Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Good morning, everyone. This is the Vermont House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development. It is Thursday, 03/11/2026 at 09:47 in the morning. So we're here to have a final look at h three eighty five, which is the coerced death bill, and have a final run through committee discussion and vote. So we have our legislative council with us, Maria Arroyo. Good morning, Maria.

[Maria Arroyo (Legislative Counsel)]: Good morning, everyone. So I will share my screen and pull up for you, this is draft 1.17. And, substantively, it is identical to what we reviewed yesterday. All of the highlighting, obviously, in bold have been taken out. It has been reviewed by our editors and some typos fixed. But, otherwise, it's the same. Would you like to run through it, or do you have particular questions?

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Maybe. Yeah. Like to run through it one more time. Are you comfortable with Comfortable. After we looked at it yesterday? K. I guess everyone's comfortable with what we have. Discussions?

[Unidentified Member]: So concerns I have with the bill are just concerns about whether there will be unintended consequences, potential for fraud. How are we tracking that? The sort of two pieces that I've been putting thought into is there a way to for the third party professional and or a way to set up for more data collection in order to flag problems. So those are the two pieces that I mean, I think those are the two pieces that I'm struggling with. I don't know if anybody has thoughts. I mean, I

[Unidentified Member]: I mean, I recognize them, but I don't

[Unidentified Member]: Yeah.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: That's I'm kind of where

[Unidentified Member]: you're at. I I don't know what we can do. You

[Unidentified Member]: know? Yep. And, I mean, I think on the yeah. No. I right. I mean, it may be I mean, I think I'm comfortable, and I'll court the bill, but I guess I wanna say that those are my concerns, that the third party professional feels like an app potential avenue for fraud. And I would love it if we could find a way to track data to know how often I mean, I did a research looking at most of the other states who have this law. It's very new. Like, just maybe even getting in going to affect the last few months. Maine has had it longer. Nobody's has a robust data collection system. We don't really know how much it's being used. And so maybe that means it's not being used much. Maybe that means it's used being used a lot. Maybe there's maybe there's fraud. Maybe there's not. So that that that's my concern. And so and maybe, you know, on the senate side, assuming this goes through, maybe on the senate side, they can more thought into that data collection side and reporting side about how do we how is this something that we can track for unintentional unintentional consequences?

[Unidentified Member]: And I think to be fair, you're not necessarily feeling like the the advocates were being met fraud. They're just pointing No. But because they are I mean, this is they they do this job because they care about these people. And is that gonna cloud their judgment?

[Unidentified Member]: And there could be people who do it for fraud. And how do we know whether that has happened? Right? Yeah. I mean, yes, there's the there's the the piece where they could be you know, there could be professional consequences. They could be prosecuted for perjury. But is that enough of a deterrent? Would we have the resources to actually go after those cases? How would we find them? You know what I mean? Like, if you receive a letter from an advocate in not to pick on Nevada, but an advocate in Nevada and you get this and then you're evaluating it, you know, just the the third party professional definition is very broad, and the maybe the accountability is robust enough. I wish there was a way and I understand the issue with, like, having a third party who is I wish there's a way to have a third party that is not an advocate for the survivor be the one who says, okay. I'm gonna certify this as. And from my understanding and from testimony and from talking to people, can't really do that except for a court, which is much harder for a survivor to access, right, and costs more. So this is a mechanism to have a survivor be able to make a statement of birth in an accessible way. And I'd love that. But then also, how do we make sure that there's accountability for that third party professional? And I'm just not convinced that if you're a lawyer or you're an advocate, you're an advocate for your client. That's your job. Your job is not to have be an impartial, like, is this course dead or not? Your job is to be like, okay. Yep. I I got it. I'm gonna advocate for you. So those are, I mean, those are my reservations. Are they you know, are they will they be in what really happens in the real world? Is that gonna be you know? Be an issue. Would that be an issue? And there's because I think there's there's issue of fraud. There's issue of, you know, sort of that maybe gray area, right, where it's like, are we setting up a system for people to take advantage of the system to you know, we're setting up a system to really help people who this could be life changing, and I acknowledge that, and I want to support that. But I also wanna make sure we're not setting up a system that can be taken advantage of. Sure.

[Herb Olson (Member)]: The case where you can't reach out? Yeah. And I think for weeks now, I've been thinking about, you know, how do you find a mechanism to be sure that the allegation is credible? Yeah. And then on the other side, you know, how do you get a credible process for the creditor to say, no. This I mean, I don't think it's credible. Right, doing investigations. Yep. And But thank you. Do we do you know, I've been trying to think of an alternative mechanism, but I haven't heard it. So we left with the courts and a lot of problems with the courts. And just in terms of access, I mean, for anybody, much less, you know, someone in this in this situation. So I think what we did, though, was pretty significant. We remember we we had the three options kind of thing? And, you know, I think credibility of the accusation was a big part of that discussion. Yeah. And we chose a option that put in hands with a creditor to be able to make a determination in good faith

[Unidentified Member]: Yeah.

[Herb Olson (Member)]: About whether the allegation was real. And so they have power. If they see some sort of flag, they can say, no. You know, I'm not I'm not I don't I don't think that's right. And they can go ahead with the collection efforts. Yeah. So True. I I think I mean, I thought that was a key moment in our deliberation there in trying to find that balance between the debtor who's trying to get some relief and get on with their lives and creditors who are concerned about being at risk in terms of how they underwrite and all that sort of stuff. Yeah. So that was the key for me in terms of resolving, I think, some of but plus, you know That makes sense. Saying something under perjury is is not is a big deal, I think, for most people. On the data collection thing, you know, that's something I've been thinking too, but I think that'll be on ultimately, we gotta study Iran and DFR. They have limitations. Ultimately, I think it's gonna be the attorney general is the main enforcement, you know Yeah. Agency there. And I would hope that they would be able that they if they because they can they can examine and investigate things that are beyond just the state chartered entities. Mhmm. And I would hope that they're gonna be part of that study. And if they feel they don't have the tools to address, collect data, or just find out what's going on in terms of good faith or whatever, I would hope they would come to us to do that. But I don't know how to change it Yeah. Right now to address all those concerns.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Yeah. I talked too much.

[Unidentified Member]: No. That's okay. Okay.

[Unidentified Member]: We do have a lot of professionals in the room. I'm wondering if any of them would have any idea of how to address that. The the data collection? Or well, just the the concern that you're having. Yeah. Anyone can we ask that question? I know it's late in the game. Ask the question.

[Unidentified Member]: Yeah. I mean, it's it's like a it's like the it's like the core tension. It's like the core tension that I just you know, that is hard to reconcile, the core tension. But I

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: think that there's a lot of unknowns, and we won't know until we put something to effect. And then if we're seeing issues of fraud one way or the other, then it's time be time for us to to act on it. But without and, you know, the laws, like you said, are just coming online, you really don't know. We don't really have data yet. But does does that mean that you should stop our process and wait for that data to come? I don't think so. Think Yeah.

[Unidentified Member]: I agree.

[Unidentified Member]: It's more like, how can we be part of the data collection? Right.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: How can we start with something. Be part of that? And still help Yeah. Help if things with. Yep. Yep. And and suspicious transactions as well. Can't forget about that and how important that is to the monitors as well. So

[Unidentified Member]: I'm not opposed to anything. The one thing that I would and I I think it's too late in the game to add it, but to kind of firm up that that process of what happens when a debtor sends the letter to the creditor and says, please don't contact me and make sure that there is a deck direct connection. I mean, we saw the 1974 rules, which which are great because the creditor and the the rules are first party, you know, and and maybe that's something we can take up next year as a kinda just clean that up just to make sure that it is you know, you can get a letter after the first the first request, but after that, it's done. There's no more phone calls. There's no more interactions until the court case comes. But that's my only comment, and I don't think we can add it to the bill at this juncture.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Too late right now to get into debt collection. Yeah. That's another area. Sound like we have a plan for drafting request for next year.

[Unidentified Member]: Gotta be careful on how many drafts, I think. But you remember after the session is done, you know, it starts all over again. Exactly.

[Unidentified Member]: And and that and that's part of this. You

[Unidentified Member]: know? I mean,

[Unidentified Member]: I think it makes sense that we can move forward to something. And, you know, we're all maybe not all of us, but some group of 11 people will be here again in January, and they can deal with any problems that have come up.

[Unidentified Member]: Yep. K. K. I I'm reluctant to just wholeheartedly buy into that thought. But on the other hand, in support of that point of view, the various specialists we have in this room, I don't think are bashful, and I think they'd be standing on the table telling us that there were still shortcomings that they really objected to. So that thought in mind, I'm comfortable seeing.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: K. Further discussion? Alright. Well, with that, I would entertain a motion to report favorably on h three eighty five draft 1.17. Some moment. Second? I.

[Unidentified Member]: That.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Second I if I run that off. Is there any further discussion?

[Unidentified Member]: Not the clerk can call the roll. Representative Bosch?

[David "Dave" Bosch (Member)]: Yes. Representative Boutin? Yes. Representative Carris Duncan? Yes.

[Committee Assistant (Roll Call Clerk, name not stated)]: Representative Cooper? Yes. Representative Duke? Yes. Representative Granting?

[Edye Graning (Vice Chair)]: Yes. Representative Nicholas? Yes. Representative Olson?

[Herb Olson (Member)]: Yes.

[Committee Assistant (Roll Call Clerk, name not stated)]: Representative Priestley? Yes. Representative White? Yes. Representative Marcotte?

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Yes.

[Unidentified Member]: I responded to my head. It's so

[Committee Assistant (Roll Call Clerk, name not stated)]: it's it's different. Yeah. Yeah.

[Unidentified Member]: I don't know why. But I was trying to touch.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Just trying to make sure you're there.

[Unidentified Member]: Yes. 80%.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Okay. Good job, Monique. A lot of work. Thank you. Chris, thank you. Charlie, thank you. Thank you, Joe, and Aaron, everyone else that's worked on this. A lot of work.

[Unidentified Member]: Maria. Yeah. Yeah.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: And especially Maria.

[Unidentified Member]: Especially

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Maria. But you don't have the you still don't have the most drafts

[Unidentified Member]: yet. David

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: is still ahead of you.

[Maria Arroyo (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, I don't know because there were a lot of interim drafts that didn't actually get numbers. So I think I'm K.

[Unidentified Member]: I would be happy to

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: with the on grading, we'll report this on the good work committee. Thank

[Unidentified Member]: you.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: We have anything now until we go. 45. 45? Yeah. $10.45, we will look at h six fifty. It's the best of money, possibly mark it up and go. We'll also look at it at $7.33 and mark that up and go with that one. That's the the franchise agreement piece. It's like there's not much to it. We'll hear from David on that as well. So any questions, committees? Number five twelve will be up for action this afternoon. We'll be hearing from superintendents or school board members, principals with 02:30 along with one of their attorneys on the issue of the amendment to two zero five, and we'll see how that goes. And we're also trying to look at page 11, continue discussions on the I'm not sure I can get the six seventy four. So we have the house appropriations committee amendment to sister state. Hear that.

[Unidentified Member]: Will that be on the floor? Oh, so I have to report on it tomorrow.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Okay. No. It's today. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Okay. So with that, any questions? I think I think we can go off live, and we'll be back at 10:45.