SmartTranscript of Senate Economic Development - 2025-04-23-9:00 AM

[Chair Alison Clarkson]: Oh, no. Not right. Sophie. Sophie, but we're starting with Megan. So, Megan, why don't you come join us? Welcome, everybody. It is Wednesday, April twenty third, and it is here in the statehouse, and it's South Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs. And we are taking up our bill h four sixty one, the expanding employee access to unpaid leave. And we have joining us, Megan. So, Megan, if you'd be kind enough to introduce yourself and take it away. [Megan Sullivan]: Thank you, madam chair and committee for [Speaker 2 ]: having me. For the record, Megan Sullivan, vice president of government affairs [Megan Sullivan]: for the Vermont Chamber of Commerce. I appreciate the opportunity to come in today and provide testimony on h four sixty one. I was able to also provide testimony on the house when they took up this bill and appreciate the work that they did with us on it. There are continue to be a few things we'd like to talk about in the bill, but I'd like to start actually just setting some broader economic context as we're talking about, you know, what's happening in the economy and what this bill is going going into. As many of you heard during manufacturing day and tourism day and the tariff conversations, businesses across industries and geographies in Vermont are operating in a period of sustained and compounding uncertainty. Tariffs are impacting material costs, energy costs are going up, health care costs are rising in unsustainable ways, and employers are really struggling in Vermont to fill their open positions. The challenges that they're facing are not theoretical. They're having real day to day impacts on business operations, expansion plans, and job creation. So when employers are already operating on thin margins, the cumulative impact of new state level mandates whether related to employment or energy or reporting can be death by a thousand cuts on their ability to remain competitive. Businesses are working hard to hold on to every contract and every customer often competing directly with companies and neighboring states that may not be subject to the same regulatory requirements. So it's important to underscore that while h four sixty one outlines unpaid leave, that does not mean it's not without cost to employers. An employee is absent even temporarily, their responsibilities must be absorbed by other staff or deferred or backfilled. This can mean lost productivity, missed deadlines, or increased overtime expenses, all of which can, impact the bottom line. These operational costs can be especially burdensome on small employers where one person's absence can significantly disrupt workflow, customer service, or scheduling. Many Vermont businesses simply don't have enough depth or bench strength to absorb such losses easily, especially when those losses are recurrent or layered on top of other economic pressures. I do wanna say that we recognize for the inclusive intent of four sixty one. We hope to highlight the balance needed in employee protections with the practical implications [Chair Alison Clarkson]: of the operational challenges [Megan Sullivan]: to our business community. Business community. You know, specifically for small business, I would say, one of the tools that they rely on to compete for talent is flexibility, whether it's through custom schedules, individualized benefits, or case by case leave arrangements. Smaller employers have long used their nimbleness as a selling point for recruitment and retention. Mandating one size fits all policies, even when unpaid, can unintentionally impact this flexibility, taking away key advantages for small businesses to differentiate themselves. And for our multi state, larger businesses, there's growing concern around increasingly fragmented landscape of state specific employer mandates. More states are enacting their own and at times conflicting requirements based on red or blue politics. The regulatory patchwork is creating real administrative challenges and creates legal uncertainty. While intention behind this, again, is, something we support and understandable, I think we all just need to also acknowledge the challenges that come [Chair Alison Clarkson]: with [Megan Sullivan]: creating this patchwork of states when Vermont employers are also employing people in states like North Carolina, Tennessee, Florida, and Texas that are taking very different looks at how to regulate businesses. So with that said, I have some specific reflection on four sixty one that I'd like the committee to consider moving forward with this bill. The definition of en loco parent Have you said have you said this? I will. I'm putting on letterhead. Okay. Seriously, I'm out of my for me sometime. Right. The definition of in limbo apprentice. So four sixty one includes the definition of in family member in section two, subsection nine, as someone with day to day responsibilities and care for and support child without necessarily biological, legal ties, or where financial support is required. Again, I appreciate the bill's goal of inclusivity and actually think that what four sixty one does is add specific family definitions that federal It's on page four. Before I go, I'll be happy to go. Alright. Okay. What four sixty one does is add specific family definitions that federal guidance would put under potentially uses for a local apprentice. Things like a domestic partner or grandparents for sixty one defines as family. Yes. In the federal FMLA, those types of relationships are what they refer to in the local apprentice examples that they use. So it's unclear if we're going to define those relationships here what this definition would be used for, what relationships are included in that. For compliance HR perspective, continuing to include this when those relationships are now defined, lacks clarity and the enforceable standards. Employers are gonna struggle to assess these relationships fairly and consistently. So we're gonna ask the committee to consider either removing that or narrowing this definition to make it clear what additional types of relationships are being defined here. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I think it's pretty clear. So I'm a little puzzled. Do you don't think that's a snicker? And what? It means a relationship which an individual has day to day responsibilities to care for and support a child regardless of biological and legal ties. So if you I mean, we can have our Right. [Megan Sullivan]: But we can add in those relationships in the definition. So grandparents are now defined. Domestic partner is now defined. Right. So, you know, when I think of even when you look at how in local parenthesis used, it might be used as a teacher given the ability to administer medicine at school. Is that teacher now included in the local parenthesis for me for these purposes? So I'm saying, I think h forty one four sixty one is important that it adds those definitions that use of fall on, though with charity. It does. Yeah. So those definitions that used to fall under in local parenthesis under federal FMLA, what now would still be included in that, and what is the [Chair Alison Clarkson]: documentation? Okay. So Okay. [Sophie Zdatny]: The entirety of the bill, but I'm trying to skim it now. Does this grant in locus parentis the same rights as a parent? Okay. So I'm looking for that section where [Chair Alison Clarkson]: It's, I believe. You [Sophie Zdatny]: said something? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yeah. It's Sophie. [Sophie Zdatny]: So Sophie Dudani at the office of the state council. The definition for a local parenthesis in there because if you look under the other definitions, it references a local parenthesis. So it's really defining how a local parenthesis is used under, for example, the family member definition. So it's not being a separate a separate thing for a local pretense. It's just defining it as a term because that that term is then used in other definitions in here. Oh, good. Right. So if you look under family member page page three, it talks about a child in the employee's bathroom or a child to whom the employee stands in local parentis. And then also an individual to whom the employee stood in local parentis when the individual was down to the age of eighteen. Or, again, if it's for someone that stood as you were the child and and they were the served as the in no proof of interest to you. Again, it's just defining that definition, the that phrase because it's used under the family member definition. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So it's not a separate [Sophie Zdatny]: It's not a standalone. It's it's [Chair Alison Clarkson]: It's not a standalone development. [Sophie Zdatny]: It's explaining so when you look at family member and someone's like, well, what does in loco parentis means? That definition is then included in [Member Thomas Chittenden]: It would, like like, in. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yeah. So I under [Member Thomas Chittenden]: I think I understand David's comment, you know, so he can react to day to day responsibilities for a child, day day care center operator, a teacher? How do you distinguish between a very general description like that and a responsibility as significant as parenting? [Sophie Zdatny]: Yeah. I don't I mean, like, it's really about a child to whom the employee stands in as sort of effectively as a parent. So I don't think that would apply for Yeah. A day count or a [Member Thomas Chittenden]: I'm just reading words. But [Megan Sullivan]: Well, again, my read of the federal law is when they refer to family members as in local apprentice, what they've given examples of are grandparents, which now we've added as a family member specifically here or domestic partner, which, again, we've added specifically as a family member here. So so I was saying somebody who stood in local apprentice, who are we now? Who who does that include? What relationships and and so if it's So I think [Chair Alison Clarkson]: what I hear Sophie say is that it is only to further illustrate the family member who is covered and and where [Member Randy Brock]: that troops [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I mean, I would [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I think I mean [Sophie Zdatny]: I mean, I would just say, for example, I mean, I know there's a a push, for example, around currently foreigners, you know, being deported. And there's a move to sort of have temporary guardianship, for example, for the children of of the folks that have been possibly deported. So that might be a child that's living in your home that you've got sort of in loco parentis. No. No. [Megan Sullivan]: You got responsibility for? I I mean, I don't need to argue, but give my No. I mean, I [Chair Alison Clarkson]: think we need to understand and appreciate it. So but I think what Megan's question is, are they then covered in unpaid family leave? I mean, is that umbrella that big that it's including those people as well as the family member? [Sophie Zdatny]: I would yeah. I think the understanding here would be if you had a child that's sort of in your home, that you're not the grandparent or the domestic partner or or whatever, but you have a child that's in your home that you needed to take to the doctor or whichever, that you would be able to use this need for that purpose. [Megan Sullivan]: I guess it would help if we add in examples then, if those examples that are currently used in federal statute are being defined here of what is that relationship where somebody doesn't have financial legal responsibility that they're [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Well, they may have temporary responsibility as in local apprentice. They may have temporary legal responsibility for that child. [Megan Sullivan]: Someone is living in your home, I would think you would have financial responsibility for them. [Sophie Zdatny]: So I think the purpose here is to go beyond well, this is a more expansive definition. That was one point something. [Megan Sullivan]: And I think is my point. So I can we can advocate for different points here, but my point is that it is expansive. And it is going to be if we want this to be fairly and consistently implemented by employers, it needs to be clear. So This is [Chair Alison Clarkson]: an area we could either fire fire, choose the yeah. [Megan Sullivan]: That's that is our request. Okay. We'll Right? [Sophie Zdatny]: We're gonna have narrowing language suggestions. I think I heard you say that you'd like to narrow this at all. Do you have any suggestion maybe removing the financial support optionality? [Member David Weeks]: Do you think that would be a better requirement? [Megan Sullivan]: I think having some requirements of what is the the relationship would be important. Or if you're gonna take twelve weeks of leave, having some tied relationship. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Great. I'm gonna keep you finishing your testimony because we have had to we have had to shift our and we have Carrie here as well, and we wanna quickly touch on and move on an amendment that Sophie and and Charlie are working on. Okay. So thank you. Good. We got clarified [Megan Sullivan]: this. Bereavement leave duration and scope. So section three, subsection a part two allows employers to use employees to use up to two weeks of the twelve weeks of leave for bereavement. The employees are giving employees time to grieve but concerned about the length and scope of the requirement, especially for our smaller employees. Forty five states, including Vermont currently, do not mandate bereavement leave at all. And of the five states that do, California, Maryland, and Washington generally require far fewer days. Oregon and Illinois offer similar extent, but they do so for much larger employers only. Four sixty one's threshold of ten employees is considerably lower, yet the two week two week leave mandate would be among the most generous, in the country. For businesses, again, with ten to fifteen employees, losing one staff member for two weeks even on pay can significantly disrupt operations, delay projects, or impact client relationships. We would respectfully request that the committee consider reducing the proposed arrangement in eight to five days. This strikes a balance between compassion and operational feasibility. It would bring Vermont more aligned with other state requirements. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Okay. I got it. Yeah. Tell us. [Member David Weeks]: We would also want [Sophie Zdatny]: us to raise employees up [Geoffrey Pizzutillo]: to, like, fifty, which I [Sophie Zdatny]: think we have for other standards. And and definitely makes sense to the five days to be consistent with the rest of the country, but I'm intrigued by the five states that have it if they have a higher threshold. [Megan Sullivan]: I'm saying there are two with a higher threshold that have a higher day rate that have more days than a higher threshold or have if they have a smaller employee threshold, have fewer days. Okay. If the committee is would like to include more employees covered, I think our compromise would be make it five days, keep it at the lower employee number around [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Or ten employees or less. [Megan Sullivan]: Right. Well, what what follows with the rest of the bill? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Right. Perfect. Okay. Let's keep going. You got this. [Megan Sullivan]: The bill just on clarity on relationship verification. The bill outlines documentation required to verify the reason for these or that may not require that the employer may ask to verify the reason for leave, such as serious health condition, death, or qualifying extend exigency, but does not address how an employer can verify the relationship that qualifies the employee to take the leap under the expanded definitions. You know, some things like how does the death certificate verify that the deceased was an employee's domestic partner as defined in the bill? How does the doctor's note confirm the employer stands and local parenthesis to a child if there's no legal or financial time? For safe leave where self attestation is permitted, how does the employer verify the relationship to the victim qualifies under the bill? I think this represents a gap in the legislation, so clearer guidance, would be helpful to make sure employers aren't left to guess, which increases legal risk and administrative burden. So we respectfully ask that the committee include language clarifying that the employers may request reasonable documentation to verify not just the reason for leave, which the bill does now, but the nature of the relationship involved, including examples or model templates as done for the types of documentation in the bill would provide much needed clarity. In conclusion, we share the legislature's commitment in fostering inclusive and supportive workplaces, and we support policies that reflect the realities of modern family structures, which I hate to say because these are always family structures. We're just recognizing them at modern times. At the same time, we urge caution and balance, particularly in the economic moment where Vermont employers are doing everything they can to retain staff for operations and rather whether unprecedented uncertainty. I think this bill proposes meaningful change, but we would ask for some of these adjustments to make it something that employers can more easily bring into their operations. Thank you. Thank you. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Appreciate it. And if you would get that, Tanya, that would be terrific. And if you'd stick for Carrie's any other questions at this moment? Because we're gonna keep going. We [Speaker 2 ]: Very good. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I've got [Megan Sullivan]: good d tier three stakeholder group. Great. One. But I'm your customer data. Yeah. Great. I know that. Okay. Great. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Helpful as we work through this. Carrie, we welcome you, and I apologize that we're having to squeeze this a bit. [Cary Brown]: Okay. What are what are my limits here? No. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I'll wait. Your limits are where at nine thirty, the little ten governor's coming Okay. Reaching the cannabis. Okay. Okay. Because we have to fit them in and just figure out how we do that. [Cary Brown]: Carrie Brown, I'm the executive director of the Lumak Mission Unlimited. I have a very nuanced testimony that I was not gonna read all the way anyway, but I'll just really try and stick [Chair Alison Clarkson]: to And you sent it all out. [Cary Brown]: I I will. Yeah. Okay. So just a little bit of background. Vermont Commission of Women, we're a a new United States agency working to advance rights and opportunities for women and girls in Vermont. And we, [Chair Alison Clarkson]: sort of [Cary Brown]: in a nutshell, we provide advice and counsel to the legislative and executive branches on matters concerning women and gender equity. And I've we have a set of policy statements that guides our work, and I pulled out a couple of them for you, but the interesting thing about them is that they don't address unpaid leave. So for instance [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Oh. [Cary Brown]: The Vermont Commission on Women's Supports legislation, policies, programs, and initiatives that promote paid parental family and medical leave. And we have another one about people having equal access to benefits and privileges of Vermont's economic prosperity. Those are the ones I could find that address on the And so I think this is a this is a really important point for you to remember that we're not talking about paid leave, which is itself a kind of a low bar when you look at the rest of the world. Almost every other country in the world has some mechanism to provide for people to take paid time offs, take care of themselves, and protectors. We don't have that in this country. We don't have it in Vermont. What we have is the ability to take some unpaid leave from a limited basis. This is expanding that. It's small amounts. And so it's when you're thinking about ways to make it easier for people to both take care of their families and stay at work, this is a fairly low threshold to meet. And this is really important that we have to do this because we have so many more people who are working and taking care of families. So a hundred years ago, women were staying home taking care of the families, and they were not leaving to go to the workplace to do that. That's not the case anymore. And so it's to be able to balance those is challenging. And women find it particularly challenging because there's much greater societal expectation on them that they're gonna be the ones doing the caregiving. So women do a lot more caregiving work than men. And so for instance okay. Globally, three point two times as much time spent on unpaid care work. And in the US, it's about twice as much time that women are spending on care family caregiving work than men are. This is self reported numbers that people are telling me how much time they spend. And so one of the impacts that has is you've heard about the gender wage gap. Right? Overall, women We're still at eighty four cents. Yeah. Well, I don't it it sort of depends on how you how you look at it because if you look at it at comparing full time workers to full time workers, it's one thing. But if you look at it comparing all workers to all workers, it's different. So for instance, in Vermont, if you look at how much money all women are making, it's about seventy five percent of what men are making. And that's because the Vermont Department of Labor looks at part time workers, not just full time workers. And that is is significant because a lot more women are working part time, [Megan Sullivan]: and they're doing that and [Chair Alison Clarkson]: they're looking for quite a bit. [Megan Sullivan]: Care given responsibilities. [Cary Brown]: And so this is this has a disproportionate impact on this. And so, you know, if we were talking about paid leave, that would be wonderful. We're not talking about paid leave. We're just talking about we're not talking about getting more money into people's pockets. We're but we are talking about making it a little bit easier to do that balance so that you can maybe you could work full time if you had the ability to take time off when when you had a sick family member to take care of instead of choosing to work part time. So there's a lot of women that are working part time because they have family caregiver responsibilities. Maybe some of them would work full time if they had some even if they had some unpaid time off so that they didn't have to worry about losing their job when they took that time off Could make things could make things easier, could make things better for women to [Chair Alison Clarkson]: be in honor of labor. [Cary Brown]: I wanted I want to just address that the over the past decades that we've had these laws in place, there have been many changes made both at the federal and the state level to recognize ways to be more inclusive. So in this law that we have in Vermont was first enacted in nineteen eighty nine. And in nineteen ninety one, they changed the original wording of maternity leave to parental and family leave to recognize that it's not only mothers who are taking care of children. In nineteen ninety seven, we added short term family leave. So you could do things like take your child to a doctor's appointment and not have to have, you know, you know, be twelve weeks off, but you need the afternoon off. And then just as recently as last year, you made a number of technical changes that weren't really very substantive, but, you know, there's a there's a president for keeping eye on this and making sure that it's it's updated. The the federal law passed in nineteen ninety three, and one of the changes that was made to that was the let me see if I can get the the family friendly leave act was in nineteen ninety four, shortly after that. And in there, they defined family member as any individual afflicted by blood or affinity whose close association with the employee is the equivalent of the family relationship. Oh, that's interesting. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Nice. That's pretty nice in general. [Cary Brown]: Yep. It kinda kinda covers it might. I don't I'm not a lawyer, but it might address some of the concerns that you heard in the previous testimonies. I'm not necessarily suggesting you change the whole language right now at this point, [Chair Alison Clarkson]: but it's just something to keep [Cary Brown]: in mind that there is there is precedent for how this law is applied at the federal level. And so it's pretty inclusive. A number of other states have expanded their definition of the family. New Jersey, Washington, Connecticut, Oregon, Colorado have all expanded their definition of family members to be more inclusive to recognize that something like eighty two percent of American family households don't look like the standard traditional dad goes to work, mom stays home, there's two point five children go to school. Right? So everybody just can recognize that. And then I just wanted to if one just I just wanna note [Chair Alison Clarkson]: the safe leave that's in there. Vermont already recognizes the need for safe leave under paid sick days, paid sick and [Cary Brown]: safe leave days off. You can take such small amount of paid time off to take care of these needs. This would just make it a little bit easier for people to take some unpaid time off, which gives you a little bit more flexibility. And, I mean, if you're struggling with trying to get [Megan Sullivan]: to court and trying to [Cary Brown]: get your children taken care of and trying to find a new place to live because you're trying to ensure your own safety, having the ability to to take a little time off of work without worrying about losing your job. And that's really kind of the key thing. This provides job protection. So, you know, you take a few days off, and you know that you can go back to your job. And people definitely have lost their job because they can't reliably show up because they have to go to court. And, you know, so that's that's something that's Bill's trying [Chair Alison Clarkson]: to address. So those are [Megan Sullivan]: the key points that I wanted to make. [Cary Brown]: I will send you this testimony. You can see all footnotes and everything, all the other things in there, but those are. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So I take it that you strongly support the bill at the moment and have no suggested changes? [Cary Brown]: I I think it's great the way [Chair Alison Clarkson]: it is. Okay. You know? Yep. There. Yeah. Because we have one Oh, and the Yeah. Change that Charlie and Sophie have been working. [Cary Brown]: Yeah. And so that amendment that comes across safe leave, that looks [Chair Alison Clarkson]: great to me. Tell us about Do it. Great. Sophie, why don't you quickly come join us? [Member Thomas Chittenden]: So just [Chair Alison Clarkson]: to It's our data. I was Can [Member Thomas Chittenden]: you react to the Vermont Chamber of Commerce comments even yesterday about? [Cary Brown]: Yeah. So I was I think that the the concern about the language Yep. I'm sorry [Member Thomas Chittenden]: about the original channel no. About the challenges to Vermont businesses. Oh. About, you know, reliable employees and all [Chair Alison Clarkson]: that coming in. Yeah. That challenge. Well so this is not my area of expertise. I think you really need [Cary Brown]: to listen to the employers on this, but I will say that it there is evidence that people who have paid time off in particular are more likely to come back to work when their leave is over. They're more likely to stay in work. They work more hours. And so having that ability to be flexible can make a stronger employee who is more likely to stay and can reduce turnover. So in the kind of a longer picture, it can be through the damage. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: And that's the data that's what we've heard as we went through the Pate family bill too. Yes. Which for David and Thomas, we have gone through for now several biennium. We have been negotiating and working on our paid family wage bill, which we could not it's what I'm quite honest. It just was a big, heavy financial lift that in the final analysis, we weren't able to do, which is disappointing for many of us who really feel strongly about paper. So I think I think this this is helpful. And if there if we had data to that effect, if you would be able because I know that it says. Yeah. And if you would be able to provide that to us or at least Yeah. See if you could find it. [Cary Brown]: There's a little bit of that in there. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Right? That that would [Geoffrey Pizzutillo]: be great. Random. Is there data about cost of pay for the unpaid, I believe? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: The cost? And the good question from Megan too. Because that would me. Yep. [Cary Brown]: Yeah. Yeah. Not that I have, but I'm sure that is it somewhere. [Geoffrey Pizzutillo]: Because when let's say you have an employer who grants unpaid leave, the job is something that needs to be done. Otherwise, the employer would not hire the person. And so either there's a cost of not doing it or there's a cost of having somebody else do it. Yep. Right. Yep. Exactly. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So, Carrie, why don't we just let Sophie quickly go through the amendment she and Charlie have been working on, and then I because I think there's gonna be an an additional piece to it. So and then we'll have John join us, and we'll shift gears from unpaid family to cannabis. What can we do on that unpaid family? Okay. So Got it. Sorry. I don't know if it's all You know, we have to to add some lines of lavender here. Okay. Sophie. Because as you recall, we had Charlie had suggested a an amendment in which I think is a friendly amendment but needs to be added to. So Sophie, if [Ornella Mata-Figueroa]: you're and [Member Randy Brock]: then we're gonna But we [Sophie Zdatny]: do have copies of the post consent? We do. It's definitely verified. What I did was I went ahead and also put it into the current document. It's sometimes a little easier to see when it's in context. Got it. So the first change is Sorry. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I think we're good. [Sophie Zdatny]: The first change is domestic violence. This just adds in the definition of abuse in fifteen BSA eleven oh one, which deals with it's a domestic violence statute. It deals with, coercive behavior, other things. But rather than taking out the existing definition of domestic violence, it seems to make sense to include both, the original definition we had in there as well as adding this definition of abuse. The pilots have come in and argued or the flight crew members that they are currently not covered at all by the, parental and family leave act. And so they have requested this additional language about hours of service. So this would then mean that they are covered under the parental and family leave act in Vermont And that reference to a federal statute because of the minutes on hours that they can take. Right. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: And [Sophie Zdatny]: then the other two changes here are, again, just so the change in this section, this is to do with the definition of safe leave. This is actually removing the reference to a court proceeding around getting a relief from abuse order. So it's it's highlighted, but what's missing is there was an additional subsection in there before. And then this morning, there was a suggestion that on that subsection five that's highly highlighted Roman numeral five, that it when it says to meet with the state's attorney or law enforcement officer to add the language either for themselves or for a family member just to be consistent with the rest of the definition of state's disease. So if that's meets with the approval of the committee, I would add that in afterwards. And then on the stalking and sexual assault definitions, Again, this was just a recommendation to cite to a different statutory definition. So I've made that change there. And then the final one is just removing the whole of section five because section five before was proposing to remove this language about a hearing concerning an order against stalking or sexual assault effectively of which what this exclusion would do is just leave the statute the way it is right now so that leave for to go to court to, protection would would just say as it is. Originally, we have moved one of those sections into the definition of safety. It undoes that change. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So these are consistent with what we had chatted about. And so the one thing you and Charlie talk about is in on the bottom of page one, adding that addition so it's consistent with global warming. [Sophie Zdatny]: Right. That would be the only change. It's not only the amendment we currently have. And if that's acceptable, I can [Chair Alison Clarkson]: get that chance. I would include that. I mean, I don't know how I'd love to have the committee weigh in, but we're gonna shift here. I I didn't include it just to be consistent, and then we need to discuss the and then let and we need to have time to discuss the whole bill. Right? Right. Thanks. Why don't you go ahead and include that for the amendment? I love it. And then we'll make some time soon to discuss and skip back over the phone. Great. Thank you. Okay. I apologize. We're gonna shift now. We're we're squeezing in a big character. Okay. Thank you, madam chair. [John Rogers]: It's gonna be an hour this morning to educate you on for having us. Remember talking. Went right over her head. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Sorry. I'm not looking at this. [John Rogers]: I said thank you for giving me an hour this morning [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. To your dream. And [John Rogers]: inform you on what's happening in the world of cannabis. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Well, actually, we have begun. We've been fair. We've been being updated. We began with your our hearing, our joint hearing, and then we have been taking the testimony on this bill. [John Rogers]: Very glad to hear it. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: We welcome you. [John Rogers]: Are we ready? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: We are ready. So welcome, John Rogers. [John Rogers]: Thank you. Lieutenant governor Rogers here for the record. What I'm gonna hand out right now is what I deal in the [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Mhmm. He [Geoffrey Pizzutillo]: said about [Chair Alison Clarkson]: there. Not a blank. Thank you. So we're shifting to h three twenty one, a cannabis bill. [John Rogers]: Yes. And and what I'm addressing a bunch of things that I wish were in the bill that are not. And number one is addressing the inequities in license fees, and the legislature implemented those without much knowledge of what was actually happening in the real world. And I worked with chair Pepper on these fees because right now, outdoor growing, which doesn't rely on carbon intensive electricity and taking electricity from the grid and all those other things, is something that we should be encouraging. And right now, a tier five outdoor cost a huge amount more than a tier two indoor, and a tier two indoor can grow more cannabis, and it's higher value cannabis. So this addresses those inequities and gets the license fees more in line with what the actual income potential of these businesses are, and it is revenue neutral. I think it actually brings in a slightly higher revenue, but we tried to do it in a way that was revenue neutral. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yeah. So as you know, this is not the finance committee. Yes. So this is not our jurisdiction. I we have two members of the finance committee with us. So we will let them absorb this then. That's fine. We will once this bill goes to finance, I'd encourage you to take out the fees with them. [John Rogers]: And I spoke with Bloomberg, and he said because it's not strictly a fee bill, it is appropriate to talk about it and put it in. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Absolutely. We can talk about anything. I just in terms of our committee time Yep. This will be an end decision. This will be a decision in finance. [John Rogers]: Alright. One of the one of the biggest things so I brought in a a sample here. So this right here is a joint. This is prepared to be a sample to give to retailers. So I, last year, was selling this joint for four dollars and twenty cents wholesale to a retailer. Out of that four dollars and twenty cents, once I take out the label, the glass, the paper, that, my grow, what it cost me for fertilizer, my genetics, plant it, the tractor, the fuel, I make about a dollar. The retailer makes four dollars and twenty cents. The state makes a dollar and sixty eight cents. The twenty percent tax the state is collecting is more than the cultivators are making. I think it's out of balance and absurd, and it's why we need to get to a place where we can have direct consumer sales because the retailers now hold all the cards. They can ice people out. They can pick and choose who they wanna deal with, and you've got a whole bunch of really good growers that don't have enough market to sell their stuff. And with no direct to consumer sales, they have no avenue. And as we go down the list, I will get into a couple of more things that are having to deal with it. I believe that the legislature was wrong opening up any of the tiers over tier two in North. Should've never opened the big ones. We should open the small ones to set up a tier one indoor with average equipment inside a building you already owns a hundred thousand dollars. So no Vermonter is setting up a tier three, four, or five indoor grow because it's millions or multimillions to set up one of those. So what we've done is invite investor owned and MSOs into the state. And right now [Chair Alison Clarkson]: MSO. [John Rogers]: Multistate operation. They are pulling the Walmart thing. The big operations can undersell the small cultivators, for several reasons. They've got the economy of scale, but they're also making money in other states in their other operations so they can actually operate at a loss if they have to. The market has dropped like a rock, and the small craft cultivators that we want to be in the business are going out of business left and right. And so my proposal would be that [Chair Alison Clarkson]: It sorry. I just wanna confirm. Is it John, is that a fact? I mean, how many businesses have gone out of business? [John Rogers]: I'm sure the [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I mean, I know we have a I'm [John Rogers]: sure the board could tell you, but the last I talked with my compliance officer last year, she said more businesses were going out than were applying for new grow licenses. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: And this is grow licenses, not retail? Because I do want there. We have heard that the retail market is saturated, but we [John Rogers]: Well, the retail market is saturated in the But [Chair Alison Clarkson]: now heard that growers are going out [John Rogers]: of this. Yes. Because the market is saturated. And prices so in the first year, I made money. I haven't my business has not made money since the first year. The first year, I was selling liters of distillate for eighteen thousand dollars. There is now a big processor who's undercutting everybody at five thousand dollars a liter, which means your cannabis is worth around sixty dollars a pound. So, I mean, let that sink in. Sixty dollars a pound is very, very low. And I believe that there's gonna be a moratorium have it been? Excuse me? What had it been? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: The first year business, how much illustrate it for us? [John Rogers]: The first year at eighteen thousand dollars a liter, it was around five hundred dollars a a pound. Okay. That is good. And I don't so if there's going to be a moratorium on retail licenses, there should also be a moratorium on cultivation licenses because there is already too much product on the market, and we need to reset. And I also believe that all indoor cultivators should be brought down no greater than tier two. Everybody currently owns an indoor tier three, four, or five. You should give them a year or two and say, you have to cut down to tier two. They're just producing too much weed. It is not Vermont scale, and it it needs to be cut down. And I don't believe any licenses of any kind should ever be for sale. If somebody goes out of business, whether they're a cultivator, a retailer, a manufacturer, they go out of business, and that license goes back to the CCV. And it's imperative because if we are putting a moratorium on retail licenses and they can sell that license, we've just given them something that is valuable because they know they can't get it from anywhere else, and I don't believe that's appropriate. And for our new members, remind us why an overabundance producing too much cannabis, [Chair Alison Clarkson]: One of the challenges is you're not able to sell it out of state. Is that Right. [John Rogers]: It's all in state. No out of state sales. No imports. No exports. Yeah. Thomas, do you have a question? I believe that outdoor growers should be able to use farm labor with no ID cards necessary. It's totally different than indoors. So in an outdoor growth situation, I'll use mine, for example, because I know it the best, and I know at least Sam Bellavance has a tier five, which is twice as big as mine. When it comes time to strip the leaves off the plant, it takes anywhere from fifteen to thirty minutes per plant to strip a plant to get it ready for harvest. When you have twelve hundred plants ready at the same time and you only have a couple weeks, you have six hundred hours of labor time. There is no security risk. Nobody's going to put green weed in their pocket and try to steal it from you because it's just gonna make a sticky useless mess in their pocket. So I would ask the committee to consider getting to a place where outdoor growers can use farm labor just like you would when the hay is ready to come in. When the hay's ready to come in, you get everybody who's willing to help help put the hay in. Currently, under this law, when my son comes home to visit from Virginia, I can't have him I can't let him in the field to help pick leads off a plant unless I get him go through the background check and get him the ID card. I think it's overly restrictive in a business that I think as it evolves, we need to take some of the heavy handed regulation off it. This is really an agricultural crop, and we need to get to a place where it is. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So currently, the an ID card to that works for both indoor and outdoor cultivation? [John Rogers]: What I'm asking for and and, you know, I'm I realize we probably won't get there this year. What I'm asking for is that indoor is totally different. It's confined, but you have harvest at different times. Outdoor is like when the sun shines, you gotta make at once. I I [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I guess. [John Rogers]: What I'm asking is that they don't that you can hire somebody that works for the neighbor's farm that's usually putting hay in, but they're all done hay in and they need a job and that they don't need to get a ID card to work on the crop outdoors. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: And and what's involved in getting the ID card is a full background check. Exactly. [John Rogers]: And and applying to the CCP and and getting your ID card after the background check, which doesn't make sense for somebody who can only work a couple days because they're up on the weekend and would be able to help. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So how long does harvest take? Six hundred hours for [John Rogers]: That's just for stripping the plants. So harvest is generally over a few week period of time between your stripping the plants and then different strains are excuse me, ready at different times. And then we'll often go in, and we'll cut the tops of the plant and the tops of the branches because a lot of times, they are ready first. And so you take those in and hang them on netting and then come back through a week or so later and cuff the rest of the plan and then take that and process and or dry it. Okay? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: And then your last ask, I think you have another ask. [John Rogers]: Oh, I have a whole bunch. Did you see my list? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yeah. You have a very few minutes. So tell us tell [Member Randy Brock]: us what you're like. [John Rogers]: One of the other things, chair Pepper and I have talked about is cultivators, need the ability to be able to process their own stuff. Currently, when I take my stuff to have it processed into bubble hatch or into distillate, I'm giving away half of my weave because I the the processors do a split with you. It's a fifty fifty split. So when I go to have this to let me, there goes half of it. So everything that you sell in a retail store, you've already lost half before you get to the store. So what I'm asking is that cultivators would be able to get an endorsement for their license for manufacturing, processing, and eventually retail sales, but you would only be able to manufacture and process your own stock. So the license could be sold at a lesser rate because the people who are processing for everybody are making money at it. If I set up processing or any other cultivator set up processing, they would only be using that equipment a few days a year, but huge amount of value to their product. They wouldn't have to give away fifty percent of what they're growing. And then the last one and you can read through this yourselves. But [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Oh, good. Have you have you sent it to Heidi for your? [John Rogers]: This, I did not send it. We just brought it in print, but I can send it. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I got I just had a scan. I'll get it done. [John Rogers]: Perfect. Thank you. This is this is all about direct to consumer sales, the place that I believe we need to get to. Otherwise, we're gonna continue to lose more of the small crap cannabis growers, which is what I in when I cosponsored that bill, those were the people I was hoping would be producing Vermont's cannabis are the small craft growers. And this is just an outline of how I would like to to see it. The bottom the last line on this paper, I believe we need to continue to fund the CCV with the cannabis excise tax and that it should come straight out of the tax before the rest of it goes into the general fund. I have been a strong proponent of using more tax and lowering license fees and other fees associated with the folks who are in the industry because in no other place in state government do we pull so much money out of the businesses for for licenses and registration and so on. So I think that's real important. And the last thing I'll mention that's not on the list, at some point, we have to deal with consumption. We've legalized marijuana, cannabis, and there are people who have apartments have no place to smoke. You should be allowed to smoke cannabis anywhere you can consume tobacco products, and we need to get there. We've got peep so we we we legalized it because we knew that eighty thousand Vermonters were using it illegal, supposedly. Right? And we're trying to regulate it, make it safe. But now it's legal, but there's no place you can legally smoke it. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Well, I guess, I mean, we Yeah. Sure. Thank you. So this has come up before, and we there are places that are allowed to make tobacco consumption illegal on their chromatid as well. Mhmm. So we would just I mean, we don't wanna create a situation where we're encouraging smoke. [Sophie Zdatny]: No. We would just say that [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I don't know what you're asking for. [John Rogers]: We would just say anywhere it's legal to smoke tobacco, it's legal to smoke cannabis. That's what that's what a lot of us in the industry are asking. Yeah. It's because people say somebody lives in an apartment. Right? They can't smoke in their apartment. They can't smoke outside the door of the apartment. And I've heard from them. They're not even supposed to smoke in their car in the apartment parking lot. So where are these people able to smoke? Right. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: And I think we're there are discussions about consumption lounges and and consumption bars. Right. Which is a kind of a different [John Rogers]: Well issue. It's similar but different. I'm just talking about the person that goes into the store and buys it and and wants to be able to sit down on a park bench somewhere or, you know, I don't know where. But anywhere that people can smoke tobacco, I think it makes sense that they'd be able to smoke cannabis. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: It may unless you've spent much time in New York state. [Sophie Zdatny]: So all this seems very reasonable, and I really welcome what James Pepper has to say about it. The one place where I I don't feel comfortable before is the public consumption piece just because I've been to some concerts, and I've had some contact highs. And so I just don't know how tobacco smoke is different than hot smoke and how it could affect the judgment of people that are gonna be exposed to those areas. So that's where I'd have some hesitation. I just wanna hear more [Geoffrey Pizzutillo]: from any health and welfare other [Member David Weeks]: than that. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I think this is needless to say it, and, additionally, a health and welfare discussion in addition to whatever we may or may not Yeah. Group we may. [John Rogers]: But I think if we're if we're gonna have a law that makes sense, we have to recognize the fact that people need a place that they can legally smoke because people are right now, they're breaking the law all over. And we Right? And they are concerts. They're probably not supposed to be smoking. We have a concert. But [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: but the I mean, this isn't a this isn't an insurmountable question. It may be used to not allow drinking at concerts. We now cordon people off to do that. Yeah. There's usually a section where people are encouraged to smoke rather than I mean, it's just what most states do. It's not like an [Member David Weeks]: apology. Opposition. Yeah. [John Rogers]: Yes. No. And I I think I think there's a lot of it that need more testimony. But one of the unfortunate things when we get in this building, the legislature created a law that has a lot of dysfunction in it because they started in a place with very little knowledge of the business. And we really need to address some of these things, and it continues to linger on. And we address one or two little things a year. And one of the other things that I would suggest is that we give the CCB more authority to make these changes. They are, at this point, the professionals. The legislature is not. The legislature has a thousand other things on their mind and never takes the time to do this. So the legislature, I believe, needs to give the CCB more authority to make some of these changes in a way that is based on, you know, fact and other states' experiences and the experiences of the people in the business. And they're they're more positioned to do it than the legislature is. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So the last thing I haven't before you depart, I the last thing I haven't heard you talk about is a farmer's market or a cannabis showcase market, which I had thought you were Well also gonna advocate. [John Rogers]: A farmer's market would be great, but my personal preference would be if you could get an endorsement on your well, if you if you read through my event language, the licensed can be cannabis cultivator would be able to purchase special event license from the CCB that allows them to sell direct to consumers. A cannabis cultivator special event license would be good for twenty four hour period. Cultivator may purchase up to two consecutive so they could do a weekend. Cultivator must present the CCB with a plan on how they'll track sales, collect taxes, provide security for the event. Events would be held on property owned and controlled by a licensed cannabis cultivator and may include up to four additional licensed cannabis cultivators. So it would be sort of like a farmer's market. You would be giving several local growers an opportunity to sell, direct to the public, and it would also allow for events maybe held on public property with the approval of the CCB and the municipality. So that is that is one option, that special event. But also in this language, I asked for an add on endorsement for manufacturing, processing, and retailing. And so me personally and a lot of other, cultivators that I know would love to have a limited retail license where you could maybe have a retail day at your property one day a month or, you know, every Saturday during June and July or something like that. The the fact that you can make more than twice as much every time you sell one of these, if you can sell it at your own property, is going to allow some of them to stay in business that are otherwise gonna go out. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: And how many of these how many growers would this apply to? I mean, it's a lot of people. [John Rogers]: Well, it wouldn't be available to every grower, but I've talked to a lot of growers who have no interest in it. So they're this would be mostly the smaller growers, and I just I think it's another avenue for them. It's just like the dairy farmers that are making cheese are making money on that cheese. If they're shipping milk in a bulk tank down the road, they're they're barely breaking even. And this is the same. If we're selling all of this wholesale, we can barely break even right now. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for John? Because I think we're gonna shift to our land access opportunity board. [John Rogers]: Alright. Well, thank you for giving me the time. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Thank you very much. We know where to find you. [John Rogers]: Happy to come back in. I do [Geoffrey Pizzutillo]: have Samuel. He won't go by. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I'll drop [John Rogers]: her off later when Sharon Pepper's not here. [Megan Sullivan]: You brought a sample with him [John Rogers]: Yeah. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Which he's taking away. Thank you. [Member David Weeks]: See me [John Rogers]: in my office after, Allison. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yeah. Yeah. I heard it's your birthday. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, Ornella and Jean, would you like to join us? We'd love to have you. And we if [Geoffrey Pizzutillo]: I have to. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Pull up a second chair. I'm right. [Sophie Zdatny]: Let's do it. [Ornella Mata-Figueroa]: Joining the Zoom. [Sophie Zdatny]: I was hoping I wasn't there. The the bag. [Ornella Mata-Figueroa]: I see the bad camera or mic setting. [Geoffrey Pizzutillo]: But your speaker is off too. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So [Sophie Zdatny]: It is off. And I don't [Chair Alison Clarkson]: know what I don't. I don't. [Speaker 2 ]: We have some other presentation [Chair Alison Clarkson]: And I have a presentation on [Speaker 2 ]: Yeah. Oops. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Oh, [Sophie Zdatny]: sorry. I forgot. I I think that's where we are. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So and this, your presentation is updating us, I assume, [Ornella Mata-Figueroa]: on the report that we did have last year? Yes. We are sharing on a little bit on the CCV report that came in and specifically on the recommendation number four, which is to [Chair Alison Clarkson]: make an investment. So you heard us introduce ourselves, I think, last week. So I think why don't you jump right in and introduce yourself? It's in technical. Sure. [Speaker 2 ]: K. Wonderful. For the record, my name is Sornetta Mata Piedrova, Director of Advocacy and Community Engagement for the Land Access and Opportunity Board. And my name [Ornella Mata-Figueroa]: is Jean Hamilton. I'm the Director of Program Development for the Land Access [Speaker 2 ]: and Opportunity Board. We begin everywhere we land with this slide, which is our touchstone slide, just to illustrate the values and how we work in our community. We invite everyone to listen generously and to speak their truth in their heart and mind, to make the way that we work together an example of what is possible, and that we trust that we each hold a piece of the puzzle and that we need each other's pieces to understand the whole picture. So one of the things that keeps coming up for us is people are asking, oh, why is the LAOB talking about Canada? What's the Land Access and Opportunity Board have to do with cannabis? So a little bit of context of how we got involved with the cannabis control board. We were asked or invited to join this working group, the Act one hundred and sixty six working group and make recommendations to the general assembly regarding how much cannabis excise tax should be appropriated to the cannabis business development fund. And from that, we started to have a lot of conversations about the historic criminalization that Canada has had a material impact on the economic well-being of many of the communities that the LEAD serves with direct impact to our community's access to land and housing. And the fact that the Vermont marketplace was set up in such a way that requires land ownership for individuals to really be able to participate in the marketplace. [Ornella Mata-Figueroa]: And so we're diving in really as you asked to reflect on this report and recommendation. We're not talking a lot about what the LAOB is or what we do. There are slides in this presentation that we're not gonna present on today that give that background detail. And if any of you at any point wanna talk more about what we've been working on, who makes [Cary Brown]: up our board, we really, really welcome you to [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Just quickly. Have a board of how many? We have [Ornella Mata-Figueroa]: a board of, twenty two seats, which is made up of eleven community organizations. So each organization holds two seats. And the communities that we represent are black, brown, and indigenous Vermonters, refugees and immigrants, people with disabilities, psychiatric survivors, low income Vermonters, and the queer community. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: And how many paid full time people? [Ornella Mata-Figueroa]: We have two full time staff, which you are meeting very much. Exactly. Yeah. So as Ornella said, we we were really excited to participate in this working group because cannabis and history of cannabis intercepts with so many of the communities we serve. And we were excited to learn that social equity is one of the seven founding principles that the CCB has identified as being essential to achieving their mission. So you can see here listed here what are the other what are these seven principles. Social equity is first. And then here on the left is the purpose of the CCB. Again, CCB has identified that to achieve the mission mandated by this body, by this legislature, it must address social applications. And this is what the CCV says about social activism. This is this is, again, before they met the LAOB from its inception, the Canvas Control Board has recognized that the disproportionate impact of the historically government led policies that fueled the economic oppression of black and brown people for generations and continues to disadvantage these individuals as well as indigenous people, people of color, and other historically marginalized groups. The board aspires to build an equitable and accessible program in order to mitigate this past harm inflicted by the prohibition of cannabis. And then the board commits to doing that work. So to to really underscore a couple of components of this, the past harm is multilayered, but principally and primarily, it is material and it is economic. So many of the communities we serve whose access to land and especially whose access to housing is marginalized is deeply tied in with the war on drugs and discriminatory policing practices that we have many, many, many, many, many, many research findings that have shown that black and brown people and poor people have been policed in a discriminatory manner, which has led to generational impact of lack of housing and lack of job opportunities and lack of intergenerational wealth. These are all tied very, very directly to the relevance of the LAOB, which is to remediate those economic harms. LAOB has a number of social equity priorities for the CCB that are not included in this report, but that we wanted to highlight. We are glad to catch the tail end of the lieutenant governor's testimony there. We, from what we heard, agree on a lot of points. We think that public consumption really needs to be addressed. From a housing equity perspective, the fact that you cannot legally consume cannabis unless you own a home is a problem. That means if you're a renter in this state and you don't have access to somebody's private property or explicit permission from your landlord that you cannot legally consume cannabis in this state. That is discriminatory. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: May I do that clarify? Yes, sir. You can't necessarily smoke it, [Ornella Mata-Figueroa]: but you can consume it. Technically, you're not allowed to consume it at all. So without explicit permission from the private property owner, you are not allowed to. So, again, if you do not own private property or have access to private property in the state, you cannot legally participate in it. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Because of something we built into the law Yes. That that prohibits it. It's split the leak. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Do you [Geoffrey Pizzutillo]: have a reference to the statute here? [Ornella Mata-Figueroa]: I don't. I'm sorry. Okay. We have so lots of other folks and say, well, [Chair Alison Clarkson]: thank you. You're asking is this is what you're asking. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Yes. Yeah. [Ornella Mata-Figueroa]: We strongly encourage agricultural use and exemptions. I think you will hear from from other folks who have more details on how this works from a policy perspective. But we also understand lots of land access equity issues related to who can grow cannabis, who can participate in this marketplace as a producer that is very wealth based and very much based on whether or not you can own property and the right kind of property. We very much see the value of adding direct marketing as a marketing opportunity for groups. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: And I just go back to just I think we would benefit from language here. And and I would and and I mentioned this to you all. Like, the the peep people who even have access to money expend a lot of those resources trying to deal with with neighbor issues. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Mhmm. Mhmm. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: And it it just it it feels patently unfair. You know? We we have the deaf man in last year. That was challenging. You know? Mhmm. But I I'd like us I I feel like we spend a lot of time on the on the backyard neighborhood issue, which I think there's a case to be made for all kinds of agriculture to be potentially problematic there versus, like, you have a plot of farmland, and people are still telling you what to do with it in terms of cannabis versus in terms of other things. Why can't we change that to a place? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I think that's our discussion and Yeah. One we [Sophie Zdatny]: should have with Pepper. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: But Okay. Like, do you all have does the CCP have recommendations based on our conversation last year that's coming up? A report for you all Okay. Through Act one sixty six. So it's all in there. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: We'll be happy to come back and review that one. Okay. We will review it, and we will check further. But let's go through direct [Ornella Mata-Figueroa]: No. Thank you. And that and words to to support this conversation and to give give space to it. Mhmm. So, yes, to direct marketing. Again, I think there's there's other people who can speak more to the the policy details of that and recommended policy language. What we really like to focus on today is a recommendation that was included in this study group's report from the Sensitive that that we put economic investments into both into the marketplace and then also into the surrounding community. So we strongly advocate for and support a one million dollar investment into the cannabis, business development fund, which was a recommendation in that report. And we also support a recommendation that the CCB has now made three times to dedicate a portion of the excise tax to community reinvestment. The specific recommendation is to direct twenty five percent of excise tax into the LAOB, so into our board for investment directly to support Vermonters' abilities to secure stable housing and land. That's your recommendation, twenty five percent. This is actually the CVV's recommendation. So it is in the report. It's recommendation four. This is the language that is there. Mhmm. And this is what I'm sorry. This is not but the first the bold sentence at the top is the language from the report, and then we can talk more about what it is [Chair Alison Clarkson]: we would do with that one. [Ornella Mata-Figueroa]: Did you have a follow-up question on that? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yeah. No. That was not my understanding. So interesting. We're we're so we're gonna have much of this stuff with the board. So [Ornella Mata-Figueroa]: Got it. Okay. So, twenty five percent of this year's excise tax would put approximately four million dollars into LAOB programming. What we have budgeted and would intend to do with that money is to build out some down payment assistance grant program and a capital fund for emerging developers. So you see three bullet points here. One is a down payment assistance grant for housing. We would intend to work with, VHFA and and other partners to to build out existing programming because there are already robust, you know, well developed programs that support down payment assistance grants for housing. There is not currently in existence a down payment assistance grant for land acquisition for land based enterprise. Though there is a hunger for that from many, many of our partners across the state and the region. So this would be a new program that we would seek to develop. And then we are working very closely with DHFA and DHCD on DHCD's program as the homes for all technical assistance program for emerging developers. We've been working to develop a emerging developer TA program with DHFA, and we are in the process right now of negotiating a merger. So we're really excited to be bringing that program online, but we know and recognize that TA without access to capital is not sufficient. And especially when you're talking about new developers coming in from, you know, not from wealth marginalized positions that don't have access to bankers, that don't have the kinds of credentials that typically come with a well resourced developer, that we really need to make sure that we have special pots of money that can meet those developers' needs. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So the this is your key plan of how to use the twenty five percent that you're talking about? This is this is the sort of bedrock of of what your plan is. Exactly. And all Which is expanding VHFA's first generation owned by program, which as you know has been a little constrained by our current budget. [Ornella Mata-Figueroa]: Exactly. And I'm really concerned about that program going into [Chair Alison Clarkson]: the right a new program for land acquisition. [Ornella Mata-Figueroa]: Yes. Thank you. And the capital for new developers. So we are working hard with all of our partners including VHFA and VHCD to empower more community scale developers. So there's a lot of interest and appetite from neighbors, just regular old plain neighbors to bring together their resources to work in partnership and work together in new and creative ways to build an unity scale housing and community scale developments. And this is I think you've probably heard from a a lot of different organizations who have spoken to this appetite from our neighbors and to the potential to unleash the human capital and really, like, leverage more people participating in building and development. This is that what that capital fund would do. [Speaker 2 ]: And it's, like, foundational for self sustainability at this moment in time, we believe, and it's really gonna empower people to be resourceful and to have the resources be stable. [Ornella Mata-Figueroa]: So I'm just gonna show the the yes? Yeah. [Speaker 2 ]: I have to turn. Oh, I didn't know. I didn't know. Okay. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So we're gonna move ahead to the report. Yeah. [Speaker 2 ]: So these slides are directly from the CCV report, and they highlight what community reinvestment is incorporated into many state developed use cannabis marketplace. The CCB has made this recommendation every year. It submitted a report. Again, we already talked about the fact that there's so well established evidence that the that the war on drugs has had its proportionate effect on our communities. And these are links to the ways that other states link revenue to community reinvestment. The LAOB's board is shaped in a way that's very similar to the different administrative boards set up in other states for community reinvestment. And therefore, it, like, provides a critical missing piece that didn't exist previously in the state of Vermont to be able to administer these funds well and efficiently. And now we are ready. We are able we have a plan. We're able to provide the state, like, an administrative body to do this really well and to provide our communities access to land and housing through these mechanisms that are submitted. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: And so these are other states that are of their revenue. Yeah. [Speaker 2 ]: And how much they are putting into cannabis community reinvestment. [Ornella Mata-Figueroa]: And so yeah. So we just wanted to make sure you you had these slides right at your hand that relate to this recommendation. We do encourage you to, of course, read the full report that your committee requested the CTP to write. There there are the I think recommendation three is the one million dollars for this development fund. [Megan Sullivan]: And I'm sorry to do that. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yeah. That's economic development. Fuck. Yeah. Because as you as we'll all need to be reminded, all of the wonderful resources we have available to the state, to the small business administration, BTE, SBDC, those are not available to you to cannabis businesses. Right. Exactly. And I yes. Yeah. [Ornella Mata-Figueroa]: I come from an agricultural background of work, and I have worked closely with Farm Viability for many years and just really recognize, like, especially for agriculturally based businesses, products that are based in a land based enterprise that involve living systems. The market is against us. The marketplace is very hard. Then you add the layers of complexity that cannabis business is based. These businesses absolutely need technical support to to know how to thrive and navigate this changing world. [Speaker 2 ]: And I think for Britonally, there have been five hundred thousand dollars that have been allocated and then that damaged from its year's budget. So right now, I don't know if there's any money that's being allocated for the with that business development fund. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: The board may have a better sense of that, but you, I believe, were fully funded. [Ornella Mata-Figueroa]: So exactly. So we have been [Chair Alison Clarkson]: funded with our To the degree how much? It's one point six million dollars. Yes. [Ornella Mata-Figueroa]: So we are really happy to be able to continue our important work and excited about the possibility of growing [Speaker 2 ]: Mhmm. Hard for our offerings because right now, those bullets that you saw that slide are not accessible to us with the current funding that we have. [Ornella Mata-Figueroa]: I'll just keep sliding just so you can see as orientation in your packets. This is the slides that that come after are more about the LEOB and the work we've been doing this past year. We're not gonna present on that today because I think we're out of time. But Mhmm. Just wanted to make sure that you all know that these slides are here. So, again, our background, what our objectives are, who's on our board, and then, you know, some of the the the [Megan Sullivan]: what we've learned in our first year you're [Chair Alison Clarkson]: talking about twenty two seats at the table on the board. Yeah. Here are the eleven. Exactly. [Ornella Mata-Figueroa]: These are eleven or fourteen. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: And they each are able to appoint two people? That's right. [Ornella Mata-Figueroa]: And that that has been a really strategic [Sophie Zdatny]: way of setting up [Ornella Mata-Figueroa]: our board, especially for many of these organizations that by nature of the fact that they represent marginalized communities are also often very small you know, marginalized organizations themselves. Being able to have two people rep on the board creates a kind of deep bench that allows for those organizations to really participate robot. Like Right. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: And I would just I mean, if if people look at any of the slides that we're not gonna get to, the capacity building ones is incredibly impressive in my mind in terms of there's often not an entity. There has not been an entity in Vermont like yours to draw down a lot of these funds at the intersection of of equity, agriculture, and land access. And that is where I think money will still continue to exist. I mean, obviously, the EPA is going through some things. But, you know, this this is an area where dollars come back and dollars are often allocated where I've been involved in this work and we have not had an on the ground partner. We for example, the anchor organization previously was Institute for Sustainable Communities, lump them as an organization, but they have maybe two staff in Vermont. They're not absorbing the dollars into Vermont that way. So for me, similar to Vermont Professionals of Color Network, your names come up all the time as people want your time and capacity and expertise and the networks you built and the roundtables you built, and that is fiscally draining. You know? So and then it means that then you can't get dollars out the door to folks who who are last in line usually for Mhmm. Access to grants and and resources and programs. So in my mind, I mean, what you didn't say that I think it's really important for us to say out loud is, you know, the some of us who were here when you were legalizing and figuring out how to tax and extract revenue from cannabis, we're very worried that we'd end up writing a blank a a not a blank check, I wish. A bad check to the communities that were most impacted. And that I hope we do not do. That that in my mind is one of the most important things we can do is make good on the promise that if we were gonna legalize this, we wouldn't put other people first in line who hadn't been impacted by the war on cannabis and the war [Chair Alison Clarkson]: on drugs for so long. Well well said. I also, though, know that that a lot of your work well, it's much cannabis related. A lot is not. I mean, you know, so for me, your work is a bigger umbrella than than cannabis. [Ornella Mata-Figueroa]: So I mean, specific something that feels very pertinent to share this year and now in this time is that this allocation of excise tax is an opportunity to inject dollars into communities' ability to build housing and and secure their housing. But and so the the list the link to cannabis is one of, sort of a logical link because of how cannabis has negatively impacted our communities. That link makes sense. But what's really like so exciting is the fact that this is a revenue source that we can put towards one of the most critical problems our state faces and our communities face, which stable housing. And so it's really an opportunity to say, let's make a very strategic investment with that four million dollars, five million dollars. Right. And [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: that's what many states [Speaker 2 ]: have done. Considering that stable housing is at the root of all of the convergence of all of the problems that we're having. So when we look at what is real prevention Mhmm. And we look at ACEs scores, and we look at what is trauma and marginalization, what's going to deal with the real poor root issue is stable housing. Right. This is like the root of us being able to stabilize our communities. Right. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: And which is what this community this committee addresses fully as well. And I think the question is, you know, how and who does that? So thank you very much. This is this is helpful, and thank you, and congratulations on how well you did in the appropriations discussion. And I think we are now going to pick it pivot to Jeffrey. And, Greg, [Sophie Zdatny]: I hear you. [Ornella Mata-Figueroa]: I'm just very much. Time. [Megan Sullivan]: We have to run to two fifty. [Ornella Mata-Figueroa]: But we would love to see Right. [Speaker 2 ]: Thank you for doing this. [Megan Sullivan]: It's been [Chair Alison Clarkson]: very appreciated. Heidi, you've got this digitally. Right? [Cary Brown]: Yeah. Oh, I I just have. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Okay. Great. [Cary Brown]: And and That's why I [Member David Weeks]: assume you're transmitting. That's really an RTP stuff. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: And just so they're not [Cary Brown]: too negable so we wouldn't. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I I did ask them to [Chair Alison Clarkson]: shut childs to pick up. Well, we I am. So we're gonna do that separately, but we have committee asked for that. So [Cary Brown]: That's our thing I asked. Yeah. That's right. Great. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Good morning. Hi. Good morning. Welcome back. Yes. [Member Randy Brock]: So I'm gonna begin. I'm gonna see if I can pay you thanks for the link. Let me share my screen here. We're presenting a good week. For the record, my name is Jeff. I am the cofounder and executive director of Vermont Growers Association. Sort of did interest last week, and some of you may be familiar with us, so I'll be brief. But VGA is the state's oldest and largest, member based, nonprofit organization representing serving the regular county Pacificshire here [John Rogers]: in the state. We're very proud of that. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Okay. So [Member Randy Brock]: better? Alright. No. I have to take you. Technology. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Do you wanna make that full screen? Or you [Member Randy Brock]: Certainly. Have to give us an estimate. So I'm I'm gonna speak to three three areas. First area is I wanna give an update, share our perspective on where the market's at right now. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: To. I'm [Speaker 2 ]: not speak. What do you think? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Right. But I took [Cary Brown]: that one last week, and we [Chair Alison Clarkson]: didn't get to it. [Member Randy Brock]: After I just spent a minute touching upon where we see the market renowned conditions, BGA, outside of the coalition, the Vermont Pinnam Secretary Coalition, We have three sort of minor technical asks of you for bill three two one that I'll go through. And then lastly, my third item is I'm gonna overview the seven priorities just briefly, and then my colleague Graham's gonna drill so that Yep. So the market is about three years old, everybody. Okay. And we're at a moment where we are really licensees and consumers are beginning to really materially heal the shortcomings of the market structure, the market structure being in the hands of the statehouse, the legislature, you all. And so we're asking for some changes on that behalf. And and it is also it is also performance. And what I mean by that is some of the economics, some of the metrics behind that performance are we're looking at over twenty million in annual state revenue. That's a combination of fourteen percent excise tax, sixty percent sales tax. This sector is responsible for an estimated sixteen hundred jobs that were created. So we're really at a moment where we're not just cognizant of the accessibility and whether or not individuals can still join the market, but also protecting those licensees. There's about four hundred and fourteen cultivators, about ninety product manufacturers, around a hundred retailers. So their livelihoods, their their ability to make a a living [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Sorry, Jeffrey. You said there are four over four hundred cultivators? [Member Randy Brock]: Yes. I think it's as of the CCD's report in March, if you were wrong, they can correct me and figure out [Chair Alison Clarkson]: the report. But I remember it. Thanks. Yep. [Member Randy Brock]: And we are really at a moment where, three years in, leaning into those market structural shortcomings, we are on on the verge, and I don't mean to be rhetorical here, of collapse for a lot of those small producers. [Geoffrey Pizzutillo]: I understand. [Member Randy Brock]: So so what are the strengths of Vermont's adult use market? What separates our market from other states are the unique characteristics that these small producers bring to the marketplace, period. We do stop there. And I wanna include small retailers in our market as well. That's what separates us from Connecticut. If you're out of state, you're looking at our market and its appeal, its value. The Vermont brand rings true. So you heard I believe I I missed some of it. Lieutenant governor and others, and maybe us in previous testimony, refer to things like direct sale, public consumption. These are market structure issues that contribute to whether or not these hundreds of small farms and businesses are able to survive by month of year. And I really wanna impart on that. There are a lot of small producers who are having trouble living week after week, and they're on food stamps. They have two three jobs. That is not what we want with smart companies. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: But but just to ask, of the four hundred cultivators, how many would you consider small? [Member Randy Brock]: That's a good question. I would say nearly all of them. We have a handful the CCP did a pretty good job of licensing production such that we have some larger tiers like tier fives and tier fours. There are not as many of them as tier ones, twos, and threes. So I would I would really include all of them in that in that in that question and assessment. That makes sense. So one of the things that is intrinsic to the survival of these small business is really is opening up market channels and and not not beginning to close them at some sections of this bill proposed. So I wanna go into some of our BGA's more nuanced asks before I go into, an overview of our certain priorities. Okay. So, we have just a couple of things that we would like for you to consider, for three two one. The first one is striking the retail siting language in section four of the bill. This language has an, in effect, two year moratorium on new retail licenses. As detailed in previous testimony, this language really started as a two year legislative moratorium. It was then moved over to it was changed to a a an amendment to the CCB's retail siting administrative rule. It was expressed in the previous testimony that the intention of keeping this language in the bill would prevent the CCB from onboarding or offering new licenses for retailers. So that that is the stated intent of this language. We feel like it is inappropriate at this moment in time to begin to close market channels for producers. We are at a moment where we need to begin to continue opening them up and expanding them through direct sales, through farmers' markets, through other matters. So, that is our first ask for [Chair Alison Clarkson]: you all. Sorry. I'm unclear on what you're asking us to strike. On number three a? Is that that's the only place I see strike. Sorry. I'm totally lost. [Sophie Zdatny]: I think he's going off at this time. [Member David Weeks]: Okay. [Member Randy Brock]: Sorry? There's no problem. Is that correct? Yes. Yes. And you guys have a deal in front of you. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I've looked at that and sure. Okay. [Member David Weeks]: You have a different thing on the screen? Oh. I don't know if you were expecting. Yeah. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I was I was not trying to find Stripe there, and it's under three. The same question. Oh, oh, thank you, John. Okay. I see bottom of page two. [Member Thomas Chittenden]: You share a different screen once Is that it? There you go. There you go. [Member Randy Brock]: Oh, okay. Perfect. Thank you, senator. So, yeah, the first ask of our association is to remove that language. The retail siting line. Yes. Yes. Last session, you all directed the CCD to develop retail siting rules. It took about, you know, several months to do that with public input. With input from the industry, they arrived at excellent language. There's nothing wrong with that language. We're just asking you to not have them keep this rule open, which would have an effect of not being able to issue new retail licenses. So things are working as is. The industry and as far as I'm concerned, the CCB is supportive of of of its of its rules that it developed for retail siting coming out of last year, which was bill, I believe, six twelve, which became act, what, sixty six. So that that is our first status. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: K. [Member Randy Brock]: Our second task is to strike the trim and harvest license from the bill. That is a new proposed license that is in three two one, and we're asking that you replace it with a very reasonable and straightforward reform to the employee identification card, which is in statute, to allow for individuals to work for multiple businesses. Most states with adult use markets don't even have employee identification cards. We do. That's fine. We just think it, it it it should be a little bit more reflective of how people operate. Let's say they've got multiple jobs. They might wanna work for multiple, say, a retailer and a cultivator. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So how does that work with what John Rogers was proposing? The the relaxing the ID or rethinking the ID card for outdoor harvesting? [Member Randy Brock]: I miss his testimony. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Okay. Well, you could always say that I knew Jim. But he he is requesting something similar, but not exactly the same, I don't think, which is to relax the ID requirement for the outdoor harvesting, which requires all hands on deck Sure. At a very specific moment as opposed to the more controlled indoor harvesting, which is more controlled in sort of time Okay. Time managed. [Member Randy Brock]: Thank you, Jared. On its surface, that sounds like something we would support. I would need to watch that and then we would [Chair Alison Clarkson]: work with this recruit. I guess I'm trying to figure out how these things work together. [Member Randy Brock]: I I think, really, what both of us are saying without totally seeing if I'm just hearing you correctly is we're about three years into this marketplace. How the Trim and Harvest services are operating right now is totally fine. And if anything, if there if there's any room for improvement, it's through the employee identify identification card and not standing up an additional license, which would easily further complicate that situation. Licensees are currently using Harvest and Shrimp services through employee ID cards, and we're just asking that, and it seems like John's asking that as well, some reasonable weeks to the not significant change, reasonable tweaks in employee identification card system to allow for this service to sort of open up and better serve better serve licensees. Yeah. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: We're at it. [Geoffrey Pizzutillo]: I think what the lieutenant governor was suggesting Okay. Is that for actual harvesting of farm work, that no ID and no, in effect, registration is never fired at all. Okay. Okay. Would you support that? Outdoor operations. [Member David Weeks]: What? For outdoor operations. For outdoor operations. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yeah. Or or a more modified one. I don't think none none, but, I mean, certainly, a a modified one so that he could so that for outdoor cultivation, we need a lot of people at one time for a short period For a short period of time that I understand. Have a [Member Randy Brock]: I understand. [Geoffrey Pizzutillo]: I would wanna [Member Randy Brock]: have a conversation about I feel like indoor cultivators and mixed use cultivators might be have similar concerns. But this treatment [Chair Alison Clarkson]: and the harvest is primarily for indoor cultivators, or is that for both outdoor and [Member Randy Brock]: I believe in the CTB can speak to, say, they're responsible for this section. I believe the trim and harvest license that's being proposed in three two one would be for all license types in all categories of cultivation, indoor, mixed use, and outdoor. John Rogers' testimony says that was sent to me. Outdoor growers should be able to use farm labor with no ID card necessary. Okay. Okay. Alright. Thank you. Yeah. Any other questions on that? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: No. I just it'd be interesting. I I think if we're gonna improve the ID card in any way that, obviously, that we we want it to work for a range of things. Yes. [Geoffrey Pizzutillo]: Well, for whom the ID card has behind it the background checks associated with. And, again, if he's using farm labor without a card that presumably wouldn't be done, now would your group be in favor of that or against that? [Member Randy Brock]: That's a good question. I I can't answer that right now without, you know, further discussion with our with our policy committee, to be fair, and maybe hearing from some licensees. But point taken. Point taken. Chair, speaking to your concern about having or sentiment about making sure the employee of your card has enough range as possible, I will share that, when it comes to priorities for new license types, what we are hearing from the industry is not a trim and private's license. It is a carrier license. We have small producers who spend a large majority of their day producing product. In addition to that, a lot of them are sold to tires, and they have to drive around the state and do distribution. That is a huge that is competing with their ability to make product, to make a likelihood. So we're not directly asking for a carrier license, but the small changes that we are requesting, you consider for the employee ID card, would also alleviate that carrier issue because that would mean that a an employee ID, an individual holding employee employee ID card would be able to, say, put a couple of different, shuttle around, distribute a couple of different licensees products that are well regulated manner, across the state. Something that licensees used to do and the CCB had had advised them through compliance that they cannot, for instance, transport, even in a well regulated manner, of their licensees product. That that's significant. And, if we were to bring licensees into this, they would they [Chair Alison Clarkson]: would that you would hear the same thing. So So that's, like, a distributor [Member Randy Brock]: Yes. Yep. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: License? Yeah. Sure. Carrier is kind of an odd term. [Member Randy Brock]: Yeah. Distributor. Sure. Sure. And we're we are pleased that Vermont is one of the few states that does not have mandatory distribution for cannabis and supply chain as states do. That's great. We're just saying, relax a little bit more so, individuals can share that load amongst themselves in a [Chair Alison Clarkson]: well regulated manner. So So shared distribution the way we currently share distribution for a liquor distribution or soft drink distribution. [Geoffrey Pizzutillo]: We're not supposed to eat the distribution. You're asking for transportation. Is that correct? Yeah. [Member Randy Brock]: Yes. [Geoffrey Pizzutillo]: That's the [Member Randy Brock]: But that's why we use the word carrier. They're not interested in housing it overnight. It's just simply moving from point a to point b. Right. And that takes You're distributing it. Got it. But for multi growers, [Chair Alison Clarkson]: for numb for more than one grower. [Geoffrey Pizzutillo]: Exactly. Duplication distribution is if you're involved in actual price. Money changes chance to move things from one supplier to another supplier. You're simply asking the person to be That's right. In effect like the UPS driver who has no ownership interest or otherwise other than moving something from point a to point b. Correct. And that's what you're looking for. Is that correct? Correct. Right. [Member Randy Brock]: That is a burden, but I think we can do a good job of maybe attempting to alleviate for for those cents. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Okay. Correct. [Member Randy Brock]: And the third. And then third is in three two one, there's a section that proposes minor changes to the Propagator license to allow that license. The Propagator license is basically a nursery, sees and starts to sell to retailers. We ask that all cultivators have that allowance to sell to retailers as well. We think that's reasonable. They're pretty much already doing this. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I think the CCD speak [Member Randy Brock]: to that. But seasoned living plants do not fall they fall within the, THC fresh THC threshold, and they're technically considered hemp. They're not psychoactive, seeds and living plants, plant starts. And we believe that all cultivators should have that allowance to sell directly to retailers and and customers. To sell seeds and the Exactly. Yes. Exactly. Which also has strong historical precedent in the state for Right. For tomatoes or or what's you you know, starting spring, we've got a whole bed of plants. That's important supplemental income for our small producers at the state. For people who are gonna grow personally? Exactly. Or for other cultivators? Both. That that that would be that would accommodate both. So selling to a retailer, sometimes, you know, licensed cultivators will pick up seeds, genetics, if you will, from a retail shop, but also for the homegrower as well. We wanna make sure that homegrowers are able to grow Vermont generics. So most cultivators [Chair Alison Clarkson]: develop their own seed and and do their own starts? Many do. Not all, but many do. So where do they get the start snap if they don't grow their own? [Member Randy Brock]: That that's a good question. A a lot of individuals who are licensed are sort of what we call legacy cultivators, and they may have been sitting on seeds for decades. Mine one of them. I've got a little seed punch in my fridge. That's not illegal. And so that that sort of you know, that they they had they were in possession of that before they were licensed. So but good question. Great. Any questions, committee? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Okay. You wanna go to your seven priorities then? I just wanna do [Member Randy Brock]: a time check. I recognize it as ten forty nine. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yeah. We have we have Jesse and Dave to go. And David has come back, so I'd love to make sure. So how about five more minutes? Okay. Don't do Jesse and Dave. And Jesse, is Jesse here? [Member Randy Brock]: No. Jesse meaning Graham or Jesse Lynn. Oh, oh, Jesse Lynn. Okay. Gotcha. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: If not, we can just see another [Member Randy Brock]: And we had Amy Lynn here as a as a substitute for for Jesse Lynn to speak on medical priorities. Why don't I stop there and I'll pass it over to Greg? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Sure. I wanna give time to David. Do you wanna bring [Member Randy Brock]: up those priorities? Sure. And it should be on the screen. There we go. Great. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Then we have them here. [Member David Weeks]: So I think I'll start by saying, number one, just see that our our first priority is exactly what you just heard about in LA would be. And I said, these are things, more or less, in particular, the reinvestment that we've been advocating for for the entirety of our coalitions. So so we're really happy to see the LAOV step in and the CCV also making recommendations. Sounds like, you know, there's a lot of support for these. I did also not hear lieutenant governor's full testimony, but I'm very happy to see. If you look at our list, there's a lot of overlap in direct markets, ag use, public consumption, and really tobacco is loud. LAOB has made that same recommendation. I believe, Chip Pepper gave testimony last year at House of Communications when asked about full consumption that, yeah, a lot of people consuming their cars in a sort of legal gray area. I don't think that's what we want, for a lot of reasons in the state. I would I know everything Gene said about just this straight up equity reasons where when we respond to the consumption that I had last time saying, we want public consumption before paid consumption, it's really a principled thing around equity. Like, people who are purchasing cans at a store in Vermont who don't own their own house or land should still be able to legally consume that somewhere without paying extra to go to a consumption lounge and then, for example, to go to a bar and buy a seven dollar pint as opposed to going to a store and buying that and go and go to drink it somewhere. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: But it's a bad thing, isn't it, between those of us who have to smell it and those of us who wanna consume it. So I think it's a balancing act. [Member David Weeks]: Well, it is. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Affected by it. [Member David Weeks]: We have cannabis. We have car exhaust. We have all kinds of things. We have tobacco. If Canada snow is objectively not harmful in the way that these other snow are. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: It may not be harmful, but many people find it very irritating. Sure. So I agree, but it's a balance again as with many things that we do in this world. [Member David Weeks]: So I'm gonna start getting into some of our our I'd like to take more time. So I really was gonna talk to you about our history as an organization. We began working at hemp in two thousand eight. We wanna get into this agricultural thing. Our organization is the one who underwent the sponsor for making hemp legal in this state. We a federal law says you can't regulate cannabis ag. The Vermont law says as soon as federal law changes, it will be treated that way in Vermont. You all made that decision. But we're new we're we're still in Vermont. Don't have all the aspects of ag status that we get to. And there's a contradiction there. I just wanna highlight that. And in fact, last year, you all worked to reverse even some of those changes. I'm gonna speak specifically to that because you mentioned the stock farmer. I wanna ask, how many people on this committee visited for stock farmer? What else did? [Cary Brown]: Well, it was an epic. [Member David Weeks]: An ethics. I'm sorry. Jeffrey and I went there this fall in the middle of harvest year. I won't say this person has been impugned. This bill last year was written to take down this one individual. It's very clear. It's the only circumstance cited throughout the whole time. But I've heard from so many lawmakers, we don't make law at the middle of one situation. Mhmm. Well, we did. But, you know, I just wanna get into I'll skip through some of the ag access stuff because I think it's it's right clear we can bring in testimony. We have two people right now at a small farm action day, CISMAC today, cultivators, testifying in the Senate and House side. We have two in March. You know, we can we can ring in we've given you a list of people who wanna ring in, but we have no shortage of people who wanna come in and talk about this. Because, like Jeffrey said, they're on the edge. The legislature has a history of working to continue to articulate aspects of agriculture into outdoor cultivation. And I have a whole history of that here. Our time is limited, so I'm not gonna go through that, but it's just, like, an evidence in the work you all have done in the past. Right. And then given the controversy around the work last year, I talked about this law to essentially outdoor limit. A given that we just file these more control over where outdoor production happens and set maximum, set fast in certain areas. You all ask for a report to be written around that. The number of us who made time, money, capacity is being members of that report. Like I said before, that report, the social equity report, the medical report, none of those were presented on the legislature this year. We really expect that this law changes based on the report and based on our conversation because it it was when we had this conversation last year, that was sort of the the premise. It was that we're gonna put this in place now. You know, it could have really challenging consequences. We're gonna ask me to write a report, and we'll listen to it, and we'll make more changes. So that hasn't happened yet. And I wanna just say I'm gonna go through a little bit of that. The mandates of the outdoor setting and advertising working group report one, summarize the current impact of outdoor cultivation on local municipalities. Surveying the CCB did, you know, ninety percent of these municipalities indicated no issues with outdoor cultivators. Only two percent indicated significant issues. So we see very little evidence that elsewhere cultivation is having much negative impact on communities and municipalities at all. We also like to recognize that we need to address the beneficial impacts by the small business situation in general communities that have been left out of this. [John Rogers]: From our perspective, the law [Member David Weeks]: has not made it easier for municipalities and cultivators to understand how to regulate than how they are regulated. It has made it far more difficult and will result in a patchwork of different regulatory approaches across the state. So if you're a cultivator in one community, you might face a different law than a cultivator in any other community across the state. Testimony from Williston planners. I'm sure the CCP can give you more information about that individual. Just like how easy it is to understand how to regulate outdoor cultivation when it was regulated more or less as active. He he appreciated the AFM being the determinant of whether or not that site was was essentially being regulated as far as he could say, the thought of my hand is like the leading deal. Ken Verratti from a law school testified there's no evidence from any jurisdiction that is legalized that proximity to cannabis producers specs property values. He supports after cannabis being regulated as agriculture. He spoke to us specifically the power of the rebuttable presumption, so called right to farm loss, to protect these individuals. And if it is brought up that there's attempts to change right to farm law this year, I will say that, you know, I'm going into the ads the next couple days to cite our organization's opposition, the expansion of those laws, the current laws, as we understand it, fully protect farmers. We haven't heard any asks for those changes in our organization. The second mandate was to summarize the impactings of establishing various setting requirements to existing licensed adopter cultivators. We appreciate what the CCP has said in the report. We have that aside from existing cultivators impacted, There are also potential future cultivators to consider and how all of this affects the accessibility and affordability of participating as a regulated outlet cultivator, which is what Gene was getting into. When you limit where people can cultivate, you you talk about certain communities that are more or less impacted. Certain communities have the ability to access different types of properties. And some of those lands you wanna talk about, like a rural ag land, most rural ag land is not allowed. You can't cultivate campus if it's in if you want a land trust. If you have a natural resource conservation service agreement with a beef producer, I have an RCCP grant of seventy thousand dollars with federal government. I can't cultivate. It was my land because that agreement. If I had a loan through FSA, Farm Service Agency, I couldn't, you know, cultivate cannabis and that land. So we're talking about agricultural land, for the most part, not really being accessible [Chair Alison Clarkson]: for campus cultivation. So we share jurisdiction, obviously, on this piece with our activities. Yes. And you have had time have you had time, and are they taking up this bill or aspects of the bill? For [Member David Weeks]: the bringing people in for us to this and advocacy days, and we were there in early January. Mhmm. That's because we wanted to preempt them. As you may or may know, they didn't have a lot on their schedule. So we just work to get in there and make the point about a lot of this. We've been in house. I actually they would like more agency, but but as I told you last time, they have not been given more agency by the House Committee of Government Operations. I just wanna say a couple other things. [Geoffrey Pizzutillo]: Yeah. And then we noticed, are are some of the restrictions on being able to cultivate on certain kinds of land and outgrowth of federal restrictions based on loan let's say federal loans and other kinds of of federal funds that are going in. And is that if that is essentially the problem at the post anything the state is or is not doing? [Member David Weeks]: Well, what I'm trying to point out is that those federal restrictions, give us our baseline. Right? So there's a bunch of areas we can't call state. We can't do things. You know, what the state has done with these setbacks, giving municipalities the power to set cultivation districts where cannabis shouldn't shouldn't be grown outdoors and different maximum setbacks they can prescribe for those areas, that puts a further suite of limitations on it, which really affects people. Even people in really rural areas. You know, someone who's gonna come today, I believe, is is in, and he's farm family. He's growing, he said, ten feet from one of his neighbor's sites. That's well below either of the maximum thresholds that were set in his community. So set set set that up, and he spent a lot of time creating permanent concrete sites, etcetera. But his neighbors don't care. He's in a very rural area. So still have a lot of unintended this particular path has a lot of unintended consequences. There's a lot here. You know, people have land they have to produce on, whatever it is you're farming. Accessing appropriate land or expanding a farm or starting a farm is not easy. It's more difficult for what's uniquely regulated. And this is Setbacks are unreasonable and ineffective at controlling snow, and I wanna [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Mhmm. [Member David Weeks]: Die on that in particular. Like, this was one of the main conclusions that the CCD is working for is that this operate does setback, but setbacks fifteen twenty five to fifty feet are not gonna look at that snow. Right. This is this is all of you more. It makes [Sophie Zdatny]: us think about, well, what were we [Member David Weeks]: doing here? We were putting Sprint puts a lot of business too. So testing away from Williston, again, the plan up there says the setbacks they use. This is in Williston. Like, a fairly developed area, range from ten to fifteen feet on side and rear of the yard. It's even closer to features like burns and hinges. Well, you also have twenty five to fifty feet. That's, like, well beyond any setbacks that they even use at a plan planning level in the whole state, for example. And then another mandate was addressed whether or not authorized municipalities to establish local cultivation districts. Clearly, we feel like they shouldn't have any authority to offer a cultivation districts. Outdoor cultivation of Canada should be regulated as agriculture is in the state. We encourage this committee to continue to articulate aspects of agriculture in law. We have a number of them. I see Jeffrey's going through here. Yeah. From spans to the municipal cultivation setbacks, we have specific language for the water aspect of this so you all can understand it. [Sophie Zdatny]: And perhaps the last thing because [Member Randy Brock]: because we're we're gonna reset today. [Member David Weeks]: Know you're wanting to be, but I wanna you know, there's been so much talk about direct sales, and we were asked to look at the the the proposal button in by Sam Bellivance last week that was a a decentralized REIT sales allocation that was also a consumption of that. We had some definitely can speak a little more. Had some conversations with insurance providers, try to understand, like, how no matter what we do, you know, there's other actors involved. As John Rogers said, you know, our ideal for most people we talk to is some sort of supplemental direct retail license for for cultivators to manufacture. They can sell directly from that property with the appropriate regulations. As you can see here, we we talk about security, taxation, point of sales and training, and then we refer to the CCD to do a whole rulemaking process around this. This isn't unregulated tomato sales. The other one, which is more similar to Sam's, is this limited direct retail sales temporary event. But unlike Sam's, it doesn't involve consumption. And based on our conversation with insurance providers, dealing with consumption both at a legislative level and at the insurance level would be would take us a long time. Probably an obsession. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: But having a a showcase a farmer's market showcase [Member David Weeks]: event. Not gonna yeah. But I'm not gonna say showcase. We don't want this to be a retailer event where where cultivators manufacturers are trying to show their product and not make any profit share. The whole point here is that the cultivators and manufacturers are the ones who get the permit for the event. They can sell their product directly to consumers. They can recover [Chair Alison Clarkson]: At this event. [Member David Weeks]: At And it's very similar in some ways to what Senator Rogers proposed. We just include manufacturers. You know, we have a few different things here. Again, it refers to all these security things, the CCP and DuBois. So there is some commonality between more us and Senator Rogers than it is on the other side. But Sam was careful to point out to us that his actually does allow the cultivators and manufacturers to be at that event, but it's through a sort of convoluted process of the CTV needing to approve things. And I I'm very skeptical the CCD would approve any cultivator or manufacturer based on that bill given the current law, given what we've heard from the CCD, and their concern is about pushback on direct sales. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So I obviously, this is something we need to further conversation about. I'm going to pivot to David just because we are we're gonna go a little past our time before we take up the resolutions because we've all come, and we're so grateful too. [Member Randy Brock]: And we had Amy here. I don't know if you could type that too. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I I I think David waited also as you did, and I Certainly. Yeah. Yeah. And so I'm gonna go give it to David right now, and we'll have Amy another time, I think, from the three things or something. [Member David Weeks]: Maybe the last thing about the the governor. So let's talk about the governor being potentially against direct sales. From our perspective, the governor has not said anything about this. If anything, he's been supportive of small farmers accessing the market. He was part of his mandate. He was part of his signing statements. It it seemed to be accessible for small [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I'm not gonna pursue what the governor's receiving. Neither am I. To that. Yeah. Never mind. I think that's not a wise place for the moment. David, welcome. Thank you, Jeffrey and Graham. And more to more to call. Senator Parkson. [Sophie Zdatny]: My name is Dave Silverman. From the many hats I wear, the one I'm here wearing today is director of the Vermont Canvas Action Fund. We are a coalition of, jeez, nearly sixty, licensed entities. We grew out primarily of retail, but we do have members, in every single licensed category. I wanna talk about four, high levels points. First, I wanna talk about this, the the ongoing market saturation. The cannabis market is saturated statewide. It it is not a matter of a few towns with ultra saturation. Certainly, that is an issue. Rutland, Burlington, Morrisville, I mean, those are really bad examples of places with too many stores. But, frankly, the entire state has too many stores. We have a hundred and fourteen licensed retailers. Not all of them are quite open yet. The market has had to absorb a forty percent increase in the number of licensed retailers over a period of less than six months. This has been very difficult for the market. This has resulted in very sharp price falls, that others today have also testified to. We have one store in this state for every fifty seven hundred residents that ranks us among the very worst in the nation among states with adult use. We are looking like Oregon. Oregon is not a model to follow. It is everyone sales in Oregon. The only people who succeed in Oregon are people who can have dozens of stores where they can kind of split costs and reduce their compliance costs by not complying so well. Our basic problem is that supply exceeds demand. Adding more retailers, adding direct retail doesn't solve the problem of demand being what it is. We are a very safe state. You saw just last week, joint fiscal told you that March, cannabis sales were down year over year. Look. That is just simple math of a stagnant demand and falling prices leads to less sales in dollar terms. That is bad for the industry. It's bad for the state tax coffers [John Rogers]: as well. Happy to talk [Sophie Zdatny]: to the finance committee about alternative methods of taxicabibis not to rely so much on price, but on weight. But I've been told not to raise that ever again. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: No. I I don't think well, they'll discuss it as Bill makes it to finance. Yeah. Or maybe you're fired for that. [Sophie Zdatny]: Yeah. The Vermont Counter Action Fund supports the change to the board's rulemaking authority on retail siting. I I wanna thank and and praise the CCB here for for recognizing that the path that they initially set down on retail siting was not going to work. That that takes a a a lot of courage to do. And and so I think they really I really wanna call that out. I I wanna thank them for agreeing to pause licensing, while they really consider the right way to do retail siting, including, going back to do a market data analysis, which is sorely needed right now before we really know rather than feel what the market is like. And so, again, I think the CCB is on the right track with that and ought to be supported. So I I I think [Member David Weeks]: that that's fine enough on [Sophie Zdatny]: on market saturation. Happy to share data on on the one per fifty seven hundred and how how we rank among other states. The other priority for VCAAF events and consumption, Chair Pepper has shared with me an idea of limited farmers market sales. VCAAF is is happy to support that as it gets developed. We think that's a good idea. We pick up something that, you know, is a pilot program. You know, should be low risk, for all involved. And let's see, how it can work in a pilot before having to make any long term commitments. I will say to the previous testimony on tenant rights, when we first passed the Homegrown bill in twenty seventeen, one of the reasons cited by the governor for vetoing that bill in the first place was around tenants and their ability to consume cannabis. And at the governor's urging back then in twenty eighteen, when the when the law was finally passed, it included a provision saying that it is only legal to consume cannabis in any form in a in a rental with the landlord's prior written consent. And so that's really, really difficult to get. A lot of landlords don't want to put into a written lease that you can consume cannabis because they're afraid of their own insurance cancellations. And so that is an issue that I think could be addressed. It's actually in the Criminal Code, not in the seven BSA chapter thirty three. [Sophie Zdatny]: Not in landlord tenant? [Sophie Zdatny]: It it's in the criminal code. It's it's it's in forty two thirty a. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: The the leave over. [Sophie Zdatny]: Yeah. Yeah. It's like, what is allowed? Right? It was carved out of what was illegal, and and so it's it's there, unfortunately. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Probably that along with many other drugs. [Sophie Zdatny]: Yeah. But that Forty two thirty a is specifically cannabis. And and and Right. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: That means that you need to talk to senate judiciary. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Well, we do. Yeah. Yeah. But he got. Yeah. That's his research record. [Sophie Zdatny]: And I also I I wanted to respond to senator Chippen's point comment earlier about contact ties. This takes me back to twenty fifteen. This is, by the way, the eleventh year I've been here advocating on on cannabis reform. In twenty fifteen, the great senator Florey asked a question about contact highs. And I did some research back then, and I found the seminal study by Johns Hopkins University where they put people in a locked chamber. One person smoking for an hour, of, you know, this is government cannabis back then. And another person who is, cannabis naive, sitting there. And they ran this experiment twice. Once with the sealed chamber and one with normal ventilation. And after an hour, they found that a person in the sealed chamber with no ventilation showed signs of mild intoxication on cannabis. But when you turned on the vents, there was no secondhand impact [John Rogers]: at all. [Sophie Zdatny]: So it seems that secondhand highs is more of a myth than a reality in the real world because we're not in vacuum sealed chambers. But, you know, that that's that's what I found. Sure. [Member Thomas Chittenden]: I wanted to share my future as [Chair Alison Clarkson]: well. State. [Sophie Zdatny]: Our third priority has has and continues to be on potency. And I wanna focus, though, just on a very small part of potency. So Vermont has several, let's say, unique aspects of its cannabis laws. The potency caps and concentrates sixty percent, is one of them. There's only two states in the country that do that. I don't wanna talk about that. I wanna talk about this other place where we are an extreme outlier, which is the five milligram per serving cap on edibles. Again, Vermont is one of only two states that limits, edibles to five milligrams per serving. When we initially passed this law in, twenty twenty, Massachusetts was the only neighboring state only nearby state with legal sales, and Massachusetts was five. And at the time, the thinking at house government operation was let's have, you know, some kind of regional harmony between policies. Well, now New Jersey, New York, [John Rogers]: even Quebec, [Sophie Zdatny]: all have legal sales. They're all ten milligrams per serving. I wanna acknowledge the concerns by, some of the public health lobby, about this. I I will say ten milligram edibles is a very different subject than sixty percent and above potency on concentrates. This is not a question of danger to the developing brain. This is not a question of severely heightened risk of addiction. Edibles, at ten milligrams is standard across the nation. By limiting edibles to five percent here in Vermont, you are effectively imposing a ninety percent tax on cannabis edible consumers because the cost of producing edibles is really only about ten percent cannabis and ninety percent everything else. We're talking about adding pennies to add the additional five milligrams to a to a gummy versus a quarter thirty cents to produce another gummy altogether. [Sophie Zdatny]: Is that in the cream holder? [Sophie Zdatny]: No. That is in seven BSA. [Megan Sullivan]: Okay. [Sophie Zdatny]: Yep. [Member David Weeks]: Okay. [Sophie Zdatny]: Checkat thirty three. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So just we'll work on that. I'm just curious as a retailer, David. What percent of your sales are edibles versus smokeables? [Sophie Zdatny]: I would say we're looking at flower, including pre rolls, which John showed you, would be about sixty to sixty five percent. Vapes, would be which is a a concentrate that you inhale, would be about fifteen percent. Edibles, also around fifteen percent of the market, maybe twenty. Yeah. These edibles it's funny we sell more edibles on weekends and more flower during the during the week. I don't know why. It takes tourism. [Member Randy Brock]: I can do it. [Sophie Zdatny]: You know, of those of that edible market, probably twenty five percent of consumers would prefer ten milligrams to five. Ten. Ten, fifteen percent would prefer two and a half, and we give them that. And our intent would be to provide So you have a range? Yeah. I I think yeah. So there there are some people who want forty, and I think most people are really poorly served by edibles to begin with and really shouldn't do, like, things like tinctures. But, you know, it's a conversation we have every day at the store. So [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: to be to be I'm just a little upset with what they're saying. I believe the last I believe when our committee, you know, claimed ownership over cannabis at the market last biennium, Senator Sears still wanted to keep issues around potency and milligram levels. So we we never gave ourselves the full education on that. So this is this is helpful, and I just wanna say that we haven't really considered [Chair Alison Clarkson]: the question. This is the first time. [Sophie Zdatny]: And and, you know, I I think, you know, we can continue to have these conversations. So just this is the thing we've been asking for for years with very little success. And I just think that if we separated out the edible question from the other potency questions, at least, you know, we can narrow the focus. Because I do think edibles presents a much, much lower risk. The the real risk with edibles is accidental ingestion by young children who don't know what it is. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: So that and or we Sadly, all the problems that are more challenged. I mean, that's true for all of them. [Sophie Zdatny]: Sure. And and we address that through requiring that edibles be in childproof containers and not have packaging that is, attractive to children and things of that sort. I I will say, you know, a couple of years ago, we had a conversation around increasing the size of how many edibles you can put in a package. It used to be that you can only put ten. Now you could put twenty into a package. And we have Kayla Freeman from UVM's ED here. And and it was at house Scott at ops. But, you know, he testified, and I think we can go back and and find that testimony that, you know, when you're talking about the ink the the marginal risk between going from fifty to a hundred milligrams, it's almost nothing because you're already talking about a very bad day. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Right. [Sophie Zdatny]: And, you know, the same is five to ten. You're not talking about the risk of a of a lethal dose or or a, you know, an intubation or anything of that. You're just having really bad day for both parent and child. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: But and one might say you're better off in the regulated market in that way than making your own edible product, [Chair Alison Clarkson]: but where you are Or [Sophie Zdatny]: or buying them off the hemp derived the national hemp derived d nine market where you can get any Right. Potency you want with very low regulation. Right. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: We need to just keep [Member David Weeks]: The very last such a yeah. [Sophie Zdatny]: The very last, I just I wanna touch on on on free speech because it's it's important. I think so. Seven BSA eight sixty four is a gross violation of our free speech rights. This is advertising. Well, it goes well beyond advertising. And it's not just the free speech rights of cannabis businesses. We are in eight seventy eight sixty four and the regulations under it violate the free speech rights of cannabis consumers. As it as the Supreme Court said in in in nineteen ninety six, in LiquorMark versus Rhode Island, the first amendment protects people's right to hear information, truthful information about products that they may or may not want to purchase. But seven b s a eight sixty four was written intentionally intentionally to prevent cannabis businesses from being able to openly market to adults who are not currently consumer consuming cannabis. That was a a written legislative intent, and that is unconstitutional. It it it since nineteen ninety six, it was made clear that that is unconstitutional. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: And there is a lawsuit at the moment on it. [Sophie Zdatny]: Yes. There is. The Vermont Canopy Section Fund is financing that lawsuit. My company, Florida, is the named plaintiff in that lawsuit. I understand that there's often a reluctance by the legislature to touch a subject that is that is part of the lawsuit. Litigated. Right. I I I would say that there's very little risk to you in eliminating some of the worst offenses of article thirteen of the Vermont Constitution and the First Amendment to the US Constitution in terms of making this lawsuit worse for the state. This lawsuit is bad for the state. The state is going to come out looking very, very poorly in this lawsuit. We are well funded. We are ready for this lawsuit. We are going to push very aggressively in this lawsuit, and we have pro bono representation in the eventual appeal from a DC law firm with First Amendment experience. So we are we are prepared to push this as far as we have to in the courts. I think it is a shame that we have to. It is clear, clear that requiring people to submit for a government bureaucrat's prior written approval Yeah. A statement that they want to say, an email that I want to write to a consumer, a Facebook post that we want to put, how is that possibly defensible as constitutional? Prior restraint on speech is a anathema to the foundations of this issue. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: And I do wanna add that after that regulation went into place, we did create a complaint driven system for sports betting. Mhmm. So we do not allow the advertising of sports betting to young people under the age of twenty one, but we do not censor speech beforehand in doing that. It's complaint driven. I I I I have been compelled by this for a long time. I think we, in in many ways, have just run out of time to look at this issue, but I I do think that's unfortunate. And I think it should be something that we try to advance just by any of. [Megan Sullivan]: Yes. If not, please. [Sophie Zdatny]: In past years, chair Pepper has been here, and and he said that, you know, the problem with moving to a complaint based system is is time and resources. You know, I'm I'm I'm appreciative of the argument. I don't think that is a legitimate reason upon which to infringe our First Amendment rights, but I'm appreciative of the argument. I will point out to the argument that this bill includes a resource for an enforcement attorney for the CCB. I will be very happy once the CCB has a set in attorney. Game back here is definitely overworked and pulled in too many directions. And so we support that, and we hope that that ought to be enough. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I'm also I I'm also just surprised because it takes way more time and resources to censor speech before it goes out to the public than to deal with a complaint driven system. We know that, and we've had that argument in many areas of the law where people feel like the complaint driven system on landlord tenant law, etcetera, is inadequate. But complaint driven is way less time and resources as far as I'm concerned. That was gonna [Chair Alison Clarkson]: be my question. Law. Yeah. That was gonna be my question, which is what takes more time to be? Well, the Yeah. The the [Sophie Zdatny]: the the the the the the [Chair Alison Clarkson]: before or the complaints after. So And if if the industry complied with the [Sophie Zdatny]: requirement at any sort of reasonable pace, the CCB would be completely overwhelmed by submissions because the law requires us to submit every Facebook post, every every verbal statement. Literally, the an advertisement is defined as any statement written or verbal. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: Yeah. So, David, we need to shift gears. Mhmm. Thank you. What is the time frame on what do you anticipate on the time frame with your lawsuit? [Sophie Zdatny]: The lawsuit is well, unfortunately, the AAG assigned to this case has left the attorney general's office. A new one is getting up to speed. We are waiting on a, you know, conferencing order. We would like to be in for it by November. The proposal from from AAG Poit initially was, well, maybe February, March of next year. Obviously, we're not particularly pleased with any further delays in vindicating our constitutional rights. And, you know, we are looking for fast action if possible. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I think with how much is going on in terms of things our AGs involved in nationally Yeah. I I think this is frankly a waste of money and resources from the state to be fighting this lawsuit. I don't know if I'm supposed to say that unless you say her, but it it really strikes me as as a waste of money. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: There we are on that bridge to a different subject. Thank you, David, very much. Amy will have you back or Jesse, whoever is gonna to represent the medical as [Member Randy Brock]: Thank you. Thank you. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: You very much. And more to follow. I think we're gonna Here's my need to do grab some more time. Pepper and Julie and Gabe will have you back also to respond to some of this and to look at what might be possible and to continue this conversation. If you have a thought. I I know that there is James Pepper from the. I know there's a [Sophie Zdatny]: lot of proposals here today. I think that the on events, event licensing, [Member Thomas Chittenden]: And I think one of the goals for us would be to not have to add [Sophie Zdatny]: more staff to or to license and to [Member Thomas Chittenden]: oversee those events. So I'm thinking that it might be useful for some of the stakeholders here to get together and see [John Rogers]: if there's a proposal [Sophie Zdatny]: that we could all kind of agree on that doesn't include more research. [Chair Alison Clarkson]: I I think that would be a great idea if you would be willing to plug everything out to do that and come back to us with a proposal on that. That would be great. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Kim, I think you're behind me. I am. Oh, I [Sophie Zdatny]: just need a backup [Chair Alison Clarkson]: of that. Where did Michael go? Michael. [Speaker 2 ]: Who ran to go get something? Forgot it was Taiwan. [Geoffrey Pizzutillo]: This morning. So [Cary Brown]: he did? Yeah. [Member Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I didn't I didn't get I don't think I got it. I just looked. About it. Do you wanna stay live? [Chair Alison Clarkson]: No. Let's take a break.

Play Clip Play Full Video Pause

SmartTranscript of Senate Economic Development - 2025-04-23-9:00 AM

This is useful for seeing what happened at the meeting without wading through the whole transcript: