Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Chair Matthew Birong]: All right, everyone. Welcome back a little after 1PM on Wednesday, May 20. We got a slug of stuff to work on for the next hour or so. So we are going to start off with, we had some, we wanted to get some insight from the CCB. So we have Gabe Gilden with us to run through a couple of the questions that we had. Sir, please feel free to join us. Apologies for the ambient noise in the background there. All right. So it seems the larger bucket of questions, if I recall correctly, was in and around the sections that were addressed in Weights and Beans. And so

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: with that,

[Chair Matthew Birong]: the those parts we wanted to touch on more specifically, unless nobody else recalls differently.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: If I can just ask, should be on amendment draft 2.1, or are we on nine point two? Point one point one. Hold on. That's about 2.1.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Thank you. Yes, we should be working off 2.1.

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: Really does add some background noise. Nice.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: It's being posted right now. Yep. Well, it'll let us know when it refresh.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: It just

[Chair Matthew Birong]: appeared? Yep. Cool. I can't get my screen to load. 2.1. Thank you all. All right. All right. To you, sir.

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: Okay. So would you like me to just start from the top real quickly and focus on what was adjusted in the revenues? Yes. Happy to do that. So for the record, my name is Gabe Gilman. I'm general counsel of Cannabis Control Board. Your usual James Pepper is tied up today, so thank you for tolerating me. I'm here to give you a quick run through of the current S-two 78. The first section, at this point, has been stricken. That section proposed to double the package, the allowable package maximum. It is no longer part of the bill. The section on local government, I understand, was a concern. It's a little bit unexpectedly to us. But what you've arrived at makes sense. We're really, at this point, leaving it alone, except for the technical updates that remove the now defunct references to the integrated license that no longer exists.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: I sort of play that. So counsel, who will be showing up at some point, found a couple of others with the integrated license language that will need you to be removed. So there's going to be a little bit more housekeeping coming that because she found a few more spots where it still exists. That makes sense. I wanted to say that to the committee real quickly. Yes, Rebecca.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: I was just looking at the difference between that and 1.1, the name that we just heard earlier. So there was a whole section that isn't addressed anymore, about the 5% of the voters and margaritas? My

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: understanding is that section is removed, and it's status quo for

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: the section, except for those technical changes, removing the field license type. How did that change between 11:30 and now?

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: That didn't.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: It didn't?

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: Nope. That was always part of the What was the letter we reviewed earlier?

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: No, probably the change from the previous amendment. You're talking about the one we talked

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: about earlier? Yeah. It did not. It didn't? Is that Boyden?

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: I think if I'm understanding you correctly, if we were to delete all of section 11, we wouldn't be incorporating the deletion of the integrated license, which has been deemed obsolete. So this new version of the amendment brings back section 11, but it's only striking out since it was where it references the legislative license.

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: So

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: if we just deleted it for Section 11, it's harder, we wouldn't be doing the house to be marked up. It's done throughout the entirety of bill. So my Okay. Thank you.

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: So I agree, just to make sure we're all on the same page, I think. My understanding, which I think I'm pretty confident in, is there was originally a proposal in Section 11 that would have made material changes to the law concerning municipal authority vis a vis cannabis establishments. It was decided against and removed, but then it was realized that they went with the bathwater and technical corrections were removed along with the substantive corrections. This just puts back the technical corrections without the substantive. So it effectively does not alter the section. I can say, terms of implementation on the ground at the board, this section has worked acceptably. I'm aware of a significant controversy in a single location, But across the state, it has generally been sufficient. That's a good

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Yes. And the council is on their way right now and can speak to that as well when GRIs.

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: Turning to Section 12A, there is new authority, which really shouldn't be new, but is. This mirrors exactly authority that was at the Agency of Agriculture for the enforcement of hemp related administrative penalties. And this new subsection simply provides that the board may enforce a final administrative penalty by filing a civil collection action in Superior Court. In the absence of that, it's not clear exactly how we would get our money if there were a judgment against somebody they didn't want to pay. So

[Paul Earl Bell (Chair, Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: that's the end of that, I think.

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: Are there any questions, or would you like me to revisit other parts of the bill?

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: Boyd?

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: Can you talk about

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: the fourth instance of removing the contingency of decreasing the fees and no longer appropriating money to make up for that plot towards the CCD?

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: Yeah, my understanding is that the substantive change would be a significant reduction in the fees for outdoor cultivators. Originally, that was contingent upon an appropriation that would offset the lost revenue. And my understanding is that is gone now, but also that the effective date would be pushed out to 2027. So I think 07/01/2027 would take it, but it's not funded. That's accurate.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: And there's no concern from the CCD that the loss of revenue will affect the operations of

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: It's really sort of a political political choice. We already have a delta between our and not the happy kind of delta between our fee revenues and the operating expenses of the agency. The revenues don't support the operating expenses. That was sort of a conscious choice by the General Assembly at the beginning of the market because I think there was a desire to make these licenses accessible to people who might not have means. Worked pretty well-to-do that, but it does mean that we have this gap. And it's really a question of political philosophy. Should those pay more? So obviously, if this grows that delta, it aggravates that problem if you see it as a problem. If you see it as a desired subsidy to keep these things accessible, I suppose that's you might see it very differently. It is the case that outdoor cultivation has less environmental impact. It yields less. You can get four cycles in an indoor grow. It's not as intensive. Outdoors, stuff in the sun at a pretty high latitudes. So most outdoor cultivators are not generating huge, huge profits.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: Any question?

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: High Council. Perfect.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Anything else, Mr. Gilman? Nope. Okay. Thank you, sir.

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: Okay. Well, we thank you for the patience and care you've given us, Bill. It's been a long ride.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: And so I'm going to move over to counsel just to discuss the changes again. The rise from 1.1 to 2.1.

[Diane Priori (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Does everyone have that?

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: Sophie Sedatney for the Office of Legislative Counsel. So version 2.1 of the amendment is intended just to preserve the changes regarding integrated licenses. So if you remember, we had several sections in S278 that you did not amend that came over from the Senate that were just correcting the statutes to take out references to integrated licenses. And there were five references to integrated licenses in that section 11 that you're looking to delete, and I just wanted to make sure that for purposes of the statute that we weren't losing the correction of removing the reference to integrated licenses. So it's just to make sure, along with those other sections that talk about integrated licenses, that they're incorporated into this amendment.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Any questions from counsel on that one? So my understanding is this That's

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: the point.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: If we take a position on this now and it's favorable, we did the same with Rep. Nugent's proposal of amendment that the language would be inserted as appropriations, thereby avoiding floor amendments and stuff like that so we keep it a little cleaner. That's just the process awareness for folks. So with that, any other discussion or comments on the proposal of amendment draft 2.1? Nope. All right. So everybody good to take a position on this? All right. I'll call for favorable thumbs. That is a ten-zero-one. Awesome. Thank you, counsel. Thank you, committee. Thank you, All right. Up next, we have a proposal of amendment on S-sixty four, an act relating to amendments to the scope of practice for optometrists.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: Hi, counsel.

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: Do you want to copy that amendment somewhere?

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: It's posted on our page. Let's take few minutes to book it over first. Well, I'd let you

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: run through

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: it with counsel, and then we'll take some time. Lisa's date. What state?

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: You had a good look? I sent a few about the same email.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: Books that are emailed. It's

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: also on the page.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: There

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: we go.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: All right.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: The table is yours.

[Diane Priori (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Great. Good afternoon. Diane Priori from the Office of Legislative Counsel. So I will walk through this proposal from Representative Stone. This is on S-sixty four, which is an act relating to the scope of practice for optometrists. And all of the potential changes are highlighted. We can look at them. So starting out in section one in the definition section, in the definition of practice of optometry for someone holding an advanced therapeutic procedure specialty. It would remove the laser procedures and just go directly from surgery to injections. Those are the first changes. Section two, you'll see this as a theme throughout. This is putting the scope of or the oversight of the Advanced Therapeutic Procedure specialty under the Board of Medical Practice. So for the renewal, that talks about the additional five hours of continuing education approved by the Board of Medical Practice in the Advanced Procedures. Section three, the prohibited practices. Again, we're moving the reference to lasers, but these are the prohibited practices. And so it is adding those three that were taken out of the stroke of practice in the first section to this list and putting in the and. And then in section four, we get the creation of the specialty itself. And so this has the individual applied to the Board of Medical Practice for an Advanced Therapeutic Procedures specialty that would authorize them to perform advanced procedures in accordance with a practice agreement between the optometrist and an ophthalmologist. And we'll get to that in a little bit as well. For qualifications, has the Board of Medical Practice in consultation with the Board of Optometry, granting the advanced therapeutic procedure specialty to an applicant who still is a licensed optometrist, meets applicable requirements for education and demonstrated competency, has completed the exam requirements, and then this would add files with the boards of medical practice and of optometry, a practice agreement as set forth in subsection E, and a transfer plan as set forth in subsection section F. For educational requirements, this is just replacing the Board of Optometry with the Board of Medical Practice as the approval entity for the postgraduate course sponsored by an organization. It takes out the training on the didactic classroom instruction on laser related aspects and renumbers accordingly. Then for the preceptorship, it would increase the hours of clinical training, the in person hands on training from at least eight hours to at least eighteen hours. Remove references to performing laser procedures on patients and increase the number of each of the supervised excisions or injections from two to 12. This is just clarifying because this is a smaller scope than was originally discussed that the preceptor would be an optometrist with a substantially similar or broader scope of practice, which is consistent with some language later on that talks about substantially equivalent or broader scope of practice. Again, adding the Board of Medical Practice as the one with whom the preceptor log is filed. No changes to the examination requirements. And then here we have the practice agreement. This is fairly similar to the practice agreement between a physician assistant and physician in existing statute. This allows an optometrist to hold an advanced procedure, therapeutic procedure specialty, and perform the advanced procedures only if the optometrist has entered into a written practice agreement with an ophthalmologist who's licensed under either the medical doctor or osteopathic physician chapters, or with a Vermont based ophthalmology practice at which one or more ophthalmologists license pursuant to those chapters practices, which shall include all of the following: processes for ophthalmologist communication, availability, decision making, and periodic joint evaluation of services delivered when providing medical care to a patient a plan to have an ophthalmologist available for consultation at all times when the optometrist is performing or preparing to perform an advanced therapeutic procedure, and the signatures of the optometrist and the ophthalmologist or authorized representative of the practice. It requires the practice agreement to be reviewed by the optometrist and either the ophthalmologist or representative of the practice at a minimum at the time of the optometrist's license renewal. Requires the practice agreement to be filed with the boards in the form and manner required by the Board of Medical Practice. Specifies that nothing in this section should be construed to require an ophthalmologist be physically present at the time and place at which an optometrist is performing an advanced therapeutic procedure, and it specifies that optometrists are responsible for their own medical decision making, and there is not legal liability for an ophthalmologist or ophthalmology practice in a practice agreement with an optometrist by mere resistance of the practice agreement, but does not otherwise limit the liability. So just the existence of the practice plan itself does not create

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: liability for the ophthalmologist.

[Diane Priori (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Then we have a transfer plan that says, again, an optometrist may hold the advanced therapeutic procedure specialty and perform the advanced procedures, only if the optometrist has in place a written plan for transferring a patient to the nearest hospital or to another nearby qualified health care provider or facility as determined by the Board of Medical Practice should an adverse event occur in connection with an advanced therapeutic procedure. And the plan must be filed with the Board of Medical Practice and Board of Optometry in the form and manner required by the Board of Medical Practice. Then, again, adding in, use the references to the board being the Board of Medical Practice, because otherwise it's the Board of Optometry in this chapter. We have some additional reporting requirements. So in addition to the optometrist reporting any adverse event related to an advanced therapeutic procedure to the Board of Optometry, would also go to the Board of Medical Practice within thirty days. And every two years, as part of the license renewal process, it would require each optometrist with this specialty to report to the boards the number of each of the procedures in that expanded scope that the optometrists performed during the previous licensure period. Section six is some language around Medicaid coverage for services delivered by an optometrist with the specialty. This would require Vermont Medicaid to cover services that are within the scope of practice of an optometrist with the specialty to the same extent that the services would be covered if they were delivered by a physician, again, licensed under either of those two chapters, and directs the Department for Land Health Access to seek a state plan amendment from the Federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to take effect on 07/01/2028, to allow the Medicaid programs to provide coverage for services delivered by an optometrist who is a Medicaid participating provider and holds that specialty. Finally, effective date becomes effective dates. The Medicaid coverage and state plan amendment and this section, Medicaid coverage meaning they'll seek the state plan amendment, and this section would take effect on passage. Section six, the Medicaid coverage itself, would take effect on the later of 07/01/2028, or approval of the state plan amendment by the Feds. And the remaining sections would take effect on 07/01/2028, which was as in the bill.

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: Questions?

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: Thank you all. Thank the committee. Thank you for this time. I'm presenting this amendment because I believe that it makes the bill better. As you all know, I'm an occupational therapist, and my entire career has been built around one North Star. Patients always deserve the best possible care from the most qualified provider available. That is not controversial. That is foundational, and I hope we can all agree on that. I also want to dispel the myth I've heard that this bill is about access. I want to address that directly because the evidence simply does not support it. The Green Mountain Care Board and the Sunrise support from the Secretary of State have already reviewed whether there was a shortage of surgical services in Vermont, and there is not. There are ophthalmologists in every region of this state who are available, experienced, and appropriately trained to perform all of the procedures on the procedures list laid out in this bill. I also want to be very clear about something. Lasers and eyelid surgeries are not primary care,

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: and

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: I caution us to keep framing them as such. We have also seen that the expansion of surgical scope has not improved access in other states in a significant way, and we should not accept that premise here. I also want to be extremely clear that this amendment does not kill the bill. That's another myth I have heard again and again. It's factually untrue. It does not block optometrists from expanding their practice. What it does is ensure that if we are going to allow these procedures, we hold practitioners to a standard worthy of Vermonters' trust. We strengthen guardrails all of the time in this body, in this committee. That's not an obstruction. That's good legislation. And I feel that's what we're called to do here as lawmakers. Anyone who tells you that adding patient safety requirements kills a bill is telling you the guardrails are the problem, and we should push back on that notion. My amendment has a lot of meat on it. I know that. It's written that way on purpose. This is a meaningful and important topic, and we should be doing our utmost to give it the process that Vermonters deserve. This is not about turf. This is not about political games. This is not about ego. This is not about lobbying wars. There are a lot of lobbyists in here, so I'm saying that out loud. This is not about any of that, though. This is about making sure that whenever Monter sits down in a chair and someone picks up a laser or a scalpel, that person the giving them care has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate that they know what they're doing. I want to have an honest conversation about that. And if this bill does succeed, I want it to be in a way that Vermont can be proud of. I want it to move forward in a way with standards that put patients first. And my desire to raise the bar should not be seen as controversial or confrontational. It's not. This is me coming to you as a legislator, but also as a health care provider. I believe the only one in either chamber who currently holds an active license to work with patients, begging you to think things through using critical reasoning. I appreciate all of you, and I appreciate the time to discuss this, and I would really appreciate y'all leading with curiosity as opposed to confrontation. I know that we have different letters behind our names, but we're all on the same team, and we are all called to serve because we share a common goal to serve others and do so to the best of our ability. So let's leave with that mindset. That's how good policy is made. So I'm just asking you to dig in instead of just pushing this through. Thank you.

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: Questions on the response to the time of the other stuff? The Secretary of State's office, OPR did request that we will be scheduled tomorrow on any sickness that they had typed in review. So they are scheduled for 10:30 tomorrow, we'll be taking any position on this subject matter today. We'll wrap Nugent. Yes, until tomorrow. 10:30.

[Rep. Kate Nugent (Member)]: I don't want to make extra work for people, but it would be helpful if there would be a high level summary, the section that's front summary.

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: So can we speak up? We got the

[Chair Matthew Birong]: fans in side. And actually, Council, do

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: want to come up to the table? Because I think we might add a question or two that's relevant to you. Yeah,

[Chair Matthew Birong]: that's fine. We just need to elevate our voices, folks. Sorry. Ambient noise.

[Rep. Kate Nugent (Member)]: I would find it helpful if there was some kind of summary, like a sentence per section or something that's happening, if that's possible. Section, no section.

[Diane Priori (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Of the bill that came over or the proposed changes?

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: I just want to clarify that my question for you earlier was going to be what remains of the expanded scope of practice. So I think that is a comparison of what came over from the Senate versus what this amendment would change. So I think that's what Rep Nugent is probably asking for. A little bit more. Okay. What this amendment actually does and what it allows as compared to what the Senate sent us. Did health care change it at all? No.

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: The only instance of amendment was the date change that occurred in the Senate. Anything else for counsel? We don't have time to review until tomorrow morning at 10:30. I want to be cautious of the schedule.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: So 10:30, you said, is out well? It's taken. We'll be here till that noon. Can hear you, sir. I wouldn't be

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: here till that noon. Well, we were bringing the secretary saying we could fold on the petition. Okay, perfect.

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: Will we hear from anyone else about sort of the logistics of requiring the ophthalmologist to be a supervising person, like from them or from optometrists about it?

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: I mean, if you want to bring more people into the dental area, I'm looking at it.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: Yeah.

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: Feel free to line up votes for Me or Rep still. Oh, yeah. We can work on that.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Oh, okay. That's we

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: get the policies. We can figure out what is interesting. Okay.

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: Anything else for counsel right now before shifting over to voting rights to wrap this up?

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: We've been talking about this bill for months. And I'm just curious as to why we waited till the twenty fifth hour to present it. I mean, I get it. I understand what you're trying to do, and I respect that. But this would have been nice to have three, four weeks ago so we would have more time to take more testimony and find out the scopes of what this really does to the optometrist and the ophthalmologist. It's just frustrating for twenty fifth hour and now we're getting this and it's and I feel that we're gonna hear great testimony coming after this to weigh in on both sides of it.

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: Partially because there was a myth that if any Senate comment was changed, that it would kill the bill. And it took a lot of dispelling of that, me talking to the council and leadership to make sure that wasn't true. So that's why. And I wanted to make sure

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: it was really thoughtful and make sure that I'd listened to all the testimony before I did it, but that's not the point during my speech of like, I want to dispel that because that was something that was running rampant that, oh, if you change a comma, if you do anything, it'll kill a bill. And I thought that was odd because we change bills all the time here, at least talk about it. And then once I found out that wasn't true, I went with it. So that's how that went down. I was playing by the rules and the rules I was being told were untrue. I hadn't heard those rules, so Yeah, well, I think it's because I was the one proposing to do this. Really odd.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: She'd be able to say, why the she's twenty fifth, I'm gonna say eleventh hour, because we've had plenty of time, just to be honest, quite and frankly, thought we would have voted this bill out some time ago, but I had the same concern. Guess I'm, you know, thought to stick and move on to a few legislative things.

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: Well, I thought we only saw that video of the eyeball being sliced open a couple of weeks ago, and that was one of our first days of testimony, right? We haven't been talking about this for months. We've been hearing about it for months, but we've only had it in committee and hearing testimony since we got it from healthcare a couple of weeks ago, a couple or a few weeks ago. And I think if this happened in January, getting an amendment on a bill three or four or even five or six weeks after we heard an introduction wouldn't be unusual. It's just the timing of when we started talking about it is later in the session. And also, I don't think being like it's the end, it's the last minute, therefore we shouldn't do an amendment is

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: I'm not saying we shouldn't do an amendment. I'm just

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: saying it would be nice to see more testimony now, but for this amendment to find out what this amendment actually does. Yeah, and I think it's important that we do that, I agree with you. And it would be nice if we have more time, but we have the time we have. Hopefully we can make it work.

[Rep. Kate Nugent (Member)]: I'm

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: done. Done. Think it over to voting rights.

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: Yes, voting rights.

[Rep. Kate Nugent (Member)]: I was going to say I appreciate having these thoughts here to look at because, at least from my perspective, I wasn't really satisfied with where I was at with the parts of the world that there isn't agreement between the two main sectors. I think that I'm appreciative of hearing these concepts because where we had left it last, I didn't feel there was enough agreement between the two interested parties to feel comfortable that this was the right decision. Regardless, I guess, of the time Jay Huff left, that's important to me.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: Alright.

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: I'd like to go down for a couple of days. You'll pick us back up at 10:30 tomorrow morning. Thank you, counsel. Right, moving on. Mr. Devlin, or actually, let's maybe start with something. Senator.

[Paul Earl Bell (Chair, Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: Can everybody hear me?

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Yes. Okay,

[Unidentified Senator (presenting Senate amendments on ethics/candidate disclosures and PAC definition)]: I don't think you'll have trouble. Did. The

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: broadcaster voice.

[Unidentified Senator (presenting Senate amendments on ethics/candidate disclosures and PAC definition)]: And the hits. Let's keep on test. So we took what was presented, and you did fine work on this bill, and we made three amendments to it, and we're asking for you to concur as it comes back. The first one has to do with the deletion of a sentence. So if you are looking at the bill as it came back to us, The sentence in section four that reads, Upon contact by a candidate, the commission shall provide answers to the candidate's questions by email or by phone, whichever the candidate may prefer. In order, and I'll speak on behalf of my committee, to less burdens the commission, we deleted that sentence. What we didn't envision was that they'd be sitting by the phone waiting for someone to call or looking at their computer and getting constant emails from candidates' questions. That's the only thing we did to that section. And we felt that at least it provided a little less burdensome task for the Ethics Commission. So that's our first instance amendment. Yes?

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: Yep. So just to be clear, the commission will have FAQs posted on their webpage, which I see is in your amendment, but there's no the bill is silent on whether they will get back to anybody via email or phone.

[Unidentified Senator (presenting Senate amendments on ethics/candidate disclosures and PAC definition)]: Correct. Again, the only thing we did was delete that one sentence that required them to answer by telephone or by email candidates' individual questions. The second instance of amendment asks for a new section to read. And by the way, you can continue with that, represent Lamoille. The Office of the Secretary of State shall provide hyperlinks from its webpage to this disclosure form. In other words, we wanted a back and forth ability for candidates to look, where is that form available? If they went to either Secretary of State or the Ethics Commission, they could discover where that form was. The second one was, again, on or before 01/30/2027, the State Ethics Commission and the Secretary of State's office shall report that this group and the Senate Government Operations, their combined and shared recommendations on how to best manage candidate disclosure forms required under Title 17. So, in many ways, the former chair of the Senate Government Operations Committee used to say what we had opposing, Go to the cafeteria, talk amongst yourselves, and come back with a solution. And we've done that on more than one occasion this year. This, in essence, is asking the same effort to be done by both the Secretary of State and the Ethics Commission. Get over wherever you want to meet and figure out how we're going to handle this going forward. And then the third one was the amendment that was attached that, from what I understand, you folks here didn't have enough time to consider it. And it goes back to, I believe it was 2025, when we amended this definition of a political action committee. And so, haven't even had an election cycle to go through this yet. And what we changed was one conjunction in that definition. So, it now reads that you have to take money in and expend it in a two year election cycle in order for you to come under the requirements of being a PAC. The conjunction that was there based on what we did in 2025 was or, so it took in more people, and there was concern raised by a lot of people, nonprofits and whoever they were before, that this would capture more than we intended them to do. So, we added the word and, making it a requirement they have to do both in order to come under those requirements. So those are the three amendments that we're offering. And again, I would ask for your least consideration to concur with the proposal of amendment and go from there. But I'll be happy to answer any questions.

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: I'd love to bring this up, but I'm going to. On the bottom of page one, where it says, line 19, where it says, The Office of the Secretary of State shall provide hyperlinks from its webpage connecting to the disclosure form and other materials and resources required of the State Ethics Commission. We are still keeping that, that the Ethics Commission is hosting them and that they are simply linking to them from the Secretary of State's website. That's not changing.

[Paul Earl Bell (Chair, Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: That is correct.

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: Okay, thank you. Just wanted to Okay. Be

[Paul Earl Bell (Chair, Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: same FAQs, by the way, we envision would be available regardless of what page a voter would find that

[Rep. Kate Nugent (Member)]: link. Yeah.

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: Well, I have a comment, which is, think I love your go workin' out in the cafeteria section here. I think we tried our best, you tried your best. I think both sides kind of tried their best to come to some kind of agreement, but we might've muddied the waters more by trying to help. And I think, you know, maybe this is the best solution. I do feel in that first, just to remind everyone, that first change where we said email or phone, we had included it because of folks with disabilities to make sure that if they were running for office, that if they couldn't email, they could call, if they didn't, or even just general access for candidates, that if they didn't have broadband access, if they lived somewhere where there wasn't service, that they would be able to call someone. But I think that it probably leaves it vague enough so that it's not prescribing you have to do one of those things. And it's just saying, we're just going to kind of leave it as it is. That feels not awesome. But in general, I think this is a good compromise on all the issues that we've talked about. And I have been obsessed with this for months now, I am supportive of it and hopeful that in the future we can work out something really good and that the Secretary of State's office and the Ethics Commission, if we're both doing really good, important work, can come together and figure out what the best path forward is for the form. But my personal feeling is that we could happily concur.

[Paul Earl Bell (Chair, Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: I appreciate those comments.

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: Thank you. Thank you for your hard work.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: Yeah, thank you. I think what you're requesting in this amendment actually already exists on the Secretary of State's website, because there is a link to where to find the financial disclosure form that goes right to ethics commission. So I appreciate that the Secretary of State's office has put that on there already, And also appreciate that you're asking the two entities to work together to come up with a solution, a permanent solution.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: Thank you.

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: Anything else for the senator before we go to council? I think that was pretty thorough in being council's job, pretty brisk on this one, but

[Chair Matthew Birong]: nothing else from you, sir. All set. Thank you. Thank you.

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: I do want to comment that by the time this becomes a lie, the filing period will be over. And we have not solved anything for this year, but hopefully we will for next year.

[Paul Earl Bell (Chair, Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: And the identification, if that's the correct legal term, for current candidates remains in the bill, that there's no penalties going to be imposed for any delinquent disclosure.

[Rep. Kate Nugent (Member)]: You.

[Paul Earl Bell (Chair, Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: Good luck. Thank you.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: Thanks. If I may, I just want to note one thing that I believe always file an amended report at whatever point in time, because you can do that with campaign finance reports if you realize you've made an error or set something. So, I think there's a drop for that as well in the next several months.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Counsel. Afternoon, committee members. For the record, Tim Dublin, legislative counsel. If anybody's having difficulty hearing me, please ask me to speak up. I'm struggling to hear folks at the other side of

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: table. Okay.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Chair Birong, would you like to just run through the amendments to anything

[Chair Matthew Birong]: more than that? Yes, please.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: I think Senator Catlinburg did a pretty thorough job. So maybe a little redundant, but feel free to stop me and ask me to dig into it some more. So the first instance of amendment, we have striking out section four and really replacing it with almost identical language but putting a shot clock on it. So it will basically now session law that dictates the state ethics commission will provide certain informational materials to candidates running for those certain state county offices. And this will run through 05/30/2027. That mirrors the same kind of durational aspect to the suspension of penalties and enforcement or any delinquent disclosures of the same form. So those will all kind of run on the same time scale there. The second instance of amendment on page two will create a new section to be 4A, another session law. And this will provide that the LHC. On or before 01/03/2027, the judges of the State Ethics Commission and the Secretary of State's office to report to this committee and the sister committee in the Senate with their combined and shared recommendations on how to best manage candidate disclosure forms required under the statute of achievement. Third instance of amendment is a change to the definitions in campaign finance laws. We have those housed in 17th USA 2901. The definition at issue here is definition of political committee or political action committee, or PAC. And changing it to PAC shall mean any formal or informal committee of one or more individuals or corporation or other entity that accepts and makes expenditures in any amount in any two year general election cycle for the purpose of supporting or opposing one or more candidates in the election, etcetera, etcetera. So again, where current law has it that in order to be considered a PAC, the entity or individual group of people may either accept any contributions or may make expenditures any amount, be qualified as a meet the definition of PAC, and thereafter would be subject to registration thresholds at a good $500 now in any subsequent reporting. This will be changed to you have to do both, essentially, being that you'll have to accept contribution in some amount and make an expenditure in some amount to be defined as a PAC, and therefore, later be subject to the registration

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: final reporting requirements. That's it. Thank you, Council.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Questions for

[Rep. Kate Nugent (Member)]: So the I just wanted to make sure I understand that. I know that last part, that's different from candidates then. It's candidates have to file whether they spend being worth.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. This is for political action committees or PACs or political committee, same thing.

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: And this isn't making a new change, it's just reverting it back to the old language that we changed a couple of years ago, the and or?

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Last year's bill, I forgot my name.

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: Two years ago?

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: It's last year, actually.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: Oh, it was?

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: It changed thresholds. So there were actually thresholds in the definitions.

[Paul Earl Bell (Chair, Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: Think about $500

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: more, so DUNN: not

[Chair Matthew Birong]: exactly reverting it to the exact same thing. It's bringing it to, I suppose, somewhat similar language, but could have different effects.

[Paul Earl Bell (Chair, Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: Okay.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Anything else for counsel?

[Diane Priori (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: Nope? Okay. Yes,

[Chair Matthew Birong]: we have a couple of minutes. We can give you a few minutes.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: Thank Thank you, counsel. For

[Paul Earl Bell (Chair, Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: the record, my name is Paul Earl Bell. I'm chair of the Vermont State Ethics Commission. I guess I'll start off by saying I have no problem with Section 4A. I'll be happy to go and have a discussion in the cafeteria with the Secretary of State's office. Senator Cuomo, moments ago, said that the change that they made by removing the sentence about responding by email and phone, that that would unburden the ethics commission. But that's not if you look at the very first sentence, the state ethics commission shall provide informational resources and answer candidates' questions regarding requirements. So the the sentence about emails and phones was to add an accessibility statement. But still, the Ethics Commission is charged with answering candidates' questions. Under this bill, it does not unburden us a bit. Under our current staffing with a halftime administrative assistant, a halftime executive director, we would simply not be able to fulfill this. And I should say thank you to the House generally for approving one new position for the Ethics Commission, though as you may know, the Senate has removed that. It's up in the air now. If have that if we do get that one position, we might have to decide between the the various unfunded mandates we have, including this one, which unfunded mandate we'll be able to fulfill with one additional staff. I think that's about it, unless you have questions for

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: me. I believe if you can have a comprehensive questions and answers that will eliminate phone call, I mean, people are going to call in if they can't find the answer on that question and the answer sheet. So I think it would be best if you could pull through as many questions that may be asked and have the answers. And then on your answer, can have a directive to go to that website to find your answers. And then if they can't, then they'll call and leave a message. But I think what types of questions should be asked are always going to be good. I would give 99% chance that they're going to be the same kind of questions over and over again about different filing requirements. I found the form very complicated and I've disclosed stuff that I was told that I didn't have to disclose. But I've got to be safe and sorry on the current form. So I just think that if you gave enough question and answers, then it would eliminate the number of calls that you get.

[Paul Earl Bell (Chair, Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: I'd be glad to respond to that if you'd like. Sure. Thank you. I've been in the position of responding to those calls over the last couple of weeks. You might remember Chris Sifert agreed that we would post the form if the Secretary of State's office did, and they started distributing it, so we posted the form, including those FAQs. But I've been answering the phone, and I've got to say, people have all sorts of creative questions to ask that I don't know if I would have anticipated. They're certainly not within the FAQs. We can continue building those FAQs, but people have all sorts of creative questions to ask that no list of FAQs is going to respond to. Maybe a bunch. And certainly, the the answering machine, that's not a bad idea. I like it. To point people to the FAQs, I think some people don't get to the end of what's posted to get to the FAQs, and maybe a telephone message would help. But again, no set of FAQs is going to respond to all the questions I'm getting.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: I'll So, you say what the website design, you put all this bump that FAQ up pretty far. That's

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: a good point. Simple coding. Fix that right up.

[Paul Earl Bell (Chair, Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: Yeah, Mention of it up top. Yep, absolutely. I appreciate the thoughts.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: As

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: you know, I don't want to speak for the committee. I can speak for myself, though. Our committee, I've heard a lot of talk about this, and this committee recommended, in our budget recommend, both positions.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, thank you, thank you.

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: For the ethics commission. I really believe in it. I think we all, as a committee, really believe that you needed to be fully staffed and fully funded. By the time it made you, as you know, we don't really have any money. So when it came out of appropriations, House appropriations, and went to the Senate, I believe they've taken out that funding. I know that we are still, they're in committee of conference, they're still working on the budget. There's always a chance. I think it makes it a little difficult for us, however, sometimes, to be frank, when we are trying really hard to make this work for everybody. And I understand that she hasn't had a vacation in a while, but also many people haven't had a vacation in a while. And to say that the ethics director, we know you guys are pressed for time, we know you're pressed for staffing, but also your director is gone during an election year when we knew there were big changes coming. And I'm not saying she doesn't deserve the time, and I'm not saying she shouldn't have taken a sabbatical, but what I'm saying is a lot of the pickle that we're in right now is because of this situation. I'm not assigning blame or anything, but I'm saying the fact of the matter is your director is gone, and that's really contributing to a lot of the stress and the strife. It's not that we're not supporting you having staffing, it's that the staff we do have right now isn't here, and that makes it really pressing for you, and we feel terrible about it. Hopefully, we can fix this in the future. But I think focusing on the right now a little bit Neither here nor there, only because hopefully we're going be able to fix it in the future. We can get some money, we can get you and the Secretary of State's office, and the Ethics Commission can figure this all out. But the immediate situation, which has sort of led us to not having a form, and everyone's confused, and all of this, is because of this current situation. Not a sign and blame, I'm just saying that's the way that I see the situation has unfolded over the last five or six months. I'd be glad to respond, sir.

[Paul Earl Bell (Chair, Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: First off, thank you for the hope that we will get a position. Yeah, no. You never know. And and secondly, I believe I've said this, maybe I haven't said this before. When the commissioners, ethics commissioners, agreed to this leave for Christine Sivritt, our executive director, that was like back in October, November 2025. We had no idea that all of a sudden, after eight years, the secretary of state's office will say, this is for you to do, ethics commission. So we had no idea that giving her granting her leave during an election season would make any difference. We've never done this. Again, thank you for the hope.

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: Thank you. Thanks for all your work, Henry.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you so much. Appreciate that. We worked hard. This is on the floor today, so I'd like to thank you very much, sir. Wow, that's all. Any other comments or questions regarding the proposal of the bend from the Senate that we're reviewing?

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: Nope, you're okay. Kind of break on the floor until 03:30. Okay, cool.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: I did not get the handle of it, thank you.

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: 33, any? Yes. You just say

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: a message? Yes.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: That, barring any other further discussion, comments, concerns? Favorable thumbs on the proposal of amendment?

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: Let's do it.

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: Rex got me.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Rex got me.

[Rep. Kate Nugent (Member)]: Oh, he's just raising

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: my hand for thoughts.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Do have Okay,

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: so

[Chair Matthew Birong]: is I'm

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: say that. Yeah, I'm not allowed allowed to say that.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: That's an eleven-zero-zero favorable thumbs. Thank you. That's a lot

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: of work on that bill.

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: I'm gonna miss this.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Yep. So let's commit to this. We're going chug it along here. We are waiting for Rep. Marcotte. Oh, hey, look at you, Ninjas, in the corner. All right. So, we have a proposal of amendment to We have two things. We have

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: a Senate proposal of amendment and also a proposal of amendment for Brett Barkott. So, why don't we hear from Brett Barcotte first? Is So tired of experiencing.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Great? Yes, please, sir. I heard Brett Pinsonault say something. I'm trying to pick up

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: Very good. Thank you, Mr. Hooper. We

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: have your proposal amendment hosted. It's a very full page.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: It's a yeah. The Senate proposed a little amendment.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Do we have to propose a little amendment from what Barcot Post? Oh, it's under Okay, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: All right, guys. Is there it is. It's under counsel's name. Table is yours, sir. We do have the oscillating fans. If you could elevate your voice, that would be wonderful. Not oscillating, the staggered fan, the biotic fan, static fan.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair, House Commerce and Economic Development)]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, I represent Michael Markoff from Coventry, Chair of House of Commerce and Economic Development. I think we're all aware of what happened to H-six 74. The governor vetoed it. I've been working with the governor's office. We have a fix to that, and I just need a vehicle to park it on in order to get it through, to make sure that bill gets through this year. And so I'm asking you to consider amending H-nine zero seven with the language that you have, it's very small. I think what it does is change the termination of the sister state that we may want to be terminated, that it would be an advisory. It would come from the commission as an advisory recommendation to the governor, but the governor has sole authority to terminate, same as the governor has sole authority to appoint. And everything else is the same in the bill as what we passed, what the Senate passed, just something that I think everybody missed. And I've been working again with the governor's office as well. They're on board with this change. The governor himself is on board with the change.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: I just

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: wanted to clarify that there are other entities that are very similar to this, that the governor has the authority to terminate. Is that what I read somewhere?

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: Yeah, when you're talking about the governor in trade, if he has the sole authority to either approve or terminate, and that's in our constitution.

[Paul Earl Bell (Chair, Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: I read that somewhere.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Yes. All right, questions for Representative Barcoff before we shift over to counsel? This is something I know the partnerships and whatnot have been discussed with this committee over time. And also, there's a lot of guests to be ones in and out. National Guard, so that's also been a conversation. Did I arrive here? Can

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: you just remind me what bill number it was that the governor figured out because the language wasn't in there?

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: 674.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: Is that House Bill?

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: House of the chair. I have had that conversation with your counterpart chair in the Senate. Please aware. Okay. Here.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: Will this have to go

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: through your committee, or is it just here now? Okay.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: An amendment that's going on your bill. My committee is aware. We had it fixed. We were going to try a different approach because I have an S bill sitting on my wall, but this would be a lot cleaner and simpler.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: Nice work.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Although you can find a moving vehicle for problem solving, I'm glad we're here to accommodate, sir. We certainly appreciate your consideration. Welcome addition to

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: that reports repeal bill. Years of work. Perhaps done. So we can have a committee of confidence on this scale.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: I mean, if you want go full circle on the gag, yes, that's still out there. Yep. So,

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: counsel. Counsel.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Hello again, Rick Segal with the Office of Legislative Counsel. So just a little bit of kind of clarifying what's going on. So six seventy four vetoed. That language literally has been copied and pasted into this amendment for Brett Barcotte nine zero seven. You all don't have nine zero seven. It is a proposal of amendment that you all are going to do straw poll over, so you wouldn't be able to report favorably for not. You can do a straw poll on Rev. Mark Hod's amendment, just kind of clarifying the procedural aspect of this. My colleague Tim is going to handle the nine zero seven Senate proposal. He is more familiar with that language than I am, so I'm going to handle the sister state Ireland language that was vetoed by the governor. I can share my screen.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Hold up the phone for me.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So like I said, a copy paste of six seventy four. I'll give you the 10,000 foot overview of what this does. It creates the Vermont Sisters Day program. There was a working group that Griff Branning was a part of last year that was also created by the General Assembly to report back on this program, and they did. And you have a bill that would actually formalize the working group's recommendations. So the CRACEF program under ACCP, it has oversight of a committee that is appointed by, has appointments by the speaker,

[Paul Earl Bell (Chair, Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: the

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: committee on committees, various other chairs of relevant stakeholders. The governor has a couple of appointees. So members serve two year terms. They can be reappointed. They should be a chair and vice chair selected. They shall meet quarterly, at least quarterly, they could meet more, to discuss their business, also to proceed and review an application to be in the sister state program. So subsection D starting on page three and then on to page four is kind of a hierarchy of how this works. ACCD kind of creates a program. They set forth the application, they create the criteria to be eligible, they do kind of the paperwork that is to be the sister state program, They create the internal review process. So the way it's going to work is a country, town outside of this country could apply to be a sister state of Vermont. The ACCD would receive the application, they would do its internal review, and if it met their internal review, they would then submit it to the committee for consideration. The committee has a fixed scoring system, a rubric that ACCD will create. They will have a public meeting to discuss the proposed agreement with this other entity, and if the committee deems it worthy, they will submit it to the governor for final approval. The committee can also say, We do not want this to go to the governor, and they can decline that application. The governor receives the application approved by the committee, and the governor has the authority to either formalize or reject a sister state applicant. That's a very 10,000 foot view. There's details in the language, which you already passed, but again, I want to make sure you know what's going on. The difference, that in yellow, is in the version that passed but was vetoed, there was language that said the committee would be able to terminate an existing agreement. There was discussion in another committee about an escape clause. What if a country that we become a sister state with bombs another country? Does something out of not expected, right? So the language that was put in gave that authority to the committee. The governor disagreed that that was a power the committee should have, and so language has been adjusted that says the committee may propose to the governor that an agreement be terminated, but then the governor still has the ultimate authority whether or not to terminate a partnership. The committee reports on an annual basis, pretty standard language. They get the standard per diem language that all other groups, commissions get through the general assembly. Attached to the Assistant State Bill was the Vermont Ireland changes. Vermont Ireland is already law. However, this bill made changes to the Vermont Ireland Trade Commission. Again, is a copy and paste from what was in June. It adds a couple members to the Vermont Trade Commission, the Vermont Ireland Trade Commission, the Commissioner of Economic Development or designee, and the President of UVM or designee. It adjusts some language to conform with those two new members being appointed. Subsection F deals with this commission is allowed to raise funds. They don't get reimbursed, so they have their own fundraising mechanism and language was added to kind of ensure make it more transparent that money they raise can't be spent on elections and have to be administrative expenses only. So kind of meant to ensure that the commission, the funds that they do raise, which is managed by the state treasurer, those funds are used for only specific reasons. And if you want to see, it does not include campaign or election activity, food or beverages provided at official commission meetings, or other expenses not specific to the administrative functions of the commission. And the last part of the bill was the report. The Vermont Ireland Trade Commission will sunset in 2029 or 2030, I believe. So in December 2029, they will submit a report to the general assembly to kind of remind you all, hey, this is about to sunset and give you all a full report as to whether you want to extend the sunset, remove it, or let the commission sunset. The effective dates were updated H907, not even close. H907 was set to take effect 07/01/2026. H674 was to be on passage, so just confirming everything that the six seventy four language takes effect on passage and the other sections take effect

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: on 07/01/2026.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Happy to answer questions. I know that was fast, so

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Sunshine though, not a sunset.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This is a so it's a sunset, but you may eventually decide to eclipse it. I'm trying new things. I'm trying different ways of explaining. Yeah, respect that. Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: It is May 20, you know.

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: Well and better. Should flavor this thing.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Yes. You. One counsel for the proposed amendment. We have one counsel for the underlying

[Paul Earl Bell (Chair, Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: bill of counsel.

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: Thank you for that. I'll be back again. For the record again, my name is Tim Demplin, legislative counsel. I just had our committee assistant post a highlighted version. And this is what the Senate Committee this is the Las Vegas draft 3.2.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: But this is what went on to be passed by the Senate. And this will I'll walk through some of these all the changes. But I figured it's just more visually useful for individuals and for committee members to actually take a look at what has changed. So the Senate went through and adjusted most of the various categories. Then again, let me just remind the committee that this bill was broken into those previous three bills. So we had the which reports are being appealed because they're no longer necessary, which reports are having their next review date pushed back until 2030, and then which reports will be maintained but no longer require that check-in, that review that happens, bringing it from our office. Let's go on that big list of Tucker's circular. The Senate introduced a fourth category, and that was modifying the reports themselves. So well, I should say, there was only one instance where they modified the contents of the report, the ones to be reported. Most of the other ones have to do with the frequency of reporting. So we'll have there's a few examples of a report being recorded every year. They push that to every two years. There's another one where there was a report that is contingent on the event actually occurring. We'll get to that judiciary. Did they have any temporary employees at all? And then if so, then they would have to reply and then report every two years. So that fourth category of reports modifying is the bulk of the changes here. So let's see. Sections one through 11, and it has to do with the repeal of the reports, no changes to those made by this Senate. The first real change that we see is in section 12, and this is that list of repealed sections, subsections, and subdivisions. So that'd be too hasty. We do get into the repeal of some reports. And so they have changed a few of these, removing from the list, so they're no longer to be deleted, they're to be maintained, the reports on genuine progress indicators, from Act 113 in 2012, and then the reports on various licenses issued to service members and veterans, those professional licenses.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: Lucy, Tim, where is that you're reading from? Line?

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Sorry, so this is section 12 and on Trap 3.2. They will appear let's see, on page 12. And we'll see some of the ones that are removed. Because they're removed, they won't show up here clearly. But they did result in the renumbering some of the sections.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: That's one of those. Renumbering is there, but there's no strike where something's been deleted, because that's what I was looking for. Okay, so you're just telling us which reports they deliver?

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, because section 12 is just session law, so everything is underlined because of our drafting conventions, and this is just a list of things that are to be repealed, so it's removed from the list of to be repealed, meaning it stays in law as it is, but it just no longer appears on our running list here in section 12. Did I hand right this now? Yes. So reports that we took out, and now they're adding them back in? Is that how I'm understanding that? The whole list all the things that are going to be removed, the Senate decided to put two of those back in. Yeah, two of those back If by not, did I say, enter the bill, they're putting them back in the room or not changing the rule, the main claim to the requirement.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: Could you name those reports again, please? Can Yes.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: One is from Act 113 through twenty twelve. That's the report on genuine progress indicators. And then the second is from Act 119, twenty eighteen, and that's reports on various professional licensures issued to service members and veterans. And that was actually broken into three sub reports. So those who have been deleted, they will be continuing to do the vote in handcuff.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: Okay, my statement on this for Rev Pinsonault, which might be helpful, is that the Senate actually was able to get a response from the committees that we may not have gotten a response from, and we put it on our to be repealed because that was how we posted to the committee. But they actually found out that those reports are being used, and that's why they now want to retain them even though we recommended repealing. And, Rep Nugent, you had a question before me. Sorry. It was the same question because I remember

[Rep. Kate Nugent (Member)]: the line for twenty twelve Genuine Progress Indicator that, forget his name, Justin Kenny's physician had said that they don't use that and it's duplicative. I'm surprised to see that's back in there,

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: Somehow they took testimony, and I did speak with Senator Di Hoschi about a couple of these, and they determined that they wanted to keep it for whatever reason. And I guess you'll have to ask the And

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: I should just note, we'll get to it a little bit later on, but those reporting for professional licensure for service members and veterans, that's one of the reports that's actually being modified. So the requirements being kept in there, but it's being changed to the report being due every other year instead of annually. That's just jumping to the order. So section 13, let's see, For the bill, this has to do with the reports that are having the review delayed until 2030 instead of just every year. And let's see, the Senate amended this list, Removing from the list the State Ethics Commission reports concerning complaints, guidance, training, and recommendations.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: What page are you on now?

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Right, this is in section 13, and that should just be the next page. I have put on 14 of draft 3.2, it's being removed from the list of things that will be the check-in will be pushed out. And actually, will appear again in section 15 later on, it will be required in perpetuity. So it's removing any check-in in the future whatsoever. So it'll just be required every year. Let's see. Section 13, I also removed the Criminal Justice Council report concerning use of electronic control devices. And instead of having that just kind of reviewed in 2030 again, as it's being codified in law in section twenty nine and thirty. Right now, it just exists in session law. So it's going to take it out of session law, and it's going to put it into the statute and have it be required every year without that reappear. Let's see. Then we'll move on to let's see if we'll take the Okay, section 14 through 24, and this is where we have reports exempted from to the BSA section 20 subsection D. And again, that's the annual check-in requirement. So if these reports are it's a computer they won't go on to the Tucker list every year, and they'll just be reported as they are required in statute and session law, wherever that requirement may exist. And they won't be formed unless we have another law. So those, let's see, Senate added to this list includes Section 14, which will further amend the report coming from the Office of Economic Opportunity, the weatherization data. And actually, here's where the one instance in the whole bill where the substance of what's to be reported was actually altered. And that was altering let's see, not only the committees that received the report, but also certain details to be included in the report regarding weatherization. So section 15

[Paul Earl Bell (Chair, Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: replaced

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: the Okay, what was it? Okay, having to do with the report of the State Ethics Commission. That's right. Section 23 will further amend the reporting requirement for retirement funds integrity report so that it's also received by additional committees. And then section 25 added to this list as to not have any check backs, the report for information technology and cybersecurity from the Agency of Digital Services. Next, going into the simply modified reports, this is sections 20, PB number 26 through 31. 26 will again, I spoke to this, but it will amend the reporting of professional licensure for service members in veterans. So that will be due every other year instead of annually. 27 will amend the requirement for the court administrative report on public records cases so that the reports are due every other year instead of annually. Section 28 will amend the report coming from the state court administrator for temporary employees for on temporary employees, that is. And that is so that the court administrator will only need to sorry, will not need to submit a report if there's no temporary employees hired in the prior two calendar years. In Sections twenty nine and twenty three, spoke to this earlier, but they codify the requirement for the Environmental Justice Council to report, let's see, on use of electronic control devices, tasers, and bring it from session law to status. Then Section 31 will amend this is actually a new reporting requirement that was considered that wasn't on your list. And this will amend the Cybersecurity Advisory Council's annual report moving the due date for November, January 15 to February 15. And that's it.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Yeah, right. We're ready to make sure.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Drop into the chair for that. And that's all, folks.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: All right. Questions for counsel on the Senate proposal of amendment on the reports of appeal. Remember, this is separate then. This is the underlying bill.

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: Well, have a question for the reporter of the bill, Representative Nugent. What are your feelings on this?

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: Well Not to put you on

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: the spot, you're the expert on

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: the reports we've done.

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: This is like a year long project for you. More. This is a nine year long project for you.

[Diane Priori (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You started before you were elected. Actually, think

[Rep. Kate Nugent (Member)]: it was before I was even born.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: You started in middle school. Time

[Chair Matthew Birong]: is elastic.

[Rep. Kate Nugent (Member)]: I guess I have a question about process, if there's something

[Chair Matthew Birong]: On the report struggle itself?

[Rep. Kate Nugent (Member)]: Well, would like to find out more information, I guess, but the one that I mentioned earlier

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: I was understanding was duplicative and unnecessary. Let's put that in there. Which report was that? I couldn't point. Duplicative and unnecessary.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: I said it's a report on things being duplicative and unnecessary.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: Sorry,

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: I couldn't pass up that one. The

[Chair Matthew Birong]: report we're referring to is what page? What line?

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: Page thirteen-five.

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: 13.5. Thank you. I had a handout of Doctor. Waters Evans,

[Chair Matthew Birong]: and then it sounds like a hangout.

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: So the genuine progress indicator, I remember that was one of the ones on my list. It was, and I believe that the reason we recommended that it be taken out was because the person who was in charge of it at the University of Vermont had passed away, and there was no one else to do it. But I do remember, for some reason, someone in Senate Gavap saying they thought it was a really valuable report. So I'm wondering if, I mean, I can only guess for them, but I can't imagine I think what's gonna happen is it's probably just gonna exist and no one's gonna do anything with it, right? Like

[Paul Earl Bell (Chair, Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: if

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: it goes back in? It's messy. Do you say it's messy? It is, but it also won't cost any time or money, which I think is But yeah, I agree with you. But there's no one actually create the report. I don't know. So I guess, for me, it's either you're not able to share your frustration.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: So, think I had asked that we had the bill reporter also come in. Was that not a happening thing, Nick? Sorry. Did I not ask that? Because I can totally be dreaming that I asked. I don't know. So maybe it would be helpful to have somebody from the Senate just comment on that one particular piece.

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: I apologize, I have to go. Anything else in this meeting, or? No, thank you counsel. So you would love to hear from the Senate about this particular instance? I think just another thing.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: They heard is Not

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: you. I

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: don't know how it looked right now. I think it was.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Okay, for this, yes, Rutland.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: I think the frustrating part is that we spent a lot of time on this. And when they came here as our joint committee, we hadn't done any of their work. And then, we, I mean, we had contacted people and we did all the work and then all of a sudden, what are you

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: saying?

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: It was all positive. And then all of a sudden now they've put together all these changes and I don't know, it's just frustrating. I just feel like we did a lot of work to do this that hadn't been done in several years to get it brought up to date. And then they would sit here like, Oh really? That doesn't and then come back to those changes to it. It's very frustrating. Also known as legislating. And yes,

[Chair Matthew Birong]: there is a word.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: You have to squeeze it. Yeah, you're

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: gonna have Senator Dahosky up here.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: I prefer to touch her.

[Rep. Kate Nugent (Member)]: I can still have a sick leave. All

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: right, committee, so we're gonna get Senator Dahosky here confirming before 03:30, then go live on the floor. Be fair. All right, let's take this opportunity since we have the underlying bill here in front of us, we wanna hear what we

[Chair Matthew Birong]: have some thoughts, because it changes.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: Let's,

[Chair Matthew Birong]: I'd like to dig a position if possible on the

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: proposal of amendment from, March 5, almost.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: So, yes. I

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: think it seems terrific, and we already passed the vote out of the House, and I could be passed out of the Senate. There was one little thing that was a hiccup that they managed to solve, and so I recommend that we just got reserved with that amendment,

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: or addition, or whatever it's called.

[Paul Earl Bell (Chair, Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: I think what we are doing is

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: we are taking a straw poll to

[Chair Matthew Birong]: offer a favorable position towards the floor amendment when it comes to the floor. So we're preemptively taking a position. Yes. Okay. So favorable thumbs for represent Markov's proposal of amendment. Awesome. That is a nine zero two.

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: All right.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Right, counsel, while we wait to see if Senator Bahowski is available, could you please we're going back to alcohol. This is such a gumboz day.

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: About a sense life.

[Diane Priori (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Could try the lens.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Dude, back in the day, we were like, Capital Foe

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: was a bar. They would call down. There's a little call.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: Yeah. The Senate Council of Amendment to H-ninety seven. Nine zero seven, yes. Pete Stroke.

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: I know, Aria, it's been a while. Council, hello.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: You ready?

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: Oh

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: yeah. Okay, so once again, Rick Segal with the Office of the Legislative Council. H921, I understand when I walked through the Senate proposal, I understand when I left, there were some questions, really maybe one major question, disagreement about current law and how it applies to brewers and self distributing. I did speak to my colleague Tucker, who is the attorney that handles this title for the most part. So let me first understand the question. I watched the video, so I think I understand the question, but I believe the disagreement was whether under current law, a manufacturer or brewer can sell the street. Is that the question? And if there are any limits to that? Yes. So it's fairly straightforward. No, asterisk, they get some type of additional license, maybe a packager's license, a wholesaler's license, but there's also some restrictions there. So what this bill does is make it very clear that a brewer can self distribute up to 3,000 barrels per town duty. So I can't say that either side of

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: is right or wrong, but

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: for the most part, currently it's not straightforward that a brewer can self distribute. They would need to get an initial license to do that. Does that help? I can read you Tucker's exact answer. It's very wordy, but if you want to hear his exact answer,

[Chair Matthew Birong]: love to hear Tucker's exact answer. Okay,

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: Let's see. Title VII only allows a packager or wholesale dealer to distribute alcoholic beverages to first and second class licensees. Certificate of Approval is mailed to distribute, though that is for export. I think that, I think, that manufacturers are permitted to acquire package licenses. Might depend on the application of the rules, but I believe manufacturers are limited to the choice of operating a taproom or distributing, but not both. I am certain, and I confirm this, that the wholesale dealer license prohibits that practice in the statute. Bottom line, he said this, the amendment allows brewers to self distribute without acquiring a package or wholesaler dealer license. So that's meaning the H-twenty nine, not the amendment. H-twenty nine, the bill has passed by the House and not affected by the Senate proposal, is that it makes it clear that they can self distribute. When you talk about franchising, I won't get into that, but there's some franchising microbreweries that come up, but that's, I think, an answer. Commissioner Knight? Yes. Yes. I'll hang around for a moment.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: Thank you.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: Thank you.

[Wendy Knight (Commissioner, Department of Liquor and Lottery)]: I'd be night commissioner of the Department of Liquor and Lottery. What that is, is a delivery permit that allows the brewers to secure a permit, they can send directly a certain amount to consumers. It's not self distribution. Self distribution means that they can take a certain amount and sell that directly to the on premise licensees and not go through a wholesaler, which we have us you understand there's a little we allow brewers I'm sorry, we allow wineries to do self distribute. We also allow wineries to send a small quantity directly to consumers.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: I think that should clarify the confusion. Yeah, we've had a

[Chair Matthew Birong]: lot of conversations in and around that previous bienniums around direct to consumer shipping and those pieces. Returning members committee will recall those conversations from last biennium. Now that actually offers a lot of clarity to that.

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: Any other questions for the commissioner while we are on the scene? I'll let

[Chair Matthew Birong]: you go. No, seeing no figures. Thank you. You're good.

[Wendy Knight (Commissioner, Department of Liquor and Lottery)]: Thank you. Okay.

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: All right, now that we have that clarification.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: Senator Mikhovski will be up as soon as they're done taking a vote. Okay. She didn't give us a specific time.

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: Thank you.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: Rutland? I want to echo something that I mentioned earlier. I think we took a lot of really thoughtful testimony on the underlying bill and that the Senate proposal of the month end makes tweaks to a lot of our hard work. Minus the computer's license. That's kind of a new bit. I also wanted to correct the record of something that the Alchemist folks mentioned. They mentioned that they had just learned of this bill and hadn't been involved in the process. But I actually sent the draft bill to Representative Stevens, who then sent it to the Alchemist folks, who then Rep. Stevens sent me their comments. The Alchemist was invited to testify in the Senate, they didn't show up. So they submitted written comments after the fact. So we just want to hear this morning a little frustrated from what we got there and a specific figure in the room as well. What was that email sent again?

[Rep. Kate Nugent (Member)]: The first one you were referring to, that was back? February?

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: They have very much known about all Yeah, of sorry, it should have been that as well. I think a lot of work has been put in here. I would like to compare with the center, they're not open to the table's thoughts.

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: Yeah.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: No, we've taken a lot of testimony on this over the years. There's a lot of industry folks and industry associations that weighed in on it, both favorable and unfavorable. We did a lot of process and work on this since the beginning of the year to build this bill.

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: Good job. Alcohol policy is always complex. Rut Coffin. I just wanted one thing cleared up, possible if counsel could

[Rep. V. L. Coffin IV (Member)]: do this, because we kept hearing from the witnesses, they could serve pints at these tastings. You know, I've drawn a blank on the name of it now for when they have

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: the Off-site.

[Rep. V. L. Coffin IV (Member)]: Yeah, the Off-site, the tasting rooms.

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: Where they

[Rep. V. L. Coffin IV (Member)]: have the tasting rooms, okay. So they were saying they could serve pints, but it says aggregate amount of 16 ounces. So is that, would that mean they're serving one pint to somebody or is it they're, when they have little sample drinks, is it end flight? When you get a flight, is it a total of the 16 ounces? How does that work out?

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: So it can be several, then down to 1,600 waffles.

[Rep. V. L. Coffin IV (Member)]: Okay, so they wouldn't just be serving planks of different, you know, one plant of this, one plant of that, one plant of That's total, accurate cumulative. That's what I thought, but I wanted to make sure based on the testimony we were receiving. You're right, I'm not sure. Aggregate amount. Yeah, Okay. So I just wanted to clear that up, that was all.

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: Revoirs' evidence. What's happening next with this? Are we struck pull on this today, or do we need to hear from more people? Or what's our next

[Chair Matthew Birong]: move? I I personally feel like we've done exhaustive testimony on this. We need

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: to have those folks come in today since they missed us on

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: the train

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: earlier. That was nice of you. Jen and I have done each other for a moment. So

[Chair Matthew Birong]: I would love to see this finish its name. I just

[Rep. Kate Nugent (Member)]: could have waited till

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: you're done.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: No, no, no, was pretty much it. You actually just mitigated the blathering.

[Rep. Kate Nugent (Member)]: I guess it still definitely brought up some more questions for me that I'm curious about. I'm trying to figure out a way to ask this and clarify it. But I guess who is winning and who is losing in this proposal compared to now? Or what's changing for who? That's my concern. I don't feel like I have a great understanding of what this would do to motives.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: I think, to clarify, I think back to the testimony that we heard while working on, a lot of this really supports our smaller producers, especially our breweries with the self distribution. And then the big thing it touches on so many different sectors. Yeah. And it's very much our small producers. And very much so, that's on a May two week screen. I'd just like to confirm the blood test set up. Mean, I'm new and this is my second half of my first biennial, but of all the testosterone we've taken all year long, I felt this one this morning was a little aggressive, Like a little more of like a lecture to us than a commentary about what she was trying to advocate for, I guess. It's like just that.

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: I was just

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: telling him that the email I received about the wedding was similar and not It's totally

[Gabe Gilman (General Counsel, Cannabis Control Board)]: I

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: think we've done, we have done, and Bret Boyden has done, and the chair have done a lot of good work on this, and I think that my inclination is to trust your recommendations and your expertise. If, I mean, I'm fine to vote on this whenever, if we're comfortable with the Senate changes and everyone's reached an agreement on it, I would feel fine about conquering and going ahead with what we need to do next on this.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: I'm in the same vein. Yeah, know, I'm ready on it, and I

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: think the Commissioner's got an open book on us, and broke it at the table with us. But her ideas on Oliver R, it's a little bit bad. Just sort of, I always say, it's only, but don't know where we are. If there's one thing we know for certain, there's

[Chair Matthew Birong]: strong opinions in and around Title VII on all fronts. Yes. All right. Any other commentary? Nope. So I guess what I

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Government Operations)]: will do now is I will

[Chair Matthew Birong]: call for favorable thumbs to concur with the Senate proposal amendment on H nine twenty one, miscellaneous alcohol bill, favorable funds. That is a nine zero two, thank you committee. And until the arrival of Senator Viechowski, that concludes the order of the video on here. Well, that's a good one. And that was a lot that we just jammed into just north of the nine forty five minutes. Well done. So with that, Nick, on hold till we get