So we're back. This is Senate government operations and we're going to be looking yet again another kind of emergency bill related to our COVID numbers and how we're making accommodations for not only municipalities but other public entities also. We passed the town meeting bill and we passed the yesterday past the open meeting, the eliminating the requirement that there be a physical location where people could attend. And today we've had we had a number of questions about two things. One was I'm sure you all got it about signatures. And in fact we heard it on the floor this morning when Senator Perchlich asked about it. And the other one was about school, if they could send out their ballots together and both of them seemed a little more complicated than putting into the original town meeting bill or the open meeting law so Tucker has put together a draft for us. And I realize he had enough.  Oh, he's back. Yeah. Oh, thank you. Thank you Tucker. So if you'd like to walk us through this. Is it posted 222 seems to be up for today. I know I also emailed it to you. Oh, okay. Oh, you did. Okay, yes. The switch pages. It's drafting request 22-0544 draft 1.1. And when did you email it to us about 10 minutes five minutes ago. I think everybody got it. I got it. Did somebody say no. Oh, when I did not send it to you, I sent it to Karen. Let me. I can send it to Gwen, or Karen can. Yeah. Okay. All right. So Tucker, do you want to tell us what's going on here. Good afternoon, Tucker Anderson office of legislative council.  The first starting in section one subsection a would allow a person to. Excuse me states that a person shall not be required to collect voter signatures in order to have the person's name placed on the ballot as a candidate for a local election that is held at a 2022 annual municipal meeting. So a person could have their name placed on the ballot for the annual meeting without having to meet the signature requirements under general law. Second provision subsection B. That withstands specific provisions within title 16. Any other provision of law. Or any school district or a global agreement that requires the ballots of member municipalities to be co-mingled by the district. And allows the legislative body of a school district to vote that ballots for the 2022 annual district meeting shall not be co-mingled before counting the ballots may be counted by each member town. And the results reported to the school district clerk for determination of the official district wide results. And under those general law provisions that you see that apply to school districts in union school districts in 16 vsa section 706 w and 711 e. One is a mandatory provision for the co-mingling of the ballots that districts receive from their member towns. And the other is an optional provision. But some school districts have opted into co-mingling their ballots and are now mandated by that section to co-mingle. So this lifts both of those and articles of agreement that require co-mingling and will allow the districts to receive reports on the counted ballots from their member municipalities. And does this address the issue that Senator Polina and the other Washington County senators had around their career center? My understanding was that that was the concern specific to the mailing of ballots under s 172, which did pass the house today and is on the way to the governor. And I don't know if there was a miscommunication at some point, but I did reach out to my colleagues who handle education issues and legislative council and they assured me that the career technical centers with a very narrow specific exclusion would all be incorporated under that bill under the definition of municipalities. And because we were not withstanding both the school district requirements and the general election law requirements that the career technical centers, even those that serve multiple municipalities and perhaps bridge school districts would be included. And I can send you the reference, but there's one very specific exclusion from that. And it covers maybe one or two of those CTCs. And there's, I, from what I understand, a specific reason why they don't use Australian ballot systems. Yeah, I think we ran into that last year with those two career centers. Senator Clarkson. So, well, there are three independent career and technical education centers. That may, is that what we're talking about what there are. So does this will this cover the three independent ones, Manchester, Springfield and Middlebury. Those are the three independent. They are their own independent districts than they are not.  I mean, as we've found with ARPA money, sadly, they're not included in their, in all the regular stuff. So we want to make sure whatever provision we're making for career and technical education centers be that all of them, including the three independence are included. I just brought up my notes and the only CTE centers that would not be included in that definition of municipality and whose Australian balloting provisions were not with, not, not withstood by the previous bill are CTE centers that are part of a comprehensive high school under 16 VSA section 1546. And in that instance, those particular centers are embedded within another educational corporation that will be able to use the Australian ballot authority under the previous bill. So they're covered. Right. Thank you. Any questions for Tucker at this point. And it's very clear in here that it's just for local elections that the signature requirement is waived. Yes. And to back up Senator white under that subsection a it's even more specific. It is just for the annual meeting. Got it. Got it. Okay. Right. Committee questions. So will Chris, do you want to weigh in? I'll weigh in real quick. Thank you, Senator white. And thank you all for your work on the town meeting bill. It's amazing. It got through in four days. It passed out of the house today. I think it's headed to the governor's desk. That's got to be some kind of record. Yeah. We needed that one right away. And you recognize that and got it done, which is great. And that's why we're fearful of adding any of these other provisions to that. And we weren't sure, you know, to be honest, how much of an outcry there was going to be for the signatures or. For the co-mangling piece, but that seems to have. Gained some, some momentum as you came into session. I think it makes a lot of sense to put it into a. A separate bill and Senator white. Thank you for being so responsive last night and Tucker for working your magic late at night. Last night to get us into the position where we are today, just barely 24 hours later. To be looking at a bill. We think this does the trick. I think. This is language that will has worked on and sent to Tucker. And I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that the co-mangling ballots language. Will can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he talked to the agency of education about that last year when we used it in a directive. So it's got kind of the, the thumbs up from them. They would like to, you know, there's a reason that co-mangling provision is in there and they'd like it to, to be there. But I think they understood under the circumstances to wave it for this year. To wave it once again this year. Okay, okay. I think we're going to move on to the next slide. We're going to move it to will to add any, any more comments, any detail. From our perspective. Really quickly. And hello to Senate Gov ops. Nice to see all of you in the new year. No, I think Chris pretty much covered it. I would just clear, clarify or just make clear that. The language for removing the signatures requirement is, I think, and Tucker can not. was passed in Act 162, which was that act that you passed as the final act of the 2020 session, looking ahead to the 2021 annual meetings and worked very well. So I think it should be all set. And then the language regarding commingling, like Chris just said, Deputy Secretary said comes mostly directly from the directive that we issued pursuant to the authority you gave us to issue a directive about modifying election procedures last year for local meetings. And that provision also was taken advantage of by at least by a number of districts and they really appreciated the ability to not have to do that commingling process during the pandemic. Otherwise, I guess just I really don't want to and I don't think we all should as a committee or you all should as a committee wait in too much to the career center stuff right now because it's not particularly pertinent to this bill, but just keep in mind the distinction that the previous bill that just got passed through the house today just authorizes the use of Australian ballot. It doesn't further authorize the mailing of ballots to all voters. And in order to do the mailing, the proactive mailing of ballots to all voters under the Australian ballot system, they need to follow the provisions you all passed in Act 60 last year, which requires the assent of the member towns in the school district before you can mail that what's out to all voters. But this bill is simple, concise, and I think will be really effective. So I appreciate you guys taking it up. And we have gotten a flood of emails and questions about both of these issues, signatures and commingling. So I think it is a real need. And so have we. Yep, I'm sure. So Carol, do you want to welcome, we haven't seen you yet this year. Of course, we've only been here for three days and passed two bills. And I only heard about this one a little while ago. So while Will was talking, I was able to read it. So that's a good thing. Yes, I got several emails earlier today. I had a clerk contact me and say to apologize that she had gotten this ball rolling by contacting Senator Perchlich and Senator White. And I said to her, no, no, I appreciated that she came clean and told me about it, but that it was something that I had been hearing a lot of. So I think it's very helpful to many people, myself included. I currently serve as clerk of the, our treasurer of the Bayer Unified Union School District and those positions are elected at a floor meeting, the night before town meeting. And they're considering going to Australian ballot under the 172 that was passed earlier today. And if that were to happen, I would have to race around and collect 60 signatures on a petition in the next two weeks. So I'm one of those people who would benefit from this bill. So that's just an example of why it's an important bill to pass. As far as commingling, the biggest concern, of course, is health and making sure that people don't have to gather together. I heard you mention the Career Center vote and that's something that we're going to have to deal with regards to the Center Vermont Career Center, which is holding a creation vote on March 1st. But it's the potential that I'm going to need to have 18 different towns all gathered together to tally the ballots, to commingle the ballots, to review each one for write-ins. And if we're able to lobby the school boards and the planning committee to do away with commingling, that will be a big advantage for us too, from a health and safety. I don't want to gather together. It would love to spend time with 17 of my fellow clerks, but if we can find a safer way to do it, then that's a good thing. Thank you. Gwen, Karen. Thank you. And thank you for taking up this bill. You have been quite busy this week. We appreciate all your focus on these issues. And this bill works for us. We're not commenting necessarily on the commingling piece of it, but it certainly makes a lot of sense with respect to the candidate's signature. So sorry. I don't know if Gwen has anything to add. So committee, any questions? I do have to say that, you know, we've been getting a lot of thanks from people for acting quickly here, but the real thanks, I think, goes to Tucker for whipping these out pretty quickly. And also, because we've passed these before, there wasn't a lot of controversy around them. We've taken testimony in the past on each of these issues. And so I think that the thanks goes to Tucker and the Secretary of State's office and the league for keeping us on our toes here. We just take them and pass them. You do all the work. Here, Clarkson. And I not only would like to thank them, but I'd also like to thank our constituents because they have confidence that by communicating with us, they'll get things done. And this really should be three examples of communication from our constituents in cooperation and coordination with the league and the Secretary of State's office. We've gotten these three things done. And it just, as Sarah Bruce, who testified the other day in our committee, she sent a lovely email to me saying, it was so exciting to see democracy in action by that whole process. So I think that's also a shout out to how we work here in Vermont. So anybody have anything that, so does anybody, would anybody like to make a motion on this one? Because of votes, but I move that we, I don't even, it's draft 22-0544 draft 1.1. As a committee bill. As a committee bill. Did I move that or did Allison? Okay. You did a great job. It's a team effort. Okay. Are we ready? Okay. Senator Rom Hinsdale, do you want to call the roll? Senator Clarkson. Yes. Senator Colomware. Yes. Senator Polina. Yes. I saw Senator Rom Hinsdale. Yes. Senator White. Yes. Would someone like to report this? I would just suggest since Anthony was doing the other bill when the question came up, maybe it seems like there's a connection, you know, to Senator Perchlich's question and all that. That's very good. Here, here. I would second that suggestion. What's the suggestion?  I wasn't paying attention. I have no idea. I just wanted to make sure that they're.  Two to two that we. Nominate you to do this. And Anthony, I hope you remember from. Yesterday how you get this committee bill up to the. To Senator Bloom, a secretary Bloomer. Well, it's actually was pretty hit or miss yesterday. Tell you the truth. I mean, I'm not sure we did it right or Point A to point B. Maybe I'll send a note to Secretary Bloomer right now and tell him we have a bill coming. And he should contact you. Okay, or before I leave the building if you want, tell him it's a committee bill and on my way out the door, I'll tell him that we'd like to take it up on Tuesday. President Chair. Yes. The protocol is that I send the Senate Secretary's office an email as soon as we vote it. Okay. Then I'll step up. I'll step up. Okay, so will I. Okay, Tucker had his hand up. I was going to say that the Legislative Council Drafting Operations Office also needs to be included on that message because the bill won't move forward until apparently I have certified the version of the bill and drafting ops has approved it to go to the Senate Secretary's office. So. So who does Gail copy? Does that come from the reporter, Tucker? Or does that come from me? It has to come from the reporter. Okay. And that goes to Nadine. Nadine retired. Nadine retired. So now it goes to Caitlyn. So, we need Caitlyn, I don't... Anthony, I'm going to, I am going to send an email to Secretary Bloomer and tell him that it is coming and that and I'll copy you on it and Gail so that, and then we'll make sure that it goes to him and to whoever it is at Legislative Council. I'm not sure who it is. Madam Chair, if you would also include Helen and Vanessa in your email, that would be true. Okay, great. We'll do. And I just want to be, I'm sorry. No, go ahead. I just want to be clear. The co-mingling thing is really about safety. That's what it's about. Yeah. I mean, when I first read the draft, I was kind of like, I mean, I understood what it said, but I wasn't sure how it was different from in the past. In other words, I get my ballot for the school and I send it, I mail it back to my town. I don't mail it back to the school district. I'm not sure. I'm just confused about how co-mingling ends up happening. Carol, do you want to? Sure. In the, where co-mingling is called for, what happens is the ballots go back to your town, as you said, Senator Plena. And then the clerk in those towns are responsible for bringing the ballots to the host community where they are all tallyed together. Okay. I thought that was the case, but I was just, I wasn't sure. My wife actually used to do that. I'm pretty sure. Okay. Do we yet know who is, this is going to in Ledge Council? Tucker did mention a name. Caitlin. Caitlin. Yeah, but who's Caitlin? I can't just write Caitlin. Tucker, do we know Caitlin's last name? I think they want it to sent to drafting operations. But who is that? Who's Caitlin? It's the whole department. I know, but it has to be sent to somebody. I can't- Tucker's back. Okay. I just sent you an email with the group tag. If you start typing in LC drafting, it will auto fill with the whole team. And that's what you can be sent to, so that if someone's out for any particular reason, they get the message. Thanks, Tucker. I'm writing L-C-D-R-A-F-T-I-N-G and it isn't telling me there is no such person. Maybe because I've never used that before. Is it at L-E-G? I got L-Council at Montpelier.vt.org. Doesn't sound quite right either. Everybody just sent it to Gail, I think. Gail, do you have it? Yeah, I can take care of it. If you want. That would be great for today. So I don't have to- Just to be clear then, I don't have to do anything. You're going to send it to whoever it has to be sent to. I'm going to copy you, Senator Polina, and you might have to confirm that it's the correct copy or they might get fussy about it and ask you to send it directly. Okay, well, all right. Okay, all right. Do we need to do anything more? I think you need to vote. Oh, we did vote. Madam Chair, I have a question for Carol. We voted. Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't hear a roll call. So- Yeah, she read the roll. May I ask a question, Madam Chair? Yeah. Carol and Chris and Will. Would you be kind enough to communicate with clerks that this is coming down the pike? I actually- Because some people are going to be wanting to do this. Yeah. Yeah, I sent an email out a little while ago letting them know about passage of 172, letting them know about the open meeting law stuff that was coming out and also letting them know that this was in the pipeline. So. Carol, you are fabulous. Carol, does that resolve the career center issue as well? I'm not 100% sure, but I will coordinate with Will to find out. The way my interpretation of the way the language is written is that we will need to request that the school boards, the 18 school boards approve not commingling. But I may be misinterpreting it. I just read it. 37 seconds ago. Will, Chris. I think we're good. And thank you, Carol, for getting the word out. Carol, I will follow up with you on that specific issue we could talk through. And can you also let Senator Polina know so that if the question comes up on the floor, he can respond. Because it did come from his community. It came from Marshfield, so yeah. It was part of the group that's... And also, Senator Perchlich, I don't remember if you know about that. They actually sent it to Perchlich directly and then Perchlich sent it to me and then I sent it to Tucker. And Tucker sent it to Will or something. I don't know what happened after Tucker or tell you the truth. And Will sent it to me and then I sent it to my uncle. Right, right. I actually sent Senator Perchlich some statutory language just about half an hour ago. He was looking for where commingling was actually mentioned in statute. So I sent him some of those links. So I don't know whether it would be helpful for me to forward that to you, Senator White, or at this stage of the game, back with it. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay, so committee, we have done that, right? Now, I just wanna let you know what, so that you have a sense. I think I went over it yesterday about next week. Oh, I have to go get them. Oh, so we're late then probably. 2.30, I mean, 1.30 on Tuesday. Brian will do the GAC bill. And if you would check with Justin and whoever to see if we really need to do that or not. I will. Okay. And then at 2 o'clock, I have that we're gonna walk through the planning office bill that's S96. And at 3 o'clock, they'll walk through S155, which is the Agency of Public Safety. And... Oh. There he is. Oh. Oh. What a beauty. It's delicious. He is so beautiful. He's just a baby. He's Secretary Bloomer. Well, he won't see that size for very long is the challenge. Is that Secretary Bloomer there? He's like a puppy. He's hungry. He likes to eat. Madam Chair, I'm gonna unmute because a Secretary Bloomer's here and we're explaining the process in 25 words or less. Okay. Too much pressure. So generally, Senator Polina has to let the drafter know, sign it and then you go to drafting. We do not put the bill on the calendar. It would be introduced on Tuesday morning, just like the one this morning with 222. So once that gets into drafting, they'll print it up. You may want to tell them you want to do it for Tuesday. Otherwise, maybe Q that doesn't get us to land this. So if that makes sense to you, but we don't need the actual bill. It goes to drafting because it's a committee bill and not a report. Was anybody counting words? It's about 25. It was about. So Senator Polina, you just need to send it to them and you need to tell them that we want it Tuesday. Senator Polina. Yep. I sent it to drafting operations. And if you just want to do like a reply all saying that you need it by Tuesday, then everybody will get it. And I think we'll be copacetic Tuesday at 9.30. Who's the drafter? I'll go out to drafting right now operations and let them know. Okay. Thank you. So do I have to do it? Do I have to do anything? I'm confused. I thought I had stuff to do. No, I'm not sure you need to do anything. We need you to make sure that you approve the bill. We have to tell Tucker in your draft and I'm going to go out and push them to make sure it's done by Tuesday. Okay. Thank you. You're going to send an email to whoever Gail sent it to and do reply all and say, yes, we approve this and we want it by Tuesday. Yep. Okay. All right. Thank you. Next Wednesday, we are going to do the state house oversight committee and who, and we've got David and whatever his name is. Steve Perkins. Yeah. Chair of the committee and David and Ruth and Ruth might float in to join me because we are very engaged with this work, but we'll see. Yes. We, yes. Okay. But we will hear from that chair and, okay. And then we are also going to look to do, start taking testimony on the ethics bill, 171 on Tuesday. So if there's anybody that should be invited, that should be invited. We invited, I don't even remember who at this point, but if there's somebody that you think, huh? You invited Tom's own name, right? From judiciary. I think we did. I have to check and see. Yes, we did. Okay. But if you can think of anybody that needs to be there to wait in on this, just send me a note or send Gail a note. Okay. And Friday, remember, then we will take up pensions again. Look it up. Oh, and Thursday we'll go through the municipal bill that they have 181 and 175, which is a repeat of 107 which was vetoed by the governor last year, but it wasn't vetoed because of the bill. It was vetoed because he had issues with the underlying bill, the underlying thing which was raise the age and judiciary has just passed out an amended version of raise the age. So this bill will be tracking that one. So we'll have, I don't remember who drafted it. And now I will go to my three o'clock meeting. It's 415. I know. So are we saying idea? I am. Do you wanna keep on? You can. Thank you. Have a great weekend, everybody.