Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think we're live.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Alright, everyone. Welcome to house government operations military affairs. It is a little after 9AM on February 26. First order of business is h eight four one, an act relating to miscellaneous animal welfare procedures. We had some updates on the language based on conversation yesterday, and we are joined, remotely by mister Fitzpatrick to guide us through that. How are you doing, sir?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Doing well this morning. How are you?

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Doing well as well.

[Rep. Robert Hooper (Burlington)]: Well as Good.

[Rep. Kate Nugent]: Thanks for letting me appear by Zoom today. Appreciate that.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: No worries.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. As the chair was saying, Eric Fitzpatrick with the Office of Legislative Counsel here to chat with the committee about a revised version of H-eight 41 act relating to animal cruelty procedures. And you'll see that it's a clean copy. So this one has been proved and edited. So it's it's ready to move forward if the committee chooses to do so. There are only a couple of changes between the draft that you have in front of you now, which should be version 2.1, and the version of the amendment that you were looking at yesterday. And I'll point those out to the committee just so you can see where the language is. The first one starts on page five. And this has to do with the issue that the committee was discussing yesterday around importation. So it's basically a registration requirement for importation. So when when animal shelters, rescue organizations, breeders, etc, import domestic pets into the state of Vermont for adoption, sale, transfer, that sort of thing. There's a registration requirement that was added to the previous draft of the bill that person or party doing importing has to register with the director of animal welfare. So that piece, that language is not unchanged. But you see that bottom of page five. Then if we turn over to page six, because remember the concern that I think the committee noted, and was talking about was making clear that that wasn't going to apply to individuals who were just say bringing an animal back, because they've adopted an animal out of state, for example, and then bringing it back to live with them. And so it's really just a personal domestic pet situation. So the new language is on page six, lines nine to 10. So it's a new subdivision three just clearly provides that this subsection shall not apply to an individual importing a domestic pet for personal purposes. So the entirety of the subsection, both the registration requirement and the penalties for violating the failure to register, none of that applies to a person who's just an individual person who's just importing a domestic pet for personal reasons.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Thank you for that, sir. And that was as the committee recalls, one of the points that we were noodling on yesterday for clarity. So for those of us who are really poking at that, I guess I'll ask the table, does this does this new language make sense and make everyone comfortable? Yes. Alright. Keep going, sir.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Alrighty. Sounds good. So the second change is toward the end of the bill, and this would be, I guess, on this, version that you're looking at would be page 60. So this is the advertising guidelines. So again, this applies, you may remember that the version you looked at yesterday, applied these requirements. So if somebody's advertising in Vermont, for adoption or sale, actually, that's pretty much it adoption and sale, then there's this list of requirements that their advertisement has to complaint has to contain. So the location of the pet, municipality and state in which they're located, that sort of thing that identifying information, but the intent was that this advertising guidelines applied for domestic pets, not for all animals. That was the issue that was discussed yesterday. So if you look at, for example, line nine, line 11, line 12, and line 18, all use the phrase now domestic pets. That had been the phrase animal in the version that you looked at yesterday. And I think the committee talked about that issue as well, that the intent wasn't to include every single type of animal that might get brought into the state. Was only for adoption of pets specifically. So, again, pretty minor change, but at the same time, certainly one with legal significance. So I wanna point that one out to the committee as well. Yeah.

[Rep. Kate Nugent]: No. Thank you, sir.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I guess I'll ask the same question. You know, this is all rooted from discussion. Are folks comfortable with the changes and what it's encompassing?

[Rep. Kate Nugent]: That helps.

[Rep. VL Coffin IV]: I really think it cleared it up. Yeah. Made it so people did not misinterpret this. Yeah.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: And that's always the rub. Right? Like, we know it in one form, but it's like we gotta think about what how the public is, you know, really breaking down some some of our intent. Right?

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: So I appreciate you pointing that out.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Alright. Consensus. And back to you, counsel.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. That's actually other than that, the the no changes other than, you know, minor grammatical editorial changes that would have been made in the in the proofing and editing process. But other than that, the the clean copy you're looking at is is the same substantively as what you looked at yesterday.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Great. Rev Hooper of Burlington and then Rev Hango.

[Rep. Robert Hooper (Burlington)]: Eric, in thirty nine seventeen a one and two, what's the difference if we're talking about a advertisement in, say, seven days or something like that, is there a difference between the current location and the location when the advertisement Where was

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: are you?

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Where are we, bud?

[Rep. Robert Hooper (Burlington)]: 16 page 16, the last section on advertisement. Thank you, sir.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Go ahead. Sorry.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Could you repeat that question again, please? Sorry. I was just turning to the right page.

[Rep. Robert Hooper (Burlington)]: Well, it seems like number one and number two are almost the same thing. One with a little more depth.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And I I was thinking that same thing, though. What I thought is the possible distinction there is that it's possible that the current location of domestic pet is not the same as the location at the time the advertisement was placed.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: don't know. You'd want to talk with your with the with the director of animal welfare, I think as to why that why that might be, but that's the way because I had the same thought you did, but then I thought, oh, well, that that would be could potentially be two different places, and maybe there's a reason for that.

[Rep. Robert Hooper (Burlington)]: Yeah. But if it's two different places at the time the advertisement is placed, it can't be changed. Gotta be one place or the other when you decide to say go to print. Doesn't it?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I guess it depends on, yeah. I see what you're saying, but, I I don't know. It's, an interesting point. Minor. At the at the moment you go to print, that would say for sure that's two. Right? At the time the advertisement was placed. So that one yeah, maybe you're right. Maybe because the the current in that context might not be able to be anything other than the moment when the ad is placed.

[Rep. Robert Hooper (Burlington)]: Especially in the context of a, which does any at all advertisement. Right. Not a big deal. Not worth changing maybe.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Interesting interesting temporal question, though.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I mean, I I think I see the reason why there are two different you know, why there's a one and a two on that. I think it does speak to it like a finite difference. I mean, I understand the thought that you're having with how they can kind of intersect over life, but yep. A little like this. Yeah. Yeah. It was like kids in the hall. I squeeze your head. So,

[Rep. Kate Nugent]: yes, Reptisanal. I was thinking, I was reading into the developer,

[Unidentified Committee Member]: a local shelter, got a truckload of dogs

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: or cats

[Rep. Kate Nugent]: from Tennessee flying. But then, so the current location would be Montpelier, Vermont, but the municipality of state which was located would have been the other state. That's Tennessee, but then it says when the advertisement was placed. So that's the hook. That's the hook.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Might also be one could read number one as more specific. In other words, like you're saying, x y z shelter on 1313 Main Street, whereas two is only asking for the town and the state.

[Rep. Robert Hooper (Burlington)]: Grand Water Simmons.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Right. I believe like number one, it could say is with a foster family in Charlotte, or it's sort of asking for two different things. Not sort of. It is.

[Rep. VL Coffin IV]: That's how I was originally reading it was the physical location of the animal. Like, it it is shelter at this in one, and then two, the tent would be the the actual just the municipality location. And that would cover bigger districts, say, it's in Burlington, you know, and that's how I was reading it. Mhmm.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Oh, I see that. I'm

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: wondering if there's a concern about this for anybody that it's going to cause some problems. No. Okay.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: All right. Rep.

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, I had a

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: question earlier and I've partially answered it and I may have missed this in the director's testimony and I'm not sure if anybody, counsel, sponsor can answer about working animals. Are there any other working animals besides working farm dogs that are charged an additional fee to be registered? Or is this the only and first of those instances statute. Page. Section. Sorry, I don't have the actual bill up, let me statute up.

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Give me a minute to find it. In the wolf hybrid part, I think.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Dog, cat, wolf hybrid, seven. Looks like Yes, please. It I'm

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: looks like the language revolving around working farm dogs in

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: the bill itself, that's existing statute that we're not using. There's a definition, which was my original question, but I've found the definition. So now, oh, page seven, line 21, in addition to all other fees required by this section, which I assume is your regular dog registration dog tag, pay $5 for a working farm dog license. So that to me, I couldn't find it anywhere else in statute that there is a working farm dog license already existing. So this is creating a new license and a new

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: fee. That's all. This is already exists in statute. I did not or nobody added this $5 It's been there. Okay, could you tell me where that is Eric? Do you know?

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Because I couldn't find it in a quick search of statutes. I had put out a question earlier, but not gotten an answer to it. And I'm just like, Googling frantically here.

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: On the statute.

[Tanya Marshall (State Archivist & Chief Records Officer)]: Which part, what are you looking for?

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: We're on line 21 of page seven.

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. I see That's a $5 fee.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Right.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: And is that an existing fee or is that a new fee that would

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: apply That's to existing. It's right. And the only place it is, is right there. That's where it

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: adds

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to whatever other registration fees exist for, for example, for dogs generally. If

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: I look up $35.81 I should find that $5 fee in there.

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 20 BSA, 35 BSA.

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

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Was that your hand rub?

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Thank you very much. I was looking at $35.49 which is referenced earlier in statutes. So thank you. You bet.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: All right. Any other questions on the words we're considering voting on? For committee members online, are we we still have limited online votes for folks, right? I was gonna ask you that.

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Know for some

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone]: We have three days, and I haven't used any. So this will be my one of three.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Well, and I'm just throwing that out there. Just making sure I understood it that it was a limited number at three. Yes. I mean, you're more than welcome to use them. I just wanted to say it out loud that Yeah. You're capped at free.

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone]: We reviewed this.

[Rep. Kate Nugent]: We have

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone]: three days, and I'm using one of three right now.

[Rep. Kate Nugent]: If you say more than welcome, does that mean I can vote with all three of them?

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. And

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: it's not votes on three things. It's three days of So if you wanted to vote on everything from from wherever you are. Yep.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Correct. I missed that adjustment. They used to be just be three individuals. We did three.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: It's three. I think it's

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone]: three days because if you have the flu, you don't want someone coming in in the afternoon just because they voted remotely in the morning.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: No. Gotcha. Gotcha. Gotcha. I just I missed. I did not retain that information on our memo, apparently. So thank you for usually ends it, though. Updating me on the process and protocols that we have with our house rules. Alright. With that, I also wanna be conscious of our next block of testimony. So, everybody comfortable at the moment? Any further discussion? Alright, so,

[Rep. Kate Nugent]: anyone want to make a motion? Okay, changes.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: 2.1. Okay. So, motions made to find favorable H eight forty one draft number 2.1. Barring any other question or discussion,

[Rep. Robert Hooper (Burlington)]: the clerk will call the roll.

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: Representative Boyden. Yes. Representative Coffin.

[Rep. VL Coffin IV]: Yes.

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: Representative Hango. Yes. Representative Hooper Randolph.

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

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: Representative Cooper Burlington.

[Rep. Robert Hooper (Burlington)]: Yes.

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: Representative Morgan.

[Rep. Michael Morgan]: Yes.

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: Representative Nugent. Yep. Representative Pinsonault? Yes. Representative Stone?

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone]: Yes. Representative Waters Evans? Yes. Representative Byram? Yes.

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: Eleven zero zero.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Right. Good job on a continuation of work from previous biennials folks.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Thank you, Eric.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I love a good long game.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You bet. Thank you everybody.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah. Thanks Eric.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. Bye. We'll see you the rest of the week. Enjoy. I hope you get a little bit of time to recharge next week.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I appreciate that, man.

[Rep. Kate Nugent]: You too.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Tell someone about this.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: So I'm just sending a note here because I gotta send some text messages a little later in the morning. So that was an +1 000. Yep. Waters Evans reporting. Mhmm. Okay. Wonderful. On to our next order of business folks. Moving swiftly. We are picking some more facts up on h eight thirty one and after relating to requiring the secretary of state to include the Nugent, your number assigned to acts of the general assembly. We're gonna start with, counsel, mister Anderson. And thank you, sir.

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, you, and good morning, everyone. Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel. I know you all know that whenever there is an exceptionally bland and boring topic on the table, that I bring my most hype and energy to these conversations. So I over prepared for this morning. Good. I over caffeinated. Ready to orient you to some macro issues and micro issues and also at the request of the chair to educate the committee on what the office of legislative council and your other legislative offices do with respect to the way that acts are cited and referred in various resources. So at the macro level, I have to start by giving all of your legislative offices a shout out. Why? Because as Hannah Arendt taught us a long time ago, when we're talking about the forces of despotism that exist in the world, they're not carried out by the fanatical. They're carried out by those who simply follow orders and don't question the institutions that they work for. And in this case, you have dedicated legislative offices that have institutional faith that carry out objective orders and that follow procedures in order to make sure that your intent as the people that are elected to your offices by the voters of the state of Vermont are carried out without interference. How do we do that? Well, we follow really boring protocols. And certainly, one of the protocols that we follow is that we refer to the acts of the general assembly by their official citations and numbers. How do we do that? Well, the attorneys in the office of the legislative council follow the same system of uniform legal citation as every other law office, law student, law school, and legal institution in The United States, which we are taught through the Blue Book, which is a uniform system of legal citation. And if you were to go to table one, which lists all of the jurisdictions that exist on the great planet Earth and find the state of Vermont when we are talking about session law. The individual acts of the legislative branch in this state, we are directed to refer to the year first, the official paginated volume of the acts of the general assembly, which is called the acts in resolves right there. And finally, it directs for specific purposes that we use a page number, and finally, the official act number that is designated by the state. So hopefully, I have permission to share my screen. I was denied the opportunity earlier. So that sharing is only allowed for one person at a time. So I don't know who had that authority, but it was. So you now have the power, sir. Absolutely. Wonderful. Sharing is not turned on. Okay. Well, once sharing is turned on, I'll walk you through It is in the process of being bequeathed. Some wonderful slides I've put together to talk about the longest form of the citation and to give you an example of a recent document that came out of this committee that contains a full legal citation to enact and resolve. Understood. The anticipation is building. I

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: didn't even know the morning was gonna be this exciting.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: It is a bit of a crescendo, sir. Recently,

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: this committee passed out the reports for appeal. Yes. House. House. House. On third reading yesterday. In the list of sections, subsections, and subdivisions that are fully revealed, as representative Nugent explained on the floor, there are citations to session law reports that don't exist in our codified volumes of free books. And, within that list, we'll just use as an example here, twenty eleven acts and resolves number 59. Now, let's do a deep dive. Again, let's keep the energy level up. It's not particularly exciting. So there you have it. Right? That's the citation that is used. The full legal citation to that particular act from 2011. What does that even mean? 2011 is the year of passage. The year in calendaring system we use in the West was created by Dionysus Exegis in May and Pope Gregory the thirteenth in eighteen fifty two AD, not the office of legislative council. We just use the year that has been determined by other sources. Acts and resolves, title of the official, caginated publication of your acts. Boom. The white books. It's important because this is evidence, evidence for a court, evidence for any disagreement about the words that have been put to paper by this branch of government. It is the source that is cited by all legal practitioners when we are referring to a piece of session law. It is published by the secretary of state. Signatures right up front. It is official because it bears that signature certifying that this is the official copy. That is what we refer to. If there's ever any confusion about why accent resolves appears in one of these citations, it is because that is the name that is given to us for what the official publication is. This name predates the existence of our office. We did not create it. We just use what is given to us. The number, which is the source of discussion for HA31. This is the public law number. It is assigned by the secretary of state pursuant to statute. Legislative counsel does not assign these numbers to the acts. The office receives the designated number from the secretary of state and uses only this official number moving forward. How do we receive it? We get a copy of the official act. It has been signed by the appropriate parliamentarian house clerk, senate secretary, signed by the governor, and it has a number written in pen on one of the pages, believe it's the third page, which shows the front of the act, the upper right hand corner. It bears a code, which is simply either the letter a, m, or r. A for act, m for municipal act, r for resolution. And then it has a number. What I understand, these are all just sequentially numbered. They are picked up in physical form by a staff member at the secretary of state's office. They are written in physical form, the number, and then they're scanned to us. That's the number that our hardworking, dedicated, and excellent drafting operations staff uses from that point forward to mark copies of the acts that we provide on the legislative website and also for purposes of all legal citation afterwards. There was the suggestion the last time the committee got together that the office of legislative counsel could alter the form of how acts are referred to on the legislative website, that this could simply be an administrative matter in house. I have a few comments about that. First, no. No, because we are not going to deviate from what the official number assigned to an act is. It would be different from all other legal sources and citations that would be used within the state. However, yes and, yes, we could if you tell us to in statute. It would be confusing if it was different from the official designation from the secretary of state, but certainly we could change the website to use a different numbering system. It would be best if you simply change the numbering system for all purposes of legal citation if that is the policy choice that the committee wants to make?

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Representative Hango.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: So would that mean that if we, in Vermont, changed all the numbering system, we would be different from any other legal institution anywhere?

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: In fact, no. Now, if you were to only change it for the legislative website, the website would be different from every other legal institution referring to Vermont's acts. But if you were to change the way that acts are numbered, no. All the other legal institutions would take what you're giving, which is the official number for an act. Now representative Coffin's proposal was to add the year of passage in the number that is assigned to an act. There are multiple other states that already do that. And then there's one fairly large and significant institution that does that, the United States Congress. They use the number for the congress, the one hundred and seventy ninth congress, as the first numerical indicator of an act that is passed by that body. It is a way to remove ambiguity in act numbers. The majority of states that have something that indicates specificity to session, call it a temporal marker, use chapters. I personally, as a legal researcher find chapters are sometimes confusing, but it is an additional option you have. Some states organize all of their laws, including their cession laws and their codified laws by subject so that you can refer to subject volume individual act that is passed. California is an example of a state that does this universally. There's no numbers for their titles. They are titled by subject.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: So could you, like, oritate an example of that ish?

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We'll just use government operations as a subject. Government operations Yep. Chapter, chapter 32 Yep. Section 25 of Connecticut law. Understood. And typically, there's a publication name. So in New York, I believe it's McKinney's. It would be like McKinney's elections blank. Alright.

[Rep. Robert Hooper (Burlington)]: Wrap up or broth? So if you're researching something and particular statute changed twice, And in the pickup of the secretary of state's office, the pile of legislation, the first change got on the top, and then second change got on the bottom or some other. Aside from that, probably being a pain in the neck, is that fairly hope to place precedent on?

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. No. Because the number isn't going to determine which of those takes precedent. It's going to be based on date of passage, rules of legislative construction. And usually, when there are multiple amendments to the same section of law, they're harmonized to the maximum extent possible even by the courts. When there's conflicting overlapping amendments. So when it gets a little more difficult to

[Rep. Robert Hooper (Burlington)]: the last version, the blow off has to end the session, but not looking at the last.

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Again, it's gonna depend on the date of enactment, which is not indicated by the number that is assigned to an act at all. Alright. Refresh my recollection of where this unhinged legal citation rant was going. I wanted to share with you, the legislative website a little bit because it it came up. You know. One of the examples that was given about the ambiguity in using act numbers sequentially, you know, biennium to biennium, was that when you do a web search, it can get confusing if you're just looking for the ACT number and you don't know the year of passage. That led to a discussion about the way things are presented on the website. The way that information is managed on the website, ACT number is referred to, we don't control the ACT number. Within an individual ACT, the ACT number is listed and immediately below it is the year of passage. That might not show up in a search because these are PDFs. Another thing that we don't control is when testimony is submitted to a committee and the testimony that is submitted refers to the act and its number or the year, or uses some other system of citation when they're referring to an act. That is also going to show up in a Google search. We're not producing those documents. We're not controlling the people who are submitting them. And the reason it's showing up is because their search engine itself isn't optimized to search the website for just purely those official records. It's taken everything. It contains the act number. Addressing this universally might require just changing the ACT number and ensuring that that, temporal indicator is always attached to the ACT number, if that's the way you want to proceed. Examples that I can point you to Indiana, New Mexico, and Kentucky all use this system in order to indicate that act number whatever was passed in a given year and is easily searchable. Okay, legislative council, to be clear, does not have authority to determine the form, format, labels, indexing, anything having to do with this publication. The action resolves. We are granted authority as an act moves through the process leading up to publication to perform statutory revision within a specific set of parameters that you have given us. But once it goes to this point, it's not ours. It's the Secretary of State's. I wanted to be clear about that. There's two different publications, session laws, that's SOS. Vermont statutes annotated, that's the work that legislative council does. We still operate within the same boundaries. One thing that I did wanna point out, wouldn't it just be simple if instead of preparing individual documents with the act number in the corner, we use what the secretary of state produces? Yeah, that would be, except we're prohibited by law from doing so. So we do not reproduce the official paginated volume because you, the General Assembly, have told us that on our website, we're not allowed to put the actual results up there. We're also not allowed to put any copyrighted material from the Vermont statutes annotated up there either. And that has a relationship with the contracts that the state executes with publisher of both of these Lexis.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Did you have a question, Ravneujan?

[Rep. Kate Nugent]: Yeah. I was just wondering, it sounds like from what you're saying, I can guess this, but what's the least disruptive, most efficient way to potentially make this clearer for ourselves would be?

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, you're asking me? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We're here. So backing up these statutes are quite antiquated. They do not get touched very frequently, and they deal with the process of preparing, publishing, and then distributing the acts and resolves and in title 29 v Vermont statutes annotated. It is within this that the secretary of state is directed before the acts and resolves are printed. Before submission, secretary shall correct obvious typographical errors and assign sign a public law number. That's where the authority is located. I've already described to you the way that that process is carried out. You have a few options moving forward. Option one, which is what the bill proposes, is to amend this clause and clarify for the secretary of state that you're asking for a specific format in the law number that is assigned in the corner of what is scanned to legislative council. It would include the year of passage. Based on the discussion last time, there's another option, which is to strike this within the Secretary of State's authority, sign that authority to another public agency, and clarify the way you want the act number to be formed.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Any other questions for this judge or?

[Rep. VL Coffin IV]: So in order to leave it with secretary of state's office, putting clarifying it in statute right here in three BSA one zero four, say the exact format that we, the legislature, would like them to use.

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. And that would, if we go to the big board, right after this clause, sign a public law number to each act a resolution, comma, which shall take the following forms. Number, year, or year number. I've got an information management specialist, so I don't know which is better for relieving the current ambiguity and how acts are numbered.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Rev Coffin, I do wanna be conscious of time, because I'd like to get over to the archivist and we had folks rolling in for the next one already. In your In

[Rep. VL Coffin IV]: the states that you said do use Acton year, which format did they use primarily? Do they have act and then they you're not

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You're gonna be disappointed that there is there's there's some mix them ups. Yep. There's some flipping flipping and flopping. Yeah.

[Rep. VL Coffin IV]: Okay. I didn't know if there was a standard other three.

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Either way. The format that you proposed in the short form for 08/31 is the same format that is used by Indiana.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Alright, sir. Thank you for that expansive dive into all that stuff. It's cataloged. How are you doing? Please join us. Good to see you again.

[Tanya Marshall (State Archivist & Chief Records Officer)]: For the record, I'm Tanya Marshall. I'm the director of the State Archives and Records Administration. I also am the state archivist and chief records officer, so I I can speak on the information management aspect of this too. To answer your question, representative, related to Indiana, they have the same section of statute. I know it's not up there right now that talks about assigning the public law, and their citation is actually in code, which is P, period, L, period, And then it has the number, then it has a hyphen, and then it has the year. That that is Tucker and I did not swap notes on that particular finding. If you did, when 3BSA 104 was up on the screen, if you notice, it was last amended in 1969. And it goes back to the late 1700s related to the Secretary of State physically being with the legislature and engrossing the acts on books. And I did not bring a visual that I could have brought. But if you want to picture me in 1800, the engrossing aspect was being part of that legislative change. The amendments needed to be written on the book and noted in the citations. And then this particular law then goes into the enrollment, which is where the numbering and so forth goes. I pulled up our 1980 manual from the Secretary of State's office, and maybe into embarrassment of Secretary of State and perhaps legislative counsel, we have been doing the same process in a paper based form forever in a day. And it is born digital. As you see, it's being created. A printed copy goes for signature. That does come into the archives after that process. That is where the number is assigned. For the state archives piece, that legislative intent and understanding the background legislative history. And we also are to preserve the authentic, reliable record that comes from the legislature. So it's not ours to change or modify. So that's in that, but it is a publication. So that law is about before submitting to the printer. And we have repealed subsequent laws that are no longer tied to this particular law, included being able to go through and all the officials coming in and reviewing that copy. Because if you're thinking about a paper written copy and then typesetting in that process, there had to be a review to make sure it actually matched the actual words before printing. I think in the last two decades, there's been a lot of work that's happened. We were part of a state of a large multi state digital legislative acts kind of process with other states, there's uniform laws. I think I feel comfortable in saying we do not need nor want to necessarily be part of this process anymore, only because we already have a good process in place for digital record keeping and preservation for the legislature. And this is more a process that keeps us back in time. The other part from the records administration piece, which is what we have in this committee to create the Lamoille State Archive is about, we have accountability and transparency. So it's authentic and reliable record from the general assembly. But the accountability part for the Secretary of State at this point in time is very, very different from when that law was originally enacted and how it was in paper form. And it's very inefficient. When I look at, we do information management to really understand the transactions are that transparency, it's written and recorded evidence of the work of any of the three branches in local government. And we look we do actually take your laws. So as you go through the day and you think about all the things are written from what are asked to be created or received and, of course, with that agency's business and the different record keeping, we have so many nonessential records happening between the legislative council and our office just to get that final printed document, which could be very streamlined in 2026. So I think it's your recommendation of what you would like to do, but there is nothing that I feel as state archivist that we don't have the capabilities to preserve and ensure that we have in digital form as well, the legislative acts and results. From the records administration piece, it's very, very inefficient to continue to operate. Because also because of the way the law is written, we are all following that process that from 1969, which actually isn't that much different. But we've also repealed a number of laws that supported and had context for why that was happening and those systems were related to authenticated, the original and the printed. There are a lot of proofing, but again, it's really born digital. It's managed in a digital format, and the printed copy is is still there to be done. So sorry for the long wind, but that it really is an opportunity for modernization. And for that project that we did a number of years ago, it was a number of different things related to how do you make sure that the digital legal records are preserved and there's a lot of opportunities. I wouldn't, it's up to you, but that is a course that I think Vermont would want to pursue and be in that more modern legislation related to absenteeism as well. Okay.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I want to be conscious of China as well because we got another item on

[Rep. Kate Nugent]: the agenda right now. But do

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: we have any questions for Tanya? Okay, I guess that's I'm gonna tee this one up with when we first started talking about this. This is the classic simple little bill Oh. That turned into a big old rabbit hole. So, no, thank you for all of that. Like, how would this, like, square up at least, like, where it like, it stands in some of the historical context. So at 1PM, we had a this is more for the committee.

[Tanya Marshall (State Archivist & Chief Records Officer)]: Okay. I'm all set.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah. You're all set. I had an adjustment or we had adjustment in availability. So what we're doing at one is we're going do thirty minutes committee discussion mapping out like the rest of this week, but more so the week when we get back the week thirteenth. So we'll add this to the discussion pile as to whether or not we think pursuing this is is something we want to do. So pin that for that 01:00 conversation instead of right now because we have folks here for the long awaited technical corrections. Yes, please. Council, how are you? It's alright.

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, yep.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yes. So we are taking a look at, the sessions technical corrections bill for the, twenty six-seven eighty.

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Hi. I'm Maria Royal with Wood City Council. Quick question. Yes. Planning I to share my screen and pull up the document. I also have a section by section outline.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: That would be wonderful.

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I don't know if sometimes people like to work on the outline. Sometimes they want to work from document. Whatever.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I think if you pass the outline around

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I didn't bring part copies.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Oh, it's on the oh, it's on the page. Sorry, I didn't look into Well,

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: think yeah, great. Yes. So it should be posted. So should I pull up the bill, though?

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah. Why don't we why don't you pull up the bill, and then we have the outline for references for individuals who want to go

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: with one or the other. Sure.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: But thank you for the summary. It is very helpful. Okay, great.

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, so there are approximately one hundred and thirty six secondtions. I don't think it's going to take very long to go through some of them. So we'll just go ahead and get started.

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

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Okay. So the first section, section one, this concerns appointments to the Joint Urban Emissions Reduction Committee, and all it does on line 14 is update the name of the committee because that committee has changed names multiple times. Section two concerns the governor's administration's with respect to the state highway safety fund. And you'll notice that on line seven, it adds in addition to regulations, rules. This is both a state and a federal program, so there are federal regulations and there are state rules. Section three concerns the spouse abuse program, and basically all it does is strike the subsection heading on line 16 because the rest of the subsections don't have headings, so it's just making it conform with the rest of the statute. Same thing in Section four, which concerns the sexual assault victims program, and I believe that is the only substantive change there. Section five, on the other hand, concerns a Vermont internship program and the proposal here is to add a subsection heading because the rest of the subsections do have headings. So, just trying to make everything conform one way or the other. Section six, these are the duties of, OPR and the Secretary of State's office. And the only change you'll see on line 10 is just making a more specific reference to the subchapter, the subchapter as opposed to the chapter, and that's made in two places. And then Section seven concerns privatization contracts, specifically the auditor's review of those contracts. And the only change is on line two. It's just adding the conjunction and, because these are conditions that the contract needs to meet, cost savings and performance measures. So, really just a clarification on line nine, the appropriate name of this committee is added. That's it. Section eight concerns state employees retirement, adding a subdivision heading to conform with the rest of the statute. Page six on lines five and six, that's just deleting a subdivision of this statute that has since been repealed. And that's in two places, also on lines thirteen and fourteen. And then in a few places in this statute and some others, you'll notice on line 20, instead of writing the numerical one and a quarter, it's a convention now to write it out and using words.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: To the alphabet to the numeric, I guess. Yeah. All right.

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Exactly. And then a lot of updating of pronouns, just trying to make them more gender neutral. You'll see on line 21, his or her is replaced with member. Number change I mentioned. Oh, okay. This was a little tricky for me to figure out. So, this is about an early retirement allowance and you'll notice subdivision A. It's a specific allowance specific to members of group G. Right? Same thing in subdivision B. There's specific allowances related to members who meet this definition. Subdivision C, beginning on line 13, this is kind of the general catchall provision. So inadvertently line 14, it left out, except for those members who were already covered under the statute, under A and B, It only said A, it should say A and B. So really just a clarification there. So that brings us to section nine. Also, Vermont Wage Retirement System. Some gender neutral language is added line 10. Here, oh, on page 10 line three, that's just cross reference, statutory cross reference that section five fifty one has been repealed. So this is the appropriate next of kin statute. And then the repealed subdivision two, it isn't proposed to be repealed here, it's just moving subdivision two to follow subdivision D. So it's just the placement in the statute. That's the only change there. Some more gender neutral language. That is that. And then section 10, this concerns the Vermont Saves program and line 13 is replacing the effective date of this chapter with 2023, which was the calendar year that became effective. And then line 15 replacing the with that year to be more specific. Section 11 also concerns the Vermont Saves program. And, let's see. Oh, this is changes the reference, on line eight to the appropriate chapter because chapter 13 was repealed. And it essentially is recodified in chapter 18. This concerns unclaimed property. Section, line two.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I hardly remember doing that. Okay.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you.

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Now we're getting it perfectly right. Rest of the statutes.

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you, Council.

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So line 10, just changing to, the lead in language to conform with the lead in language of the subsection. So instead of discharge shall discharge Section 12, this concerns so a bunch of the following. Sections are all within chapter 19. So it's section 12, but there are going to be numerous statutes that are amended here. So the first one is section five seventy two. And you'll see at beginning on line seven, just changing the structure of the outline to conform with our styles, making them each a complete sentence instead of semicolons and or. And some more gender neutral language, lines twenty and twenty one, uppercase ACT on line one, and then in statute five seventy three, The proposed change here is Oh, I should put my glasses on. Wonder why I'm having a hard time reading this. Oh, okay. So on page 15, normally we don't, you'll notice in subdivision five, we don't kind of use the outline references A, B and C unless they're actually itemized. So within a paragraph, we don't typically do that kind of outlining. So the proposal here is to strike A, B, and C. Just for outlining purposes, some gender neutral language on line 10. Replacing on line 12 here of with other subsection, just greater clarity. And then subsection B, this is just outlining structure just for clarity, essentially.

[Rep. Kate Nugent]: But I don't

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: think there are any proposed substantive changes. No, again, in clarity line seven, subsection A of this section, just to be a little more specific. Section five seventy four. Tell me if I'm going too fast or too slow.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Seems like we're pacing well.

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Okay, good. Gender neutral language, line seventeen and eighteen. Section five seventy five for gender neutral language, line 12. And line 16. Section five seventy six, page 18. There are a lot of instances where the proposal is to replace such with the or another appropriate word. So this is one example on line five, such is replaced with the referring to the fund. And also it's broken up into subsections just for clarity. So a new subsection there, and just outline structure for clarity. And so conforming changes made throughout, line four, such replaced with the. Line 15, instead of saying the treasurer of the state, it's just the state treasurer using treasurer instead of he or she where appropriate. Let's see. Change in five seventy, let me just make sure I remember what that one is, five seventy six. Section 96. For purposes of subsections Oh, just conforming with the new outline structure, sorry. So, they're now the subsections have been re lettered. Okay. Section five seventy eight. Lines three and four, you can see just breaking up a pretty long run on sentence into two complete sentences. More gender neutral language on line eight. Same thing on line 17. In section five seventy nine, gender neutral language, line four. Same thing, line four on page 23. Line five, just adding the in front of Vermont State Treasurer. So now we're getting into section 13. This concerns State Employee Labor Relations Act. And again, I believe this is updating the outline. So lines eight through 11, the proposal here is just to strike the Roman numerals, or romanettes is the word that I recently learned. Romanette I and II are being stricken and it's just one paragraph. And striking of, which is apparently just a typo. No, not a typo, just unnecessary. All the parties instead of all of the parties. You'll see in section 14, line 19, this is an instance where it only concerns state rules, so regulations is proposed to be stricken. And same thing on line two of page 25. Same thing in section 15, replacing regulations with rules. 16, this is just in subdivision nine of, inserting appropriate grammar so that it reads correctly. This is related to the secretary's duties. Then, section 17 replacing the appropriate effective date of this sub chapter. So 07/01/1994. Same thing in section 18 on line three. And then section 19, This is concerning the secretary of natural resources budget and report line 12. That's just striking a cross reference to a subdivision that has since been repealed. Section 20. Again, updating language due to a repeal, the provisions of section 15 of this act. So this act was, I think, a 1970 act, and this section only had to do with honoring contractual commitments for directors at that time. And then subsequently, they just, the directors comply with the classified employees section of law. So there are no more directors who would fall under that category. So proposals just to cross reference the classified employee section appropriate Title III. Just on line 11, section 21, just updating the name of the division. It's now the operations division. Section 22, Replacing Regulations with Rules in Two Instances. Section 23, this is similar to what was referenced before, the 1970 language pertaining to directors. Section 24, replacing regulations with rules. Section 25, line three on page 29, parens, advisory council, the term isn't used again, so there's just no need to put that in parens. Line seven, replacing regulations with rules. Section 26 concerning judicial bureau. Just updating the reference to section six fifty six, title seven now also concerns illegal possession of cannabis. I'm just reflecting that in this section of law. Section 27, gender neutral language. Line 13, it's just the definition of the term replacing, but it does not include with aeronautics instructor does not include. More's gender neutral language. Section 28, adding a subsection heading. Well, actually moving it. It had been under subdivision one, but it should apply to all of the subdivisions. So moving it ahead of subdivision one in the statute. Section 29. Oh, okay. This concerns minors operating in a motor vehicle, possession of alcohol, and line 16. This is fixing an internal cross reference related to individuals. Subdivision A, Roman numeral I, are for first offense drivers. A Roman numeral II are for second offense. There's a longer license suspension period, and that was the intent to apply to those individuals who might be subject to a longer suspension period because this allows them to use an ignition interlock device. Section 30, just fixing, an internal statutory cross reference, line 10, 38 B is actually the section that specifies the exceptions to rated credit instruments, so it's just the wrong internal cross reference. Section 31, striking on a subsection heading. Section 32, same thing. Section 33, you'll see on line 19 and subdivision C striking across ribbons to a task force that had been created under another subsection of the statute, and since has been deleted. So neither the task force nor the subsection exist in law currently. Line four, replacing substance abuse with substance use disorder. Section 34, line nine, an individual under 21 years of age. Section 35. So this pertains to foreclosures and the proposal here on line 15 is to replace nonconclusive with non collusive. I think that was just a typo. Non collusive is kind of the appropriate term for a contract for foreclosures, meaning the seller and the buyer, there's no relationship between them. And that's the term commonly used. I think it was just inadvertently using the wrong term. So now making a correction there. Section 36, striking legislative intent from the section heading because there is no intent specified in this section. Section 37, also in the section heading, it reflects the amendment, a recent amendment to say it refers to not just the sale of, but specifically prohibited sale of, making it a little bit clearer. Then in section 38, okay, so a bunch of these, let's see, the sections 38 through 45 are all amendments within the Uniform Commercial Code and different statutes. The only changes from 38 to 45 are capitalizing state because it's meant to refer to Vermont. You can see on line 11. Line two there, so unless you'd like me to, I'm not going to necessarily pause for each one, But I will note in section 46, this is just providing the appropriate citation, adding section. You see the underlying section for the citation. And then section 47, The editor suggests hyphenating pre effective date financing statement, which is the change here. Uppercase state to reflect Vermont on line 15. So, section 48 concerning air pollution control. Oh, you'll see the stricken language on line seven and eight and ten and eleven. Those laws no longer exist. They've been repealed, but they concerned the definition of sportswear events. So the proposal here is to strike those references to repeal laws and include the definition in the statute itself. Section 49, just changing, how the definition is worded, has instead of shall have, and then fixing a cross reference because that definition in subject seven, not five. Section 15, line three on page 40, just appropriate terminology, developmental abilities instead of development disabilities. Section 51. Oh, okay. So, you'll see on line nine a reference to the Natural Resources Board that has since been replaced with the Land Use Review Board. So there are a couple of changes throughout this section, maybe the next one, just noting that change, deleting the old reference to the board, older board. Excuse me, section 52, adding a subsection heading section 53. This is another one of those changes. So natural resources board has been replaced by the Land Use Review Board. This is under Act two fifty. Same thing in Section 54. Section 55, just a proposal to strike of processes and provisions governing business registration, not of governing business registration. Section 56, just making registered nurses singular, registered nurse. Section 57, let's see where is the change. Oh, just adding a conjunction between subdivisions D and E, which should have been there. Section 58, so when we get to sections 17, Yeah, so this is another instance where there's only one section number, section 58, but there are a bunch of statutes under this chapter 31. And there are a bunch of changes where such is replaced with the, so I might not highlight all of those unless you want me to, but where appropriate, for example, line six, instead of saying such constitution, it's The United States constitution. Gender neutral language, line 10. Under section eighteen twelve, replacing capital at Montpelier with State House in Montpelier, 1813, forty days of the date, just clarifying it's before the date, 1814, gender neutral, replacing such with the. 1815, gender neutral language, same thing with such, you'll see on lines thirteen and fourteen, section eighteen eighteen, line two of 46, making checklist one word checklist instead of two words throughout section eighteen nineteen, replacing thereof with of election. Eighteen twenty, on line 21 of page 46, replacing thereof with making ballot returns. I'm just being more specific, not using the words thereof. Eighteen twenty one, same thing, instead of results thereof, results of the election. Eighteen twenty three, gender neutral language. Eighteen twenty five, Just more specificity replacing submitting the same with submitting the amendment for greater clarity. Similar changes throughout. Thereunder becomes under, and thereto becomes with the resolution or statute. So just clarifying instead of using more parquet language. Section 59 is concerned. Oh, this is under elections, so a number of changes under elections law. This is the apportionment of state representatives, just changing legislature to general assembly, which is how we usually, for a third of the body. Section 60, a lot of replacing such throughout this chapter. And part of that is because Title 17 is going to be republished this year, so they wanted to get as many changes in this draft. That is the bulk of the changes. Just going through here. Same thing, when you get to a different chapter, section 62, replacing such, same thing, section 63. Yep, page 55, line two, also on line eight and nine. Tim came in with these right at the last minute, and I was a little bit miffed. Was like, what

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: is this building this time? There are occasional miffings. I

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: know, but now it's all good.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: It is. Hold on one second. +1, 23456. Nobody's allowed to use

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that. Okay, so gender neutral, a lot of those. So I'm going to just run through those, because I know you're going to run short on time and try to just highlight anything else. All in the elections law, a lot of such is being removed, or gender neutral language. Section 74, same thing, gender neutral language, replacing he or she with the Attorney General where appropriate, such as, Just kind of stop where we get at something other than as such. For example, Section 79, just updating language, replacing thereof with more specific of the organizational resolution. Some more such a Thereof with more specific language. Assume we're going to get out of the elections title. I'm going keep going unless there's anything other than as such. Section 96 also in elections, page 76 line two, just replacing in such case supplementary with just supplementary. It's going to be more concise. Some such as section 99. This is an instance on line 15 of page 77 where the reference is intended to be to any state of The United States, so it's lowercase. Okay, we are getting along, but still in elections. Section 105, adding a subsection heading and also instead of saying, as you probably know, by November 15 on or before, greater clarity. Neutral language. Eleven, sixteen across reference. Section to subsection. Section 108. Oh, further down. What was the change here? I think it was just an

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Take your time.

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: See next. This is section 108. Striking some misplaced commas. So, at the end of subdivision A2, right? A3c. Okay, it may mean that I just need better glasses because I'm not seeing the striking of Thomas. But I will make sure they're in here. That's the only change that's supposed to be proposed, but I think I'm just not seeing them. Anyway, don't want to hold you up for that. I'll fix on that.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah, yeah, know. If you got to do an edit after this one, I think that's perfectly across 100 pages of technical corrections as a first run through, I think.

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, good.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Bagging something this deep is a win.

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, all right. I'll make sure that that's in there. 109, getting rid of an unnecessary conjunction between A and B.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: It's

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: redundant. So section 110 striking. Oh no, it doesn't do it in this section. I'm getting ahead of myself. So line nine, instead of saying 18 years of age or younger, it now just says child under 18 years, section 111. This is just outlining structure, making it for purposes of clarity and adding appropriate conjunctions. Section 112. Uppercase reference to contingent fund, which is the fund created under this section, but it should be uppercase because it's specific. We reference special fund. Section 113, changing shall to does. Shall not becomes does not. And then a couple other changes you'll see in this section updating the appropriate name to the unemployment compensation fund to the unemployment compensation trust fund. So adding trust where appropriate. Then adding a subsection heading for subsection C. And section 114 of this bill, gender neutral language. Section 115 Replacing by the following March. With just the following March. Section 116 that's adding trust to the name of the fund. It's appropriately named section 117. It's just appropriate name of the trust fund. Section 118 striking a subdivision, conformity with the rest of the statute, replacing by with pursuant to, greater clarity with an internal cross reference, some gender neutral language, section 119, uppercase court referring to the Supreme Court, and that's done in several places throughout the statute. And that gets us to Section 120. It's fixing an internal cross reference to the appropriate subdivision that actually deals with hearings. That's just fixing. Cross reference section 121. This is fixinginserting language that should have been included. This is respect to fees, registration fees for trucks. I'm on page 98, line seven. The fee when the weight is at least 30,000 pounds. So just adding the is at least, but not more than. Just appropriate language. And then in section 122, replacing the conjunction and with or to conform with the intent of the section. Section 123, just striking an unnecessary reference to the word section in a cross reference section 124, gender neutral language. Getting there section 125, replacing promulgate shall adopt. Just the appropriate terminology with respect to rule adoption in Vermont. Section 126 is striking a reference to the dental health program, which no longer exists. Section 127 specifying so this is an appropriation to the Division of Property Valuation Review for them to do some educational work with municipal listers, but there were a number of repeals and recodifications that have occurred, and somehow through that process, the appropriation to fund this work, was inadvertently omitted. So the proposal here is to specify that, the money is an authorized use of the Ed fund.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Gotcha. So does this have an impact on any appropriations or it's just clarifying how it is structured?

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think it's just clarifying Okay. Where the money can come from.

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

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's funny that you ask that question.

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I just flag it

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: for appropriations in case they gotta look at the tech correct section.

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Actually, what you might see for me is under that section that deals with authorized expenditures from the Ed Fund. I think that might need to be updated to reflect this. So not a change, but yeah, I talked to Kirby about this a little bit. That might be addressed.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay. So it sounds like we got a couple

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of things to touch on this one. Yeah. Yes.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Cool. Like I said, 100 and whatever pages on the first run through with this. We've only got a couple of nuggets we're winning.

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 198, just changing appraised value to appraised value, typo 01/1929. Updating language for property tax purposes, instead of non residential, we use the term non homestead. Section 130, this is just striking reference to the parental leave contribution because that does not exist. Section 131, 18 years of age, adding the proper reference there and throughout the rest of the statute. Section 132, same thing. Section 133, same thing, 21 years of age. Section 134, referencing just adding care and the term healthcare professional to conform with existing terminology. Section 135, Just specifying these are conditions about when an employer needs to provide dependent coverage and just verifying that you only need to meet one of the following conditions in order to end that coverage. Adding So language one or more of the following conditions applies, and then adding the conjunction or to make it even clearer that it's not all three of them. That's it. Effective on passage.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Any questions from the committee on that, Andrew? I know, rep Coffin, you are the steward of this one, reporter of the bill. I saw you working diligently with your highlighter, Bob. Bob. Bob. Bob. Oh, we have Mary Katherine on the line. Bill, yes or no? Yes. Yes.

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We saw Mary Katherine online. That was a safety net.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: He did not care.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I'm sure.

[Rep. VL Coffin IV]: About a third of the way through this. No. I appreciate the work you've done on this.

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This is a little more revised. So this it's basically the same, just a little more clarification.

[Rep. VL Coffin IV]: Okay. Because I was working

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I figured that, so I was a little concerned.

[Rep. VL Coffin IV]: I just didn't have time to print that. Thank you,

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay. The reference is good. Okay. Okay.

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right? So I'll check on those two things anyway, the ed sign and the commas. Okay. I think they're in there and I just

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I couldn't

[Rep. VL Coffin IV]: find them either.

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Okay. Yeah. I'll check.

[Rep. Kate Nugent]: Okay. That's it.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Alright. Great. Thank you so much for your time. I know that that one was like a late in the shoot for various reasons, so I appreciate the diligent work on that one.

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. No problem.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay, committee. I want bigger body mass for the next conversation. We've been going straight since 09:30. So, let's take a Oh, that's plenty of time. Let's take a 10:40. Does that work for you, are you on tight timeline?

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's fine. I have to be somewhere by 11:50, so I'm good.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Say fifty

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: or fifteen? 11:50. Okay,

[Tucker Anderson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: cool. Y'all got a good berth

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: on this one. All right, let's go off until 10:45.