Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Good afternoon. Welcome in to the Senate Government Operations Committee meeting of Wednesday, 05/06/2026. Apologies to those of you that were expecting us at 01:30. The floor ran especially long over two hours today, so we're just beginning our work today. Not sure what we're gonna be able to get done with two ninety eight because we have something coming up at two and, again, at 02:30. But I'd like to welcome in a representative from our sister committee. That's how they refer to it now in And the I think we have somewhere I had a piece of paper that listed the difference between what we sent you and how it came back. If you

[Speaker 1]: That's right.

[Speaker 0]: Like to go over that in the next twelve minutes, fifteen minutes, that'd be great.

[Speaker 1]: Yeah. You talked to us. I'm Chittenden.

[Speaker 0]: It's good

[Speaker 1]: to see you too. Chittenden from Charlotte and House Government Operations Military Fairs. We have I don't know if you have it. I have a bill overview that Legion Council created for us that is highlighted in red what the differences are.

[Speaker 2]: You went yesterday.

[Speaker 1]: You went through it yesterday. Oh, okay. Good. So maybe because I'm not an attorney, I perhaps will just explain to you maybe if you have questions, but I'll just go through and talk to you about the the thoughts behind some of the changes. Sure. So the first I believe that well, first dissension, which is the h five forty one, is we were just doubling down on the language in case, you know, one didn't go and the other did. So that part is pretty self explanatory. Oh, I did wanna start with the Voter Protections Act part because there's like a voter a voting rights act is a whole thing, and that's not a book. Because, you know, we are hoping, I think, next year to do some natural voting rights work like we do in non election years Mhmm. That that would be a more appropriate title for next year's legislation should there be any. And then the next part is we added so now we are on we're still in part one, and we are on section two with the protections in the civil action portion. And we added having a disability

[Speaker 3]: Mhmm.

[Speaker 1]: To the folks who are the list of folks who are protected in these sections. And that I think did anyone have any questions about that? That seems pretty let me explain that to you.

[Speaker 4]: We just wanted to make sure that those were

[Speaker 3]: Yeah.

[Speaker 1]: I an interesting thing I learned, I don't know if you also heard of this testimony, but that Vermont's voter participation is higher than average across the country, but that our voters with disabilities, their participation is as it is with the rest of the country, which means there's a big gap between whatever that access is and and availability and voting. So it would be nice to just and I think this is a nice, a good first step to take, but maybe we can think about this in the future too, trying to close that gap so that the percentage over average is similar for those two different types of voters. And then the other part was the voter checklist part. This is the town clerks who, of course, we adore and do not ever wanna upset about anything at all, they were really supportive of adding this language where they're able to to have someone sign an affidavit when they get this. It just makes such the whole process streamlined from the secretary of state's office when people ask for the statewide voter checklists. That's how they handle it. And then the municipal clerks handle it, you know, at a town municipality level. And so just to have kind of the same process and to give them it just empowers them to say, okay, this is what you need to do. You need to sign this under, you know, swearing or affirming that you are not gonna use these lists in any other way. Just tightens the whole thing up and makes sure everyone's operating on the same page. Sure. And the last the last part that that we have all been talking about is the financial disclosure forms. Yep. There, you know, as, as I said last week when we were discussing it in committee, it seems like there's, there's, I guess, similar to your, your optometry, ophthalmology testimony this morning in my committee, is that there is a real difference between the way the state ethics commission sees this issue and the secretary of state's office sees the issue. And so, you know, as the legislature and the committees of jurisdiction now, we are in this spot of trying to either decide who who you know, how we're gonna manage this or see if there's a compromise that can be reached. One thing that we added that I think is good for the voters is postponing for a year, not suspending indefinitely, not getting rid of forever, but just postponing the the penalties, the financial penalties that we impose on candidates. I I think, you know, we don't wanna create barriers to running for office, and and it seems like putting that off until we can get our ducks in a row seems like the the right thing to do. And and other than that, we just, you know, we heard lots of testimony. We went back and forth a lot about this financial disclosure form and kind of landed in a place that we thought was a compromise that could work, which is that, you know, based on that initial language from last biennium that said that the, the ethics commission would create and maintain the forms, you know, there was this discussion about what maintain means. And I think in our, you know, I'll, I'll speak for the committee here, like in our, our discussions, it kind of came out for us that, okay, maintain means they're going to not only make the form, but they are going to host it and answer questions about it. Right? This is the only portion of this that the ethics commission would be answering questions on. Anything that's related still with the secretary of state's office. That's what they do. That's what they've always done. That's what they will continue to do. And we thought that and the other portion of the compromise that that we reached as a committee was that we did hear that if it's hosted, like placed on two websites and put online in two different places and they were there was a change that needed to be made either to the frequently asked questions documents or to the form itself, And it wasn't updated kind of simultaneously that someone could get the wrong form and it could cause a lot of confusions. There could be an incorrect answer on one of the FAQ sheets or a different answer. And that that really the solution was to keep them in one place Mhmm. And then make sure the other office, which in this case, we decided the ethics commission would host these forms based on some concerns. I'm sure you heard too from the the secretary of state's office about, you know, whether or not it was proper and appropriate for them to manage this one portion of it. So we just sort of arrived at the conclusion that if the Ethics Commission hosts the forms and then the Secretary of State's Office just make sure they're linking to those forms, that it would avoid any disparity between between the two or or, you know, a mistake or something for Sequana.

[Speaker 3]: Sarah, your old speech?

[Speaker 4]: Doctor Chittenden, I guess my I'm wondering if there was discussion in your committee around the sort of anomaly that we're asking another entity to regulate elections that which isn't something that firmly falls within the secretary of state's regulatory power. Additionally, the ethics candidates are not being pulled into the code of ethics. So it seemed it just seems strange to me that we would be taking one little piece of elections and saying, well, you're actually gonna regulate this piece, and the people that you're regulating are not actually gonna beholden to that code of ethics. Right. I don't think anybody tied it

[Speaker 1]: in specifically to the code of ethics. I think it was more that the wheelhouse of the ethics commission is to answer questions about, you know, ethical behavior. And these it's it the the disclosure forms aren't specifically they're required for candidates to turn in, but they're not election related the way that, like, a voter or that the petition would be, where the town book checks, where the secretary of state's office is checking and saying, yes. You've reached your number of signatures you need to remember office. That's like purely elections related. It's it's the the questions that the Ethics Commission would be answering are exactly the questions that the Secretary of State's office said that they don't think is appropriate and that they're not comfortable having an elected official answer, which is, is this a conflict of interest if I list this or don't list this? Do I need to do this on this, just this one specific form, the financial disclosure form? Because there's an ethical component to it that the secretary of state's office was very reluctant to participate in. Because even though it's an apolitical part of state government, it is an elected official who's who is running that department and who and this is the the rationale that we were given, and this is where we landed on it. That that this wasn't exactly it's elections related, but it's not it's not a question people wouldn't be asking for advice about elections items. Like, is this signature valid? It would be, do I disclose or is this what you need for this disclosure or this part of the form? I think a lot of it is answering questions specifically about about information that's required in

[Speaker 4]: that form. Well, and and what we heard in testimony yesterday is that actually no one should be answering those questions except in the candidate's attorney. Yeah. That really both entities should be saying you should speak to your accountant or your attorney. Yes. And so all that should be being really verified is is the form done?

[Speaker 0]: What about if you don't have an attorney?

[Speaker 2]: Then you gotta get one.

[Speaker 4]: Well, That's all.

[Speaker 1]: So thank you, Chuck Almighty. That was a discussion that we actually had because at one point the ethics testimony from the someone from the ethics commission said they were going to put on their website that people should consult their attorney if they had questions, and that raised some real red flags for us in our committee because we felt like like saying you have to hire an attorney run is for is financial It's a a logistical barrier. And the last thing we wanna do

[Speaker 4]: is discourage people from running for office. And and it just seems Neither the ethics commission nor the secretary of state's office can provide an individual's legal advice.

[Speaker 1]: Well, the ethics commission gives advice. That's their

[Speaker 4]: They're not beholden to the code of ethics about whether or not they're violating the code of ethics, but candidates are not beholden to the

[Speaker 1]: code of ethics. They can't violate. So so you're just suggesting that I mean, I'm I'm maybe putting your words in your mouth. You think we just should have no one give anyone advice on the forms and just tell the candidates fill it out to the best of your ability?

[Speaker 2]: No. I think the question is more candidates don't if you when you're elected, you have an ethical code that you are now subject to. If you're just running for office, what is the conflict of interest? I I

[Speaker 4]: Like, why would you need

[Speaker 2]: to build more now

[Speaker 0]: at all? Yeah. I'm not sure that it's a conflict of interest. What we're looking for is for an entity, and the House has decided it's the Vermont Ethics Commission

[Speaker 1]: Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: To give them advice as to how to answer a particular question.

[Speaker 2]: But I think my question is, when would you ever be violating an ethics code that you're not subject to as a candidate?

[Speaker 1]: This isn't about violating ethics code.

[Speaker 4]: No. But

[Speaker 1]: this is about the one you filling up the form? Because you're trying to make information available to people about who they're voting for.

[Speaker 5]: It's a disclosure.

[Speaker 1]: Yeah. Right. But that's why I don't

[Speaker 4]: think it belongs with the Code of Ethics. Exactly. Like, I think candidates should not do it. I don't think the ethics commission because what they are tasked to do is advise people about whether or not they have violated the code of ethics. But a candidate can't violate the code of ethics. They are not asked to provide legal advice.

[Speaker 1]: I don't believe that this bill tells them that to ask the ethics commission if they're violating the code of ethics. I don't think that comes into play Doesn't. In this language at all. I think what it does is it says, if you have questions about filling out the form, which we have available for your consent of candidate form, have you a question about filling out the consent of candidate form, you have questions about your petition form, you can ask the secretary of state's office or you can ask the town clerk. For this particular one, because it is affiliated with ethical and transparency issues. It's not in any way tied to any code of ethics. We've decided already, as a state, candidates fill out these financial disclosure forms. They have done this for

[Speaker 2]: a long time. Two years ago. No. Elected officials fill out the financial disclosure form, not candidates. We we so this

[Speaker 1]: is No. The Elected officials. Just elected officials. Okay. So, yes. So two years ago, when we said if you're running for office, you need to fill out these forms. This is already a lot. I don't I mean, this isn't debating whether or not we should have this law or not. Already passed it two years ago. What I'm saying is at this point in time, there is that it started with a dispute about what does the phrase create and maintain. Yes. And we are now in this position where we need to, as we usually do, fine tune some language that came from the past legislation because it was unclear. So here we are. Yes. And we, based on the testimony we took, really thought that based on that's okay. I'm sorry. Also, I'm gonna interrupt myself for a second. Keep looking at my phone. We're on the floor right now, and if there's a roll call comes up there, someone's gonna text me, I'm

[Speaker 0]: just like Oh, it's okay. So I'm go. It'll ring. Oh,

[Speaker 5]: it will? Yes. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]: On the mezzanine mezzanine, we don't have to dig our

[Speaker 5]: I every time I hear it, I think, oh, I need to go up to the phone phone.

[Speaker 1]: Yeah. Okay. So I so anyway, so what I'm saying is that that we went back and forth about this 500 times. We could talk about this until the end of time. Got to the point where we

[Speaker 0]: thought seems to be what we're doing. Yeah. And we got to the point where

[Speaker 1]: we thought, okay. See, this is important. This this bill is important. We would it's important to us. We would like for this to advance. We would like for this to become a law. We would like to for these things to happen this year. And especially, actually, the day I reported on the floor was, like, half an hour after Supreme Court landed on the Voting Rights Act, so it felt especially I know. It felt especially a a hurry at that point in time that we got this done. So this is something that that at some point needs to be handled. And after going back and forth forever and ever, we thought, okay. So we have to make a decision because nobody is agreeing. So what we are going to do is and we did have a former secretary of state. I don't know if he's been in to testify. Yeah.

[Speaker 5]: Jim I saw his letter. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]: Yeah. So Jim Condos said as on the ethics commission, also former secretary of state said, I don't think this form belongs in the secretary of state's office. That is what we also had heard from the Secretary of State's office for compelling reasons from the ethics commission why they shouldn't be doing this, many of which are kind of out of our control, the the financial aspect of it, but we have to make a choice. And it seems like like this was the the best option moving forward. I understand the barriers that the ethics commission faced, and I will say again for the nine hundredth time. I think we should fund them with all the money that they need to get these tasks done that we have asked them to do. We have told them. Useful ethics. Do the form. Do all of this stuff. They're not saying we don't think we should do this form because we don't want to. They're saying we don't have the capacity. Right. That's a different issue. It's a fact. So what I'm saying is, in in my mind, we are thinking about this as something moving forward, like, what's the right thing to do? I just hate the idea of making policy decisions based on how much money we have or don't have. And so to me, it's just saying the policy decision is we would like for the ethics commission to be the people who are the the advice givers and the holders of this form, and the Secretary of Office does everything else. That seems like a compromise for us that was workableism.

[Speaker 0]: So I'll just point out that we're now nine days

[Speaker 1]: Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: Into filing season.

[Speaker 1]: Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: And neither the Secretary of State's office nor the Ethics Commission has posted a form online.

[Speaker 1]: That's right.

[Speaker 3]: That's changed, but sorry to interrupt.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Well, it wasn't this weekend. No. I I understand.

[Speaker 1]: Okay. So what what I would say to that is who who is this who is really feeling the impact of this? It's the people who are running for office, who are maybe running for office for the first time, trying to do the right thing, trying to fill out these forms, and the people who are going to vote for them.

[Speaker 4]: Right.

[Speaker 1]: Who are saying, I've got a primary, you know, coming up in a few months. I want to know everything I can about these candidates. We decided as a body that this is information that we think voters need, and now we are not giving it to them. And it it seems like like something we should handle.

[Speaker 2]: Send it away. Thank you. Yeah. I'm fine with your language. I would support to vote as concurrent or however we want to put it and not go to a conference committee even. But that's just my vote. My one thought that I wanted to ask that might change that Mhmm. Is I do have some concerns, about the new form for candidates, is we are asking them for private information like their physical address, their spouse, or their own workplace physical address, and it's public. And I wonder if your committee discussed at all redacting that information, especially for candidates who might have situations where they say, I'm not gonna run for office because I have an ex abuser who lives somewhere in this state, and I don't wanna fill out a form that puts my work address on it. So did you discuss that

[Speaker 4]: at all, or do you

[Speaker 1]: think your committee would be

[Speaker 4]: open to a conversation about that?

[Speaker 1]: We did not discuss it this time, but I remember discussing it last biennium, and I don't remember sorry. I wish I could remember, but I don't remember what the reasons were for for Yeah. I just mentioned that we

[Speaker 2]: have expanded it to candidates. I think there is a case to be made for elected officials. Yes. But I think it's very hard to make a case for a candidate to have to disclose their spouse's work address if they feel uncomfortable with that information. Like, just feels that is a barrier for people to run for office.

[Speaker 1]: And I would say that I my guess is because I obviously got the system. This seems a 100% like something that our committee would be fine with with discussing and being okay. Yeah. That was the only thing that we haven't responded to.

[Speaker 3]: I wish I

[Speaker 1]: could remember why we did that in the first place, but it was Mhmm.

[Speaker 4]: Yeah. Think it's a weird misalignment with work we did last year that did redact some of this information. Yeah. Yeah. I think that my guess is what was happening is these things were on fairly parallel tracks and didn't get harmonized. Yeah. And a lot

[Speaker 1]: of these things have come up since then because we haven't had an election since then. We passed that one a couple years ago. So now we already know the case, you know, two weeks before the end of session.

[Speaker 0]: Senator Clarkson, did you have a question?

[Speaker 5]: I'm sorry to catch you. It's okay. I apologize for being late. I- It's okay.

[Speaker 0]: Pressures in, like, many and the agenda- We're done.

[Speaker 5]: Just like- Yes. Presidents. Where I thought we had landed yesterday on having the forms on both sides and eliminating for this election cycle any penalty. That's what we're

[Speaker 4]: looking at. Yes. That's also right there.

[Speaker 5]: Is what we're discussing at the moment. That's what's in no?

[Speaker 6]: That's well, yeah. So when

[Speaker 5]: you say you're ready to vote, this is what I'm trying to get to.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 5]: What what you say you're ready to vote for is that?

[Speaker 2]: Is the house amended version which includes that?

[Speaker 4]: Yeah. Well, house amended version firmly puts it in the ethics commissions. Mhmm. It does not like, it this is my concern with the house language, and I and this is what I said yesterday, is that we sort of have said we have not figured out exactly where this should land, but the house language says this is where it lands.

[Speaker 5]: House by the penalty the penalty.

[Speaker 4]: I am okay with that. I I I am reluctantly okay with that for this year.

[Speaker 1]: Yeah. We I mean, we have to. I don't Yeah. I I don't see any way we could tell people you can't be late when we ourselves are super late. That seems Yeah. No. I I I don't know if he were a hair stunner when I was explaining, but the reason why we said only one of those two organizations would host it, like, on their site is because if something changed, it there's a possibility that they would that they would two different answers in an FAQ document or two different if something had to change on the form, there would be two different versions of the form. So if one hosts it, the other would link to it everywhere. Like, it's just a matter of saying, for your financial disclosure form, click here, and then it would take you from the Secretary of State's website to the Ethics Commission's website where the form would be hosted.

[Speaker 5]: Right. So just to come back to who are we doing this for? We're doing this for transparency to voters. Correct. That is what this particular disclosure form is for. Yes. So they have it on both websites, whether it's in full form or a link to the

[Speaker 7]: form since found by me.

[Speaker 5]: I'm okay. I do think if we look at who are we doing this for, all information about candidates really belongs on the Secretary of State's website. It just, thought I mean, that's another discussion for perhaps another day. I at the moment, until we resolve this, and I again, I need I feel like we need to give this to to them, everybody to to resolve. I'm okay with this election cycle to have it in both places, but with no with eliminating any kind of penalty. I do think we have to resolve this, and I do think from a voters point of view who's looking they look one place. They look at the secretary of state's website. They are not going to the it's not a natural thing for them to go to the ethics commission website to look at information about a candidate. They are looking at the second. And the secretary of state has said mean, I she's now publishing a whole voter guide, which she never did before. If you're going to that effort to to create a whole voter guide and really say, all the voter information, all candidate information is here. We are your be able to handle site for go understanding and appreciating the candidate fully. It everything should be there.

[Speaker 1]: Well, the filled out forms, the the forms that have been turned in by the candidates will be there with the rest of of It's the it's the the blank form where to find it as a candidate and any questions related to it. I don't know how many voters would be looking for that information necessarily. They probably would coming out.

[Speaker 0]: Would be looking for it. Yeah.

[Speaker 5]: So I mean, think that's as long as we can have it.

[Speaker 0]: Another option, which I advanced yesterday,

[Speaker 6]: and I'm gonna get pushed back to some of the

[Speaker 0]: members of the committee, is that since it has become obvious that neither the Ethics Commission nor the Secretary of State wants to be in a position of advising candidates that for this election coming up, we just don't have a disclosure form. We can do away with it. It's not necessary. That way because what's the point of having a disclosure if neither entity is willing to go beyond that? I don't if there's no money, there's no money. It's just something I'll suggest again. I understand the pushback on it.

[Speaker 5]: Just the the concern I think we a number of us have is that once we let that disclosure form go, it'll be very hard to make it out.

[Speaker 0]: Oh, I don't think so. We could put it in statute that it'll reappear in '27.

[Speaker 1]: Well, you just gave me a thought, which is thinking back to filing those forms as candidate, like a first time candidate, it it was a little confusing and I just kinda did the best I could and sent it in and, you know, it wasn't a thing. So we if this just occurred to me as you were talking, maybe we say no advice for anyone this year. Here's a form. Do the best you can. That it

[Speaker 0]: I guess that's

[Speaker 1]: That that could be an option. It could take care of the financial aspect. It could take care of the penalty aspect. It could take care of the who's in charge of what aspect for now, and then we figure it out Okay. You know, next year. So now I'm just participating here.

[Speaker 0]: But you just if I didn't say it I

[Speaker 1]: smoked yarn. Yeah. I know. If if you did say if I did say that, would forget it.

[Speaker 0]: It's on the floor tomorrow. I don't know based on the number of pills on the calendar whether we'll get to it tomorrow or not. But at some point, I'll either have to stand up and say, we couldn't come to a decision and we're requesting a conference committee or the committee has carefully looked at the thoughtful work from the house and either agrees or suggests a further proposal of amendment. We can keep going back and forth. Sure. But my solution would be to just, okay, fine. Nobody wants to do it, then nobody has to do it. There's no more form this year

[Speaker 3]: and we'll move on.

[Speaker 0]: Senator Vyhovsky.

[Speaker 4]: This is not the first election cycle where this forum or some version of it has existed, so I'm really curious. And I I'd love to hear from the ethics commission because I know I heard from the secretary of state's office yesterday, and they're the other party to this discussion. Why wasn't this such a problem last year or last election cycle? Like, I don't understand why suddenly this is a problem when it wasn't a problem last election cycle.

[Speaker 1]: I think Well, I can I think I can explain it, but, you know, you someone from the ethics Yeah? Permission to probably answer that better. But I believe it's because we charged them with the municipal ethics response. It a couple years ago, you said no?

[Speaker 4]: Well, no. I think Oh, okay. The last election cycle, the secretary of state's office did it.

[Speaker 0]: Three years.

[Speaker 4]: Like, the my my understanding is is now the the secretary of state's office historically has done this. Yes. And now we're saying, no. We shouldn't be doing it.

[Speaker 1]: I am, like, I am a neutral party. I am barely I am barely a a member of the house. Not as

[Speaker 4]: fair as I'm sure. Yeah. It's not like We do need to hear yeah.

[Speaker 1]: Yeah. I think that's

[Speaker 0]: not We may have to do that. Yeah.

[Speaker 4]: I talked

[Speaker 0]: to him five minutes, and senator Morley, you have a question. First of thank you for inviting me up to

[Speaker 6]: your committee and giving testimony this morning.

[Speaker 0]: I enjoyed having you very much.

[Speaker 1]: Best name.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. It's a nice room,

[Speaker 3]: isn't it? Very nice room.

[Speaker 0]: You've got the Secretary of State's Office that came in and gave testimony yesterday basically saying, we don't know anything about this. We've never done it before. We need another position

[Speaker 3]: of a 150,000

[Speaker 0]: rings a bell in my mind. Yep. I don't know if one person could do it or not. I I have we don't know.

[Speaker 1]: They're not sure. We didn't get quite that part with them in in house cup ups. Probably. But With them asking for positions. So that's exciting.

[Speaker 7]: I think it'd be fair to

[Speaker 0]: say there was quite a bit of pushback from the Secretary of State's office on this for right now. I'd say substantial. Well, don't why he was saying that. And I think we may be hearing the same thing from next convention too, they don't have the personnel and the funds to do this. Where does that leave us? Some people have already, I'm guessing, already filed. I think some amateur. Yeah.

[Speaker 1]: The town clerks have been giving people instruction to not worry about the financial disclosure form on the file.

[Speaker 3]: Are you serious? That's not

[Speaker 4]: what the secretary of state's office testified yesterday. They testified that they have given the form to all the town clerks to give to people when they file they don't give it.

[Speaker 1]: That is new since last week. Okay. But you can point it let them know. Appreciate it. Let them know.

[Speaker 0]: Reason why I'm concerned about it as of right now because it's I'm

[Speaker 1]: breaking news here. Yeah. In SGL.

[Speaker 5]: The SGL is your So There's your bill.

[Speaker 1]: Alright.

[Speaker 3]: Thank you. You I'm good.

[Speaker 1]: Are you sure?

[Speaker 4]: Yeah. Alright. I'm asking. I hear

[Speaker 1]: what you're saying. When my kids were little and they were arguing, they would comment they would come to me and I would say, work it out. And then they started coming to me and saying, we don't wanna work it out, and here's

[Speaker 0]: what talking Fix it, mom.

[Speaker 1]: I wish that we could say work it out. It's okay. Anyway, help me back anytime. I'm gonna go.

[Speaker 5]: But Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, Shay.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you so much.

[Speaker 0]: I don't know how we're gonna resolve this, situation other than if this is what I'm going to do personally. I'm gonna get the form. I haven't filed yet. No. I haven't watched your but I'm going to get the form. I'm gonna bill it out and send it in, and that's what I'm going to do. But I do understand for people just starting to run, it's usually that they're going to have potentially, and I don't wanna hold them. I wanna make sure that we don't penalize them. Yeah. I don't think we're going to. The problem is if they have a question, there's no way they can ask. Paul, five minutes.

[Speaker 3]: Okay. Ask me questions.

[Speaker 0]: Paul, I thought you had something that you wanted to say.

[Speaker 3]: Well, I wasn't invited, but I just showed up.

[Speaker 0]: Well, I mentioned to you yesterday that we will be talking today. Oh, you said sometime this week,

[Speaker 3]: and I saw this morning, so here I am. Okay. Look. Senator Vyhovsky, you are right. Secretary of State's office has been handling this for the past eight years. I don't know why all of sudden we are charged with doing this. But that said, I understand that they feel understaffed. We are certainly way understaffed, But this is a whole new age. It's not within our daily life. We've never answered these questions before. We need to hire an expert. We do create the form. And Senator Clarkson, Senator Collamore, I believe the two of you were on Government Operations Committee when

[Speaker 5]: We created decided the work, yeah. Assigned to

[Speaker 3]: us the job of creating and maintaining. My understanding is that Chris Siffer, who was present with you, understood that maintaining means that as the statute changes, we would update it. We would maintain it. And that we and that she said she was very clear with the committee that it was not to take on any extra duties because we don't allow the staff and because we don't do elections. The confusion has already started. By the way, I'm gonna interrupt. You heard a news flash that secretary of state's office has distributed to town clerks. Well, we just learned that news flash too, and we had proposed compromise that if they post it, we'll post it. We have posted it as of about an hour ago because we learned that it had been distributed in some way, so now it's available on the Ethics Commission website. I will also say that the confusion created by this demand,

[Speaker 6]: really,

[Speaker 3]: from Secretary of State's office, they have, what they're distributing is a form that, without our permission, they put at the top. The one state ethics commission, and at the end of it, posted this form, which refers to the form as an Ethics Commission form. So we're now, we have today received our first form that should have gone to Secretary of State's office. We're also receiving questions that really are way outside of Bailiwick, that aren't just about the form, and these are questions that are being referred by the Secretary of State's office to our office. We just don't know the answers, and they really, all the questions, how do I need to fill this out, what if I don't, you know, report a trust, and this or that? It all comes down to qualifications for office. We're not qualified, or, you know, it's not our expertise. Are you qualified or not? I would urge you folks to, the legislature generally, get rid of that whole section four, assigning us tasks that we aren't in a position to fulfill, either because we don't have the knowledge base and we don't have the staff. I would also just mention, in brief, I learned after the fact that Lauren Hibbert had testified yesterday, and somebody who listened to the tapes, that there were a lot of misleading statements about Lauren Hibbert. She's very nice, but if she made misleading statements, I wish she had also invited me or somebody to also attend so that we could have responded then in the future. If there's talk about the ethics commission, would welcome an invitation. I think that's pretty much it for me, less than five minutes. Okay, great. Thank you very much. Questions? Go ahead, Sandra Gilpin.

[Speaker 4]: To your point and and to the point Sandra Clarkson made earlier about it being confusing for voters where to find information, I think it's additionally confusing for candidates where to find information. I mean, this is why I come back to, like, this is an elections issue if he only lives with the secretary of state. If that's where they're filing the form and that's what and and this document they gave us the other day is incredibly confusing, and I don't wanna even understand how it creates less work for them because there's this ping pong effect that's created. They get it from here, and then you send it out, and then it comes back to them, and then off to you. Like, I I just I think I also support striking the language in section four, which I I said yesterday as well.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. Last one. I just thought I remember hearing that there was something in statute chair saying that it went I thought it was some testimony I heard that it went to

[Speaker 5]: others, there's false Gave them the job Two years ago. And maintained it.

[Speaker 4]: There's that's where the confusion is, is there's a conflict over what does create and maintain mean. I mean, create and maintain to mean they create the form, and they make sure it's updated with statute. The secretary of state's office views that to me. They create the form and then manage any questions. And

[Speaker 5]: And and I really do think that we have to go back and look at it from the voters' point of view. We're trying to find out information and from the candidate's point of view. We wanna make it as simple for candidates as possible because making a candidate is a challenge in and of itself.

[Speaker 0]: Well, it's not clear to statute that. I mean, that's why we're in this mess.

[Speaker 5]: Yes.

[Speaker 0]: That's why we shouldn't have voted made a voting bill Right. This year.

[Speaker 4]: Well, this is existing language. Yeah. This is from

[Speaker 0]: But the original bill It wasn't completely over, I was told wasn't an elections bill in an election year. Right. Now I completely disagree. Think that's exactly what this is.

[Speaker 2]: Yes. But the problem would have happened with or without. Yes.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. Anyway, Paul, thank you very much. It is. We're gonna move on to our next item today.

[Speaker 3]: Thank you for

[Speaker 0]: Are we good?

[Speaker 5]: Yep. Appreciate

[Speaker 4]: it. As a candidate, I chose a candidate tab on the secretary of state's elections division page to get what I need.

[Speaker 0]: Right. I guess all I want,

[Speaker 3]: secretary So of

[Speaker 0]: we're gonna take up nine zero seven, which is our ever favorite, recording Of course. Bill. It is now 37 pages for 27, and it's a strike all on our behalf. And I think you each have a little bit of information as to what the differences are between, what we did and what came over from the other body. So, Justin, if you wanna join us. Sure. Happy to. Thanks for your answers. I guess. We're looking I was hoping that we were gonna move this today, but I I I'm gonna, again, yield to vice chair because she's the one reporting this. And if it isn't something that's in a proper form to report, then we can wait. But so I have this piece here, and then I have the draft 1.1.

[Speaker 3]: Have 2.2.

[Speaker 5]: I have 2.2.

[Speaker 0]: And I have Yes, sorry,

[Speaker 5]: say I have two. Red, white, and black. Yeah. Yes, fine.

[Speaker 0]: Okay, so welcome. I don't know what more

[Speaker 7]: we need to ask of you. Is there anything?

[Speaker 4]: I don't think I know either. Was not sure why Justin was called back guess in that's

[Speaker 5]: it. That's good.

[Speaker 0]: Best one to tell you.

[Speaker 4]: I guess you did send an email about the indicators. Yes. I know we had talked about adding those to what I now can't remember if it was a different those ones you sent to a different report. Yep. From the email you sent, I'm not entirely sure that's ready to just drop into that. Correct. So I think that maybe more work is needed.

[Speaker 7]: Yeah, I think we would need to discuss that a bit more. Some of those indicators you might not wanna add, like TV viewing, don't

[Speaker 3]: know, well, if you want

[Speaker 7]: to add that one. So there's couple in there that are like, probably wouldn't add those, they're not that important. And then the ones that you might wanna add, I need to make sure that we have someone on the state side that can actually get that information and be able to provide some form of story behind the curves as that timeline changes over time.

[Speaker 4]: Do you have a sense? So there it's it's sort of two parter. There's another bill that we could do that in. HS three twenty four, which is the government accountability bill, has a whole section in there about the report that you're talking about. Yep. How long do you think it would take for us to get that language ready for prime time? What I'm trying to gauge is can we do it in 03/24, or do we need to wait till next year?

[Speaker 7]: It might make sense to wait till next year. Only because also if anything gets added this year, that's gonna be a very quick turnaround for people to have to gather that data to get it ready. Because I'll be putting out the memo to gather the data in June, So that would be a surprise to a lot of folks that they have the data.

[Speaker 4]: Well, aren't they gathering it for this report currently?

[Speaker 7]: For the GPI? No, because the GPI has Yeah, we haven't had it

[Speaker 4]: about it?

[Speaker 5]: Yeah. We sadly haven't made progress since 2018.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. Are you happy?

[Speaker 4]: I think so.

[Speaker 5]: Okay. I

[Speaker 4]: didn't think I had questions on March 2020,

[Speaker 0]: but I don't

[Speaker 3]: share that. Okay.

[Speaker 7]: But I would love to take that up next year

[Speaker 4]: for sure. That would be great.

[Speaker 5]: Our joint committee that we're trying to set up, are we talking about the reporting bill?

[Speaker 4]: We're talking about reporting bill. Kind of. So we And and, well, I not here on so you weren't here on Thursday of last week when we discussed this. And Justin indicated that we should repeal the report on genuine progress indicators, but remove some of those indicators to another report so that we still get them in some sort of different Initially, I had hoped to do that in this bill. I realized before you will. In in In in 2004. But initially, I had hoped to do it in 09/2007. But then I realized that s 03/24 also deals with the report Justin suggested we've added them in, so I thought it might be less complicated to do it over there. And now it feels like we maybe need time to just do its own thing next year.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. Yeah. And I'm sorry.

[Speaker 4]: The other one, the performance accountability requirements of contracts and grants, we were gonna reveal that one for you too. Correct. And

[Speaker 0]: now I'm

[Speaker 4]: trying to remember Sorry.

[Speaker 5]: I know, it's unclossed. Where is

[Speaker 4]: that data then going to go?

[Speaker 7]: So the data lives within our physician accounting The percentage of grants and the percentage of contracts that have performance factors is a requirement of the outcomes report, so I have to report the data to you. It's just not gonna be a stand alone.

[Speaker 3]: Yeah, okay.

[Speaker 4]: Just, for whatever haven't made the note, because when I initially see, like, we're not gonna get that anymore, go, oh,

[Speaker 5]: You we don't like still go. Perfect,

[Speaker 4]: I didn't have that note. Okay,

[Speaker 0]: well. Ready? So,

[Speaker 5]: I Okay. My question is We're talking about the several bills. So I just wanna make clear that we're talking about the report

[Speaker 3]: Yes.

[Speaker 6]: I'm reporting.

[Speaker 5]: Yes. Zero We're not talking about the other things Justin is aware that, which is accountability.

[Speaker 0]: No. No.

[Speaker 5]: Got it. Okay.

[Speaker 0]: That's gonna

[Speaker 5]: So we are just dealing

[Speaker 3]: with moment.

[Speaker 5]: We're not dealing with 324. 907. We're now dealing virtually with 907.

[Speaker 4]: Yes. Correct.

[Speaker 5]: And we are now all set with 907. As far I return.

[Speaker 4]: We're all well, I've got based I don't know. I've got questions for Tim. Well, I don't have questions for Justin.

[Speaker 0]: Well, do you want to wait and get your answers from Tim before we vote the bill up? I was

[Speaker 5]: quite sad. You're getting With Jonathan, in GPI.

[Speaker 4]: Yeah. Rid, repealing GPI and repealing the performance accountability requirements and grants because that lives in the outcomes report. We don't need a report that lives

[Speaker 0]: in another I get it. So we're not gonna vote this out.

[Speaker 4]: Well, so that's those are my questions for Tim because I'm looking at the list of things here, and I don't actually see everything represented that need to be so I'm not entirely sure that 907 actually encompasses Okay. Everything we discussed.

[Speaker 0]: I don't wanna force a

[Speaker 5]: Well, can we

[Speaker 0]: just setting it

[Speaker 4]: around now. Don't know. If you

[Speaker 3]: could be able to Thank you.

[Speaker 4]: Thank you, Justin.

[Speaker 5]: Justin, thank you. And we look forward to discussing 03/24 with Sounds you sometime good. That would be next year, as you pointed out.

[Speaker 4]: Well, not all of

[Speaker 0]: 03/24,

[Speaker 5]: just that part. Just that part. The rest of the 03/24, I'm

[Speaker 4]: writing the rock to roll. We had some changes.

[Speaker 5]: Yeah, we had a But I'm ready to rock to roll with that too. Should I sit back down?

[Speaker 0]: No, I think you do something. Gorgeous. We do have an update of agenda at some point. So Okay. We do. Alright. So do you wanna take a break and consult with him?

[Speaker 4]: I'm happy to take a break and consult with Tim. I don't know if we want to attend the new draft that just landed on our desk.

[Speaker 5]: Yeah. 2.2?

[Speaker 4]: Yeah. But I'm also happy to take a break and just consult with with Tim.

[Speaker 5]: I just wanna make sure we're all easier what your questions are. If you have questions, I've just been presented, and we're ready to vote on something. I'd like to answer your questions before we vote

[Speaker 0]: on it.

[Speaker 4]: Well, so my first question relates to the conversation we just had, and does the new draft include the repeal of the genuine progress indicator and the repeal of the logic of the reporting?

[Speaker 6]: Okay. Let's see.

[Speaker 4]: Because it's not in the list of beef things.

[Speaker 6]: Okay. So we have genuine, progress indicator. So this is from Acts twenty twelve, number one thirteen, section three, for a genuine progress. So that is gonna be found on page 13, and if you go above it, this is under section 12, and this is repeals. So the following are repeal. That's we

[Speaker 4]: And then the product That

[Speaker 3]: hasn't changed. The other

[Speaker 4]: one I'm having, so it should be in the same section, yes, section 12, the repeal report on outcomes of projects and grants. Let's see. Page are benches? Right now I'm on page 13, but I'm not.

[Speaker 6]: So performance contracts and grants, repeals of reporting requirements, and yes, this is in section one just because it's a So, but it is repealed, we'll have the strike through of subsections b of the three BSA twenty three thirteen, performance contracts and grants. This is where you have the annual requirement on before, for July 30, for the chief performance officer to report with the general assembly on the progress by three or four percentage of how many states' contracts, credits, and reforms can be replaced by the My other question so along the way,

[Speaker 4]: we discovered that there's another cybersecurity report. Okay. That is given to us by the cybersecurity oversight, Sean Naylor.

[Speaker 5]: Mhmm. Oh. Oh. And we had just JITalk? Joint Information Technology.

[Speaker 4]: I have no idea. But it it's Sean Naylor's committee. But through an error, we invited Sean Naylor in to talk about the cybersecurity report. Mhmm. He had no idea what we were talking about because they're two different reports. What we had discovered in that is that that report that he does, he usually prefers to do verbally, which is allowed, but the date the report is due is January 15, which is a problem because it's chaos. And so we discussed shifting that date out for him to February 15.

[Speaker 7]: Yes.

[Speaker 0]: Do remember that.

[Speaker 4]: We discussed making that change in this bill because it's here. And I'm not sure I see that reflected in the list of eight things, but I admittedly haven't read the 27 pages of Bill White.

[Speaker 6]: I'm not sure if that is in here. Okay. You logged in. Were right. Because

[Speaker 4]: that I I like I said, I didn't see that. And then after that, everything looks good. So maybe we can make

[Speaker 3]: a change to that. No. That is not it.

[Speaker 4]: And do you know the report I'm talking about? Can you

[Speaker 1]: add it?

[Speaker 6]: I think so. I'll have to take a look at that just to confirm that. Okay. This looks like it's maybe in session with somebody.

[Speaker 4]: Okay. Because that is something we'd agreed to do for him is move So that

[Speaker 0]: this would be graph two point three? Three point one. 3.1? Everyone does it different. And

[Speaker 6]: then tracker.

[Speaker 4]: Beyond that, the this list of eight things is the list of eight things that we've discussed through all of this. Mhmm. I do see the note, and I just wanna acknowledge for every for you and the committee the note on number two that we should seek testimony from the Department of Human Resources.

[Speaker 0]: We did.

[Speaker 4]: We did do that. Had that testimony Thursday. But, yeah, I think once that other cybersecurity change is made, it should be good

[Speaker 3]: to go. Okay. The repair of

[Speaker 4]: the G. Yeah. Factory is already in here.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. It's already in here. Do you want to take a break, Tim, while you look for that? Yeah, that sounds good. Okay, so let's take a ten minute break, and we will be back with, oh,