Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Good morning. This is the House Appropriations Committee. It is Tuesday, 03/17/2026. It is 9AM, and we are going to hear some updates around the Ethics Commission as it relates to our budget and some language changes that are being proposed. So I'll recognize Chair Lalonde, if you want to come to the table from Chair of House Judiciary to kick us off, please.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; Chair, House Ethics Panel)]: Thank you for letting me present this. Martin Malone, representative from South Burlington,

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: chair of

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; Chair, House Ethics Panel)]: the house judiciary committee and also chair of the house ethics panel. So this has to do with the, request from the ethics commission, the state ethics commission, and related to the state code of ethics. So this was passed a bit ago, but in 2024, there was a bill that passed, it's age eight seventy five Act number 171, which significantly would expand the investigation and enforcement authority of the state's ethics commission, including the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive branch employees, including legislators.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: So

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; Chair, House Ethics Panel)]: we we changed the due date or or the the date that that would go into effect in a bill last year, I believe it was. Let me make sure I got that right. It's h one act number number 44 of 2025, which extended the date for the investigation and enforcement authority to September '27.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: To begin. To begin the enforcement authority.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; Chair, House Ethics Panel)]: So we understand that the act number 171 of 2024, it created a municipal code of ethics, and it included the ethics commission's discretionary authority to provide guidance on municipal ethics. My understanding is they've been unable to do that for lack of resources, and certainly I support their request for somebody to work on the municipal guidelines. However, I don't support at this point having an additional member of the commission to do the investigation and enforcement. And the reason for that is, in my experience now, I believe there needs to be more guidance for what is expected of legislators, of judiciary, of members of the judiciary, because there's a lot of open questions as far as the language is in the code, the ethics code. And what we've proposed, so I'll just give you an example. So provisions regarding gifts really have a lot of need for some additional guidance in subdivision six of three VSA section twelve oh three gs, that's the gifts provision, that relates to when food or beverages do not violate gift prohibitions. I'm just giving you one example, but one can have food and beverages at an event if the public servant participates in their official capacity. But really, what does participate mean? Does that mean just showing up? Does that mean presenting there? What does that mean? I think we need to have guidance on what that means, and what does it take to be in your official capacity? Does it have to be some approval of somebody in the legislature? So that's another issue. So why this is important is frankly, well, starting with the judiciary, they don't think that the state ethics commission really in any manner should consider whether ethics codes are violated for judicial members, be they judges. They have a process for that. I would say I'm in the same I the same I I think the same thing. I don't think that the legislature should be governed by, you know, or whether we're being ethical or not, should be up to an entity that is really part of the executive branch, that we have an ethics panel that deals with this ourselves. But that's not gonna change. I'm not suggesting that that changes. But I am suggesting that we need to make sure that we understand how the ethics commission is going to apply their rules to our members. I think that that's critical if they're gonna get to the point where they are able to essentially sanction our individual members. I think that that's critical that we really need to understand how they're interpreting. So that's what this bill seeks to do. It also, because we're asking for guidelines, it would push off effective date to July 2028. For enforcement. For investigations, hearings, and enforcement. Those three things go together. And the reason we're bringing it to the appropriations committee is essentially we think that that needs to be done as a prerequisite for funding these additional resources for them to do those investigations, hearings, and and enforcement. I think that's yeah.

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: So

[Rep. Wayne Laroche (Member)]: thank you for that. Just curious. Where does the Ethics Commission feel on this? Was this a conversation that you had with them in terms of airing out these concerns that you had in terms of in terms of making the language better or more focused and this timeline that that you're proposing?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; Chair, House Ethics Panel)]: We have not done that yet. And this this kind of has come up fairly recently as far as understanding some of these issues that that some of our concerns have been raised. We are planning on that and and and definitely we'll be talking to about where we think they need to provide additional guidance

[Rep. Wayne Laroche (Member)]: And just the history of the Essex Commission has always been we can only do what you tell us to do, and they feel that they've been hamstrung. And I'm just Right. It sounds like this is the time that we need to figure out with that with the existing commission, what's the best way to move forward. That's that's a personal opinion, but I'm just curious, like, is that what is that where your conversation started?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; Chair, House Ethics Panel)]: So we will definitely have that conversation with them. And and, I mean, from the panel's perspective, and I really can't get into too much else on on on that.

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: And one

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: of the reasons for the enforcement to be delayed is that there's actually nobody on staff who's a lawyer who can do any enforcement or the investigation part. So to have that start before there's actually anybody who's qualified to do the work, before we've paid for a position to do that, doesn't make any sense. The executive director is not half time or part time, and he's not a member of the Vermont Bar. Is that right?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; Chair, House Ethics Panel)]: That's correct. Not a member.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Not a

[Rep. Martha 'Marty' Feltus (Vice Chair)]: member of Vermont Bar.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Okay, so I have Wayne Ladmarty.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche (Member)]: So there's a position in the there's an asker position in this, right, for an attorney. Are you? Yes. So you're still asking me in this E, whatever, for a position for attorney position.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; Chair, House Ethics Panel)]: For the municipal guidelines that their work on municipal challenges. I'm curious.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche (Member)]: I think there's room for obviously, it would take an attorney in order to look at these things and come up with something that's going to fly in terms of going before the judiciary. Does it need to be a permanent position? Or is it something that you could be contracted?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; Chair, House Ethics Panel)]: I don't know the answer.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche (Member)]: Because he's asking for this to investigate what needs to be done in terms of setting this all up.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Oh, the DDT so there are a couple of parts to this in the ethics commission's request. They had asked for two positions, one a general counsel, and one is the other attorney to be able to do municipal requests, which every community has been calling. That's why they had to stop. So what we've been contemplating here so far has just been the municipal attorney for the Ethics Commission.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche (Member)]: But we're not talking about running with the committee yet. We get a date that's going to go out farther. What we're trying to do is get up the protocol, the procedures, and have everybody on be on the right page in terms of knowing what their liabilities are and how they need to conduct themselves. So that needs to be done, but that doesn't seem like it would require a position that would be in eternity. That's a limited thing. I'm asking, might that be done as a contract?

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: I think that's a different position than what they're talking about in this.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; Chair, House Ethics Panel)]: Yeah, I think, I mean, they probably have the staff and the board to be able to do the guidelines, but I think then they need somebody when it's time for them to exercise their investigation and enforcement authority, that's when they need that position, which shouldn't be until 2028. Right. So that's why I was asking the timing of this and what what the task is that the the person being hired would be doing and whether or not it's appropriate

[Rep. Wayne Laroche (Member)]: to hire full time staff.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Position entirely.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; Chair, House Ethics Panel)]: Yeah. It wouldn't be dealing with what I'm talking about. Just it it would be dealing with the municipal side of what what the commission deals with.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche (Member)]: So it was gonna deal with what you're you're talking about, the the commission itself?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; Chair, House Ethics Panel)]: Yeah. It'd be the commission. It would be the executive director, I believe, and that would be to get the guidelines together. But to implement those, they would need to have

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: additional sources. They staff and board sufficient to do the work before they would hire an attorney who would actually do the enforcement investigation. But they the skill set necessary that commission to do this?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; Chair, House Ethics Panel)]: I think so, yes. Because, so just to be clear, we ask for advice from them, you know, our panel, and they do give us advice. You know, so, and we do appreciate their expertise, but it's different like asking for advice after there's an issue versus laying that out so we don't have people having an issue. And that's what we're really after is that guideline so people know what they're supposed to do and not do.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: So Marty and then Lynn.

[Rep. Martha 'Marty' Feltus (Vice Chair)]: So that's where I was confused. The request came from the ethics commission, was that not correct? When they were in here, they came and they asked for these two positions. Correct, yes. They did ask for two positions. Okay, and representative Lalonde is telling us that he believes one of those positions is not necessary now because you believe that commission itself should develop some more robust guidelines to help to flesh out all of those kind of general things we have in Essex so that eventually somebody would have a good background to work from if they were actually going to investigate or report. Okay, I'm just surprised that the commission itself came to us and asked for that investigative position without having either discussed it with the ethics commission or the ethics commission having said, okay, that's a good idea. That was the ethics commission that came to us. Right, I'm sorry, but the panel, the-

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; Chair, House Ethics Panel)]: Yeah, when I understood that they had asked that, I'm raising a red flag essentially and saying, I think this is what needs to be done before a co equal branch of government subjects ourselves to this other branches looking at whether we've complied with ethics or not. Just my experience on the panel gives me concern that we really need to have that guidance in advance for individuals in the legislature and the judiciary if, yeah, if the judiciary

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: And they did it in not the right order, and we're trying to fix the order, I think, of the way that it ought to be happening.

[Rep. Martha 'Marty' Feltus (Vice Chair)]: But we have a panel and a commission. Correct? Or am I confusing that?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; Chair, House Ethics Panel)]: So we have a panel, the legislature has a panel. Commission is separate and really part of the executive branch.

[Rep. Martha 'Marty' Feltus (Vice Chair)]: The commission did not necessarily discuss that option with the patent before the commission came to us and asked

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: us.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; Chair, House Ethics Panel)]: And I don't imagine that they agree with my position, frankly. Although we will be having discussions, it just for various reasons wasn't appropriate to do that quite yet. I mean, timing of things and what we do on the panel versus what we're doing in our corporations just has made that where we haven't been able to do that.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: So I can leave and then John.

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: Yeah, I was equally confused because it starts off here talking about municipal code of ethics. And then you started talking about all of the other three branches of government, but it's a different topic. Two different things. Okay. So you want to hire an attorney for the municipal ethics, which I understand is like a beehive. It's just all kinds of municipalities don't like it. They don't feel that it's fair. They don't understand how it works for them. It's different for them than it is they have the potential for an incredible amount of personalities and attacks on their conflict of interest issues or I mean, small town. It just could get really difficult. But you're not really you don't really and the dates when the dates are extended, is that extended to everybody? Is We that

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: should probably have Mike come and talk about what's in the language of the bill. Arnaud, you can stay with there and have Brady come to speak. I

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; Chair, House Ethics Panel)]: don't get any of the questions to make my opinion.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: But there's two separate things that are happening. And I know there are municipalities that don't like it, but that's what the law is, and they need to have it. And so the idea is that somebody on the ethics commission in the ethics Staff? Staffed. No, unstaffed, to be there to help municipalities. This is why we did hear from the ethics commission they had to stop after a few months even accepting requests on ethics complaints because they didn't have the capacity to do it. So there's two separate things. The ethics for municipalities is one thing. And that's a position that can be done now. And then there's all this other stuff. And that's

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: really what Three branches of government.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Right. Now we're going to take away municipalities and just talk about this.

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: Well, the question I have is on the extension of the dates to 2028. Does that apply to both the municipal and the three branches of government? Or is that just for the three branches of government?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It applies to their enforcement authority?

[Rep. Wayne Laroche (Member)]: For all. For all.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: But your guidance as an attorney is different? Yes. Lynn Yes. Was mean to me on the select board meeting, and what's my right? Yes. Yes. But the dates that they're extending her to is for everybody. For enforcement. Just for enforcement. That's fine. So John had a question too, and then I'm going

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: to turn it over to Chad.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche (Member)]: I'm going go ahead and just let Michael go ahead. I'm pretty sure that question could

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; Chair, House Ethics Panel)]: get answered.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche (Member)]: Okay, great.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Let's reset the context. So there's a state code of ethics, and there's a municipal code

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; Chair, House Ethics Panel)]: of ethics.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: And the state ethics commission is responsible for providing advice and guidance on both. And ultimately, they're going to be providing enforcement of the state code of ethics. Now they came in. They have been looking for resources for a couple of years. They gave you a letter. They're looking right now for two positions. One, an attorney to provide advice and guidance on municipal code of ethics, and one, a general counsel to effectively staff enforcement and investigation going forward for the state code of ethics. Now, you heard representative Alon and his position on why the municipal attorney should go forward now, because they have suspended their municipal services. Services. It's right there on their website, but they don't have the resources to provide the advice and guidance that is required under the municipal code of ethics for them to do. And this would give them the resources for that, and so they would no longer be suspended in doing that. But when you look at other state ethics commissions around the country, their code is similar to Vermont's, but they have resources that are significant that explain the code and how the code is applied and what a public servant needs to do in order to either avoid accusation or conflict or misuse. Vermont currently doesn't have that. Consequently, when there's a complaint, the commission effectively gets to determine what it wants to determine. And so there isn't a standard that's available to that public servant subject to the state ethics code for them to understand how to monitor and moderate their behavior. For example, New York has what they call a plain language ethics handbook that lists out all of the different provisions of the code, how that they should apply, what a public servant should think about with regard to each of those provisions. And it's very helpful, and it's very accessible. It's not something that is written in legalese. It's not overly long. I think it's only about 40 to 50 pages long. And it's helpful.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: It's really about clarity, isn't it?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Right.

[Rep. Martha 'Marty' Feltus (Vice Chair)]: That's what this is about.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Transparency, expectations, what you need to do in order to maintain your compliance with the state ethics code. So that's what this language is intended to do. It is intended to give the State Ethics Commission a municipal attorney to help with providing guidance and advisory information to municipalities that do have a municipal code of ethics that they need to comply with and they do need assistance. As was said, it is a beehive because there are two fifty plus towns with varying degrees of personalities. And so providing having someone to provide guidance on those issues, I think, would be very helpful. And that's what the first section of the language in front of you does. Talking to Grady about how to draft this language, the position is not created in this language because he said that they will you will create it. You have a tool for when you decide how

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: It'd be an h

[Rep. Martha 'Marty' Feltus (Vice Chair)]: 100 if we do it. Yeah. Right.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: And the actual amount will be plugged in in another one of your tools. So it starts with the of the money that's appropriated in b $1.36.1, which you haven't you don't have that language yet. That's the tool that's gonna do that. It says 125,000 shall be used by the state ethics commission to fund an attorney for purpose of receiving, reviewing, or referring complaints of violations of municipal code of ethics under previous day twelve twenty two. Now that 125,000, that's probably a little low because the ethics commission asked for a 140 effectively for this position. But I thought a 125 is your default position. So I put in a 125. The commission might look for more for that position.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: So

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: then you go to the amendment of two two acts, the the 2024 act that created the ethics commission and then act 44 from last year, which pushed out those dates, and changed some of the way that complaints are referred to the judiciary and to the general assembly. It also puts the commission on a on a fiscal year schedule because right now, they're in September, and I don't know why it was decided to be September, but it pushes it out to July 2028 for their enforcement. You'll see their rulemaking procedure, which relates to their enforcement on page one, lines 12 to 14, will be pushed out to 2028. Their powers and their expansion of powers on line seventeen and eighteen will be pushed out to July 2028. On page two, all their authority regarding investigations, hearings, warnings, reprimands, recommended actions, etcetera, that gets pushed out to 2028 as well. And then in act 44 from last year, there was language regarding when these future provisions would go into effect, and you're pushing that out to 07/01/2028 on line 18 and line 19. And then you get on page three, really on page four, the directive about guidance. I mean, the requirement that the executive director of the commission publish an ethics handbook that provides a plain language guide to a person who is or will be subject to the provisions of the chapter regarding application of the state code of ethics. It will include information about the standards of conduct. Like, these are the things that you are subject to as public servant, that I am subject to as a public servant. What is your standard of conduct? What constitutes a conflict of interest? How to determine what's an accessible gift? What constitutes misuse of position, information, or government resources, what constitutes an unauthorized commitment by a person subject to the requirements of the chapter, what employment restrictions exist, and then the legal authority relied on by the commission in establishing those standards, establishing that guidance. Because, again, when you look at state ethics commissions across the country, they are varying authorities. They're varying opinions. Some commissions say that they don't regulate foreign gifts because it doesn't relate, in their opinion, to legitimate government interests. So it's not something that falls underneath their ethics authority. But others are very significantly involved in regulating foreign gifts. So where do you fall on that? How is the commission going to regulate that when you have that of vast differences in some of these ethical provisions and how they can be interpreted and applied? And I think that's fair to the public servant. It's fair to know how your ethics commission is going to apply the law to you.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Well, it's protection for us. I see it as protection. If I'm going out and meeting an advocate, do I buy my own coffee? Is it okay if they buy me a coffee? Is that different than if they buy me drinks and dinner? So all of that, I don't even know where I'd go for that, because I don't know if we have a lot.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: If there isn't, there isn't.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Right. And so when it gets fuzzy, we can also be accused of things that are wrong because somebody else decides they're wrong, one person does, and yet there's no we have nothing we can point to that says, I'm acting within the ethics of

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: You can only point to the state code of ethics, which is subject to interpretation.

[Rep. Martha 'Marty' Feltus (Vice Chair)]: Right.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Varying.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Right. Exactly.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche (Member)]: So Wayne? So, like, New York, for example, does does they have a single they have a single ethics commission? Yes. That deals deals with everything? Yes. And lots of attorneys and lots of cases or not so much?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I know they have a lot they issue a lot of advisory opinions, and they meet often. I couldn't quantify it for you. I don't

[Rep. Wayne Laroche (Member)]: know if this is serious whether or they have large staff to deal with it. It's a huge state compared to Vermont.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: They do have staff. And I know this because I went to school with somebody who's chair of it for a while. So I know that they have their own attorneys. I know that other state commissions have their own attorneys. And I would be hesitant to recommend that you contract it out just because when you've had to contract out this work, it's expensive. With the number of complaints that could arise and the responses necessary, I think you would exceed $125,000 fairly quick.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: We did learn from

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: what was the other one?

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Oh, the federal mediator. It was the federal government, the mediator. We talked about you asked that same question there. Dollars $4.50 an hour. That would kill a school. I mean, it's a lot cheaper to have your own attorney.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: We get a discounted rate, and it's still in the $300 to $400 range for the partners that are working.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Plus we have some consistency.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. Mean, usually there's two or three attorneys that work on the things that we've contracted out.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Other questions about this? Are we clear on what your question gets answered?

[Rep. Wayne Laroche (Member)]: Yeah, did. Okay,

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: so requiring some work to be done before there's actually somebody hired so they have information so they can start to work and not have to create it as an attorney.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: And I do want to leave you with that question about how much should be appropriated for the municipal attorney because it is what the number in the language is less than what the commission requested, but it is what I thought was your default employee amount.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: I thought I had some other number from them,

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: but I have to go find that

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: piece of paper. I mean, think that was the number we may have even had from them. Not sure. But we can look at the numbers. So there's actually there's two parts to this. Thank you very much, Michael. One is about do we want to find the position? And the second is do we want to do the effective dates and the enforcement of having an ethics handbook before? So I sort of see it as we put it all in one piece, is great. But we can

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: you have to have the position and the actual appropriation when it comes to that.

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: One last question here on Section E 136.5. Do we have dates here? Should we move up those dates to 2028?

[Rep. Wayne Laroche (Member)]: Some those

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: dates are when they're just providing advisory opinions or guidance, and there's really no

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: The handbook? What's the handbook? The other is should that be 2028?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Good question. January 2027 might be ambitious.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Because the rest of it is July 2028. So I'm looking at rep alone. If we did January 28 for the ethics handbook, is that reasonable? Yeah, I think that's Because otherwise, it's like six months that they're going to have to do it, and that seems too fast.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche (Member)]: Well, I

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: think the same holds true for the last one, which is December to get the report to the committees. That's four

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Put that out to 2027.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary; Chair, House Ethics Panel)]: And we'll still have the set 20 candidate session.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Right. So if we have the draft copy of the handbook, it should be December 2027. Right. So those are two date changes. You don't mind doing that?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Not at all.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Sending it over, then we'll have it for our language and budget folio. Any other questions that Marty go on?

[Rep. Martha 'Marty' Feltus (Vice Chair)]: I'm just wondering if you want more time between the draft of December '7 and the full thing of January '8. It's not much time between the draft and final copy.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I wanted the draft to come to you as a general assembly to review. So if if you wanted to take action, you would have opportunity.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Well, so the draft right. I see what Marty is saying. The draft is coming December 2027.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: And

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: then But the full thing is a month later, January 15.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: And

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: we aren't in session until January 7. We have a week before they have the final one.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Should I push the final back to, say, March or April?

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Maybe March 1. Does that seem like a good time? Yeah, good catch. All right, great. Thank you. Thank you very much, thank you everybody for coming, we appreciate it.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche (Member)]: I'm 40 to go. So

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: we are ahead of schedule. Can we get H410 in in fifteen minutes? Can we see if they can come? Yeah.

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: I want to have as much time as possible to talk about other things.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Right, so we'll go off live, but don't go far because we may be back on in fifteen

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: minutes. So that's no number on that. That means it hasn't been presented yet.