Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: I'll have one. We're live.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Alright. Good morning, everyone. We are looking at just shy of 10:25 on Friday, January 16. Welcome to government operations and military affairs. We have counsel with us today to wrap up the presentation on our public records overview from earlier in the week. Hello, counsel. It's been a whopping forty five minutes since we've seen each other.

[Speaker 0]: Good morning, Tucker Anderson, legislative council. You have a lot on your agenda this morning, and I wanna make sure that I use your time wisely and efficiently. So is it still the plan to start with the public records act overview portion that we missed last time?

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yes. I'd like to close the loop on that before moving on

[Speaker 0]: to the introductions. Right. Nick, when you have an opportunity, will you invite me to the Zooms that I can share at some point? But for now, we'll close our discussion on one BSA three seventeen. We talked about the definitions. We talked about exemptions broadly. We talked about some specific exemptions, and we talked about the duties of legislative counsel contained within that section. Wonderful. There's an invitation. And the one thing that I wanted to flag for you, we talked about some of the particular ways that the exemptions are applied, the redaction of specific information. It could be the withholding of an entire record. And then you can get into these difficult situations in the analysis, where you may have to withhold an entire record because one small piece of information is confidential, but simply by responding to the request, you reveal that one tiny piece of confidential information. There is another type of analysis called mosaic analysis that I typically flag for committees. Anytime you have, an exemption that covers, for example, identifying information, public agency, as part of the review process, has to consider the information that is, out there in the public concerning this person already. Why? Because the discrete release of certain information about a private individual, could reveal a whole bunch of other information in the mosaic, giving people in the public a full and complete picture of that individual's private life or intimate details about that individual's private life. So there is this duty whenever there is a mandate on a public agency to protect the identity of a particular person or a particular class of peoples, they do this sort of mosaic analysis, and it is very time consuming. And if you want more information about mosaic analyses, I have written a memo on the subject that came up in the context of, confidentiality of certain criminal records related to juveniles. The last section that we're going to talk about in the Public Records Act is section three eighteen. And I'll share now with the text up on screen. How wonderful. Section three eighteen contains the specific procedures for both responding to Public Records Act requests and also the appellate procedures at the initial level, which is administrative remedies within the Public Records Act. The standard timeline for response, as you can see in subdivision A1, is three business days. So unless it falls under an exception within these procedures, the public agency has a duty to respond immediately and not more than three business days from receipt of the request. Subdivision 2. This came up in your discussion, when you did your initial introduction to some issues related to the Public Records Act that came that have come up. A custodian or the head of the agency who fails to comply with an applicable time limit is deemed to have denied the request. And there I know you've received a specific request to change this within the procedures. One of the things that I wanted to flag is that this is the only way procedurally that a requester can enforce at an individual level the time limits and deadlines within the Public Records Act. Right? If the agency doesn't respond under a statutory timeline, what is the consequence? The consequence is that there's an immediate appeal right, that the requester can send first and appeal to the head of the agency for an administrative remedy, and eventually, if you go far enough down the line, superior court to have the court reviewed. In subsection b, we have some specific timelines. So it doesn't fall into the general deadline of three business days and the record is in active use or in storage, then you have one calendar week as the public agency to respond to the request. If the custodian believes that the record is exempt, they have to issue a certification. If you identify the records withheld, include the asserted statutory basis for the denial, provide the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for denying the request, and notify the individual of the right to appeal to the head of the agency. This certification provided that is specific enough, provides the information that is necessary for an eventual appeal based on the denial. There have been a series of supreme court, superior court decisions around bond indexes, Vaughan indices, which is something that exists under the Freedom of Information Act, but is not expressly called for within the four corners of the Public Records Act. But assuming that the certification is written in the correct way, a index would not be necessary in order to analyze the basis for withholding. And a Vaughan index, if if it is required, specifically required only within judicial review, indicates what the substance of the record is related to the withholding. Public agencies typically will not release a Vaughan index with a denial because in itself, that could reveal confidential information or exempt information concerning the records. Vermont's way of handling this is that if you get to the point of a judicial determination, the judge has the authority to review confidential records in camera, which means in their chambers by themselves, the information is not revealed to the public or to the requester. The judge has the opportunity to review all of the information, even that which has been deemed confidential by the public agency. Alright. If a record doesn't exist, the custodian shall promptly, that means within three business days, certify that the record does not exist. And now we get to, keep telling you the Public Records Act is spicy. This is a spicy subdivision, Subdivision B 5. In unusual circumstances, you might hear about quite a few unusual circumstances this morning. The time limits in this section may be extended by written notice to the person making the request, setting forth the reasons for the extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched, and in any event, it shall be not more than ten business days from receipt of the request. That is the maximum timeline under the Public Records Act. So I alluded last time we got together to a possibility that the public agency could attempt to negotiate around extended release of records, rolling release of records over time, possibly arranging payment for a third party to assist with these large and voluminous requests. All of that is triggered by circumstances where a requester has asked for so much information in a single request that it can't be done in ten business days, which is the maximum timeline. Now an issue, interpretational issue with the Public Records Act is that there's no teeth in that negotiation for the public agency. Public agency has no room to deny a request if it cannot be completed within ten business days. Similarly, there's no opportunity to compel the requester to narrow their request. So if the public agency says, we have to narrow under a subsection that we're about to get to because we can't complete this within ten business days feasibly, the requester can remain silent or say, no, I'm not narrowing, and then you're at an impasse because the public agency has no way of enforcing the deadline from their side.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Oh, sorry. Reporter Evans.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: So in that case, like, let's say I asked for 10,000 emails, and it was impossible to produce all of that within that time period, then would the consequence be that everything just had to be released? Because the agency didn't make the timeline or?

[Speaker 0]: No. Ultimately, the consequence is opportunity for appeal. And the way that this can be solved is that if there is an appeal, the public agency has the opportunity to demonstrate that they put forth a reasonable effort to complete the request. And one of the things that a public agency would bring to Superior Court is evidence that they have committed time within the ten business day period, and that it's just not possible to review that many records within that time period. So to avoid that sort of, administrative churn of getting to the point where the court says public agency is correct, you can't do this, they put forward a reasonable effort, they haven't violated the CRA, public policies must try to shortcut that by negotiating in good faith to extend the timelines, come up with, an alternative process for reviewing and releasing records. Now there are particular bases for unusual circumstances, and this is typically what is referred to as the definition of unusual circumstances here. It's either the need to search for and collect the requested records from field facilities, the need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request. This is the most common. We refer to it as the voluminous request standard, or the need for consultation with other public agencies or the attorney general, provided that there is a significant interest in the determination of the request. This is maybe the second most frequent basis for using the extended timeline. The need for multiple public hospitals to have an interest in the same record to have time to both independently review the record and come to some sort of consensus about how it may be released. Subsection contains appeal rights. Anytime there is a denial of access, the first level of appeal is to the head of the public agency. And I know that you heard some testimony about confusion about who the head of the public agency is. Under general terms, this is always going to be the highest officer of the public agency we're talking about, highest elected or appointed officer of the public agencies. If you're talking about a division, it is the division head. Talking about a department, it's the commissioner. I know some of the confusion comes up at the local level because the legislative body is typically in control of these things. It would be the chair of whatever the body is. Subsection D, we have the consultation authority that I brought up a few times. Again, it is not mandatory that the requester narrow their request, But, there is the opportunity for the records officer for the public agency to consult with the requester to try to focus and narrow their request and ultimately to make this entire process more feasible, particularly in the case of Luminous requests. Difficult to enforce. Can't make the requester. You can only count to consult with them. All right. That's all that I wanted to flag in one BSA three eighteen. If there are no further questions, I would just note that there are two other sections in the Public Records Act that relate to, penalties and ultimately what could happen upon appeal. If you do get a disagreement between the parties, it is appealed to Superior Court. Need you to check those out on your own time.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yes. That sounds like good study hall work later on. Yeah. Any questions for counsel on that piece? We just wanted to go through these components as part of that original exercise from the other day. So, closing the loop on this. Questions from the table? Nope. Okay.

[Speaker 0]: All right. Close one container, open another. Alcoholic beverages. I understand from one of the attorneys on my team that hogshead has already been referred to this session, is sad because that's always part of my planned testimony. I won't bring up hogsheads of whiskey. One of the things the committee wanted me to do this morning before starting some of the bill walk throughs was just a little bit of a refresher on the varying licenses and permits that exist in title seven. What might be most useful is just to note the major licenses that come into play. Talk about the first, second, and third class. There is a fourth class license, but, we'll talk about the first three because they'll flag important notions about the model of alcoholic beverage regulation in Vermont's control model. And if you have particular questions about licenses or permits within subchapter two, be happy to, answer them for you or come back later to talk about some of the very specialized particular licenses. Alright. The first class license section two twenty one, the most colloquial way to put this, on premises consumption, small beverages, finest beverages, primarily ready to drink, spirits beverages, folded in as well. A more recent definition within Vermont's beverage purity laws and beverage purity definitions. You can think of first class licenses primarily as your restaurants and bars. This license is tied to those specific beverage categories that I brought up because they are in a private retail stream where distribution can come from parties other than the Department of Liquor and Lottery. Okay. Why did I bring that up? We're gonna skip second class for now. Well, that's because there is a third class license, effectively the same establishments, bars and restaurants, sometimes manufacturers who have on premises, service about beverages. But third class licenses sell spirits and fortified wines, which can only be secured through the Department of Liquor and Lodge. So you have, actors in the same sort of commercial space that acquire different licenses depending on the types of alcoholic beverages that they're serving on for on premises consumption. And that's tied directly to the distribution scheme that the state of Vermont has put into statute. So control, the control model is placed on spirits and fortified wants in this distribution stream. Representative Hango.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. Can you remind the committee what constitutes a fortified wine, please?

[Speaker 0]: It is a vinous beverage that has spirits added to it, is the simplest way to frame what that is, but we can actually very easily pull up the definition in section two.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: And no particular alcohol content required to be called a fortified wine?

[Speaker 0]: You will get there right now, representative Hango. Fortified wines are vinous beverages, including those to which spirits have been added manufacture containing at least 16% alcohol, but not more than 23% alcohol by volume at 60 degrees Fahrenheit and all vermouths containing not more than 23% alcohol by volume at 60 degrees Fahrenheit. All vermouths, and then any wine, including for excuse me, any wine as beverage, including those to which spirits have been added that are between 1623%. For this committee and senate economic development, two or three years ago, I prepared a chart that showed where the beverage categories break down and what the fortified wines are within the spectrum of ABV. So I'd be happy to dig that back up and send it to the committee so you can see. Because there are certain types of what would commonly be referred to as fortified wines that fall outside of beverage categories. And when you fall outside of some of the other beverage categories, you're considered a spirit by default.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: We recall that being a conversation several viadians ago. Probably just representative of the hangar that I recall that conversation.

[Speaker 0]: I believe that was the testimony from Vermont Vermouth. Correct. Yes. Sometimes my memory works. Alright. And my last one that we'll touch upon briefly, the second class license. We've been talking about on premises consumption, sale for on premises consumption. This is the sale of closed containers of alcoholic beverages for off premises consumption. And you'll think of these as alcoholic beverage retail outlets, but also gas stations, supermarkets. Sometimes you have permits that are required for on premises consumption at an off premises consumption, second class retail location that can be acquired through permits. The permitting structure can get fairly complicated, again, because the entire theory of licensing in Vermont's alcoholic beverage statutes is around this dynamic separating both the distribution of alcohol from manufacturing retail, but also making it contingent on beverage alcohol categories and where the alcoholic beverage is being consumed. When you have all of those factors in play, can find yourself with licensing and permitting statutes that get fairly granular in the type of permit that is issued. Scrolling through next. I've already got to this.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Tucker, do you refresh us? Maybe it's just me. It's not remembering the go to the corner store and they got the little fireball bottles or the where that dove feels in the vest.

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: Mhmm.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: It's a marvelous question, sure.

[Speaker 0]: It's going to depend and I'll go back to the definitions for you. But the Vermont's alcoholic beverage purity system and the way that these are defined depends on how the alcohol was manufactured, what its alcohol content is, and even in the case of retail, excuse me, ready to drink spirits beverages, how it's packaged. So if the little, aren't they called booze bombs, goose balls, something like that, particular name. I just said it was a conversation. Recall. It's going to depend on how the beverage is manufactured. Okay. So if it is manufactured through a zymergy process fermentation and it is primarily malt, it is fermented to make the alcohol and then it gets run through a reverse osmosis process. They take out all the flavor, they take out all the coloring and then they add juice to it and put it in that little container. It's a malt beverage. Okay. If they do the same process but with anything other than grains and malt, pretty much any other agricultural product is how it's referred to in statutes. It's going to take a while. Then it's a finest beverage. So all fermented beverages of any name or description came from sale from the natural sugar content of fruits or other agricultural products. The last time I did a big alcoholic beverage purity overview was maybe six or seven years ago, and I said, I suppose this does include pine cone liquor. But yes, bigger content of fruits other than agricultural products. Beeches, apples. Now, if this beverage that you are talking about is a hand cocktail where the alcohol inside has been obtained through a process of distillation, it's going to fall either into the spirits category, in which case it would not be sold at the corner store or the gas station unless it's an eight zero two spirits franchise location, or it is going to be a ready to drink spirits beverage. Ready to drink spirits beverage has specific requirements, around alcohol content. Let's see here. An alcoholic beverage containing more than 1% alcohol by volume and not more than 12, obtained by distillation, chemical chemical synthesis, or through concentration by freezing, mixed with non alcoholic beverages, an important point for the canned cocktail conversation because it can't be mixed with vermouth, for example. They may also contain water, free juices, adjuncts, other ingredients, and shall not include a beverage that is packaged in containers greater than 24 fluid ounces.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Thank you. So, that explains the baskets of the corner stores.

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: Good refresh.

[Speaker 0]: How are we feeling? Are we ready for Oxford's? Let's do it. The royal way. I'm always ready. Communal. We'll start with age six seven. Alright. Page six forty seven proposes some amendments to the fourth class license statute. Section one amends seven BSA, section two twenty four. And if you are with me, we are gonna move into page two. In subsection b, at each license location, a fourth class licensee may sell by unopened containers or distribute by the glass with or without charge alcoholic beverages manufactured by the licensee. Your fourth class license locations are on premises service locations, and this, licensor permit is acquired by manufacturers. So this could be a tasting room at the manufacturing facility. It could also extend to some, off-site, off premises locations where tasting is served. Subdivision one, there are service limitations applied to some of these tasting locations. A licensee may, for consumption at the premises or location, distribute the following amounts. First proposed amendment is in subdivision a at a farmer's market location, not more than, and this is all the existing limitations, two ounces of malt, vinous, or ready to drink spirits beverages with a total of eight ounces served, and one quarter ounce of spirits or fortified wine with one with a total of one ounce. New language in the newly proposed subdivision b. At a tasting room and retail shop, not more than an aggregate total of 16 ounces of malt beverages or hard cider, an aggregate total of 12 ounces of Vinus beverages or ready to drink spirits beverages, and one quarter ounce of spirits or fortified wine with a total of two ounces. Alright. So some increase in the limits. In the past, this has been referred to as full pour rather than, limited tasting service.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay. Representative Hounselor, could you repeat the question?

[Speaker 0]: Yes. The alcoholic beverage limit is for fortified wines is 23%.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Sorry, Bob. I your representative, I didn't know you were

[Speaker 0]: got you in the throat. Got you, brother. In section two seven b s a, section two seventy one is amended. This is the manufacturer rectifiers license statute. And in subsection d, subdivision two, under current law, licensed manufacturers of malt beverages may operate up to two licensed establishments pursuant to this subsection, and that is where, the licensee is permitted to sell alcoholic beverages to the public establishment located at the manufacturer or rectifier's license facility provided that the manufacturer or rectifier owns or has direct control over that establishment. The amendment in subdivision two would extend this, permission to minus beverage manufacturers. Right now, this is exclusively allowed for malt beverage manufacturers.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: I'm sorry, could you repeat the section that that was?

[Speaker 0]: Yes, it is in section two seventy one, seven BSA two seventy one. And that is H. 47.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Questions for counsel before we move on to the next? Alcohol residents? Seeing no hands.

[Speaker 0]: Alright. Move on to h six fifty five. H six fifty five contains some miscellaneous amendments within title seven, related to party of board of liquor and lottery and alcoholic beverages generally. Jumping into page two, section one amends seven BSA section one zero one related to the duties of the Board of Liquor and Lottery and the composition of the department, to change the staggered terms of members of the Board of Liquor and Lottery from three year to four year terms. K. Section two, amend seven BSA section two thirty. The infamous seven BSA section two thirty, this has already been subject to enact this biennium. If you recall, this was the section that was going to be sunset on 07/01/2026, and that sunset has been eliminated. So this is now codified in this section, not subject to sunset. Here in section two, there is a proposed repeal of subsection c to, reorient all of you to what this section does. It allows first, second, third class licensees, to sell for curbside pickup or delivery alcoholic beverages. So this was, if you remember, something that first came to existence during the COVID response. It allowed bars and restaurants to serve alcoholic beverages to go. They would deliver, for example, a mixed margarita along with, your taco order grocery stores and other second class retail locations, they could you could order online and as part of your order pickup at curbside closed containers of alcohol beverages. At the time, the general assembly, it's a matter of policy decision within that bill, limited the hours that this sort of sale could take place. Now there are already limits in statutes statute for each of these licensees around, when during the day alcoholic beverages can be sold. The proposal here is to limit or eliminate the limitations specifically for this type of sale, which will make it default back to the hours of sale that are applicable to the license holder generally.

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: All right, hang up.

[Speaker 0]: And still with the purchase of food. That's still all part of the statute, yes. This just eliminates the very specific limited hours of sale for this type of sale.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Rev Hooper of Burlington.

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: So there will be a disparity between one license holder and people to

[Speaker 0]: Yes. But those those disparities already exist in when the sales are allowed to take place. The service hours for on premises consumption, from what I recall, are longer than they are for the second class retailers who sell closed containers for off premises consumption. Alright, and seven BSA section two fifty two. Within many of the licenses and permits, there's language that makes the issuance of the license by the Department of Liquor and Lottery, the Division of Liquor Control dependent on approval from the local control commissioners. And then the definition for special events permits in seven VSA section two, there is a requirement that this sort of permit be by the local control commissioners, but it was not included in the actual statute governing this, permit. So the amendment in subdivision a one inserts that requirement, for approval of the local control commissioners. It is now consistent with the definition section and with other permits in titles title seven. We're on page three in section four. This amends seven b s a section two seventy five. This is the statute that governors solicit governs solicitors licenses, And the language in section two seventy five requires that payment of the license fee be by certified check. So this strikes that language and just requires payment of the fee generally, instead of binding it to certified checks.

[Rep. Troy Hedrick]: All

[Speaker 0]: right. Finally, in section five, this might be confusing. I've discussed it as being in the present, but simultaneously keeping one foot in the past and one foot in the future. As you may recall, last space and time, aren't we? Already are stretching space and time. Fabric of reality means nothing to me. I am the wizard. Such a wormhole. The mechanism that is being employed in section five is the exact same. The general assembly be visited with respect to seven BSA section two thirty. It is repealing a sunset. Now, you cannot repeal a repeal for sure, but you can reach back in time for a repeal that is not yet effective, go back to that bill, and remove the prospective repeal. So you're going to see bracketed words saying deleted. And it's because you are in the legal confines of section five going back in time to the version of this committee that existed back in the day, and changing the bill that has not yet become effective. Okay.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: It all depends. If we

[Speaker 0]: are sufficiently clear, okay. Section five goes back to 2024 action resolves number one fifty six, sections three and four related to the sunset of special venue serving permits. May recall that act expanded access to these permits to retail establishments broadly. There were specifically enumerated types of cultural and retail establishments that could acquire this permit, and this act extended it to all retail establishments. So what happens in section five is that that sunset in its entirety is is struck in that act that is passed, but these sections have not become effective yet, and deletes the sunset all the way through, including deleting the effective date. That is all. It it makes those changes indefinite. Not permanent, because you can always repeal it in the future, but indefinite. Questions for counsel?

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: It's a journey.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: I don't. Rev

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: Hooper then Hango. I want to go back to the last dates we had. So, Representative Hango has something on this particular section. Yes, I do. Yes,

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: thank you. Retail establishments, so hardware store, clothing, boutique, and anything and anywhere?

[Speaker 0]: Two exceptions. Vermont Agency with Restore, cannabis establishments. Right.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Rob Okay. Hooper?

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: Moving the certified check thing does not in any way for the agency to take to not restrict the type of payment they've received. Do you kindly repeat the cashless personal check that's still their prerogative. It's

[Speaker 0]: an interesting question, and to repeat the question for everyone, representative Hooper is asking whether the removal of the specific language related to certified checks and defaulting to just payment generally is going to restrict the department's ability to potentially specify the types of payment that they want to receive? It's an interesting question. I'll have to get back to you because I'm not certain whether this sort of general language would restrict authority the department otherwise has to specify how to receive fees. And I'll have to check the rulemaking authority of the department. You can always ask them about that directly as well, whether they would have authority, for example, require the payment come through the licensing portal that they have established.

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: Well, imagine that originally a certified check was not cash, but the equivalent of cash.

[Speaker 0]: Cash equivalents.

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: Alright.

[Speaker 0]: Alright. The Digestive. $6.72, fairly straightforward. So one operative section, seven BSA section two seventy one is amended to add a new subsection g. Subsection g proposes to allow a licensed manufacturer of malt beverages to distribute an annual total of not more than 5,000 barrels of the manufacturer's malt beverages directly to the holders of first or second class licenses. So putting that into plain terms, it allows Alt beverage manufacturers to sell a limited volume, distribute on their own, limited volume annually of their beverages directly to first class and restaurants, second class license holders, second class being retail alcoholic beverage.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Could

[Speaker 0]: you just repeat that again? Allows manufacturing facilities to do what? All beverage manufacturers. We're talking about only the malt beverage manufacturers to sell an annually limited volume, which is 5,000 barrels. You can talk about how many aggregate gallons that is at some point in the future, but 5,000 barrels of their product directly to first and second class license holders. It's direct distribution of malt beverages.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Rev. Van Gogh's got a hand, and then we'll go I'm sorry, was that a continuation on your

[Speaker 0]: question? Yes.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Then please No, the

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: 5,000 is total, not 5,000 of each flavor.

[Speaker 0]: Correct. 5,000 total. Annual cap.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Remind us, please, what they can sell now, if anything? I don't think they can, right?

[Speaker 0]: We should probably pin some of that to talk about distribution and franchises, which is a separate discussion and probably broadly, committee might want to familiarize itself with Vermont's three tier system and some of the exceptions to the tier system, Manufacturer, distribution, sale. Separated from each other with some

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: exceptions. And I was planning on doing a refresher and a primer on that subject matter a little bit more extensively before we continue to work on this stuff. Oh, we've got all kinds of stuff. I even have a new flowchart that I'd yet to share with the council where I discovered the scaled up sizes from hogshead, where I found out that two hogsheads equal a butt with two t's is where the term buttload comes from. Thank you, English units of veterans.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Thank you so much for that.

[Speaker 0]: That's

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: husband's favorite. I just took it off for us. So I have a child.

[Unidentified committee member]: It's math. Plate. I'll

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: end with that.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: The most fun committee.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: It's really the subject matter

[Speaker 0]: that does

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: it. Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: The next project. And in fact, complete reset of topic. We're moving into cannabis bills based on the agenda that I have. Yes.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: We are joined here with, Representative Wozzek, so I like to allow him to speak to the two bills on an as to why, and then we'll move back to you, sir.

[Speaker 0]: May I leave my volumes here? You may.

[Rep. Teddy Wazak]: Good to go, Mr. Chair.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Table is yours, sir.

[Rep. Teddy Wazak]: Thank you so much. Representative Teddy Wazak, Barrie City, Washington 3. I have two bills, on your agenda today that, I was approached and asked to introduce, from stakeholders in the industry. So the first would require that all towns hold an opt in or opt out vote to allow or disallow cannabis during the twenty twenty six general election. You all know much better than I do, the details of this, but we have a relatively scattershot map of municipalities across the state that do or do not allow cannabis, and many municipalities have not held the opt in opt out vote at all. And this has led to a proliferation of cannabis retailers in certain municipalities, and which I've heard has made business planning difficult for those who may want to start operating a business. You know, the economy is struggling at the moment. And when you are deciding whether or not to open a business, thinking about going through a townwide vote, even figure out if you can operate a business in a municipality is a very daunting thing. So this would simply ask all the towns to go on the record, yes or no, allow or disallow cannabis. And the twenty twenty six general election was thrown out as a good date, because that's when we get the most voters to turn out is during November general elections. And then the second bill would be to, and I'd ask counsel to explain this a bit more in detail. Rather than prohibiting the consumption of cannabis in all public places would prohibit the consumption of cannabis in prohibited places. So in other words, if there is a place that you cannot smoke a cigarette or have an open container, you are also not allowed to consume cannabis. Basically just trying to be more consistent across the law with the different types of controlled substances that you all have jurisdiction over. That's pretty much it.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Thank you, member. And I know these have been active conversations throughout this sector for many, many years, including the original bill that passed creating the market. These are not foreign conversations, let's say.

[Rep. Teddy Wazak]: No. No. And I've had you know, I've had we have, I think, just two dispensaries and one grower in Berry. And I've had constituents say, Why do they keep opening up here? Why don't they go to Callis? Stuff like that. And so just trying to, like I said, with both bills, trying to bring more consistency across the law and more consistency across the state with what we do and do not allow in certain places.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Questions for the member from the table? We appear not to. Thank you for your time, sir. Know you are quite busy upstairs.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Please

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: send Madam Chair my best.

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: All

[Speaker 0]: right. Good morning again. Tucker Anderson, legislative council. We'll look at h six thirty three first. H six thirty three relates to municipal votes to permit the operation of cannabis establishments. The background you just received, quick background, a few things that I would flag about how, local control in this area currently operates, particularly with votes to allow cannabis establishments. The model that Vermont currently uses is what's known as an opt in model. Municipalities have to vote to affirmatively allow cannabis establishments to operate within the jurisdiction of their municipality. However, there was not built into the cannabis statutes a, compulsory vote date. And one of the things that I will share with you about alcoholic beverage statutes is that many, many years after the end of prohibition and proliferation of Vermont's control model, there was a compulsory vote for alcoholic beverages at the local level, held by the March Vermont. And at that time, municipalities were given ballot language, specifically articulating whether alcoholic beverages could be sold in the town and breaking it down by beverage alcohol category. Page six thirty three builds off of that model. So if you are with me on page one, it adds a new section eight sixty three a, subsection a at the twenty twenty six general election, a city, town, or incorporated village. I'll pause there to note that it specifically enumerates the types of municipalities that are compelled to vote on this. They are could broadly be referred to as the container municipalities for the most part. But as of 07/01/2026 has not voted on the question of whether to affirmatively permit the operation of cannabis establishments shall vote on the article contained in the section. We're on page two now. They shall vote on the article by Australian ballot. So setting aside any floor meeting votes could depend on this. But I will note that all but the votes in section eight sixty three on whether to permit cannabis establishments are required to be held by Australian ballot anyway. Subsection b, the warning for the election shall contain the following article. Shall licensed cannabis retailers be authorized to operate in this municipality? Yes or no. Subsection c, a vote to permit the operation of a cannabis retailer and sometimes draft or integrated licensee within the municipality may be rescinded pursuant to the provisions of section eight sixty three of this chapter. The integrated licensee language reflects exactly what is contained in section eight sixty three as that section was initially passed by the general assembly. And it's a more nuanced discussion, could happen in the future, but integrated licensees or a specific type of licensee that relates back to when there were medical registry licensees at the time, that were interested in acquiring the new licenses proposed by the retail cannabis system. I do not know whether this language is still relevant, and whether the expansion of retail cannabis into more municipalities would include these types of integrated licenses, licensees, because they would be limited in number. Right? It would be the legacy establishments that existed before the retail market opened up. But it's included here because it mirrors and reflects the language that exists in Section eight sixty three.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: In other words, those were this is my understanding, and it might be those were the establishments who were licensed for the sale of medical cannabis products who then were also licensed to sell retail, recreational, I guess that's the word, products.

[Speaker 0]: If I followed everything you just said, yes, that sounds accurate. And it might be helpful if you're going to operate within the cannabis space reception to get a refresher on how the integrated license system worked at the time that retail cannabis was adopted and expanded and stated.

[Unidentified committee member]: I have a comment. Just can you clarify on section a on line 18? And just the phrase, you know, on the line where it says, has not voted on the question to what of whether to affirmatively permit the operation of cannabis. So affirmatively was means yes. Right? So if they've already voted no, is this forcing them to vote again?

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: No. That's okay. Because that's

[Unidentified committee member]: the way when I read it,

[Speaker 0]: I say, wait a minute. The, the way that this is phrased, it's taken directly from section eight sixty three. Okay. So eliminating the confusing legalistic language here and in section eight sixty three, municipalities that are captured by this are those that simply have not held a vote Okay. On the issue.

[Unidentified committee member]: I know there there were few questions of that. We didn't we said no. That's a negative. Now we have to vote again? So I just wanted clarification on that.

[Speaker 0]: Okay,

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: for clarification, once it's, holds a vote and it's, decides yes or no, we're going to allow candidates, they can also wait a hold and another vote and decide differently.

[Speaker 0]: Yes. So section eight sixty three has provisions for votes to rescind, and it's preserved in this section eight sixty three a. This bill also contains language referring back to section eight sixty three saying you can hold a vote to rescind under those procedures.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah, Hango then Pinsonault.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: So if the town has already voted and voted it down, as Rep Coffin was asking about, but wishes to take off a vote again, would that be the same language as this at the same time? Could they take advantage of this new statute and have a revote, so to speak?

[Speaker 0]: They certainly could, but they would not be compelled to. So the mandate here is only for those municipalities that have not yet held their vote. They could use the ballot language, the warning language here, but they do not have to or not compelled to. And getting back to your question about the use of the term affirmatively, In my research, best of my knowledge, that phrase was used because there was no specific warning or ballot language that was included in the statute, and it was a way to frame how the municipalities would be advancing the question to their voters. Voters were voting on the question whether to affirmatively lap the operation of these institutions, But the specifics of the ballot language were left up community by community. And if you do some research on this, you'll see that, there is some default language that has been advanced by different groups in this area it could be adopted by municipalities, some kind of model valid language. I think because the statute allowed for opt in votes, so that is affirmative, that you want the establishment to be

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: located in your town. And so my question is, with this new language, will this trigger charter changes? Or is this separate? I mean, if any town that has a charter, will they then have to come back to us to have this added to their charter?

[Unidentified committee member]: No,

[Speaker 0]: unless there is a municipality that I'm not aware of that has a provision relating to these votes, and I'm not aware of one. So this should not trigger any, charter So it's

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: just a call. It was more ordinance in charter. What's that? Is it more ordinance or just the approval? May approve this from, like, the site of the breach? Or is that just a public vote? And then it is exists and Or the town plan.

[Speaker 0]: Either at a special or annual meeting, a municipality that is holding their opt in vote would vote on it. If the voters approve or deny, those records would be kept by town clerk, town archives. That's the extent of the requirement. No charter amendments necessary and no ordinance adoption necessary. And another conversation for future iterations is the local control statutes generally within the cannabis statutes, which has specific limitations on what municipalities are allowed to do in this space.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Perfect timing. We've got almost sorry for the question. We will take a six minute break, so we pick up our next order of business. It's 11:30.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: You have one more, Bill.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Oh, I'm I can't

[Speaker 0]: see. Sorry. I'm 634. It's 634. I guess if that is what the committee would like Yes. It is. It is. 11:30.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: It's a stretching time. I got ahead of ourselves.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Mhmm.

[Speaker 0]: Went into hyperdrive. Age six thirty four, consumption of cannabis in a prohibited place. You heard great overview of what h six thirty four does. It attempts to match the cannabis consumption limitations. So places where cannabis may be consumed, to the, statutes governing where tobacco may be consumed. So first in the definitions, something that I will note, changes the name of these places from public places to prohibited place. The tobacco statutes still use public place. We'll admit that this was a bit of a statutory revision attempt here, because these are not necessarily public places, and the use of public could be a little misleading. So instead, prohibited place, places where the consumption of cannabis is prohibited. It strikes, some of the language articulating any street, alley, park, sidewalk, public building other than individual dwellings or any place of public accommodation and limits this to any place where the use or possession of a lighted tobacco product, tobacco product, or tobacco substitute is prohibited by law. In Section two, seven BSA Section eight thirty three is amended related to consumption of cannabis in a prohibited place, states that no person shall possess lighted cannabis or cannabis products or consume cannabis by inhalation of vapor in a prohibited place unless specifically authorized by law. An important thing to note here is that under current law, this section prohibits a person from consuming cannabis in these places. The amendments here add clauses that are specific to lighted cannabis and the inhalation of vapor. Why? Because there are other ways to consume cannabis that don't include vapor smoke, and they were captured by Section eight thirty three in the way that it was structured. It's a broad prohibition on the consumption of cannabis in these places. Section three reaches into Title 18. Title not often visited in this committee unless it's vital records. But you will recall that, both tobacco and cannabis consumption, specifically consumption, are in Title 18, the health statutes. Men's 18 VSA section 4230A related to cannabis possession and in subdivision 2A, the top of page three, a person shall not possess lighted cannabis or cannabis products or consume cannabis by inhalation of vapor in a prohibited place. So conforming amendments there to clarify that this isn't just the consumption of cannabis, it is consumption of cannabis by specific form. Eliminated language here in subject section B, cannabis that is possessed or consumed in violation of state law is contraband pursuant to subsection forty two forty two d of this title and subject to seizure and forfeiture. That language is eliminated. Gonna move to page four, section four, the enumerated powers of municipalities. So if these are the regulatory police powers in an enumerated list in title 24, you're very familiar with section twenty two ninety one by now. Subdivision 17, municipalities are granted authority to adopt ordinances regulating or prohibiting the possession of, under current law, open or unsealed containers of alcoholic beverages, and here's the new stuff, or lighted cannabis or cannabis products in public places. Subdivision 18, municipal corporations, are granted ordinance authority to regulate or prohibit the consumption of cannabis or cannabis products in public places. So first, parts of the bill squaring the limits of consumption in prohibited places to the consumption of tobacco products, and the latter half giving municipal corporations, level authority to limit the consumption of cannabis alongside alcoholic beverages, are currently under their ordinance purview. And that's all.

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: Any questions? Yep.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: And, I mean, as far as, like, an order of operations with committee work here, we're gonna focus primarily on the alcohol conversation and looking at the various bills that we have for committee bills and then the cannabis conversation will follow-up later after we finish our work on that. So that that's how we're planning on prioritizing those two pieces. Any questions? Well, it's like that five minute break. Was playing everything evaporated. So let's just keep moving straight through lunch.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Through lunch or to lunch?

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: To lunch. Through two. Oh, no, we're going straight through

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: panic arise? Was like, wait.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Through lunch?

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: This is why we brought

[Speaker 0]: snacks. No.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: We do.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: We're a well snacked committee. Yes. Council. We'll bring up the member.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I'm gonna make a puffy. It's gonna

[Speaker 0]: make a noise that Okay.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: You do that.

[Rep. Teddy Wazak]: I think it'd be worse. Yes.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Making the tea Representative, how are you?

[Rep. Troy Hedrick]: I'm well, chair. Excellent. So Jumping right in.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So the bill got interested in the committee a couple of days ago. We had some curiosities within in and around the building. Couple of emails came in from the public. But also given our work, and I'm and I'm saying this with the of a sincerity with that's why you may remember the work and things of that nature. This is jurisdictionally is relevant when I saw what the charge and duty of the task force was, given certain other aspects within the media and what some folks were citing in emails, we felt like getting a sense of the as to why with your introduction Sure. And some q

[Rep. Troy Hedrick]: and a. Sure. For the record, Troy Hedrick. I'm the state representative from Burlington, And we are discussing H-six 54, an act relating to Vermont Aerospace Safety and Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Task Force. I'm going to call them UAPs. Excellent.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah. Give us one second till the

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: machine stops. Sorry. I didn't know it was gonna be We'll

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: we'll we'll we'll buffer with snacks. Please pass on to the table. And offer some to our guests, please.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Sorry, Rutland.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yep. I also don't wanna do too much of an anchor on product as well while the AI is scraping our words.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Okay. It's finished. Apologize. I couldn't lose one more second without Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: That's my question.

[Rep. Troy Hedrick]: Comments, Cheaper. If your inbox looks at all like mine since the introduction of this bill, I think I owe you all an apology.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah. I'm actually totally No apology needed from Yes. Me, a curious person.

[Rep. Troy Hedrick]: I can forward some of the more colorful ones, if you'd like them. And with respect and admiration for my friend at seven Days who scooped this, I'd like to kind of claw back that narrative a little bit if I can by talking about the real legitimate values that I see in this bill. And I want to be clear at the outset here, I am not a subject matter expert at all on this topic. But as policymakers, I think we have an obligation to remain attentive to emerging trends in public safety that warrant or may warrant our future action. So this bill would establish a task force. That's all this bill does. It doesn't and I'll say more about what it does and what it doesn't do, sort of as I bring closure to it. Again, on the Vermont airspace safety and I have to look at it still unidentified anomalous phenomena task force, UAP task force. So this would be a body charged with evaluating reports of unidentified aerial or underwater, so not just aerial objects, assessing airspace safety risks, coordinating with federal academic partners, delivering findings. That's essentially what the task force does. There are subject matter experts that I would absolutely encourage you to reach out to that can give you a deeper and broader understanding of how we got here. Specifically, the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies. Robert Powell is the founder of that. Ryan Graves, former Navy pilot, who has given congressional testimony on this topic, is a phenomenal witness. And I think he has made himself available to you already. If nothing else, I would encourage you to get that testimony because it's a fascinating story. And again, it's getting national and federal attention. So why this matters? I'm going to zoom way in to kind of one example of why I think this task force might be necessary in the coming years. And then I'll broaden it to some of the more subject matter that I'm not necessarily an expert or as familiar with. So as I watch, I'll, I'm going to call them what they're called, and then I'm gonna call them drones, but uncrewed aerial systems. The proliferation of drone use. This is this is where I see the need for data and why this task force can be held. And it's not at all hard for me to imagine five years from now, ten years from now, and more and more drone use. We'll have our groceries delivered by drones, we'll have maybe Uber Eats becomes drone use. I don't know, law enforcement surveillance increase in drone use. Amazon's already worked Right, yeah. I can foresee a time where I hiked to the top of Mount Mansfield and some hobbyist has a drone up there as well and my serenity is interrupted, right? I can anticipate that this body is going to be asked to develop policies in and around that sort of use. If we want to be evidence based policymakers,

[Speaker 0]: you are going to need data

[Rep. Troy Hedrick]: that informs those policies. This task force would have that data in place if you decide to stand it up with this bill. Broader than that, there is an increased public reporting of unidentified sightings that is happening, and it's gaining more and more attention from the military, from commercial airlines, from the federal government. There is already federal recognition of UAPs. The US Department of Defense now formally acknowledges the existence of unidentified anomalous phenomenons, UATs, and has already established an all domain anomaly resolution office. Congress has already enacted the UAP disclosure act, setting standards for transparency and federal investigation data collection. And then there's plenty of independent research organizations that are developing methodologies for the continued study. So all of this is happening. This would bring Vermont into those procedures and policies and conversations. So will have no shortage of military personnel, of commercial airline personnel who want to talk about this topic and the need for centralizing data collection. I think they've probably already made themselves available for you. Again, I think it would be fascinating testimony, and I would encourage you to take a look at those invitations from the people who have made themselves available to you. Very briefly, what this bill does and what it does not do, again, it creates a task force. That's ultimately what this bill does within the Department of Public Safety Safety specifically, co chaired by public safety and transportation leadership. It defines UAPs. So I'll leave you to read it that it's already in there. And then the bill directs that task force to evaluate reports and assess safety risks that might be potential with those reports or from those reports, to develop recommendations for improved reporting, response, scientific analysis, collaborate with federal academic and private partners, annually report those findings and recommended recommendations to the relevant committees and to the governor, and to perhaps host public meetings to maintain transparency where possible transparency is a part of this. So in addition, right, so this sets up transparency and information and data collection for a wide variety of people who might want it. Again, I've already identified the military and commercial airlines and things all the way to folks who view the X Files as a documentary rather than TV entertainment. For the Cryptids, fans in the room, there's an underwater provision to this as well. So if we want to investigate Champ, we can do that as well. What the bill does not do, it does not create or enforce any air safety regulations. It does not mandate law enforcement action on any given sighting. It does not authorize state surveillance in any way, or any sort of invasive monitoring, and it does not presume that UHPs are extraterrestrial or anything like that. This is very much a creation of a data collection system so that we can use empirical evidence as we inform any necessary policies that might be easy to down the road. It's forward looking, right? It anticipates that this is the proliferation of drones and other airspace use is going to continue. It's proportionate. It's not an overwhelming deal in any sort of way. It's just standing up a task force, And it aligns with Vermont with evolving federal and recent federal research practices that are already underway. The truth is out there.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: And real or perceived, there's nothing like a phenomenon. Rutstone, then Waters Evans.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: I don't know if this is

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone]: a question for you, let your counsel, but you can try to answer. How would the task force handle classified information while balancing public transparency?

[Rep. Troy Hedrick]: Yeah, I don't have a good answer for you. Those parameters would absolutely need to be in place. The task force participants, as outlined, and you guys can all tweak that if you need to. We'll most certainly have people in the room who would know the answers to those sort of confidentiality questions.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: So the bill language references recent public reports. Do you have any idea how many?

[Rep. Troy Hedrick]: I do. I don't

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: There have been or what the nature of them has been or who's keeping is anyone keeping track of them?

[Rep. Troy Hedrick]: I don't think anybody's keeping track of them now. Right? That's precisely why this this is necessary, a central place for that sort of reporting to go to. I mean, I go to Reddit, and I read these stories about, people scratching their heads together. Hey. Did anybody see this? Was that a meteor? Was that a drone? Was that a right? So it it it's all over the place right now where these reports show up. This would centralize that reporting.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Do you have any idea who they call? Is it their local police department? Is

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: it the

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: National Guard? Yeah. Is there a selection?

[Rep. Troy Hedrick]: I think you could ask that question to just go to any law enforcement agency, military agency, and you're going to probably hear that they've received calls. Again, you can go to Reddit today and probably find somebody reporting something they saw that they can't understand. Yeah. So it's there's not a system. Right? There's not a there's there's nothing right now. Not not as far as I know.

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: Hooper of Burlington. Or isn't this something that the Fed's already taken exclusive jurisdiction over?

[Rep. Troy Hedrick]: I don't think it's exclusive, no, and I think you're going to find that federal, especially from the military, are anxious to have you know, a unified sort of state response to this as well. I don't know if it's exclusive. Is. I've got nothing that I'm aware. Switch force. Oh, space? I don't know. Yeah. I'm I'm I'm not I don't know how this would attach to space.

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: Yeah. I

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: mean, that's kind of those you you've got the conversation in and around the drums, and then you got the conversations about the things that are a little bit less, you know, tangible and known. I guess that's sort of the curiosity. Creating an agency that

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: let's talk against the brick wall and something.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah. No. It's a valid vein of thought, representative. Do we have anything else for the member before we shift to council?

[Rep. Troy Hedrick]: I will just reiterate my I think there are people ready to talk to you through the national organizations, and we can put you in touch with them that would, at the very least, leave you wondering with some fascinating stories. Representative Waters Evans.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I'm not in any way saying I have an opinion about this bill at the moment. I'm just wondering if there did this come about because there's, like, a significant number of these reports or sightings or an uptick or, like, a drastic

[Rep. Troy Hedrick]: increase amount the case. I think we're at a point where there's kind of an accumulation of unexplained phenomena that we I are just think there's, for whatever reason, over the past three to five years, there are enough people saying, I think maybe we should collect this data. That's what I think is happening.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I remember a timeline, I believe the military declassified some documents in Like, three years

[Rep. Troy Hedrick]: ago. Yeah.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: There was a congressional hearing in and around such documents.

[Rep. Troy Hedrick]: Like That's Ryan Brady.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Brought up. Yeah. Yeah. Some more of this conversation. Yeah. So

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: On the plus side, we have the radar drone up in Saint Albans. We could just turn back on. Sure.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: It's that is a facilities question. Yes. Remember, thank you for your time. My pleasure. Thank you.

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: Thank you.

[Rep. Troy Hedrick]: Hand it over to Tucker.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: And we will shift over to council now and

[Speaker 0]: Alright. Good morning again. Tucker Anderson, legislative counsel. You have in front of you, age 64, an act relating to Vermont airspace safety and unidentified anomalous phenomena Ask Force. With your permission, I will, skip through the walkthrough of the findings. That is my typical practice because they are your findings and there is not legal analysis that I can offer you within that. However, I would encourage you to look through the findings to ensure that they are accurate and that they can support with your legislative findings in relation to this subject. That brings us to page three. We'll start to get into the operative provisions that create the task force. Section two adds IVSA chapter nine subchapter three to create the task force. First, in section two forty one, we define terms, create the task force, outline the purpose of the task force, assign duties, and describe compensation. Subsection A on line six, page three, we start with the definitions. SCU means scientific coalition for UAP studies. Something that I will note is this is just one peculiar piece here. Typically, we do not provide abbreviations or acronyms within the Vermont statutes annotated, but there was strong insistence that this is the appropriate term for this particular organization. It needed to be defined instead of just using SCU, because within the statutes we need to ensure that if we are going to use abbreviations or acronyms, that they are the most commonly known affiliated with that abbreviation. So for example, we would not use NVA to describe the Nashville Brewers Alliance. Subdivision two, unidentified anomalous phenomena is defined to mean any object operating in the atmosphere or underwater that cannot be readily attributed to a known or conventional source. We then get into an including clause. This is including, but not limited to. So if your most favorite UAP is not listed here, it is okay. It's not exhaustive. Unknown aircrafts, drones, or other anomalous objects exhibiting performance characteristics not consistent with currently understood technologies, such as instantaneous acceleration, absent observable inertia, or hypersonic velocity without a corresponding thermal signature or sonic boom. Fast movement that is unexplained.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Without breaking sound barrier.

[Speaker 0]: Subsection b, the task force is created. Within this creation subsection, the task force is directed to coordinate its work jointly through the Department of Public Safety and the Agency of Transportation. Discretionary authority is provided to the task force within the subsection to engage independent experts. Subsection c, we jump into description of the purpose of the task force. Something that I'll highlight for you ahead of time is that some of these described purposes sound a lot like duties. If the general assembly wants to expressly apply these as duties, then I would recommend amending the bill to list these as duties of the task force. We'll move into page four. First, to evaluate reports of unidentified anomalous phenomena, including drones, balloons, and objects exhibiting anomalous behavior in Vermont's airspace specifically. Subdivision two, we're on line five now, assessing airspace and public safety risks. Subdivision three, coordinating Vermont's response with other partners, including the federal government. Subdivision four, developing recommendations to improve incident reporting, emergency response, transparency, and scientific analysis. Those last few are what I'm highlighting as potentially being mandatory duties of this task force that should probably be listed later, within the duties of the task force. Subsection d, the membership of the task force. It's a 10 member task force. The commissioner of public safety, who's co chair. Secretary of transportation, who is co chair. I'm gonna make a meaningful pause to note that this isn't the only instance in the world where co chairs exist or a task force that has duties. We all note that it is not common and that if there are going to be two people who have control over the work of a particular public body, such as the ability to call meetings of that public body, then their specific powers should probably be outlined and enumerated. And if not, then the general assembly would likely want to add something here directing the task force itself to adopt procedures describing the duties of the co chairs.

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: Good morning, counsel. Representative Hooper of Burlington. Co chairs would make it harder than it doesn't for their designation.

[Speaker 0]: It authorizes the ex officio members, the commissioners, to appoint designees if that is necessary. For the two. For for the two people. Alright. Moving through. One member of the house appointed by the speaker, one member of the senate appointed by the committee on committees. A representative of the Vermont National Guard appointed by the adjutant general on page five, subdivision six, a representative of the Vermont Bureau of Criminal Investigation appointed by the governor in consultation with the commissioner of public safety, a representative of the Vermont Airport System or general aviation operations appointed by the governor in consultation with the secretary of transportation, One academic expert in aerospace appointed by the governor. One independent expert in radar or sensor systems appointed by the governor. Finally, representative of the Vermont Intelligence Center appointed by the commissioner of public safety. There is your 10 person task force. Subsection e, technical assistance. The task force shall have the scientific and technical assistance of the Scientific Coalition for UAT studies. SCU shall serve as the principal scientific analyst for data and evidence related to UAPs. SCU may receive incident reports and related information from state agencies, apply scientific methodologies to analyze that data, and furnish the task force with detailed analytical reports and findings. All of these conclusions developed by SCU under this subsection shall be submitted to the task force for review and approval, and the task force retains ultimate authority to abuse these results. We're moving on to page six, still within the subsection e. SCU's work shall be conducted pursuant to guidelines established by the task force to ensure scientific integrity, objectivity, and consistency, state investigative standards. Alright. So that's just the scientific support. I know you're all wondering about administrative support. We'll get to that a little later. Subsection f, the powers and duties of the task force. First, review and analyze reports of UAPs in Vermont. Two, collaborate with federal and other partners to improve information sharing and data consistency. Three, develop best practices for voluntary reporting, secure data storage, and analysis. Four, assess aviation and public safety risks posed by UAPs. Five, hold at least one public meeting annually to share information and collect input. One thing to note about this subdivision of the draft, task forces are covered by the open meeting law. So I am assuming that the intent of the language is to call for public hearing, which would be structured differently and would also be covered by the open meeting law. But I'm assuming this is about public input. Six, submit an annual report with findings and recommendations pursuant to subsection I, which we will get to momentarily. Subsection G, administrative support. It's gonna be provided by the Department of Public Safety and the Agency of Transportation. That includes administrative, technical, and legal support to the task force. Judge Chang. Moving on to page seven. Subsection h, transparency and public access. Task force shall maintain a public web page hosted by the Department of Public Safety, containing notices of upcoming meetings, meeting minutes, and any non confidential materials. Where not inconsistent, this would also marry to the open meeting. A confidential voluntary reporting process for UAP sightings by Vermont residents or officials may be developed in consultation with SCU and DPS. Reports, data, and findings shall be made publicly available subject to state and federal privacy or security restrictions. And finally, all confidential reports shall be retained in a secure system maintained by DPS or a designated technical partner. Something that I will flag about this, since you just finished your refresher and overview about the Public Records Act, is that, these do not expressly make this information or data confidential. And you may want to review what state level confidentiality provisions would apply here. We covered one VSA three seventeen subdivision c five, the law enforcement exemptions, just a few days ago. And some of that may apply here, but of course, that would apply to redactions, not the withholding of entire records, and it is contingent on protecting certain confidential sources or law enforcement techniques. It is always best if it is the intent of the general assembly to make things categorically confidential. State that expressly. Subsection I reports annually on or before December 15, the task force shall submit a written report to the governor, the house committees on transportation and on operations and military affairs. I've heard good things. And the Senate Committees on Transportation at Govox. The report shall include, moving into page eight, a summary of activities and findings of the task force, recommendations for legislative or administrative action to enhance public and aviation safety, and any recommendations for advancements in research collaboration between government academic institutions and the private sector. Compensation and reimbursement. There are a lot of study committees and task forces that you see, so I will just summarize and say that this is the standard language. Members of the general assembly who serve are paid from funds allocated to the general assembly, and then members who are not from the general assembly are paid through the system 32 BSA section ten ten, through monies appropriated to the Department of Public Safety. Bottom of page eight, subsection k relating to the jurisdiction, the FAA. Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or conflict with jurisdiction of the Federal Aviation Administration for Aerospace and Aviation Safety, and the task force shall not promulgate or enforce air safety regulations. Question came up earlier. The I am not immediately aware of federal law that would preempt the state's ability to collect data about its airspace. There is preemption over regulation of airspace and certain conduct within that airspace. Alright. That is all for h six fifty four, unless you have questions for me. Questions from the table.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I think it only yep. That was a good run through on a unique concept. Yeah. I think keep this conversation is just an introduction right now. But, you know, we'll see what the future brings. Appreciate,

[Speaker 0]: the committee's patience and tolerance for the last several hours throughs and overviews. I always appreciate a close encounter with all of you. My gosh.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Oh boy. Shared experience, sir.