Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Welcome everybody to House General and Housing. Today is the 02/20/2026. We have a busy day. What we're gonna do today is, first, we have an obligation to send a letter to the Appropriations Committee advising them of our thoughts about the budgets of various agencies and projects and entities that relate to our housing or general purview. Then we're gonna take a break, and at 11:00, we're just gonna have a walkthrough of h eight sixty one. For members of the public, every bill that comes before us, we introduce. The introduction is done by the author who explains generally what the bill is about. The second step is a walk through, where we ask our legislative counsel, usually the one who helped draft the bill, to walk us through what's in the bill. And that's going to happen with August, which is an act relating to establishing an Americans with Disabilities Act coordinator. And then we're going to turn to eight seven seventy five before lunch, and if necessary after lunch, and look at it's an act relating to creating tools for housing production. Is at 11:30, do we have, Miriam, do we have Cameron and John?

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: I think both will be able to be here, Cameron, need

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: to ask. Okay, great. So, let's go to our letter. I can explain my attempt, and I do not say it's any more than an attempt, to kind of revise the letter in light of your conversations yesterday or the day before. And what I did is, first of all, I renamed the tears. And this was in part sort of to address what I thought Saudis concerned, which is that we not demote things. So I, instead of calling them tier one and tier two, I called them highest priority and high priority. The second thing I did is that within the tier, I just put both housing and non housing within the tiers, rather than dividing the whole letter into housing and non housing. So, if you see with tier one, tier one starts with VACB and VHIP, and it's the same, I didn't change that. And then, I added the extension of the landlord tenant rental arrears assistance card. True, that's a legislation that we have produced that have not passed, but it's already in law. It's in law right now. And so it's already appropriated 2.5. So I felt like we could say that we want to extend that. I've had a number of conversations about that, because you know there's two programs, there's what's going on as the housing, there's the HOP program, and then there's this rental arrears program. And this program is deemed to be very important. It is, just again for everybody, it's a program that was, there are some concerns about this program, that it's too restrictive. For example, it only works when there's already an injector. Is that wise? Maybe, maybe not. It's very restrictive in certain ways. However, that's not because of anything in legislation. The legislation that authorized this is one sentence long. The whole thing was defined in regulations or guidelines in the housing authority, the Vermont State Housing Authority. And my understanding is that Kathleen Burke, the executive director, and legal aid and others are discussing ways that they could make this better. But there's a lot of support for this program, whether or not it's changed. So I put that there. Partly, I did it because of a feeling that we have this concern over the homeless, and there are people who are worried that any landlord tenant bill we pass may increase homelessness. It's my view that if we don't pass a bill, it will increase homelessness. But so it would be good if we could do something for that, and I see this as one. So I put it in tier one. I put the human rights, you want to say something, go ahead.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I actually had a question. So I'm just going back to Chitt last year, and there was a lot of conversations about the rule making and guidance, does the state housing authority, do they need

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: a judge to look at the restrictions? Is that something that we might, if our landlord tenant bill, that we might want to kind of put out there, that it needs to be re looked at, like new guidelines?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I would think that they have the authority. They are definitely interested in it. I don't think it would hurt for us to communicate to the director. I don't know that we do it through the landlord through the landlord tenant bill as much as well, it could be in this letter. I just I was talking have a sentence in this letter that says something like that. I can add that. That says that we understand that we're discussing on enhancing the process and we think they should continue with all deliberate speed. Okay. Okay. Then the last thing I did in tier one, and I'm just going to stop there, is what I well, no, I'm not going stop there. What I did in tier one is I put the Human Rights Commission. But, as you can see at the end, I put right in the letter that we think the mediator position is kind of first on the list. I personally think that at this point, there may be no money available for anything. And so, I did try to prioritize there and not just ask for the 1,790,000.00, but ask for the range. You said I put a range there, that's why. So, that's tier one, yes. What are you thinking?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Not even just myself, from other conversations I've had, and again, I've said that I do feel the mediator position is very important. I actually personally feel that the staff attorney is more important than the mediator.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Other thoughts? I'm on the fence there, so, in fact, I have to confess, when I first drafted this, I put staff attorney, and I thought, Marc, you just love attorneys, maybe you should go

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: with the mediator. Don't know. I'm not an attorney.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I know, I'm hearing you. It's just like the worst. Can say

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: And I don't like them, they're the worst.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, I could just take out, why don't I just say two, if the budgetary constraints make three transitions impossible, we would provide towards funding for the mediator and the attorney. Or the attorney and the mediator. That's two out of the three.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: There's only two on the While both positions are important, you said the mediator is most essential.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: No, there's an investigator. You're

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: mixing up the Human Rights Commission. Oh, I'm sorry.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Next page. I'm sorry, you're right. I'm mixing up the elderly. Where are we? Thank you.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Right here.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, I see. I'm willing to put either one. Or I'm willing to strike the last sentence.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Can we strike the last sentence and then put staff attorney above the mediator position?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I'm willing to do that. Tell me how you all feel. Okay. I'm seeing nodding heads.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Well,

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: why why why is I mean, I know you're you're that's your preference, but we didn't really talk about that, the bill that we heard. And then we kinda added the other part. But I I just didn't that wasn't really discussed with the committee at all.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right. We're discussing it now. I just No, no, know. I'm just about to tell you, you couldn't see it. I saw a couple of heads nod, that's all. I'd just like to know how everybody feels. What should I say?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I'd like to just hear the case for that,

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: because I don't know enough about the Vermont Labor Relations Board.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: The only thing I can tell you, and perhaps others can add, is they're short staffed. They've been short staffed for a while. This has been compounded by the loss of a person over there who had been there for, whatever, decades and decades. But

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: A person being an attorney?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: The person who they lost was an attorney, I believe. But there is an attorney, no director. It's just very short staffed, and the effect of that has been huge delays in responding to workplace complaints, what are they called? Complaints. You know, but complaints. Complaints. And the result has been we have bills on our wall to take things away from them and give them to private arbitration, etcetera, and what we have heard from our council, our legislative council, is the problem of privatizing it all is that you don't have a common body of law that people can look to and know kind of what they're going to get, stuff like that, and that it's better if it's in an agency. And so the idea of giving them Marc? Yes?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Can somebody text Mary the link for today? She her computer's not working.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: It's happening. Mary's on it.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Okay. She just texted me.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Oh, great.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: And then can I interject when you're done about this?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I'm done. Interject away. I I don't

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I don't think that's what the question is. The question was about prioritization. The bill that we had in front of us was to have a mediator position. It was then added to have another position. And now we're being asked to, in our letter, put one in front of the other as a priority without discussing that or having the bill back. Like, that wasn't bill. We agreed to put that in, but I'm just saying that wasn't what we were doing.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, do you one proposal is to strike the last sentence. That I think that's all I'm asking.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: What are you asking?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Striking the last sentence would say we're not putting a priority. Well, both positions are important. The mediator is the most essential. And that's just my personal belief, and that's why I had asked, and that's why it's up for discussion. In other words, The take

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I had put to take that out. I had put in the sentence, Emilie, and I don't feel strong at all about it. And Ashley said, well, actually, I consider the attorney position more important. And you're saying, I don't think we really have before us.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: That's right.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We haven't had the discussion necessary to prioritize, and I think that's fine. And why don't we strike the sentence entirely so we aren't prioritized?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Just because the original bill was a mediator.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Yeah. Okay.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Are you comfortable with striking that sentence?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. And if we were to prioritize, then I would want to check-in with some folks about that because we we kinda just decided that. We didn't talk about that during the testimony of the bill, really.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We Right.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: So that would wouldn't be appropriate, in my opinion, to just make those decisions.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. That's struck.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: That's fine.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Then so yeah. Just just just question that has every recall of the testimony. The staff is understaffed. Mediator is not staffed at all. Right.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: What it was is that they never had a mediator on staff. They had this federal mediation and reconciliation service just providing free service to them, and now they're gone.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: So one one position is preventing getting to a one conviction is for negotiations, the other position is when things have gone wrong,

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: how do you resolve that? Is that fair? Position- don't always, so- Go ahead. This is not my hill to die on. This is just something that I fundamentally believe. Like, I think there is one that's more important, but I'm fine with taking this out. My thought process is one, you don't always go to mediation. Mediation is still going to be available. Privately, like privately, Right. But all cases need to have a staff training. It's not just for when things go south. That's just me.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Another way of putting it, they both really relate to workload. The reason they do is mediation helps reduce formal complaints. It deals with formal complaints. If mediation is either unsuccessful or never utilized, then they have to deal with the formal complaint, and the problem is they're short staffed. So, both are necessary. Gayle?

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: But they already have an attorney.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: One, yes. So,

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: they need a second attorney, or they want a mediator in place of a second attorney?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: No, they want both. There are questions for the original press and for the mediator.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: So what you're asking, your opinion is, you think just the attorney?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I think they need both, which is why I had asked to put both in. But I was gonna personally, for me, if we had to prioritize, I would say the staff attorney is a higher priority. That is my opinion. I am very much happy with this language as long as we take out, while both positions are important, the mediator is most essential. Yeah, Pezzo.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, is that all right? Okay, what I did was, as you saw in tier two, I did the same thing. I have a housing one, and I have and then I stuck the proposed legislation at the end. It's just for their information. Otherwise, that's what I did. Don't, there's

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: only one No, no, Gayle, I just wanted to point out the last bullet on page four. I just wanted you to see that.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I didn't feel like I could do I thought whoever said it yesterday was right. The legislation is different because it's not all passed yet. So anyway, how do people feel about this? I don't feel we need a vote, but I'd like to know if we have a consensus or we can do a straw poll. We can do whatever you guys wanna do. Every committee does it differently. All and I don't want the fact that it's in this draft to mean much. I'm just trying to my first draft is just a start. My second draft is just to put in. I don't think anything like these numbers will be in the budget. I've already told, I told the chair of the appropriations committee that we would be putting in numbers, but that we would signal that, you know, that if budget isn't available, we recognize the money not be available. You should know, I found out one more piece of information I'd forgotten. The 12,000,000 for VHCb was an amalgam of 9,000,000 for just for housing, and 3,000,000 for disability, developmental disability housing. You remember the developmental disability situation, just to reprise quickly, remember that there's a need for 600 units, which is incredible. I mean, that's a lot of money. But we have three pilot projects. The 3,000,000 would continue the funding of the pilot project. I mean, it's a fraction of what's needed, and it was just part of their 12,000,000. I'm just giving you information. It was just part of their 12,000,000. They're not, none of these numbers are gonna be on the budget. Yeah?

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: The last paragraph on page four, is that only for off-site modular housing?

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: The FTE, those two positions? No. Actually, no, it's not. They're in that bill.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It's it's a language. It's off you're right. The language is what is the language? The language that allows it's kind of permissive, it would allow the treasurer to work in terms of, to work on both off-site modular and manufacturing, I think.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: They report. I'm sorry?

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: They should report the 21.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Or at the bottom. Or at the bottom. Yeah, and I think it should just say Well, it's actually, if it was literal, I think, correct me if I'm wrong, Tom, to be literal, it would say the following: program facilitates the aggregation of both orders of off-site modular housing paid for the respective project developers, and guaranteed by a credit facility provided by the treasurer, which would backstop both off-site modular and manufactured housing.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Right. The two positions are in our bill Yeah. But not necessarily directly connected to There's languages which has in

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: it which was deliberately drafted to allow both off-site modular and manufacturing. Right.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: What what the approach committee needs to look at are the two positions for DHCD. Yeah. And I think in our bill, but they're not positions for the housing accelerator. Right.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So they're just in the bill. But okay.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: And and what he needs needs to, I think, weigh in on is to 700,000 in interest, but not necessarily what arrangements the treasure remains. I don't know that Yeah. Aside from that, I think that's

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: This is going to approach A piece

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: of information that approach it.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. But And you said you mean

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: the Yeah.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Well, it's like both, but we're talking

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: about a letter to approach them, right?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I'm actually able to ask this. So in our bill, or in our policy bill, we're talking about giving an additional 2% or 2.5% to the treasurers. I'm assuming that that might change the name of the program. Hypothetically, if we About 25% for Vermont. Well, if we appropriate a program that is called the 10% for Vermont program, but the name changes, that's okay, right? Like it's still gonna go to the same place regardless of a name change, like it's not gonna go out into the ethers or it's out of

[Unknown witness (Treasurer/Agency staff)]: I think the treasurer may have some thoughts on branding.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: You want to tell us who you are?

[Unknown witness (Treasurer/Agency staff)]: Yes, Governor, that's why this is You're not required, you can have any percentage and so call it 10% If you think that sounds catchy, it is, I will note, a statute in 10 BSA 10. So that's another thing with numbers that connect. But yeah, no, we can allocate any percent and it's up to the treasurer to figure

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: out how they brand it

[Unknown witness (Treasurer/Agency staff)]: or whether they want

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: But cross can it like a complete name change. It's a safe assumption to be like, this is what we had intended. This is Okay.

[Unknown witness (Treasurer/Agency staff)]: Yes, and I would defer to Ledge Council on how they would, if they wanna change the title or if they all wanted to change the title, that's a pledge of counsel preference, but as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't impact money flow or

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Okay, that's really my concern.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: How do people feel about this? I just, like I said, either consensus or people want if if you wanna vote no or you wanna register, you know, we can do it through a straw poll, whatever people wanna do. I have

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: a more of a general question.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: In the 12,000,000 funding Yeah. You said it contains 3,000,000 for separate projects within that number. Are they unable is that money there because they're unable to use the 38,000,000 for that?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I don't know. They sent me an email saying that they would use all the money to build houses. I mean, build units. They sent me an email. Just a second. Let me look at the email. Let me see if I can find it. But I don't know the answer to that question. I can ask right now. I'm just curious. I didn't I didn't know

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: if it'd be like an internal priority type thing. Or

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Oh, I think that's very high. I I know it's a very high priority, but I think that's an interesting question. I I don't know why they couldn't use their base. I don't know.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: I I don't see why they couldn't. I'm just curious.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: They probably could. I don't know. Why don't I ask? But meanwhile, just what do people want to do? Can you run things for a minute while I ask them this question? Yeah.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Wondering about putting a little more emphasis on

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: VHIP. Because

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: we have, of the two programs here, they both have the opportunity to leverage a lot. They're both very active. One of them could use more of the other ones to an advantage if it doesn't go on the basin. And I think we know the information, We know that and they can see it. Formerly human base is being requested. But if we either switch the priority or just more expressly in the paragraph about the hip.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Why it has to go in the base?

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: This program, the pilot's over, it has to go in the base and it's highly effective to replenish otherwise.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Can we tell them to use part of the globe or both?

[Katie McLennan (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, because that'll be one

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: to nine. And it's a different organization, yeah. I'm talking about just telling appropriations that it

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: could I think that that's a very A choice. It's an interesting point. You want to say, we want to emphasize the hip because it's going to disappear, right?

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Yeah.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: About, well there's two possibilities, and I'll go either way. Just a minute. I said that small steps existed for several years, blah blah blah, but indications are they'll be moving on this year unless the position for the successful program become permanent through base funding. Do you want me to switch the order of these two?

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Possibly. Do you as a troop, when you read this, is the position to disappear? They gather from that that the whole program will disappear? It's pretty much the testimony that that we've heard.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, I can I can certainly add? I think the program will be heavily compromised. I don't know if it will disappear.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I would agree with that. I'd say heavily compromised would be the word.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: That's not what Alex testified. Yeah.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: He said if Alex said it would disappear?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: He'd have to deal with all. Okay. Well, I don't know. Would I think he said, I could put heavily compromise and possibly cease to function. Indications of the new analysis of the program.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: And also, if folks feel really strongly about certain things, can you go testify during your opportunity to follow-up on these things as well. Tom, if you'd like to do that.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, Tom, I'm going to put at the end that the program would be heavily if that occurs, the program would be heavily compromised and possibly cease to exist. What do people want me to do otherwise? Yes? VHCb,

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: it's come up. Joe's been saying it for years. I think it's something that we should talk about is their percentage breakdown, and could they leverage more money if they skew the percentage? I mean, we know they could leverage more money if they skew the percentage towards housing.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Of their base. Of their base. They have been told, the way it's been done in the past, is that all the one time money has been told they have to spend it for housing. Correct. And I don't know what the percentage, okay. Isn't it sixtyforty or 60 fivethirty five? Yeah. Something like that.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: My last testimony sounded fiftyfifty, which I didn't think it. I thought it was more. Sixtyforty. Yeah. But

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Joe, here is the answer I got on your question. I said to Polly Major, can you use BASE to pay for DD, developmentally disabled? She writes, yes, but we will do less housing because those units tend to be more expensive because of the need for trauma informed design and common space. I get worried when we use our base to fund the most expensive units. I think it's one of the best places to put one time dollars. Yeah. K. Noted. Yeah. So I don't know whether they've ever been The only thing I can say about that issue is that it's the issue of the percentage that goes to conservation versus the percentage to housing. Of course, it could be changed. I think that's a really big move. I don't think that we can do it through this I think it's an important question about which I bet there will be differences of How do people feel? What do you wanna do?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: About the whole thing? Yeah. I think it seems good. And, again, like I said, if folks feel passionately about particular parts of the letter as individuals, they can also testify next week in front

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: of us. I have been invited to testify when?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Like, 10:30.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thursday. I can easily transmit individual concerns. I'm perfectly willing to do that.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: And Wednesday from eleven to noon is the time for regular nonchairs.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Is it is it just another open hearing, or

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: is it the hearing legislators.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: For legislators. Yep. Yes. Listen. There is a special hearing for legislators, and they appear. People come, and you should anybody who has strong feelings about any of this. Yeah. I'm not saying this

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Does it have to be in your cider committee? No. Any high line item?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: No, you just go and testify, legislators can testify, and they do. So, I mean, I think that's a place to say things like, VHIP is great and you've got to do this, it's going to disappear. It's a time for people to go and say, I think that VHCb base should be more on housing or things like that.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Yep.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: They do listen to legislators. I'm not they do.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I agree. And I think particularly around VHEP would be a a place if if several members of the committee feel very passionately could be helpful because I think that there are some members on that committee that may not feel the same way.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, I let's be clear here. I am going to testify that I think that BF is a very successful program, and that evidence is that it's just enough already. It's been long enough on one time, but the reason I think that I want to do that is because there has tended to be, I think, a really unfortunate ideological tinge to this debate, where Republicans have been hostile to VHCV and or the administration are perceived as hostile to VHCV and perceived as very probed and Democrats to the contrary, and I think what we've heard here is that that's just not a good way of looking at it. They perform different functions and do them well, and I think that it's important to try to transcend that, and I will do that in my testimony. And I believe it, and I actually am saying what I think, not just what you all think. Others thoughts? Did we send this letter? Saudia, are you okay?

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: I am. I'm just a little so I'm kind of just like, it's okay at this point because it is what it is and we're not going to get all we want. And like I was trying to convey on Wednesday, I would have liked to see us put the things that are at risk of losing funding that have asks as the higher priority. I know the HCV of E and all those things, and so the language, but I don't foresee us moving, I don't know, the proper things that we need in alignment with our landlord tenant stuff. A landlord liaison, I feel like, should have been moved up to a priority because that's an existing funding that was there, that is being completed, and I just feel like if it goes away, we're taking away resources from folks. But other than that, I mean,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I'm You are making a point, there is already funding for that, and it's disappearing. I can put that there. Shall I

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: put it up there? Yeah. I just wanna be assured that on the phone program with community action that there's money specific to that program for staffing.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I what

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I am hearing from people, I'm hearing two things. Tell me if I'm skipping ahead of where you really are at. I am hearing I ought to get rid of the two tiers and I should just put one tier and put the legislation and then I should move that one piece of legislation into the main body.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: I mean, no, it's fine. I don't know how you would adequately achieve, I don't know, but what would you like to see?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think it's, I will tell you, I don't think it really matters what tier it's in. I think that triage is going to be extensive.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: But it can't hurt to

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: ask. Mary

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: has her hand up.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Oh, hi, Mary.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Since we seem to be getting to the end of this discussion, I would like to respectfully propose that we also add H57, the survivor's benefit since that bill passed our committee unanimously twice and was being held up by two people in appropriations and is now being held up by one. So I would just like to be sure that that is added to our list of wants.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I mean, amen, sister. That being said, there's not really an appropriations.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Well, it was not to be sent. Initially we were going to report the bill. It passed out of our committee and it was on the calendar. And then we were told it had to go to appropriations where it has sat for quite a long time. And it is my understanding that it is still up on the wall.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Completely agree, completely agree. But this is our memo two appropriations on how we should be spending money. That, I mean, I think at this point, I'm just not sure that this is the vehicle to move that, but you know I'm right there with you wanting that to move. So, I mean, I think we can say, Hey, as a reminder, this on your wall, but I'm not sure that that does anything because it's not an appropriations that we're requesting. And I think because we are in such a difficult budget year, and granted they're all difficult, like Joseph said earlier this week, you're stealing from one pocket and putting it into another. But I think I'm concerned that if we do that, they're not going to take seriously all the other work we've also put in. That's just my concern. And that are my thoughts. Those are my thoughts.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Other voices here? Very, very clear.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Yeah, with that bill not I don't think it requires appropriation for that bill, correct?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Correct.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Yeah, I mean, I don't think this is what this letter is for. Just that's it. I don't think it's a your bills letter in your committee you should pass. It gets here's things after their funding.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I am certainly willing, unless the committee tells me not to when I testify, to tell to remind the committee that there is a survivor benefits bill on their wall and that the expenditure would be diminished, which it is. And hopefully,

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: diminished.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: But what's the sense of the committee?

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: It

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: seems to be a more your main way to approach it than in the letter. Mhmm. But I'm just gonna approach it that

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: that I'm happy to do that. I mean, I am happy to remind the committee that

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: it's separate. Yeah. Well, when I testify.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Yeah. Was gonna say, like, representative Krasnow mentioned, like, we can all go down there and make our points during that time. Feel free to throw that one in

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: there as well while you're down there. Mary, can you hear the debate here?

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Yes. I am. But would it be appropriate for our committee to send a separate letter to appropriations anyway, not necessarily with this letter, but a separate letter asking them to please do the right thing.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I mean, I think, again, I think that's a conversation that you go and you sit down in front of them next Wednesday. I didn't wanna double check. Literally the only so it says, state statute 3,173, monetary benefit. The survivors of emergency personnel who dies, it's changed to die while in the line of duty or from an occupation related illness may apply for a payment of $80,000 from the state. That's, that's the only sort of relationship to appropriations. I just, I'm not sure I would feel comfortable doing that as a committee letter. But I am absolutely comfortable going down there and screaming to the rooftop how important this, that bill is.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Other people? I mean, think the consensus is that either I, and I'm happy to do it, Mary, but also others might want to go and testify on this issue.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Okay. I appreciate that. I just feel it's really important to have that bill pass. And I think it's just horrible that that bill has been held up in that committee for so long because of two people.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Mary, how about another option too? It sounds like our chair is is willing to to bring it up, but excuse me. Another option I've seen folks do is I'm happy to work with you to draft a letter to the committee. And if folks on our committee would like to sign on to that, we can send it to the committee, not necessarily at the same time because they're very jammed up, but before crossover and make sure that folks from our committee who feel passionately about it can sign on if if you'd like me to help draft that letter to the committee.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: I would appreciate that very much. Thank you so much.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Emily, that's a great solution. Okay.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Thank you. Thank you.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Alright. So I'm hearing that I should I need to emphasize that Viya really could disappear. I need to eliminate the attempt to in any way indicate side between with respect to the labor relations board to decide between mediator and attorney. Am I hearing also that I should take the landlord tenant education program and move it out of just legislation into, you know, the list?

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: That's what

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I'm

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: hearing. Other suggestions? Yes. When we talked about the hip decision hearing, did I did I understand correctly that they were saying that they wouldn't even have the staffing available to to finish the oversight of projects that have already been approved?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: And so it's not even a program that is disappearing, but that it would have gotten a false start. Correct. That it would be literally undermined.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think that

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Which makes you think that that's a poorly designed program to put as a pilot. No. We're the one trying for the last four years to put it in base, but that didn't happen.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Joe, Alex commented that they would only have staff to follow-up on what's already out there. Yeah, I would not be, they would not be making more friends.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: They would not be able to follow-up.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: The most they would be able to do with the staff they have.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Think Mihaly Is says

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: the the finish oversight? Yes.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. Is what I remember. I

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: was gonna say part of the oversight wouldn't because I had asked about, there's a stipulation of like the five year, ten year, and they wouldn't be able to follow that.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Didn't Sean testify? I mean, they really didn't get into it, because they don't want to get into it. But I think what Sean said at one point is, I'd just be spending my life, and that would be it, on making sure that people were following the rental guidelines. They certainly wouldn't be doing anything new.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: And we also, you know, like other things, once it's I see it's cookie time. Once we, you know, make these commitments to put it in, then it's easier to not have a death spiral in the future. We wanna maintain this type of program moving forward. Norm as normally. Right? So that we're not every year coming back. I mean, that's why they want to be in the base so that it is consistent. And I think it's time.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think when I testify, I have to be really clear. Yeah. I think I have to say something like, we know, the committee knows that it's hard to find base funding. Much harder than one time funding. We know that. And last year, that may have been motivation that allowed the by which we didn't put it in base. But the evidence before us, and we took testimony on this point, is that the time has run out. And that if we don't put this in base, there's a strong likelihood that the program will cease to exist. And here's why. The worst they can do is not listen to me, which has happened before.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: You know you have very limited time.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I was going to say, we get three minutes. How much time do you get?

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Y'all get ample time in the hallways.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: That or we could I'll I'll go and I'll just what is it? Yield my time No. To

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: think I'll have five minutes. Four minutes? Five minutes. They're going to want a lot. But listen, I can say that it's clearly the most important thing for me to say. I don't think I guess my feeling is, in reality, it's impossible to predict what an individual employee is going to do. So it's impossible to know what individual employees that work on VIF are going to do if it's yet again, all they get is an extension of their, what's it called, limited service. It's impossible to know. But I think it's fair to say that it would be a very substantial risk that they'll lose their personnel. I mean, it's just been it's been what? Three years? Is that right? Three years? Anybody remember? I mean,

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: if you want to go back to the No, but

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: How long have they been asking for BASE? Three years. Three years. Okay. Anything else? Tell me. Do you Yes. You want me to put, yeah, okay, go on.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: It's for, you had received a flyer from any seminar, but you and I spoke and I spoke to someone else and I don't remember who it was when I was talking about there's no set aside money for manufactured homes. And what was said to me is that 10% can be used for anything that But you can we be specific? That's a no?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, of course it's not a no. This is the same issue that Tom brought up earlier. Let me see if I can say this in a public way. The fact is we are adding to the budget of the treasurer's project. That project, that whole project does not have an extensive definition in state law. It is defined in their own guidance documents and in the initiatives that undertaken by LITEQ, the board of individuals who, when they put out an RFP, look at the individual projects. Given the lack of statutory specificity, there is nothing that would stop a future treasurer at the moment from deciding to spend the money some other way. We made a decision in July that we would not take on that whole big picture problem, but instead would add, you know, add this whole credit facility and add what we're talking about. And that that language was drafted broadly enough to allow the money to be spent for manufactured housing as well as off-site housing, but that's all. We have not taken on the job of completely revising that. And I think if we wanna talk about that more, we should talk about it a little bit when we get to July. Okay. Anything else? Can I how do you feel about just giving me the authority to rewrite this letter sometime today and send it off? Do you feel secure enough that I won't do something that won't go right? Yeah. Have a conversation. Are you okay, Joe? Are you okay? What are you guys you're not?

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: I'm not. If we're doing, like, the straw poll thing, I'm gonna

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Should we do a straw poll? I'm just so however, it gets you know Sent to

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: them is fine, but I I I'm just letting you know

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: it for me. It's not. Okay. Anybody else a no on this?

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: I said yes. Don't go to me.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: We're not

[Katie McLennan (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: hearing any more no's.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Alright, okay, I'm gonna send it. I understand, Joe, you're saying I've sent. Okay, yeah. Are you guys comfortable? Mary? Yes. Elizabeth? Emilie? Yes. Yeah. Okay. Liz, did I hear you? Elizabeth, are you okay?

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Yeah. She's

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: okay. Alright. Alright. Let's move on.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Next Thumbs thing up.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes, the next thing on our agenda, and we have Katie with us. Katie, you want to come up?

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Sure.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We have eight sixty one, which is an act relating to establishing the Americans with Disabilities Act Coordinator. And am I right? Okay.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Tell us who you are. Sure would. Katie McLennan, Office of Legislative Counsel.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, Katie, is this in its current form, a short form bill?

[Katie McLennan (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It is a short form bill.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, so members of the committee, she can talk about the subject matter, right?

[Katie McLennan (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I have a little bit.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, but I think the operative question, am I right, is do we want to ask her to draft a long form bill? That's the operative, there actually is an action before us. We can or cannot, it's up to us, ask to draft a long form bill. If she does that, you are not committing to one way or the other as to whether you will take it up, whether you will have witnesses, etcetera. But it's the next step.

[Katie McLennan (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And there is a vote of the committee required to turn a short form into a long form. Oops.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We just lost. We lost our and and and our our clerk is on screen rather than here in person. So

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I don't think you have to do a real vote.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: No. I

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Do we have to do a vote?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I thought that you With the clerk?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: No. Can we do a straw poll?

[Katie McLennan (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Rules, but I asked

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: You would know better than I but I was my understanding, we didn't have to do, like, a roll a clerk roll call for a take a pill.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Definitely. Check the

[Unknown witness (Treasurer/Agency staff)]: house rules. Despite the

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: rules, it's always just been

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Right.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: I mean, you wouldn't be here, I don't think, if it wasn't.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Otherwise, we've been doing it wrong then.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I don't mind. We can always we can always do it wrong.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: I don't think you'd be in that chair if it wasn't.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think that we could always do it wrong and ask for forgiveness rather than confession.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: That's how I roll.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Valid observation deck. Oh, really?

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Let's notice a few things. Oddly enough.

[Katie McLennan (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Reform bill shall be drafted in standard form by the office of legislative council only if requested by a majority vote of the committee to which the bill has been referred.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: That doesn't answer the question of the form of the vote.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: It doesn't. Okay. The

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: chair rules. The chair rules.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: We

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: are going to do it by straw poll only because the because member Parsons has so indicated.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Okay. I've also indicated. Yeah. Alright.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I'm raise I'm raising my hands as a Okay.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Alright. So, Katie Mhmm. Take it away.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: I thought oops.

[Katie McLennan (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Do you have it loaded on your iPads? You have members on the screen, so don't wanna cover the screen. Eight sixty one short form bill, all the information we have about this bill is this bill proposes to establish an independent Americans with Disability Act coordinator within state government. So I will need more information from this committee to make a standard form bill. I'm happy to do that. As this committee probably knows already, the ADA does require the designation of an ADA coordinator in any local or state government that has 50 or more employees. This is different. This is envisioning something that would be sort of a statewide ADA coordinator. I briefly looked to see what other states were doing, and it looks like there are a few other states that have somebody appointed as a statewide ADA coordinator. But if you decide that you would like to move forward with this language, some things that this committee would need to address before I could start drafting would be where in state government is this position located? Is it an existing position that already exists and you're giving somebody additional authority? This says independent. So would it function completely separately from any other office? And if so, how does the budget work? Those are some issues that came up when we worked on the office of child's youth and family advocate in terms of having an independent office. What would the qualifications of this individual be? If it's a statutory position, would this be somebody who has special training or experience? What would their responsibilities be? I'm sure you'd probably wanna set those out in statute about specific predation that this person would be doing or oversight. Would this person have any staff to do the work depending on what their work is? Would this person have responsibility of reporting back about the work they're doing and if so, do to them? And then appropriation, if this is a new position, it would need to be authorized. If it's additional work for an existing position, you might have a smaller preparation. Anyway, lots of food for thought for you.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So, to clarify, and then I would like to turn it over, if it's okay with you to Elizabeth, to sort of indicate her thinking on this. Please. To clarify, the ADA requires that state that states or local governments or governmental entities with 50 or more employees have an ADA coordinator. So it's for them. It's it's the idea that this coordinator is coordinating their own activities, their own, in other words, is the state doing, and when it does buildings presumably, etcetera, for example, it's determining that entity's compliance with the ADA, not other entities or generally.

[Katie McLennan (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm not sure I'm understanding your question. Are you saying is the point of this person to coordinate other ADA coordinators that are designated under the No.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I was just wondering that under the ADA, I'm not talking about what Elizabeth is proposing. Oh. Just under the ADA, it's the idea that if you have if an if a governmental entity has over 50 employees, it has to have an ADA coordinator whose job it is is to oversee whether that entity's activities comply with the ADA. Yes. Okay. So I guess, Elizabeth, my oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Yeah. I just and I guess this would be for Elizabeth as well. Well, explains this kind of her thought process behind it. The point that you just brought up was just one of my questions in that long list of how things how this would work would be, like, Agatha Kessler is our ADA clients person for the State House. Would that that role is no longer needed, or is this the top person that all the other people still have to remain as ADA coordinators for their separate spots? This would have changed

[Katie McLennan (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: federal law. So the existing requirements that governmental entities of 50 or more employees designate an ADA coordinator is federal law.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So Yeah.

[Katie McLennan (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Whatever you do as the state wouldn't take away that requirement. So, yes, there would still need to be those positions.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Currently, we are in violation of state law by not having such a coordinator.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: No. Federal

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Federal law. No.

[Katie McLennan (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: To the extent that governmental entities with 50 or more employees have an ADA coordinator now, they are in compliance with the law. This, I believe, is looking at Right.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Do we have an ADA coordinator? Yes.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Yeah. I gotta cast it.

[Katie McLennan (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: For the state house?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: For the state.

[Katie McLennan (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Not that I know of. I believe this is why this is being raised.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Every agency and they may they all

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: have their own. Okay. So, Mike, I'm gonna ask you for comment, Elizabeth, but I want to put a sort of basic question on the, really basic question on the table for you. We are, I I think the question for you to answer for yourself is kinda do you wanna go minimalist in the in the light of the budgetary constraints and how near we are to crossover and all that stuff. And that would mean parking this somebody somewhere and trying to minimize the budget and maybe less staff and etcetera. In other words, you would be getting half a loaf at best now with the idea of building on it, or do you wanna say to yourself, no. I really want it to be what it ideally should be, and if it doesn't make it this session, then we reintroduce it next session. And then I want a long form bill to look like it should. So which I don't know. I'm maybe I'm wrong in putting those two extremes out there, but I'm just trying it's food for thought for you, which way you wanna go. So what are you what's your thoughts and your thoughts on these questions?

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: My thoughts are that while there are several ADA positions within our state government, they have to do with compliance regarding working conditions, including at the State House. But Title II requires coordination of services among departments and we don't do that. And my feeling is that, and we've had, we have had lawsuits that have been filed against our state government as a result of that. My feeling is that we should ideally be going above and beyond the requirements of the ADA, but that we're not meeting the minimal requirements at this time. And I'm not actually talking necessarily about accessibility to buildings or provision of of.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: What do you call?

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Assistive devices or other accommodations. I am actually talking I mean, and I am not discounting that in any way. It's extremely important for people to be able to do their work, but I'm responding to problems that I have seen with service provision among collaboration among agencies that is required in title two of the ADA. So I don't, I'm not married to the idea of it being an independent office, but I do think that it is important that it is understood to be a coordinator role and not just a, like a service coordinator role and not just a, a accommodations coordinator. Does that make sense?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So what I'm hearing you say is that for you, ideally, we could well, let me ask you a question. If we park if we park I mean, it's it's hard for me to imagine that a bill we would have a successful bill that created a new department or a completely independent entity. So if we were gonna park it somewhere, where do you think the safest and best place to park it be?

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: The agency of administration.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: And do you think that it could be one person to start?

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I think it can be one person to start. I have a friend who is the ADA coordinator for the state of Indiana, and she is a one man show or a one woman show.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Is Indiana have such is Indiana a sort of a guide to look

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: at? No.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: But I have I recently got restarted communications with her. And when she looked at what happens in our state, she just did a very cursory look. She told me that this would be a great place to start.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: What kind of qualifications of the individual are we talking about?

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Well, you know, I obviously, expertise in the ADA would be preferable. Work in this field would be preferable. I think that we don't necessarily want to hire from within the state, but if there is somebody in the state who meets those qualifications, then that's great. But I do think that if we did decide to take this up and develop it into a full length proposal that we should be taking plenty of testimony from people with lived experience. And we have a couple of people who can speak to what is required of that that role.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Katie, you are probably familiar with the number of bills which you created, professional positions, but not attorney positions, but professionals. Are we sort of talking about 130 k?

[Katie McLennan (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, it's a JFO question, but I mean, you have to factor in benefits, so.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: 150? Yeah,

[Katie McLennan (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: not the best person to answer that.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: In the absence of anything better, let's say 150. Okay. Alright. I, Elizabeth, is there anything else? Okay. So, anything else you want to add?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Can I oh,

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Go ahead, Emilie?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Well, I just, I mean, this is just, again, I can't support this. It's just gone on way too long, and we're lucky that, lucky is not even the word, that we haven't had more issues around not having this. And it really should be in the governor's budget, and within the administration, this type of thing, I think. But we're going to have to, I think it's very important, and and I'm I don't wanna I I really would like to see this through. I don't wanna see this come up again.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think Joe and then I don't have any. No. Tom.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: You saw him somewhere in that direction.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Sure. I'm just so coming into compliance with ADA, I am good with, I support. Under title two, it's required that there be a responsible employee to coordinate efforts to comply. Is it necessary that this be a full time position or is this a responsibility that can be added to the portfolio of somebody who is already in the system? That you know where it makes some sense anyways.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Could I

[Katie McLennan (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: make a clarifying statement?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Sure.

[Katie McLennan (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the requirement in the ADA is not that we have to have a statewide white person. It's that each state or local governmental entity with 50 plus employees has to have a designee within So their I am hesitant to call this necessary to comply with ADA. I think this is something to help coordinate the ADA responsibilities. But if all of the separate governmental entities with 50 plus already have their designee, then we don't have a compliance Not a compliance issue.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: But a coordination issue. Coordination issue, yes. It's legit, okay. So again, I mean, same question is, does it need a full time position or is it something we need to make sure is in somebody's wheelhouse?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think I'm gonna say this, let me try here. Before I indicate what my feeling is, I think the issue before us is do we ask Katie to draft a long form bill and give her just enough information so that she can put a legitimately articulated long form bill together. I think then issues like the one you're raising are issues that we would discuss if we then decide to take this bill off the wall Right. And do something with it, which then we're gonna have witnesses and discussion. My personal feeling, which Elizabeth probably won't like, my personal feeling is, I don't know if we'll get to this this session, but I want to see a fully formed bill put together so that we have it. And if it's not this session, it's next. I'm not suggesting it wouldn't be this section, but I think it's time to go beyond a short form bill and get a bill that's a long form bill that's there, that's on our wall, that we know is articulated. It's true. I understand everything on the wall we don't get to is just supposedly incinerated instantly as of the end of the session, but I still I don't forget. You don't delete the files? Okay. No. I don't. And I think that that enough's enough, and it's worth I'm with Emilie. It's worth getting this bill out and articulate it. That's my personal view. But it's just me speaking as an individual. How do members of the committee feel on the question of whether this should go into a long form of yes.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: I strongly support it. I absolutely support it. And if it doesn't, for whatever reason, then I would love to see language in some of our other policy bills, whether it's within the wheelhouse of designating somebody within the Human Rights Commission or somebody else, or just having folks come in from the agency that where you think that this should lie, Elizabeth, and and just asking them for for a report of what what their activities have been to try to coordinate statewide.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Other members. That's

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: a good idea. I'd like to I'd like like what Rev Dodge said, I would like to have them in and and ask them these tough questions. Like, what this is, you know, what they I'm not an expert, but if it's the agency of the administration, at least I'd like to have them answer to this.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Mary, do you have any thoughts that you wish to add?

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: I, I I totally agree with, what has been said. I think that it's it's very important in its time, and so I agree.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Others, Debbie, Saudia? Do go to a long form bill? Absolutely. Okay, Katie, do you have what you need to put pencil or paper?

[Katie McLennan (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I have enough of a short outline. I think if you want more details, I will- Medium form, Bill. I will create a new section of statute and I will create the position. It would be great to have more information about, we talked about that this person would be in a coordinating role, but what does that mean to you? What do you mean by coordinating role? What would you like to see? So I think those are sort of the pieces that I would need a little more information on. Is it

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: legitimate to ask Elizabeth to be in contact with you on questions that you've had?

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: That would be fantastic, yeah.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I do have a lot of information gathered about it.

[Unknown witness (Treasurer/Agency staff)]: Perfect. Okay. Alright.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: And I was trying say my 2¢, but I was just saying, I do think you should get it with short form, but I also think you should not only get it

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: with short form. Once you get that, think you should take it up. You're touching on it.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. So what we have here, what I'm reading, is consensus, a vote, a vote has occurred. I declare that a vote has occurred. An expression of support. No. That a vote has occurred authorizing legislative council. We're on video. I'm taking the risk that a vote has occurred authorizing legislative council to draft a short a long form bill. In the process, she may communicate with representative Burrows. There is some substantial support for actually taking the bill up, which I caution will be a decision we will all make Later. After we get a few bills out of here, we can take a breath. Alright. Katie, do have anything else? Nope. Thank you. Okay. My question to the committee is, the next item we have is is our other another member of legislative council is here to to help us out with some changes to seven seventy five, and we are sending it for a vote. What I did was I put it on with Miriam's help. We switched it to 11:30 because I just don't wanna take the whole afternoon on this because snow is coming in. Although some of us actually have the luxury of being home. Uh-huh. Anyway, I think my question is, do we need a break, or do you want to go right into this? I think a break is needed. Okay. We're gonna take five minutes, please, only for a break. I really do wanna have a little real time before 11:00. Cameron is here, so this is a