Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: David Weeks is gets his first choice. We are live. Okay. We are live. We are celebrating. Good morning. Welcome to Summit. Oh,

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm hungry. You are. You you demanded a plate full of pastries, and there's So There it is.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Welcome, everybody. This is economic development housing and general affairs. We're celebrating our fabulous committee assistant, Kiara Mead, this morning, and we're having terrific pastries, which we will share after David gets

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: to choose. And

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: who's just come from Elkhart. Thank goodness Red Hen is now in Montpelier. An an economic development inquiry. So we are first, we're gonna try and do two things in a short period of time. We are going to try and vote out our date of birth bill, h two eleven, which I think is in pretty good shape. S 70 '1 is on the floor today, so that has made its journey to us. And so I think we we don't need to attach that. We do have some additions that we're looking at, and I would love to vote this out because it has a a a challenging journey to make it through finance and approves in order to make it back to the house in time. So because we are hoping the slideshow is now going, the legislative slideshow is going, that means there are two days left to session. So we're gonna try and get out data brokers this morning, and we're also going to try and and at least begin the discussion of cannabis, what's come to us, made oddly and interestingly more important by what the feds are doing at the at the federal level. So on the descheduling. So with us is our wonderful legislative council,

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Rick Segal. And Rick, it is yours to update us on the latest graph. Alright. Good morning. Rick Segal with the Office of Legislative Council. I have draft 5.1 of the Canadian amendment to two eleven. Just a couple of changes I do want to go over each instance just to kind of remind everybody what is in the amendment. The highlights in yellow are new from draft 4.1, but I still go over everything in the in the amendment. So the first and it's in chronological order of the bill. The first instance is the definition of publicly available information. What it does not include, you may recall we talked about this yesterday removing a few elements from the house version. The information for sale, that's collated to create a profile, those four were not as acceptable to this committee. So we're moving those from what is not publicly available information. No change since drafting draft through point one. Okay. Can we keep moving on? Yep. And the second change, these are second and third are both technical, non substantive changes, grammatical changes, email, Internet, address, phone number, just changing the order of that. And also in the third instance, grammatical not substantive change to that language, not new. In the fourth section, because you're removing the the deletion provision, There was language this is not new, but just reminding everybody that language that when the data broker registers, they were they were asked to if you if you pursuant to see which is the delete Right. Right. Please send the link to your deletion opt out. So that's now optional. So if the data broker permits deletion, please include the link to that delete link. The fifth instance is deleting the deletion, right, of consumers. I just

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: like to remind everybody we've made some big compromises in this bill. We have removed the deletion mechanism waiting for the secretary of state to come back to us with a well thought out Vermont sized deletion mechanism, and we have created four exemptions,

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: which will be

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: In the sixth instance, again, these consumer rights web page, that is not new language for moving a call out to deletion rights. So just kind of removing that paragraph. Nothing new there. The seventh instance is a new definition. The committee yesterday requested a definition of consumer to be in the data broker section. This reflects the s 71 definition of consumer.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yes. This is aligning. Yes.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Aligning. So consumer means individual residing in the state and does not include an individual acting in a commercial or employment context or as an employee, owner, director, officer, or contractor of a company, partnership, sole proprietorship, nonprofit organization, or government agency whose communications or transactions with the data broker occur solely within the context of that individual's role with the company, partnership, sole proprietorship, nonprofit organization, or government agency.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Thomas, you're okay with

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that? Yeah.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I like that it's consistent with this. So we want

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yep. We're working on it, and that's what we have.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Great. Okay. The eighth instance is something I wanna bring up because we haven't talked about this since a week or two ago. The Cybersecurity Advisory Council. Yeah. Adding two members to the council.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. The

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: chair of House Energy and the chair of senate institutions. Right. I didn't hear any

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No. The who James Ron Pluckett has asked for this as chair. I know they haven't met, but he feels that these are their important additions and as did House Energy Committee who discussed this, but did we're not able to find a vehicle for it. And so they've asked us to consider this, and Rob has asked us to consider it.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So sorry. Three members, a representative from the judiciary as well. Right. So the ninth instance is that same cyber security council instead of the sunset in 2028. The request is step back five years to 2033.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, now even more important than ever.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Tenth instance is the EdTech language that was an h six fifty. That's been amended a little bit since the last iteration of it. So keeping up this technical change and student privacy. And in the definition section, this is so the six fifty language is just the registration.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: That is all I thought we were considering.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Register the registration language. Yes. So EdTech product means any software application or platform that may collect process or transmit student data and that is used for teaching and learning purposes in a school in Vermont. That stays the same. Subdivision b is new. Educates technology product and product does not include hardware or other physical devices or a product that is being used in the school without the knowledge of the provider. I think that may address senator Chittenden's concern that there might be a lot of these websites that meet the definition, but they may not know they have to register.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: And that is relatively consistent with both California and other parts of our law. Correct?

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So there we have a student privacy law that is really targeting more targeted advertising that defines an operator of those sites as operating, you know, I can show you the definition. We don't use this specific language, but I I don't think we can compare ed tech completely to that other sub chapter. I mean, I think it's a good definition to look at, but this

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: one does not match that exactly. The notion is comparable.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's gonna be as comparable.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Why are we I mean, I just wanna ask because I thought we were just doing the registry. I didn't know we were doing it. I wanna just know why the how the definitions fit into this. And, Angela, I don't is it Matt, would you be kind of get Angela? I believe she's in the hall. Me?

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (House, education/EdTech sponsor)]: She's oh, she's over there. I'm sorry.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I thought you were Angela because we'd love to have you weigh in on this.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I mean, Summit Education did a lot of work on the definitions already. I don't know that we looked at other states because it felt new to try and define education technology department.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Okay. Absent this language, my impression, and this is consistent with the discussion yesterday, maybe this is fine with everybody, but that would really mean that anybody with a website out there that has an ad that a kid goes to or that anybody goes to

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Unbeknownst to them

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Right.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Would be legally required to register. That just is a huge universe that it just seems I that

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: would say there's there's another element to that argument, which is if parents go onto this registry and expect to see something and don't, they need to have a clear definition of like, an are appropriately registered group or not? And if we're unclear, then it's not useful to them, right? Like I went on our state corporate registry filing system, OpenAI is not on there. Right? Everybody in the

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (House, education/EdTech sponsor)]: state's using ChatGPT. Well So Not all of us.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So I would love to hear, give it where we

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: You probably are, and you just don't Yeah.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (House, education/EdTech sponsor)]: Yeah. It's probably.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: But I I actually do not use it, and I do not use it to answer emails or anything. Rick Yep. I would love to have you, and then I'd love to have Angela weigh in after you. But what are the are there any implications we need to be concerned about with adding these definitions to the registry? I I

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: just think so the committee It narrows it. It it does narrow it. And I think the the the the concern was that as senator Chittenden said Yeah. How is a provider gonna know if their website's been used in Vermont.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Mhmm.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They may have IP tracking, but you don't know if that's a school. You don't know if it's someone's house. Okay. So the the narrowing is that is used. So if you look at one a, right, it's collecting, processing, transferring student data and that is used for teaching and learning purposes. So how is a app maker website provider going to know that their educational tool is being used in school in Vermont? This would allow knowledge, which is a loophole to some extent, but then if they know, then they would need to register. But you would have to show that you knew that students were using this.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I see it as clarity, not narrowing. I just see it as clarity.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, clarity and narrowing are good at this moment. Angela, would you like to weigh in? And I see Jeff is here and I don't know if you want to weigh in, but I do know Angela would like to weigh Sure.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (House, education/EdTech sponsor)]: I'm Angela Rutland. I the one of the originally sponsored in the house. So I just thinking about it in this moment, we had talked a lot previously about, you know, should we should this only apply to products that have a contract, you know, with a school or school district? So obviously, they would have knowledge of the of their product being used to the school. A product that is being used in a school without the knowledge of the provider is going to miss a lot of ed tech products because there are many products that don't require a contract and probably some of the the least vetted products are those that, you know, anyone in a school can say, oh, let's try this. You know? And so I guess.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Is this a start?

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (House, education/EdTech sponsor)]: Or is Start. I think you'll miss a lot. If this exception Well,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: that's why we have next year. Certainly. I mean, we're in a moment where we're voting this out in fifteen minutes. Yeah. So I we're either gonna include this or or we're not. And I think that we have been trying to improve it. I mean, I think that's what this language is trying to do, clarify narrow. And and there's always next year. So if we are seeing Thomas, do you have a thought?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Well, so I'm just, I'm looking at California's definition of educational technology project to product and they quite, if you want to bring this up Rick, I'd appreciate it. But operator means an operator of an internet website, online service, online application, or mobile application with actual knowledge that the site service or application is used primarily for k through 12 school purposes and was designed and marketed for k through 12 school purposes. It further goes on to say that it does not apply to general audience Internet websites, general audience online services, general audience online applications, or general audience mobile applications. So this just seems reasonably aligned with that so that it scopes to products that are known to be advertised, marketed, or used in schools as being applicable. Absent this, I just think we're just asking pretty much everybody in the world that offers anything that could be considered education that hasn't had on their site after register. So do I need to die on this hill? No. But it just seems very reasonable to include this consistent with other educational technology product definitions.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So it's not EdTech. I just wanna clarify. That's that's California student privacy. We and we have an almost copy of that.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well Yes. Was gonna say And we have

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a similar privacy bill. And this is so that's September three a. This is September three b. In some extent you can borrow the definition. When the House developed this bill, it didn't align with that definition. It's a different thing. It's a bit broader, right? EdTech includes a lot of the change.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I'll just say I want it to be easy to comply with and easy to understand who you if you should be considered EdTech. That's all. Like, I think this is I think Thomas is we need to take it, and this is kind of what Thomas does for a living, so I'm grateful for his input.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Oh, David.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: So we did do a lot of testimony on EdTech age six fifty in the education committee. I thought we wove six fifty into two eleven. That's what

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: we're doing. I thought this okay.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Sorry. That is yeah. Because it died in pain.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Just one piece of it.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Okay. So there were eight pages of it at the time.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. But okay. Mhmm. It's just the registry. What what we've been asked to do is just include the registry with the secretary of state's office. And in addition, we're trying to add this clarifying definition. Very good. And I I think if if it so, Jeff, do you wanna weigh in at all or not?

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Just reading the language the first time. So

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Oh, that's a that's a No pressure. No pressure. That's a cheat. Yeah. The but the registry, Jeff, do you wanna weigh in on our including the registry?

[Jeff Fannon (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: Jeff Bennett, executive director of Montney A. For the record, we have not taken a position on the registry. Okay. There's a lot of lively conversations going on. We're very active.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And I'm

[Jeff Fannon (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: trying to read this language to see how this dovetails. Representative Barr's note mentions. I'm not sure what this would or would not catch, and that's the question I

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: have open. Right. I don't know.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Is there is there something you wanna catch that you don't think is caught?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. I think that's Or to not catch or something. Exactly. Because what why did we not answer that. Right. So, Angela, do you see anything in this that we have I mean, because you said there are lots of what we haven't caught.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (House, education/EdTech sponsor)]: There was something that you just read, Senator Chittenden, in that definition that I thought would be a little is a was a little stronger, but, you know, with respect to because it it really I understand what you're what you're trying to do, and I think it's that part about products that are marketed, advertised as ed tech products. Like, we want to capture those. Many of those are not going to be under I mean, there won't be contracts. There won't be with schools, and so I I don't know if there's a way to thread that needle. The the helps, If mean, the reason that the idea behind the registry forces you to use the registry as a foundation of building block, and then after working with all the educational entities and getting lots of input coming up with actual regulation of the edtech products, which would be more in the education committee and to rely on the registry to help with that regulation. With

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So then we want it to be reliable and I think these are clarifying definitions. Well I guess we are also trying to create a question in the mind of any entity that registers. Are they putting themselves out as an educational or learning product? And if they're not on there, they probably shouldn't be in our schools. So I think it's just as important who's not on there and that they have clarity about that because we don't want groups that privately don't think of themselves as educational to register to pass themselves off as educational.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (House, education/EdTech sponsor)]: Can guess.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: So, I recall that you voted against this one. The head was that your issue were any of your issues

[Jeff Fannon (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: Yeah. The issues at the time, this is go reaching back about a month or so. There there are registry registers, like California as an example, and they that that registry, and I didn't wanna recreate in in small state of Vermont. Something that already exists. And there might have been other issues at the time, but that was primarily. But I do see the language in here. It's I get it. I'm I'm okay with what you've what you've introduced and that's all I

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Sorry. While I was out saying hi to Laura, did we come up with any additional piece that Rick might add, or should we let this live for a year and or six months and address it further? I know this issue is not going away. None of our technology issues are going away. So they're only building, sadly, in import and urgency to address. For our kids. For everyone. I think, you know, our lives are far more exposed than they ever have been before online. So are you okay with living with this for the moment? Yeah.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (House, education/EdTech sponsor)]: I think it's I appreciate the this committee's willingness to to take this on, and I think it's super important. Part of the reason I feel a sense of urgency in getting this element of six fifty counts now is because it's gonna take some time because it's actually gonna take August to develop this portion of the existing business registry. So I think it's great to to get it in place now and understanding that there will be some refining needed. Right.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And I assume people will continue to work on this issue during the course of the summer and fall because the rest of the bill, of course, needs to be addressed at some point. Yeah. Okay.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (House, education/EdTech sponsor)]: I I think yes. I I appreciate what what trying what is trying what's you're trying to accomplish here. Again, I'll just put on record, I worry about exempting some of the possibly the worst offenders when it comes to lack of educational value and efficacy and lack of data privacy safeguards. Those might be the ones who don't have knowledge that their product is being used in schools, and they will not be required to register. So that's concerning, but to do the I under we need to get this ball rolling, and then we'll keep working

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: on it as well. Anything further?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I think you're trying to get this out today. I'm ready to make a motion.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: If we don't get it out today yeah.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Couple of

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: just there's other one other change is hey. Let me share my screen again. Because it's in yellow, I make sure you

[Jeff Fannon (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: all see it. That's seven minutes from work.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I'm just Oh, you're leaving at 09:30.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I'll Oh, that's right. We have a yellow.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'll be quick. Just in the registration, a URL of their product instead of that was a request center on Kinsdale had a request instead of having a description of every product, for example, a large company like like Alphabet. This is still active registration. Yes. So they're able to just submit a one URL that has a description of each product instead of typing in Right. Each

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No. That because that's a user friendly. Finally,

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the effective date section. Just wanna note. So the data broker changes take effect January 1 to give the thirty day state time to update the system. Yeah. Everything else takes effect including EdTech takes effect 07/01/2026. Just wanna make sure. That's how June was written. So I carried that over to this. That's it.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. Jeff.

[Jeff Fannon (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: One last thought and comment. Thank you for hearing me. I know you rushed. The School Board Association, Superintendent Association, Principal Association, AOE on Tuesday submitted a letter to finance. I'll send to your your committee a statement. We didn't oppose the registry, but that was a different form because it was slightly different. So I just wanted to let you know we did not oppose the the addition of the registry or cutting back six '50 H650. To to just the registry. Okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Jeff Fannon (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: I will share that Neutral. I think that's right. We know this is a lively conversation that's taking place. It's very active.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: There's a

[Jeff Fannon (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: lot of federal legislation coming in all the states very soon. There's phenomenal bills in congress right now. Which may

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: or may not be any good.

[Jeff Fannon (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: And who knows?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I mean, yeah, we can't trust anything.

[Jeff Fannon (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: No. I understand. I'm just saying there's a lot of

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: conversation that we We can trust each other, we hope. And we hope we're not gonna have

[Jeff Fannon (Executive Director, Vermont-NEA)]: talk. Summer.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Our job is to protect providers. That is our job and protect our children and our adults in this newly challenging online space. Absolutely. So Right. Because this, hopefully this will also touch on teachers. I mean, this is not just students here. Great. I think we are all set with this bill, and I would entertain a motion.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I would move favorably h two eleven amended with draft number 5.1 dated 05/27/2026 at 11AM.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Thank you. Senator Clerk Weeks, would you be coming up to call the roll?

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Senator Brock? Yes.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Wait. Are we voting on two eleven Yeah. In its entirety? Yes.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Yes. With this amendment With your addition. Addresses

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So we did publicly available information? Correct. Does this definition of publicly available information now lead other definitions of publicly available information?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: With other or other

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's 7071 except no. It's not '71. Sorry. It's removing for non publicly available information elements that are in '71. Information made available for sale, collated to create a consumer profile. Those are in '71, not in this 02/11. But They don't align.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: They don't align. Right. I have a problem with that.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Then vote no. I mean, I Can

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: you write? Can it be drafted so that it it this leads?

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know what you mean by this leads.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Like, that this is the definition that is referenced in other

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: This is the definition.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, 70 so 70 in a different chapter. So The different The data privacy laws in a different chapter. So that would need to So

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Are they in conflict?

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's one of real questions. This is just for the data brokers. Yep. And they're regulated in Vermont. So different. Different. Correct. We can change that. But But are there any definitions that are

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: just so obviously in conflict one with I think at

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: this point, Thomas asked for this language to be changed. We discussed this language at length. I believe we're in the middle of a vote, and I think pretty simple question.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: And if we're putting out information that is in conflict with with

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: with other information This is not in conflict. These are in different terms. That's in conflict? No. It's not.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Well, they both apply to the same I'm sorry.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm aware

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: your answer. Is it in conflict?

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So a a data broker will need to look at if that if something has become law and if this becomes law, a data broker will need to look at this at s 71 and at kids code. These are all different laws that have different definitions. And as best as I've tried to align them, there's politics, and I cannot promise you that they're gonna be aligned. So a company is going to have to look at these laws and determine, I'm a data broker. Mhmm. Which one applies to me? And

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: this this has And they're separate statutes that just apply to data brokers. Right.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: The real answer, think, senator Ram Hinsdale's concern is I think we should revise the s 71 definition to match this. This, I think, is a a very defensible and regionally consistent definition, so that's why I do support it in h two eleven. I think the problem is over there.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So can our bill add a component to amend the definition in s 71 to be

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. Because that's not yet an act. It's not yet. You cannot add language in here that amends.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So maybe our committee should do an amendment to s 71 that can makes the definition.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: But we're doing two eleven right now because of losing support that.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I don't wanna send inconsistent definitions out into the world as the

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I think that's a I think that's a separate conversation. We can

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: have that conversation now while

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (House, education/EdTech sponsor)]: we still have our members.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So there's a lot more more minutes of PAI. There's a lot of definitions. It's not just PAI. You're you're looking at several definitions that are gonna be different from s 71 and kits code and genetic data privacy. These are all different laws that have different definitions. Just And what is you know

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: it's gonna be to go, are we creating confusion and inconsistency? And because we're in a hurry, that's not an excuse to do that.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We are not creating in in I don't know if

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: we are, and that's

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: the question I'm asking.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: We heard Lynch counsel say, yes. They would be they would have to look in multiple places for different definitions, and I don't know what they do after that.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: If they are data broker, they look in these statutes.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Most people work with data brokers.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And s 71, they only look at data brokers. That's part of being a lawyer for

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (House, education/EdTech sponsor)]: a business.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So Does the committee agree that as a committee, because this is our jurisdiction, we want to have an amendment on the floor to s 71?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I'm not gonna have I believe I believe that's a separate conversation. I'm happy to have it, but I'm not happy to have it right now with these two about to leave, and we have

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: a great day vote. Amendment to make the definitions consistent?

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Conservative. Sure. Okay.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But I totally consider it all happy.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Obviously, I don't know what

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it it consists of because, obviously,

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: the amendment doesn't exist, and I haven't read it.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Right. So I guess yeah. I think draft that amendment, if you could, to f 71.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I would need to know which definitions you want to align. I think

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: if we want this bill to become law, and I think I do. I think it's a good bill. We need to make this motion to vote on this now. Thank you. Point, senator Ram Hinsdale. I am supportive of furthering the conversation about making consistent that language over an s 71,

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (House, education/EdTech sponsor)]: but I

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: think it has to be

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: a measure of s 71.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yeah. And I don't if s 71 is ready at 10AM.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So I don't know if it is either. So we'll see. Can we continue Shall I restart?

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Give it Okay. 5.1 I will vote. Yes. May 27 No. Senator Brock? Yes. We Chittenden? Yes.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The drive is 25 meter repair.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (House, education/EdTech sponsor)]: It's draft. So it's a catch.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I don't know what the

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: name is. Senator Rahm Hinsdale?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yes. Senator Weeks? Yes. Senator Clarkson? And, Thomas, I think you offered to report this. True. And I'd be happy to have you report it. Thank you. I'll just

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: section by section or

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: something. And let's what we have.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: To j e Anderson.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Thank you, ma'am.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: And then to madam chair, I know we're leaving, but your intentions for cannabis review Our

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: intention is to just walk through it. It'll just be Kesha and me hearing it, but Kesha is the original sponsor of it. So it's important for Kesha and me to hear Okay.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Cannabis we're doing right now.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. Oh, we're gonna chat. Right. Right. Yep. Good luck. Yeah.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Thank you. Good luck.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Thomas, good luck.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So conference committee I mean, do you caucus and we're gonna walk through as soon as definition. Heart Sophie's here. Thank you, Angela.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Jump to this.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (House, education/EdTech sponsor)]: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Good luck. Talk to Joe about that. I would say it's more like this

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: group. Yeah.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (House, education/EdTech sponsor)]: So, yeah, we're finding that.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'll bet you something.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: In SFU.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (House, education/EdTech sponsor)]: And wherever else it needs to be harmonized.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Kesha, I I think you should go and share that with Wendy now just because as everyone's preparing. If you could go and do that quickly, that would be great. Okay. I think