Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yeah. Well, good afternoon, everyone, and welcome in to the senate committee on government operations meeting. What the heck is it? It's Thursday. The twelfth. Yes. February 12. I've got the long agenda for my next ones. So in order to accommodate varying schedules here, we're gonna in case anybody's been really up on reading the agenda, we're gonna flip to maybe the two charters, and attorney Devlin has agreed to hold off on working through the committee until we allow Tucker to leave. So h five zero eight, I I will take them in the order in which they appear on the agenda, is the charter one of the approval of amendments to the charter of city of Berlin. And, again, just to give people a 25 word or less recap, every ten years, we have a US census. And so the city of Burlington wants to do away with what was really a lot of language about this tree that was next to the barn that used to be painted white, all that kind of stuff. They wanna be able to put in place the ability to just make up wards based on the census. The added provision in here, which gives the municipality and the city council authority to do it every, not every five years, but only as Right. Moff and Addis.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Yes. No more for moffin every

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: To five me is a little bit of a quandary because there's no way in the bill that specifies the manner in which they will do that. I don't know. I guess if you trust the city council, they could come up with a way that says x amount of people move from Ward 1 into Ward 2, but that's what we're grappling with. I don't have any I don't think the committee has any issues with what 95% of the bill does. But the 5%, I think we either take it out and just let it go with every ten years, or we maybe tell them that we think they need to find a way to do some measuring of population. And I know that was longer than 25 words. So did you have something that

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: No. I was just gonna say we haven't also heard. We couldn't hear further from Burlington. We couldn't hear them. But Tucker may have an answer for us. Okay.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Does that answer your question?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I think my other concern, and I know I brought it up, is the other end of that spectrum. There's nothing explicitly demanding that the city do it at least every ten years.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: But I think there is a provision that forces them or requires them to do that based on the census. So with all that said, ladies and gentlemen, Tucker Anderson.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: For the record, Tucker Anderson, Legislative Council. Thank you very much. Okay. You brought up a lot, so I'll try to be as concise as possible in giving you the framework here. So first, with the description of the boundaries, the city is still gonna have to do that. Whatever the word boundary lines are, are gonna have to get reduced to words on a page, in order to be legally enforceable. So they're not gonna be drawing maps and then posting maps around the city. They're going to have to write all of this out anyway. That's just not gonna be codified by the general assembly in their charter. Okay. Right? So they're not gonna have to go through the adits of proposing a charter amendment to update the boundaries that they have established in

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: the It's a big difference. That seems very logical.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So strike out what is currently codified in their charter, because they wouldn't be able to update it unless they did that. Second, granting the city council the authority to update the word boundary lines, and to have them approved by the voters. The issue that you brought up with the limiting clause, which states that the election area changes shall not be made more frequently than once in five years. Tough, right? Because if they make a change and within five years there's a drastic shift in the population of a particular ward, and now there's a constitution issue with the proportionality of the populations between the wards, city council's restricted, so the avenue for changing the ward boundaries would be petitioning the courts and to remain an equal protection challenge. So one solution could be to just strike that limitation and allow the city council to update the ward boundaries as necessary. I know.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: That's a great idea. I would love to, I mean, seems silly to do, five years just seems like such an odd time given the ten year census, which will interrupt their five years, I'm sure, at some point, but as necessary seems fine, particularly if we put in a trigger, there was a population shift with a certain amount.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Senator Vyhovsky?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I'd be curious to

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: hear if there was

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: other solutions, because I imagine when we hear from the city of Burlington, there might be a reason why they included this link then hopefully that pertain to some of the stuff in our Voter Rights Act about gerrymandering and Sure. So if I'm wondering from you, because I recognize some of those things that I've said nothing to, but are there other solutions in case there's a really good reason for a litigation?

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, in addition to eliminating the five year limitation, you can always mirror some of the statutory language that allows for the general assembly to reapportion based on intermediate shifts in

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: population data. And that

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: would address the concern that you raised. Where's the trigger for the city council to take this action?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I'm not hoping for willy nilly like, oh, you know what, we didn't like the way that election turned out,

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: so we're gonna get all the wards. Yes, Senator? I would agree, I think I mentioned that too, which

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: is I think if we let them

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: do it as necessary with a trigger, with building in a sort of a population shift trigger, makes some sense. If

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: the committee would like to see that language, can put draft amendment together for you to consider and possibly discuss with city members. Are there any other municipalities in the state that have been given this authority? Yes, and I did look them up after the last time we did a walkthrough, and we want to pull that question.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: The other question is how many other towns or cities have wars?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Tougher answer on that last time.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Right, you did, and it was Brett, it was four or five? No, it's more

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: than that.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Quite a few.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Yes. Quite a few. Was more yeah. I'm right. Oh.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I I broke up the bill and remind myself of him.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Tucker, is to senator Clarkson's I I know quite a few. Is there any rhyme or reason to, like, there seem to be a population point at which places shift towards versus that large,

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: or is it pretty across the board? Can you run that question by me?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I guess what I'm wondering is if the majority of the places that use wards are larger populations, or if they range pretty widely from fairly small places to much larger places. Just trying to get a sense of the pattern of at large versus warded.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: So almost all of the ward based voting systems in municipal charters are the cities, and the entities that have authority to oversee the ward portion of Ferry. So here, the proposal is for the city council. In the city of Barrie, it is the Board of Civil Authority for the city that has the authority to apportion the ward. And just as an example, and this is the one that I pulled up last time, there's no limitation built into the ward authority in the city of Barrie Charter. So this is in section one zero three of the Barrie City Charter. There shall be three wards for the city. The boundaries of the ward shall be fixed from time to time by the Board of Civil Authority, subject to approval by the city council. Boundary The shall be fixed so as to provide equal or near equal distribution of population among the wards in accordance with the most recent federal census. So discretion granted to reapportion as necessary. The trigger is actually built into that clause. Right? So Right. The boundary shall be fixed to us to provide equal or near equal distribution of population. The voters, in particular, notice there's disproportionate populations between two of these wards or between all three. Petition the Board of Civil Authority, say, based on the most recent data that we have, this ward is disproportionately small for, there's a 13% deviation between these two wards, which is constitutively impermissible. Ask the board of civil authority to reinforce

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Just jump in for a sec. But that authority I don't like the line from time to time. Okay. I don't like that at all. And it seemed like the authority was tied to the census. So it says based on the latest results of the census, which tells me they can't do it from time to time. They can they can only do it every ten years because there's

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: no other place to look. This came up in the house. Okay. And there is in between the decennial census, there is census data that is on this.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Oh, wow.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: All the It is not as granular as what you get in the decennial census. And the blocks that you are looking at within a municipality are larger than what you would be looking at for purposes of legislative reapportionment after the decennial census, there still is updated data that is available throughout the ten year period. And in fact, Tim and I have been attending all sorts of online teams meetings where the Census Bureau gives state level liaisons updates on how the block boundary census updates are going.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: We So everybody else? Work on the parties.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Is that information available to the pub because, so my concern is how is the public supposed to know if the words are not balanced population wise? Are they gonna go count?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: How long if you could tell.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I mean, I assume an I yeah. Would an individual no. I think an elected official I think if I was running for office and I was noticing a disparity as a candidate, that would signal something for me. So, yeah, maybe an individual voter, but I do feel like that kind of information. We there have been lawsuits where individual citizens have identified it in other states. Correct? There's been so, I mean, yeah, there might not be an obvious tool, but I do I think you could you you don't have to prove the exact numbers are wrong to potentially come forward with a lawsuit. Right? You could kinda say, finger in the wind. This seems like we're not balanced.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: You would have to have some evidence to, you know,

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: break Couple of less fingers and wind, maybe a little more. Okay. Yes. Judiciary might. So, Clarkson, you're gonna So is that set that incremental census data available to the public? Can I Google, are these wards proportional?

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know if you could Google that, but yes. So the census data that is updated periodically throughout the ten year period is available to the public, and it is available to state level mapping organizations such as VCGI. It is available to us to some extent. Now do these entities have the necessary technology? So the mapping software to be able to take a look at their city specific work boundaries and get an idea if there's disproportionate populations. I don't know

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: the answer to that question,

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: but the data is available.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Okay. That is all. So in Senate Economic Development, we get these every year from Matt Merwin. We get updated all the time. We could these select boards are able to get that and could ask for it on a regular basis. But I think so I wouldn't I think that's the job of the select board to stay up to date with where their population is growing and shifting. And I I think that this this is Barry.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yeah. I think I I think ripping off of

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: that would be a good a good idea. Rutland also has

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I don't know.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: General language, the authorities delegated to their city council, and they are allowed to update the voting boards as they deem proper, and that is done through the adoption of an ordinance. It still requires equal distribution among the wards, but they may renumber the wards that they have within the city and may adjust the ward boundary sizes.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Think let's learn. Let's not reinvent the wheel here, and let's I think those are excellent models to work from.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: St. Albans also has the elagouche.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I do not like the one you're asking proper. No,

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: agree with you on that. That I felt we'd agreed.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: But it does sound like there's a way to figure this out so that it doesn't bar the city from fixing a problem, but also prevents the city from, you know, being like, I don't like the outcome of that election

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: to change awards.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Well, we just received word Jessica Brown, who is the attorney of the city of Burlington, confirmed she will be with us on the eighteenth, which is next Wednesday, when we take the city of Burlington charter off again. I guess what I'd suggest is the committee think between then and now what we might suggest well, let's get the information from her as to why this came up out. Problem are

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: they trying to solve? Is it I mean, really? It's a the things shift that much. What's going on? I I understand that I

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: know what problem they're trying to solve, but I don't as a as the representative of Burlington, but I don't wanna speak for them Okay. In case that I am assuming wrong. But I do actually think that there is a problem they are trying to solve.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Do you know of anyone else we should invite in that day?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Let me let me process it around in my brain. I did wanna double check with Tucker on the other end of that spectrum because I I'm fairly certain, and it might be Burlington, that had an issue with not reapportioning in the appropriate time frame. So I do wanna make sure we figure that end out. Like, is there language that requires the cities to re portion at least every ten years? Oh, yes. Yeah. Yeah.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: I will look into this somewhere, but certainly not within the board borders of the charters that I just touched on. There's discretion granted to their city councils or their boards of civil authority, but there's no triggering requirement or deadline for reapportion within a certain amount of time. It could very well be that occasionally the decennial census says that there doesn't need to be a change in the ward boundaries, that there's within the accepted deviation.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. What I don't wanna have happen, and I think it's perfectly fine if they get the data and they look at the word boundaries and they're like, these are fine and they don't actually need to change them, but I do want them to be looked at at least every ten years. I do not want to and and I'm fairly sure this has happened in a municipality, that it relies on the citizens to notice that it's way off, complain about it, create a whole process. Like, I do want the cities, like we do, checking in every ten years to ensure that they're within the bounds. If no changes need to be made, fine. But I don't want it to go forty years where they're just like, it's probably fine.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yeah. I I agree. You have a sense of how often some of the other municipalities have taken advantage of this kinda off year look?

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: But I could certainly Without burdening you to

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: I'll send out my pros. Yeah.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I'm just trying, and that's what being a gill and steak to me is a balance of allowing municipalities some authority and not constricting them to the point where they can't do anything. Even put a stop sign up without, you know, putting it in a charter. But at the same time, being respectful that it is a state, and, they only get powers when the general assembly confers those. I don't know if the balance here is strike what came over from the house and just allow every ten years the census to take care of it or whether there's some fashion. You mentioned Rutland can do it. Barrie can do it. Some of the other. And we're talking cities here, I think, for the most part. I don't with all due respect to callous, I don't know why I'm picking on that. I don't think the population there reaches a point at which there's any sort of nervousness about whether you know, I don't even know how many districts they have when they vote. But, anyway, I think I'm

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. And that's what I was trying to understand with my very poorly worded question about what's the spread of places that have this. Because don't we only have, what, seven, nine cities?

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Nine. Maybe

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Nine that have boards. Well, nine that

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: are officially cities because in order to be a city, it's that you have a mayor. Right? Even if a It's mayor

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: a the way they organize. They could have town we have to still be a city. So they

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: would have a city manager in that Right.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Some of them have 71. A city.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: This question came up in the context

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: of Iowa.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: The city of Essex County. Iowa. Was it going to be a city? Was it going to be a town? And my response then is the same as it is now, which is entirely up to your discretion.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: So we could have a sit we could theoretically have the city of Beul's Gore with six people in it, and it could be a city.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yes. If we have one war.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: If they organize that way, yeah.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Because I I think about it, like, I think about, you know, the town of Essex population wise significantly larger than the city of Montpelier. Mhmm. And so I guess when you say that it's mostly cities that have words, do you mean the actual on paper, as in Vermont, they call themselves a city or towns of a certain population?

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: The former. On paper, specifically within the Vermont statutes annotated, they are called cities.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Okay, and there's no towns of a significant size, say Essex? And I know Essex does not do boards because they put it on the We don't need to get into that.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Three plus three, Yes. Get another one of Essex's robust conversations.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: That's what I'm trying to sort of understand. Because for me, logically, and this will be the second time I've said this today, I know the system doesn't always work, as my brain would think it does logically. The larger you are, the more sensitive it would make to have Like, it would seem silly to me that our fictional city appeals court with six people would have wards. Mhmm. But it seems reasonable to me that, you know, city the of or the town of whatever that has 15,000 people might want words.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Right. Okay. Well, the other advantage is we'll have senator Morley back with us next week, and he's on the legislative body, I think, of Orleans as any other He's the manager? Yeah. I think.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yes. So just wanted to talk about, there are nine cities or towns that have wards?

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: There are four. There are four.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yeah. But there's nine cities.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Right. And nine cities. So not all cities have wards, but all warded municipalities are cities. It's true. Seven digitized ten eleven. There are 11 cities. Oh. Who did I forget of?

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: So Barrie, Burlington, Essex County, Pleasant, Newport, Rutland, St. Albans, South Burlington, Virgins, and Wannoussey.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: It was South Burlington and Vergens that I did not realize were city this year. Yes, I think Vergens

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Is the smallest city in the country.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Vergens is the smallest. Does Vergens have wards?

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yep. Okay. Does anyone else have a question for Tucker with regard to the Burlington situation? I don't know which way to go. That's very good. Just when I when I read about it with five years, I went, k. How are we gonna do that?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Let's hear from that. Let me see if there's anyone listening counsel for that. Yeah.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: If we can move to H516, and this again will conversation probably will be led by senator Vyhovsky because you had problems with the the charter when we walked through it. Only someone that lives there could probably speak more specifically about this.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: That that that chart.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Now shifting to. Yeah.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Oh, I have I did have questions. Okay. About this.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: And these are mostly just technical corrections, as I recall.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Well, there are some pretty substantive changes from Orleans. The

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: balance of the bill in its text, it's technical when there are about a dozen substantive things. Then they

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: do things like officers appointed as opposed to elected. Right? There's a

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: couple of those. There is this incapacity piece. I think that was one of those areas where I raised some Which page? Pink flags. On page four, there's gloves. Yes.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: So on page four, we have the the how I select the person has to how you fill vacancies. Oh, Yeah. 10 50% of the meetings, and you have to resign.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Usually, I have to reside in the town, but I think the yeah. Yeah. Mhmm. Is that a substantive change? There's more than just that one.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: There's that. If you change residents to outside the town, your select board seat is deemed vacant. Right. And then at the end of that section is the inclusion within incapacity, that if a member of the select board fails to attend at least 50% of the meetings in any calendar year, then they're they're seeing it's deemed fatal.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: So I think my only other question that I'm remembering now as I'm looking about this charter was the number of places where it actually says out loud, like, we're just gonna follow state law. Yes. And wondering if it's easier for legislative counsel in the long run to strike that out.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't want to qualify as easier or more difficult. Referencing general law in a charter is unnecessary. One of the things that your diligent and hardworking government operation teams for the last couple of decades have tried to highlight is that using charter language to reference general law can sometimes be confusing, particularly for, judicial review, especially if the language where you're referencing general law authority is different charter to charter. The reason for that is that no word that you pass as the general assembly is taken to be superfluous. You have intent behind every word that you choose. So in an effort to try to wash references to general on the charters, The general assembly adopted 17 BSA. It's one of the first sections in the, title 17, but it's it provides interpretational guidance just saying municipalities had access to both general law and charters. You don't need to state in the charter of a municipality that they're allowed to use the general law. It's not necessary.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: And I'm just wondering if it makes sense in the vein of doing that, to pull those pieces out of here where the Charter does cite general law. And part of my thought behind that was what you had brought up last time, like, if we change it, then the citations need to be changed. And if it's just not there, that's not a problem. Just Mhmm. That I think that was my concern. I didn't end up getting to go back and rewatch whatever my other concerns were, but as it's coming up, that was the piece that I streamlined practice of how we're doing things these days.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: So do we want to have anyone from the town of Essex come in?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Will ask What is it? The silk board and the town manager. I don't actually know who the chair of the select group is right now because our chair moved out of the city. The the I I do know why this is in front of us. The current chair of the SelectRuby had to move out of the town.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Oh, so I what's precipitated this. So it's vacant.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: But I imagine someone else on the board was put into the position to serve as chair. I just don't know who that is, so I will find out.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yeah. We're gonna do this next Wednesday so we have time. And, again, if you put them in touch with Lynn, and, any other things when you've got nothing else to do with the whole weekend is take a look at this again and say

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Read this chart or you know when I'm trying to did we have any of the representatives that sponsored it? I know we had representative Hooper in on Burlington. Did we have representative I Dodge

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: don't think we did.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: So we should probably we should probably do that. Yep.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I thought we had don't if it's the age. No. Because it was Bob Hoover who wasn't That's early.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: That's just early.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Am I saying because Bob didn't come, but the but somebody I don't know why we didn't. No. Bob did. He did, but he didn't come initially. Initially did it. That's You're right. I don't recall Leonora or Alyssa or Ray coming in. So we

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: should definitely book them on for next week, and I'll reach out to the town.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yeah. Sure. Okay.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: We wanna get it right.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yep. I think that is

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Without being Absolutely.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: That could be our motto for the commitment. We'd want to get it right.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Anything else for Tucker?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Well, many things, but maybe not on these subjects. As we

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: said, many, many things to ask Tucker, but they are irrelevant to this discussion.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: So it's interesting. One of our bills is has read and is, of course, the official copy, which is marked up with in red. The other one does

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Well, one says that bill is introduced, and one says that bill has passed.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Right. So did this bill not get passed, the Essex Charter?

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Well, I assume the one that got passed might have changes from the one that was originally introduced.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: No. This is Burlington. Oh. Bill has passed. Oh, why didn't the The Essex one just says bill is introduced. Is the bill as introduced as passed? There

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: was a change in the house striking a reference to cemetery commissioners as a piece of cleanup. So I'll check-in and see if the DAS pass by House version has been posted.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: All set, well, great.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Thank you, thank you. Doctor, before you go, may I just quickly ask, do you have any reason why we would be getting so many emails opposing the Charter World? Which one? Oh, is there another one for I

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: mean, are many that are on various laws. But this is the only passed. Three or four Burleysian.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: There's the gun. Do we have that?

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: S131 is in the house. We passed that. Just cause eviction is in the house. It's in the house. Just walked through that. How

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: many how many times have you walked through that proposal now?

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, many times. Initially introduced 2021, so five year anniversary coming up.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Thank you. Forget your kids or kidney. Okay. So that takes care of Here's the right. So Oh, it's on us somewhere. So we're shifting to S324? I think so. That's our committee. And, again, for just purposes of steering the shift here, the house has a similar bill. And when representative and I met on Tuesday, was with the understanding that we would let them take the lead on this. We could still walk through our bill. And then when the house is finished with theirs, they'll send it over and we can work over that to change whatever we need to anyway. Sound like a good idea?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Sure. Sounds like a great idea.

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

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: You do

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: want a chance to Okay.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: You sound great.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: So S three twenty four, an aggravating the legislative operations of government accountability. Yeah. We were gonna have, I thought, Brock, maybe we'll get it on the calendar next week. Was that why we

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I think we talked about it. In my mind, I think that's what we were talking about it for, but we can certainly check and see if Randy's available. Randy's across. Well,

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: gonna pick it up again, I think, next week. We just double check. No. Maybe we're not. Well, maybe we talk about it for

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: next weekend and pull him off the house. So

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: we'll have him come back, but maybe we can at least get a 30,000 foot overview and Sure. Mark to it.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, welcome, Tim. Thank you very much for having me, community partners. For the record, my name is Tim Dutland, who I just like to counsel. For you, you have s three two four, which is an act relating to legislative operations and government accountability. This is a committee bill, as you, will recall, as it recently discussed and came out of this committee and then referred back to. This bill was based on recommendations coming out of the summer government accountability, committee, which, was two summers ago now. And there are really six different parts to this bill. First part has to do with laying out purpose and findings. It's really purpose followed by two different kind of general definitions and session bond. These are not gonna be codified in any sort of statutory section, but they really kind of serve to frame, perhaps idealistically, the operations of the to be formed committee, it will that is the second part of the bill setting up a new committee, a permanent joint oversight accountability committee. The third and fourth section should be read together to really kind of state that they'll update who is reporting to this to the established committee, auditor, and other chief performance officer, I believe. Mhmm. Then the fifth part has to do with changing the default date for reoccurring reports I'm

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: sure if any submits

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: to the legislature. And the sixth part has to do with the review of grant awarded proceedings. Sorry. Grant awarding. Jeez. We'll start off with purpose and finding section. So and I'll kinda be brief about these. Here, we just kinda say exactly what could be oh, I'll just read the purpose of this act is to actuate the principles of government accountability by focusing on how evidence is used to inform policy, how state laws are carried out, how legislation could be best formed to achieve its outcomes.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: And then we have,

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: really, two kind of following definitions. One broadly defines what is government accountability, and then the second one defines what government oversight means. Would the committee like me to read those?

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: No. Okay. Sounds fine. No. Senator Brian?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: And we do that because we don't wanna define them, but it's just like the intent.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yes. Okay.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: The intent. And it's reasonable to assume that the to be established government oversight and accountability committee, would probably look to these, as guiding their general mission, although they're not binding, the committee. But as part of the enabling legislation, that would be sensible for them to look back.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Sir, are we back on the perfect because we're walking through are we back on section one?

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Section one, page two, subsections a or section b and c.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Right. So having, just reviewed a different subject, it's on economic health. We were reviewing the enabling and initial statutes with veggie, the veggie programs, and and enhanced incentives for for veggie. And they were missing exactly this. And the purpose and intent actually is very useful later when you're looking at why did we do this? What prompted us to do these things? So I know a lot of people think fun of having purpose and intent, but I actually think I've now had several bills where we and several pieces of statute where we have no clue what was meant and what the purpose was. And I mean, we do subsequently and some have but in we've had a couple instances this year in the economic development where we have not been able to find the purpose or intent. So I like the fact that this

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: is here. Thank you. Well, and I think even with you know, that isn't, I think, important. I this is not our argument with you. Although sometimes I do like to do that.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: You just did that with me after ten at night.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I don't think it was that late. In in an instance where the courts were to get involved, that is also I think important. But I think we've also had stuff kicked back to us from the courts that were like, we'll figure

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: out what you meant because That goes without saying. The court needs our purpose and intent.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Or they We're dealing with that in Senate Agriculture right now. Supreme Court decision, a half versus somebody. It was sort of understood through the years that municipalities could not govern Vernon.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Oh, this isn't the chicken or the ducks?

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yeah. They are. The Supreme Court disagreed. Well, they didn't disagree. They ruled that the language was not clear enough and then issued a order that said, in certain circumstances, municipality could regulate farming. So our bill, which is a miscellaneous bill, is gonna overturn that, and we wanted to go back to the close.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: The cannabis ducks are also an Essex issue. Yeah. That's right. Yeah.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Cannabis ducks are low

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: size ducks.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: The cannabis ducks are also Essex.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Anyway, so I know what you're saying. That's why Yes. Oftentimes the intent is important, not so much for everyday people, but if it reaches a a certainly an appellate level Yes. The Supreme Court will always look inside that bill to see what what did they want What were they asking for?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: And and look at Tucker's I mean, at Tim's pen because it may be a duck. No. A duck.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Oh, it's a b?

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: It's a b. It looks like a duck.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: It looks like a grumpy Thank you.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I wasn't agreeing with you. I'm just making the connection.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: From here, it looks like a duck.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Does it walk like a duck? Should we

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: go back to the optometrist? What was that? Oh.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Rare form to make that.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: And they say this committee doesn't

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: ask So you

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: let's see. Section second, second section of the build, then here's where we get to creating and flushing out what is the Joint Government Oversight and Accountability Committee. So first, we have broad neighboring language in the to be created section nine seventy two. I should just note this is title two where we have, all the statutes having to do with the legislature itself. So this will create the Joint Government Accountability Committee, oversight and accountability, excuse me, whose membership shall be appointed each biennial session by the general assembly. Sorry. By each set biennial session of the general assembly. Appointments are in the next section b, and we're going to find that on page three. The committee shall be composed of eight members, four members from the house of representatives, not more than two of whom shall be from the same party appointed by the speaker of the house and four additional members from the senate, not again. Not more than two of whom shall be from the same party appointed by the committee of committees. In addition to the, in addition, two large sorry. Members at large appoint from each chamber or one appointment shall be made from each of the house committee on government operations and military affairs and senate committee on government operations in the house and senate committees on appropriations. So kinda flushing out

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: even number of people, if I'm Yeah. Incorrectly.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: That's It's

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: interesting. Just one flag on that.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: What other committee was wait. It's an internal. Yeah, internal committee. And we have, I mean, of our standing committees have been numbering. I hear, yeah. Yeah. Yes.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Policy

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: trust. It's so prescriptive. I mean,

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: that the only problem for

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: me is that they just it just seems.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I guess it's only two people that have to

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: be from certain committees. One senator. Right.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: That's this committee, right? Yeah, yeah. It's Right. The language is that one of the members, sorry, one of the members of that committee must come from this committee in the House counterpart. Not like what was on the regional Yeah. Study commission that dictated it must be the chair of this committee. Correct. Which

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: And then we'll get into Subcite C, get into how the chair is elected along with the vice chair and clerk, and those are just from the members. And also, his notes that the committee shall adopt its own rules and procedure. The position of chair shall rotate biannually between the house and senate members, and the committee shall meet minutes of its meetings, maintain on file thereof. The quorum shall consist of five members. So and then d, can we shall meet as necessary for prompt discharge of its duties? This is one thing that changed from the initial bill that was brought two years ago, I think, maybe three no. Sorry. But they had that meeting at least two weeks, and that is considered us. We turn now to CF on page four, and the professional and clerical services of Joint Official Office. This will be removed to inherent Joint Legislative Office of Legislative Operations no longer exists or can be folded into the Office of Legislative Council. And, anyways, those have city shall find providing administrative services, various forms to the committee. This is, very good. I have to turn down. Then we move on to the to be added section two seven sorry, nine seven two, duties and powers. So committee shall have duties as described in this section, elsewhere in law. One a, the community shall exercise government oversight by examining and investigating matters of significant public concern. Just wanna pause and say this is will become a term of art that we define later on so we can add to that. Public concern becomes? Significant public concern. Yep. Let me say this matters involving such a so And the third one is set up? First appears on line 10. Right. Then we define it on line 20.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Page so So

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: examining and investigating matters of significant public concern relating to state government performance. The committee shall examine the possible reasons for any failure of government oversight and provide findings, tangible recommendations jurisdiction to prevent chronic failures. B, the committee will select issues of significant public concern to examine and investigate by a majority of the current committee members who have not recused themselves from the matter. The committee shall consider issues of public concern or referred to the committee pursuant to a resolution adopted by either chamber of general assembly. So few things here. Just pausing here. We have the task of investigating, investigating those. And then, secondly, we have the selection mechanism, which it is by a majority of non recused members. They can the community can select its own, they must consider something that's gonna refer to them by resolution in chamber. And then c, if we actually define that term here, that is the issue of significant public uncertainty. Means any issue may have various categories, any which one of them could qualify. It's not necessarily all of them, just really any one. So one, any issue that affects the state as whole. Two, affects a vulnerable population. Three, costs the state more than a $100,000,000. Four, implicates a serious failure of government oversight or accountability. Five, arises from previously enacted legislation. Six, constitutes a failure to adequately respond to state or federal audits.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: So I

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: don't think this is clear enough. So I I think the whole point of it is where is government where might we be held accountable more effectively than and how but I mean, this is very broad to say affects the vulnerable population. Only if the population is being harmed. Think there has to be some qualifier for that. Otherwise, you're in human services and you're in other committees' work. Think it would have to be affects the state as a whole. I mean, that's huge. I mean, you could I think some of that is committee work. I don't think that's accountability work necessarily. I think we'd have to refine it to be accountable if there was a problem or if there was some issue with it.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: How do we know if there's a problem or not examining what's going on? Well, I assume this is most

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: heavily complaint driven. I mean, you already had issues here identified by the committee and by the public and by resolution. So I mean, you have a huge opportunity for identifying what the issues are. I just think it's a little broad to Anyway, that's just my marker as we go through and discuss it, we can obviously discuss it.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I think it'll be helpful to have next week when we have Senator Brock in. I was on the the government accountability summer committee that made this made the recommendations that led to this, but senator Brock was the co chair. So he we he might be able answer some of the

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: questions about why some of the decisions were made. So these were as you guys drafted them?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: No. I can give more background, but I also think it might be helpful. So the recommendations that came out of that summer committee were what we, as a committee, could agree on, and what was put into this bill was some

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: of those recommendations. So then what I would ask is that we look at the original charge, Tim, if we could if you could figure out the original charge for the original government accountabilities.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: The this summer government accountability or the original

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: The original one was set up with Diane Spelling. Maybe 15 years old.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. A different one then.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Well, the original one, we were originally thinking, why did we need a committee looking at how we can hold government more responsible and accountable? That, I'd love to know what the charge was there, and then what the summer study was too. It would be great to look at.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: So I think important context for this is that we got rid of the original committee because we felt it wasn't functional or in doing what we

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: asked for. I appreciate.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: But We then stood up the summer committee to dive deep, which we did. We had MCSL. We had multiple models presented to us into proposing something that would work better. Right. And this bill was the was is some of the suggestions. I and I think you might hear from senator Brock. I I would certainly be happy to sort of share some of that sharing from that committee that there were additional recommendations that were left out of this bill. Sure. But I also think it might be helpful to hear from NCSL who gave an excellent presentation to us about some other models from other states, and that's how we made some of our decisions. Right. So

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Good idea. Let's hear from NCSL. So

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: you could put that down on the agenda for next week. We'll have to

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: see what the card I

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: don't think we put it on the agenda yet. And I

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: should note that the charge of the summer GAD committee is, an appendix to this report, by this, so I

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: can share that with the committee,

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: have that posted so that

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I can Is that posted on our committee page?

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't I didn't ask Linda to post it today. It might have been for when we discussed

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: a lot of the week,

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: but I can provide it. Alright. We can post it.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yeah. Or That's a job we both hear.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: And I would just be I would just be interested to see the chart, the original one. I mean, I know the committee, in many ways failed, but I I would just love to see what their original thought was as

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: to the purpose. Yeah. Absolutely.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: And I can read it.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: This one now if you'd like. This is probably

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: 2009 or '10.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Before now Right. The 2020.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I'm curious what that charge Sure. Officially was. Like, I remember what we did, and we

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: put it would be great. What was it?

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: So the summer gag committee, let's see, starting off with legislative intent, that's why you said that. Does the intent of the general assembly that the House Committee on the Operations Military Affairs and the Senate Committee on the Operations should reexamine the principle of government accountability with a focus on how evidence is used to inform policy Right now how information is publicly conveyed, and the committee should propose statutory amendments as needed to accomplish these goals. Specifically let's see. So we've set up the committee and the powers and duties. That committee shall consider the issue of accountability in the legislative branch in the legislative branch, including the following. One, ways to ensure that the legislative branch is accountable to the people of Vermont by creating new processes and metrics by which to measure accountability. Two, ways to ensure equity and pay across commissions, boards, and joint legislative committees based on the nature of the service for our skill level. Three, ways to ensure equitable participation on the boards and commissions with any public engagement process mandated by the state of the general assembly by providing appropriate compensation to support, and four, codifying mechanisms for controlling and restraining the increasing number of commissions, boards, and joint legislative committees. So a few different things. So we have a Sunset Committee, which if you recall, Sunset itself a few years ago.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: That

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: is Since of that, there is pay for boards, commissions, things of that nature, and through that, how to essentially increase participation in a manner, so if we're monitoring people on the join list, and then also the request to create processes and metrics, which should measure accountability, legislative context. Fraud, put three different categories of charge.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. You. Then I'll have to

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: look up the original cap.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: The other person I'm now remembering that was very helpful in sort of getting So NCSL was very helpful in presenting states that are doing this really well and how how they're doing it. The deputy auditor in Vermont was really helpful for Summer Gatt in examining what some of the problems we're trying to solve are, so that it might be helpful to have To manage. Him in as well. Great idea.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: K. I was on the original GAC, and I don't remember. I wasn't on it when it first was organized or created. I was on it maybe a year or two after that.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I don't remember that we

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: had any sort of blanket revolt. Well, that's why I'd love

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: to have Tim pull it. And, Tim, could you email that that purpose to us?

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. I'll happily do that. I should also note that the report has a memo from our office. I wrote it. It gets into some of the history about the prior government accountability committee, more narrative form.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: And what I'd love to just pull out of that. Sure. And our report should be on the page, under reports. Yes. It should be somewhere. It should be. Yeah. Because it came in in November, your report.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: The report would have come in

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Since 2023. 2023. Oh. 09/14/2023. And it was on GAC. It was on

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: it was summer summer GAC. Summer GAC. And it was the '23.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: And summer. Yeah. It seems long ago. It sounds like a lifetime ago. I know. So that that will be great. So that'll be under the biennium of Pre 2000. Yeah. 2324. But the other one, which was, I wanna say, oh, '8 or '9 or '10, somewhere in there when it was formed. I'd love to see the the original purpose, what they wanted to address.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: And if you would be kind enough

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: to just email that language, that would be great.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: I can just summarize some of that briefly.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Oh, you have it I

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: don't have the exact statutory language. What year was it? It was created in 2008 with the aim of establishing a system of greater accountability and effectiveness of state government. The prior GATS That's language you can always use. Was to, let's see, its purpose was to recommend mechanisms for state government to be more forward thinking, strategic, and responsive to long term needs of Vermonters. Charges were fraud and included reviewing, let's see, service duplication mandated by statute, how program serving Vermonters were created and eliminated, and how these could be improved, program use of data in Metronet results, and use of population level population indicators to inform desired population well-being outcomes and how the State of Vermont should provide funds to nonprofit organizations and whether this should require results based accountability. And the majority of the statutory language had to do with the state outcomes and indicators. Let's say there were 10 Vermont population quality of life outcomes, and those outcomes are general state goals for Vermonters' well-being, such as Vermonters are healthy, or Vermont has a prosperous economy. The general outcomes were accompanied by specific indicators, population indicators more precisely, which measured the state's progress in reaching those outcomes. For example, the state percentage of adults who smoke cigarettes is one of the key indicators demonstrating Morgan's state that can reach the desired outcome of Vermonters are healthy. And the method of using indicators to report outcomes is also called results based adaptability, RBA. And then the chief performance officer had a significant role in that by providing annual submissions in a state outcomes report on those outcomes and indicators so that they could be revised, I think, periodically. Then, let's see, for example, this here. Yeah, let's see. In this last report, the prior GAC recommended that, one, training for new legislators include information about state outcomes reported as also based on accountability. Two, and two, that the prior GAC statutory charge was to be reviewed to see whether any changes are needed to clarify the scope of the community's work. That's what happened. It was dissolved and then recast as a interim thought experiment, summer gag, and then which resulted in a proposed Yeah. That's

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: That's helpful. I I like some of that. Anyway, I just think it'd be useful, but

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I'll put a look at that.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: So it'd be great.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I found the report. It is on our page from the previous biennium, and it might be some lovely weekend reading. Just in case your book of choice

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: is not stimulating that. So Breezy 42 page.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Or you haven't gone. Well, we

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: know that you you did an excellent job writing it. So Yeah.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: It it's mostly appendices. Some presentations and legal memos brought forth the meat of the report itself. About 15 pages.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I highly recommend

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: changing Before the looks of

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: we come back?

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: So returning back to Phil and Francois, we have so we just explored the definition of what constitutes an issue of significant public concern. Yeah. So we'll move through the duties of the to be set up committee. A two is halfway through page five. The committee shall, with the coordination of legislative committee on the administrative rules, that is LCAR, evaluate executive entities directed to adopt rules to ensure consistency and accountability in the rule making process. The three, the committee shall, on an annual basis, issue a report that includes, a, which issues of significant public concern the committee has taken up, b, the current, objectives for review of issues, and which objectives they have or have not met, c, objectives for review of issues of, let's say, for the upcoming two years. So forward looking there. And then d, any additional resources needed to accomplish that work. Turning to page six, we have the powers. There's a general statement about sorry. One. Sorry. The committee shall have subpoena power and the power to Uh-huh. Administer oaths in connection with the examination and investigation of matters from the oversight and accountability related to issues as a concern. Just for general knowledge, this is how they explicitly granted through either rule or statutes, typically, it's a rule. And then I should say here, moving on to

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: number

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: two, there's an update and say the committee may take or cause depositions. Sorry. May take or cause be take as needed in any investigation or hearing. Let's move on to three, section three of this, and we're amending existing statutes under the panel three, which is for the executive branches, who specifically twenty three eleven having to do with chief the chief performance officer and, who they report to. So this is actually that sounds pretty nice conversation we just had about, prior role of GAC and those populations level indicators. When GAC was sunset, there was an oversight, and, there was a reference left to the government accountability still in statute. It's got a dead wooden block, but it's torsion that really speaks to who the chief performance officer is supposed to provide the annual report to. This would reanimate that reporting requirements and directing the report to the adjoints, government oversight, and kind of public manuals that's subsequently set established.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: So there's students. Moving

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: on to section four. We're on page seven now. This will amend that Indians will be auditor of accounts, specifically in '30 two VSA one six three, and this won't have

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: we'll

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: add subsection Subdivision 6 A. We'll require Okay. That the auditor provide this committee with a written summary of all audits completed by the auditor's office, and then also upon request of this committee, the committee, that the auditor provide at the mutual convenience of the committee and the auditor, the diplomatic language is saying, you know, when they agree there, presentation to the committee on a completed audit. Any questions?

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: No. Okay. Well, senator Clarkson.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Why would you want to have all the audits completed by the they're available on their website? I mean and why do you want all of those?

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Well, I don't think that's a question for Tim.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: No. No. I'm just curious. I mean, you're gonna be a wash in paper. Plus, the all all of those audits are available on an auditor's website. Aren't they? Well, I'm sorry.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: We can ask senator Brock or

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: And Tim. Any other member of the committee. To come in.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: So I I just yeah.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I think we already are I already asked that we put Tim on.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And he has

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

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: is in, but the other two.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: In addition to the publicly available audits that are posted by the auditor, this would be a further summary of all those, I guess, in combination. And then, and so, in case rather than sifting through.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: It would be more interesting to not have the audits, but to understand if anything was done as a result of the audits. Were there changes in behavior in the government as a result of those audits?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: No, probably not. So this is why I had said earlier that I think having Tim Ashkin, because he was very helpful to the summer gap committee in helping us define the problem. Okay,

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: because that's a piece, I mean, that's one of the points at which we do review and hold programs and departments and agencies accountable, but do we, his behavior changed his

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: result. And gleaning some of that information could be part of the here when the request for presentation of the audit. So moving on to reports, and this is where we get to, moving at a default submission deadline for any recurring reports that the legislature is receiving from the executive departments. So currently involved in January 15, this would kind of push it back to, to forward to November 15. The idea being that the legislature will receive these before going into the legislative session, provide them with more time to take legislative action if necessary. Yes,

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: senator Clarkson? Require this of other, standing oversight committees? Because I'm not sure we want a report because that implies the work is done. This is gonna be ongoing work. Why don't we just require an update?

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, this is separate from the to be established, committee. This is for general reports received by all committees, general assembly in general, anything that's kind of occurring, you that you're receiving on a yearly basis from the governor, the treasurer.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: They're gonna be so overwhelmed by the reading that they're not even gonna have a chance to look and see if any of these things were effective. I I think this is a lot of stuff.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, we're working fine. Yeah. And I would say this is, yeah, an additional item, really kind of taken apart or probably to be taken

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: apart from the government over joint joint government oversight of the accountability committee.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Anyways, the let's see. And then we have oh, I should just note there's two typos in there. Again, referring to that office of operations, and we'll get rid of that. And then we move on to the last part of the bill in section six where we have session lock. This has to do with state funded grants reviews. And this was not in the original bill, but was added by this committee two years ago. Again, for example, the testimony around that. But what we have here is recommendations for state grant process, all improvements, pay performance review to the agency administration, staff who are reviewing and assessing the performance of the state's current grant and warning procedures, and then providing recommendations on how to improve those. And that report will include recommendations on how to simplify Yeah. Processes, reduce the reliance on reimbursable grant agreements, increase the standard indirect rate and apply it consistently statewide, reduce delays in execution of grant awards and the issuance of payments on grant agreements, and reduce work granted to nonprofit and community based organizations that could otherwise be done by the state. And let's see. Then they will also be explained efforts to improve employee training and grant administration across the state government and let's see, detailed best practices and models for grant administration of states. Let's see. Consultation on page 10. So division b here. And further into that review, I just spoke to the agency shall consult with relevant state agencies and departments, state's fed, nonprofit and community based organizations identified in consultation with Common Good for Love and received a state funding grant and other relevant stakeholders.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Right. I think we ought to call out the chief performance officer given that they were intimately involved with the creation of DACA in the first place. I think that all of them all anybody who's related to how we're performing should be involved in this and should be

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: identified as a staple. Sure. And I don't know to what degree the chief reports officer is

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: They're not an agency and they're not a department. They're a sub office of the Office of Administration, I believe.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: So I'm not sure how involved they are in grant work. I can look into that.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I don't think grant work,

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: what you're looking at is how effective are we? How are we performing? That's, I mean, that's what they focus on.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Well, has to do with state grant process. That's just

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: one piece of what I mean, yeah.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: That's just the whole section. Oh,

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: this whole section is just on grants. But grants are

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: like, our our performance

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: it just strikes me that this is more important than just I mean, the

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: The grants whole are bill isn't just on grants. It's just this section that's just on So, we don't

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: have any other section that calls out who people have to be in touch with and who the stakeholders are. Well, I

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: think the stakeholders might shift and change.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: But that's Okay. But I would really think Okay. Anyway, as you have discussed, obviously, Sure.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Isaac Friedrich community members and you know, as you're advised by witnesses coming through,

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: speaking about by. Mhmm.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Okay. Anybody else have questions for Tim? No. This is a great start to getting us

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Well, let us take a ten minute break then, and when we come back, we're gonna talk take up s 2 90 5, which is the group membership and the state employees retirement.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Oh, our favorite.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: We'll be back in ten minutes.