in back into the bill and put a few things on record. Because I pretty much 100% of what they said in their testimony aligns with VLCT policy positions moving forward. Maybe one that is still a question not necessarily of support or about position is a regional model for civilian oversight or review. We haven't gotten down to that level of detail as as a league to determine what the proper proper model would be. But any regional model would certainly have to have a heavy component of localized input. So just wanted to point that out. But pretty much everything else that both chiefs said in their testimony we 100% align with. I did want to point out there's three things I wanted to bring up. I had already talked about the dispatch issue how we really cannot, you know, get involved with it because we represent all municipalities. You can see the cost is an issue the timing is an issue, but I've already gone on record with saying that so that's that's not what I wanted to talk about today. I believe the committee had asked that the LCT way in on the municipal public safety plans that are towards the very end of the bill where the legislature would like municipalities all municipalities under their local emergency management to look into their public safety plans in general and what what they have in place. Initially from what I recall this was going to be put into the town plan which obviously doesn't make any sense because the town plan has to do with actual you know zoning and bylaws and development and those sorts of things so it in terms of where it's does it makes sense to be under the local emergency management plan. I would argue that this is already being done perhaps not pen to paper, although it is being done pen to paper in many communities. Communities tend to know what they have how they provide fire service, where they get their EMS from and those that have either contracts or have their own departments know where their law enforcement is coming from. So we had, we are pretty agnostic about this we think it's fine in there, and it certainly cannot hurt for towns to also look into their overall public safety management structure. And there was another component in there about how the LAB would look into how law enforcement or how towns and cities can increase a lot access to law enforcement. Like I just said I think towns are pretty much know how they can go about getting law enforcement access and thread through the testimony from both chiefs is that it comes down to money and resources. And it also comes down to the will of the public and what they would like to have in their, you know, community where I live we have a contract with the local sheriff's department for X amount of hours, with a you know structure of what sort of services our community is looking for. And it's going to change from community to community. So access really comes down to I think we already know the answer to that question was is what they can get from their property tax in order to pay for those services. And what the community asked for a town meeting and March every year in terms of what, what sort of law enforcement they want for their communities. So into the, the, what I really wanted to talk about though was VLCT is VLCT having seats at the table at the, particularly within the Vermont criminal justice training council and VLCT does not have a seat currently on the training council. But at some point, there used to be public seats, and we had a seat at the table but at least in the last four years or so we have not maybe five but can't remember exactly how far back it goes now. I think that it's really important to know a thread through what the committee has talked about, certainly Vermont has talked about is that the training, the training of our law enforcement officers is is is where the rubber meets the road on our municipalities get what the academy puts out our town managers are select boards even our citizens they have absolutely no say in what kind of training is required and what is wanted and what makes sense for their communities. And so, all of the trust is put within the system itself. And so, as public officials as you know representatives of VLCT representing those public officials that are utilizing the academy and as employers, especially those towns that have local departments as employers who are now getting employees that are coming out of the system. They want to ensure that they're getting the best best officers they can that are representing the wants and needs of their community. And so, it doesn't have to be VLCT although it's your hard press to find another organization in the state that does represent municipalities I don't I think we're the only one. I'm pretty sure. And so it unfortunately or fortunately we're sort of put into that middleman position where, you know, you obviously you can have a, you know, a town manager a select board member play that role but there is that bias. Initially, if you would just have one representative from one community serving that role so VLCT can sort of act as that. Again, middle person to not only oversee but have another unique perspective where, you know, we do provide not VLCT the main league but our trust the to trust that we manage for all of our municipalities is we're always looking to reduce risk and to make sure that things are done, and that will not put our municipalities in life and a greater liability exposure. So that is also another aspect of it. The other, the last point I wanted to make goes back to the civilian citizen oversight boards that are contemplated in the bill it doesn't. What's written in the in the bill is just a sort of study so there's no real structure specifics to it so I don't want to say where that would lead to but having I'll speak just to VLCT having a seat, at least in having say in that it harkens back to what I just said about having a seat at the board for the criminal justice training council is that you know the VLCT can represent municipal interest as you are looking over citizen oversight proposals that are being created. I think it's really important to remember that there are governance structures that are in place under the most basic of municipal laws out there. There are very few people that really are understand municipal law and are aware of the nuances of it, unless they either work in municipal law or they work alongside municipalities. So if oversight over law enforcement is put in the hands of non municipal officers and officials and employees. We believe that it not only would force municipalities to break current municipal laws that are in place, but also potentially expose our towns to greater liability exposure by breaking employment laws that are on the books, and potentially violating labor contracts that are already in place. And again this would put our taxpayers and our citizens that we're representing in a huge financial risk and increased liability exposure through potential lawsuits so the position from the Vermont League of Towns Board of Directors recently and I submitted this as testimony today outlines it goes beyond just the scope of S 124 but one provision that they do speak to is the civilian oversight boards and there has to be a recognition that there are structures in place that when you're talking about actual oversight rather than input there you're creating an environment where all you really have to do is look up. I 89 towards Burlington and see what's going on right now to see that they're they're at a standstill. Excuse me, because the certain citizens in the in the in the city are looking for a change that legally speaking cannot be changed. And so they're these these things need to get worked out in terms of you know who has control what control do they have what authority do they have what and what say do they have and have really clear lines and delineations of what rules people play and it won't be clean and it won't be easy and I look to other models and other states just trying to find some information. Yes, there are citizen oversight or advisory panels and committees and commissions that are put forth, but they're done at a scale that actually is a bigger than the entire state of Vermont. I would challenge anyone to find any model that even does that at a size of Vermont model, let alone something where you're talking about a town or county population model that we have in in Vermont. So, I think that's pretty much the gist of what I wanted to say the bill has a ton of other stuff in it that we either support or pretty are agnostic to there's nothing really that we object to. But I felt the need to, I guess defend the the reasons for having VLCT, VLCT in a room on many of these decisions because there is, we are uniquely situated to represent municipalities that otherwise if we were not in the room. Towns just would not have any input or say or any or talking head in the room to to say their say what they need to say. And I will say that it has nothing to do with the bill but because Madam Chair you brought it up about the PTSD. And that PTSD issue if that if your committee wants to take this up now next year, whatever, I really highly encourage you to talk to Joe Damiana he runs our property and casualty inter municipal trust it's the trust that all of our towns, you know, created to support our support their towns through on property casualty and Bookman con claim so he would be the person you'd want to talk to about those sorts of things so I just I noted that I've noted that in my notes and wanted to bring that up before. So, that's all I needed to say. Thank you I expect that we will have some conversations beginning in January about how PTSD coverage is working. I will share that name with the committee of jurisdiction. John Ganon. Thank you. And thank you for testifying when just a question about putting the VLCT on the Vermont criminal justice training Council.  You could see that coming up time and time again, some police department have body cameras and think they're a great idea. Other towns police departments may think it's not such a good idea because of the expense. So, are we where you can be able to provide input. If you have towns that are in different places with respect to these policies. Well, I think there's a difference between having a yes no position and having insight into getting to a solution that an entire board where there's you're just one voting member of to come to some final determination on on things. So yeah, we might not have a yes no position on some things but we certainly understand the nuances of both sides like if you're using dispatch as the example you certainly understand. So why it's a problem and why certain communities feel a certain way and they're not wrong or right on either side they're actually both right and wrong so and that input is is more about understanding the the the structures of the local government the the laws that are in place. And you know, there are not a lot of folks that really understand the nuances of municipal law outside. I mean there are but you know having it under one umbrella or one group the LCD just seems like the most natural fit. And so, I think the dispatch issue is is unique. We've had positions on this before I think if this is a recent a recent move from the lead to not take a position because really the numbers are so evenly split and we've been as chief Bartier said this issue has been alive before I've been alive. It's actually been alive 10 years more than I've been alive. For 50 years the state is I read the I read the report said that has been dealing with dispatch and I think to a degree the balls in the legislature in the state's court to make that final determination it shouldn't be left up to the league of cities and towns to to to make the determination about how dispatch is model that needs to be done by the state at this point so the things like body cameras on the other hand, we are, we have not heard any opposition from our communities about body cameras we've heard much more support about wanting to have body cameras, but there's also the issue of public access, having folks in the room who can talk about public records can talk about the legal you know implicate implications of the exemptions that are in place. Talk about how much money it's going to cost to house individuals into each law enforcement department to do the redactions that are needed to provide that information, the cost of, you know, obviously the cameras and data storage which thankfully is the cost of those things but we are positioned I guess there's more repetition on that than there would be dispatch but it's more the input you can put on into it rather than a yes a yay or nay or an up and down vote. Well but you didn't really help with the dispatch issue of putting any data there I mean there's definitely costs to towns with respect to that and I mean absolutely. Yeah absolutely and that's why the timing of if the state because the state again the state already has the ability to do this right so they could do this tomorrow if they wanted to. There's an understanding that the towns are going to get a big bill again, whether it's put out in a few years two three four years whether it's done in a tiered model. There's going to be needed there's going to be time needed for towns to adjust their budgets and figure out what programs they're going to cut what things are going to be put out on their capital you know manage their capital plan where they can't do certain repairs because now they're going to have to pay pay the bill. But then the flip side of that that there's already towns that have been paying that bill so some towns wanted to be done tomorrow or yesterday and other towns are wanting a lot more time to adapt to having to pay for that huge bill now. So, I don't know if that helps but you know, it's, it's hard when you're putting a position where you're, you're, you can put input about why people are upset or why change might be needed but without having to take this is our position on it and I think this batch is probably one of the only issues that we don't that we just recently don't have a have a strong up or down position on pretty much everything else we have outlined in our policy or have guidance from our board of directors from. Okay, thank you. Mr Vice Chair I think you're up. Right. There's Sarah. My apologies. John are you done with questions so we can jump to Jim. Yes, I am. Thank you. Go ahead Jim. Okay, thank you. Just a slightly different perspective, I would hope. First of all, the dispatch fees really, I don't think our purview of the criminal justice training council I don't think that's why we have set up that structure it's. Secondly, I would hope that the training council is reaching consensus on various things they need to make decisions on not yes or up or down votes. And I just a caution, as we expand the size of these groups. There is a potential for more up and down votes and sometimes it can be harder to reach consensus select boards tend to be 357 members. And there's some advantages to a small group because you can work through issues and reach consensus. When you have groups of 20. It's harder. You know, and I'm not doing this to pick on Burlington but Burlington has a larger city council because it's a larger city. And you get more up and down divided votes. So I just a caution, I do like trying to figure out ways we get consensus and broader buy in. In an important area like the criminal justice training council, just my, my two cents this morning. Thank you. Thanks, Jim. Committee members any questions from from you all for any of our witnesses today John Ganon. Thank you. Another question for Gwynne Gwynne have you had an opportunity to look at the executive order. Yeah. Yeah. We have a position on that. Um, we, so our, um, uh, we, our board hasn't met. We're having another meeting. So the, so the answer is no, but I think the testimony that I put forward outlines the, um, the board's position already. I generally speaking there's alignments and supports. Um, I think the very last provision, I don't have it in front of me unfortunately, but I think there was a last provision about the sort of regional oversight models. I think that that was sort of questionable. But we, we haven't had made, we haven't had time to put a formal position on on that. But if you align our board position with the governor's executive order, you'll see general alignment to them. Not entire, but general. Right. Any other questions from committee members. All right. Um, so, uh, chiefs and Gwynne you are welcome to hang out with us for the remainder of the meeting if you'd like to. Um, I think what I'd like to do now is ask Betsy Ann if she can help the committee understand more about the state police advisory council and its duties and makeup. Since that was mentioned kind of specifically as a model for how you might regionalize oversight. Hello, for the record Betsy Ann Rask legislative council and madam chair if it's okay I think it would also help to just kind of back up and look at the duty of SPAC and all other law enforcement agencies generally. Um, if all right I would like to share screen and we can just do a high level overview of what the current requirements are in regard to investigation and civilian oversight if that's okay. Go right ahead. I got the notice that my internet's unstable so just let me know if I am starting to slow down here. What I'm sharing are you able to see the screen okay. Yeah, we can see it. So big picture. The way that law enforcement oversight is set up is that every agency, for the most part, is responsible for conducting its own investigations of alleged officer misconduct. And there are two effects of this. The overall the results are potential discipline that could be imposed by the agency itself on the agency's officer, and then reporting of alleged officer unprofessional conduct to the council. The council is the state's overall entity that they has the authority to discipline an officer certification. So, while an agency itself could impose discipline on an officer that would affect the officers ability to practice at that agency, the council has the authority to discipline an officer certification, which impacts the ability of the officer to practice anywhere in the state. As part and this is what I'm pulling up here is the requirement for all agencies to investigate allegations of officer misconduct in the council's criminal justice training council, and this applies to all complaints. As the complaint is in regards to the officers, executive officer the highest ranking officer, in that case statute prohibits an agency from investigating its own executive officer. But as I understand it and I think has been discussed agencies also can have a an investigation conducted by another agency, particularly if there's an allegation of a crime that's been committed. As part of this duty to have each agency investigate allegations of misconduct of its own officers, the council chapter requires each agency to adopt an effective internal affairs program. And so this ensures fairness in the investigation or it's designed to and uniformity in discipline that may be imposed by an agency. There's a definition of an effective internal affairs program that I'll get to in a second, but there is here in 20 vs a 24 to be there's also the requirement for the council to create a model policy for an effective internal affairs program. The definition of an effective effective internal affairs program is defined in the council chapter as having specific elements. It's that they accept complaints about their officers. They investigate them they assign an investigator to determine whether an officer violated policy or state law. There's policies about how an officer what the duties expected of the officer are and what the discipline that could be imposed. There's fairness and discipline and here's that language civilian review. As part of any effective internal affairs program. An agency has to have civilian review. And the language is that it provides for review of an officer disciplined by civilians but then it says which may be a select board or other elected or appointed body, at least for the conduct to be required to be reported to the council. From up state police has its back the state police advisory commission. And that's that this is existed before these council requirements ever came into law back as it existed for a while. The back is set forth in DPS is statutes. It's 20 vs a 1922 back has seven members that are appointed by the governor, at least one has to be an attorney, and one has to be a retired state police officer. They're appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. They have four year terms, the governor appoints the chair. And the overall duty of SPAC is to provide advice and counsel to the commissioner and carrying out the commissioners responsibilities for managing supervising and controlling the VSP. Specifically, the language provides that to ensure state police officers are subject to fair and known practices. SPAC is required to advise the commissioner of public safety, in regard to reviewing rules, and yes with respect to and reviewing rules concerning promotions grievances transfers internal investigations and discipline. In section 20 vs a 1923 talks about how VSP investigates complaints against its own officers and SPAC has a role in the investigation of VSP investigating its own officers. The statute provides that SPAC is to advise and assist the commissioner of DPS in developing and making known routine procedures to ensure that allegations of misconduct by state police officers are investigated fully and fairly, and that appropriate action is taken in regard to those allegations. And specifically the commissioner of DPS has to ensure that those procedures constitute that effective internal affairs program in the council chapter. And SPAC as I understand it helps is part of that civilian review that's required of an effective internal affairs program. VSP structures its investigations its internal investigations of allegations of misconduct against its own officers is that VSP has an office of internal investigation within DPS. And that is required to investigate all allegations of conduct by members of DPS, unless it's a complaint against a member of the office of internal investigation itself, and then that gets handled separately. The head of VSP's office of internal investigation reports all allegations, and the office's findings on those allegations to the commissioner DPS. They also have to get reported to the state's attorney and the AG and the governor unless it doesn't include an allegation that a crime was committed, and then also the disposition of all those criminal allegations. So VSP's office of internal investigation has to maintain a log of all allegations of misconduct. It also has to document all actions taken with respect to each allegation, including a notation of the people who were assigned to investigate all the documents all the actions taken in the final disposition. And if there's a failure to have any member of DPS to report to the office of internal investigation and allegation of misconduct known to the member that could be grounds for disciplinary action. So here's where VSPAC seems to play a large role. It says that these records of office internal investigation are confidential, except SPAC at any time is entitled to have full and free access to those records of VSP's own investigation of officers. And the director of the state police or SPAC has to report to the council, according to the reporting requirements for reporting allegations of misconduct to the council. And also SPAC, even though otherwise investigative records of VSP officers are to remain confidential, this last paragraph says that SPAC in its discretion is entitled to report to authorities it deems appropriate or to the public or both to ensure that proper action is taken. So if SPAC by this language feels that the Department of Public Safety is not adequately addressing an allegation of officer misconduct, SPAC at least does have that authority to publicize that information if it feels appropriate. So it still is advisory though it's not a control in the duty as I read this is that the commissioner of DPS still has to maintain the control over the VSP, but this SPAC entity is to give advice. And it is it is tasked with accountability in that ensuring accountability so that if it SPAC does not believe that appropriate action was taken, it could be made public. Then I'll just note once again that whatever the result of an agency's investigation is the agency itself could discipline its officer but then that role of the council is to ensure that officers throughout the state are maintaining professional conduct. And so the council chapter defines what constitutes unprofessional conduct and the role of the council overall is to discipline an officer's certification if the council believes and finds that an officer committed unprofessional conduct and any discipline that it imposes would be discipline that follows that officer certification wherever the officer practices in this state. We're having this one conversation about what role civilians should play or the public should play in regard to discipline that an individual agency might impose on an officer. There's also that role that the council has in maintaining those standards statewide and through the authority that it has over an officer's certification and this bill does include the public or changes the membership of the council to include members of the public to play in that role. So, with respect to whistleblower protection. Is there any explicit currently explicit protection for folks within an agency that may make an allegation. Not that I am aware of other than this language in specifically for VSP and the internal investigation statute that requires, requires officers to report allegations of misconduct. But unless I'm overlooking something I don't. I'm not aware of any whistleblower protection outside of this. Okay. Jim Harrison. Here. Betsy and thank you for that overview. Just a couple quick questions. If I understood you correctly in regards to the state police advisory console that the state police could do an investigation. Find no wrongdoing, but they report this to this advisory group and the advisory group could choose to make it public is that correct. You're muted. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, that language in 20 vs a 1923 about internal investigations provides in subsection D that's back is entitled at any time to have full and free access to investigative records, and then has the discretion to report to any authorities or the public as it determines deems necessary to ensure the proper action is taken. So it doesn't say it doesn't say specifically that SPAC can just release all of those public records, but it does seem to indicate to me that it has at least an authority to, for example, state that VSP received. I'm just making a hypothetical that BSP received a report of egregious conduct and that the BSP failed to take action to respond to that conduct. Well, I just want to compare it to our own ethics committee. If one of us has a violation charged my understanding our ethics committee. It's totally confidential, unless and when until when the charges concluded that it's your guilty of some is that there's no one that can release that information. There's no secondary group or committee that says, you know, Jim Harrison was charged with XYZ and that's released until I'm found guilty. Is that correct. So that's about the house ethics. Yeah, own provisions. Yes, by the house ethics panel procedure. The panel and ledge council which staffs the panel are required to keep confidential any info that it receives in accordance with the procedure to receive and investigate complaints. If pursuant to that procedure what would happen in practice is that if the panel did think it was appropriate to discipline a house member. What would likely happen in practice is that there would be a resolution for the house's consideration, which is when that allegation would be made public, and that would be for the house to determine. And we'll also note that there's nothing stopping anyone else. For example, the complainant from making his or her complaint public against a house member there's no limit on a person, not only filing a complaint with the house ethics panel, but also publicizing the fact that they made that Okay, that's okay. I just want to make sure we're not doing something separate for ourselves that we're requiring holding others to a different standard. My, my last question is relation to union contracts. How does this all relate usually union contracts have a specified procedure for disciplinary action. You know we've we've heard recently some things in Burlington where some people are demanding. You know action against some police officers in the city is saying look we followed our disciplinary guidelines. And we can't do that so how does this all relate. Part of some I'm not as familiar with the Burlington's charter because Burlington has a charter that provides special law that governs the city. And so the law always controls, but the law allows for contracts, looking at municipal law generally the language about a municipality being able to discipline its officer is set forth and 24 vs a 1932. And that provides for a hearing before the legislative body of a town in regard to officer misconduct. And there is the authority for the after hearing and charges that there would have to be cause that was found. And so what I what I'm not as familiar with though is what are in those contracts it's just not what I would normally deal with so I'm not exactly sure it would be helpful to see what a sample contract is for officers to see what it contains I mean all the anything that's in a contract has to be in accordance with statutory law that could govern what could be in there. But, and maybe we could hear from our labor attorney in Ledge Council to if that would be helpful to talk more about what could potentially be in a contract that an officer has, but it a contract could include terms of employment and how an officer's the disciplinary process for an officer. I just don't have enough knowledge of the specifics of those contracts to tell what they want. And I don't know what the right answer is I appreciate your insight I just, I think we're all served better by a system of checks and balances and civilian oversight can be part of that checks and balances, but I'm also cognizant that when publicly we make deals and contract negotiations that we have a responsibility to protect those contract provisions and be fair to the employee. So, I don't know what the right balances here but I sort of like just fishing for more information. Thank you. All right. Any other committee members with questions. All right, Betsy and anything else you have for us. Not at not specifically at this moment. Thank you for for for being so flexible and and quick to jump in and and help guide us through the various statutes that apply to law enforcement. It's helpful for us to have this in context. So committee that is all we have testimony for for today. Are any of you have any lingering questions that you wish you'd asked one of the chiefs earlier because we do still have them for another few moments. And if there's anything else that you wanted to to ask JP. I don't have any questions but just a personal thank you. Chief Bombardier it's good seeing you again Tim, if only on zoom and Chief Pete I've never met you but welcome to Vermont and I wish you the best of luck in your, your appointment and I'm sure you'll do well for the city of Montpere. Thank you all. Take care john. That is that is an excellent thank you and I would like to extend that as well to both of you for taking time out of your day to come and and help share your perspective of municipal law enforcement with with citizen legislators who are immersing themselves in this issue in hopes that we can help our fellow Vermonters feel feel more confidence in and and security from our police forces so I appreciate your help with this and if you have any follow up thoughts afterward don't hesitate to reach out to the committee you can find a way to email the committee from from our legislative website. Thank you man. Thank you. Thank you. All right before we end our meeting today, just want to loop back to s to 20. So, Chief Pete before you leave, you, you happen to be sitting with the committee that that has just passed a bill on uniform licensing standards to allow people to move between states, a little bit more easily and get their professional credentials but the the issue of how challenging it is to get a provisional and and and get all of your certifications I was thinking, Oh, that makes perfect sense. Maybe we ought to, maybe we ought to take that up committee, because I think, I think Vermont could do well by enticing a few more good police officers, like Chief Pete to come and and serve here in Vermont so we may want more information from you on on your experience. Thank you ma'am I appreciate and if I may also add, it does work into that strategic plan and the goal of the Council of the legislation of the governor of attracting diverse officers and if we can pull from other states and bring the good ones here. I think it'd be a win win for everybody. Bingo. I agree. All right, so on 220 we've got it coming to the floor this afternoon assuming assuming the budget debate doesn't take hours and hours. Mike, and how are you guys ready to roll on that. And I just saw an email from the speaker, and looks like, looks like it's going to be scheduled for tomorrow for caucus of the whole and vote. Oh, okay, so not today. I think, yeah. That's what I'm just reading. She just sent out an email to 1003. I just saw that as well. And so I didn't know if Sarah had any updates other than that and the other question I think Sarah was, you know this went to other committees but I don't think they. I don't know the process for for how to how to work that if we need to. If they'll be reporting. And then that comes at the end of our process. You will make your floor report and then the ways and means report will come out and they will report a vote. There was no amendment so there won't be anything to have substance to report and then the appropriations committee should also have a reporter and then you'll be open for interrogation, which means that you guys will need to figure out, you know, who's who's going to answer interrogations in what sections of the bill. So that you can defer if you need to to the right person.  That's the definition of the bill at caucus of the whole. Hopefully people who have questions will reach out to you. You know between caucus of the whole and when it comes to the floor. That's the plan. That's the ideal. That's the ideal scenario. And caucus of the whole is streamed for the universe to watch as well so. That's your, that's your moment in, in the spotlight so. Have fun with it. Any other questions from committee on on S2 20, or what we're expecting going forward. All right, that is it for our meeting for the day and we will see you all on the floor later but then again in committee tomorrow. And we can go offline.


Even in this world, it is I that rule my destiny. What happens is what I desire. And what does not occur is what I do not want to happen. Talk about empowering. Talk about the end of victimization. Talk about the end of anxiety. But what he's saying is that you're not at the mercy of anything. And he said this 2,000 years ago when he said, Be of good cheer for I have overcome the world.


Like all chemicals, organic compounds can be characterized by their properties. A property is a characteristic of a substance that you can observe or measure. We can classify properties according to whether they're physical or chemical. Physical properties are characteristics that don't involve any chemical reactions. That is, the molecules themselves are not altered. So these are things like melting and boiling points, volatility, viscosity, density, solubility, inner solvent, and also effectiveness as a solvent. The melting point of a substance, for instance, it's the temperature at which the substance changes from a solid to a liquid. So it is changing state, but the molecules themselves are not altered in their shape or form or formula. In contrast, chemical properties are characteristics that have to do with how the substance reacts with other substances. These are things such as pH, toxicity, how does the substance react in your body, and characteristic chemical reactions of all kinds. We're going to look at the reactions of different functional groups later on. In this set of videos, we'll just look at physical properties. So what is it that makes one substance have a different boiling point to another? It is the structure of the molecule that defines all its properties. The types of atoms and the way they're joined together determines how the molecule behaves. Why is this? Well, it all comes down to intermolecular forces.