Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Will senate please come to order? Our devotional exercises will be conducted by the reverend Mark Fay of the the vibrant church of South Burlington. Welcome.

[Reverend Mark Fay]: Good afternoon, senators.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick]: Good afternoon.

[Reverend Mark Fay]: Truly an honor to be here with you. First time I feel a little bit underdressed. My my apologies for an old tie. So but if you could help bow our heads and just ask God's blessing, holy and sovereign God, we just do pause this moment to acknowledge your presence, your authority, your goodness that has shaped our forefathers, thoughts, and who sought you out for direction in our nation. We come not in our own strength, not in our own wisdom, not in our own understanding, but in humble dependence on you. The one who sees all, knows all, loves all, who lift up those who have appointed to be senators here in Vermont and to the the people they serve across our beautiful great state. And Lord we ask for you to reignite our passion to serve you first and foremost. And that they would all experience hear your goodness and your grace. I pray that everyone here would come to have the ability to see you for who you are. Truth. I pray that you would awaken the inhabitants of our state in such a way that it would bring healing, restoration, especially to those who've been wounded. Lord, bring clarity where there has been chaos and confusion in our state. Unity, whether it has been division, in compassion, where there has been indifference. I pray you would soften hearts, strengthen character, renew purpose within all of us. For when we when you revive people, you bring healing that goes deeper than circumstances. You bring vision that enables leaders to see the clarity and truth. You you complete our purpose so decisions are made with integrity and courage. You bring unity so people can work together for the common good and you heal the unseen wounds that human effort alone cannot teach. Lord, let your word guide us as we pray. You declared in Isaiah chapter 61, the spirit of lord is upon me because he had anointed me. He has sent me to bring good news to the afflicted, to mind up those who are brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to those who are captive, and to release those who are bound by the effects of this world. To announce a year of favor from the lord and a day of vindication by our god. Let that same spirit rest upon these leaders today. Let that same compassion shape their decisions. Let that same mission of hope guide their work and and father remind us that your wisdom is greater than man's knowledge. Human understanding has limits but your wisdom has none. Human insight can be clouded but your truth shines with perfect clarity. Your word tells us that the foolishness of god is wiser than man and the weaknesses of god is stronger than mankind. Let that truth humble us, steady us, and lead us. Lift these leaders beyond what they can calculate, beyond what they can predict, beyond what they can reason on their own. Let them draw from the well of your divine wisdom. And we pray that the hope that anchors our soul, the steady unshakable hope found only in you would rise up in the hearts of our senators and in the hearts of

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick]: the people they represent. Let that hope steady them in uncertainty, strengthen them in difficulty,

[Reverend Mark Fay]: and guide them toward what is good and life giving. Let it be a hope that calms fear, quiet the vision, and inspires courage to do what is right. Grant our leaders divine understanding, understanding that's beyond party lines and into people's lives, understanding that listens deeply, understanding that protects the vulnerable, honors the overlooked, enlists those who feel forgotten, understanding that reflects the heart of Jesus, who came not to be served but to serve. When issues are complex, grant clarity. When disagreements rise, grant patience. When decisions feel heavy, grant courage. And when the path forward is uncertain, let your light reveal the way. Bless every leader with wisdom that serves people well. Bless their families with peace and bless their staff with strength and bless the communities they represent with provision, protection, and hope. Lord, you are the God who binds up the brokenhearted, who brings beauty from ashes, who restores what was lost, and who revised what was fading. Let that same resurrection hope guide every heart in this chamber today and let your presence fill this place with peace and joy and let your wisdom shape our decisions and let your healing flow through our entire state and ways you can only accomplish. In Jesus name, I pray. Amen. Amen. Thank you all.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Are there any announcements? Seeing none. We have senate bill s two eleven, an act relating to motor vehicle inspections being on the calendar for notice and affecting the revenues of the state. Under rule 31 is referred to the committee on finance. Senate We have Senate Bill s three twenty six, an act act act relating relating to to amendments to laws relating to motor vehicles being on the notice calendar and affecting the revenues under the of the state under rule 31. It is referred to the committee on finance. We now have a senate resolution to take up at this time, s r 22, senate resolution relating to the concurrently conducted electronic committee meetings. Listen to the reading of the resolution by title only.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: S r 22, senate resolution relating to concurrently conducted electronic committee meetings.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Now you've heard the reading of the resolution. The chair in its discretion will place the resolution on the calendar for notice tomorrow. We now have another senate resolution to take up at this time. SR 23, senate resolution relating to electronic participation in senate sessions. Listen to the reading of the resolution by title only.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: SR 23, senate resolution relating to electronic participation in senate sessions.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Now you've heard the reading of the resolution, the chair in its discretion in placing the resolution on the calendar for notice tomorrow. Orders of the day. We have on the calendar for action s two fifty five introduced on 01/15/1926. It was referred to the committee on government operations, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the bill be amended as it appears in today's calendar. And that when so amended, the bill ought to pass. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: S two fifty five, an act relating to establishing a pilot law enforcement government governance council in Windham County.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: I recognize the senator from Rutland District, senator Calamore, for the report of the committee.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: Thank you, mister president. S t 55 establishes a voluntary geographically constrained time limited pilot program creating a governance council in Windham County. The proposal is explicitly framed as a governance and funding reform, not an operational policing mandate. It uses existing law enforcement contract funds already paid by participating towns. It does not create a general fund appropriation and does not require participation by nonmember towns. Only towns opting into the pilot would pay the assessment. Mister president, may I speak to both the committee amendment, which you'll find on page two sixteen and also the underlying bill?

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: You may.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: So as I mentioned, this proposes to create a pilot program that we call the Windham County Law Enforcement Governance Council, hereafter referred to as simply council, which would provide orchestrated law enforcement and related services to participating towns within Windham County through 2033. Specific services will be determined by the council provided by the Windham County Sheriff's Department and funded by a special assessment on member municipalities in proportion to the population of each member. This bill is session law. There are no existing statutes that are modified. The amendment, which again you'll find on page two sixteen draft 1.1 from the senate committee on government operation, seeks to modify the underlying bill in two ways. First, by changing how member municipalities enter and exit the program and now to be done by vote of the town's legislative body, and then secondly, by changing the financing mechanism so that the county treasurer shall levy and collect a special assessment in proportion to each member's, population rather than a grand list. Now the bill itself, section one has to do with definitions. Section two, authorization and establishment. It authorizes the creation of the council for the purpose of providing regional law enforcement and related services during the pilot period. The council may begin operations and taxation on either 07/01/2026 or on the date, by which five or more member municipalities are voted to become member municipalities, whichever occurs later. Section three has to do with membership as modified by the senate government government operations amendment that enables municipalities in Windham County to join and exit, the council by vote of the town's legislative body. Each member of municipality shall have one representative with one vote on the council. Council representative shall be a serving select board member of that municipality and will be selected by the municipality select board. Section four has to do with governance. It sets forth the governance structure, the powers, and duties of the council. The council will meet at least quarterly and its other such times as necessary. All meetings shall be worn and conducted in accordance with Vermont's open meeting law. The council shall have powers and duties to adopt bylaws for the operation of the council to determine the annual budget for law enforcement and related services to be provided to the member municipalities, establish the level and scope of services to be delivered to those member municipalities, develop standards and performance metrics for delivered law enforcement and related services, monitor service delivery, and evaluate the program's effectiveness. Submit the approved budget to the Windham County Assistant Judges for inclusion in the county budget, and finally, into agreements necessary for the provision of those services. Section five, budget and financing. It details the fiscal elements of the council. The council will prepare an annual budget submitted to the Windham County assistant judges who will include it as a separate item in the larger county budget. The county treasury then levies and collects a special assessment on member municipalities in proportion to each municipalities population. Non member municipalities shall not be assessed or charged for any of the council services. These specific services will be determined by the council and guaranteed between the parties by an annual contract. They have to specify in that contract the types and levels of service to be provided, the standards and performance metrics for delivered law enforcement services, reporting requirements, and allocation of resources among the member municipalities. These law enforcement services provided by the Windham Sheriff will be coordinated with state law enforcement agencies, existing member and non member municipal law enforcement agencies, and emergency services to ensure efficient resource utilization. Section seven deal, deals with reporting and evaluation. It directs the council to provide periodic reports as well as a final report. Beginning in 2027, the council will submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on Government Operations, the Windham County Legislative Delegation, and any of the member municipalities containing the financial statements for the preceding year, service delivery stats and performance metrics, member, municipality participation and satisfaction levels, challenges encountered, and lessons learned, and recommendations for improvement. And by 12/31/2033, the council will submit a comprehensive evaluation of the pilot program to the general assembly, including an assessment of the cost effectiveness compared to alternative service delivery models and analysis of service quality improvements and evaluation of the, models effectiveness, recommendations regarding continuation, modification, or expansion of the program, and a proposed framework for statewide replication if warranted. Section eight, limitations and protections, again, explicitly preserves the rights of non member municipalities, which will not be assessed any cost related to council operations, will continue to receive state police services as currently provided and do retain all rights to establish their own local law enforcement agencies or contract for law enforcement services independently. This section also makes clear that the bill will not affect the constitutional or statutory duties of the Windham County sheriff. It will not alter state police responsibilities for coverage or impact existing municipal law enforcement agencies. Section nine has the sunset date termination. Again, it sunsets this council on 06/30/2034 or in the event of the number of member municipalities being reduced to one, it will cease to be whichever occurs first. At the time of termination, any remaining funds will be returned proportionately by population to current and prior member municipalities that were members during the current fiscal year. Section 10 is just a conforming amendment and clarifies that the Windham County assistant judges are authorized to levy differential tax rates on member and nonmember municipalities regardless of any provision to the contrary to title 24. The bill will take effect on passage. The committee heard from a list of folks, as you might imagine, both senators from, Windham County, Jim Devin, our legislative counsel, Janet White, former senator from Windham County, Matt Birmingham, the colonel of Vermont State Police, Mark Anderson, the Windham County sheriff, Kim McManus, legislative policy and records attorney for the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs, Jeremy Evans, assistant police chief in Brattleboro, Jennifer Morrison, the commissioner of DPS, Josh Hanford, the director of VLCT, and then a number of assistant judges and managers in the various municipalities that would be affected. Committee's vote was four one zero, and we ask for the senate's concurrence. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: The question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on government operations? Are you ready for the question? Senator from Addison.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Thank you, mister president. May I

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: inquire of the reporter of the bill?

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: The reporter of the bill is interrogated.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: So in the the bill, you used the or one the term the term special assessment is used, and I'm wondering, is that not a tax? Is that a tax? Special assessment?

[Senator Brian Collamore]: I thank the senator for the question. Many of the details of what will be envisioned here will be the responsibility of the council. So in terms of any special assessment, many of the towns in various counties throughout the state are already paying for law enforcement services, and this would assuming the council chooses to do things differently, there could be additional charges.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Well, it it in the bill, it says the county treasurer shall levy and collect a special assessment. My reading of that is that is a tax.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: Again, the council will determine many of the details, the, underlying bill strictly sets up the governance, but, the senator is correct. There would be tax levied. Yes.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Okay. So tax would be levied, and this would not be part the the tax levied would not be part of the municipal budget. Right now, if these towns wanted to contract for sheriff services, law enforcement services, they would enter into a contract with that that sheriff, and the the cost of that contract would be part of the municipal budget that the voters then vote on. So there's a vote of the body of the of the voters in a town to approve a budget that includes the contracting cost for, a contract for municipal law enforcement services. Is that correct, mister president?

[Senator Brian Collamore]: Yes, mister

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: president. That

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: is correct. So under the bill though, this this, new, entity, the council that that is set up by which is not elected as a whole as a council. It's just one member of each municipal's select board, would determine the budget for this new arrangement, and the county treasurer would levy and collect a special assessment, which is a tax. And that tax would not be part that would not show up in the municipality's budget anywhere. It would be a separate tax from the property taxes that are levied for those municipalities. Is that correct, mister president?

[Senator Brian Collamore]: Yes, mister president. Again, in section five, the council prepares an annual budget, submits it to the Windham County assistant judges who include it as a separate item in the larger county budget.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Okay. So the county budget is not voted on by the voters. And by all accounts, almost nobody knows what the county budget is, how much the county tax is. Nobody goes to the county, budget meetings. So there's very little transparency on what a county budget what is in a county budget. And the the other major local municipal budgets, the town budget is voted on on town meeting day or as a either in a meeting or, by a vote of the full electorate. And the school budgets, as we all know, we are all talking about school budgets in this building a lot or many of us are, that is all those are also voted on by the the electorate. But this one would not be voted on. Right? This would be a county levy tax that the voters would never get a chance to vote on. Is that correct?

[Senator Brian Collamore]: That is correct. However, I would point out that current contracts with sheriffs are approved by the legislative body of that municipality, and they're not also voted on by the voters.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Correct. But they are part of a town's budget. They are part of the municipal budget that that the voters vote on. So that that they are they are part of a larger budget the voters vote on for the town. Your the the excuse me, mister president. The the committee's amendment would remove the provision that to in order to enter into this type of contract, the the there would have to be a vote of the majority of the voters of the municipality. Could you help me, mister president, could could the reporter explain what the the logic was to removing the vote of the full municipal voters before entering into this, pilot project?

[Senator Brian Collamore]: Well, mister president, I believe the, effectiveness of dealing with just the legislative body makes it a bit easier to affect change like this.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Was there a concern that maybe the voters of the town would not approve it?

[Senator Brian Collamore]: I don't believe we ever discussed that exactly. We did have some concern with making that change, but again, there are other instances where the legislative body who are duly elected representatives are the ones making the decision. And I think if people wanted to attend a special meeting of that legislative body, they could speak out. And in the end, if they disagree with the legislative body's members, they could remove them by election.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: I understand that, mister president. However, this is a a budget item, a a tax that is being levied on local voters that they don't get to vote on unlike other taxes that are levied on local voters where they are levied for the support of their town budget or projects in their town or support of their local school district or or school projects. So this would be a unique situation where there would be a tax levy through the county treasurer that the the local voters would not vote on. So I, thank the reporter of the bill. Mister president, we have spent a lot of time in this building trying to reduce property taxes through one mechanism or another, uprooting our entire school system to try to figure out a way to bring down property taxes. Our municipalities are under huge stress right now, trying to lower their tax rates in a time when the cost of everything is going up. And our voters are understandably, incredibly concerned about, the cost of local government services, whether they be educational services or or municipal services. And I think that having a pilot program that levies attacks on local towns, even if it's only in a certain pilot area, this is not the right time to be doing that. And so I, while I am not supportive of this entire project in general, I highly, I I would hope that we would vote down the committee's, amendment to take out the provision where the voters have to vote on this. It's imperative that the voters get a chance to vote on levying a tax in their municipality. And so, if we are going to move forward with this bill, I think that's an important provision to allow local voters to vote on levying taxes in their district. And so I urge the body to vote against the Committee on Government Operations Committee, amendment. Thank you, Mr. President.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: Thank you, mister president. Might I inquire to the reporter of the bill?

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: The reporter is interrogated.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: Thank you, mister president. In my former years, mister president, I was on a South Burlington City Council, and on that council, I was appointed to the Green Mountain Transit Authority, which is a municipal entity with I think about nine or so member municipalities. And I believe we had assessment capability based on a formula that was determined in statute based on how many service hours were in each municipality for our bus system that was going around Chittenden County. The way that system works, mister president, I'm wondering if the reporter might be able to overlay, is the member municipalities would receive an assessment from Green Mountain Transit, the amount owed, and that amount would be rolled into the budget that was put before the voters. So the voters would have to vote on their annual town budget, which included everything, including line items for specific assessments from a governing entity. Mister president, is would this be similar in that same context, or would this be the county sending out individual property tax bills to each resident within that owns a parcel within the county? Or would it be more comparable to the Green Mountain Transit example as well as, like, the the solid waste districts that also have assessment authorities that don't always use them because they collect in tipping fees. Somewhat of a leading question, mister president,

[Senator John Benson]: but I'm wondering if the reporter might be able to

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: overlay on this construct might be to other similar entities.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: Well, mister president, I so appreciate leading questions. I would like it more to, the transit, situation. There will be a an item on the val around the ballot budget, for for people to vote on.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the questions? Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Thank you, mister president. May I please inquire of the reporter of the bill?

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: The reporter's interrogated.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Mister president, I'm I was a little surprised to see this bill come forward, only because I have certainly been concerned and troubled by some of the behaviors that we've seen in our sheriff departments over the last few years that I've read about in various newspapers and etcetera around the state. So I my question is, I'm curious about what problem we're trying to solve. But beyond that, I want I'd like to know, how these sheriffs were gonna be taking on this more regional role, how they're gonna be held accountable. And we know that it's hard to impeach sheriffs.

[Senator Wendy Harrison]: I don't think it's happened since,

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: for a hundred years or so. So I am curious about how these folks in these new positions will be held accountable, mister president.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: Thank you for the question, mister president. Again, as I mentioned in my opening remark, this proposal is explicitly designed and framed as a governance and funding reform and not an operational policing, mandate. I do appreciate the senator's sentiment if I'm reading it correctly. There are a number of us that sit on the senate government operations committee that have similar serious concerns about recent activities, within the sheriff's department of some of our agencies across the state. But this bill does not address that. This is strictly a governance bill. I believe we will be having further discussions and come to some decision in the future about how we might be able to make sheriffs more accountable.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Mister president, might I revert back to my sort of original query, which is what problem are we trying to solve in this bill?

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: You have the floor, senator. Can question.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: Thank you, senator. Or thank you, mister president. One of the things that has became readily apparent, and I think it's true for a number of our municipalities throughout the state, is that law enforcement coverage geographically presents certain challenges. So if someone calls, a local police agency and it's defaulted to the state police, which in a lot of cases it still is, it can sometimes take up to an hour for, law enforcement to respond. So this was a way that the committee saw as being able to provide more immediate police coverage to those towns who don't have their own police department and have to rely on the state police.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: I thank the reporter of the bill. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Addison.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Thank you, mister president. May I inquire of the reporter?

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: The reporter's interrogated.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: I believe, mister president, that the reporter contradicted, in his, in, answering the question from the senator from Chittenden South, and and answering a question that I had asked. My question was about whether or not this assessment would show up on a municipal budget and the answer was no. It's part of a county assessment. And then the answer to this senator from Chittenden South was that yes it would. So that is a contradictory. It's my understanding that's contradictory. So, could the senator clarify the answer please?

[Senator Brian Collamore]: Thank you, mister president. Again, I'll just refer to section five, and if I did misspeak or incorrectly characterize the question from, the senator from Chittenden, the council would prepare an annual budget submitted to the Windham County assistant judges who will include it as a separate item in the larger county budget.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Thank you, mister president. That that, clarifies it. The county budget is not voted on by the the the by the voters. The municipal budget is. It's not a separate line item in the municipal budget like the example that the senator from Chittenden South gave. It is a line in the county budget, which is not voted on by the voters. I thank the reporter. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Windham.

[Senator Wendy Harrison]: Thank you, mister president. I'd like to interrogate the reporter, please.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: The reporter's interrogated.

[Senator Wendy Harrison]: Is the reporter aware that in Windham County, the county budget is a line item in many town budgets? Possibly all of them, but I know If

[Senator Brian Collamore]: I could just, mister president, ask the senator clarify. She said in many municipalities, but started up by saying in Windham County, and I'm

[Senator Wendy Harrison]: Well, yes.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: I I'm not a resident of Windham County, mister president, so I don't know what the county budget ballot looks like.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick]: Mr. President, if I might ask for a ten minute recess so that we can have, ledge counsel speak to some of these questions and proceed, more quickly.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: We'll take a ten minute recess.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: Yeah. I'm on a look.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Will the senate please come to order? Senator from Windham, you have the floor.

[Senator Wendy Harrison]: Thank you, mister president. So I appreciate the time. I'd like to clarify some items. First of all, an assessment is different than a tax. They have different, authorities. They have different ways of, being calculated, but an assessment is different than a tax. I think that's important to know. The way that the budgets that I'm familiar with, which is about five or more of them in, Windham County and actually in Chittenden County also, the town budget has a line item for the county assessment. The county budget is done in a public setting. Unfortunately, the the amount of folks who go to that, are are minimal, but the county process does include public input to create the county budget. So then the county budget is apportioned to the towns and the towns, depending on how they do their budgets, include the county amount in the budget. In the budgets that I've seen, the county amount is a line item. We had a conversation about if if the budget goes down, the town still has to pay town still has to pay its light bill too. So, yes, it's it's it's it's part of being part of a county is that is that you pay, this, fee. I don't know if the entire fee is a tax or an assessment, but the, but an assessment is different than a tax and I can talk about that more if anybody wants to. I think it's I'd like

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick]: to

[Senator Wendy Harrison]: discuss the reason behind this, which is really important. If if we had one hour service by the state police, we probably would not be talking about this. We used to have that that level of service. Our County is very rural other than the towns either at the snow areas or by the Connecticut River. It's very, very rural, and it's very similar to the Northeast Kingdom, which is something that we found out in school redistricting task force. So what has happened is that we used to have service maybe within within an hour. Now, it's multiple hours or they just don't come at all. And we only have three, police departments in our in our county. They are mostly full served, you know, all of the positions are are staffed so and and they do a great job but but their jurisdiction is is the the towns. So there's the vast swath of the county has very little service from the state police. So the sheriff has had years of dealing with this and has tried different things. The contracts that have been done with towns are typically one year contracts and they're and they're just obviously with a single town. He's tried grouping towns together so that so that we we there could be a that it would be a more effective service if you can have two people in an area rather than one person, but it's really, really challenging to to do that on a town by town basis, and there's not continuity. So that's why this structure is to provide some continuity and more than a year of planning and to have a reasonable, fair way to pay for the town. So it's it's a a very, I think it's pretty elegant suggestion because it's very it's very simple. It has the the fewest moving parts necessary and, the the least amount of administration necessary. So I hope that the body will support this.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: So the question is, shall the bill be amended by the committee on government operations? Are you ready for the question? Senator from Washington.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik]: I inquire the reporter's bill.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: The reporter's interrogated.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik]: I apologize. Usually, I would ask this question between second and third reading of senator office floor, but since this is part of the amendment and we're gonna be voting on it, I wanna just be able to answer ask this question. And that is the third instance of amendment striking the that the levy of this assessment to be collected on the grand list was changed to just in proportion to the municipal's population. I just didn't know if the committee or the reporter could explain why they made that change from as introduced.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: Thank you, mister president. We did talk about that. That's unlike, we felt, I think, overall, if I can sum it up that, it introduces a little bit more equity into the puzzle. Those municipalities with more people have a tendency to require more police coverage, and so, they would be, in essence, shouldering a little bit more of the, of the burden perhaps, but also more of the service.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik]: Okay. I think the senator for that answer, and maybe I'll ask the sponsors of the legislation between second and third reading. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Washington.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you, mister president. Mister president, may I inquire the reporter of the bill?

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: The reporter is interrogated.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you. Since I I think this may pertain to the amendment, but it also probably pertains to the underlying bill, so I figured I would ask it now. It appears that this may, constitute an additional cost to some municipalities if for for a service that is currently being served by state troopers. Would did you did the Government Operations Committee receive any testimony or have any indication that as a result of this, we might see a reduction in the the budget, let's say, for the the state troopers since it's reduced demand on their work?

[Senator Brian Collamore]: Thank you, mister president. Excellent question. We did talk about that. As I mentioned on the witness list, Matt Birmingham, who was a colonel in the Vermont State Police, I believe it was myself that asked him specifically if this were to go into place, would it lessen the pressure on the Vermont State Police to respond out of Westminster down to Vernon because they might be part of the municipalities that are joining, thereby providing themselves with more police coverage. And, with that in mind, would they be able to reduce staffing at the barracks further north? And he didn't wanna commit to that totally, but, I think overall, while he did not take position, I'll be very clear on the bill. I don't think he can. He was very, much in favor of regional police.

[Senator Anne Watson]: I thank the reporter.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Windham.

[Senator Nader Hashim]: Thank you, mister president. In a past life, when I was wearing a different uniform, I'd probably be more inclined to give the sheriffs a hard time here, but I I will say as to the service that can be provided in Windham County, Remember, keep in mind that the Westminster Barracks, it covers Windham County and Windsor County. Oftentimes there are short shifts which equal about four troopers for all of Windham and Windsor County. If there is a domestic, let's say, somewhere in Windsor County that's going to take up at least two troopers, so now you have two troopers tied up with something that's going to take at least three or four hours and two other troopers to cover an area that is, very vast and also very rural. This this is a a good pilot project, and as times change and our ability to deliver services change, we do have to get more creative in our approach. And I do think that this is a pilot project that could inform our decision making, as to how we deliver other essential services, in future years. So I'll be supporting, this bill. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question? The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the Committee on Government Operations? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you have amended the bill as recommended by the Committee on Government Operations. Now the question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? Senator from Addison.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Thank you, mister president. I have an amendment,

[Senator Anne Watson]: which I believe is on in the

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: calendar on page two sixteen. So I just wanted to first explain sort of my logic for introducing this amendment and then I can walk you through the provisions in the amendment. One of the other senators who stood to ask a question about the amendment alluded to the fact that over the last several years we have seen a number of incredibly horrific, I would say several concerning and a couple horrific situations with the behavior of sheriffs in the state of Vermont. And just over the last five years we've seen

[Senator Wendy Harrison]: two

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: sheriffs arrested for sexually assaulting people while on duty in Addison County and Windsor County. We've seen a number of sheriffs have financial malfeasance, Orange County, Windsor County, Franklin County. We've had a number of sheriffs who have had personnel issues, Orange County, Franklin County, Windsor County, Addison County. We've had one sheriff who was living out of state while he was collecting pay as a sheriff. So I counted just six major issues in six different counties in the last five years with sheriffs, and that's not even including all the minor cases, and it's not even including all of the concerning things that have come up with deputy sheriffs over the last five years. And if I went back even further, there would be even more, including in Windham County where a huge financial scandal occurred there, with the Franklin the Windham County sheriff with a prior sheriff. So the the the behavior and oversight of sheriffs is concerning on the behavior side and inadequate on the the oversight side. For those of us who've been here for a number of years, you might recall in 2023, we passed act 30. This was an attempt to provide a little bit more oversight of sheriffs. It introduced a number of provisions for reporting requirements, for for oversight requirements. It beefed up some of the staffing at the Department of, share states attorneys and sheriffs, for oversight. But, ultimately, mister president, sheriffs are elected officials. They are constitutional officials. And when a sheriff acts inappropriately appropriately indeed when a sheriff is convicted of a crime and when a sheriff loses their law enforcement certification they can still remain sheriff. One of the provisions we did do in act 30 was to reduce the salary, by a small portion if they lose, their certification, but they still can be sheriff. And we've seen a sheriff right now who is still sheriff after losing his law enforcement certification in Franklin County. And the ultimate way to remove a sheriff from office if they are convicted of something or if they behave horribly or if they lose their law enforcement certification or if they embezzle funds or whatever it is is to impeach them. And as was alluded to on the floor earlier we have not impeached anyone in the state of Vermont for over two hundred years and so it is really hard to do it and the house is really reluctant to engage in impeachment proceedings. They did so a couple years ago and they were unsuccessful. It's also expensive and contentious. So in the same year that we passed act 30 and we did so with bipartisan support and that went into effect. Also had a constitutional amendment proposal that would have allowed for provisions to remove a sheriff from office if they lost their law enforcement certification or some other kind of provision. That unfortunately did not move forward. But right now, we're in a position where if a sheriff does something really bad, they can stay the sheriff, they can stay getting paid most of that salary, and there's nothing we can do about it. And we're seeing that over and over again. Six major issues in the last five years with sheriffs. And beyond that, just today in two major news outlets, we've seen headlines about state's attorneys having similar issues, and nothing we can do about a state's attorney as well unless we try to impeach them. So, ultimately, what I would love to be able to do is pass a constitutional amendment, to to help remedy this problem, but we can't do that today. But what my amendment would do, well, first actually, two years ago, we passed, a bill, Act 118 that created a county and regional governance study committee. And that study committee was made up of four senators and four house members. It was co chaired by the government operations chairs. And that study committee, which did start to meet, I was one of the co chairs, and we met three times. And then the election happened, and there were personnel changes, and it has not met since November 2024. But that committee was supposed to look at county and regional government and how we can improve county and regional government in Vermont and to make recommendations for how to do so. And I'll just wanna read some of the things that it was supposed to make recommendations on. Enhancement and optimization of public safety. Enhancement of regional collaboration and planning. Efficient, equitable, and transparent allocation of public resources. Promotion of effective regional public services for individual municipalities clarification of the role and oversight of elected county officials and their departments reduction of duplicated public services and promotion of opportunities for municipal collaboration, and balance of availability and cost of services across municipalities in each county. This was what this was supposed to do. This was supposed to come back with recommendations on how to improve county and regional government. There are models for better county government. There are models for a council of governments. There are a lot of ways we can improve the transparency, the equity, and the efficiency of county government. Right now, our our county government has none of those and the accountability. None of those things. So while I appreciate that this pilot program is trying to solve some of those issues with a pilot program, what it's doing is creating another mechanism of local or regional government, this council that would oversee it. And one of the things that we got testimony on in the county regional government committee was the layers of regional government that we already have. Right now, and this was, Doug Farnham, who was the chief recovery officer. He had done this mapping project and he came in to show us the maps of the overlay of regional government in Vermont. And he wasn't even finished with it yet and there were 13 overlaying regional governments. So the county government, the regional planning commissions, the, CUDs, the economic development corporations, the all the things layered on top of each other, and depending where where you live. If you live in a border town, you might have 13 different regional structures and you don't know which one is which, and this would create another one of those regional structures. So instead of improving efficiency of local government and regional government, this would make it more complex. So in order to attempt to address some of those, I am introducing this amendment, which you can find in the calendar. And what it does is in absence of more comprehensive legislation to provide more accountability for sheriffs and in absence of a constitutional amendment, this would sort of beef up some of the things that we did in Act 30. So if you look on page two sixteen to look at the start of the amendment, it would add a few provisions. What we did in Act 30 was we required a few things but we didn't have any accountability if the sheriffs didn't do those things. So and we required them to report on a few things but we didn't necessarily require them to report to all of the appropriate places. So in the first instance on page two seventeen, this is a report about financial disbursements and if they have to report to the auditor and the amendment would add also the Department of State's attorneys and sheriffs because they are the the the only sort of oversight mechanism for for sheriffs. In the second, the next under audits, right now the reports are, provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee, but the Senate Government Operations Committee seems to be the committee that's doing a lot more work on oversight of sheriffs. So this would add the Government Operations Committee and the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs to those audit reports in a couple instances. And then also once the Sheriff's Department receives the results of an audit, there is a requirement right now that they get recommendations, but there's no requirement that they actually enact those recommendations. So on the top of page two eighteen, after getting the written audit report, the sheriff would have to implement the recommendations of the auditor to make sure that there's no financial malfeasance. And that willful failure to comply with this subsection would constitute a category B conduct. Category B conduct, these are levels of conduct that is overseen by the Criminal Justice Council. Category A conduct is the really bad stuff if they do something violent or use their weapon in a way that's not appropriate, they would that would be a category A conduct. Category B conduct is the failure to comply with policies and procedures. So this is in statute already in a number of places. This is just beefing that up saying that if you don't implement the audit procedures, you would have a category B conduct misconduct. And that kind of this kind of oversight is repeated, a couple times In the duties, we required in Act 30 that they make their schedule public, but we didn't have any consequences for them if they didn't and also not a way to make it public. This would require that they posted publicly and submitted to the Department of sheriffs and states attorneys and sheriffs. This is for the example of when a sheriff goes to Florida and doesn't actually do his job which is apparently happening right now And that willful failure to do so would also constitute a category b offense. The next one is about if a sheriff is imprisoned, which has happened several times recently. And if that is case then when the sheriff is imprisoned that sheriff would not their their salary would be suspended while they are in prison. Seems logical they wouldn't be able to be the sheriff when they're in prison. And then we also on Act 30 required them to to to we required the Department of Sheriffs and State's Attorney to adopt to create model policies, but we never actually required the sheriffs to adopt them. So this would require them to adopt those model pile policies. Again, willful failure to comply would be a category e offense. One thing I do I want to mention in, the middle of page two eighteen under contracts, this would eliminate the ability of sheriffs to contract with an agency of The United States. I think this is consistent with some of the other work that we're doing, so that they couldn't, they couldn't contract with ICE for example, that would eliminate that ability. Then there are effective dates. All of these provisions, accountability provisions would take place effective date of passage, which is the same for the bill itself. And then there but the bill itself, the pilot program, would not take effect until the County and Regional Government Study Committee did its work and reported back to the legislature and the legislature had an opportunity to act on that study. As I said that committee has not met and has not completed its work even though it was required by statute to do so by November 1. So this would require that this pilot program wait to go into effect until the full work of that committee that's looking at how do we improve county and regional government would be able to go into effect and the legislature could act on the recommendations. For those of you who have followed Act 73 there's a similar provision in Act 73 that things have to wait to go into effect until we receive a report and can act on them, for our, school funding system. So it's a very similar kind of contingency. That is the amendment, mister president. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Rutland.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: Thank you, mister president. I wanna start by just saying there's not a single member of that committee, senate government operations committee, that doesn't agree with the senator the middle senator from, the Chittenden Central District and the senior senator from Addison that we have to do something to increase accountability with our sheriffs. I don't think there's any problem saying that whether that's unfortunately, there are only three ways we can do it, either by death or by impeachment or by a constitutional amendment right now. Short of that, there's really nothing else we can do at the moment, but I know that the the members of my committee strongly feel that, and we'll do our best to find a way around that to make the sheriffs more accountable. Because there's likely bad behavior in a lot of different agencies, not just sheriffs to be fair, but that needs to be it would seem addressed soon. So the committee met with the senator, the senior senator from Addison yesterday, went over the amendment, and with a straw poll voted not to, support the amendment. Thank you, miss.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from 5th And Central.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: Can I inquire of the presenter of the amendments?

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: The presenter of the amendment is interrogated.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: I just wanna be clear. So currently, if a the state police or municipal law enforcement willfully failed to follow policy from the Criminal Justice Council that could eventually lead to them losing their law enforcement certification. Are you saying that that is not true for sheriffs?

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Sheriffs can lose their law enforcement Mister President in fact one sitting sheriff has lost his law enforcement certification but doing so does not prevent him from remaining sheriff. So he is still sheriff he still receives the salary of a sheriff and although it's been docked by a 30% he still is sheriff he still retains the title and the badge but he cannot perform law enforcement duties. So Mr. President they can lose their certification but they can't be removed from office except for by impeachment.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: I thank the senator I at one point when the senator was speaking it sounded as if they if the sheriffs willfully did not. Follow policy they might that might not be considered a category B offense and my concern with this is that I believe there's currently a sheriff that is refusing to follow the fair and impartial policing policy and I would want to make sure that we're doing something about that which is why I think this is actually

[Senator Wendy Harrison]: a good amendment so thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Essex.

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: Thank you Mr. President. I just wanna say that I've served in three counties and with three different sheriff departments. And I'm very thankful for the work that they do. They cover a vast area that we can't supply law enforcement to. They do a great, the sheriffs that I know are outstanding individuals and I've bristled a little bit at the language of characterizations of some of the sheriffs. And I just wanna show my support for sheriffs too in our state, the long history of, and I wish that the whole Senate would actually show their support and put this amendment down. Thank you, Mr. President.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Caledonia.

[Senator Scott Beck]: Mr. President, ask for a brief two minute recess.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Two minute recess. Senate please come to order. Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Alison Clarkson]: Thank you, mister president. I'd like to remind the chamber that this bill is not about a single sheriff.

[Senator Wendy Harrison]: There's clearly lots of work that we need to

[Senator Alison Clarkson]: do on the sheriff's side. I the senior senator, of Windsor County, and we, as you all know, are having a very challenging moment with our sheriff. But this bill is not about a sheriff. This is about a pilot that this committee, senate government operations, since I've been on it, since 2017, we have been trying to solve the problem of equity and access of public safety. There is not equity or equal access to public safety in this state. We have long wanted to solve that problem. We did a tour of the whole state looking at how we could regionalize fire, EMS, and, law enforcement?

[Senator Nader Hashim]: No on both proposed amendments.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question? The question is shall the bill be amended as offered by the senator from Addison in the first instance only? Are you ready for that question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. No. The nays appear to have it. The nays do have it. The question now is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the senator from Addison in the second instance? Are you ready for that question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. No. The nays appear to have it. The nays do have it. The question now is shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. Nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have ordered third reading of S two fifty five. We have on the calendar for action S 157 introduced 05/30/2025. It was referred to the committee on health and welfare, which reports it's considered the bill and recommends

[Senator Andrew Perchlik]: that

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: the bill be amended as set forth in today's calendar, and that when so amended, the bill ought to pass. The bill was referred to the committee on finance, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the amendment proposed by the committee on health and welfare be amended as set forth in the calendar today on page two twenty four. And that when amended, the bill ought to pass affecting the appropriations of the state. The bill was then referred to the committee on. It didn't go to appropriations. Okay. That's okay. The bill did not go to appropriations. So the Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: S one fifty seven, an act relating to recovery residence certification. I

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: recognize the senator from Orange District, senator Benson, for the report of the committee on health and welfare.

[Senator John Benson]: Mister president, may I speak on both the amendment and the underlying bill?

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: You may.

[Senator John Benson]: Mister president, the, health and welfare committee heard from a number of witnesses, on this bill, including the Department of Health, Vermont Foundation for Recovery, Vermont Alliance for Recovery Residences, the Vermont Foundation of Recovery, Recovery House, and from Ledge Council. If I, without objection, mister president, oh, excuse me. In addition, during recovery day, in a joint session with the House Human Resources Committee, we also heard from a number of individuals who struggled with substance use disorder. They gave great credit to their recovery through the safe environment and support they received in recovery houses, putting them on a path to becoming productive members of society once again, and they expressed support for s one fifty seven. Without objection, mister president, may I quote by reading two paragraphs from some of the testimony that we received. The first from the executive director of the Vermont Alliance for Recovery Residences, which provides a description of recovery residences and the second from Candace Gale of the Recovery Partners of Vermont, which presents the Essex Essence of s one fifty seven.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: You a.

[Senator John Benson]: Thank you. Recovery residences are not treatment. They offer a vital opportunity for individuals seeking recovery following a residential treatment program. They offer a safe substance free environment rooted in peer support, often removing individuals from settings that fuel addiction. Residents live together as a family, sharing meals, responsibilities, and activities while emphasizing structure, accountability, employment, and service to the community. Research consistently shows that recovery residences improve long term recovery outcomes, including reduced subsistence use and relapse, lower incarceration rates and increase employment and improve family functioning.

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: Second,

[Senator John Benson]: it is important to be clear that this bill does not remove protections or eliminate accountability landlord tenant law continues to apply. What S-one hundred seventy five seven does is clear out house certified recovery residences can uphold their policies in limited circumstances where a person's behavior may jeopardize the safety or recovery of others in a home. Without this clarity, operators are placed in an impossible position, forced to choose between maintaining a safe recovery environment and navigating process that were never designed for recovery housing. On to the bill itself. S one fifty seven, an act related to recovery resident certification. This bill gives the Department of Health's division of substance use programs regulatory responsibility for recovery residences. It requires the department to adopt rules establishing a recovery residences certification program. The bill further makes permanent the conditions under which recovery residents may immediately exit or transfer residents. So section one amends 18 VSA four eight zero two definitions by adding a definition of recovery residences. Section two amends 18 b s a forty eight zero six. This division of substance use program adding recovery residents to the list of services at Department of Health Division of Subsistence Use Programs is responsible for. Section three amends nine v s a forty four fifty two exclusions. Existing law enables a recovery residence to immediately exit exit or transfer, the recovery residence has developed and adopted a residential agreement and obtains a residence ring requirements for certification recovery residents.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: From Windsor.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: Did we just accept the amendment from the health and well

[Senator Nader Hashim]: Already encompassed by the language of commits a crime.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: Thank you, mister president.

[Senator John Benson]: Into the residents understands what the rules are for well, mister president, as I think I read from the beginning, the tenant lease laws still apply. Mister president, the intent here is no because as part of that, they have agreed that if in fact

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: So then landlord tenant law and the protections of the lease do not apply.

[Senator John Benson]: They apply in the broad sense but not in terms of part of the agreement is a struggle. The real issue is what we're trying to avoid is when an individual either relapses or engage.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: I have some concerns but I'm hoping I can talk with the committee between

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Ayes have it, and we have amended the bill as recommended by the committee on health and welfare as amended. The question now is shall say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. You've ordered third reading.

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: Short bill. It's an accolade to the role of advanced practices, registered nurses, and hospital care. And under eighteen fifty one, the definitions, one, advanced practice registered nurse or APRN. It's an individual license under 26 ESA chapter 20

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: subchapter two,

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: and that's where you have the APRN link. On the second page, under three, patient means an individual struck person, an individual admitted to a hospital on inpatient basis. Under four, physician means an individual licensed under 26 ESA chapter 23 or 33. 23 is for medical doctors and 33 is for osteopathy. And under section two, this is eight under eighteen fifty two, patient's bill of rights, and this is where the amendment comes in. So under eighteen fifty two a two, it was saying the patient shall have an attending physician or APRN who is responsible for reporting, the patient's care. Physician consultation and support shall be available to an attending APRN at all times in accordance with applicable standards of practice and regulatory requirements. OPR, the office of professional regulation came in and gave testimony and requested removal, So that's why that is deleted. So now it just states the patient the patient shall have an attending physician or APRN who is responsible for coordinating the patient's care. Under three, the patient has a right to obtain from the physician or APRN, coordinating his or her. We struck that, and now it's the patients. And the reason was we removed gender terms throughout this bill for technical corrections purposes. Same with page three, technical corrections. I'm going down to the bottom of page

[Senator Brian Collamore]: four. Failure to comply with any provision of

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: the section may constitute the basis for disciplinary action against a physician under 26 VSA chapter 23 or 33 as I stated earlier or against an APRN under 26 VSA chapter 28 which is the a APRN statute. A complaint may be filed with the Board of Medical Practice or the Office of Professional Regulation as applicable based on the license held by practitioner. Remember, the office the OPR is with, regulates the APRNs. On page five, license requirements for the section three. All patients admitted to the hospital shall be under the care of a physician's license Sue went to twenty six PSA and its actual professions and occupation statute. Chapter 23 or 33. Advanced practice registered nurse license pursuant to 26 PSA chapter 28. On the last page, you have professional case records shall be compiled for all patients and signed by the attending physician or advanced practice registered nurse. They shall be kept on file for a minimum of ten years. The effective date is this act shall take effect on passage. The witness list, so don't forget that this time, was senator Rebecca White, sponsor of

[Senator Brian Collamore]: the bill,

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: Jen Collin of the office of professional regulation, Sheila Bongartz, the executive director of the board of nursing, Michelle Wade of the Vermont Nurse Practitioners Association, Jade Kaplan, a certified nurse midwife, the American College of Nurse Midwifery, Devin Green of the Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, Jessa Barnard of the Vermont Medical Society, Lauren Hibbett, deputy secretary of state of the secretary of state's office. And the committee on health and welfare voted this bill out of committee five zero zero. And, mister president, we ask that the senate concur. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the Committee on Health and Welfare? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. You've amended the bill as recommended by the Committee on Health and Welfare. The question now is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and you have ordered third reading of s one sixty three. That completes the orders of the day. Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick]: Thank you, mister president. Thank you to the body for our longest set up to date. I will just note that as we move toward crossing the road, this will be a frequent occurrence. So we will be seated longer. We will be discussing more and more intently. I would just say secrete some snacks somewhere. If it ever comes to the point where we are on the floor for a very long time, we will arrange for food to be brought in. But in general, having something to eat off the floor is not a bad idea. With that, mister president, I would suggest that we adjourn, and I will make the motion that pending announcement be adjourned until 11:30AM, Friday, 02/27/2026.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Are there any announcements? Senator from Essex.

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: Mister president, I'd like to rise on a point of personal privilege. In life, you meet a lot of people. Sometimes you don't don't even know who you've met until your new friend has had tragedy. When you were my friend, you also get the full protections of how I wish I would be treated. Respect always, full attention always, loyalty always, and absolute privacy of what is going on in your life that you would wish not to be shared, but that I know because you trusted me enough to tell you what hardship you're going through. I have a friend that is going through a very rough time. It is now very public knowledge. Not only do all Vermonters know the story, The United States knows, if not the entire world. My intentions are not to gossip about my friend's family's misfortune, but to let him be aware that his family is now Vermont's family, if not The United States family. Cameron Guthrie, we all pray that your mom is returned safely unharmed except for the twenty six plus days that she's been abducted and that your family can start the healing process of all of what you have gone through. We all pray that this happens soon. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Franklin.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: Thank you,

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: mister president.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick]: I will move

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: that the the senators comments from Essex be journalized.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick]: I I will withdraw my adjournment motion.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: The senator from Franklin is moved that the senator from Essex remarks be journalized. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the senator's remarks will be journalized. Are there any further announcements? Senator from Windham.

[Senator Wendy Harrison]: Thank you, mister president. Senate institutions will meet at three.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Washington.

[Senator Ann Cummings]: Thank you, mister president. Senate finance will meet at the fall of the gavel. We had a room full of witnesses at 01:30.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Washington. Thank you,

[Senator Andrew Perchlik]: mister president. Senator appropriations will be five minutes after the following up.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: Thank you, mister president. Senate government operations will meet immediately after the fall of the gavel. Please don't doggle.

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Could she be the doggler?

[Senator Alison Clarkson]: Why was he looking at

[Senator Wendy Harrison]: I don't know.

[Senator Alison Clarkson]: Mister president, I know this if the senators have a moment to step out of their committee for five minutes to listen to the State House singers sing the devotional in the house chamber. It would be wonderful. I think sadly, I'm the only senator who sings with the State House singers, which doesn't mean we aren't recruiting actively for our next devotional. But anyway, if you have a quiet moment to step out of your committee and come hear us, we'd love to hear you.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick]: Have you?

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Are there further announcements? Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick]: Thank you, mister president. I would move then that the senate stand as adjournment until 11:30AM, Friday, February 22.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Chittenden Central has moved that the senate stand in adjournment until 11:30AM, Friday, 02/27/2026. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. We'll stand in adjournment until 11:30AM, Friday, 02/27/2026.