Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Alright, we

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: are live. Thank

[Rep. Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: you.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Alright, welcome back, everyone. It is 02:30, and we're having a committee discussion, impossible on page five ten, an act relating to repealing the Charter of Town of Danville. And the committee assistant is reposting a letter from one of the representatives from Danville onto the committee page. That's my computer, he loading?

[Rep. Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: He's checking for

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: updates. Feisty and loading charter packets that we have in our shared drive. In a moment. Oh, thank you. So we have this letter that came in, and it is from the Danville town clerk to the secretary of state's office speaking to their, I guess, misfire on warning a public hearing before the vote for community input dialogue. And so we'll have that up in a second. But first and foremost, I mean, this is gonna be just an open discussion on this. We've brought the folks from the community in. And, yeah, I'll open up the table to wrap hang up.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: I want to call attention to this that the morning from the town of Danville was not at least thirty days prior to the informational meeting. It was twenty four days. Was it

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: twenty four or twenty six?

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Twenty four

[Rep. Philip Jay Hooper (Randolph)]: days prior

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: to the informational meeting. And the warning was only for the informational meeting. It was not for the vote, the meeting vote, which was on a different day. So, this was just for individuals to come and meet and talk about, learn about what they would be voting on when the voting happened.

[Rep. Philip Jay Hooper (Randolph)]: Correct. That's all I have.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Oh, I guess I should correct myself because earlier when we took testimony from folks from Danville, I immediately thought that it was for the actual meeting where they were voting. And my initial reaction was, no, we can't proceed with this because it violated procedure.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Thoughts from the table? It's unfortunate, but it's reality. I guess to some degree. Well, not some degree, it does this. And if you hit refresh, the package is now on our homepage

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: or document.

[Rep. Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: I'm torn because I do like a rule. Rules exist for reasons. Believe, is it the town manager who said it was silly that we were doing this? I mean, the six days may seem silly to him, but there's a reason at some point in time that legislature decided or their charter decided 30 or that there's a reason why there's thirty day warning, right? And that is not twenty four days or twenty six days. And I sympathize that they didn't realize the mistake and. You know, we've in my town, we've done things wrong before like this or or, you know, in meetings, and then you just reschedule the meeting and it stinks, but you you have to make it right. Right? If it were a dire situation, I might be so inclined to say, yeah, we should just not care. But the first thing is that it only it passed 150 to 112, which is a significant number to me. It's, you know, it's not like it was a landslide. And second of all. I feel a little concerned because we're not concerned, but I just feel like if there's an avenue for them to do it the right way, I believe they can they're allowed to suspend their charter for three years. And then that would allow them to warn everything properly, vote again. In theory, get the same vote and then dismantle the charter, but then they can also get what they want, which is not having to be back to the charter. The other thing is the charter requires the use of Australian ballot. And it says they've already been doing that for fifteen years and they're going to continue to do it. So it's not like there's any change happening in the way that they're voting. It's just it's kind of administrative anyway. So if it's going to be an administrative thing, then it should be done right. That's that's where I'm leaning. Although I understand that it's going to cost the money to. I guess to do the Australian ballot again, but. I don't know. I feel like. I don't know, I'm not sold on it.

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: Wrapped up.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: And I understand, you know, the the warnings, but looking at the the sheet they gave us from the town that unveiled the informational paper and what their average turnout for meetings is where they had two different meetings. Regrettably, one was twenty four days, and the other one was even the day before the vote, they held another meeting. So in their first meeting, only 12 people showed up. Usually, I have two. In the second meeting, there were 30 to 40 people.

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: Uh-huh.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Normally, they have 15 to 20, and this is going by their word for the second meeting. I I can't see denying this for this error. They admitted they made the error. This bill was submitted last year, 01/25. So to have them go another possibly two years and spend more for for this role, I'm inclined to say that there was the information there. They didn't have anybody testify that said they didn't have enough information. I would I'd be inclined to grant the charter change.

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: Lost the law. Disregard this, take it off the law, bring on, grant them everything in doing so. As far as this bill is concerned, it's probably flawed.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I just worry about this setting a precedent that can cause a slippery slope. And I know it was about the informational meeting, but still that's part of the law. And it sounds like from testimony that there's still a way for them to have their cake and eat it too, and still abide by the law. We don't open up a door for a slippery slope, we don't set a precedent. So that's my thing, it's like, Just do it the right way, but still get what they want. Does that make sense?

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: No, I understand both sides of this conversation.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: There's a way for them to get what they want without us opening the door.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah. It's like many things in this building, like, just because we can doesn't mean we should.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: We should, because it sets a precedent on something I don't want to do, because it put this committee in a sticky situation for years and years to come.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: But I think his sort of counsel was speaking to, like, this committee and its various member formations has chosen to be very strict or have moments of, like, leniency. And if I recall the words he used, it was very Those moments were kind of specific to the committee makeups of that moment in time. So it has done both sides of this practice. Yes, Robert Hooper.

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: It would be more prone to be sympathetic if the vote had been overwhelmed. But it's not overwhelming.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I think

[Unidentified Committee Member]: given the scope of what they're asking for in their charter does not cover a lot of robust town government to start with. The one error in the two meetings that happened does not bother me that much. I feel like we have discretion for a reason to take context into our view. I'm fine with it.

[Rep. Philip Jay Hooper (Randolph)]: Rebecca Snow? I would agree that I don't think that the Charter of Change is a major, major change in how they do things. And they posted a chart of days required. But again, it says at the bottom of their letter that it was an overwhelming turnout, that they normally don't have anybody to come. So, obviously, people got enough information to know that there was a meeting, turnout as strong as they did. I don't see a problem at this time.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Just think process protects voters. Know, notice and timing requirements aren't technicalities. I'm sure the voters are protected. Just think consistency matters and we shouldn't take a legislative override to fight life. So as I sit here, I'm more just like, I don't think they had nefarious reasons for doing this or anything, but I just pretty set. I don't want to open the door.

[Rep. Philip Jay Hooper (Randolph)]: I'll just say one more thing. If this was the warning for the vote, I would definitely say, No, too late, sorry. But this was a notice for informational meeting. Which most people don't even care about the informational meeting. It's in the evening, they don't want to go out, they just don't worry about the vote, the date of the vote. So, informational meeting versus the day of the voting is totally different. I guess if this was the day of the vote, I'd definitely say no. That definitely has to be sucked to the rules, but this was an informational meeting.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yes, Fairboy?

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: I think there's a real process for Danville to go about this without us truly being involved. And I worry that if we're lenient here, that then this provides the opportunity for other towns to say, Oh, oops, we only did a warning for twenty days, and then we're not following our rules or upholding the standard for all towns.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: For Randolph?

[Rep. Philip Jay Hooper (Randolph)]: No, I'm getting it.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Nothing in either direction?

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Not really. I mean, yeah, I'm kind of like That's a good point. Same analysis, I would take.

[Rep. Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: Yes. They can get what they want, which is to get rid of the Charter and not have to abide by it, which technically they do are going to continue abiding by it. They just don't want the Charter. So they have a way to do that without us having to change the rules or make an exception for them. Like they can get both of those things. And it's unfortunate that it's going to be a hassle for them to have a revote, but also sometimes it's a hassle when you don't do things the right way. And that's just a natural consequence of the situation. That's all I have to say about it. Don't I don't I think I think if it were like they are not going to be able to vote by Australian ballot, this is going to cause a huge upheaval in their municipal government. I might consider it. It's not. They can just keep doing what they want to do. As Rep. Cooper of Burlington said, the vote was not like a landslide. It was close enough. Maybe if there had been more people at the information meeting, 40 people extra had gone, it would have gone in a different way. But we never know. We won't know. Flashbacks to Bennington.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Had my head was going through that statement. I was like,

[Rep. Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: now I'm done. That's the last thing

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I want to say about this.

[Rep. Philip Jay Hooper (Randolph)]: Okay.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: All right, well, to move forward with a charter approval with something that it does have an irregularity, is a big decision. So, I want to have this discussion just so we can do this together as a table and seeing that folks are very split on saying, I'm not gonna call for a vote today.

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

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: You know, just a good idea in this conversation or what it is in this moment concur?

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: Seems prudent. So prudent is a good rep.

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: One last thing, if I'm remembering correctly, Reporter Burt, when he was in here, It also gave him a funny feeling that if this wasn't followed to

[Rep. Philip Jay Hooper (Randolph)]: a T, if Masses wasn't followed.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: And recollection. Yeah. So, we will agree that we are split on that sentence. Yes, Robert Hago.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: I just wanted to say something about Rep Boyden's point. It's really hard when you have more than one town that you represent to understand the conversations that happen in the town that is yours, because you're not at those informational meetings, you don't receive the warnings, you're not So, at your Rep Burt probably was taken by surprise as we were on this. So, just keep that in mind in terms of him. I don't know that he really has an opinion one way or the other, but it is really hard when you represent more than one town.

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: For me this is more global, I mean it went to process, we're going change the law, it comes in, it goes through committee, blah blah blah. We should not, as was said earlier, the authority to mitigate something just because we feel somebody made a mistake and it should be not accountable for it. It's accountable to law. If you start doing this, then the question is, is it first time because you used a pipe or because you used a plastic bag? I'm not here to make those kind of decisions.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Kind of an extreme analogy, but I got the overlay. If

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: my calculations are correct, if the town wants to warn another informational meeting prior to town meeting day, even if it's on town meeting day, they only have until Sunday, a few days from today, to warn that. So, I have a feeling they're not going to be able to do that this year.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I

[Unidentified Committee Member]: also think that having them come to us and being a Dillon's Rule state, that this is also part of the process.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Well, yeah, it is the power that's granted as a tool that we can make the decision to move forward. I mean, we have the tool. It's in the box, what we're discussing, whether or not we remove the tool. Yes. I'm standing by my previous point where something like this should have sweeping consensus before calling for a vote, and we don't have that. Anything else on this one for the time being? No, I no hands. Okay, So. All right. Well, that was the discussion part of the exercise. So we have nine minutes until our next order of business, which is an introduction walkthrough on H 686. So we'll go offline until 03:00. No. Thank you. That was a good discussion. So thank you, everyone. Appreciate it.