Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: A bit better. It's almost one point So Okay. That's And edited and reformatted on which Oh, sorry. For February, the travel ethics. Okay. That's where we're sorry.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Good afternoon. Welcome in to the Senate Committee on Government Operations meeting, Thursday, 02/19/2026. Our first item up for consideration is H516, an act related to approval of amendments to the charter of the town of Essex. We took considerable testimony on this over the last week or so. I don't think there are any suggested amendments to it or any need to change anything. I would yield to Senator Vyhovsky if that's not approved.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Well, I think that's true. I mean, I think I'm hoping that going forward when the town of Essex makes changes to their charter, they leave out the many references to state law. And if anyone were gonna be making other changes, I would have suggested we take those out here, but I don't know

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: if there's a need to

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: make the right Just that change. And if people feel differently, especially if you do it on the floor.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Everybody comfortable with moving that along? Yes. We didn't make any changes to it as it came over from the other bodies.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: And we did a great walk through yesterday. Thought we're in good shape. Okay.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Well, I'll entertain a motion then to

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: To vote. To pass out h five one six favorable. Mhmm.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Good. Mister clerk? Yes. Represent senator Clarkson?

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Yes.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Senator Morley, yes. Senator Hovsky? Yes. Senator White?

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Yes.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Senator Caldwell? Yes. Oops. Five zero zero. Yep. If you are so inclined, Senator Morley, this would be the bill that you Yep. The

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: inaugural letter of And

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I would like to have

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: on the floor. Shoot the well, I'm hoping we're No. It's any of that nonsense. Go ahead. Doesn't matter. I'll You do

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: it with Brash Lady Senator. Oh, yeah.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: That was Bergen's oh.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: It just it was passed passed.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yeah. Was passed. But it

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: was passed on. We made no changes. Okay. That is correct. So senator Morley is the reporter?

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yes. Yes. And you should have been provided with quite a list, actually, of votes. I do have that.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Oh, okay. You didn't. I have

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: it before. You. The only thing we didn't get was from the reporter from the other body what the house vote I'll get. Was in government operations also before. Okay. Well, that was passed over. Let's move to the next item for consideration, S two ninety one. Tim Devlin, our legislative council, will join us now. This is an act related to travel disclosures for legislators and certain executive officers. There is a draft. I have it at 1.1, Tim, but I could be incorrect. No. 1.3. So let me I'm 1.1

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: also.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yeah. Well, I don't think you've

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: been provided with these updates. And online, you'll find we have the bill as introduced, and then we also have various drafts. I sent it to the committee system, but 1.3 is what I encourage committee to discuss today. They're all essentially the same substance, but the later iterations have been edited and then reformatted for clarity. We can really work out any one that the committee has here, checking pages briefly explain any differences between. So whatever works best for the committee?

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Would it be helpful to have this printed so you can refer to it, or you would have it up here?

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: I have mine.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Excellent. I'm going to pull it up. I'm really handy to have that.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: So just again, because we now had some additional questions, to be honest about it, and I did speak with the AOA secretary, and I'm not clear yet where the dividing line because the the phrase in the the bill description says certain executive officers. I don't know which ones do and which ones don't. I know based on what I got for information from the secretary, some of them already do a lot of this. I don't know that it's as detailed as information as is in the bill.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: And so I think Is Sarah coming in or Beth?

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Well, I think we're gonna have her come in on next week to let us know. What I don't wanna do is just continue to make people fill out forms that they're already filling out. If this is an enlargement or further information that we feel is necessary, I'm not against doing that either. As legislators, I can speak obviously from experience. The only thing we fill out every second year, so we come back, is income. And that includes spouses and or partners. And I guess there is a mention of stock or mutual fund holdings, but it doesn't get very specific. It just says if you have any, you gotta report them. This seems to be, now this is again a different, this is for travel. So it is a little bit expanded scope. I don't personally travel on behalf of Senate at all. I would not- Don't you go at any conferences? No, never had.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: You may be the only legislator that that's true of.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, I

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: don't necessarily think that's true of what

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Ah, It's just wow.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I don't have time. And then to go again, for those of you that have employment in the other months, you have to give stuff up in order to That's do true. Yeah. So that's where I am. It won't affect me one way or another with passes because I'm planning on taking a trip to Disneyland and having somebody else pay for it or whatever.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: No. But Yeah. But these are serious trips for legislative conferences and for goodwill Right. Economic development purposes. There are lots of reasons to do trips as a legislator that are completely justifiable. The other but the I'm sorry. No. No. And but should be accounted for. People should be able to see who's paying for them and what those costs are. But I can't find this 1.3 because I don't see

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: an email from you. Apologize. It's posted on the committee website.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Oh, it's a common committee. Okay. Great. Chair.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: With that in mind, why don't we walk through the provisions of the whole This is going to be oh, it's an amendment.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. But

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: the original is included here? It's just the underlying portions under the

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: amendment? You'll have so as introduced, and then, so the amendment is just instances of amendment, really, inserting additional sections. Both documents are necessary when you want to get the vote of of what the bill intends to accomplish. My apologies. For the record, Tim Devlin, Legislative Counsel. It's Chair Collamore, I'd be happy to initially address your question about scope of application. Sure. So the underlying bill, as introduced, and really isn't modified by amendment in this regard, will apply to executive officers, is defined elsewhere in existing statute in the current, the applicable state ethics code. So we have executive officer, which means A, the state officer, or B, a deputy under the state officer, including any agency secretary or deputy, and a department commissioner or deputy. State officer in turn means the governor, lieutenant governor, treasurer, secretary of state, auditor of account, or past war on attorney general. So we have the state one elected officials and then their deputies.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Okay.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: And then any member of the general, Saturday as well.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: So this sounds like the whole administration. Not the

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: yes and no. No the top tier of the administration is how I would describe it versus the vast majority of employees in the executive branch would not be.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: And to your knowledge, do any of them already do this?

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: I do not know, to what extent the governor's, deputies may or may not, have similar disclosures. There's nothing in statute, I believe, right after that. There could be no policies or maybe the executive order on that. Okay. I'd have to skip that one. Yeah. That's that's So I don't want me to ask the administration.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: But just so I understand, this would not be saying if I was the secretary of transportation. If I went as the secretary of transportation to a meeting with other secretaries of transportation, that's not what we're talking.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: That's okay. We're Well,

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: if it's but if it adds my job Mhmm. But if I got a paid if it like, if it's a job if it's in the course of my job, like, I guess I don't understand.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Sure. So

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: because I was thinking about as a trip. Like, if you're if I was going as the secretary if I was invited to go somewhere as the secretary of transportation because they had some interesting new way of building roads in Las Vegas

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Mhmm.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: And I went to a conference there for a week that someone paid for, I That's different than, like, my course. No. That I think should qualify. But if I which just going to a meeting with my job, you know, like that's

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: So, it's travel, stove or maybe. Yeah.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: So it's travel that's taken in the official capacity of the executive officer or member, or that would not have likely occurred but for the member or executive officer's status of occupying the member's, the executive officer's office, then we have, notwithstanding that, this will not apply to any travel that's paid in full by the member or executive officer themselves, the state, another state, or the federal government. Then, so that's pretty broad. Yeah. It doesn't really contemplate, I mean, this isn't, whether or not it includes commuting

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Yeah, that's kind what

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I mean, I don't think it includes.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Member would, or the officer would probably either pay for themselves or have the gas themselves or the bus ticket or something like that.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: But if the state of Vermont fully paid for it

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Then things are not

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: different. Okay.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Is that I think is actually the key differentiator there because if my job is paying me to go to do this thing, that's different than if I'm happening to be a person who my job might ingratiate someone to invite me to do something. Like,

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: think Yeah.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Something else?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. That is the the sort of critical piece. Yeah. Because even in an instance where, you know, I drove to Smuggler's Notch, my mileage is paid for by the state. But, you know, I'm thinking about it from our sort of brain. If we are are paid to go to conferences not paid. We have such conferences and, you know, was that paid for by NCSL? Was that paid for by the senate chamber? Was that it's it's really about it's not so much about what you're going for or where you're going

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Of who.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: But who is paying for it. Right. It's weird. But it doesn't apply to personal travel. Yeah. Like, I can take a vacation to Disney World. Mhmm. And I'm allowed to take a dick vacation to Disney World, and I don't have to report it. Yeah. That's that makes sense. Yeah.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I think that's pays for it. That's

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I I think. But so for an example, last year, I went on a night trip and my dad paid for it. I do not have to disclose that. No.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: But if if if someone you're doing business with here at the state house paid for it, that would be a different thing. If a lobbyist paid for it. Well, that would, I believe, be illegal. So I I believe what we're trying to get at here is influence. Yes. And so it absolutely makes sense that any trip that's paid for during the course of as a result of your work and is paid for by the state, that's part of your work, fine. That's included. But when Taiwan pays for you to go to Taiwan, that's a different thing. That's Then people should know. I think they should. And so when I raise the issue of opening a know, having a representative in Taiwan for doing business for for representing Vermont companies in Taiwan, yes, that it's true. I know about more about Taiwan because of that trip. On the other hand, it's designed to benefit from her. Yeah. So but the public should

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: have Yeah.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Right. The public should yeah. So that's so wait. So we're I think that's the important part of the bill is what you're getting at.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I think the other thing that's important about the bill is that whatever you pay for doesn't need to be

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: disclosed. Right.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: So if you buy all your food, it does not need to be disclosed that I pay for it. You don't actually have to track every you know, your souvenirs that you buy for yourself don't have to be the.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Just travel and hotel. Right? Well, I mean, if if Taiwan

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: paid for all your food, then you need to disclose that Taiwan paid for all your food. Yeah.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: It does lay out if it is paid for by other people that that would I

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: think that's the case.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: It would exclude your. Yeah.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: There is a provision with reasonable articularity. Yeah. Any expense payment or reimbursement received for all costs associated with the transportation to and from any destination, any food, refreshments, tickets, admissions, entertainment, lodging, and anything else of value, whether for cost or in kind associated with the travel. All of that falls under this provision, assuming we wanna leave that provision in. I I think that gets pretty grim.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Look. Sorry. What section do

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: you want? Page two at the bottom. It's on 17. Okay. Is this the new version? Details name. Listed as the as introduced. Introduced.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: That's As introduced? Mhmm. So it's not 1.1?

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: No. Different alpha.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Is We're February. Right? Yep. Yes. It's so funny.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I don't have the the till It's And I could not open my I mean, iPad. So, anyway, it wasn't opening. The committee paid. It wasn't opening. Nothing was opening.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: But in your ancillary parts, you have the amendment, which we haven't gotten to just yet.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I'm printing. Got it.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Because this is about I'm printing a copy of the op. The

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: original bill on page two is where we're at. Now,

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Tim, I have a question with that section d. Mhmm. If I were to tally it all up and say, you know, my best estimate of all of these things is that we're using Taiwan. Taiwan spent $200 on these things. Would that meet the requirement,

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: or do I actually need to itemize out one dinner that was $27.95 I would say, although reasonable particularity is not defined, it does imply something that looks a little

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: bit more like itemization than just generalizations.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Particularly because it's asking for costs associated, which is a finite chart that you would, it's particular in care. Okay. It's a number. Doesn't necessarily say, you know, 2% or anything like that, I think if there's ambiguity here or if there's, you know, concern amongst the committee that somebody may take advantage or otherwise try to agree this against the current intent that the committee's giving it, the language be changed. To be hyper specific about exactly what the committee wants. And I should also note that as written, there is a, see if the travel is kind of mixed, that is partially paid for by the member or partially paid for by some third party that isn't basically governmental, state or federal that is, this bill doesn't make any distinguishing requirements as to, oh, we're disclosing or we only have to disclose the factors for the third party reimbursements or expenditures. And plausible. So, first of is that right?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: So it sounds like some more clarity might be helpful in this section. You know, I I sort of I think about last summer, I was at the in Madrid. I did the three days of conference, and I stayed at that place cause I was already in space. But no one was funding that additional seven days. So so that's that sort of mixed travel. And I don't know that my intent was that the seven days that I paid for by myself to have a vacation needed to be disclosed.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: And right now, if you look at the top of page three, have subdivision, let's see here, b one f here. And so part of that disclosure will entail which elements of associated travel costs were orchestrated or paid for by the state, member themselves, or any other source, and so we have kind of the itemization indeed, and then kind of a polarifier attached to each one of those items, who paid for x, Who paid for y? Who paid for the? So Nope. They can be changed.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Okay.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yes. What if

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: I've got a glitch here.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Rebecca goes to this Congress or whatever. And we're

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: gonna go to Denmark. Denmark. For a college.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Correct. She puts the expenses on her own personal credit card, And then she comes back, and then she requests reimbursement.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: That is compensated, Yes.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: That is okay. That's standard. And I

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: would've yeah. And I've done

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: that exact thing.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: So Yeah. And this one

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: was wider disclosure for not only out of pocket expenditures, but any benefits that are reimbursed as well as any kind.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. So, you know,

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: no money exchanges at all, you're still receiving something found new, then that would have to be disclosed.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: So would that be like in the instance where It could be tickets, just like that.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yeah, okay. So the other thing that's a little different from what we are doing, we meaning the General Assembly right now, in this bill, is where these are filed. The bill wants them to go to the State Ethics Commission. I know we have a TJ Jones in the book. We don't do that now. We send it to, well, the Senate Secretary's office basically. And I assume the House sends it to those. So we send it to the

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: panel, send it to the ethics.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: No, we file it with the Secretary's office. If someone wants to see that now, I believe they are able to. I don't think they need any particular reason or permission to go into the Senate Secretary's office and see what Senator Morley filled out was his annual income and whether he had stocks or mutual funds anywhere. I'll make that one look at that.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: What do you mean? It's fully online and public.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Every signal is.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: The database, right?

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: No, but I'm saying right now. I don't know that it goes any further than the secretary's office.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: No. No. They have to.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Have They have

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: to does an article. Probably. Or maybe it's stored in the secretary of state's office.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: That, don't know. I think the secretary themself I think he has to publish it somewhere online. Yeah. I know, it doesn't just end up in a drawer. They do put it online, and they have to buy a certain point.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yeah, a certain database.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: So this would mean something different. I'm not suggesting it's better or worse or the same. It's just going to a different place. And I know TJ will wanna weigh in on that. I'm also curious, The amendment includes a lot mentions more than $5,000 I don't know that that was in the original as introduced, Bill. Don't

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: see it.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: It mentions I'm happy to

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: address that. And there's also a $25,000 interest in investment funds listed in the amendment that's not in the

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: So other written the amendment, happy to jump to that now. Sure. So again, this is draft 1.3, but it's the same in 1.1, 1.2 as well. The amendment strives to accomplish three different things. One is clean up certain scrutineers errors that were introduced by, erroneously introduced when added to statute, it was two years ago now. That's due to the terminology for disclosures made by officers for in office versus candidates. To your question, Senator Collamore, we have the already on the books three BSA twelve eleven, having to do with executive officers' annual disclosures, and that is, there were, that we do have a bunch of different kind of dollar amounts in there. Those are the disclosures that have to do with personal income sourced with the officer as well as their spouse, I think. And so those are all amounts already there. What this amendment, Chittenden, wants to accomplish is basically cleaning up those references to candidates. Oh, yeah. Those are all written down in Title seventeen, seventeen VSA 20 four-fourteen. And so if you look at all these statutes side by side, they mirror each other. Once per candidate, so people running for office, and once you're in office, you have to continue disclosing some of those certain findings.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I notice also a county officer is listed in the already existing statute.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, and that's not all county officers. That's defined in this chapter as well. It's, in particular, the high bailiff, the sheriff, and the state's attorney does not include side judges, or any member of the judiciary, probate judges, also county officials, and that's for constitutional reasons. Okay. So does this proposed bill not include county officers? The underlying two ninety one does not. Perhaps it should.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I'm, again, not taking your questions. Ask your questions.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Just, I'm thinking about some of the things that have come up. Let's, I believe I am now aware of two instances where a sheriff, for example, was in fact not living in Vermont and was traveling, although this wouldn't apply because I think they were billing the state for that mileage. But I actually think perhaps it should apply to county officers, especially if all the underlying other stuff does. It would seem strange to have this be different.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: It can be applied to anyone. Except for the judiciary. Yes, I do. Good flag. Separation of powers. What was that, Phoebe? Yes. Well, you.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: The Go ahead. Precious powers was being taken into consideration. It wasn't then during the executive branch. Sorry, let me clarify. That's a fair question. Because we do have actually established district budgets.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yes.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: The Vermont constitution under Chapter two, Section 30, and then reinforced by a 2009 case from the Vermont Supreme Court, In Ray Boardman, really sets administrative control as well as any subsequent disciplinary action, or early authority over disciplinary action, think, that over any members of the judiciary, as well as attorneys, interestingly enough, that the Supreme Court has plenary power over that, and so the legislature cannot dabble in that, simply not set by Constitution.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yeah, we can figure out how to spend money for them, but we can't

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: dabble in how we set it up. It's Just delays.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Other piece of information that's asked for in, again, existing law is any loan valued at $10,000 or more that is not a commercially reasonable loan. I'm not sure I understand exactly what that is.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: I think I do, but Is defined It

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: is. It's else

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: in place. Alright. It's actually a pain. Yeah.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Like, don't walk to the corner and Slippery Joe gives you $10, and that's not a reasonably

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: It's basically something that's not at the marketplace value. So yeah, would conflict. That's something that where you're getting that sweetheart model. Yes, exactly. Sweetheart.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yes. Exactly what it's getting. Do you want as introduced or 1.3? Both. Both.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I'm so lost. I now have it as introduced. So I found one. I

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: found your particular, your reasonable particularity. I did try that. She's trying. But now you're packaged to 1.3, and I don't. So well, you have 1.3, don't you? I don't. That's my whole frustration.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Not working, so I did not print it.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: And that my bloody iPad isn't working either. Okay. So if you're looking in, it's not I mean, I don't I shouldn't be reading. I don't know. I My English family would be horrified.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Isn't that

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: fair? Yes. Know. Just those folks check Mr.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Shock. So turning back to other elements of the amendment, we have So the first one brings up those criteria to existing disclosure requirements for executive officers. The second thing this does is it will alter the appointments scheme for how one commissioner, one seat under commission. So right now, there's seven members, and one of those members is to be reflected by the Vermont Bar Association. This suggests having your governor do that instead. Then, thirdly, this will insert some quorum requirements for the commission, ethics commission. And it mirrors language of the bond and it's a commission of women, Dream BSA fifty twenty five, and essentially majority of the currently appointed members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum. And once a quorum has been established, a vote of the majority of the members present at the time of

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: the vote shall be in

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: the back of the commission.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: So I can if it's helpful for the committee, I mean, that'll just give some context. The beginning of the session, the ethics commission reached out asking for some of these, some of them housekeeping, but also some of them kind of clarifying changes. And this was the only bill I saw as a vehicle for that because it was dealing with other disclosures and ethics.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yes. It makes absolute sense. Put it in here.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: That's I just figured I'd give you the heads

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: up as to why this is why it's because you must have done this at the last moment then. Yeah. But I just

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I can't remember why they asked us to get rid of the Bars. Bar. That makes total sense. Oh, TJ is there. Yes. But he doesn't speak for Paul and Christina. I mean, to get rid of the bar, I mean, that seems a little hard to get rid of

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: You're at 1.3. Yeah. I was

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I have it. Did that for

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: a $100. K? It was on loan anyway.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Oh, it's not a loan. Yeah.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: A $10,000 loan. No.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I'm gonna leave those available to anyone. Does

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: it make sense to invite TJ Jones to join us? Yes. He's right here.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Right. That's why I Yeah. He's been fighting with me.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Welcome. Thank you. Hello, everyone.

[TJ Jones (Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: Thank you for having me. Again, my name is TJ Jones. I'm appearing today on behalf of the commission, Paul Erdman Erbaugh, particularly since his regrets that he's not able to be here Yep. By himself.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: In sum,

[TJ Jones (Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: the Commission supports S two ninety one. It's a good next step towards disclosure. It is consistent with and not as restrictive as most states, all of whom deal with travel in one way or another. The majority of states treat travel as just part of their general gifts provision. And so it's subject to all the de minimis requirements. And in addition to that, many states also have a supplemental disclosure that comes along with travel paid by third parties. So this is consistent with, and again, a little less restrictive than other states. I will draw several distinctions if the committee will indulge me just in small ways that it's different that the committee may wanna take into consideration. Sure. The first is with respect to the timing of the disclosure. Right now, the proposed language says that it would be within thirty days of when the costs associated with the travel are incurred. But the language is silent on incurred by whom, whether it's incurred by the payor, whether it's incurred by the public official. And that can lead to confusion, and in rare cases, mischief. Most states peg the disclosure to the date of the travel itself. And in fact, some states, including Massachusetts require that the fact of the travel be disclosed in advance of the travel, and then the cost must be disclosed within, I believe it's thirty days of the travel itself. Again, just something the committee may want to take into consideration. Another area that other states have addressed is situation where other people are attending on behalf of the state along with the public official. Again, because most states deal with travel in association with the gift rule, travel disclosures apply to everybody in the state. Anybody who's subject to the ethics code will be subject to the travel requirement. Here the committee has decided to limit it to elected officials and executive officers. And so it leaves a gap for those executive officers and elected officials who want to bring say staff or a member of their family with them. In these cases, it may behoove the committee to consider also the disclosure of anybody else who comes along with the person whose travel is being paid for. The third thing that committee may want to consider is this would apply on its face to all travels irrespective of the cost. So imagine a scenario where an executive officer walks several blocks down to a community center where he receives a sandwich. And then lo and behold, while he's receiving the sandwich, it starts raining outside. And so the host says, can I call you an Uber to take you home? Now for situations like this, most states have a de minimis exception for travel to take into account things like this. Did you receive a coffee when you were when you paid for your travel by yourself? So right now the de minimis exception under the gift rules is $50 per occasion. So other states have used this, Massachusetts and Connecticut have this with regard to their gift rules overall. Maine has it specifically with travel, they have a de minimis exception that goes along with that. Again, something that the committee may wish to consider. Finally, and this is a small point. Right now, the language in section A2 suggests that you are prohibited from submitting a form if indeed your travel was paid for by another state or yourself. And even though it may not matter in the large scheme of things, the committee may want to consider allowing people who want to be fully disclosing to file these forms if they choose on a voluntary basis. So those are the four things that I asked the committee to consider with respect to the original draft of the bill. I'm also prepared to answer questions with regard to the proposals that were offered by the ethics committee with regard to the three other provisions that were added recently?

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Sure, yeah, I think one of them was already raised by Senator Clarkson that we've now left off a member of the Bar Association that would mark up the disaster insurance.

[TJ Jones (Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: Yes, and this has been the subject of some discussion within the Ethics Commission. A lot of it has to do with the perception of the public. Right now, the legislative branch has appointees on the commission, but the executive branch does not. The Bar Association, I think initially made sense. I wasn't part of the original bill, but I was a part of the discussions in subsequent iterations of the ethics code. And a lot of the concern early on was to make sure that you had a sort of as wider reach possible into other organizations and other professions. Now that the commission is up and running, it really is focused largely on government, and primarily the executive branch, but also the legislative branch. And so it makes sense to the commission to have all three branches represented on the commission. That's kind of the long and short of that suggestion.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. Let me just jump one second, Alison. So on line five, on page three, it where we outline the members of the commission. And the first one in sub a says one member appointed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. There's no requirement for that person to be a judge or a member of the judiciary, though. Is that not true? That's correct. So it could be anybody? Right. Yes. Okay. Go

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: ahead.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yeah. I mean, I agree. And there's actually not a legislator that is identified. So I I don't know what you mean all three branches of government because we there's no legislator who's required to be a member and no and no executive branch member. So I don't kind of understand the the idea that you have three branches of state government here. There's only one mentioned.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Senator No. Everybody else.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Well, they're only terrible officers. She's she's got

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: me looking at it more closely. But if I'm understanding, I don't know that because of what Tim had previously talked about, about sort of our inability to tell the judiciary what to do, they don't really have a stake in the commission. So why? They have their own. Right. They do their

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: own thing. But we do our own thing too, and so does-

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Right. But we are also beholden to the ethics policy. They are not. To your point

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: That's why we did this state code.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: They are. They are not.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: The legislature can appoint two people. So it's at the bottom of page three going to page four.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I see appointed by. So, it's not a legislative member required. So,

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: it's a former municipal office.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: And a former municipal or two former municipal officers.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. That's correct.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: How about one former municipal officer and one legislative alumni? What? I mean, you know, we're him too.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Joe, what

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: do you think?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: You know, I don't changes. TJ, I mean, I just Yeah. We don't have one legislative member here at all. And and and I'm just gonna say that in a long laugh. And, you know, I I I value the League of Women Voters, but, I mean, why are they here, particularly? Certified public account. And a certified public accountant. I mean, really?

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I can. I

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I know we passed this a while ago. So

[TJ Jones (Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: Yeah. And and I I was not present for the original wisdom that went into setting up the commission. It has worked very well with this. Currently, with regard to the Bar Association, there hasn't been a member appointed to replace the the previous member. So it's it's not like the the legislature would be kicking somebody out of seat. And to be clear that the governor's appointment would not be somebody in the executive branch. It would be the governor making an appointment. Right now, the code would bar somebody from being who is a state employer or part of the executive branch from sitting on the commission.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: So it would have to be somebody outside of government. That's that. That perhaps is in the underlying law? Yes. Okay.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: You all ready to vote it up?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: It sounds like we might need some tweaks.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yeah. I think we need quite a few tweaks. But

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I I'm looking down again, to see so I see three, members of this proposed group who are clearly identified as having to belong to that particular group. The League of Women Voters, certified public accountants, and the board of directors of the Society for Human Resource Management. Those are the only three, I believe, that are prescribed as members of this. Everyone else now, again, it it would be with a great deal of imagination. I make this statement, but they could just be anybody walking along the street. One member appointed by the chief justice, supreme court. Hey. I see a guy out there. I'm appointing you. That's one. One member appointed by the governor. Okay. I knew John one once upon a time. We'll appoint him. You know what I'm saying? So four of the seven Well, the others have to be municipal officers. Former. Former. Yeah. So they, again, could be anybody now. Yep. But am I not am I making more of a big deal about this than I

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: need to? I don't know. I don't know. Of unions. I just think it would we could be clearer about the composition

[TJ Jones (Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: of what we're doing. I can tell you that the the standard format for ethics agencies across the country is that they're appointed or at least vetted by a member of the government, whether in the legislative or the executive branch. And that takes two flavors. It's either that there's a straight appointment. Oftentimes, I'll give Connecticut by way of example. The governor gets more than one pick, the speaker and the minority leader of the house get one pick, and then the head of the senate and the minority leader of the senate get a pick. So that there's a balance among the people in the commission. The same is true in California, where you have minority and majority, and there's rules in effect that say, no, The the commission can't be made up of a majority of one party.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Senator Clarkson? I would hope the ethics should would commission be beyond party in the first place. One I would boldly propose that we're having one former municipal officer, and, obviously, this does the ethics commission oversees municipal ethics. I would make the other one a a former legislator. And then you have a legislator a for a legislator who has experience in the legislative world along with a municipal person. And then I would qualify the membership for A and B. That it can't just be independent. It needs to be a member of the bar. One member appointed by the Chief Justice who could be a member of the bar, and that means they could be a judge or they could be a practicing lawyer who must be a member of the Vermont. And then one under for the governor, I'd say, who must be something? And we should just figure out what would round that out. If we have a former legislator, a former municipal officer, a a member of the bar, a woman from somebody not a woman, but a member of the women voters, the women voters, and an accountant, and because that covers the money challenges. And through it would be great if they had experience in ethics and money, but anyway. And then qualified with a governor who would appoint someone with x experience.

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

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I appreciate that. And I hear TJ saying that the ethics commissions, as it's currently constructed, is working quite well with the exception of this spot that's been vacant. And so I'm I'm a little hesitant to go in and start tinkering with something that's working. Well, maybe that If could help three

[TJ Jones (Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: I could just add one thought, and it's this. Right now, the the commission is not fully staffed. There's two vacant spots. And as you may you probably know from appointing people to commissions in the past that it's sometimes it's difficult to get people on board. And it's certainly difficult to get people on board in a timely fashion. And my experience has been, the more you make limitations on who's qualified to serve, the more difficult it is to find people who are willing to volunteer for the board. So if you narrow it down to, you know, must be, and I'm making this up, a judge who continues to be a former judge who continues to be in good standing, well, you've limited the pool of people who can who are eligible to take that spot in the first place. And then you have to find a volunteer among that limited

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: group. Very nice.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I'm not sure I agree with that, PJ. I mean, the Vermont Bar has thousands of members. And if you if you just said and and should be a member of the Vermont bar, that includes judges and all the lawyers in the state, and there are thousands of them. Tell them I'm related to two of them. And then the other one, D, with the governor, it would be great to appoint someone who had experience in the ethics universe, and I don't know how we would say that, but it would be great either I don't know how we would want to phrase that, but somebody who has some experience in this arena. But I think that would keep it sort of with what those two areas of expertise. We want people with expertise. We don't want anybody off the street on the ethics commission. We want people that have either experience or expertise, it starts with.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: The other question I have, and maybe this is a question for Tim. I don't see any mention of per diems here. Is that an underlying statute somewhere else that these folks would all be at least getting the I believe so. Okay. Well, let me suggest that we take our notes and pick this up

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: again next week. I'm glad he abuses you so much more like The chair. Alright. May the chair abuses you. I

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I I just wanna ask miss you, mister chair Yes. And the committee if there are points that between now and next week you would like me to work on updating so we have a new draft?

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

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yeah. And again, some of it's underlying statute, I'm reluctant to change the $25,000 or more in individual stock holdings and investments and that kind of stuff, because I think it'll wind up getting more complicated than it needs to. I do think we need to talk to the administration. Wanna find out the landscape for them is right now in terms of being able to take a trip and not spend the next week filling out a form about where you went, who paid for it, how

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: much you ate.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I don't know how comp or how deep we went.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: How do they report? How do they report currently?

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Is that fair?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: That is fair. I'm wondering if the four points that were brought up by TJ, including the de minimis exception Those are good ideas.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Last points.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Okay. I will I have those too.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Wrote

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Okay. Were

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: there any other points that we have discussed that we are feeling like you would like an update for next week?

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Senator White. Yeah. So are we looking at the entirety of the bill or just the amended sections?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I'm open to doing an update. In fact, I'd prefer to do any updates altogether. What

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: I will communicate is I really appreciated TJ's suggestion around if I feel You guys talking so quickly I missed maybe what was suggested, so you didn't say it already. The de minimis amount. I like the spouse's staff piece. I thought we had talked about that last time too.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Raised the question.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Okay. So

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I I would like that in the

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: bill because, honestly, if I'm bringing my husband to Taiwan, I think people should know.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: The extra travelers, I say. I think that's important.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I would agree if Taiwan is paying. If Taiwan Exactly. If Taiwan Screw about all of this. Screw then I Screw do not have a I'm you

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: don't have a PJ, I don't I don't have a consideration around the members of your group, your commission. I have no strong feelings. But I do think I been, I've had a recent change in heart around the ethics commission and the value of the ethics commission. And I am saddened that there was not other components to help potentially support the ethics commission this year. And I realized this may be our last vehicle to do that before crossover. So I wanted to open that conversation as well because And I don't mean change in part like I've come to think ethics are important. I've always felt ethics are important. But I was recently faced with a situation where I thought I had the opportunity to put forward an ethics complaint, and it turns out that due to the composition of the ethics commission staff, they aren't doing it at all. And that was I hadn't been faced with that reality yet. And now that I fully understand based off the testimony we had earlier in the year and that experience, I'm, I just, I'm very concerned. So I do want us to do something to support the ethics commission if it's possible this year because there's a very large problem with ethics in our state that is being unaddressed. And I had not you know, I had literally put forward something that was just so blatantly a problem. Mhmm. And no one can investigate it. No one the it's completely outside of because the commission can't do anything.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: It's more on the

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: And I was I now what do I do? I just live with the knowledge that we can't have those questions investigated or answered, and that frustrates me deeply. So I would like us to explore it further if we can this year, even that's his I put that's my moment. I needed to say.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I'd like I'd like to take Paul's testimony and actually act and include in this their financial request Yes. And their staffing request. Exactly. Because I think until we do that, it will remain moribund. Exactly. And he cannot afford to have an ethics commission that is basically stymied and inactive. And

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: I will say you have continually brought up the point, and I guess I hadn't articulated in my mind that there were situations that were being stopped. And then I was faced with one. So this point.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: As I'm sure will come as no surprise to anyone at this table, I fully support I'm shocked. I would even go so far as to say that I would support rolling back the date at which we would allow the ethics commission. You'd be

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: moving in closer to Okay. I would be very open to that, especially

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: with the investigative powers piece. So I

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: just wanna put that out there. I know that that's a different can of worms from what we're talking about in the bill, but

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: It would look like we're on the committee. That's for sure.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: But this this goes to what the chair and I've spoken about because I take it on when the big bill gets to the appropriation for the Rim Sando letter supporting

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Okay.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: The ethics commission request. I'd rather embed it.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: You'd rather put it in here with having them there.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Them take

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: it for.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Like, TJ, and I have Paul Sutter here Okay.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I can absolutely support that. Would the committee like four points that we discussed, the de minimis, those positions? Was there anything else?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: No. An extract.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: No. Just those things.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Okay. I only had three, and I know there was a fourth. I have the, consider that something should be filed within thirty days of the travel being completed, the extra travelers, and the de minimis amount. What was the fourth? Do you remember? Prohibitive.

[TJ Jones (Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: The fourth one was the small one that would allow people who wanted to voluntarily file those reports that aren't required to simply allow them to do that. Right now the language says you may not.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I will not. It should I could say are not required to.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Oh, the other question that I had that was in my notes was whether we would want this to apply as do our other ethics things to those county officials. So that is, in the bill as introduced, it is out of line with the rest of our disclosures and that it does not include those counties' office.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I would include the county office. I would agree. We'll have

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: to have additional witnesses to do that. I also jotted a few notes that the committee was discussing. Do we want any does the committee want any changes made to the granular score charts? Oh. We're in a conversation of itemizing. Testimony.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Okay. We'll probably administrate it and then change it. So why don't we this next draft, why don't we Yeah. What we've actually heard and weigh it.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Well, and what I am thought I heard, but, TJ, please correct me if I'm wrong, is that we are actually being broader and gentler than many states.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: More states are strict. Yes. Yes.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: So I would be, at this point, more comfortable staying with what we have given that many other states are much more restrictive than this. I'm trying to get us closer to, like, a b on ethics, not a d. Yeah. We got

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: the GANs and Capstone. Oh, maybe

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: Like I said, I'm I'm trying. And also the item of when it comes to mixed travel, disclosing everything or just what was paid for? I

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: mean, think, either that would be just what was paid for, not by Like, so so in mixed travel, like the example I gave where someone paid for me to go to a conference in the high state and actually I paid for all my own don't know that that seven days that I paid for all my own stuff needs to be disclosed. No. It doesn't. Travely.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: If it was paid for by someone else needs to be disclosed.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: And then the matter of documentation?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Proceeds. Proceeds. Well, else would

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: you I mean, every other instance, we, you write it down on a piece of paper and we trust you that you wrote it down. We begin to trust. Yeah, so why would we require this? We wouldn't require this.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: This does not

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: require receipts. Don't

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: think E. J, do

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: other states require receipts?

[TJ Jones (Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: It's not so much that they require receipts, but there there is a an extra check on it, and that's done, in my familiarity, two different ways. And the first is that the payer themselves would have to vouch for whatever was submitted. But the second way is similar. You attest to it under, you know, I swear under penalty of a statement.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: And that's

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: what we do in our current financial disclosures.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yes, we

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: signed an amendment under the penalty of perjury.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: The attestation and signature is part of the spelling. Self attestation.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: So you mentioned Connecticut and California. How many other states do this?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: May ask?

[TJ Jones (Vermont State Ethics Commission)]: I can't give you an exact number, but the vast majority of states have some type of disclosure with respect to travel. Okay. And to get I I should flag this as well, that the concern in some states is slightly different than Vermont, because in Vermont, the Ethics Commission doesn't have jurisdiction over lobbyists. And so in states where the Ethics Commission has jurisdiction over lobbyists, there is heavy intensive reporting with respect to this because of the concerns that lobbyists who are there at the capital every day will take advantage of lax rules. And so those are the most onerous of reporting requirements. Okay. So you and I

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: were the only people here when we began this. Do you recall conversation about why we didn't include lobbyists? Nope. Nope, me neither. So maybe that's something to explore, but not to include in this draft, but certainly something to explore. But I think county officers, yes. And I I think the membership, we should continue to discuss and maybe get a recommendation from Paul or a current member to to discuss what we've just suggested, which is a member of the bar for a and a a municipal officer and a former legislator. And the change would be in g instead of another former municipal officer, have a former legislator. But we're not gonna do that with this. No, but I those are my suggestions.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Is that what you need for you?

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I think so. Okay. Well, Dave, many so we'll close the chapter here for Ben. I don't know what day works next week.

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: We'll figure it out. We do have a busy week already next week as we get closer.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I now have all three versions of this. Hang on to the next week, there will be a board. So

[Tim Devlin (Legislative Counsel)]: are you all set, Tim? With this? Yes. Okay.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: So we will do folks need a five minute break. Oh, yeah. Great idea. Okay. We'll be back with the the next item up for