Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Good morning, everyone. Or good morning. Wow. That was a reflex.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: Good afternoon.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: We are back from break. It's a little after 02:15 and we are going to take a look at H seven sixty two. My information is current. That is an act relating to the county and regional governance study committee. This is the draft language that I referenced before we went on break. Counsel, how

[Tim Dublin (Legislative Counsel)]: are you, sir? Doing well.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Would you mind running through the changes with the committee?

[Tim Dublin (Legislative Counsel)]: We have to. For the record, Tim Dublin, legislative council. And committee members, you have draft 1.2, which is sorry. Of a committee amendment offered by this committee to suspend House Bill number seven to act like the county and regional governance study committee. And the committee may recall that the prior version actually, chairbio has the refresh my memory. We have we walked through this one?

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah. We did a walk through an introduction on the original one. Yes. Right. Okay.

[Tim Dublin (Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you. So as right. Because this was a committee bill, then it was introduced, and now we're back amending committee bill. Again, with a committee amendment. Commute amendment. I'll tell myself up to speed on that one. Thank you for your patience. So when it was last in this committee, you'll recall that basically did a few things. It pushed out the deadline for when this committee would sunset, the deadline for the report that it was to before it mentioned that it'd be really a final report. There was an interim report released from this committee already, as well as adjusting how the chair was to be selected. There were two co chairs and that will be changed to one chair that's selected from its members. The highlighted portions of this, reflects two categories of changes. One is we have an insertion of legislative intent on page one, and then sprinkled across page two, three, and four, we have some, small alterations to the hours and duties of the committee. So first, just reading through the legislative intent section, we added to section one act. And just for quick references is session law, so there's no real statutes being amended here. Legislative intent. It is the intent of the general assembly that existing direct coordination and communication between the state and Vermont municipalities should should be retained or strengthened. County or regional governance should enhance the work of the local local and state governments, not become a procedural barrier between state and municipalities. Moving on to the powers and duties of the committee, the bottom of page two. The committee shall study and make recommendations to the general assembly on how to improve the structure and organization of county and regional government, including, we now read, coordination and optimization of regional government provided by state, regional, and local agencies, including for public safety, emergency management, and public health process purposes. B, enhancement of regional collaboration and planning and implementation. C, really new, coordination, I'm sorry, coordination, increased transparency, potential efficiencies, and service improvements of nongovernmental agencies providing regional public services, including but not limited to designated mental health agencies and public transit providers. Next, new language we have an f. Review the role and authority of elected county officials and departments. G, production of duplicated or conflicting public services and promotion of opportunities for intermunicipal collaboration. Skipping to I, review of mechanisms of county and regional government structures in other states. And then turning the page, the top of page four, k, the role of department of public safety and Vermont emergency management responding to all hazardous events. And just quickly note that k was actually added by the underlying bill also, which is expanded here. Specifies which agencies and departments will be, examined in the role of responding to all these events. That's it. Right.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: So, I mean, I think I've said this at least twice leading up to this particular conversation that this is just an attempt to sort of hone in with more clarity what the charges and duties are for the committee once it is established after it is dissolved in its current form because that's how it lays out statute. Quick

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: question. So is this report that's due that would be due 12/15/2026, the final report?

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: That is the only report that is being requested here.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Okay.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: But the thought process is that this is a such a large scope of work for this committee, that once the report is delivered, the committee of jurisdictions do work within those recommendations, that there might be a need for that committee to do continued work after the fact. So that was the thought process behind that was it might need to be a series of work and not just like a one and done.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: So my question with that goes back to the report that we heard from the Public Safety Communications Task Force. And were it not for interested members of the committee, that report would have stayed on shelf. And nobody would have done anything with it. So my concern is that might happen to this in December year. This report will sit, and no one will continue working on it because we will have turned over membership in the legislature after the next election. And I think there should be something in legislation that requires to keep on meeting. Is this sort of what happened? Why it's been

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Oh, what caused That this was The committee itself saw three members vacate the committee structure. Two, because of electoral loss. One, due to a committee assignment change. Mhmm. Because the free the current committee in statute requires the chair of house of ops and the chair of senate of ops. So this is changing that configuration to that into a more traditional structure. And so and then it was really to the delay. Right? Like, was getting the members put on a signed by speaker's office and then trying to pick up the work itself. So that's really where the delay came from. Wasn't because of a lack of desire for people within the body to But

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: don't you think the same thing could happen again in 2026? So whoever's a member of the committee now could potentially not return and continue working. Shouldn't there be some kind of legislative mandate that this committee keeps working until they can make a recommendation to the general assembly?

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Well, the recommendation is the report on

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Okay. So that's the final report.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: That is the one report that is being done. Correct.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: That was my original question. Sorry. I was not clear on your answer. So thank you.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: And then this ELC with the cease to exist date was originally Yeah. 2026, which is now the original draft of 2027. But Senator Harrison and I agreed that it could add an extra year just to have any assistance in case there needed to be more work after into the second year of the place.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: So sorry, I didn't read this ahead of time, because now I'm going back to, will that core committee still be in existence? It will, till December. And then after that, if there are recommendations that should be made going forward, who is responsible for carrying out the recommendations? Maybe that wasn't clear. So,

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: mean, if there's a vacancy on the committee due to electoral loss, it's, you know, it's the committee on committees and speakers of its role through his side members, if they were something you've heard of, like, electoral loss or its retirement or some other. So that would maintain the committee's structure in its wholesome. And then this deliverable here is just the date in the brunt of the work that probably occurred before the election anyway, because then it's just drafting and delivery for the most part. And then I just believe having it exist for an extra year is just a good safeguard for continued work and continuity of the focus with the members who are charged with the original.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Sure. I'm just concerned that the recommendations in the report won't get carried out, that nobody is mandated to carry the report is to be made to the GovOps committees, many recommendations for legislative action, but who would be responsible for making sure that legislative action is carried out?

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: The legislative committees. I mean, they know it's coming. This is a big conversation around the building. Don't want anybody to forget about this one. Any other questions for this?

[Philip Jay Hooper (Member)]: I'm thinking, would this almost fall into the

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: begrafted, we've working from the rules and reports.

[Philip Jay Hooper (Member)]: Wouldn't this fall into that? So that if nothing got done by 2028, it'd show up on the rules and reports bill.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I mean, it is a report, right? But this isn't an ongoing one. Those were more addressed ones that were requested, like year over year, everybody at the end, whereas this one is requesting one report on one date certain. Yeah. And the committee itself dissolves, and the proposal is to have the committee to dissolve in July 2028. So it would cease to exist in statute and not be one of those things that would mean we're like, oh, wait, this thing's still here. I

[Philip Jay Hooper (Member)]: guess it would go back to the leadership of 2027, whoever is in leadership to make, because the bill is gonna get, it's gonna come back to us after December 26. Just it says '26. And then once you get interested, then it's going to be ongoing, I would think. It's not going be something that's just going to

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: be read the first time and go away. I

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: believe they're just submitting one report and then the standing committees of government operations will review that report and say if they read the report and think ongoing work needs to continue, they could bump out the committee's existence to longer twenty twenty

[Sophie Sedatney (Legislative Counsel)]: eight years.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: But if it were an ongoing report, it would say that the committee child report annually to the housing center.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: It's a little bit of a safeguard just knowing what the scope of work is within within the the charges and duties here, or powers and duties, and recognizing that it might not be a completed scope of work, not knowing how refined or detailed the first report's deliverable is, and then also not knowing how those recommendations will evolve throughout the first year or next biennial. Who introduced this now?

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: I did.

[Philip Jay Hooper (Member)]: I'm the chair

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: of the current committee.

[Philip Jay Hooper (Member)]: Okay.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Or one of the co chairs of the group.

[Tim Dublin (Legislative Counsel)]: Any questions for Council? So,

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I do want to get this one out this week. Under discuss what we just reviewed briefly from her perspective. So we're gonna try and schedule that, but I think I would like to we already have it scheduled for discussion and possible vote at 1PM on Friday. So I will communicate with her to come in to speak these words before our words. All right. Alright. Look at us. Two minutes late. Alright. Up next, h h 11, an act relating to election of adjutant general adjutant and inspector general, that is the topic here, of the Vermont National NARD. We have a new draft. Walk through committee discussion council, good to see you again.

[Sophie Sedatney (Legislative Counsel)]: Good afternoon. Sophie Sedatney for the Office of Legislative Council. As this is a long bill, and we walked through it the other day, I just very quickly put together something just to give a really quick overview of what's where so you can find it, quickly if you're looking for particular pieces. So 08:11 now includes, a a couple of other bills, several, Is it okay if I go ahead and share my screen?

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Nick, you can share this to me? I'll do. Sure.

[Sophie Sedatney (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. If I share my screen? Yeah. Please. So, my thought was to just go through the new sections. So, again, these first thirty nine secondtions are dealing with the change from adjutant and inspector general to just adjutant general, and then it has in the provision that eight eleven originally started off with, which is section five on page four, which is adding that statutory cross reference. So, I'm going to I'm going to do it actually, stop sharing for a minute, so I don't make you all feel ill. So, first piece is adding in a definition to Gold Star family member that would go right at the beginning of the Vermont statute. So, this is a section in Title I that lists out definitions that cover the whole of all the other titles. And so this would add in a definition for Gold Star family member, and this will be the Vermont definition, as has been explained. There isn't a single federal definition, there's a Department of Defense definition, but each state kind of has their own definition. So this would be the one for Vermont. Gold Star family member means any spouse, parent, child, sibling, grandparent, or grandchild of a member of the US Armed Forces who lost their lives while serving on active duty or on active duty for training, or while assigned in a reserve or National Guard unit in drill status, or as a result of injury or illness incurred during such service or assignment. And so that additional fleshing out of the definition is prompted by the next section, section 41. So I'll just keep going here. So section 41 is to deal with the vanity plates, but the gold star plate. So currently, the reference to gold star, this is the only place in Vermont law that actually references gold star right now. And this provides currently that gold star plates are only issued to widows or widowers' parents and next of kin, as defined in 10 U. C. Eleven twenty six D. And again, this is limited to individuals whose family member was killed in action. And then under current law, there's this next of kin plates. So one of the questions was, if we've expanded this definition of gold star, have we kind of made redundant the next of kin plates? So my understanding is yes. So, what happened was this additional language that's in the next of kin plates is now the language that's been incorporated into the definition. So, you'll see the language that is deleted here is now the definitional language in the previous section. So, essentially, the way this amendment would read is that Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, on proper application, would issue Gold Star plates now to anyone who qualifies as a Gold Star family member. That is now what's covered in section 41. Alright, and then moving on to

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, reported.

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: Sophie, can I back up

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: to

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: one Just real the back and forth? Yeah. Don't want to beat a dead horse here, but I just want to make sure we're covered. Under the Gold Star family member, we say,

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: and if I missed it,

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: I apologize. While serving on active duty or on active duty for training, got it, or while assigning a reserve or national guard unit in drill status, which is for our Guardsman Reservoirs is one week in a month, covers that, or as a result of injury or illness incurred during such service or assignment. Is that kind of a catchall for for all other service statuses of a guard or reservist member, reserve member could be in, is that that last after or as a result, is that covered? Because with the garden, well, reserves, they're ten zero ten, but the garden being 32, ten one activated, gets complex.

[Sophie Sedatney (Legislative Counsel)]: I Right, right,

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: just want to make sure, like, something happens in a situation, yeah, potentially,

[Philip Jay Hooper (Member)]: like As a result, so, for instance, my instance would be as a result of injury or illness incurred, almost

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: occurred,

[Philip Jay Hooper (Member)]: well, not during, though.

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: Well, yeah, no, true, but what I'm more driving at is where, does that gather any what I'm getting at no, I fully appreciate what you're saying. Thank you, Sydney. But is does it principle framing this. Does it encompass all service that a guards or a reservist would encounter in their time and uniform? Case in point, during the week, I'll use myself as an example. I was at, they call an air reserve technician. Day to day, Monday through Friday. I wore the uniform, but was paid as a civil service employee. Their chances are you wouldn't be in a situation where you would die on duty in that, but just I just that's that's a poor example. Forget that. Never mind. But yeah. Maybe. But I guess we're looking at more just framed as primarily combat, but I just wanna make sure there's no fall through for anybody in any kind of status with the guard. The reserve, it's less sticky, but the guard I'm I'm so I guess the bottom is that does that sentence cover Mike, do you know what I'm getting at, VL?

[VL Coffin IV (Member)]: Yeah. What I was trying to think of an example while you're trying to get that out was, would it cover title 32, which is not a drill status, but it would be an in state status? And like when our guard deployed for Irene here in in Vermont to help in Vermont if something had happened to him.

[Philip Jay Hooper (Member)]: They get swept away by the flood.

[VL Coffin IV (Member)]: If, you know, would that cover somebody on title 32 which is not, you know,

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: and not training. Complete your thought, please. Hooper.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: So we're moving towards a completely separate meaning the Fed Star was for combat related.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Right. Yeah.

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: No. And I recognize I'm just trying to make sure there's no follow-up.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Completely different criteria for Vermont.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: There is no federal definition. The DOD has a definition. Sorry. I just wanted to clarify this. Guess we're throwing those

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: words out.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Right. I'm just trying to make

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: sure we don't have any fall throughs for the guard. That's all. Now, like I said, I started giving an example that I was a poor one. Not a good exam. And I probably would be hard pressed to find them. I just wanna make sure because I've seen plenty of instances, not plenty, but I have seen instances where that is fun. But I I gather that sounds garbage, so it's probably overthinking it. I'll leave my question alone.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Representative. I will

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: follow-up on it. So are you saying somebody that was working on Route 4 activated by the governor dies from a tobacco. No,

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: because I believe that because federal intent, the federal definition of all stars, a combat related.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: That's kind of my first question. Are we setting up a criteria that's conflicting?

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: Do we want to, you mean? Are we intending to?

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I don't know if they need that. No, no. I was just trying to catch what

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: he's saying. Like, for instance, you know, soldier airbags deployed during hurricane operations gets crushed by a bulldozer or something. Does that account is that part of it? And I'm like, I I think so, but maybe if there's a move afoot to make that more encompassing at the state level.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I'm sorry, what page are you going with the highlights?

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: It's about 2020 and 2021.

[Tim Dublin (Legislative Counsel)]: But I would say, we're

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: probably fine.

[Sophie Sedatney (Legislative Counsel)]: So, can say the original plan was to just have Gold Star family member, meaning not just limited to those killed in combat, but including that language around injury or illness incurred, So that was the original one. And then as we got into the license plate piece, because that's the only other place where Gold Star is mentioned, then the question was, do we then still need the next of kin? And then what was suggested was to just to use that next of kin language and incorporate that into the definition. So, that's sort of the origin of it. Obviously, if there are other changes, we can make other changes.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Any other questions or comments? Not trying to overthink it, but

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: I guess I've just seen instances where oops, and it's easy to do, that's all. Thank you. So,

[Sophie Sedatney (Legislative Counsel)]: moving on to section 42, that starts on page 22, this incorporates the H. Five thirty one, which the committee has already gone through. So this is the hiring preference for military spouses. So there is no change to the actual language from what the committee has already reviewed. This is just a cut and paste in here. And then section 43 on page 24, this is or was age five fifty five. That was not my bill, but this was the parking for disabled veterans that the committee was also interested in including in this bill. 43. Yeah. Section 43 on page 20 starts on page 24. And, again, there's no changes, as I understand it, to this bill from what was introduced. And then it has an effective date of 07/01/2026. And then right now, the title of the bill is around elections for the adjutant general, so proposing that the title of the bill be amended to read a act relating to military affairs.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah, that keeps the bills domain that's pretty broad. I think that makes sense. So, you can safely encapsulate all of these different pieces. And then also, as it moves through the building, there may or may not be other conversations that might want to be included. So, and this is yes, record.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Not to sound like a broken record, is there a reason why this isn't a committee bill so that way it has this title from the moment it gets to the floor for clarification for all members about what is in the bill and that it's not?

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: With the ask that again? Is

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: there a reason why this isn't being proposed as a committee bill that way when it gets to the floor. Because committee bills are introduced as new bills once they're voted out of the committee. When it gets to the floor, it will have this title of an act relating to military affairs. That way it's transparent to all members, the public. Or like, why is this being connected to eight eleven?

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: By doing a strikeout, we were going to be named that, correct? Was that what I was actually doing before?

[Sophie Sedatney (Legislative Counsel)]: I was just asked to add those other bills into this one, so that's what I did.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I mean, we could still do it at the day, but still that, I mean, we still have the runway to do committee bills at this time on the calendar. I'm not sure about our zones.

[Philip Jay Hooper (Member)]: It seems like it's made up of bills from a variety of different members of the committees. It would be nice if it were considered a committee bill. I'm with Robert Hooper.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: Well, I think I'm still hung up on the language Mike and I were talking about. It seems like, forgive me if I'm wrong, that if you're called up to help with rebuilding Route 4 and you get bulldozer rolling over you and you die, Why is that different than if you're out on a training weekend and you get a bulldozer roll over you and you die?

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Because I yeah. I don't think I'm the one that qualified to answer that question.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: Well, the word the word drill in there narrows the scope of why you're actually out working for the state of Vermont as opposed to training for the state of Vermont. That scene is weird.

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: Morgan, that stone. I I guess it goes back to we started to touch on it while I was talking earlier. Are we looking to expand at the state level the definition of a Gold Star family member? Because if we are, that's sort of what this is doing, and I think you're alluding to, are we expanding that definition at the state level from the federal designation of it, because it certainly reads that way.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: Yes. That's the intent.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah. That's yeah. No. No.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: It's I know that's the reason that

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: we Well, yeah. Just wanna make sure that

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: To expand. Clear. Yep. On that on the connect service. So So we're out

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: of compliance or whatever with the federal thing anyway, so we might as well

[Tim Dublin (Legislative Counsel)]: There's I

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: don't know if I can space

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: for you. Go ahead. Yeah.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: That was the whole point of it was expanding so that people service connected

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: Mhmm.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: You know, people who did not disdain theatre were captured because that's not happening. And there's not a federal definition, there's an OV definition. And so now it's leaving it up to the states to put in their own definition. That is why this all came about. I'm wondering if it would be maybe if we just struck the word drill. Does that make sense? Reservoir National Guard Unit in status? In

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: any status?

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: In status?

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I read back to police status. Need my eye drops.

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: That's drug unit in

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: And strike drill.

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: I think you'd have to say in in Yeah. Yeah. Status.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: Okay. Expand on what drill actually. Inactive service to the state.

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: Yeah. Again, I guess it goes back, I guess, maybe.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: Or active status. Inactive status, because the status can You capture

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: got title 10, you've got title 32, you've got state active duty, you've got, let me out, VL, what else we got into the mix.

[VL Coffin IV (Member)]: Two different scopes in title 32. Yeah. More than two.

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: That's I'm just saying. Should we take out the word thrill and just put in any status? Or and then I think that would do it. The sense said that injury illness That's what I

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: It's almost like what I just

[VL Coffin IV (Member)]: Yeah, no. But by calling

[Tim Dublin (Legislative Counsel)]: it activated status that that would that I think that definition would cover

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: all of it. Because All what I'm saying, if you put any status, I think you're going to have things fall in there that you don't want. It's any activated status. Any people who are actively who are activated under any status, whether it is title because my person goes between two different things all the time, whether he's at the Pentagon or, you know.

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: Yeah, that's part of what I'm driving at. There's so much we want to make sure we capture.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: So any active status. Activated. Active, sorry, any activated

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: status. Whether the governor activates you or the federal activated.

[VL Coffin IV (Member)]: Or because drill you're activated. Right. For all of that.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: Okay. So, you would that work? Sorry.

[Tim Dublin (Legislative Counsel)]: So,

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: okay. Are we refining the language right now?

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: To say any activated status because like you're

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: No, I get what you're saying by using those words. Like, I totally understand what you're saying. Yeah. Okay. Yes. Hey, think that if counsel agrees, it sounds more encompassing.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: That simple just drill drills.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Like a drill is that.

[Philip Jay Hooper (Member)]: One week in a month. Specific things. In the last part of that sentence, could we say, or as a result of injury or illness, as a result of such service or assignment, instead of incurred during? Was because that was the Incubact Act.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: I would agree with that.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I got Hango, then I got

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: So, there is language around the firm pit eligibility that we could maybe tap into for that, because that's already being used at the federal level, and it is very specific. Pretty encompassing, so maybe we could use that.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: Well, would agree with Sandy because I mean, yeah, the burn pit now should have had drinking orange, should have thrown tea boxes into the lake. It's our license plate as far as I'm concerned being ordered to our.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: So whoever we deem appropriate.

[Sophie Sedatney (Legislative Counsel)]: I guess just to be clear, this will be in the definition. So again, if you refer to Gold Star at some point in the future in some other statute, it would come back to this definition. So just to be clear, because this language now is not limited to the license plate. Yeah.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: That would be the front facing claim.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: I'm just gonna read this. Sorry. This is from someone who sits on the governor's Veterans Advisory Committee. Thank you. So they said they would suggest to add the language from page 21, line seventeen twenty, quote, who lost their lives while serving on active duty or in active duty for training or while assigned in a re serve a national guard unit and drill status for result of injury or illness incurred during At the end of Gold Star family on line 21 of page 20, instead of who died while serving or from a service connected illness or injury and their reason why was it just gives the definition more beat.

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: So they basically would be supportive of what's there.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: Correct. And they're the person who inspired this bill and we may have heard from.

[Philip Jay Hooper (Member)]: So that does not include. That's what I'm asking. Does it include?

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Not necessarily. Right, for the

[Philip Jay Hooper (Member)]: way it's written right now, it doesn't include service connected services connected to illnesses.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: Like why we treat his pain.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Good morning.

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: May I just suggest that we take it offline and a couple of us try to put words together and then we don't have to or wanting something definitive right this minute on it.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I mean, we're having a conversation about what direction to go in. I did want to get this larger bill voted out this week, so however people want it.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: I think it'll be like one phone call and then a side conversation that's like five minutes, and then we could produce something that we're all hopefully in agreement with.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I am absolutely fine with that as order of operations. You've got this from Gary. I'm sorry. I didn't hear you both.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: So did this come from Gary, who I think is the chair of

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: It came from a lot of different people. In the CSL military task force, lot of different

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay. But what I'm hearing is we're gonna hone this piece in, and then we wanna move forward with the committee bill? Yep. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. Mhmm. Sure. Alright. So we're gonna the only piece that appears to still be hanging out is because I just wanna stay on target for the vote is the moment.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: One sentence. We can I think we

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: can get

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: through it?

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: No. I I am just I'm just,

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: like, reiterating the point that there's plenty of left the piece left hanging for people's comfort to vote itself. That's that's

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: the point I'm trying to get to. Yeah. I think the whole intent is, at least from my perspective, is to make sure it's all encompassing, but yet, you also don't want to water down that definition to the point of ad infinitum too. I mean, it's a fine line. Right. I'll see if that's gonna say, for example, but I don't want to cite names, but that would be fair if that's their permission, but anyway.

[Philip Jay Hooper (Member)]: I think we can do.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: So for the sake of time and desperate be the chair to take a bio break, that seems to be the one thing that we need to refine. We're gonna head into a committee bill direction on the Next slide, Ed. Works. And with that, we will break for five minutes, and then we'll come back for the APs of Service related conversation, which is h one zero three.