Meetings
Transcript: Select text below to play or share a clip
[Rep. Philip Jay “Jay” Hooper (Member)]: Alright. We are live.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Alright, everyone. Welcome back. After lunch, a little after 01:30, we're gonna spend the next twenty minutes or so just having a committee discussion about the items that we have still open, for the week after break week. So the week that ends with Friday the thirteenth. So starting off with the conversations that will still be rolling over. The first one is h six eighty six, an act relating to expanding identification of certain lobbying advertisements. We are going to take a we looked at some new language yesterday, and, Yes. With the lobbying advertisements. So we do have some more testimony on this with a new draft, and we will look at that stuff and then hold for another day for a vote possibly tomorrow, but into next week. But I just wanted to reference that one as one of the items that we still have to fine tune and, you know, vote on to be at consensus on the language. So any questions or discussion on that one right now? Which one? Blotting disclosures? 686. Yep. Yep. Okay. Next one I have on my list for discussion was, H103. We've looked at that a couple of times this week, and it seems like there needs to be some more conversations on that one. So, have that one. We had that looking like lag for about this week, but it looks like we're tapping the brakes on that. It seems to be the conversation right now. There's one operator.
[Rep. Robert Hooper (Member)]: The other one, the veterans.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: A service authorization.
[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Preparative practices for services involving veterans. Yep.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yep. And then, yeah, six eighty six, we have a two thirty for, that run, but that vote, we have down for possible vote tomorrow, but I just referenced it because it's still, like, kinda open ended. And next up, 05:19. Right. 05:19 is the Randolph conversation. So, my understanding is, like, due to certain stakeholders and interested parties not being available this week, that that's gonna have a continued conversation over the break to see where we can land with those folks. So, that makes sense to everyone?
[Rep. Philip Jay “Jay” Hooper (Member)]: I think, well, we've got the man who can answer the questions for the, I think, members of this committee who are not ready to vote is here. Maybe we could salt settle that score?
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I mean, I did not know he was popping in. I don't know if we have that clock right now, because we have Commissioner Knight coming in, Chair Kornheiser, and then a walk through, and then more witness testimony at three and then the floor. So I don't know if we have if we have the time and the schedule, perhaps we can do it. But I did not know he was coming in. I kind of had my brain set with this one per the conversations earlier that it was gonna get sucked out more over the brain. Yes.
[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Wait. Written testimony suffice from that witness, or do we need to have a
[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: conversation? Great question. I guess I would
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: be fine I'd be comfortable with some witness written testimony, and then we could use that to decide whether or not we if it answers our questions.
[Rep. Philip Jay “Jay” Hooper (Member)]: Well, I guess Do we have any questions? I don't have any.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: We're looking, yeah, so.
[Rebecca (Committee Staff)]: First of all, who is, who would be, who would the individual be representing that's coming in that would potentially So, we've
[Rep. Philip Jay “Jay” Hooper (Member)]: got the treasurer's office who can answer the questions about.
[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: Okay.
[Rebecca (Committee Staff)]: I did not know who was coming in. Perfect. So if the questions get answered in written testimony, I'm okay with it. Okay. I would like the opportunity to ask questions if I have them after the testimony is written.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I think something written from the treasurer's office would help us tee up.
[Rep. Philip Jay “Jay” Hooper (Member)]: So, in that case, can I ask for questions to be articulated? I told you what I need. Right, right. So, you could relay that. I did. I got the answers, and somebody who can, in a more official capacity, answer those questions, prepared
[Rep. Robert Hooper (Member)]: to do so right now.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay. But what we're doing right now is we're trying to have a discussion on both of them. I understand what you're trying to do.
[Rep. Philip Jay “Jay” Hooper (Member)]: Said that sounds Right. Like you're saying
[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: no. I
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: didn't say no. What I said was like, send the written testimony and so
[Rep. Philip Jay “Jay” Hooper (Member)]: we can look at it and see
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: if it answers all of our questions. What kind of written testimony? Perfect. Be still open for a week after the break.
[Rep. Philip Jay “Jay” Hooper (Member)]: Yeah, I'd like to take one good piece of good news home to one town, if the difference right now is me having taken a stand about it, then that's what I'm trying to do.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I
[Rep. Philip Jay “Jay” Hooper (Member)]: think we should vote on it today.
[Rep. Robert Hooper (Member)]: I hear what you
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: which we would do, still have some questions to answer. I'm gonna go over an agenda right now. So that's what we're doing right now in this moment in
[Rep. Philip Jay “Jay” Hooper (Member)]: And it's expressing that this is my priority.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I have heard you. So, so we did the M686, we did the 01/2003, we discussed the 05/19, and now I think this may be the last of the larger pieces. So, as we've talked about all of this sort of lead up to this omnibus bill with the emergency management, public safety response, disaster response, I wanted to go through some bullets to get consensus from the committee on these items one by one, so we can start getting some drafted for us to look at. So the first one was the Vermont language language justice project, their program and their program request, which is something that we included in our. So, are folks comfortable with us including that in a draft?
[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Yes, we recommended that they get the funding that they ask for. Correct. So, it would be right now, it's a recommendation, but it's just floating out there, not in any bill. So, we would be putting it into a bill. Seems efficient.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Next up, Vermont Food Bank Ready Response Request. It's an unspecified ask. It needs statutory language, but it is for them, if I remember correctly, to work in coordination with Vermont Emergency Management when problems occur.
[Rep. Robert Hooper (Member)]: So,
[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: to
[Rebecca (Committee Staff)]: specifically distribute food and bottled water when Vermont Emergency Management asks for the assistance of the Vermont Food Bank or the food bank doing it on their own, either or. And it also includes transportation. So, is a money piece, but we don't know what the money would be. It's just enabling language. And we need them to come in to talk to us about it. But right now, it's just, is this concept palatable to the committee to add this? And it's for obviously emergencies. Correct.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Cool. Alright. So that's the second on the list of nine items. Up next, we have the, Vermont Urban Search and Rescue Team, USAR. We've been talking to those gentlemen for years. This was also in our budget rec, and that is to get their base from what was that? Was, like, 450,000 plus minus up to $7.20. $7.20. Now that gap is being filled with one time money every year. Yep, and so the full or the intention of this language is to get that to the seven twenty as baseline.
[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: So, would you say that acronym again?
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: You start that is the urban search and rescue team, like, water and, things of that nature. We've had those gentlemen on that. Yeah.
[Rep. Robert Hooper (Member)]: It's easy to disregard this stuff until you find out. Kate really needed it.
[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: We needed testimony for somebody who
[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair, Joint Fiscal Committee)]: broke the ice in
[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Charlotte. Yeah.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: No, they've got a heavy presence in my area with my district having such expansive coastline on the Lake Champlain.
[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Same line. I
[Rebecca (Committee Staff)]: have coastline too in my district. Did you know that? It's all ears. But mine extends to the Canadian coastline. Canadians
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: park their boats in my waterfalls. So, okay, we're finding that that one to be an amenable presence in the forthcoming draft. Cool. This plays into that same conversation. This is that technical rescue microgrant program, $5,000 apiece for $25,000. That was also part of the conversation with those same folks.
[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Mhmm. Everybody cool? Yeah.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Next up is the conversation about the fire chief fire warden request to merge positions.
[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Are we ready to vote on that one? This
[Rebecca (Committee Staff)]: is for inclusion in the big omnibus bill or committee bill that we're We're not voting on the individual bills. We're just weighing in on whether we want to include it in the committee bill or not.
[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: I was
[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: a little confused on that one because I feel like they were referencing when they were giving testimony, were referencing some kind of document that we did not have.
[Rebecca (Committee Staff)]: They provided probably an all committee and I can recirculate that if you want.
[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I don't need to see it. The concept is fine, but I don't know enough about it. I haven't read it. I only heard what they said and I was confused when they were talking. I can recirculate I
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: think I was gone for that part, right?
[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: It's it's when I raised my hand because I was confused. I was like, they're referring to a draft, it's not there
[Rebecca (Committee Staff)]: because they didn't say No,
[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: that was something different. No, I'm saying personally, like my whole experience of yesterday, I was also confused because they were referring to something. And that's why I was wondering, I was like, is it this thing they're referring to or what? So, yeah, you were here.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: That was here for that
[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: one. You were here. Yeah. Okay.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yesterday was such a blend.
[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Yes. I'm gonna post it. I just wanted to see when, you know, I'm assuming we'll have some language at some point that goes in there.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah, and there's the conversation right now is what to get drafted first to have first review and organized Okay, so that is
[Rebecca (Committee Staff)]: I'm going to send this to the whole committee about the grant program.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Gotcha. Next up was that testimony we heard yesterday on H-six 97. We had Detective Caro in on that bill for the 25 foot radius when first responders, right? Yeah. Which is inclusive of all first responders. We're in an emergency situation. Yes, requires evidence.
[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I have some hesitation about that one. I feel like it might, I'm worried about the effect it will have on the media. I know they can be annoying sometimes, sometimes, but also it's really important that we protect their access to things. 25 feet seems far. I know somebody testified that you could use a zoom lens or something, but that's not always possible or available. So I think we're gonna need to hear a lot more testimony about that. It also seems like it's secretly trying to give people an opportunity to, and I'm not saying like maliciously, but just somehow prevent bystanders. You know, we've seen a lot of it with, ICE stuff in Minnesota or whatever. And I know this doesn't apply to ICE necessarily, but it seems like it's trying to limit civilian or, like, bystander involvement in what they think might be a an infraction by law enforcement or something. And I just need to hear some more testimony on that. Could include it, but I'm not a huge fan. Yeah. That concept in general.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: And that was something we just talked about yesterday. I was anticipating putting time at the table, hearing from different people and representatives. Definitely. I Hold on. I got a hand from Ralph Hooper. Just
[Rep. Robert Hooper (Member)]: I agree. I think it's it's already a law that you can interfere with an officer performing your duty. You take a warning and you pump back up. It just seems to be another mechanism for a charge, which is intimidating at least. Possibly at worst. It is a law that's in conformity with some of the other one states that I've looked up, but I don't know that's that much of a problem here. From what the officer that presented talked about the Burlington Bar scene, I don't think that's gonna have an impact on drunk people at 02:00 in the morning.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: But, no, I definitely recognize this is something that was gonna need more testimony.
[Rep. Robert Hooper (Member)]: Alright. Yeah. Hear more justification. But
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: on the other hand, I talk a lot with our police forces in our communities, and there are times that it's it's well, like the detective testifying yesterday that, yeah, granted it was around the bar scene primarily, but Yeah. Still, when you're trying to play, no pun intended, traffic cop and primary cop trying to do an arrest, it can be, it can be tough. I mean, they're they're already up against got enough things stacked in their not to their favor already, but so that's that's that's my 2¢ on it. Well, if we decide to include it into the graph, but they have time to, like, take that from being discussed. Yeah. Would vote agree.
[Rep. Robert Hooper (Member)]: I agree. We need to hear more.
[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I would vote for not including it. Okay.
[Rep. Robert Hooper (Member)]: Any other Well, I fundamentally agree with Mike, but it goes back to my position that the law does nothing to prevent something. It just gives you a way to deal with ramifications. People don't wanna follow the law. So I don't know that it'll have a much impact on changing behavior. It just gives you a don't do that again slap. A lot of people have been emboldened to do. Yeah. Things they should be doing. Mhmm.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Rep Nugent then Rep Coffin.
[Rep. Kate Nugent (Member)]: I think the concept is important to keep discussing just because there is a public safety aspect to a lot of situations and because of the reduction in police force that are available and the more, tension that builds up. I think there's a lot of opportunities for hard things to happen. So I would like to see us at least continue to discuss it so we can try to address it at some point.
[Rep. VL Coffin IV (Member)]: Coffin then stoned. I was gonna say that we included keep the conversation going because, like, Greg Morgan said, people are emboldened right now, and they can make assumptions if something's wrong, but they shouldn't be interfering with law enforcement trying to do their jobs either. It'd be like if somebody saw somebody gets pulled over and they just decided to jump in their face because they assumed they didn't stop them for a good reason. We need to at least let people know that this is not acceptable behavior, and news media or anyone can still video from 25 feet away. It just sets a boundary of let us do our job. Keeps the officers safe as well. So
[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: I vote we don't include it, but I am fine with continuing the conversation. There's just like so much I feel like needs to be tightened up, testimony to be taken. I mean, were four other states that have halo laws like this that There's not enough information. So it feels I understand intent, right? Because there was a halo law that we passed last year by an aunt boss about this happening in the hospital. So I understand the intent, but I want to make sure that the impact matches up with the intent. And I'm afraid that if we just put it in, we only had a cursory look at it. Impact may not be what we intended, and that's not great.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: So, what we're just gonna be here is the inclusion of this in the bill to have further debate on all of the sections once we have it in this draft form. It can be easily removed if we, after testimony, we decide to do so. The draft is not the final version at all. It will certainly be a working guy.
[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: I just don't like the language that we heard yesterday. Because I think that it's got too many loopholes in it. So if that language is what's in the draft, I think even having that just anywhere in the out there isn't great. Would rather
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: We didn't work that language over the break well before we have it as a formal document to present next week. Rebecca.
[Rebecca (Committee Staff)]: Thanks. So, I just want to reiterate that these are all potential inclusions, nothing's been decided, and we have a week after break to take testimony, and we have good chunks of time, so if folks have things that they want to know, and who they want to hear from. I'm making those notes as we talk. So please send that information to me or say it out loud here, because we're going to build that agenda for that week based on this conversation.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay. We So, still got a couple more chunks to touch on here. So, what is the position of the committee on this for inclusion in a draft?
[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: The 25 think? Yes.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: No, thank So, I guess we'll go thumbs to get a good gauge on this.
[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: It's like feeling different.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay, well I guess we got it. Rep Hooper? Don't know that it has some weighing in on
[Rep. Philip Jay “Jay” Hooper (Member)]: things in this committee. Don't feel like this exercise is very fruitful. Like, it seems very scripted and directional. So, I don't yes or no.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Here's Franklin. Okay. So, I got two abstentions. I've got two no's and so that means with four backed off, that's 74. Yes. Alright, next up is the H901 is the disability rights field that Burrows brought in.
[Rebecca (Committee Staff)]: Did you skip fire chief fire warden number five? Sorry.
[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: Was ready for the boat on today.
[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Sandy's going to report that bill.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay. Nine zero one disability rights, that conversation with girls, that was the one. And that was Burroughs? Yeah, the Burroughs one. So, thoughts on that one, comment? Everybody good with inclusion on that? Yeah.
[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Sure.
[Rebecca (Committee Staff)]: Question, do we need to hear from anybody else?
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Probably.
[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I see that we're going to hear from more people on all of
[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: these Yes.
[Rebecca (Committee Staff)]: So I would like to have those folks invited before we leave for the week. So if anybody has individuals who would be willing
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: to request a person to ask for. Stakeholders. Burrows, people buried in homes. So, this next piece is that conversation I brought up a little bit earlier in the week with What did I miss?
[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: So, the rep was in their burrows, not people burrowing in their homes.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Oh, wow. Love that.
[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: I remember he said burrows, burrow people burrowing. I'm like, then he says, what boroughs? I'm like, oh.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yes. No, we were speaking about the representative. We came in yesterday and talked about their milk. It's like
[Rep. Philip Jay “Jay” Hooper (Member)]: wind down the willows. Okay. Sorry.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: So this next piece, was something I I mentioned earlier in the week where if it was I had a conversation with, deputy treasurer, and the way that there's an expectation of how federal money will be coming in during disasters, Setting up the treasurer's office is like the receiver of the funds, and then try to establish a method of disbursement from the treasurer's office. It's and this is a conversation that's been going on for softly over time, looking to the future of this planning. And one of the things that kind of triggered this conversation to be a little bit more in-depth, was the denial of the FEMA funding in the Northeast Kingdom. So I started the conversation with the treasurer's office. They're amenable to it. And then my next step, if we agree to try and include language in this, is to reach out to the bond bank.
[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: So you're saying that the FEMA money would go to the treasurer's office, and then the treasurer's office would disperse it to the communities?
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: What we discussed was actually, this is where the bond bank comes into play, because so then the treasurer's office, we did, in theory, give the money to the bond bank, because the bond bank has done these sort of municipal level loans very often for disbursements, and they have the internal capacity to do the application vetting, all of those processes. So they would be the sort of administrator of the funds With oversight in conjunction with the chairman's.
[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I have a 1,000,000 questions. I wonder if this would be better as it sounds Bill, because it seems kind of. Major like, my questions being, do they get the money right away? Do they have to apply for it? Does the treasurer then decide who gets some of that FEMA money and what amount they get? Is there a waiting period after they And get when people need those funds immediately? I had a driveway, the road washed out a couple of years ago, I'd run-in my neighborhood, had to pay a certain amount of money upfront. And it was a lot, was over $10,000 And then when we got reimbursed from FEMA, they put it directly into our bank accounts, like each of us, it was a And direct I feel like adding a bureaucratic step, knowing nothing about this, this is like almost the first I've heard of it, but adding a bureaucracy and staff time and energy to something that, I don't know, I feel like it maybe shouldn't go in this big bill, but should be its own. Seems like there are a lot of components to it that need to be figured out.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: No, there are. And that was the conversation I had with the Treasurer of the Office of the States. Pretty much here, because I haven't even reached out to the bond bank yet. Now, the bond bank has executed programs like this in conjunction with the state during disasters and other things. So there's a working template that exists. I don't want to get out of my skis speaking to it, but I know it was a worthy conversation to at least get some migrant traction to look at what we were considering what the total bill looks like.
[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Okay. So if we don't put it into this bill right now, it'll have to wait until next biennium?
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Unless we've done another vehicle for it.
[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Is it urgent that it happens right now?
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Diva is less and less a reliable partner in the moments in the stage.
[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Right, like they're not giving us money anyway. So it seems like setting up a whole thing.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: So this isn't about the like requesting them, like the reimbursement, it's like sometimes what they'll do is they'll, when they give the state the, what they were doing, like the situation with yours, where it was kind of case by case, and then they were reimbursing. My understanding is they're not going be doing it in that way anymore, that they're just going to hand the state a big pile of money and say, you deal with it, instead of doing it case by case, like they've been doing. So this is trying to set up something to be prepared for them to just hand us a big pile of money and say, we do it again.
[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Are they going to do that?
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: That's something FEMA's been talking about for some time, that's another piece that we have to take us from here.
[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Okay. I mean, sure. It seems like a lot of unknowns and a lot of confusing things that could hold up in otherwise cohesive build that's moving forward. Yes.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Rebecca.
[Rebecca (Committee Staff)]: If it looks like it's going to hold it up, it can just get pulled. Cool. Because we have a whole week when we come back. Have until the thirteenth. So, I think we can continue to take testimony on it if people want to hear about it. So, that's my offer.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay. We found out that lease including a draft language. Okay. Alright. And then lastly is the communications, public safety communication staff, task force recommendations. And I think I'm going to ask for a Pango to speak to that a little bit. Just we had something obviously we've been working on for years here and was one of the components that was flagged for inclusion in this a while back.
[Rebecca (Committee Staff)]: So we heard from the task force, and we heard from the Department of Public Safety. We heard about funding that has already been appropriated, and they've already started using that they can't continue to use. So, we have a number of questions to be answered, and they can only move forward in any way, shape, or form with statutory language from us. Otherwise, that report that they worked for two years on sits on a shelf and doesn't go anywhere. So I'm just suggesting that we continue to take testimony the week after the break to understand better how to help them continue this discussion moving forward. And this has literally been a two decade discussion in the state of Vermont, and really has gotten nowhere. And I would love for us to help them get to a place where they can use the remaining $9,000,000 and not lose it, and move forward with something that's more cohesive and more equitable for Vermont towns and us, the citizens who are relying on EMS, fire, and police. So, asking you if you would agree to continue the discussion into the week after break.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I appreciate
[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: that, and we'll have a
[Rebecca (Committee Staff)]: long list of witnesses, but I really want people's input on who else you want to hear from for any these that we voted to include. And the only thing I didn't get an answer on was the Technical Rescue Microgrant program, because folks asked for more information, which I sent out a few minutes ago. So do we want to take some time to look at that, or are we ready to vote on inclusion of that?
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: How do we want to do that? Do we want to take a look at the email? We can always circle back to that piece later after we get into the testimony. That folks want know. What's that? Yeah. Waiting?
[Rep. Philip Jay “Jay” Hooper (Member)]: You don't have
[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: to read an email and then come on
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: back after. Yes. Okay.
[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Just tell me again what the last thing that you talked about was the communication.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: The Public Safety Communications Task Force Report Hi,
[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Commissioner. Hello. How are you? I'm well. Would you like me to Yes.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: We're gonna ship right over to you.
[Commissioner Wendy Knight (Department of Liquor and Lottery)]: See you all again.
[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Amazing. You looking forward to having the week off?
[Commissioner Wendy Knight (Department of Liquor and Lottery)]: Doesn't sound like you're gonna
[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I am. How are
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: you? So we have that new draft.
[Commissioner Wendy Knight (Department of Liquor and Lottery)]: Yes, I'm looking at it now. Thanks, Nick. Appreciate it.
[Rep. Philip Jay “Jay” Hooper (Member)]: All
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: right. And that is under Tucker, and that is draft number 26Dash0551.
[Rep. Philip Jay “Jay” Hooper (Member)]: Alright.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: And yes, this is still a working draft.
[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: You want me to
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah, no, we were just pulling this in.
[Commissioner Wendy Knight (Department of Liquor and Lottery)]: I thought you were I don't know. Ready to go.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: All right, let's do it. It's you.
[Commissioner Wendy Knight (Department of Liquor and Lottery)]: Okay, great. So you don't need my name for the record, all that nonsense, or do we need that?
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Go ahead. Okay.
[Commissioner Wendy Knight (Department of Liquor and Lottery)]: Wendy nine, Department of Liquor and Lottery. Section two, the one thing I think we need to include in C1 when we talk about allowing manufacturers, Vermont manufacturers, to have the tasting rooms. I see you've said not more than four Fourth class license locations. A licensed manufacturer may have other products. We're looking at that section there.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yes. I'm sorry. That's on two, you said? Section two? About history. Yes. Great. Thank you. Yes. Thank you.
[Commissioner Wendy Knight (Department of Liquor and Lottery)]: So I think what we need to include there is Vermont manufacturers. Right? So we don't want it's not any other licensed manufacturer. It's Vermont manufacturer. Manufacturer. Because we're trying to ensure that these fourth class ticing rooms are promoting and selling Vermont products. So I would say that in C1, A, B, C, we're talking about Vermont manufacturers. Malt, vines, ready to drink, spirits. And I appreciate that the So I see that the number in B, we talked about spirits, the fact that we have eight zero two spirit stores, right? We don't want a fourth class tasting room to have unlimited spirits products because we don't want them to compete with a NATO two spirits kiosk store. We had recommended seven as the up to seven spirits, manufacturers, and I see the number is five. And I was wondering if that was intentional.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I don't think so. I think that might have just been a drafting error with, with counsel. Yeah. We would number seven.
[Commissioner Wendy Knight (Department of Liquor and Lottery)]: Yeah. And the reason we got to seven is because the average number of Vermont manufacturers in the NATO two spirits kiosk stores is 14. That's not the products. It's just the number of manufacturers. So we thought half of that made sense. Okay. So that's something I noticed. And then the other the only other thing I noticed is that when we talked about one day for that certain license, it needs to be a business day.
[Rep. Philip Jay “Jay” Hooper (Member)]: Okay.
[Commissioner Wendy Knight (Department of Liquor and Lottery)]: So that is section five, I think, Where we're talking about Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. See number Yeah, section five, it should be one business day prior to the date of alcohol beverage tasting event. Not one day.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Business day, and that was, I'm sorry, that was section five.
[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: And five.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yep, yep, on June 20.
[Rep. Robert Hooper (Member)]: Yeah. Okay.
[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair, Joint Fiscal Committee)]: Those are the only comments I have
[Commissioner Wendy Knight (Department of Liquor and Lottery)]: been requested changes, please. Okay.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Any questions for the commissioner? Yeah. We just got this wrapped in a short time ago, so we didn't even really have time to review
[Rep. Kate Nugent (Member)]: it. Understand. So, you for the eyes.
[Commissioner Wendy Knight (Department of Liquor and Lottery)]: You're very welcome. I used to be an editor, so comes in handy.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Doesn't it? Yes. Alright. Any questions for the commissioner?
[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: None. Alright.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Thank you.
[Rep. Kate Nugent (Member)]: Thank you.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: And, yeah, we'll get this stuff tightened up, we'll shoot it over to you guys for a final
[Commissioner Wendy Knight (Department of Liquor and Lottery)]: Excellent. Appreciate it. Excellent.
[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: So on that, anywhere it says additional license to manufacturers, it's going to say an additional Vermont license to Vermont manufacturers, it's going say that. Anywhere that says manufacturers, the word Vermont will be put in front of
[Rep. Philip Jay “Jay” Hooper (Member)]: it. Yes.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yes, in the AB, yes. And make sure we're Yes, throughout that section, because we want to reference Vermont products to be highlighted.
[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: This is what? Do you
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: have a question? Yeah. Yeah. Excellent. I wanna be your shuffle of the presenter's time. How are you? Thank you for coming down and joining us.
[Rep. Kate Nugent (Member)]: Absolutely. Hi.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: So, committee, we're shifting gears over to government accountability, eight sixty seven. And we asked chair coordinator to come down here in her role as the chair to discuss the proposed changes, that we were considering.
[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair, Joint Fiscal Committee)]: Hello, everyone. Representative Evelyn Kornheiser from Brattleboro, chair of the Joint Fiscal Committee for this biennium. I'll tell you a little bit about how we function because it's, somewhat unusual. So there are, not gonna use the technical terms. They're essentially default appointments to the joint fiscal committee. So all four chairs of the money committees are always on joint fiscal. There's usually that sort of highest ranking members of money committees from other parties are on joint fiscal. And then usually one more person, who's lately been the chair of the human services committees on both, house and senate because that is where a lot of the money gets spent, frankly. We meet every other month during the off session. And during the off session, we're sort of, really tasked with protecting the financial interests of the state. We have a lot of statutory reports that we go through. And frankly, whenever there's a crisis, whether that is a good crisis, like an enormous amount of COVID money coming into the state, or a massive financial crisis, like we saw a few years ago, we are the folks that manage it during the off session. Our chair ship is technically elected each biennium, but we I think since sort of the beginning of legislative time has followed a particular tradition of alternating between the four money chairs each biennium. So right now, I'm the chair, but I'm the the chair not because I'm representative of Corten Heizer, but because I'm the chair of house ways and means. Next biennium, the chair will be the chair of senate finance, and then it will go to then the biennium after that, it will be the chair of House Appropriations, and then the biennium after that, it will be the chair of Senate Appropriations. And that, I think, has been going on forever and ever. We also approve any grants that come in both during the off session and during the on session to state government. Sometimes they're enormous, rural health grants. Sometimes they're small. Often, if a committee is doing something during the session that they think requires someone to check-in on it and make a final decision during the summer, They ask us to. A lot of the dispatch work that this committee did maybe four years ago, spent a lot of time in joint fiscal, and we even did some work on that this summer that I think is coming back to you all. That's the kind of work we do. We also supervise the joint fiscal office. That's a really important point. So various pieces of the legislature are supervised by different people, which I think is sort of an interesting way that we've all been put together over time. Right? So the sergeant in arms supervises the police department. We elect the sergeant in arms. The joint fiscal office reports actually to the Joint Fiscal Committee. And so we are their boss, which I think is an interesting piece of the whole puzzle.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Would you
[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair, Joint Fiscal Committee)]: like me to speak to the actual bill? Is that helpful?
[Rebecca (Committee Staff)]: Yes, please. Okay.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah, we were definitely looking to you as this is a new charge So that would be applied to getting your input is valuable.
[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair, Joint Fiscal Committee)]: We do a lot, As the chair of GFC, we have not been able to have a meeting in order to discuss this bill. So I'm really just speaking as the chair, not on behalf of the whole committee. But we certainly have the space in our agenda. We are usually all driving in for the meeting, and so we're here all day anyway. So sometimes our meetings are just three hours extending, meetings if we needed to wouldn't be that much of a burden. And there's often one thing that we would need to do once a month instead of every other month. And so having a little bit more work would be perfectly fine. One of the pieces that I really appreciate about the Joint Fiscal Committee and the membership of the Joint Fiscal Committee is because of the of default and statutory membership of it, you have a group of people who regularly see across the entire body and see almost every bill that passes in-depth, which is an unusual position to be sitting from. And so I think we have a sort of good ability to have eyes on where more accountability work might be helpful and who and what would be doing that. We tend to have relationships with all of the each of us because of our work. Already has a relationship with most of the legislative council attorneys, with the whole joint fiscal office, and tend to know most of the commissioners, not just the ones in our individual policy area. And so that's a helpful piece for doing accountability work. It would be very normal for us to be working with the joint fiscal office as they bring on new staff and talk through the new staff, and what responsibilities of a new staff person would work. So that would be great. And like I said, we already sort of receive regular reports and talk them through. I, was on the government accountability committee in its earlier iteration, for, I think, a couple at least four years. And then I was on the summer government accountability committee to find a new accountability committee or whatever we call that. And in that role, we really talked through a lot of the reasons that this hasn't worked before. Not giving a committee sufficient authority to do the work, members of the committee not having sort of sufficient experience or background to do the work, not having sufficient staff to do the work. And I see this bill as it's structured now really satisfying all of those challenges, and I'm excited
[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: about it.
[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair, Joint Fiscal Committee)]: Okay. I also had no time to prepare to come here, so apologies for No.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I no. I know the time is
[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair, Joint Fiscal Committee)]: No blame. No blame at all. I'm just sort of, like, you know
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I I totally recognize that. We just wanted to really just hear from you because you have such, like, deep experience in the process of the previous committee, the existence, and then study committee, and then the evolution of this proposed.
[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair, Joint Fiscal Committee)]: Can I
[Rep. Kate Nugent (Member)]: have one more thing? Absolutely.
[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair, Joint Fiscal Committee)]: This is maybe a weird thing to say, but it's sort of Thursday afternoon before town meeting breaks, that's where my brain is. Of the other things about the Joint Fiscal Committee is because of the membership of it, it tends to not have very many people on it who are sort of the more hot headed, newer arrivals to the legislature. It's like
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Wait,
[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair, Joint Fiscal Committee)]: should so, move that one. Are the more slower moving, checking our boxes votes, for whatever that's worth.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Understood.
[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair, Joint Fiscal Committee)]: Got it. It's like a lot of institutional memory sitting there.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yes. No, that's a really good point. There's already the experience within JFC's membership to dissect and analyze in a more pragmatic and deliberate way. So I can see where that sort of skill set that already exists within the panel is a good application here. Any questions for chair organizer? Alright. So the plan is right now, we're gonna review this language more in-depth. We do have it scheduled for a possible vote at 10:30 tomorrow morning. So that is where we're at right now with this with the intent. So if you feel like there's any other feedback, maybe from some of the other JFC members or anything like that, please let us know.
[Rep. Robert Hooper (Member)]: Other than that, Rutland.
[Rep. Kate Nugent (Member)]: I just want to clarify that Representative Waters Evans and I have requested an updated draft from Tim. So we will be receiving that the vote, but it misses a lot what we heard from Yes. Governor Brennan and the fan here of charging the JFC with this.
[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Grateful that you are willing to take that work on.
[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair, Joint Fiscal Committee)]: Government accountability is the most important work that we can do here.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Thanks. Yeah. Anything else for?
[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair, Joint Fiscal Committee)]: No. You have to touch your face. Face him.
[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Then.
[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: That is the one for
[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: yesterday Okay.
[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I think. I don't think we've seen anyone
[Commissioner Wendy Knight (Department of Liquor and Lottery)]: Oh, we
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: have not received it.
[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: No. I am oh, it's shared with counsel, and he's just going over a couple of things with Catherine from judge law just to make
[Rep. Kate Nugent (Member)]: sure we're all on the same page.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay,
[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I just need my Okay for that for them to collaborate.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay. Because we had this listed here,
[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: we did the thing. The only time that chair Kornheiser could come to us was she had two to 02:15.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: No. Okay. So that
[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: is that slot.
[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Yes, that was that slot.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Checkbox on the
[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: It messed up the calendar. I felt like I would have.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I just threw my hard copy away and started doing the digital because that thing was so outdated And even that one has a scheduling flow adjustment.
[Commissioner Wendy Knight (Department of Liquor and Lottery)]: That's very hard.
[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: And so we've got our next item up at 02:30, which is a walkthrough and some testimony on a new version of h six eighty six. That one is the the lobbying disclosures. So we will go
[Rep. Philip Jay “Jay” Hooper (Member)]: offline