Meetings
Transcript: Select text below to play or share a clip
[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: We are live.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Welcome, folks. This is House Corrections and Institutions. It is Tuesday, January 27. It's our afternoon meeting. We're starting the afternoon with our legislative John Gray, to walk us through a new draft, draft point one, House Bill 50, which deals with BGS doing an inventory of their own state owned buildings and land to see if any of that could be used for housing. So John, it's all yours, and there's a new draft.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Very exciting. John Gray, hope this looks like couple of Maybe for you. Here we are.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Keep it simple.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: H50. I think this is going to look awfully familiar. It's just going be some slight presentation differences. We talked about the session law pieces, the last time I was in here speaking on this. But just to run through the draft, what you're gonna see in section one is your updates to the inventorying section, and this is gonna look a lot like what passed the House. So on line 12, subsection e, the commissioner shall maintain an inventory of all state owned buildings and land and shall annually compile and update the information. That's in fact the change against what passed the house is that update to annually, But this is just referencing state owned buildings and land, no reference to state lease as we've talked about. So inventorying under subsection E, commissioner to maintain an inventory of all state owned buildings and land and shall annually compile and update that information. And it's picking up what's under subsection g. So under subsection g, this should all be familiar. The head of each agency to prepare and forward to the commissioner annually in a format prescribed by the commissioner that inventory and the final line, which is kind of the key substantive line of that subsection on page two, lines five through seven, the head of each agency shall additionally indicate in its inventory in a format prescribed by the commissioner whether any building is vacant and whether any land is unnecessary for state purposes, which is the language that was used as passed the House. You'll recall that the Senate proposal amendment had updated that state purposes to statutory purpose of an agency. So this is just returning to the house version of this and to address the obvious question, what about all the housing pieces? Those are dealt within the session law provisions, which we'll come to in just a second. These are your updates permanently to ongoing statutory obligations under Title 29. So as part of that inventory, the head of each agency would describe whether any building is vacant and whether any land is unnecessary for state purposes. That's your ongoing permanent obligation for the heads of those agencies. And as you can see starting on line nine, at the start of each new legislative biennium, the commissioner would submit that inventory to the committees of jurisdiction. The real change you're going to see, although the substance is still the same, is for section two, which starts on line 13. Previously, the language that you had seen here was built into that subsection G above and was creating a permanent obligation to yearly describe the availability for conversion to affordable housing of vacant properties. But now what you have is a time limited duration requirement. So in each inventory that the head of an agency conducts pursuant to that subsection G through calendar year 2030, and I'll come back to that in just a second, the head of the agency shall identify whether any property is underutilized suitable for conversion into housing. And then we have a long list of inclusive items. As we talked about last time, this language is drawn largely from the executive order with some slight cleanup. And then the practical provisions that we had for addressing, well, what if more information is required instead of having as an outright requirement in each of those inventories when requested, so starting on line 19, when requested by the commissioner of BGS to head an agency with the assistance of DHCD, Department of Housing and Community Development, to provide an assessment of its property's infrastructure capacity and suitability for affordable housing development and a recommendation for use of the property support meeting Vermont's housing production goal. So this is basically converting the executive order, which pulled the language from the initial H-fifty concept into a time limited requirement for the heads of agencies in the inventory that they prepare for BGS to identify whether property is underutilized and suitable for affordable housing, sorry, suitable for conversion into housing, sorry, keep saying affordable. And then upon request, making an assessment with the assistance of a party equipped to make this determination, the Department of Housing and Community Development, whether it has sufficient infrastructure capacity and could be suited for affordable housing development, and recommendations for use of the property to support meeting Vermont's housing protection goals. There's one last thing I wanted to say on this piece, which is the time limited duration. We talked about a five year requirement. This is drafted using calendar year formations. So in some sense, could say whether you get five out of this depends on the point at which this bill passes. If it passed today, my understanding is that the inventorying process in the spring, the heads of each agencies would then need to comply with this, and that would flow through to the summer report that BGS prepares, in which case you would get five instances, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30. But if it passes later, just a little bit later, and let's say the agencies have already prepared their inventories, then you may not get the full five counts.
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: So there's different ways to do this. One is just to time it based on when you expect passage to occur if you do. Another is to switch to a fiscal year concept. But then I
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: think you would still need to specify, are we doing this for fiscal years '27 through '31? And then you might not get the update this upcoming year for the inventories that are being prepared two, three months from now. So another way you could do it is in each inventory that the head of an agency prepares for the next five years, and just make it prospective next five years. Don't spell out what the years are. So there's different ways to think about it is my point. And I think if it passed today, this would suffice. But I just want to raise the timing.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You really need to clarify the starting point, because there's been other issues in the past where there could be two different departments, they have two different interpretations of the starting date. So I want to be real clear when it starts.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. You could say in each inventory that the head of an agency conducts pursuant to such and such statute for purposes of the inventory being compiled in each of summers twenty twenty six. There's ways to make sure that you pick it up. It's how immediately do you pick it up. But yeah, just something to think about.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I just want some real clarity if we go down this route as to when the clock starts ticking. So I've been exposed to other interpretations on other issues. If there's conflict, a different interpretation of when the clock starts ticking. So I wanna be clear. The other thing. So this piece, if you look on page two, lines eighteen, nineteen, that is drawn from the governor's executive order. And this was conversion into housing in general. So if you're going to look into affordable housing specifically, it has to be requested by the commissioner of BGS.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: That's right.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: The head of an agency. What do you mean by the head of an agency?
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Sorry, I'll just The structure for that sentence is, upon request by the commissioner, pause, the head of the agency shall provide an assessment. So the head of the agency is the one providing, identifying those underutilized properties. That's the person compiling the inventory that goes up to BGS.
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: This
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It could be any agency.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Any agency.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Could be ANR, it could be AHS. So it would be the head of that agency, which is the secretary.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: And in this case, they'd be able to call up when they get this request from the commissioner. Let's say they've provided and they've said, we think this is underutilized, might be suitable for conversion into housing, but what do we know? We're not housing folks. If the commissioner comes back and asks, the head of that agency then says, they can call upon the assistance of DHCD, at least as proposed here, and develop more useful metrics, which you see on page three, an assessment of that infrastructural capacity and suitability for affordable housing development, plus recommendations for use of the properties. So it's two categories for the second piece. It's affordable housing,
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: and it's also housing in general.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, the general thing you would get as a yearly required component of section two is an identification of underutilized properties that are suitable for conversion into housing. Doesn't matter if affordable or not. And then if there's a request for greater detail from the commissioner, the head of that agency could call upon DHCD to assist them in these more specific informational requests, infrastructure capacity, suitability for affordable housing. And presumably, commissioner could also ask for other things if they want.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So that more specific request, was that in the governor's executive order?
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: No. I would call this the practical compromise between trying to have a yearly process and what the executive order proposed. The executive order was a one time requirement, and it leveraged the assistance of ACCD and DHCD to help in identifying conversion for housing. But because you're proposing, and part of this is my thing, because you're proposing just a yearly required update to the inventory strikes the balance between initial proposals in the first instances of age 50 or for the heads of agencies to identify if something could be suitably converted to housing. But do they have the expertise to really know? I don't know. And so this is saying, we're going give you an annual component, do that identification if suitable for conversion into housing. And then if it looks like there's something promising there, the commissioner can reach out and they had within upon that request avail themselves of the assistance of someone with expertise in this space to then supply greater information. So the formulation of this directive is not the same as in the executive order. The executive order is an outright request that you provide information on whether the underutilized property would be suitable for conversion into housing. But because this is just updating the inventory process, trying to strike the balance between what they can reasonably do on a yearly basis, and then could they provide additional information that might be helpful.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: The executive order, which is focused on housing, wasn't focused on affordable housing. And then we've kind of extended that to the affordable housing because it could be requested from
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: I You could also strike the affordable on page three if you just wanted to align with
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I thought we talked about that, getting rid of the most affordable.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, that may be my misunderstanding. I struck it from the first piece, which was the yearly inventorying. It used to say shall identify for suitable for conversion into affordable housing. So I struck that. Think I misunderstood that it was a proverb.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: I agree with Conor. I think it should just be housing because it could end up being higher end housing. It could be lower end housing. It's housing. They're not there to make that decision. They're there to find out if it can be made into housing.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: I see it being obstacle potentially if we keep affordable housing. And that is
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: so Floated. And it doesn't really mean a whole lot right now.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: And I'll tell you, I wonder if we do that, if needed on line 19, page two, the sentence starting when requested. Because this is talking about sort of internal process for the administration. To me, the purpose of the bill is to get that first part in front of the legislature and the legislature can make an assessment from there. What's underutilized and vacant? Are
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: you saying you get rid
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: of Franklin?
[Conor Casey (Member)]: I think I'd be fine striking from 19 to
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: To the end of page three.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: May I offer what you I think maybe some of the connection here is unclear. You would receive that information because what this section two is doing, the leading language is doing a lot of work here. In each inventory that the head of the agency conducts, get this information. If we scroll back up on page two, line nine, on or before January 15 of each new legislative biennium, make sure it shall submit the inventory maintained under subsection E. So that information would be compiled into the inventories that the legislature receives. So this is not cutting out the legislature, we just don't need to specify them because
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: You're right.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Okay. But you could still cut 19 through You could cut the remainder of that if all you're trying to get is the You will escape some administrative objections to this bill if you cut that line because you will no longer have the request to have DHCD jump in and provide assistance to anyone.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: It's a committee bill, but I'd be fine with that because, you know, The commissioner wants it, they're going to request it anyways. I don't think we have to prescribe that and we would get that information anyway. So I think it might overcomplicate it a little bit where this is just mirroring the executive order and saying, Okay, would would they get we get and we get it for five years or have we come up with there?
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So just to be clear, so everyone's on board, what Conor's recommending on the bottom of page two, line 19, that starts when requested by the commissioner to delete all of that and go to the top of page three and delete everything on one lines one through three.
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: That's good with you, which you're the catalyst of the bill. That's good with me.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: There were others that's fine. Yeah.
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Appreciate that, Yeah.
[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Other folks are So
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: the assessment part of it, that's covered somewhere else. The line one, top of the third page, shall provide an assessment. Of the That's okay to cut out of there.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Structure of capacity.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: I'm okay if it is, but I'm just asking.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: I think it is because the assessment's already being sort of made in the first part too, because the agency's identifying whether the property's underutilized and suitable for a conversion of that. So there's an assessment at that point, right?
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: That's all, I just didn't want to cut that out.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Mean, I so kind of highlighted
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: that. Have an answer, but I didn't want to speak on your behalf. I think your point was you're going to get this basic assessment whether suitable for conversion. You may not get something like infrastructure capacity and the like, but you were making the point that in the political process, once it's been identified what properties are underutilized and would be suitable conversions, the commissioner would naturally ask for that information which would be available to the legislative process. So it's kind of a point that initially have to request it. Here you're building it into an inventory process, but there's other ways to receive that information. So if you think that the kick in is sufficient, but there's gonna be a yearly identification of whether property should be available for conversion into housing, that may be enough.
[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: That's the assessment part of it.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Yeah. Okay, then I'm fine.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: It's about throwing meat into the pit, the pit being the legislature, the lines being us. And once we get the meat, we can do what we want with it.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's to get to meat, and the meat of sand.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So happy to be part of the deluxe. If
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: we don't get what we think is satisfactory from the original part. You can tweak it. We can tweak it. We can see what they're presenting to us. And if we're like, wait a minute, this is not really what we want. We can go back and say, okay, can we add? Showing a trigger.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Well, that's what I'm worried about because I feel we've been talking about this now for a year. Right? And we're and we're talking, and we're doing a lot of talking. We're not doing a lot of action. And I don't want it to get to another year. And they're like, oh, here it is. And you're like, well, that's not what we want. And then another year has gone by. So all I'm trying to say in that trigger, you triggered me, I don't want it. I want it to be crystal clear.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We hit an inventory.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: And I think that part of what you're asking for is the report that has already been prepared, which we talked about last time.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Where it is? Where did it go? The orange covered stuff.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: It's around here somewhere. It's right there. It's it's right next to picture. Oh,
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: okay.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: You just can't see the orange?
[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: I can't
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: see the orange.
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Do you want it? No,
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: but it's a certain space book. And
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: does that include I'm thinking in particular of the executive order.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: So that's a big old book, and there's no printout yet of what's suitable for housing. Right,
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: And so just to be clear, the thing I'm identifying is that the executive order which is separate from the standard BGS inventory process. This merger of those two interests is being proposed in this bill. But if you saw the executive order report, I don't know that you We did. Yeah, and you found that things were lacking there that you would have wanted to have seen, I think that would help you understand if you would be likely to get into this case.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It talks about property that's owned by the state in all the towns, but it doesn't list out the specific property. It lists the town, the total vacant square footage, but it doesn't tell you what the building is or if it's the land.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: I may be being obstinate. I just want to confirm, are you guys saying that this Facebook contains the results of the executive order report? It doesn't. There's no reason that it
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: We should know what the property is and what the details are for it.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: So I'm just saying about floors. Identifying that that information is not contained in there we have
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: a three quarter of an inch
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: document that basically says no.
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: What's that?
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: I said we basically have a three quarter of an inch document that basically says nothing because we don't even know what the property is.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: What this says is most state buildings that are owned in communities. So if you go and I just opened it up, you've got Royalton, Rutland, St. Albans. So in Rutland, you've got the multimodal transit.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Can we sell that please?
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: No, but this is what's in the inventory. But you've got the agency that it's under, agency administration, and the departments BGS that has it. And then you've got occupied office space. And then you've got common area, rental area, billable area. If you go to St. Albans, you got the state police barracks, which is on Fisher Road. It's owned by the Department of Public Safety. And you have heated occupant space of 550, which I would assume is probably square footage. Occupant area total is five fifty.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: That's as big as this.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And the common area factor is 1.39. That's what it says. Mhmm. So
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: my concern about all of this, for example, you just you mentioned the Saint Albans Place Barks. We live there, where Joe and I do. So I know what it is. I know what the police barracks is, I know what it looks like, I know who's there. If you mentioned something in Barrie, Gina might know or Conor might know what it looks like, what's there. When I read this book, it doesn't tell me what it could be used for. I would have to go there and I'd have to look. And so the information I want, I would assume is what you're
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: looking for. I want to
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: know, can this building be used for a purpose that you want? And I don't know necessarily if our bill is doing this or if it's requiring it. I I know what it says, but I don't know. Or if the people that we're asking to do it are necessarily qualified to say, is this building good for housing? Is it good for us? We already decided we're taking out affordable housing. But that's the answer we're trying to get. I'm just not shorter for
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: The book isn't gonna give you
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: that book. No, that book definitely is.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: This book isn't gonna give you that.
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: So I guess all I'm saying is
[Kevin Winter (Member)]: that whatever the finished product
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: That's why I got hung up on assessment.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Yeah, yep, that's fair.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's not gonna tell you, it's just telling you the space that's there, how much is occupied, what's rented, what's ever.
[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Theoretically, there's a report out there from the executive order. Why don't we look at the report? Why don't we ask the commissioner for the report and see if it's usable before we try to fix
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: it. Is there a report out there?
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Yeah. The executive order report.
[Kevin Winter (Member)]: If there isn't, somebody needs to Is that
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: available on the line? I haven't seen the
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Are we able to get a copy?
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: I assume that you could ask
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: for it.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Paul, do you know any of that? Because the report would be coming from BGS, right? The executive order? Wasn't it BGS needed to submit it?
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: In consultation with DHA.
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Haven't seen it on the sort. I applied it for the administration.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Is that a report that's going to be on next year's deletion? Think it's worth.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: No one's seeing it.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: That's exists first.
[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: Delete it before we get it.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: I understand that,
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So so we need to find out. So, Cole, could you go back to your folks and see if you can find out if the report even exists at this point or if it's still being worked And if it exists, it has been submitted, we would like to see it.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: We have an archive where all these reports The report that we reported on the report that then
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You mean what we did last week?
[Cole (Administration liaison, likely BGS/Administration)]: Oh, I'm just saying all
[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: the reports
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: and state government.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: We do have legislative reports on the legislative website, but this would be outside that scope.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I'd like a copy. Of the report that the executive will Right. Well, when it gets done, Cole's going to check to see. But you have to do it in consultation with Housing Community Development. Right?
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Was submitted to the 5th Floor.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And what?
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: And it was submitted to the 5th Floor.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You don't know if the report got submitted, do you? Did it get submitted to the 5th Floor?
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. It just happened on the scene.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Do you know when it was submitted to the 5th Floor?
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: I'm looking at I'm trying to find the executive. It's It's That's what? The executive orders up there?
[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Right there. On the twenty fifth, 12/01/2025
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: is when it was supposed to be there.
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: We talked about it last week.
[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: Yep. And so I
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: mean, I think you could ask the question, what would the form of this report be? Like, it might be different than your classic legislative report because this is submitting to BGS and GHDD complete inventory assessment of such and such recommendations. I don't know what form that came in. It might just be a compilation of it. But once
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: coal goes to the chief and asks, we'll see it in theory, and
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: we'll know.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So could you follow-up and see if, number one, if the report was submitted, and if we can get a copy of the report. Pull up your chain of command. So where are we with this bill? Yeah, folks. I really wanna get rid of this bill. Because we dealt with it last year, went over to the senate, came back from the senate. And it's got more steps to go. So it has to go back to the senate.
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Can we wait a day or two to see what poll's answer is? And if we can get that, actually look at it. Do at least a cursory look.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But if we don't get it
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Then we have to forward. Then we have to move forward with this bill. We'd probably do either way, right?
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, it's up to the committee.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: I was thinking there's benefit on carrying this beyond the immediate executive order over the next five years. Right. Because there's benefit for that.
[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: I thought the intention of this was to get it to Conor to make sure that the legislature was able to show its intent as compared to the executive branch's proposal.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, the intent is to clean up some of what the Senate Right. And then the executive order has come in. Conor mentioned that we could dovetail on that and incorporate some of the language of the executive order in the inventory. So how that plays out after that, they could accept it in the Senate as an amendment, or
[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: they could go to conference. So my thought is wait to see if we can access the report, and if not, move forward with it. But either way, I think we should move forward with it because that executive order, it's gonna expire. Only for
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: The report is a one time.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's a one time.
[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Yes. It's one time.
[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: We wanna get this in
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: So we wanna make this
[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: yearly. Yeah.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But we wanna make it yearly for five years. Yeah.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Mhmm.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And that's what this session law is. Yep. You're changing the law, changing the green book. I want to make sure I get that right. In section one. And you can see that because if you go to page one, line eight, section one, you're amending 29 VSA section one sixty five.
[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: Yep. Yep.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You're amending current law with section one. If you go to section two on line 13 on page two, there is no title.
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Mhmm.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yep. And there's no section. There's only section two. It's not amending a title, and it's not amending a section in a title in VSA. So that indicates it's session law, that you're not amending the green books.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: So equally law, it's just not put into the green books because it's not a permanent direction.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Right. Got our capital bill, it's session law. We're not changing the game books. So
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: back to thing, I think Will and I think I'm agreeing with what you're saying. So we want this regardless because we want it to be longer than just an executive order that's one year through. And that seeing the executive order, or excuse me, the report from the executive order is more of a
[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Will help
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: us with the language.
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, will help us with the language and also set a baseline of, well, this looking what we want or is it not what we want to be able to tweak the language, etcetera, because of that. Am I correct in my assumption? Because I could be way off. Sometimes I hear things I don't hear.
[Kevin Winter (Member)]: And for my education, if the executive order wasn't executed, then happens?
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Probably nothing.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's not a part of the order. It's the executive order came from the executive It didn't come from the legislative branch, came from the executive. It
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: is often hard to hold the decision makers accountable for the decisions that they make. Same applies to the legislature, You guys set rules for yourselves so you can come back and not withstand it. But it's like the conversation we had last week about whether it's reasonable to expect compliance or not. I don't think, in this case, there's any reason to suppose that there wouldn't have been, and we know that there there was. But but, yeah. So we're back to perhaps. I live in a world of perhaps, so I find less humor in the perhaps than you guys do. I will try to find the humor that
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Thank you. Absolutely nothing is carved in stone.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: We live in a world I'll wait to hear further direction from you guys, but my takeaway for my purposes is cut the second sentence of section two.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So let me go back to the question. Are we, for section one, this is changing the law? Where we are is that BGS would maintain an inventory of state owned buildings and land, took out leased buildings. Mhmm. Yes. Came over from the sun. We also clarified that it shall be annually, not twice a year. And we didn't do anything to G except the bottom of the top of page two. This is when the head of each agency is preparing and forwarding their inventory of square footage
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: that's used.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: And state, not statutory.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And what?
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: State, not statutory, line seven? The rest the state's stupid. And that's kind of a big difference with those set of proposal guidelines.
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Statutory relief. Right. I'm not there yet.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Thought you were moving on. But
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: the big change is, going back to our language, unnecessary for state purposes instead of what it said for them for statutory purpose of the agency. And we're doing that because
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: It was unclear that there was a statutory purpose outlined in prejudice.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Paper were clear. Yes. And then BGS would have to report to us in the Senate Institutions Committee on the inventory that's maintained pertaining to Section E, which is the first part of section one, page one. Yes. That's done annually. Well, that's done at the beginning of each biannual.
[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: Okay.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: When was the quick question. When was the executive order dated? September '25. Yeah. I mean, I can I can jump real quick, actually? September 17 was this execution of the executive branch. That was.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It wasn't an Us.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: It was due in January. It was due in December 1.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: So December 1.
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: It's all internal to the executive branch.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. Doesn't pertain to us. It's all internal to the executive branch.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. As far as we know, there has been no error or problem.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: We don't know if anyone has seen it.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Are we okay right now with section one?
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Mhmm. Yes.
[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: It's good to go.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Section two is the one that's really based on the executive order that we need to see what the report is to help us a little bit with this language. We have eliminated the last sentence. It starts when requested by. So right now, in each of the inventory, this is for a five year period, is our thinking.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Why just five years? Why not? It's
[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: long time,
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: it's slate of life because people will forget it.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: It gives us an opportunity to review.
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Got it. Okay, thank you, Mary.
[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: Well? No, that's pretty much what Mary just said.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So we need, if we do this, we need a specific starting point in '26.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Mhmm.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Is it when the bill becomes effective? Is it July 1? Because one of the bills that we passed, it was something. I don't it was with BJS and something else. It said upon passage
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Mhmm. That's what I have.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Was, is it the date the bill passes both house and senate, or is it the date that the governor signs? And that was a different interpretation.
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: By them?
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yep. By some of the people who are involved.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Think those kinds of questions can be resolved. Like, they have answers. But they're not just subject to change.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So this act shall take effect upon passage. So what does that mean in
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: So when you see the acts compiled, they'll list at the bottom the date of execution by the governor. And it will say effective If it said effective on passage, it will say, they have effectiveness June 26.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But it's what the governor signs. It's not when the bill has passed both bodies. But there was an interpretation that was done, and it wasn't in the effective date. It was in the language of the body of this particular program.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, it was like a strangely drafted effective date. That's not what would apply here. This would just be when this comes into law.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: When the governor signs. Should we put a specific date? Not law
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: until the governor signs, right?
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Exactly.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Should we put a specific date so that July 1. That's what I was Then you don't get then you don't get the spring report. You get four.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: The the reason this is drafted as passage is that gives you the earliest date which you you could check-in. And so if it passed early enough, you pick up this year's inventorying process. Don't have to specify a date. It automatically is the date on which it's signed.
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: It starts at March 22. That's what it is.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Exactly.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And then you get the spring.
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Although there one more dumb question. Are there not some laws that go into effect, but he just doesn't sign it?
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: If you
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: The vetoes.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: We can override vetoes, right? You can have that. And then you would need to specify in the act, just as we do here, what the effectiveness would be. So in that instance, on passage would be the override of the veto. But you're thinking in the right way about what is the last step. That's the thing that triggers the effective office.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But sometimes, Kevin, the governor will allow something to become law without their signature.
[Kevin Winter (Member)]: That's what I'm referring to. So that
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And they're clear that it becomes law without their signature.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Without the signature. So that's an act and a That's a date
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: then. So that's why I asked the question, are some occasions where that happens? If he writes a letter on April 15 that says, I'm not gonna let this go, that's the day.
[Kevin Winter (Member)]: So that's the effective passage date, even though he didn't sign.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, but that decisive action was required, right?
[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: Maybe I'm now thinking in two different ways. But on the second page, that January 15, that's for the inventory, but that's the annual report. So I'm confused. January 15, what we have in the language right now, just
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: changing it. Well, that I wondered that too. But if you look at the commissioner would maintain an inventory and shall annually compile an update, but they don't have to give that to us until the beginning of a biennium.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Exactly. Exactly.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So they don't have to give it to us every year. It's just
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: the beginning a biennium. So the way to think about it is BGS would be annually receiving for this time limited duration information on whether vacant land is suitable conversion into housing. And then at the start of each biennium, so not annually, although you could also reach out and ask for it in the same way that you can now, At the start of each biennium, the legislature would be under statute obligated to receive that from the commission. So annual flow of information, biennial receipt of information by the legislature.
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: One more, and then I'll run.
[Kevin Winter (Member)]: I think I'm understanding that on line 19,
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: when requested by, we're proposing to strike all the rest of that.
[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Yep. Given that, does it make sense in line 17 to say whether any property may be underutilized or may be suitable? Or are we relying on BGS to determine that it's underutilized and suitable?
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: You are relying on the head of the agency to make that determination.
[Kevin Winter (Member)]: And I, okay, and that's why I'm questioning whether we want to say that, or whether we want maybe underutilized because we may say, it is underutilized. You've only got 25% of your people in there and your forecast for the next three years isn't gonna go up. So, it is underutilized even though you don't think it's underutilized. Who's gonna make the determination that's underutilized?
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: The head of the agency. Okay, are capable? Are
[Kevin Winter (Member)]: they capable of determining it's suitable for conversion into housing?
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Will just say that is exactly why I included the second sentence that is being proposed to be struck is in the event that you have doubts about, and I'm not saying it's bad to strike that, I'm just saying that language was included in case you had doubts about the heads of the ADCs to determine. So you're trying to strike a balance between what is feasible to ask of each of the heads of an agency in their inventory process and getting the information that you want. You will be reliant on their discretion. And even if you changed from is to maybe, I think practically you're in the same situation, they're still reliant on the head of the agency's discretion to make that determination.
[Kevin Winter (Member)]: But it is broader. It is
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: still underutilized and suitable can mean what you want them to as well. You can't stop that.
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: But we want the largest list possible, I think.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: We have that.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, section here is also based in terms of the report back on the executive order, which we don't know what that report says. And we wanted to see what the report said so that we could look at this language through that lens. Is that correct? Yes. So right now, we're kind of in the dark.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Yeah, and just want to make a point, like, once they do this once, they've got a formula for it. And as we know all the land and property that changes hands from what we acquire to what we get rid of just by virtue of sitting on this committee, what's gonna differ from year to year is if a building's repurposed or if a building's razed or something, but it's not gonna be a ton more, you know, in this report each year. It'll just be an update.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: With that, do we still wanna do five year process?
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: I do. Sure. So
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: do we want to do it fiscal years or do we want to do it calendar years? So calendar year, if right now what John has is calendar year for '26. If the bill passes and gets signed before they do the spring inventory and they do the spring inventory March and April, I'm assuming. Do you know, Cole? Is it March, April?
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Sounds about right.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It would have to become law before they do the spring inventory to kick in in '26. If it doesn't pass before they do the spring inventory for '26, we won't get a report next year. It wouldn't kick in until the '27.
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: You get the report maybe.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And you get the Here, I
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: show the calendar year for sure.
[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: Mhmm. So let's just Calendar
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: year. Yeah.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: So But
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: you gotta make sure it gets to be law before they do the inventory this time.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Here's another thing you could do, which will be annoying for them if it passes late and you want the information immediately, which would disrupt the process of the standard March. But if you came to the position that this isn't going to pass until sufficiently late, and you want it to happen this year, but you've already passed the point at which they compiled this, you could say, and again, would be annoying to them, but in each inventory, the head of an agency conducts pursuant to such and such statute for purposes of the annual inventory that the commissioner compiles in calendar years '26, because the the commissioner is preparing it on the basis of information received, but it's not being released until the summer. So you could say for purposes of the inventory compiled by the commissioner in summers twenty eight, Basically making it clear that it needs to be complied with this year regardless of when it's passed.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So wouldn't that automatically be if you did it fiscal years?
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: So that to me is still a question. I agree that that would be a reasonable interpretation of it because you would say, here's the summer report, which is fiscal year But 2000 if it was just the commissioner compiling the inventories that they already have, which were completed pre change to law, then they may not have that information available. So I think the greater specificity we can give as to what needs to be done, the better.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: I go with what John's saying because then it's in writing, you can't
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: go around. So keep that in the back of your mind in terms of the next draft. So
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: if we don't get it at '27, that means we don't get it until '29.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: '28.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, the biennium in terms of what the legislature would say.
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: I don't know why I said '28 earlier, but yeah, '29 is the beginning of the biennium, unless we ask for it, or we specify some other way in your bill. But you can take care that.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: So another way, in part you have a structure Actually, I need to run incentive finance, but I have an idea. And one would be unlinking this session law provision section two from the updates you're making to section one and just saying, we want reports annually in 27, 28, 29, 30 people.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Clean it up. Clean it up to say that. That would be the Okay.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Please walk to the center.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We're gonna deal with this thing one way or another. So, Cole, if you could run this up the chain of command in your world and find out about that report. So smaller ones.
[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Did you
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: find out anything at this point? Yeah. No. K.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: So
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: you guys Thank you.
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Guys should have been going.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Well, just one last thing too with the executive order. I pulled it up, and then I know John was showing it to us. But what's interesting about it is it's in section five of the stance the state land utilization. Right? It says by 12/01/2025, which was by now two months ago, we thought we would have gotten it seeing that we are the committee of jurisdiction. We wouldn't have to
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: No. Because this is an executive order. Okay. But Doesn't involve the
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: So it says each state agency and department owning real property sheds submit to BGS and department housing and community development, all this stuff. Right? But that's it. It goes to then that what you're saying is that then the executive
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Branch has that information.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: And they and that's it. They're not sharing that with anybody. They don't have to share that
[Conor Casey (Member)]: with you. That's why we're pulling it into the bill.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: That's why
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: we want it specific to us.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Because they may have the information
[Kevin Winter (Member)]: But they're not sharing.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Unless we ask, and then we'll see if they have it, and then we'll see if they're It's for them to make internal decisions.
[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Fine. So are
[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: they all right?
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's why it's not a separate It's not
[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: a state
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: government order the executive.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Think
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: you should have a
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: road trip
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: to the the place where we store all the reports. Because almost every single bill in this building
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: has a the way government works.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: No one ever sees or looks at.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: You say that with this small
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: The same thing is happening
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: on the federal level.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: This is just
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I know.
[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: Way government gonna be released, and
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: I maybe only get two or three of them
[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: sent to me right, let my leg off.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Okay. Is there not even a
[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: designated person? That's what I'm saying.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So we're going to shift gears, folks. We're now going to be working on age five forty. And this was a working group on the reparative I wanted to say the reparative boards. There was a working group to do a report on the post adjudication reparative program. And the bill is page five forty. We have with us some folks who actually served on this working group to give us their take on why they are proposing this change and to ensure that the language of the bill is reflective of the working groups report. So I don't know if we start with the judge or we start with DOC. We start with you, Judge Sweeney. Why don't you know? That's fine. Okay. That works. Why don't we start with you? Give us the background of the working group and then, your recommendations and why you made the recommendations.
[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Surely. So good afternoon. Tom Zonay, Chief Superior Judge. The legislature in section four of act 180, H-six 45 last year, command, created the working group and the post adjudication reparative program working group, a lot of words in there, we were asked to look at a number of aspects of basically reparative probation after, sentencing and the use of it. The working group consisted of myself as chair, Derek McDownach from DOC as vice chair. We had Courtney Whitimore from Franklin Dyle Restorative Justice Center, Neil Favreau, the executive Director of the Community Restorative Justice Center in St. Johnsbury, Jeanie McLeod, the Executive Director of the Barrie Community Justice Center, Damian Barnes, who was the Program Director at the time of Rutland County Community Justice Center, and Casey Viado, who was the restorative justice co director, Interaction Youth Services and Restorative Justice down in Brattleboro. As part of our activities, we had the stat we had the statute, the act telling us what we were supposed to look at. We also had the ability to seek input from stakeholders. This included reaching out to entities that were identified in the act as well as other entities. We heard from representative of the departments of the state's attorneys and sheriffs, the office of the attorney general, center for crime victim services. We also had Gina McLeod, who I indicated was a member of the committee, she of the working group. She had reached out to her c CJCs, the committee justice centers across the state to serve as a liaison essentially to get information from them, to get feedback on what we were doing. The working group, we looked at statutes, we considered information from stakeholders as well as information and insights from the members of the committee. We reexamined the scope of what we're supposed to do under the act. We looked at the current statutory provisions to determine which of them, if any, should be maintained. We look to develop a consistent referral process across the state to determine what sentences or offenses should be able to be included. And we wanted to also make sure that there was any proposal provided for geographic justice and access to reparative programming across the state. And finally, of the things that was important was that there had to be some level of discretion for the CJCs as to the cases they will accept because it works better if the CJCs are, if you will, on board for the cases that they're getting and have a voice in that. And so the committee made a number of recommendations, which were adopted into what it looks to be H540. We were asked to come up with a report that had not only recommendations, but was essentially in, put it into bill form. And so we did that and H540 represents what we advocated as the appropriate changes to effectuate what our recommendations were. If you look at H540, the first section, section one, what that reflects is two goals of the working group. The first was to simplify the authority section under 13 VSA 7,030 to make it consistent with other statutory sentencing options in the same statute. And also to make it clear that the referral was to a reparative program as the term is used under title 28. There had been, there's terms about reparative boards and programs, and they were used, at different points within the statutes affecting this. And the committee concluded that, it should be reparative program to be consistent. And so on page two of H540, even though all those things are crossed off and you may look at it and think, there's a lot of changes, stay tuned. There's really not any. What those changes are in that section is simply to, again, simplify the refer the reference to where you go to look for the rest of it. And so section two, what we then did was we took the language that's being struck from up above in section one, and we incorporated into section two, well, I'm sorry, two is, where I get to that, section two, we crossed off the part about civil contempt for child support, because we never, no one ever heard of that being done and there was a consensus that there was no, that that was not an appropriate use of the reparative board. Section three is the section where we took the language from section one that was taken out and we added a section nine thirteen in title 28 under the reparative programs statutes where it would work better. And we came up with a, for lack of a better phrase, one stop shopping. Here is where you go to look about how the reparative referrals are made, how it works. And so subsection A talks about the offenses that qualify. This does not change existing law. The committee's conclusion, the working group's conclusion was to maintain the existing referrals that the legislature has already had in effect. And so section A is just putting it somewhere else into section nine thirteen. On page three, when you get to line eight, subsection B, this language is a continuation of language from section one that was crossed out, and it provides clarity that you don't have to be on probation to have a reparative sentence. It also talks about what happens if the cases are not completed and they could send it back. On line 14, again, subsection C, it makes it clear from what is already the current law it can be, reparative probation can be a condition of probation. That a reparative restorative justice program can be a condition of probation. Section D on line 16. Currently, there are no factors for courts to consider or state's attorneys or defense attorneys to consider when to when saying, is this case, is this offender right for a reparative referral? And the working group came up with these factors that are non exclusive. In other words, these factors are not the only factors a court can consider, but they are factors a court should consider. And they talk about whether there's an agreement, victim's views, impact of the offense on the community, offender's willingness to participate, the offender's capacity to meaningfully participate, and whether there's any orders of protection in effect or have previously been in effect between the offender and the victim. I would point out that these specific factors each came from the insights and experiences of the CJCs and Derek's involvement with DOC about areas that if you can see issues up ahead, we would want to identify. We want to flag them so that people can look at them. Does if someone has no ability, whether it's transportation, whatever it may be, and they're not going to be able to do it, we want to look at that upfront. If someone is not willing to do it, there are times where you may still have say you're gonna do this as a sentence, but there's other times where an unwillingness may lead the court and the parties if there's a plea agreement to say no, this is not appropriate. And so we felt that putting these factors in provided guidance. There is currently no such provision in the law, so this is something additional, but we believe it's beneficial. Section e on line six of page four talks about standardized forms for referral of offenders to be used in all courts. And this starts taking us closer to that geographic justice and geographic access issue. We shouldn't have 14 different forms across the state to when we're sending people to these programs. The consistency that we build in by having a a set of forms that's going to be used statewide, the working group felt would benefit the programs and the individuals participating in them as well as the public and the victims. And likewise, subsection f on line nine has a provision that the supreme court may adopt procedural rules to effectuate this second, this section. As you may know, we have rules of procedure in criminal court. For instance, there's rules that talk about, the sentencing procedures. There's rules, 32.1 that talks about violations of probation. And so that type of language makes it clear that the court may in the future decide to adopt a, if it feels it's necessary, the criminal rules committee could adopt a rule on reparative probation referrals and to further fine tune things there. But when you look at the bill all in the final analysis, I the view of the committee was that it's a bill that adds clarity, adds predictability, adds equal access, it has provisions that we think will make it more robust to be used. And on the positive side, guess how much the budget request would be? Zero. Zero. Zero. And so I it's something that we think has the committee's conclusion was that it was a benefit to basically every aspect of the system and what we're trying to accomplish. And that is appropriate sentences, victim input to have offenders not engage in behaviors any further. And so we thought this was something that really stepped in that direction and was something that where we already have these statutes in different places, this adds clarity where we think it's needed.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I appreciate where it adds clarity, but I think also if you go to page two, line 16, Right now, the program, the sort of justice program is a condition of someone's sentence. It's a condition of their release.
[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Right? It may be. Currently, you can be referred under section 7,030. If you look on page two, line six, the language that's being crossed out, Referral to a community reparative board pursuant to this subsection subdivision does not require the court to place the offender on probation. And so under current law, the referral to the reparative board or reparative program can be a standalone sentence. And what this does is it makes it clear that it can be a standalone sentence and it's not, if you will, getting lost in the middle of a long paragraph.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So the way that the current law is written on line six and seven, it's more of a referral to the reparative board, reparative program. And it doesn't require that the person be on probation. It's a referral, but it's not really a sentence, is it?
[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: It a sentence. I think It the word
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: is a for sentence. The court's world, it is a sentence.
[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Correct. For instance, so if I have an individual come before the court and the court believes, if I as a judge believe this should be a reparative probation sentence, I can put the person on probation and then have a condition of probation under the existing law to say, in addition to all these other conditions of probation and the supervision that I think you need, you're also gonna do the reparative board. That's one way. That's as a condition of probation. But if the court, if I conclude they don't need, probation, we don't need to have DOC monitor them or supervise them, but instead the completion of the reparative board itself, the reparative program is an appropriate resolution to that case. I could impose a sentence that says your sentence is, you shall participate and successfully complete the reparative probation, the reparative board, reparative program, and then send it over. If they don't successfully complete it, they would come back to court, and the sentence is open. In other words, I there can be a different sentence, and I, I can think of times where I would tell people, here is what's going to happen if you come back to court and don't successfully complete it. Here is what your sentence will be so that when we came back, there was knowledge of it.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So this really clarifies in language what the practice is. So referral in the layman's terms doesn't mean a sentence, but in the judicial court world, that does mean a sentence.
[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: That's correct. We impose a sentence and we refer it over, but your point is well taken. And I think it's important that this clarity helps to make no mistake about it, it's a sentence.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Troy?
[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: And if they're referred but are not on probation, there's no DOC supervision, is that accurate?
[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: That's correct.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And they make an agreement with that local community justice center in terms of what they need to abide by. And it's an agreement with the reparative program, and DOC is not involved in that. That's correct. Questions from the committee? Clear?
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Yes.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Okay. So that's the first section. If you go to section three on page three. So we're still using that term restorative justice program referral. Even though it's a sentence. Correct?
[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: You're correct.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So in order to be sentenced to a restorative justice program or to be referred, it's one and the same, court has some requirements. And it's that the offender has plead guilty to a nonviolent felony. Could you give us some examples of what a nonviolent felony might be? Just a few. Just so folks, this isn't our world, so it'd be good for members to have a concept.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Financial
[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: crimes that are of a certain level that the number is higher than the misdemeanor amount.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah.
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: A
[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: breaking a window that has a high value.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Unoccupied or is it occupied?
[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Unlawful trespassing and something that is is not part of it. But a lot of I say home improvement fraud, things like that.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And then what about a nonviolent misdemeanor?
[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Unlawful trespass, retail theft. Those are very common ones we see.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And then a misdemeanor that does not involve the subject areas prohibited for referral. What subject areas and this may be more Derek's world. What subject areas are not allowed to be referred or sentenced to our community justice centers? Is that more for you, judge, or is it more for Derek?
[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: I'm grabbing the book of all knowledge so I can get right to 1967.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Just so the committee has some concepts here. No case.
[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: A section nineteen sixty seven, no case involving domestic violence, sexual violence, sexual assault, or stalking shall be referred to a community justice center except through Department of Corrections offender reentry programs pursuant to protocols protecting victims or as provided in section nineteen sixty eight of this title. The Community Justice Center shall work with the Department of Corrections and the Center for Crime Victim Services or its designee to develop victim safety protocols for community justice centers to take into consideration victim needs such as safety, confidentiality, and privacy. And then section nineteen sixty eight is entitled referrals for domestic violence and sexual violence cases. And, what it talks about, says subsection a, says, notwithstanding section nineteen sixty seven of this title, community justice centers may accept referrals for domestic violence and sexual violence cases provided the community justice center has a current and executed memorandum of understanding with a local member organization of the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. And then it talks about the requirements there and things with the attorney general. There's a lot of sections to that.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So there's protections in there.
[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Is. And again, that's the existing law. Is what has been brought forward in subsection A on page three.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's on page two for the committee that has the bill. This is lines three through six. It's just being moved. Okay. Okay. So it doesn't change current practice. It just clarifies that it's being referred or sentenced to the program where before it was to a board, and in some places it was a board, in some places it was a program. Correct. Questions from the committee? Are we good?
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Well, so does that mean there's no more, there's just the, I guess, there boards now? Yes. Okay. But there would A board be
[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: operates under the program.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Okay. And the program is through your community justice centers?
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Correct.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Confusing? A little bit. So then if they are referred, they're not required to be on probation. That's in little b on page three.
[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Correct.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And then in a sentence where the referral is not a condition of probation, because it still could be that the referral is a condition of probation. Correct?
[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Correct.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So they can get to the reparative program as a direct sentence. Or they could get to the reparative program. They're sentenced to probation. And the repairative program is a condition of that probation. Correct. Is that follow? Are folks following that? And
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: the CJC can deny. They can turn it down?
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Can deny.
[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Correct.
[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: Who can turn it down? The reparative panel. Oh, yeah. Yes.
[Kevin Winter (Member)]: So
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: if the reparative board, which is part of, which is how they carry out the restorative justice program, does not accept the case, then the offender would return to court.
[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: Correct. Or
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: if they fail, the offender fails, they would go back to court. Yes. And then in C, the court may require participation as a condition of probation, which we already covered. And then if the offender is to participate in the program, regardless, this is regardless if it's a strict sentence or if it's a condition of probation, the court needs to look at these factors. Is that true in both cases?
[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Yes. Okay.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And these factors were all brought brought to bear and came forward from the working group?
[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Yes.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And was everyone on board with this?
[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Yes.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: In the working group?
[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Yes. I'm unaware of any individual any member of the group who did not vote in favor of the report at the end. We we all the report was reviewed by everyone and everyone had an opportunity to weigh in, and it's my belief, and Derek can weigh in on this, of course, that everyone on the working group felt that these were appropriate requests to the legislature.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So, have a question on page four, line two. How do you determine Who determines Court would consider these relevant factors, which is great. You know if there's an agreement between the parties, you would know the view of the victims and the impact of the offense in the community and the offender's willingness to participate. You would kinda know that as you go through the process. How would you know offender's capacity to mean meaningfully participate, and who determines that?
[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: It would be determined by the court in the final analysis, but it's the type of information that when a court's imposing sentence, the parties have an opportunity to bring the court information about the offender. For instance, if there were cognitive issues, if there were issues that of somebody can't do it because they have a substance abuse treatment that will interfere with the ability to go to the board, things like that, that they might have the willingness, it might be perfect for them, but they can't really, they don't have the capacity to meaningfully do it because they're going to be in treatment for six months. Something like that. That's the information that the court would receive from the parties.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So if they check the box in one through four, and even you see in six that there was no orders of protection in effect and everything was okay, could you deny the person being put to a restorative program? Just factors the numbers are to
[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: are to be weighed, not counted. So the sentencing judge does not have to accept an agreement of the parties if they believe that someone should go to a program. If the judge says that he or she does not concur with that based upon the judge's weighing of these factors, then they would not be sentenced to that. And so, yes, it's not a matter of, well, they have to hit all of them or they all have to weigh equally. The judge has the final say to determine what is the appropriate sentence. For instance, I would note that there could be a circumstance where, all of the factors weigh in favor of going, for instance, but the victim says, I don't think that's an appropriate resolution. I think that they should have X, Y, or Z for a resolution. A judge may say, that outweighs the rest of the factors in my mind when I'm weighing out the appropriate sentence. And so, the judge does have the ability to weigh the factors in manner that the judge may conclude they are not imposing a reparative referral as part of the sentence, or as the sentence as the case could be.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So the only thing that is new under this language from current law in terms of the restorative justice program is the weighing of these factors.
[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Is to put the factors in and also the section about the court administrator to create procedural rules and language about the Supreme Court adopting procedural rules.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Trying to bring the committee. I'm just trying to bring the committee along to understand what's in the bill.
[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Yep. Those those last three sections were the only new ones essentially.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: The current practice and current law.
[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: That's correct.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: That's correct.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Except in weighing the factors, because you don't have really We the factors
[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: haven't there is no guidance. That's correct. I can say that it's safe I I think it's safe to say that these are the types of factors that judges should and and and parties should do consider, but putting it out in in the statute, provides a, I would say, predictability and consistency across all counties and in all courts so that everyone knows this is what we're looking at as identified factors.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Questions from the committee? Clarity? Is it clear? Do people understand it?
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. It feels almost too
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Too easy. Something doesn't feel right. Don't know. Get it myself.
[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: So that's a good Does it
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: mean anything?
[Kevin Winter (Member)]: You weigh in on account or affordable housing like this?
[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: I I will tell you that the goal of our committee of the group, I think was was what you're seeing here and that is let's get something that works. That is an improvement and it was a pleasure working with the members of the CJCs because this was a working group where everyone shared the same goal. And we all came in, basically put it out on the table and said, here's our experience, here's where we think it's worked, here's where we think it doesn't. How has this affected you positively, negatively? And I thought it was a very, I was really pleased and enjoyed working with the other individuals on the working group.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Novel concept, James?
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: I mean, I think this is maybe obvious, but just in case, you know, people sneak up on me. So Derek and Doctor. Geez, Judge Luneau, maybe you're a doctor too. Do you both look at this bill and feel it's cool? It's the right direction? Is there things that you'd like to see different?
[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Certainly, I would say this. The determination of policies are and how to adopt them are for the legislature. We know. The legislature has previously adopted policies for reparative programs and reparative boards which is as put forth in certain statutes and this bill, I I believe, takes the legislative policies that you have identified and puts them into a statutory framework that is an improvement over where they previously were in so far as having clarity, predictability, and an ability to be used by the parties in a way that enhances our ability in the courts to do justice through sentencing and public safety and to provide appropriate resolutions for victims too. I, you know, again, it starts with your policies, but I think this bill effectuate your policies and has language that helps us get to there better than we currently do.
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Derek, same question.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Hang on. Wanna allow time for Derek to testify too.
[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: Keep that
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Okay. In So the back of your mind, Derek. Okay? Because we're gonna shift to you for testimony. Okay. For the record, Hang on. Any other questions of the judge before we switch? Troy.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: How long are you going to keep the beer?
[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: I'm not sure if the committee is aware but I had knee replacement surgery several weeks ago. And it it has been it has been an external motivating factor for me to decide to say I'm going to get to a certain level of, being able to move my knee for range and of so when you see the beard come off you can say he made it.
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: You let me know when you want to get ready for competition. We're rooting for you.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So Derek, we're going to shift over to you. Derek is part of DOC, works intimately with our CJCs. Derek, so if you could introduce yourself for the record and maybe start off with answering of James' question.
[Derek Miodownik (Community & Restorative Justice Executive, VT DOC)]: My pleasure, Derek Mio Defnek, I'm the Community and Restorative Justice Executive with the Vermont Department of Corrections. And I'll preface my comments by saying that I think we're all familiar with the notion of a hard act to follow, which is in some ways sort of a, you know, a sideways compliment. But in this case, this is an easy act to follow because I think judge Zone articulated in a way that I doubt I have little to add on our process, the basis for our confidence in the product, the statutory context in which it is designed to work, the operational impact, and the fiscal impact, which appears to be nothing. So for all of those reasons, as well as the distinction between the broader policy goals of the legislature and the tasking of the reparative group and my concurrent sense that this was consensus driven. It relied on the professional lived experience of the people doing the work as represented by five colleagues from the DOC funded agencies who in turn liaised with the remainder of those agencies as well as other critical partners. And I think it accomplished the task that it was charged with. And to that extent, I have full confidence in in the bill for for what we were charged with doing. I'm happy to answer other questions, speak to any other dimensions of it that you feel haven't been covered. But I think Judge Zone took us through it in a really clear and definitive way. And I appreciate that.
[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Seems too easy. Something seems amiss.
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: I used to consensus. Kevin?
[Kevin Winter (Member)]: So do I dare ask what you project the effect of this new law will have? Will there be many more individuals that are able to participate?
[Derek Miodownik (Community & Restorative Justice Executive, VT DOC)]: You know, I think that's a great question. I think that what we've done here is to create an operational consistency that on a systemic level, will as judge Zone remarked, promote geographic justice through, you know, using the same forms, establishing consistent criteria. I can't conjecture as to how those changes may or may not, in and of themselves, and then based on all the other variables that impact, you know, sentencing demand. I wouldn't hazard a guess as to how that might, in any way, correlate or correspond to projected volume case volume. And I also defer to judge Zone if he has other thoughts on that. But I don't feel like I can help you on that one. My apologies. Thank
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: you.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I have a question, not of you, Derek, more of the judge. In terms of the Supreme Court adopting the procedural rules to carry this out, what would be the length of time to do that? A May.
[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Well, it's a May, I'm not really sure that there's a necessity for procedural rules to carry this out right away. I think this is one of those circumstances where it might be best to see how it starts playing out and have the rules committee, if we identify any areas where we may need to. If we assume that there's going to be a need for any procedural rules, I think that the process would generally be someone would suggest it to the criminal rules committee. At one of its meetings, the criminal rules committee takes it up. The criminal rules committee decides whether or not it wishes to move forward with something, depending on what the issue is and how long takes it up in its meetings. That could be several months. If the committee decides it wants to send something to the Supreme Court as a proposed rule, it goes to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court would then have an opportunity to send it out for public comment. It would go out for comment generally for ninety days. After the public comment period, the Supreme Court would decide whether or not it wishes to adopt the rule. And then it would have a start date. Historically, the start date for Supreme Court rules absent some type of emergency is July 1 like legislative actions and so it it could be a process that takes time and then, of course, it goes to joint legislative rules committee for review after any rules changes.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So it could be a good six months, eight months process at Yeah, absolutely. Just so there's a time frame.
[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: But the adoption of rules does not, in my view, impact the ability of the statutory benefits to start on day one of the enactment. They would fine tune it perhaps for any areas that came up if there was identified reasons for a rule, but it would not impact the ability of this to start having the benefits that I think the members of the group thought would flow from it.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Any other questions, thoughts, clarity? Seems too simple.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: So
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: what I would like to do before we take any vote on the bill, whether to vote it out or not, I'd like to have a conversation with the chair of the judiciary committee because it is setting up a sentence, which is beyond our jurisdiction. Justice Centers Reparative Program is sort of in our jurisdiction because a lot of the money comes through DOC for this program and for our community justice centers. So that's our linkage to this. And it was initiated by DOC, the Reparative Program and our CJCs. So I'd like to pass this bill by them just so that they can see if they have any flags before we actually vote the bill out. So that's what I would recommend. Committee is okay with that.
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Simplified. So you're just going to talk to my
[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: one. Yeah.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Also to the sponsor of the bill too as well. And if they don't have any issues, we can vote the bill out in the next few days. That's my thinking. Anything else before we finish up and take a quick break? Thank you both. We really appreciate this. We hope that you a great day, everyone. Hope you're on the map. We're looking forward to the beard coming off.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Not necessarily. I
[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: will say it. Every now and then someone says it doesn't look too bad. I'm going, maybe I'll keep it. Who knows? So.
[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Who knows? Good luck for you.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Thank you both. Have a great day.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Thank you.
[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Thank you.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Bye bye.
[Derek Miodownik (Community & Restorative Justice Executive, VT DOC)]: Thank you all.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So, let's take a quick break and be back here by 03:00. And Hillary, I
[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: have