Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Rebecca “Becca” White (Member)]: You are live.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: And good afternoon, and welcome to the Senate Government Operations Committee meeting of Tuesday, 06/10/2025. When last we spoke, it was still May. So here we are in another month, and we have organized today's meeting to consider a revised version of what began as h four seventy four, the so called elections bill. This is one that this committee worked on a long time, probably eight weeks, if not longer. And I think we've arrived at a point where we're gonna be able to move it along. One of our committee members, senator Vijovsky, is working and is unable to join us until 01:30. So my plan was to at least begin talking about the two versions that we could consider and maybe come to a well, I don't wanna say a decision because I don't I don't wanna let senator Dioski out of the the input here, but then we'll take a break at some point probably in ten minutes or so and wait until she's with us. And then if things seem like, we're all ready, we'll vote this out. And, it will be on notice on Friday, and it will be up for action on Monday when we all return in person. And part of what we'll do after the vote will be if people want, and I'm thinking it'll be senator White and senator Clarkson that will will kinda divvy up the bill, and each of us take a section or two and report it on Monday. I think I have a pretty clear path for the oh, my dog's excited. No. A path for suspending the rules and getting it over to the house by the time that Monday's over and I've talked to the minority leader in the other chamber and I believe she's also on board with moving it just as quickly on their side so that by the end of the day, Tuesday, we will be off the hook, so to speak, and it'll be up to the governor to, I guess, either sign it, let it become law without a signature, or veto it. I'm I have no preconceived notion about which way he might go, but, anyway, that's my plan today. So with that said, welcome in to the secretary deputy secretary of state. And let's talk about draft 11.3 and the possible addition of section 22, and then I'll ask Tim Devlin whether he can give us any guidance there. And so Lauren, welcome. And you're probably gonna unmute before we Here we go.

[Lauren Hibbert, Deputy Secretary of State]: Goodness. You know, I spent so much time testifying this way in COVID. You would think I would know to unmute. But for the record, Lauren Hippert, Deputy Secretary of State, I also have with me Sean Sheehan, Director of Elections. We're familiar faces to you all at this point. Those eight weeks of work in your committee. I really want to give my deepest gratitude to the chair and to all of you, to legislative counsel for putting together this pared down bill. Because as you all know, moving an elections bill in an election year is really against a longstanding policy that the Secretary of State has had. And so being able to get some of these key components that will really help with the logistics and operations of conducting elections, of collecting campaign finance information, and of ensuring integrity in our elections in this legislative session was a key priority to the secretary, to myself, and to director Sheehan. So I'm very grateful that the Senate has been responsive to that concern and has prioritized the items that are within 11.3. I'm happy to go section by section on why those were so important or just speak directly to section 22. Which would you prefer?

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Well, I'm fine with just talking about the addition of section 22. This I don't wanna say it the wrong way. Sometimes I wake up and I can remember almost every section of this bill. That's how deeply we dove into it. So I don't necessarily unless one of the committee members is is is desirous of a little further look into things, I think we'll kinda take the 40,000 view. I don't see anybody's hand up or anybody shaking their head. So yeah. Yeah. Senator Clarkson.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: After we talk about section 22, maybe it would be great just to quickly review Tim could quickly review his memo, which is what's still in the bill, what was deleted, just so that we're all clear and that the public's clear because they haven't seen Tim's memo.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: That's fine. Sure.

[Lauren Hibbert, Deputy Secretary of State]: So the reason why the secretary of state is recommending that you do include section 22 is the way the statute is constructed is section 22 alters, let me just get there, section 22, model- It's on page 23. It's on page twenty two and twenty three. Correct. Lines 19 on page 22. It modifies 17 BSA twenty one zero three, the definition of what is a campaign. Those definitions control and are operational over all of the sections that are being created in '17 a through g. And the reason why we are asking for campaign to be modified so it can be one or more, even though you folks probably remember we had this conversation, a campaign a committee, rather, a committee to be one or more. You know, we had talked about a committee generally means a group. But if you're a political party, I mean, you're a political committee or an independent expenditure only political committee, it's possible you could just be one person. So our most recent example would be from the media, Elon Musk. He's one person. He certainly was spending a significant amount of funds to influence an election. If the definition of committee remains two or more and he is only using his money acting alone, He was an independent expenditure only political committee. He was just one person, though. So if we don't modify the definition of committee, our concern is somebody who's acting alone, or a business who's acting alone without gathering any contributions from anybody else, might think that they do not have to register their activity, if they are an independent expenditure only political committee, which is the term, unfortunately or fortunately, that comes to us from the Federal Elections Commission. And it is confusing.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Jim Dublin, do you have any guidance for us with respect to adding it or leaving it the way 11.2 is?

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Sure. I can say just legally in putting aside any policy considerations, which are kind of out of my lane, I would say that modifying the definition of campaign, and this is, again, the general definitions that apply to all the titles, the term campaign does show up in the campaign finance chapter, which is the majority of what is being modified by this bill, I'd say, or I should say there's a significant amount of that chapter being modified. The word campaign does come up, and so I'd say it'd be consistent with, you know, similar usages throughout there. So I think legally doesn't create any problems and I could say that I think intuitively, it would make a lot of sense to have it more in line with similar terms from the campaign finance chapter.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. So if I'm I'm reading your very carefully orchestrated answer, adding it would not be an issue. No. Okay. And I, again, I I didn't mean to say that in a way I it probably came out. I I appreciate that you have to stay very neutral and and walk that fine line. Does anybody else have questions about adding section 22? And we'll have to do this again to be fair to, senator Bihovsky when she joins us. Yes. Senator White.

[Senator Rebecca “Becca” White (Member)]: Thank you, chair Collabor. I would just say I appreciate the comments from both the deputy secretary and our legislative council. I am in favor of this addition. And I actually I I guess in a way, kinda thought that we were accomplishing this, in other sections. But I if I'm understanding the concept correctly, this is making sure that the ultra wealthy in some regard, don't have different standards if they're acting as an individual in a campaign setting versus if they're acting with multiple individuals to financially support a candidate or a proposition. So I'm in favor of that because I think it will bolster transparency and limit undue influence in elections. So that that if I'm understanding correctly. And I had been under the impression that we were essentially accomplishing that with some of the other disclosure work we had done. So this doesn't feel like a massive change or shift in the policy proposal that was originally in the bill to me. Thank you.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: If I could just tag on, I think it is absolutely consistent with work we did in the rest of the bill. So I support this section also, and I think it is consistent with our objectives, which are that if one person is going to try to influence an election no matter how they do it or with what means, that they that they be identified.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Senator Hart, do you have any strong feelings one way or another? I just wanna make sure everybody gets a chance to weigh in. Actually, don't have any comments on that. Okay. Yeah. Alright. Well, it's it sounds like the and I also would don't have any issue adding it so that when we get to the final, I hope this is the final draft. Oh my gosh. I flipped with this thing. It seems like for years. I I don't mean that in a bad way. That will be on board. Everybody will be on board with eleven. Three and we'll complete our work. But we may have some questions from Senator Bihovsky when she joins us. So and then just to go along with Senator Clarkson's suggestion, if you can just quickly, Tim, we all did get the memo which in essence compares eleven two and eleven three And, but it probably would be helpful to those watching who don't have access to that memo if you just, quickly would run through what is not in the bill anymore and what still is assuming that it's 11.3 that we'll be voting on.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Okay. I would be happy to, Chair

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Kolomar. Thanks.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Again, for the record, Tim Dufflin, Legislative Counsel. So this bill, and sorry, this strike all amendment being offered by this committee to h four seventy four, shorthand being the elections. Miscellaneous bill draft 13 I'm sorry. 11.3, keeps many sections and then also deletes many sections. But what's important is that it doesn't change the substance of any of the sections that were debated and deliberated by the committee to date. So this will be look a lot like draft 10.1 that the committee last spoke of. Only there'll be essentially a lot left on the editing room floor, largely having to do with local elections to quickly generalize. But I'll start with what's still in the bill, and then I'll turn to what is being deleted from the bill. So what is still in the bill is one by candidacy. This is sections four and five. See. Was Cylindaville's clarification of early ballot deliveries to overseas voters and participants in the address confidentiality program. That's in section seven. Streamlining administrative burden on clerks for reporting writing candidates. This is the writing candidate sections overall. This is sections nine through 12. Let's see. Campaign finance registration and reporting. This is sections 13 through 17. Campaign finance independent expenditure only political committees and the modification of that definition and inserting it into various other sections, statutory sections so that it will match, and they'll be regulated the same as other political action committees are. This is section 17 a through 17 g. Also in are audits of voter checklist and district boundaries. That that that is that special session law section 18. Let's see. Strengthening and clarification of definitions for what can be termed generally as voter fraud. That is in sections 20 through 21. Change of the definition of campaign, from at least two persons to at least one person organized and recording election activities. That's just section 22 we just spoke of. Also in, is section 23, which has to do with the review period to examine petitions. Sections 25 through 26, having to do with deadline for nomination of justices of the peace. Section 27, guidance for opening balance. See, section 28 is review period, to examine petitions, and section 29 is expressly, exempt annual meeting sorry. The provision to expressly exempt annual meetings from open meeting laws, and section 37, clarification of automatic voter registration and citizenship, and that has to do with the Department of Motor Vehicles. Now moving to what has been deleted from the bill. We have section one regarding the ranked choice voting report. We have sections two and three, which I should just know quickly were, already deleted, earlier in the session, but that had to do with failure of a major political party to nominate a candidate by primary. Also already deleted by this committee was section six, which had to do with a report on election ballot returns. What will be deleted now is section eight having to do with candidate demographic information, Section 19 prohibiting appointment of interested parties to a recount committee. Section 24, filing of certificate of organization. Section 30, and now we can move into the local election provisions. Local elections cannabis establishment vote in Australian ballot. 31, local elections annual and special municipal meetings, and also including Atwell Municipal Officers. Section 32, local elections. Another provision having to do with Australian ballot system. Section 33, having to do with local elections, fire districts and voters. Section 34, having to do with local elections and the vacancies and town offices. And sections 35 through 36, local elections having to do with the authority constables. And lastly, what is being removed to sections 38 through 39 having to do with list of candidate names on ballots.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Thank you, Tim. You're welcome. Yes. Senator White.

[Senator Rebecca “Becca” White (Member)]: Thank you, mister chair. And, Tim, maybe you said it, but the local elections piece were on at will? Or

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Yes. There were a few you may recall there were a few officers. I think it was jeez. It

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: was like a not treasurer.

[Senator Rebecca “Becca” White (Member)]: It was, like, the auditor.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Right. There was three that were called I have to pull up the old version to it's kinda jogged my memory here. Essentially, committee they were the draft as it came over from the house would have established a one year term. And so this committee opted to insert a provision that would say that those officers can be removed at will versus having basically the protection that having to be able to serve out the that year term. So that section is being removed.

[Senator Rebecca “Becca” White (Member)]: Okay. Can I just ask and maybe I I misunderstood the reason, but those sections didn't seem particularly like, that in particular did not seem very controversial to me? So I'm wondering if we could speak a little bit to the deletion of it. Was it to, I assume, to be more in line with maybe what the house had brought over and not kind of flare up more of the debate between the two chambers, or was there some new piece of information that I may have missed around why it was taken out?

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Well, I don't wanna jump in. Go ahead, Jim.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Oh, I was just gonna say I can't speak to that. But, I will defer to Sheriff Hall.

[Senator Rebecca “Becca” White (Member)]: So ever the lawyer.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: He's good. He's very good. Let me just sort of and and this may come up on the floor. I don't know. But we got to Friday, May 30. And it was clear that we weren't going to be able to deal with this before we went home. It wasn't clear when we were going home at the time. So, what I did was I contacted the deputy secretary of state and I think the secretary of state was actually standing with me outside that Friday as we kinda waited for our next, you know, convene and wait, convene and wait, convene and wait sort of thing. And I said to her, maybe the both, if you could give me, and I use five or six, absolute must have provisions in the bill, there's probably a way that we could deal with that when we come back in the veto session or certainly if we couldn't do it then, we could take it up again in January. So I was the, if you will, the the person that suggested that this might be a a way forward. So, Lauren to her credit went back and looked at the bill and I'm sure swallowed hard in some cases but came up with at least and it it turned out to be a little bit more than four or five but some of them were related because once you change one section, the next three of em kind of get affected. So, it it their topics are still five or six deep but the sections kind of like all go together and you have to consider all of them. So, it was at her urging that I did this and the reason I did was and this I'll I'll be glad to explain on the floor and obviously, if the senate wants to change thing, something on the floor, they can. It will probably delay the process to some extent. But I wanted to be able to present a bill on Monday that everybody could say, okay, I get it. I understand that. I understand there were other provisions at one time but in order to consider it as quickly as we can and get it to the house as quickly as we can. These are the ones that we felt were the most crucial, the most urgent kind of things and we can deal with the rest of that probably not next year but probably the year after in a non election year. Now, it I took a lot longer than maybe I needed to to say that but and I don't whether the deputy secretary or Sean wanna add anything. But that was the the thrust behind what what emerged here as the kinda trimmed down version.

[Lauren Hibbert, Deputy Secretary of State]: If I may, I just would since you said that I could add something. I It was swallow hard and split the baby in some cases with this bill, because I think we all have worked very hard on the entirety of the bill. But as Director Sheehan and I were looking at the bill, we were really looking at what do we need to conduct the twenty twenty six election in a more dependable way, particularly with deadlines and opening ballots is one of them, reviewing petitions is another one, clarification around UACABA, clarifying Those are all operationally logistics of overseeing an election. The voter fraud and motor vehicles, that helps to build confidence and the integrity of elections to the public. So that was very important to us to be included. The campaign finance sections, that's definitely where I said to Chair Kalmar, I'm sorry, I'm going to have to give you six topics because the sections are too many to just choose one. And I really, you folks should know that he worked really hard on this with me over the weekend, and I really, really appreciate that. So those all need to go together. Those sections all need to go together in that one topic. And I'm grateful that the campaign finance section is in this bill because we are actively getting questions around this, particularly around the independent expenditure political committees. And the changes within this really clarify what they can do. I appreciate that. The other piece that was important to us was the candidates all filing within our campaign finance system and having to affirmatively disclose their spending or affirmatively attest that they are not spending, because that is something that we also hear a lot of complaints about. So the sections that are in this bill that we strongly recommended were those six topics. There were some others that were easy, good clarifications. An example of that is annual meeting, not having to follow the open meeting law. That was something that was completely not controversial. It is something that our office is asked all the time. It's something that municipal attorneys are asked all the time, and it's something that towns are being asked all the time. So providing that clarification, I think, just will lead to smoother government operations within our state. So I'm grateful that that's included, but that was not a priority per se for the Secretary of State's office. And I think why some of because Chair Carlmore asked me what the Secretary of State's priorities were, I think for the most part, those are what are are reflected in this current version of the bill.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yes, Senator White.

[Senator Rebecca “Becca” White (Member)]: Thank you, Chair Kallamer. I appreciate that explanation, and I think it's smart strategically for us to do the most time sensitive, logistically beneficial to our elections pieces of work now based on our shortened timeline and trying to get this out, you know, is there an appetite to bring back some of those local election sections at all is

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: my

[Senator Rebecca “Becca” White (Member)]: first question, and I'm very open to a no. I'm accepting of a no on that. And then my second question would be whether or not whatever that answer is to the first question, are do we still hold the same kind of cultural preference with local elections and working on those pieces only the first year of a biennium or, you know, municipal elections happen every March. They don't just happen every two years in November. So, I mean, is this is that a topic that you would feel comfortable with us working on next year if we did not move forward with it this year?

[Lauren Hibbert, Deputy Secretary of State]: I think tentatively, yes, that would be better than working on the substantial topics that are within this bill that apply to the general election and the statewide primary. The only concern would be defending germane ness of things that could be attached to a local elections bill. So as it was being drafted and contemplated, I would certainly want to speak with the Senate Secretary and the House Clerk to make sure that it was drafted in a way that if something were raised, let's say voter ID for the statewide primary, that that would be ruled as not germane because the bill was about local elections only. So I think it's something that I would wanna check with the Senate Secretary and the House Clerk and certainly Legis Council to understand what the parameters of Germain is and have a common understanding with the majority party and minority party on both sides of the chamber to keep those guardrails tight. And when we were talking about possibly having to move the entire elections bill in January, that was a conversation that I had started to have with the majority and the minority in both sides of the chamber of the body because that is our concern. And I'm very grateful that we are not on that pathway, but having an election, a local elections bill might put us on that pathway again.

[Senator Rebecca “Becca” White (Member)]: I think I understand the concern, and I'm very, very understanding of it. I think the worst case scenario is, yeah, you end up with a Christmas tree local elections bill, and then people are flustered. And, you know, that that just doesn't help us in any way. So I guess my only my final question would be and and I'm comfortable with the no working on it now and even, like, the open door not yet closed idea on if we work on it next year. And apologies. My husband's going on a camping trip, so all of his boys have just arrived to go to the camping trip. So if you hear background noise, my apologies. Oh, and and senator Mihovsky is here. So we did have some charter sections in this bill. I think we had lumped in, at one point, some of the charters, like or was that am I confusing the auditor piece? So there are no charters that were missing or attached to this bill.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I don't think so, Becca. Okay. Have there's a lot of local elections, a lot of constable you know, a lot of our, you know, constable ever revisiting the constables, vacancies of town office, you know, things that we aren't dealing with, that that are that were in the bill. But I don't see any charter stuff.

[Senator Rebecca “Becca” White (Member)]: Thank you. And that's all I'll say. I'm a I'm a yes on the slimmed down version that we have in front of us, so thank you.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Attorney Devlin.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: I just, did a quick search of the bill. There's only really one reference to charters, and that's, C24 VSA 2,645. Anybody who has that version 10 up that begins on page 32. This has to do with notice of public hearings for annual or special meetings.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Right. But that's local, yeah.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Right. And so it's local, and really it just says it would have added language that said, notice of each public hearing shall be given ten days preceding the hearing and in the same elections as a manner as required by section 2,641 this chapter. Any mention of charter changes is not robust by any means. It doesn't incorporate any specific charter changes. Just generalized title 24 statutory sections.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: So I do wanna welcome in Senator Bihovsky, and I really do appreciate your rearranging your day for us. We're looking at eleven point three which has been posted on our website. It's a very short, I want to say one or two sentence long section which in our view, I think provides clarity as to what a campaign is. And it redefines it as having to do with even as few as one person being able to satisfy that definition. So I think it's gonna be okay to put that in. It was in the original bill. Just And again, for your benefit, Senator Viegovskiy, on on we, the May 30, the deputy secretary of state and I, along with the secretary of state, kinda huddled and said, it's obvious that we're not gonna get this bill moved this session, at least today. This was Friday, the day we were gonna go home. So I suggested that to the best of their ability, they come up with five or six topics of absolute must have provisions so that they would be able to run a successful, fair, and impartial election in 2026 and put those into a bill, if you will, so that we could get that out and take it up during the veto session and not have to wait until January. So, this is the result of that. Obviously, there are provisions in it which you feel strongly about. I'm sure one way or another and I think that I felt strongly about one way or another but this is what we wound up with. Again, at their suggestion, these were the provisions that they felt necessary for us to move as quickly as we can on on Monday. So, I've tried to grease the the guardrails here and that's not the right analogy. I've tried to provide a path. Let's just say that. So that the Senate GOP members will suspend rules on Monday to take this bill up for immediate action and then put it in all remaining stages of passage and get it over to the House by the end of the session on Monday and the house, I believe, is in a similar position to do the same thing on Tuesday so that by the time the legislature does adjourn on Tuesday, this has been passed by both chambers and will be on the way to the governor. So, that's the rationale for trimming this back as much as possible is that we're in a bit of a time sensitive area and I just wanted to you know, with all due respect to the work we did on this, get it to a point where we could move it. So that's the essence of of today's meeting is to hopefully be able to take a vote. I I realized that the section that you are most concerned with is still in it and it will probably result in a in a vote not to pass it but that's okay. I did I wanted to make sure that every single person had a way to weigh in and to try to convince the others on the committee and on the floor if necessary on Monday that, you know, they wanted something changed in the bill. So, I don't know if you had a chance to review it or not but I guess that was a long way of saying welcome.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. I did get a chance to review it. And you're right. The piece of the bill that I can't vote for is still in the bill and certainly doesn't seem essential to me. I did want to just ask Attorney Devlin just because So the Secretary of States for the write in candidates had brought us that flowchart, and this language in this bill represents that flowchart of when things are counted and when they are not, yes?

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: Yes, those sections are preserved.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Okay, I just wasn't sure if it had been changed at all, and it's been a while since we've talked about it.

[Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel]: No, none of the sections that remain, or really any of that were dropped either, have been modified in any way since the committee last met and reviewed was a draft nine and then we created draft 10 to correct a typographical error.

[Lauren Hibbert, Deputy Secretary of State]: Great.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. Does anyone have anything else to add to not to the bill. I I hope we're I hope we hit the brakes on this, and we're we're maybe not a 100% happy with it, but at least, it's gonna be, something that we can move to, it'll be unnoticed on Friday and up for action on Monday if we do what I think we're able to do. The the good news is that Senator Clarkson is in the statehouse. So, after we take a vote because I I wasn't sure how we're going to be able to actually I I would have driven up there with the paper to just present it to the Secretary of the Senate but Allison is there so she can do the the legwork. She has the original bill and also what will now be 11.3, and she'll take them up. And so if no one has anything else and please, if you do, this is the time to, to speak up. Yes, senator White.

[Senator Rebecca “Becca” White (Member)]: Thank you, chair Collamore. So senator Clarkson is the main reporter of the bill, but I will also be

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: No. I'm not the main reporter of the bill.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: No. It's a committee bill. So I will take the the lead on it if you want, but I would very much appreciate since it, I think, now has twenty nine secondtions instead of forty. Some help therein with both you, senator White and senator Clarkson, but, you can you can put it down as senator Collamore would be the reporter, and we'll just yield to each other as we walk through it. And, you know, if it's been posted, if the other senators, it isn't like there's a lot on the calendar. So, guess what? They'll probably get more of a chance to read it because there isn't, you know, 15 other bills. So, hopefully, that will reduce the amount of questioning that might take place on the floor. If if it does, we should all be able to and ready to stand up and defend what we did here but I think it's a slim down version and, I'm I'm very hopeful we can move it on Monday. And then, you know, our hands are clean, and we'll we'll leave it to, representative Bayron's equally talented, committee on the other side to, move it there and then be done with this on late Tuesday afternoon.

[Senator Rebecca “Becca” White (Member)]: Okay. Well, thank you very much for that explanation. I will plan to see an email or some kind of correspondence on the sections that we should take over. And I will will probably you'll probably have a yield to the senator from Windsor, from the senator from Rutland, either direction. So thank you.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. Yeah. We can we can certainly talk about which sections

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Maybe we maybe Ryan and Becca, the three of us, could chat either later tonight or tomorrow on which sec who wants to do what sections. And I would hope we would get Tim and Lauren and Sean maybe to help on section by section. Absolutely.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: And and senator yep. Senator Hart, I didn't mean to leave you out. If you have a desire to be included, we can divide it by four instead of three. That's totally up to you, mister chair. Totally up to you. Well, okay. I appreciate that. So if there aren't any other questions, comments, thoughts, I would ask for Megan to give senator

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Clark the vote the voter a record of action right here.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: So, Larry Larry, may is it okay if I call the roll?

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yes.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Okay. So I would move that we pass out h four seventy four favorably at draft 11.3.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: K. The new clerk will call the roll.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Okay. Great. Senator Clarkson? Yes. Senator Hart?

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yes.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Senator Mihoski? No. Senator White? Yes. Senator Collin?

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yes.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: The motion carries four one zero. And I will take this upstairs.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. And the calendar for Wednesday has already been done, so we won't make the notice calendar tomorrow, but it will be on notice for Friday, which means it'll move because it'll be a token session Friday. It'll move to the action calendar on Monday. And I really appreciate everybody taking time in what is otherwise probably a vacation day to some degree. Although, senator Biotowski, you're you're not on vacation for sure.

[Senator Rebecca “Becca” White (Member)]: We're working too over here. Yeah. We're working.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. Okay. Perhaps I jumped the gun. I'm on vacation. Let me just A

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: lot of

[Senator Rebecca “Becca” White (Member)]: you. And we're jealous.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. Does anybody have anything else for the committee?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Great. Look forward to seeing you on Monday.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. Thanks again for attending, and we will see each other, most of us, on Monday.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Right.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Thank you.