Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Good afternoon. Is March 10. Welcome back. Hope everyone had a good break, got some time to recharge, rest, relax. We are starting in today with H814. We have a new version that I don't believe we've seen the new language, correct?

[Brian Cina (Member)]: We haven't done a walk through yet.

[Speaker 0]: Not done a walk through. So let's do a walk through of new language. And then we also have the attorney general's office with us a little bit later, but they're not able to get here right now. So we might be taking a break through this. And we're gonna have some committee discussion also.

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Hi, Jen. Hello. Good afternoon. Jen Carpe from the Office of Legislative Council. We are gonna look at draft 1.1. This is a strike all amendment. Let me put it up on the screen. It's also on your committee page. So this is h eight fourteen, an act relating to neurological rights and the use of artificial intelligence technology in health and human services. And as I said, it's a strike all amendment. It's showing in markup, so you can see the changes. So there are no changes in this draft to the intent section.

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: But then

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: section section two, which was enacting was an you section a new chapter in title 18 on neurological rights. Most of this gets struck through. So there's some change made to this purpose and the individual rights, but the rest of it is all struck. So you could potentially enact legislation in this chapter expanding on this at another time. So this would have still the state recognizing each individual has the right to and it keeps mental and neural data privacy and freedom of thought. It changes cognitive liberty to in the development and application of neurotechnologies. And it continues with the bill as introduced to the right to change an individual's decision regarding neurotechnology and the right to determine by what means to change that decision and the right to be afforded protection from neurologic neurotechnological invent interventions of the mind and from unauthorized access to or manipulation of an individual's brain activity, and to be afforded protection from unauthorized neurotechnological alterations and mental functions critical to personality. And everything after that would be struck. So I'm gonna scroll through this fairly quickly. If you wanna look away, it takes us to page 23. It's all special. Oh, next clean version or next version you do for markup will be considerably shorter. Alright. When we get to page 24, and we still have what is in our section three is the artificial intelligence advisory council, and you'll see that some of the things that were struck in those intervening pages come in as part of the charge to this council to do some investigation and report back. So it keeps the changes to the membership of the artificial intelligence advisory council, including changing an appointee from being appointed by the governor to the National Association of Social Workers, Vermont Chapter, changing the appointee from the commissioner of health and designee to one member with experience in public education appointed by Vermont MEA. Keeps the new member with experience in health care appointed by the medical Vermont Medical Society. Keeps the addition of the secretary of human services or designee, and it keeps the addition of the state treasurer or designee. And it keeps the extension of the sunset on this advisory council, but it currently expires 06/30/2027. This would extend that until 06/30/2030. And then what would be now be section four, this report on responsible and ethical use of artificial intelligence in health care, human services, and education, the changes here, and again, the lead in language is the AI Advisory Council in coordination with the director of the division of AI, that's in the agency of digital services, shall, and they're still reviewing guidelines and recommendations, still researching existing and potential uses of AI and in public finance, and creating opportunities for public education engagement and development of AI policy and reporting back. But in addition to recommending any additional statutory changes needed to further the purposes of this act, it specifies that those could include protections for neurological rights and in relation to neurotechnologies, protections in relation to neurotechnologies. Guidance on the use of generative artificial intelligence by regulated professions and regulating the use of artificial and augmented intelligence and health insurance utilization review processes. And it continues on with the rest of the report as in the bill is introduced. And finally, the effective date section would just the section number would change, but the effective date would still be 07/01/2026.

[Speaker 0]: Was wasn't there a sunset? Was there a sunset on something?

[Brian Cina (Member)]: Yeah. The way you

[Todd Daloz, Assistant Attorney General]: said It's

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: still right. It's still then it's that sunset that sunset on the AI. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I missed that. So yep.

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: It's one

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: of the things yeah. One of the things that gets reported on is, are there reasons to further delay or just remove the sunset?

[Brian Cina (Member)]: To give them extra time and then give them time to wait so that they can weigh in on if they need time.

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Right. And one more time. Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. And we've replaced members of the Artificial Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council with

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Right. And these were in the bill as introduced, but these are having some of the appointing authorities and change around the areas of ethics to human rights and adding someone with experience in public education, someone with experience in health care, as well as the secretary of human services and state treasurer or their designees.

[Speaker 0]: Let's go to Leslie and then

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: If I recall, was discussion about having a nursing representative on here because the nursing interface at the bedside using artificial intelligence, think it's going be a thing. So just wanting to know where that landed. So I have a list of all the people who have requests. What I would like

[Brian Cina (Member)]: to do is when you're ready for us to do this, to look at that. That's the section of the bill I think that we need to work on, because there's been a lot of requests and I would like to read them all to you, be like, here's the list. I think we need to decide what are we going to do, because if we give everyone a seat, we're doubling the size of this council. And I do have a compromise idea to put out there between doing nothing and adding everyone that I would like to share. But I would think first everyone needs to hear the whole list of who's asked.

[Speaker 0]: Other thing that I want mention is that the member, unless you're is it unless you're representing, like, a part of the administration. So in other words, Per diem.

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Are you talking about per diem?

[Wendy Critchlow (Member)]: I'm talking about per diem.

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So I'm actually just pulling the right. So so just pulling up the the full language to see if, oops, if it is if it addresses per diems, but typically yes. So so members of the advisory council who are not employees of the state and who are not otherwise compensated or reimbursed for their attendance are entitled to compensation and reimbursement of expenses as provided in 32 VSA ten ten. Basically, if somebody is there because their work sent them there and they're getting compensated for their time, they don't they're not entitled to compensation and reimbursement of expenses. But if they are serving in their personal capacity, they are. Clarification, too, when you go

[Speaker 0]: I just want to when we talk about adding members, I want people

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It's potentially a cost depending on who those like adding Secretary of Human Services or designee. So unless the designee is also a state of authority, there shouldn't be a cost.

[Speaker 0]: But adding, say, one member with experience in healthcare appointed by Vermont Medical Society

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: might be serving in their business. We

[Speaker 0]: need to be conscious of

[Brian Cina (Member)]: that. Exactly.

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: Ahead, Brian. So I'm going to

[Brian Cina (Member)]: read you the list and then what I'll say is that

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I want to hear the

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: list for sure, but there's an A through D, I think, on members. Could we just get reminded who that might be?

[Brian Cina (Member)]: You want see what that is?

[Debra Powers (Member)]: You want

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: to say the whole Yeah, just see how it

[Brian Cina (Member)]: all melts. I think that's reasonable to ask.

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. Good thing.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: We can change those too. I just when I wrote the bill, I didn't think we showed the place. What's behind

[Speaker 0]: ellipses? It's like

[Brian Cina (Member)]: the radio show.

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So the current and under current law, the advisory council is the secretary of digital services or designee, secretary of commerce development or designee, commissioner of public safety or designee, executive director of the ACLU of Vermont or designee, one member who is an expert in constitutional and legal rights appointed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, One member with experience in the field of ethics and human rights appointed by the governor. So that's one that would change in the bill to the appointing authority changes to the National Association of Social Workers Vermont chapter. One member who is an academic institute appointed by the Vermont Academy of Science and Engineering, the Commissioner of Health or designee, and I think that one is one that changes to become kind of the person with experience in healthcare appointed by the Medical Society, executive director of racial equity or designee, and the attorney general or designee. And then there's a couple of new ones added. Actually.

[Speaker 0]: The commissioner of health or designee got replaced with somebody from the MEA. No. Oh, Sorry.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: But then I added the agency of human services.

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Sorry, I was going back to memory.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: She didn't really get replaced. It was more shuffled, but we represented. And if I may share this, when I was looking at changing the membership up, I realized that if you look at who's on this, the majority are people who are appointed by the governor. Even though it says secretary of digital services, the governor appoints secretary, the governor appoints So the administration, executive branch had most of the power on the council, not the community, not the legislature, not that we should, but I'm just saying, so I felt like we should give more, not only did I feel this, but we heard on the record that they needed more public representation. We heard testimony that that would be useful. So I was like, how do we add in healthcare providers and shuffle the membership up? And I tried to not eliminate seats really. So what it does is basically the administration loses one seat, the way I proposed it allowed us, and then we added some seats. But I do think we need to hear all the requests and take those into account because I don't think it's only fair to hear them and consider them.

[Speaker 0]: I just wanted to a

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: little bit

[Speaker 0]: a technical, yeah, because I'm, okay. So currently I in statute is the executive director of racial equity. And yet in this bill, I has new language.

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: But I itself is not underlined in the bill because I is existing. So it put in an I, people move down. I was just putting some of the name of this together.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: It's just before that.

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Designating. Yeah. Okay. Got it. Executive director, wait till that's equity becomes k. K. Alright. I I thought we had accidentally laid out somebody else. Particularly, you know, most considered person.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you. I didn't mean to interrupt you. I was like I'm like, wait. Wait. Wait. I thought we

[Brian Cina (Member)]: It's good that everyone understands exactly what's Yeah.

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And if it's helpful, so you can also see an existing law, and this does not change, and the bill is just not in here. It says members shall be drawn from diverse backgrounds and, to the extent possible, have experience with artificial intelligence. So that sort of that those parameters kind of, you know, apply to the whole whole list. And then it talks about meetings and, at this point, not more than monthly. They get support from the agency of digital services. It also directs them to consult with any relevant national bodies on artificial intelligence, including the National Artificial Intelligence Advisory Committee established by the Department of Commerce and its applicability to Vermont.

[Speaker 0]: Brian, I sort of interrupted you.

[Debra Powers (Member)]: That's correct.

[Speaker 0]: Did you wanna finish before or had you finished?

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: Before I go to Leslie.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: What I was trying to articulate was that I was trying to figure out how to add some healthcare providers and an educator to the task force without with it too much. The original AI task force had a member who was a social worker with human rights and ethics, and since the governor already is responsible for so many other seats, I replaced the governors with the NASW, I added in a healthcare provider from the doctors and a teacher, and then replaced the commissioner of health with the secretary of human services, because the secretary of human services could appoint the commissioner of health. They're in the same chain of command, and ultimately, those agencies are people who are under the governor. So the governor still has a point authority over most of these seats, all those seats. So it wasn't really taking from the governor, that wasn't the intent, even though it looks like I'm, I felt bad, I'm like, I'm striking the governor out. But it just didn't make sense to me to have the governor appointing that when that could be a place a healthcare provider could be in. When it's time to hear all the suggestions from people, I do think some of the testimony we've heard has made me reconsider my original proposal. I do think we should take a moment and think about, do we adjust it a little or not? But I want to at least make sure we hear the list of requests and consider it and not just ignore. Because even on the record, we heard the agency of digital services said, I'll just use this as an example, the individual who's been appointed by the governor is a cybersecurity professor at Norwich University or something and brings a lot to them around the industrial military kind of perspective. It would be a loss to not have that person on the council, but I don't necessarily think that that should be the seat for ethics and human rights. He could be appointed by the governor for another seat, so I want to talk about how do we do this in a way that we don't force people off the council who are an asset? But you know what I mean? I don't wanna make it be that this good person gets kicked off because of her decision. Although the governor could have someone else appoint him to another way, or we can give the governor a member at large or something. So I would like us to talk about that for a minute. Yeah, I was going

[Speaker 0]: to say, is there anywhere in existing statute that mean, oftentimes we make these things and it's like, Anyone else you want to put on it? Is there anything in existing statute that allows people to be appointed that maybe don't represent this, but have an expertise that could be appointed if not?

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: No, I mean, I'm not sure.

[Speaker 0]: I don't know. Mean, it just feels like every time we create some sort of group, there's usually a little thing at the bottom that says or anyone. I see what you're getting at.

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I mean, sometimes you will require a group to consult with interested stakeholders, but you typically don't give them a seat on it, especially because of the per diem. And it's also just difficult to determine when there's a quorum if you don't know how many people are on that.

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: Leslie? I just need help with understanding, and I really appreciate this. But this bill is about the use of AI in health and human services. But a lot of those people that are listed, I'm not sure of their intersection with health and human services, and that's where I'm a little stuck.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: They are the existing council.

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: The existing council.

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: No, but they're still be on it.

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I mean, A2F or whatever.

[Speaker 0]: We're not creating this. We're taking an existing council, which frankly,

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: when was this council? '22.

[Speaker 0]: '22? The fact that AI is so prevalent in healthcare, I am shocked. There are not representatives of the entire I mean, may have to be with

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: what the agenda is that day. I mean, I'm just trying to understand how a group's so diverse when this is specific about health and human services, AI and technology in health and human services, these people that really don't have any intersection with that

[Brian Cina (Member)]: arena. Do though tech, if they kind of do You

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: do totally techy? Because it's tech.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: Well, think of it this way, the Department of Public Safety intersects with the healthcare system. The Department of Commerce intersects That's with the healthcare

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: what I want

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: to understand. How would it work in this case? Just give me an example to something Okay,

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: for example, let's say we're looking

[Brian Cina (Member)]: at protection for neurotechnologies. It might be important to have public safety weighing in if there's public safety uses of technology that intersect with the healthcare system. And e commerce, health technology stuff, technical stuff does end up in the commerce committee. AI bills have ended up there, data protection ends up there because it's commerce, it has to do with trading things. So the healthcare sector and commerce intersect all the time, and we've had bills go between us. So I think the idea here is that this group isn't equipped with the people it needs to weigh in on policy at this time with healthcare, so we would be adding members. An alternative, which we could go down this rabbit hole, would be to create a working group that works with them or something, but what I was going to say is instead of complicating it, is adjusting the membership slightly to what's proposed. Look at the request and adjust it slightly, but then put language in similar to what Jen said about must or shall consult with interested stakeholders, and we could always say including and list some people, because then all these organizations who are offering to send staff, because I want you to hear all the requests, all these organizations are saying, we'll have our staff go and they don't have to get a per diem.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. Let's table for right now the discussion around maybe changing up members, and we'll look at some input that we've received. But Daisy has a question.

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: About changing up members. Okay.

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: I think it's more of a comment question, but I haven't sat in on one of these AI task force meetings. I feel uncomfortable prescribing new members without having heard more directly from them as to what they need or what they feel they need in order to fill a gap in expertise around health care.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: We did, though.

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: We heard from the director, but mean, did I just finish? I'm sorry. I feel like I want to stay in our own lane with regard to adding expertise on health care and then keep it equitable for all the other sectors that are represented there, too. I feel like we're thinking too harder on this than we should. The expertise and the request should come from the committee as to what they need. Is there a chair

[Speaker 0]: of this advisory?

[Brian Cina (Member)]: Mean, director came in and they they came in and testified on the record

[Speaker 0]: supporting this. Can you remind me?

[Brian Cina (Member)]: It was Josiah Raesch and it was Miles Lantham. I don't believe you were here that day.

[Speaker 0]: I was not.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: Yeah, they testified. People remember for like an hour, Josiah and Miles, and they were talking about the membership and they were supportive. They're the ones who said they don't want to lose the governor's appointee. That's their only concern that they brought up. So they were saying, we think there needs to be a social worker. We think there needs to be a doctor and a teacher. There needs to be more expertise from those things, but it would be sad for him to go.

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: Great, let's go with what they recommend. Like if that's the committee that does the work, they know the work and they know the capacity and the gap best, but I don't think any of us has sat in on a functioning meeting of that and have the ability to really add to their workloads by

[Speaker 0]: any So more I apologize because I was not here that day. What did they recommend?

[Brian Cina (Member)]: What was their recommendation? They supported what was before them, and their suggestion was that said they didn't It wasn't so much a suggestion as much their concern was losing the governor's appointee. Not having a social worker, they want that, but it was like losing him. That's why my suggestion was going to be, we give the governor a member a seat, be like the governor gets a member at large, that they can pick anyone that they think is good to put on this, but we let the social workers still have their seat, the doctors still have their seat, and the teachers still have a seat. So it'd be a way of accommodating their concern.

[Speaker 0]: Daisy, to cheer them all.

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: I just think we should ask them for a list of what they think the committee should look like. Ask them for the language, because I think this is getting I'm getting confused. We can ask them to come in again

[Brian Cina (Member)]: and weigh in on it again. My suggestion is just the language,

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: send the language of who they need.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: But they said they were okay with what was before them at the time.

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: This experience should be defined

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: because expertise is just my opinion, it sounds a little more solid than experience. Experience could be two weeks.

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: Say that again, I couldn't hear you. Experience, one of the

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: qualifications is that you have experience with And I don't think that's solid

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: expertise, maybe, for me to do better than the one. What does existing statute say? Existing statute is experience. The member shall be drawn from diverse backgrounds and to the extent possible have experience with artificial intelligence. So we're not

[Brian Cina (Member)]: just using the same language?

[Speaker 0]: Nothing the bill changes that.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: All the bill really does with the membership is it adds someone from the social workers, adds someone from the doctors, it adds someone from the teachers, which is what they felt they needed, those areas. Oh, it also adds the treasurer, and we heard they were okay with that, and the treasurer supports that, and that's because they're going to be looking at public finance and how that relates to healthcare. They may be able to figure out ways to improve the financing of our healthcare system, and the treasurer should be part of that, and agreed. It was just brief if they came in and said yes. I disagree with that. I with what?

[Allen “Penny” Demar (Member)]: I think the treasurer could play a part, but this is kind of setting policies. And he is financial as far as money for the state, but I don't know. I just don't understand why he's even on there. And a couple others I don't understand. I agree with Leslie. I think there's a lot of others that are in with us with healthcare that we should do first.

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: Well, you know, I mean, I'm not saying we should change it. No, I just I don't

[Allen “Penny” Demar (Member)]: want 30 on there either.

[Speaker 0]: I just want to, you know what

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: I was gonna say. You're usually

[Speaker 0]: the one saying, Honey, do any. So what you're saying is that you do not agree with M, the state treasurer or designee. If you could explain it

[Allen “Penny” Demar (Member)]: better than Brian did, I could probably understand it. But

[Brian Cina (Member)]: talking about If I can explain it for you better, I can. I'm willing to, I just don't want to give people a speech, but I can explain it better. That the state treasurer is responsible for managing the treasury of the state, and that this group is going to be looking at public money and how public money is managed in the healthcare system and beyond. For example, in Slovakia, they're using AI to help create the government's budget now. The treasurer being on here, he's one member or whoever he designates, he might designate someone else, that's one, yes, they, because who knows who the treasurer is going to be, right? That they would have a seat because that seat would bring the perspective from state government of managing the public's money. And I think that's relevant to healthcare and beyond. In my thinking, you're right, that the policy people will go to the

[Allen “Penny” Demar (Member)]: treasurer and get him involved, not being involved in it. That's kind of even a conflict of interest.

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I think it might be useful to look at the lead in language of the existing statute, which is not getting changed here, about what the role of the council is. The council has been established and is in existence to provide advice and counsel to the Director of the Division of Artificial Intelligence in the Agency of Digital Services with regard to the division's responsibilities to review all aspects of artificial intelligence systems developed, employed, or procured in state government. It also is directed to engage in public outreach and education on artificial intelligence. So I don't know if that helps you.

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: About state government.

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Think about who

[Brian Cina (Member)]: Do you see how that would Why the treasurer would be included then? Because the treasurer is managing the state government's money. And if they're not included in weighing in, we're leaving a piece out.

[Allen “Penny” Demar (Member)]: So how come we don't have a legislature or a senator?

[Brian Cina (Member)]: That's a good point. I see it as we're delegating our spots to these healthcare providers. That's how I saw it. Was like, instead of us appointing ourselves, we're creating space for community members, the people we represent and expertise, so that we're balancing that out with a judicial appointment with the executive appointments, with the attorney general and with the treasurer. Brian, can I ask why,

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: If I were on this council, I would expect that the conversation could stay at sort of a consistent level? My concern is if we start adding health care providers from different areas of health care, it's not going to be equitable with the treasurer, for example. I don't know, he has different branches in his office, as does the AG or whoever else is on here. So I worry that we're getting too nuanced in healthcare, rather than just the Commissioner of the Department of Health or the Secretary.

[Speaker 0]: So there's 18 members on this. And we've now put three that have a focus in healthcare.

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'm not sure there's 18 people.

[Speaker 0]: Well, I'm just going to M. Eight or M? Did I count for 11? 13? 15? Okay, 13.

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: The statistic would be to M.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: The reason we'd be adding an educator and a social worker and an MD or a doctor is because, Well, that's who the current language doesn't say a nurse, says the AMS. The nurses are asking me, I have a list we haven't even heard yet of all the people asking me be on this. Think you need to hear that list, just to at least hear it. Adding three healthcare providers from the community, the idea was that that was bringing on the ground expertise into the discussion as they weigh in on these important issues at this moment in history. And that was something asked for.

[Speaker 0]: I'm just going through the original intent of this bill. And the original intent was to protect human rights, healthcare, in regards to artificial intelligence, as well as, I still don't have the, essentially, neurotechnologies. Again, I'm a little concerned that there's not someone on this advisory committee right now that's thinking in these terms. But go ahead. Chopper, you had a question.

[Debra Powers (Member)]: Yeah. You've talked about 13 members. Yeah. I'm looking at the bill and I see eight.

[Speaker 0]: Well, those are the only ones that are It's the bill.

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Because A through E are not showing, so they're just not changed. Oh, good.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. And we're only changing three of them. You are changing

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: five I mean, you're changing two existing ones and adding three.

[Speaker 0]: So, have someone with experience in education. I just keep thinking about that doctor from UVM that came in. The anesthetist? The one that came in and did the-

[Brian Cina (Member)]: The tech guy.

[Speaker 0]: The office visit, that was like, just keep thinking that there's nobody with that sort of experience.

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, but if we get a bunch of medical specialists, then the conversation amongst this board changes. And I am concerned about that. How are they going stay productive and functional if you have a bunch of commissioners and then a bunch of medical specialists? Imagine a social worker trying to have a conversation with their state treasurer.

[Speaker 0]: Depends on

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: what's on the agenda.

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: They should be consulting or advising the secretary or the commissioner, in my opinion, like there's a representative from each sector.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: I think the concern, though, is that the makeup of the council is all It's them or their designee, so they could pick anyone. But the idea is that these seats are controlled by the executive branch and that it was not a diverse enough perspective. And Director Vegaun, they were asking for a few more people. It's only a few more. Can I just read the list and get it over with of all the people who are touching it? It's torturing me. And once I say it, then I don't have to say it again.

[Speaker 0]: So Brian, we've received an awful lot of written feedback on this. Compiled various he's going to summarize.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: Yes. So these are people who have expressed interest in serving on the council. I'm not suggesting, I'm talking softly because I get excited, so I'm not suggesting the ons, I'm just reading you the request. It's like I'm the DJ, this is what all the people wrote on the thing, I'm not gonna play all the songs. I'm just telling you what's on the thing. I may not like all these songs.

[Debra Powers (Member)]: I just want you to get going. All of these people burst in AI.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: I don't know. These are just when you hear who it is.

[Speaker 0]: And I'm gonna put these under your name on our website.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: Yes. Okay. So I sent her the evidence of them requesting this.

[Speaker 0]: In the public comment,

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: So I

[Brian Cina (Member)]: I have received requests to be involved from the long term care organization, Vermont Health Care Association, from by state, from Vermont Care Partners, from the Vermont Nurse Practitioners, from BOSS, from AFT, from the Vermont Psychological Association. Okay, so it's not as long as I thought. So you could hear though that all of these groups who come in here regularly are interested in being involved. I don't think we should add them all, but I think maybe there's a way to put language in so they're included.

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: Social workers, you didn't list them? Well, they're already on it. Did they request to be

[Allen “Penny” Demar (Member)]: on it?

[Brian Cina (Member)]: Yeah, well, requested a language change too. They requested that instead of saying one member with experience, it says a social worker with experience. That was their requested language change, So they want to be on the council and they actually want them to be told it has to be a social worker because they think it's that important that it's not just that the social workers are picking a random member, but that the social workers are sending a social worker. That was their suggested change. Anyway, that's the med list. Thank you for hearing.

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: It's all in one document that Tasha put in.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: Thank you, Tasha.

[Debra Powers (Member)]: It's totally a goal.

[Speaker 0]: Would anyone be amenable to adding language in the because we have in here what they're supposed to be reporting back on or advising on. Would anybody feel like, you know, that we should have them consult with interested stakeholders from think it should say And just put something like that in language. Is there anything in that right now?

[Brian Cina (Member)]: I think it said they shall consult with any interested stakeholders and we could consider, this might be complicating too much, including and list some of these groups so that they are being told they have to talk with them so the groups don't feel excluded. That's a way to include them without giving them a seat on the council and having to worry, although some of these groups have said they would send someone who's paid and we wouldn't have to pay. Like Advise State, for example, said that they would send someone who's already being paid so we wouldn't have to worry

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: about the stipend. I'm sorry. You're looking at adding consulting with interested stakeholders to the council generally or to its development to its exploration of the responsible and ethical use of AI in health care, human services, and education?

[Speaker 0]: That's what I was referring to. I wanted to be equitable here and I wasn't paying attention. Who had their hand up first?

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: I'm happy to

[Speaker 0]: answer Okay, Daisy,

[Wendy Critchlow (Member)]: go ahead.

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: There are eight different healthcare provider organizations or associations that requested to be on that commission. Did you consider having a health care and AI commission and then giving them a designee on the overall AI task force.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: I'm open to ideas like that. I just got these requests over the last week because we like her testimony. Then I got all these emails from people saying, Consider us, consider us, we're willing to help. And mostly they went to me or me and Alyssa. They didn't send a fill committee. So that's why everyone didn't see this. Now you know. I was thinking one option is we could create a working group or a subcommittee that works with them, but I still think we should add some people to the council in the long term, but maybe it's that But at the same time, could we Does it have to be that complicated? I guess that's the concern

[Debra Powers (Member)]: I have.

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, I'm gonna be equitable about those requests. That's a concern.

[Speaker 0]: Yes. A concern of mine as well. Leslie and then Val.

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'm not seeing a whole lot

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: of difference between all these different groups about the constituency and necessarily their voice. I mean, is my state going to be all different than the nurse practitioner? I don't see that. So I'm thinking I don't want to complicate it and make it harder. So I kind of like having the idea of a because I'm struggling with this. This is about healthcare, but there are a lot of people on this group that don't know about healthcare. But I hear what you're saying that there is a lot of cross pollination, but I still think it has a lot to do with what happens to be on the agenda, which is going to change each meeting. And some will be relevant to a certain group and some won't. So without being complicated, should there be a subgroup of health care providers so that people feel they have their voice and can respond when there's an agenda item that's going be implemented in health care on the AI group? Because it is just state government, and we have to remember that it's only state government that this bill is referring to.

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: I was just wondering if they could I mean, not to have reporting requirements from people that want to be heard that are not on the committee. Would that be a possibility to just report pros and cons or something like that? So they are heard, but they're not I mean,

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: then it could be a more diverse You couldn't require them to, you could invite them to, but you couldn't because they're not state entities. Can't require people to invite them.

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: I'm in favor of having a healthcare sub focused break, because

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: this bill is about, about healthcare.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: I have a question for John.

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Go ahead.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: That within the existing statute or structure of law, do you see a way that we could make changes for the council like we are doing, but have a working group work with them for the next year of stakeholders that's official versus just saying to them, You should just do this, maybe where You see what I'm saying? Maybe we create a working group. We make the council changes, but then we create a one year working group or something, because we do that all the time with other things.

[Speaker 0]: I just wanna point out again that any group that we create, any working group, any task force is going to require stipends. We can

[Brian Cina (Member)]: make it free. The original task force, we didn't get stipends to be on it because I was on it. We volunteered.

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: You did do that with some of the Act 68.

[Speaker 0]: Yes, agree. So

[Brian Cina (Member)]: the working group could be unpaid by the state. By the state, still pay a person to go to it. Not to look at you, but

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: There you are.

[Speaker 0]: I'm not particularly in favor of creating a

[Debra Powers (Member)]: working group.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: I'm not a tactical I

[Speaker 0]: think we're taking a advisory panel that was created a few years ago, and we are adding some members to it that are how how do I want to say that have an interest in where emerging technology is going. And as evidenced by the number of bills on our wall around healthcare and AI that we've dealt with. It seems like perhaps this advisory council should

[Debra Powers (Member)]: include

[Speaker 0]: people with some sort of knowledge or interest or thinking about it in those terms. Toddler, did you have a question? I thought I saw your hand up. I'm sorry. I wasn't sure.

[Debra Powers (Member)]: I thought we did. I'm sorry. Know.

[Speaker 0]: Puts my rambling. Right now. I also want to point out so do we have written testimony from the people from the council that testified? Did they submit anything? Did they submit written testimony?

[Brian Cina (Member)]: I'm gonna look. Some people did. Josiah and Miles, the two people.

[Speaker 0]: I perhaps we should review their testimony. I mean, they are members of this council. Correct?

[Brian Cina (Member)]: They are the, like, people who run it.

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I have the list up somewhere here if it's helpful to you to see who is on council. That be at least what's posted posted online. Alright. It is Well,

[Debra Powers (Member)]: are you looking up those two guys?

[Brian Cina (Member)]: I'm looking to see if if there's anything on the record.

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: I was just looking through Josiah, but I didn't find anything.

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. So here's what I find on on the ADS website for for the members of the council. So the co chairs are Zuzana Davis and Josiah Reisch. And then you can see the representatives appointed by each of the existing appointing authorities.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: And Josiah is the one who

[Speaker 0]: Josiah testified, and they We

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: asked him for written testimony, but it's not that

[Debra Powers (Member)]: he said he would give us

[Speaker 0]: to us. Do we need to So should we go back and we should all independently watch his testimony again to see what I just feel like I think that we should defer to the council members currently what their needs indicate. Am I wrong in that?

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: They may not know. I mean, this is all on it. Said he needed the medical stuff.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: He said they needed this expertise added to the council. I mean, he said that. He said his only concern was bumping the governor's appointee off because that guy's Philip Sussman, he's bringing a unique expertise as a person who works in cybersecurity. And that's why I was saying maybe we make a small change and make a space for him, the governor could have someone else appoint him in their place. So we don't have to even do that. If he's that important, they can figure out a space for him through these other appointees, but I wanted to honor that. He was saying it would be sad for him to go, but they did say they wanted those three new perspectives.

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: Who's the other gentleman with Josiah? Miles. Miles? Let me see if he did.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: I don't see any from him now.

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: No, nothing. We have to have an odd number.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: It's advisory.

[Speaker 0]: And what was the and I know because Allen had some issues. You can you tell me again the state treasurer? Is that, that's avid? Yes, that would be me. And what was the reason for state treasurer?

[Brian Cina (Member)]: They're looking at the use of artificial intelligence and public finance, not only related to healthcare, but in general, and because the treasurer manages the treasury and that there's in other jurisdictions at a state level, they're using AI to improve state budgets and school budgets and healthcare system budgets, that his office might have unique perspective. That's their office, that office of the And the fact that you look at all the different pieces of government, you didn't have the treasurer there. So we have the attorney general looking at issues, we have the judicial branch, we don't have the management of money piece there so clearly, and that's why I added them originally. We heard from the treasurer's office they'd be happy to have a person on, but they only spoke for five minutes.

[Allen “Penny” Demar (Member)]: But we have these people, like your attorney general of Destiny or state treasurer of Destiny, but we're eliminating nursing, long term, term care, bi state. That's healthcare.

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: They're not being eliminated. They're just not on there.

[Debra Powers (Member)]: They're not being explicit. I'm

[Allen “Penny” Demar (Member)]: moving backwards. I'd want those people there, and if I needed information, that's when I'd go to state treasurer and attorneys general and rest of them.

[Speaker 0]: Yep. Can we remember that this council exists for lots and lots and lots of reasons, not just because we have section four in here asking them to also look at some of this other stuff. Is that I understand that. I mean, we were creating a whole brand new permission that just dealt with healthcare and AI and things like that, then we would have lots of this in here. But this is an existing advisory council. We're just asking them to look at some more things and that maybe they should have some representation.

[Allen “Penny” Demar (Member)]: And looking at more things, we're thinking about healthcare, right?

[Speaker 0]: We're asking them to look at something healthcare, but there could be 12 other committees for this body right now who are like, oh, let's have them look at this. Right.

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Would also note that section four of the bill has them looking not just at health care and human services, but also education, public participation and public fines. That's perhaps some of the rationale for having

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: other people.

[Speaker 0]: Karen, did you have a question?

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: I had two. On the governor's appointee here, it seems the critical role is the expertise in cybersecurity and that kind of technical aspect. I mean, that's what

[Speaker 0]: they value.

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: Is it possible just to make that appointee by the governor have that expertise as part of the categorically. So it's just an open question.

[Speaker 0]: I thought the governor's appointee that we replaced was in the field of ethics and human rights.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: Yes, we gave that back to the social workers. But I think what I'm hearing you say is, can't we give the governor a seat still for cybersecurity? And that's what I was suggesting earlier. Like I was saying, maybe we say the governor has a member at large, and then the governor at whatever moment in history can decide what's missing, and they get to pick and add a person to the mix that they decide is relevant. Because we're eliminating

[Speaker 0]: a position for cybersecurity. It just so happens that the person that is currently serving in that role is

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Right. I think the position is specifically in ethics and human rights. So the fact that somebody the person in that position also has cybersecurity expertise may be a benefit of that particular individual.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: Because that's what I heard from the witness, and I was like, how is this person an expert in human rights and ethics? He didn't really articulate that. He just said they're bringing something. I took it, my processing of it was cybersecurity is ethics on some level, but I think having a social worker's perspective is so important, especially in the health, at the intersection of education and healthcare, working across all those settings, that I think we should have the social worker be the ethics person, but I like the idea of giving whoever the governor is at any moment in history a seat that they can choose what they think is relevant at that time. So Phil Scott could put right now who he thinks is best, if he thinks it's Bill Sussman, good, put him. My intent wasn't to remove a member. It was to try to find a creative way to fit healthcare providers and educators in to the existing structure without adding a lot of members. I was trying to minimize, you

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: know.

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: My second question that I

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: was thinking is, when I look at that list, when I think of the purpose of this section, how do you do with healthcare, it does seem like the healthcare piece is lean. It does seem really important to have those physicians out there.

[Speaker 0]: Would anybody be opposed to exactly what's in the bill right now and then adding

[Brian Cina (Member)]: No, I think it would just be a member at large.

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Can I hear you? I may ask you what's next? Well, just because you have right now, the appointee of the governor is the member with experience in the field of ethics and human rights. Now you're changing that to the National Association of Social Workers. I don't know if they specifically have the connection to the fields of ethics and human rights different from other areas. So so I know there have been talk about putting a social worker appointed by the National Association of Social Workers. Would you wanna keep the governor's appointee in the field of ethics and human rights and add a social worker appointed by the National Association of

[Brian Cina (Member)]: Social I would prefer to let the social worker have the human rights and ethics, because that was in the original task force how it was, and giving the governor more latitude, saying, Governor, we trust you. Pick whoever you think is best in this moment in history, whoever you are. Democrat, Republican, progressive,

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: whoever you are. I'm gonna ask a question. Zaida had recommended

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: we appoint someone from the

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: American Psychological Association, the American Psychological Association, I think that was

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: one of the ones I remember.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: That was one of the suggestions.

[Speaker 0]: Oh, Debra has a question.

[Debra Powers (Member)]: I keep hearing the governor, the governor, the governor, the governor. Why don't we just talk about what the intent is? If we want the governors to have an appointee, that appointee has to follow what's outlined in here, in terms of the expertise that they have to have to contribute to this committee. Period. Don't worry about government on the offenses. Just worry about getting somebody that has the expertise to do That's how I feel about it. I don't look at it as, you know, it has to be or it doesn't have to be a governance approach.

[Speaker 0]: Wendy, I'm sorry.

[Wendy Critchlow (Member)]: I'm going to veto the whole ethics thing, getting removed

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: from it.

[Wendy Critchlow (Member)]: Because I think this is a brand new field, and ethics, people study years on this thing, we've had to call, my previous job, had to call people from ethics in to go over everything that we had done. I just think that's too important to leave off this list.

[Speaker 0]: Who want to what? To leave off this list.

[Wendy Critchlow (Member)]: We leaving? That Phil Soxman, who is the ethics, what is his actual title?

[Brian Cina (Member)]: He's appointed by the governor as a member with experience ethics and human rights. We're not removing We're not removing. We're just letting the social workers appoint someone in the field of ethics and human rights.

[Speaker 0]: Not to muddy the waters a little bit, but this is more of a question for Brian. Why would social workers have any more qualifications around human rights, ethics and human rights than say the psychological association, the medical ethicists, So why is it social workers? Looks like Western.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: Probably because the original AI bill was written by a social worker.

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: Then Well, I didn't go there.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: That. Yeah, but there was extensive testimony and it was vetted through the legislative process and passed unanimously and signed by the governor. So everyone agreed that a social worker, after all that testimony, made sense. And then when the second bill passed, the Senate changed the membership of the task force to be all these state agency people, they completely changed what the house did and made it into this group that's mostly appointees of the governor. I know you don't want to keep hearing that, but it's like all these people who are heads of departments and you didn't have the community voice and now we're in a position where they're not equipped to weigh in on important things at a pivotal moment in history. And so I felt adding a social worker and a doctor and a teacher and educator was one way to bring those voices in. So I think social workers are uniquely equipped in the field of ethics and human rights, because if you look at our, we have a code of ethics, our training is grounded in principles. Lynn from the NASW actually testified about this. That's why I think it should be a social worker. Now, could say, no one told me how the governor's appointee in ethics or human rights is an expert in human rights or ethics. So we're assuming that that person has that. No one's explained it yet, but what I did hear is he's valuable, and I didn't wanna remove a person. So that's why I was saying, let's make a seat for the governor to keep whoever he wants on so we don't take an asset away from the committee.

[Speaker 0]: I would like to move away from the conversation around the governor's pick and take that out. I'm just trying to get at, okay, who really should be naming somebody who actually does have an expertise in ethics and I'm sorry, what was the other? Human rights. Human rights. Thank you.

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: Leslie? Well, think that I'm sort of thinking about it in a similar way, but thinking about it in terms of arenas, for want of a better term, the ethics and human rights arena, the clinical medicine arena, the psychological mental health arena, so that we have people representing each of those bodies of constituents, for want of a better term, so that they would be represented on there in addition to who we have. So that's how I would think about it. So I think I'm seeing hearing, I'm saying what you're saying in that there's a clinical person, I'm sorry, Doctor. Berbeco, that's my bias, got it, but then there is someone who's doing clinical medicine in the room. There's someone who is doing mental health medicine in the room. The educator, I agree with that too. So I'm thinking of it as a

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: realist

[Speaker 0]: now. And I will just say that I am not interested in changing the direction of this advisory council to be majority healthcare. So I mean, I'm not interested in doing that. If somebody else wants to submit a bill to put in to create a healthcare AI advisory, then they can do that. But I'm not interested in doing that today. I'm not interested in taking an existing council and changing it to sway it all towards one particular area. I think that it needs some additional voices, but I'm not changing the direction of it. I'm sorry, go ahead.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: I didn't want to interrupt you, and so I wrote it down so I wouldn't forget. So one, now I'm like, what does this scribble mean? One is just to your point, if this group comes back in a year, they can say, we need a healthcare advisory. They can come back and ask for that. They have a year to come

[Todd Daloz, Assistant Attorney General]: back and ask for

[Brian Cina (Member)]: that. They will, it's in the current language there, it gives them the scope to come back and suggest that we change it so they can come back and ask for that. Two, I wanted to say more about why I think a social worker is important, because I feel like I didn't do it justice. Then in social work, when you receive social work training, you receive five levels of training. There's individual, family, group, organizational, and community, and you have to learn how to practice in school on all those levels. And then wherever you're working in a system, you're thinking about all those levels. And so social workers get training in clinical practice and in direct practice, but we also get training in policy and we get training in theory and we get training in research. And then the core of social work is this commitment to human rights and to ethical practice. And so the reason I think that social When I say I'm biased, I'm being honest as a social worker, I'm biased, but it's not like I'm just biased for no reason. It's because I have training as a social worker and I understand what we do and if you have a clinical provider, like the doctor, medical society, and you have an educator, the social worker is bridging schools, hospitals, clinics, they're working in every possible setting you can think of providing direct service, but they're also administrators, social workers are also running programs, they're fighting supervision, they're creating policy. So giving the position to a social worker brings a perspective that it can bridge the healthcare and education sectors and bring the human rights and ethical perspective all in one person. And that's why I thought it was important to put the social worker back. But I am biased because I'm a social worker. So I'll admit that, I think most people won't admit they're biased, I think it's important, But I'm biased for a

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: good reason.

[Speaker 0]: Because we have very limited time, can we sort of table the discussion around who's on this? And can we talk about the rest of the bill? I'm trying to get a sense from the committee. Number one, I'm trying to get a sense from the committee whether or not you even want to move forward with this bill. I'm trying to get a sense of what you think about the changes, subtraction of essentially 20 some pages. Whether or not you're in alignment with just changing some members and also what some things that we'd like them to look at, That's what I'm interested in right now. So we have this warrant for a possible vote and I'm thinking there's not going to be any vote today. Just Leslie and then Chopper.

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: So I'm prepared to vote on this bill. I think what I got reassured by is section four, which is the report. And the report is really clear on what it says, review guidelines, recommendations from the AMA. That includes clinical medicines, social workers, and education. So that's all included in the report. So the advisory council is going to have to look at all those things in order to create their report. Other relevant professional organizations, including healthcare, human services, education, public participation, and public finance, that includes the treasurer, that's cool. Two is the research, existing potential uses, etcetera, create opportunities, I think that's great. I think we could add a four, which says review the composition of the advisory council and make recommendations, and then I would be happy to go.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you.

[Debra Powers (Member)]: I think that we should stay with the intent, which is to go to the responsible use of artificial intelligence technology, and then the report to the director or whatever here is called of the division of artificial intelligence. I think we should stick with those two. Because what I'm feeling is adding all the other people, not the thief, they don't have information maybe that the director of artificial intelligence can use as they develop ways they're going to use artificial intelligence in state government. I just don't think adding a lot of people in this legislation. Do you mean add it? Are you okay with adding the three people or are you saying make no changes? I'm confused. I'm saying that we already have a council that's set up to do to provide this assistance and recommendations to the director of artificial intelligence as they develop the use of artificial intelligence in state government. That's what I'm saying. Now, there are other people with the expertise in artificial intelligence and the expertise in areas, it isn't just healthcare, it's what we're gonna do with artificial intelligence and state government. Now, before I go any further, am I wrong in that assumption?

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That it's about what actions

[Wendy Critchlow (Member)]: It's in state about

[Debra Powers (Member)]: what the Office of Artificial Intelligence is going to do going forward.

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes, and also engaging in public outreach and education on artificial intelligence.

[Debra Powers (Member)]: Yeah. Art of its Okay. Current So what I'm feeling we did is we zeroed in and just said the application of artificial intelligence in healthcare. Am I right in that assumption?

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So, well, the positions that are being added and some of the additional language I think is around healthcare, human services, education, and public finance.

[Debra Powers (Member)]: But does it all do you think It

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: all comes but, yes, it all comes back to at least in the existing law that is unchanged in the field, it all comes back to providing advice and counsel to the director of division of artificial intelligence with regard to the division's responsibilities to review all aspects of artificial intelligence systems developed, employed, or procured in state government and engage in public outreach and education

[Debra Powers (Member)]: Okay, so at this point in time, we as a committee, are we talking about we just want to limit our input to healthcare? No. I didn't think we were, but I'm just asking these questions.

[Speaker 0]: Doing is in the first section, we're actually putting in some intent and definitions

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: a code

[Speaker 0]: of rights. Section three, we're taking an existing advisory council. And I'm sorry, did we hear from the director of the division of artificial intelligence?

[Brian Cina (Member)]: Yes, that's Miles.

[Speaker 0]: That's Miles. Was Miles in favor of this change? Okay, so the very person in state government that this advisory council is reporting to, that person said, A okay?

[Brian Cina (Member)]: They said, I don't like speaking for people, they said they needed some extra voices at this moment and some guidance, some direction. Yes.

[Debra Powers (Member)]: Dealing with the use of artificial

[Brian Cina (Member)]: intelligence. Specifically in the health and education sectors, because those are the areas where we're going to see some pretty major advancements. But what the bill does is it's us saying like, we're guaranteeing some rights, we're adding some people to an existing council and giving them a mission for the next year to come back to us with some ideas of how to protect these rights. And they were okay with that. Where this is getting complicated, everyone wants to be involved. Now we're getting really caught up in that. But in the end, I think I would settle for just adding the three people in the seat for the governor, and then letting them come back to us and tell us what other changes are needed in the future. The other change I would suggest is this go into effect on passage, because we heard that the sooner they get started, the better. But if we agreed to leave the membership as it is, add a seat for the governor and make it in effect on passage, I would be comfortable voting on it today. I feel bad leaving people out, but the reality is we're taking all this time and it's where are we getting with that? I hear you on that.

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: I'm

[Speaker 0]: generally in favor of leaving the bill as is in this current version and maybe adding back in just a governor's designee.

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: You want to say something general, like one member with relevant knowledge and expertise appointed by the governor or something?

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: Yep. His Nebraska Medicine or just

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: No, that wasn't what I was hearing, yeah.

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: You look at point One

[Speaker 0]: of the governor's picks got taken away and they weren't thrilled with them being taken away. So just give the governor back at large and they can appoint whoever they wish, including the apparently stellar person that's in the position.

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: It's very dynamic, so that's flexibility.

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, okay.

[Debra Powers (Member)]: So didn't we add F,

[Speaker 0]: g, h? We're just adding in either are we 10.

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Just adding in we will add n. We'll add n. Let him close it

[Debra Powers (Member)]: out. Okay.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: We're gonna stop before we get the z.

[Speaker 0]: Is there anyone who is opposed to that?

[Debra Powers (Member)]: Okay. I I

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: What's that?

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: Yeah. Basically

[Speaker 0]: taking what's there on the page now and then adding back in an at large member that I have picked up because the people the rest

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: of it as is. Yeah.

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So I'm putting I've got it up on the screen. So we would just simply add a new move the and, and it would say n, one member with relevant knowledge and expertise appointed by the governor.

[Debra Powers (Member)]: Okay. So we're changing

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: You're adding.

[Debra Powers (Member)]: Where they come from. You're changing 10:10 of them where they come from. Are we not?

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: No. So you're changing a couple

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: you're changing two, and you're adding four. You're sort of changing the governor. The governor one is sort of a Changing two. And then you're not

[Speaker 0]: We're taking away once the governor's picks in the field of ethics and human rights, and we're changing it that somebody else picks it. And then we're giving back the governor his pick that he can pick anybody with expertise. It doesn't just happen to changing budget. We're changing also another member.

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. The commissioner of health. I mean, effectively, commissioner of health, you know, we could frame these differently. The commissioner of health or designee sort of becomes the secretary of human services or designee, and you're adding a member with experience in public education affected by Vermont anyway. So if it's easier for people to see it that way, I can reframe it that way.

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: I love the idea of it being Commissioner of Health because it says Health, whereas AHS is such

[Speaker 0]: a broad, but AHS is the Commissioner of Health.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: It is, and it's also

[Wendy Critchlow (Member)]: We have to think about the safety That's

[Brian Cina (Member)]: what I'm struggling with, not necessarily. They report the Agency of Human Services, the reality is that we're too siloed. So reason I made that change is if they think the Commissioner of Health is the best person, they'll appoint them.

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: But I will note that the current appointee from the Commissioner of Health or designee is not the Commissioner of Health. It is Amanda Jones, representative of the Department of Health.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: Who could still be appointed by the agency of commissioners?

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Be appointed by the

[Brian Cina (Member)]: So it's just if that was just me, like, restructuring it, I'm not attached. It was just me zooming out and being like, we've let's just make it that that piece of government has the seat, not that specific person.

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: Okay, can you clarify, Murphon, real Yes. So you're taking away that Philip Sussman? Is that true?

[Wendy Critchlow (Member)]: No. You're not taking

[Brian Cina (Member)]: away We're creating space for him in an at large seat that the governor has.

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: I'm not comfortable with that.

[Wendy Critchlow (Member)]: I have to say, I just think that it's mandatory for someone with an ethics background to be on the It will be.

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It's appointed by the National Association of Socialists.

[Wendy Critchlow (Member)]: Doesn't necessarily say that they have to be an expert in ethics. Is that right?

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: One that we took away from

[Speaker 0]: the governor had to be in ethics and human rights. We are not taking away that there's somebody in ethics and human rights. We're just changing who is appointing that person. And then we're taking the governor's pick who he got to pick in ethics and human rights, and we're giving him a new pick to pick anybody and anything that he wants.

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It still be someone with the ethics of human rights.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: Which means we might get two people with ethics experience now because the social workers will have a good

[Speaker 0]: time So set we're not losing anybody in ethics and human rights. Okay, and I've been thinking quietly,

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: but I mean, lawyers are always trained in ethics too. So even though, so John Dooley is very

[Brian Cina (Member)]: smart. Is a

[Wendy Critchlow (Member)]: big advocate. I honestly believe that everybody here, regardless of your profession, has been trained in ethics, whatever your profession is. This is just so new, and I just, I think it is just so important to have somebody that's front and center, that's of ethics. It's a scary, we're new territory here, it's scary and I think it would just be reassuring to know somebody.

[Speaker 0]: Well, think it was so important that when they created this, they did that. And it's still there. Okay.

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: And I think Val brought this up and it's an important point. One member with experience in the field, not expertise.

[Wendy Critchlow (Member)]: I'm fine with that. Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. Is everybody fine with what we'd like them to look at, the project that we've given them?

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And that's where I wanted to end. Did you want a reference to, so in coordination with the director of artificial intelligence, do you want this to be an in consultation with interested stakeholders? Yes.

[Speaker 0]: So all the people that want to be on it are now interested stakeholders.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: So they can be involved without worrying about the stipend and without And a quorum

[Speaker 0]: sorts of other things. Who knows what

[Brian Cina (Member)]: the Senate will do if this goes over there because they changed the last thing.

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: Question?

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: Do you

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: have a comment? I

[Debra Powers (Member)]: just feel that everything that is underlined here is a change.

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Section four? Yeah. Section four is brand new. Section four is just a one time study and report. It's not changing the This

[Debra Powers (Member)]: is the membership.

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Right. So the membership, everything that's underlined is new.

[Debra Powers (Member)]: It's new. But some of it is

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: not adding members, it's just changing members, you know, changing the appointing authority or

[Debra Powers (Member)]: Okay. Let me let me maybe one question. Sure. Where it was commissioner of health.

[Speaker 0]: Yes.

[Debra Powers (Member)]: Now it says the person who was gonna be selected is going to have experience in public education appointed by the Vermont National Education Association. Yes. What has that got to do with health?

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It doesn't have anything to do with health. This is the group on, this is the artificial intelligence advisory council, who is now getting a broader scope to look at health care, human services, education, public participation, and public finance, at least in the in the shorter term. So looking at I think the the idea, if I can speak for the sponsor of the bill, was that artificial intelligence is being used in so many different sectors now that having having people with not just health care, but also education background is gonna be important for advising the director of Division of Artificial Intelligence.

[Debra Powers (Member)]: We've said we need help. Okay? Does the Secretary of Human Services fill that bill? Yes, Seth?

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So you have a couple of people in the health area because you have one member with experience in health care appointed by the Vermont Medical Society and you have the secretary basically, you have secretary of human services instead of commissioner of health. They needed somebody with education. And I'll I'll swap it so that it's clear that Commissioner of Health becomes Secretary of Human Services, because I think I created confusion there.

[Debra Powers (Member)]: And all of these people don't have to have experience, at least as far as I can see from the way it's written, in artificial intelligence?

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Not specifically, I mean they are providing advice Maybe

[Debra Powers (Member)]: let's give them the idea

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: or the director of the division of artificial intelligence that have experience and expertise in artificial intelligence, and the others may have some but are also advising. Good job.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. Alright. I say we move to the office of the attorney general office. Just walked in. Good timing.

[Debra Powers (Member)]: Well, he's already on though, right?

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: You are.

[Debra Powers (Member)]: I'll just

[Brian Cina (Member)]: walk in tonight. Thank you for making time for us in your busy schedule. Thank you so much. Yeah, thank you.

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: Thank you.

[Todd Daloz, Assistant Attorney General]: You. Good afternoon, Todd Daylose, assistant attorney general. Good to be back, and thank you for inviting me. So I will just be totally honest with you all. I had not looked at the latest draft of h eight fourteen until earlier later this morning.

[Speaker 0]: That would be before any of us. Alright. Okay.

[Todd Daloz, Assistant Attorney General]: As long as we're all in good company. I'm happy to talk a little bit broadly about the former version. And I don't know I'm happy to answer questions about the current state of it because I don't believe we're really implicated the AGO is really implicated in the current study. I know we are on the AI advisory council that play a role there. So you tell me where you want me to go, and I'm happy to go.

[Speaker 0]: As from having an appointee on the advisory council, I think the question would, in your experience, would there be do you see a problem with some of the other people that we have now added and changed? And spoiler alert, so you don't have to watch it tonight. There's going to be an O. I keep leaving out N. I don't know why. There's going be an N which will be sort of an at large appointed by the governor with expertise in that. So the governor is not losing one of their picks. I'm wondering if you wanted to comment on the members that we've added changed.

[Todd Daloz, Assistant Attorney General]: I think it's good to have an at large so I have attended a few of these meetings. I am not the designee on this particular council. And we see a lot of value in our role from a consumer protection thing. So I know I don't necessarily advocate for us to remain, but we just appreciate having that role. And I think there's there's definitely value in the work that this council does. In looking at it and and understanding sort of where the bill was headed in its introduction form, certainly, some workers and other mental health professionals, there's good logic to that. As we see a greater use of ed tech and AI, I think it makes sense to have educational members on. VMS is a great part. The medical society is also a great partner. There's nothing that jumps out at me as being deeply concerning.

[Debra Powers (Member)]: I'll leave it at that.

[Todd Daloz, Assistant Attorney General]: I think it's those are positive changes, and again, I I think the council is doing valuable work.

[Speaker 0]: Alright. Any questions? Go ahead.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: So you said you've attended some of the meetings, you may not be the actual And based on your observations of the current council and the work they do and they combined with your understanding of the national landscape where consumer protection intersects with the healthcare sector, do you think that the mission we're giving the group at this moment in terms of this report makes sense? If you make the rules that we rolled a lot of these policy changes into the report, so we were going to make all these policy changes that other states have done, but instead we're asking the group to weigh in on them first. I just wonder if you have any thoughts about that, the scope of that work, if there's anything missing, if you think it's too much.

[Todd Daloz, Assistant Attorney General]: It's a great question. I was familiar with the work of the AI Council through their report. I think last year was their sort of four different questions that they were answering for the legislature, including sort

[Debra Powers (Member)]: of the scope of

[Todd Daloz, Assistant Attorney General]: their own authority. And I think my initial take on the AI Council was it was really focused on internal to state government. And this is definitely a shift. And I think with that lens, understanding kind of I think you're going to have technical expertise from in house technical expertise. And I think that's probably going to be the most important thing. I didn't it's funny because I so they have basically a year to provide the written report. One thought I would have, I think time is of the essence in this space where things are rapidly moving and adding a lot of new members. I know that this group did a lot of education around these issues as a group, and it may require right. You're gonna be bringing new people up to speed, likely people who bring experience, knowledge, etcetera, into the space from their specific areas of expertise. And there's just going to be some amount of time that any group requires to get sort of on the same page. So that would be one thought, kind of balancing those two pieces because to get the work actually done, it takes some time.

[Speaker 0]: They can use AI for whatever.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: So another change that we talked about making that I don't think is in the draft, but came up in our discussion is we heard because time is of the essence that it should go into effect on passage versus July 1, that could potentially give them an extra month or two to get going. And I'm just wondering if you think that makes sense, because it's not going to affect any other regulations. Yeah, I don't have an opinion on that. I mean, yeah, it would depend on how quickly it moves anywhere, how close it

[Todd Daloz, Assistant Attorney General]: gets to July 1, but you could imagine. Yes,

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: of course. Thanks for every legislative council then. So because we didn't talk about the effective date, I believe I originally put a July 1 effective date as a date certain when certain restrictions around chatbots and other things would take effect. But since you're doing things that I don't believe effectively affect anyone's rights or abilities under the law, an effective date on passages seems reasonable.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: You don't see a concern with that, it probably won't be that different. But if it gives them an extra meeting though, that's a chance to orient themselves and that would address this idea of how there's a group, when a group changes, that changes have to a group, they always have to adjust and I hear your point on that.

[Speaker 0]: Any other questions? Thank you. Thanks for coming.

[Todd Daloz, Assistant Attorney General]: You're welcome. Thank you for accommodating. Appreciate it. I'll be back.

[Speaker 0]: Are going to take a break. We will be back here at, let's come back at 05:03. I have to tell you, am introducing an amendment now on a bill is present on page five eighty eight, which is miscellaneous OPR bill that's in government operations, and we're going to walk through this amendment because it pertains to our jurisdiction and then we'll just get some quick testimony on it, but this is going to be an amendment.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: Is that what we're doing when we come back?

[Speaker 0]: That's what we're doing when we come back.

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: So do you imagine we're going to do a vote on eightfourteen at some point?

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, but we need a new version, so we need to get Ledonia Council on top of that.

[Jennifer (Jen) Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That's the vibe I was giving. I

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: feel like I feel

[Speaker 0]: like Just step away from it for at least I mean, maybe if we have time a little bit later, because I don't think we're going to take an hour, five eighty eight, although we may.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: I like your idea of taking a breath and getting back to it the end of the day if it's ready. Because it's good sometimes to step back from the table not rush, you know?

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: There's so much we want to deal with this week.

[Speaker 0]: Again, I apologize because I haven't been following this. Maybe, Brian, does this need to go to another committee? It may need I've given no other It

[Brian Cina (Member)]: may need to go to appropriations because of the stipends, but it's a small expense and they generally, those things are quick.

[Speaker 0]: I'm wondering who created this advisory council in the It first might have to

[Brian Cina (Member)]: go to government operations for a drive through. It might, because it's changing a state body.

[Speaker 0]: Might need to do that.

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: It means sooner better than later.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: Which means voting it out there would be better.