Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Just like yours, Kevin, that would be mine.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Welcome, folks. Is Acting Corrections' Constitution's Committee. It is Thursday, February 12. We're shifting gears. We're running a little late because our previous testimony went longer than we had planned. We are talking about H five forty nine as well as proposed language that the Department of Motor Vehicles has recommended to the Senate Transportation Committee on their omnibus DMV bill. We started working on our five forty nine, which would allow detainees who have been detained for six months or more to be eligible for a non driver ID card. That was the basis of five forty nine. What the language that DMV proposed is to clarify that the non driver ID card that would be available to individual tenants so it doesn't talk about the SMEs. So that's one difference Would be that DOC would submit documentation that would be required for a non real ID or real ID ID card identification card. So I think our language of non driver ID card and then the language that's being proposed by DMV really clarifies, doesn't change that non driver's ID. The other change that's really that we haven't even looked at and how it plays out with our current law is when we updated folks receiving a non driver's ID, we also allowed them if they and I'm looking for the language because I know that Haley, I think we've got its other licenses. I'm trying to think where it is. That, right, we have allowed folks that if they want to receive a driver's license while they're incarcerated, they have the option if they're eligible, they have the option to do that, but they have to pay for it. So that's current law. And if you have the bill in front of you, five forty nine, that's on page seven, and that's lines 13 through 16. Okay? That's current law. We're not proposing to change that, but the language that is being proposed by DMV allows them to receive their operators license. And I don't know what the exact language is, but if they have been I think it's up to three years and they came in with a valid driver's license, they could get their driver's license, I think, at no cost. So, that's in conflict right now. And also, they'd have an ability for a learner's permit, which we didn't even address. So, that's what we need to work through. And then, whatever language we come up with, we will have two passed. We do a strike all on H five forty nine to incorporate whatever language we've worked up with. But that language will also be submitted to Senate Transportation so they can put that language in the DMV bill as well. So there'll be two two tracks. So is that confusing for folks? Okay. So maybe, I don't know which one should come up first. Your corrections?

[Monique Sullivan, Facility Operations Manager, Vermont Department of Corrections]: Go ahead. Thank

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: you, Nancy. You've been in here for a while. Don't worry, Nancy. And then we will ask Monique, we will probably be asking you questions as we go along to see how it impacts. Does that make sense?

[Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations, Vermont DMV]: For the record, Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations, D and B.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: All yours.

[Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations, Vermont DMV]: Okay. So as we mentioned, D and B does have in our miscellaneous bill what new language, change of language for the DOC inmates upon release, right now, law states you will get a non driver ID at no fee. Our language is proposing to change to get the individual the highest credential that they are eligible for, which could now include a license or a permit in addition to, if they don't have eligibility for that, they would still get the non driver. We're just trying to get the individual with the maximum credential they are able to. So instead of them going out with a non driver, but actually were eligible for a license, they then come to the DMV to then get a license after they've been released. So we're just trying to get everybody out on the best foot initially and get them the credential that they are deemed unable to.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Let's do this step by step. And I'm really The language needs to be in front of folks, please. But you have to see the language that is the DMV proposed language. It's been handed out to us. It's on our website. 743. 740 well. Yeah. Yeah. It's draft 2.1. It's TrafficBus26Dash743. Because this is where the DMV language change is. So the first change is for the non driver ID. Okay? The question was, right now, the law does not indicate the non real ID or real ID identification card. So, the question before us is, first part, do we accept the language that is in draft 2.1 or not? And the question, one question a member had was what does that non driver ID card look like?

[Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations, Vermont DMV]: It looks exactly like everybody else's. It is not separated out, meaning that they are to look like a DOC inmate or anything like that. It is anybody and everybody's non driver ID that one would get. They look exactly the same. And it has the same criteria as well to get.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay, Chief Superior Judge]: I think

[Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations, Vermont DMV]: the question was, does it look different than our driver's license? It says non driver ID, non real ID, or real ID, but the header is non driver ID.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay, Chief Superior Judge]: Thank you.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So does the REAL ID get you on a plane? The REAL ID

[Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations, Vermont DMV]: Non driver REAL ID. A plane.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: No. It does have some.

[Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations, Vermont DMV]: No. An enhanced driver's license that has a chip in it for an additional fee, which is not part of our proposed language.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Thank you.

[Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations, Vermont DMV]: Gets you across the border. Okay. Thank you. Just wanted to be clear.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay, Chief Superior Judge]: Just say then you say that again. What's that called again?

[Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations, Vermont DMV]: An enhanced

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And driver's

[Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations, Vermont DMV]: I'll add it. One more layer to be confusing. It is also a real ID.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Right. That's what that's where I was

[Haley (Committee Assistant)]: talking. So

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: enhanced. That that's correct. That's an extra step up. Mhmm. So

[Monique Sullivan, Facility Operations Manager, Vermont Department of Corrections]: It's got more than a star.

[Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations, Vermont DMV]: Says enhanced on it. Literally says enhanced. But it does have the star as well. Right. Because the star represents real ID.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: And the flag too. Right?

[Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations, Vermont DMV]: The flag is for the pattern designation and so forth. No. This

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: He's wired up because he's got problems with his back, so it's kinda jabbing. Oh, no.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: What you gonna say? Yes. This one was.

[Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations, Vermont DMV]: And you have an enhance. Yes.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah. That's the enhance.

[Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations, Vermont DMV]: Yes, it

[Unidentified Committee Member]: is. Rub it in.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, you have a flag on yours?

[Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations, Vermont DMV]: Yes. You

[Unidentified Committee Member]: gotta go get it.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You can't go across the border, so you can't.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay, Chief Superior Judge]: That's why I have my passport.

[Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations, Vermont DMV]: Everybody's taken out their licenses. I love this. We're doing show and tell.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: I don't because that's what I asked for. I got to the border and I didn't have my passport in my car. But the Canadian guy saw my state police and he goes, Oh,

[Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations, Vermont DMV]: wow. There's a lot of confusion. Unfortunately, that isn't something that we can a real ID is designated as the real ID. I mean, even the lettering of the real ID versus non real ID incorporated in it is

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: I learned a lesson that day. Never leave the DMV without looking at it.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Fair enough. So what we've got before us right now. So this would not change your practice that you have where DOC does submit the information for a non driver's ID, whether it's a real ID or non real ID. DOC submits all that information that's needed to DMV and DMV processes it at DMV's cost. That's correct. At about $3.30 per car. So there's no charge to the person who's incarcerated, but you have to substantiate the documents, which could be a birth certificate or Social Security number, proof of residency, maybe that's gonna be tough. But DOC provides all of that information on behalf of the inmate offender. We offender right now to DMV. For the non driver ID. Okay? Now the way the lie is right now, it's only for folks who are sentenced and they will absurd six months or more. The DMV language does not change that qualification. K? The bill before us would allow detainees to have access to non driver IDs if the detainee has served six months ago. And what does that do to your process or anything different?

[Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations, Vermont DMV]: Haley and Monique were able to get us the numbers. And the numbers from 2022 to current

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: For detainees. For detainees.

[Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations, Vermont DMV]: Well, that's your bill, h five forty nine. Detainees is where the words added in. There was a 188 that would have been eligible

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Between 2022 and now?

[Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations, Vermont DMV]: That's correct. For individuals

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: who have been touched, if I put it with something else.

[Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations, Vermont DMV]: Yeah, for the criteria that they are proposing.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: How many a year? 40. That's three. Yeah. It's k. So if there was 40 that's about 40 a year. This is calendar years or fiscal years?

[Haley (Committee Assistant)]: Calendar.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Because that does make it's really important to know the dip to figure that out.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: If it's calendar, how come '26 had anybody?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, up to date, we've got '26. We're halfway into it.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: But we were told calendar, not fiscal.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Someone probably had detained before 2026,

[Haley (Committee Assistant)]: and then they hit their six month mark in 2026.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Thanks. So, yeah.

[Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations, Vermont DMV]: So I think one of the things DOC had shared with us was one of the challenges was you don't know when a detainee is going to be released. So they actually could be starting their sentence and then

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: released. So if there was an average of forty, forty five folks per year, what would that do to DMV and ability to do it? And you would still be picking up the cost.

[Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations, Vermont DMV]: That's correct. This is a very minimal impact in a positive direction. The only thing that the DMV would like to put forward is this would be easily adoptable to put into place to include detainees. We just need system change in order for the zero fees. And our process would change regarding detainees specifically versus inmates. So we would ask that it does not go forward upon passage versus giving us the opportunity to do the system updates. We just went live in November with a new modernization, and we still are working through some high priority SQRs. So we would ask that you give us the fluidity to give us a deadline of 01/01/2027 in hopes we have it done prior, but just not to run up against a quick deadline to meet it.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You're not anticipating that the cost of this would have drastic impacts on your budget? No. And I we did talk that DOC what we did talk about, which I hope folks remember here, we did talk about DOC would put together for the detainees, They would put together the information for folks once they've hit that six month mark. But I wasn't clear if it would be submitted to DMV at that time or it would be you would wait until the person was actually released, and then the information would get submitted, and then the person will go down to the DMV office to pick it up. So I want some clarifications.

[Monique Sullivan, Facility Operations Manager, Vermont Department of Corrections]: Monique? I think we'd get a Would you identify yourself? I'm sorry, Monique Sullivan, Department of Corrections Facility Operations Manager. Department of Corrections can get a social security card and a birth certificate, wait, a social security card for anybody and a birth certificate for anyone born in Vermont and have those two documents ready. So if the person is detained and they're in for six months and the charges get dropped, for example, they're free to walk out the door. We can hand in those two documents so that they can go to the DMV and have the paperwork they need in order to get an ID.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Correct. And can we still I don't know what my question is. Is that the default, anybody? Can we because you have IDs coming to the facilities for folks who are sentenced, right? Correct. Can we do that to any degree for folks who are detained if there's a predictability of their release?

[Monique Sullivan, Facility Operations Manager, Vermont Department of Corrections]: There really is no predictability of the release. Sometimes the charge will get dropped completely. Sometimes after serving six months, the judge will decide that it's credit for time served, maybe you can tell. Sometimes it takes years. So longest sex scene from one detained is five years. So in five years, whatever ID that you need to get is going be invalid.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So the default then is this, here is what you need, go here to get it. Port detains? Yes. Okay. And that's probably the best.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: If we expand the DMV language to our language in the bill for detainees that have served six months form qualify for a non driver ID that would be a non real ID or real ID. So DMV would not see a drastic impact in terms of your budget. The issue is to allow your system to be changed, would want the effective date for this piece to be 01/01/1927. That's correct. And then we would probably I'm gonna ask some folks to help me out here because we're gonna have to get back to Hillary because we're gonna have to have language changes here. Would it be helpful to have language put in the DMV? The BG DOC would get the documentation for the detainees that are needed. And then when the person is released, that goes to the person to go to DMV. So you would need language in the bill to explain that. Okay. So we'll have to have that draft. Just to clarify,

[Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations, Vermont DMV]: if I could, you mentioned DOC would then give the detainee the little ziplock bag of goods, not coming to DMV in the manner that we currently do, just to clarify.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Just just for the driver's license or for

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: the No. This is non driver ID.

[Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations, Vermont DMV]: We're detainers.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We're not on driver's license. Driver ID.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: The

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: reason I asked this is because why would we not continue in the same process?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We're we'll get there. I wanna get the non driver ID taken care of first. So would the information that you've gathered from the detainee be sent directly to DMV while the person's detained, or would you wait until the person is released?

[Monique Sullivan, Facility Operations Manager, Vermont Department of Corrections]: We would wait until the person is released, handling the documents.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And then it would be up to that detainee to go to DMV. Right. Why would you not, for someone who has been there for more than six months, why would you not send that information to DMV while they are still in the facility? We could send it so that they have it. What would happen on your end if they did it?

[Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations, Vermont DMV]: I don't know that we would propose to actually receive it prior to actually having a transaction and a record to attach it to. I wouldn't want to have a file cabinet filled with birth certificates and social securities if I don't have a record on the system to attach it.

[Monique Sullivan, Facility Operations Manager, Vermont Department of Corrections]: You already have a filing cabinet for birth certificates. That's fine.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's why you asked the question. So where's the committee on on this piece? Non driver ID. It would be a non real ID or real ID, which is a tongue twister, which is no different than really what is currently occurring. DMV is only did for sentenced individuals. Okay? Our bill would also include detainees who have served at least have served six months or more. So where are we including detainees? Absolutely.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah. I'm fine with it.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And then we need to put in some language that DOC will collect the verifying identification information when the person is released. That documentation is given to the person to go to the local DMV to get their non driver ID. And, hopefully, if they get released right from court, how would you get that information to DMV if the person doesn't come back to the facility?

[Monique Sullivan, Facility Operations Manager, Vermont Department of Corrections]: Many of our court proceedings are revoked, so they don't actually leave the building to go to court. It happens in the facility. Or if they leave, it happens now anyway, that if a person goes to court in person, that they can get released, then they have to come back to the facility to get their property and get whatever funds they might have left and that kind of thing. We would just be able to give it to them then.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So we're clear on this one? Yeah. Okay. Yes. We're clear? Okay. Yeah. Now, for driver's license, for current law, and we did this in the committee, you were around, you were around, Troy, you were here, right? It's the

[Conor Casey (Member)]: first year we were here.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah, did put in where, and this is just a sentence person, And our bill before us does not well, it would include

[Unidentified Committee Member]: It's on page five of Damon's draft 2.1.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: No. But I'm looking at current law.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Oh.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: This is where I wish we had our legal counsel here, but I think she was tied up. If you go to page seven of our bill, and current law, Lines 13 through 16. As part of a reentry planning, DOC shall inquire with the individual to be released about the individual's desire to obtain a non driver ID card or any driving credential, which would be their driver's license. Right. Perfect.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Inform the individual about differences, including the cost of the individual. So that's where we're saying a person. Now I'm assuming this would be a sentence person.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Our law is sentenced.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Doesn't say that.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I think it does earlier in the statute. It says an individual

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: sentenced to serve.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Didn't mess with detainees the first

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We time we in were just focused on sentence first. So if you look on line four, what we're changing is individual to inmate. And Inmate is defined as everyone in the facility, regardless if they've been convicted or they're a detainee.

[Monique Sullivan, Facility Operations Manager, Vermont Department of Corrections]: It's actually changed the language to incarcerated individual. Pardon? Department of Corrections changed it to incarcerated individual so that it wouldn't there's no differentiation between sentenced or detained.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And where did you change that? Internally, you've done that? But we have a definition in statute. Inmate. Defender. We have a definition. Defender, by definition and statute, is someone who's been convicted. An inmate is someone who has not been convicted, which is basically a detainee. Or is it the other way around? It's got to be the other way around.

[Haley (Committee Assistant)]: No, offenders are the individuals who have been convicted and sentenced, and inmate is everyone.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Inmate is everyone. Yeah. So what we're saying on line four is everyone, anyone who is sentenced to serve a period of six months or more or is detained. Okay? Lines 13 through 16, we're saying an individual. Do we need to clarify what we mean there? And that's a question for our legal counsel.

[Conor Casey (Member)]: Mhmm.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Because we used an individual up on line four. Because we're very clear it's only sentence folks who get a non driver's ID. So now we're expanding that to also include detainees. So the language 13 through 16. So right now, we are allowing someone who is sentenced that is eligible to receive a driver's license. They can do so, but they have to pay for That's current law. And we're not changing that for folks who are detainees under age five forty nine. So, the draft language that's coming from the DMV, and you've got to pull out the language.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Page four?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. But it's under a different trying to see if it's a different so it's in a different section. We don't talk about this at all in our bill. So in the driver's license section of DMD's law, you are indicating a person who is sentenced. That's your

[Unidentified Committee Member]: You're on page four.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: On page four, yeah. A person who is sentenced and who holds an unexpired license that's issued in Vermont. And the expiration is not more than three years prior to their incarceration or their sentence?

[Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations, Vermont DMV]: In order to have a valid driver's license and not need to retest, you must have a valid driver's license that has not expired for more than three years.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So the language extracted here, does that include both a sentenced person and a detainee?

[Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations, Vermont DMV]: No. For us, at DMV's miscellaneous, the language is specific to inmates of six months or more? It has nothing to do with detainees at this time.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So if they've been sentenced and their driver's license is still valid or it's been has not expired more than three years. So it's expired two years previous. They would be eligible for replacement driver's license. Exactly. Where our current

[Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations, Vermont DMV]: language says we would get them a non driver ID. So now we are getting the highest credential that they can possess.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: How many folks in DOC come in with a valid driver's license and then they're there for longer than three years and then the driver's license expires.

[Monique Sullivan, Facility Operations Manager, Vermont Department of Corrections]: I don't if you.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Some. Benning. Oh, yeah. Come in with a valid driver's license. With the

[Monique Sullivan, Facility Operations Manager, Vermont Department of Corrections]: I mean, from with Greeners, I don't know.

[Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations, Vermont DMV]: And one could renew online to even while they're incarcerated. No, a family member? That's outside of

[Monique Sullivan, Facility Operations Manager, Vermont Department of Corrections]: If mom wants to do that, then great for mom. So you need be incarcerated.

[Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations, Vermont DMV]: Fair, because they don't have access to Right. But yes, we have seen that where family members have Or we're making the assumption that the family member has renewed one's license. People don't like the idea of retesting.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: The way the the there's two qualifiers. The person comes in, is sentenced, and holds an unexpired driver's license that's issued in Vermont, which we have to be very clear in language that it's in Vermont. That would be one scenario. The other scenario is the person needs to be sentenced and has held a Vermont driver's license that expired not more than three years prior. So is it three years prior from the time that they entered as a detainee or from the time they were sentenced?

[Monique Sullivan, Facility Operations Manager, Vermont Department of Corrections]: From the time the license expired?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. That's correct.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: That's it. Nothing to do with

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Their status. So if it expired, they came in, they were a detainee, and it expired a year into the time frame they were still a detainee. And then they were sentenced to five years. So two years into that sentence, they would then be able to qualify for a driver's license.

[Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations, Vermont DMV]: If they were being released?

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay, Chief Superior Judge]: They'd have to test again.

[Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations, Vermont DMV]: If they were being released prior to that five years or unless somebody else renewed it for them. But in theory, they would have been out of that three year range in that scenario that you just mentioned.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: If they're within the three year Expiration. So they would have had to My question was, they came in with a valid driver's license and it expired. They were a detainee for a year and it expired during that timeframe. And then they were sentenced to five years. So at the second year of their incarceration, it's within that three year window. They would be able to qualify for renewal of their driver's license.

[Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations, Vermont DMV]: They would not, according to what we're hearing, that they would renew it.

[Monique Sullivan, Facility Operations Manager, Vermont Department of Corrections]: It could be renewed.

[Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations, Vermont DMV]: It could be renewed. Online.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Right. While they're still incarcerated.

[Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations, Vermont DMV]: As long as a photo doesn't need to be updated as well. Right? Because we have nine years.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's what I'm trying to figure out. While they're incarcerated, some of them are gonna have an incarcerated time longer than three years. And then who pays for it?

[Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations, Vermont DMV]: They would continue. So if they didn't qualify for a license under our current language right now, if they didn't qualify to receive the highest eligibility of a license, They would be getting a non driver ID under our current

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: law. I'm looking at the language in DMV's proposal. Right. I'm trying to play it out in DFC's world. It says a person is sentenced and they hold an unexpired license. So if they're sentenced and they hold an unexpired license, how do they renew? Can they renew it while they're incarcerated?

[Monique Sullivan, Facility Operations Manager, Vermont Department of Corrections]: The person incarcerated does not have access to computers to renew or to a credit card to renew.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Somebody could renew it on their behalf.

[Monique Sullivan, Facility Operations Manager, Vermont Department of Corrections]: Right.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: According to whatever standards are in place for the DMV, the fee, making sure the picture is current. But no, the incarcerated individual could not. And who pays? Whoever's doing it on their behalf. Yes.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So while they're incarcerated, so the other option is if a person held an operator's license, a driver's license, that has expired not more than three years prior, What would be the starting point of that, the time that they came in as a detainee? All about the credential. All about the

[Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations, Vermont DMV]: credential from the issue date to the time that remains on it or the time that has passed from the expiration. Has nothing to do with the time of a detainee or inmate. It's what they're eligible for from the last expiration.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So if that eligibility expiration date is like a year before or something, are they gonna have to start from scratch for verification of identification?

[Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations, Vermont DMV]: So we have a Vermont license in possession. They have one year past expiration. It's a Vermont license that they possess. They're now then getting released or detainee. We're getting released after that one year.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: This says an individual who sentenced. So you're not talking about detainee.

[Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations, Vermont DMV]: Okay. So I just wanted to clarify which one. So for us, they pass that one year. They have up to three years from expiration that they won't have to be requested, and we would give them that driver's license. But that would be upon reentry? That's correct. Not while they're incarcerated. This is all about when they're released.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Is that the understanding of DOC? Because the language does not say that. It doesn't talk about reentry. It only says as part of the reentry, DOC would inquire if each individual regarding whether the individual would like to obtain a driver's license and shall provide the individual the information. We need legal account. We need a lawyer in the room. Yes. Do the same. We need a lawyer in the room. Because I'm not opposed to looking at this or doing it. I think we've gotta make sure the language works in DOC's world. The language works in DMV world. We know what we're doing. Am I the only one that's a little here?

[Conor Casey (Member)]: Yeah. We we need it in front of us. Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: You're absolutely right. Me. I

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: mean, I know the language came from DMV, so you're looking at it through DMV's lens, but we're looking at it through your lens, but also DOC's lens. Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I had some thoughts in my head, but I'm like, Joe, you know what? You're not a lawyer. So can just kept it right in there as far as trying to resolve some of the inmate versus individual, something an attorney should chime in on.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We We have a definition of inmate. We have a definition.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I I I hear you.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Are you folks what do we have on the floor tomorrow? We have a lot. You have

[Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations, Vermont DMV]: me set up for tomorrow regarding H 549 specifically. At 12:00.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Do we have a lawyer available?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I agree. He will be here tomorrow. Yes.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And DOC, are you available tomorrow?

[Haley (Committee Assistant)]: At some times, yes. I know that it's currently on schedule. For the

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: At twelve.

[Haley (Committee Assistant)]: Is that still yeah. Well, we can be here. When it will be remote, but

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So we really need to get because I've been asked three times when I sent in trans where's the language? Where's the I said, well, we're scheduling people to come in, but we need a lawyer here.

[Conor Casey (Member)]: Pretty light on the floor tomorrow, it looks like.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. Well, we've got the HCB after the floor. And if we're off the floor I mean, we're gonna take lunch at 11:30 tomorrow.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Looks like we got one it's only one bill on the notice calendar today. $8.98.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: What does that pertain to?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Copper based to fiber based telecommunications copper I

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: wonder if there's a fee or appropriations to that. Well,

[Unidentified Committee Member]: it's only a civilian for energy and digital, so it's warned.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's not noticed.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: You're correct. You're talking about Friday, right?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: What was the vote on that?

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay, Chief Superior Judge]: Was unanimous.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So we have the HCV. And then when we get off before then we have lunch, we're scheduled to twelve to peak 12:00. And Hillary's available?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yes.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And she's working with Damian. Was Damian Stamps DMV? That's correct. And I know the last time we were here, you were looking to mirror the two statutes together, ideally. So we've done the agreement on the non driver ID. We're fine with that. I want to get calls where the committee is in terms of pursuing the DMV language for folks to get their driver's license, if they were eligible and they had one and it expired while they were incarcerated, that they could reapply. Are we fine with that for folks?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Okay. Okay. So absence of a hurdle.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And it would only be for sentence folks. Yeah. So we'll follow-up on this tomorrow with you folks. Thank you for sitting in today and dealing with us.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Thank you.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Thanks very much. It's been a warning of GMC. My driver's licenses have to be so

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah. I saw him hanging out in front of my judiciary faculty by arts and all.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: He's he's still

[Unidentified Committee Member]: out there. Remember?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Haley, can you see if judge Luneau is out there? Yes. We're ready for him. Okay, everybody. Thank you.

[Haley (Committee Assistant)]: He's not out here, but if I see him in the building, I'll let him out.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Great. Yeah. Here.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah. Unless there's some shenanigans, it doesn't look like we're

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We're still live, folks. I hate to go off and then come back on.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I know you're not a lawyer, Joe.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay, Chief Superior Judge]: But he did say an adventure.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: The caveman.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Be aware, folks, we're still on YouTube. We've got five minutes. I kinda need to go off of YouTube. We're gonna kick back on. So judge zoning is gonna talk to us about pretrial supervision and how it's on the court levels. Okay. How are you doing there, Troy? Really? Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: How long has that been going on?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Since yesterday's. Yesterday's shovel fest. Is it any better today?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: It's really bad after I've been sitting for

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay, Chief Superior Judge]: a while.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Oh, the sitting is natural. Do you use paddle blocking?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: No. Do you believe it all? That's a lot.

[Monique Sullivan, Facility Operations Manager, Vermont Department of Corrections]: Okay. Because I got a great guy on to Mary because you're fit people in. Do you use what? Chiropractor.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Judge is right up. Good.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We can get started.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: At what? Another minutes on that journey. But it seems like you get this defined as a faithful inmate that we're important on top of the bill. Be done with the team. Telling your real lawyer to inform him.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay, Chief Superior Judge]: Would say Welcome. Almost

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: afternoon. How's your knee? It's great. Thank you. It's doing well. It's

[Monique Sullivan, Facility Operations Manager, Vermont Department of Corrections]: your beard, though.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay, Chief Superior Judge]: Alright. We're getting there.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I'll raise you.

[Monique Sullivan, Facility Operations Manager, Vermont Department of Corrections]: We're here.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Ready to get some of you if you wanna get Works.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay, Chief Superior Judge]: Thank you.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We're a little early. I'll race you. And now the two canes is now listening.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay, Chief Superior Judge]: Yeah, I'm trying I believe I shed the cane in the next few days, but right now it's something good to have because it, A, reminds me slow down. And B, there's a factor where it seems that when someone watches somebody coming at them with a cane, they'll walk away, which reduces people running into me.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We know Mary will attack her cane. Be careful. Here comes the cane.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Well, I'll take this in time for the gift.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Welcome, John. We did miss you yesterday. I hope it seems like everything went well for you.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay, Chief Superior Judge]: Yes, it did. Thank you.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So we want to talk to you about free trial supervision. And we had the defense and the prosecution team yesterday. And we're just honestly trying to figure out where to go with the program. We really are. It has not been utilized very much. And it was really interesting to hear from the state's attorney mentioned what folks should be participating in the program. Is it your lower risk folks with a goal to keep them out of the criminal justice system? Or is it really your higher risk folks to divert them from being a detainee? And then the other piece was, do we just look at folks who don't show up? Or they can, and they continue to violate their conditions versus the five dockets. So that's kind of what came out yesterday, because those are kind of the stumbling blocks, number one, of why some folks aren't going into pretrial supervision. The other piece of pretrial supervision, it is voluntary on the part of the defendant. And there's some hesitancy there for the defendant to speak, because it almost assigns a sense of guilt and admitting to guilt. So we're just trying to figure out what do we do with pretrial supervision is the program worth continuing or not? How does this play in if we expand the accountability courts? Because there's 500,000 in the budget to do that somewhere in the general fund budget. There's 200,000 in the budget to hire seven permanent PMP officers, monitor this for them. So we're just trying to figure out, number one, why are there not many people in it now? We got some reasoning for that yesterday. Is the structure of it structured correctly? Do we go forward with it? And then, of course, there's proposed changes in language that both the council and state governments and the administration has proposed that we as a committee have not looked at those two proposed languages together. Just trying to get our head around the Supreme Court.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay, Chief Superior Judge]: Tom's only Chief Superior Judge. I was just talking about this topic next door. Down the street.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I'm sure you would because they want to take this and work on it.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay, Chief Superior Judge]: So I will tell you, I think we started with there. I was joking with Representative Gosling because he always says, When you come in, you say it's policy. So I said this morning, I just asked, yes, morning, I said, Representative Gosley, can you say what I'm about to tell you? And he laughed because it's a matter of policy. And so, where do we go? What happens in the state and what you do with it? Obviously, it's a policy. But what we know is that, as you pointed out, it hasn't been utilized. When the money was set aside a few years ago to do this up in Orleans, the plan comes out, let's do it in Orleans. It was a lot of money that was set aside to stand up this program. The thought, I testified downstairs in Senate judiciary at the time, my position was in some ways, it's trying to go in the direction of the federal judicial system, but it's not going to get there. It's almost federal supervision light. We have different laws, we have different structures, and we don't have the resources to do what the feds do. For those who don't know, if you are arrested in the federal court, before you even meet with Let's say there's a drug bust. The way it would work, and I leave open that maybe they've changed it in the time I've been on the bench, but I did a lot of federal defense. That was the majority of my practice. They do a drug bust. They arrest the people. The people go to the jail at the courthouse. They call out to get lawyers for the people. Before the lawyer has even met with their client, probation and parole, who is actually an arm of the judicial branch. They worked for the judge. They would have already met with the people, found out their history, background, and they come up with a pretrial services report. So for every case, the judge is given a piece of paper that talks about family history, everything that we want to have. In Vermont, a person's arrested, they come to court, the police may give us some information, the state's attorney will give it, the defense may give it, That's and what we have. We don't have reports. And so this was never going to be a federal pretrial supervision. And it seemed like the bill was intended to address really two separate and distinct issues. One, people need help finding, identifying, and getting to resources. How to access resources, what resources are appropriate, what might you need for evaluations, things like that. And two, some people keep violating conditions and you wanna keep an eye on those individuals to see whether or not they're violating and take steps to address that. We then had, I think two people who've gone through it. I'll stay away from the lack of utilization that I understand it was discussed yesterday, but for whatever reason, it wasn't utilized. And so, what then happens is the pilot docket starts up And we have this program brought over to the pilot docket. And I think a lot of us thought, Okay, here we go. This is going to be where pretrial supervision really starts getting used. And it wasn't. And if you take a step back and say, Well, why wasn't it used? This would seem like what it's for. Well, what did we realize in the pilot docket? We had wraparound services. We had people coming in to talk about resources. We didn't need a court order necessarily to come in and do an evaluation and come up with under 70 fivefifty 5. We needed people there. Give people the time, the resources, a courtroom to talk. It was the way, as someone commented to me, was the way the system used to be twenty plus years ago when we had more time and people would come in and talk. What we learned was that it worked to get people to the resources if they were there and they were helpful. And what else did we learn? We heard yesterday testimony and we've had meetings about the pilot docket for expansion with the stakeholders where DOC was a significant benefit, an asset to what was happening. They were helping throughout. Used to be plea agreements are entered. If you don't have a liaison there from DOC, send it over and then people don't know what's going to happen. DOC may take a different look. Who's going to be treatment? Can this plan work? My understanding is what was happening in the pilot docket is DOC was coming in sooner. DOC was there at the table saying, Okay, we can make this work. And helping to facilitate things as that liaison. It didn't have to be under the pretrial supervision program. They were doing that air traffic control and it worked. So, the question for your committee is, do we need this type of, and the legislature for that matter, do we need a bill like this and a structure that sets up to have DOC do, but we just saw they can do anyway. And the next question is, the other aspect of it is, the second part is, what else were we trying to accomplish with this bill? Well, I think Senator Sears and other committees were all clear. We wanna keep an eye on people. Well, is this the only way that you can get someone to monitor? Years ago in Rutland, I knew there was times where law enforcement would go at their office, see who had conditions of release, or they'd call the state's attorney and say, Who do you want us to check on? And they'd go out and check on people for curfews and things like that. And I would tell people, Just so you know, police might show up at your door one night and ask, and you better answer the door when they show up, or it's gonna be a violation possibly. And so things like that work. And I mentioned that because the challenge that you have is, do we try to fix something that no one's used and it hasn't been utilized and it cost a nice amount of money? Or do we say, well, we can accomplish this in a different way. And maybe if they're going to hire seven more people from DOC, maybe some people become, whatever you want to call them, monitors. And they can go out and monitor people on conditions of release, set up a system, something like that. In some courts, and I keep using Rutland because that was where I spent most of my time sitting, we would have DOC come over from next door and sit in the courtroom during the day as a resource. I can't tell you how many times their presence and their actions led to resolution, led to a more informed resolution. And if you will found people, someone doesn't show up, the probation officer would say, Hey, hold on, judge, let me go make a call. And they would call and say, I just talked to their PO. Their PO just called them, they forgot they can come right away. Things like that, that's the way it was done. And so you might wanna look at things, and again, your policy decision from the perspective of, is there a different way? We tried this for two years, it didn't work, it cost X amount of money. Is there a way that we can take the benefits of what DOC can do and implement them in a way that doesn't require something that nobody's using anyway, and we're told costs a lot of money. Can the money go to something else? We will be expanding the pilot dockets. That is the plan. It's not going to look the same everywhere. Some counties don't need it, but we're going to be taking steps to build on the momentum and the benefits we have.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So my understanding is there's half 1,000,000 in the governor's budget to expand that accountability. So is your understanding Is that true or not? I mean, I haven't seen

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay, Chief Superior Judge]: So the BAA has 500,000 in it. The Budget Adjustment Act has 500,000 plus the 2027 budget does have, I believe on page nine, a reference to $500,000 for fiscal year '27. So is that on top of the

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: half 1,000,000 for the remainder of this fiscal year and then another half million for the full FY '27.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay, Chief Superior Judge]: That is what my understanding was. I do understand that there's some question as to whether the 500,000 for fiscal year 'twenty seven is actually there. In other words, is that intended or was that I get that. Was it really supposed to be part of the 500 now? But keep in mind for the Budget Adjustment Act May, we've already incurred a debt, if you will, that we incurred charges.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I might be backfilling that.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay, Chief Superior Judge]: And we're gonna be getting paid that money. That's my understanding. Okay. And so, having financial resources available to go forward, my hope is that it really is in the 2027 budget too, that what's in the summary is that that would be going forward because it gives us more of an opportunity to bring in resources. And those resources, as you know, include transports, being able to pay for transports to get people to court. It includes maybe, it also includes to the extent necessary, backfilling judges. If we're going to have judges taking time to one day a week or whatever it may be in a certain court, focus on five plus dockets, we wanna have continuity. So, my plan is not to use retired judges for that, but to use existing judges. What we also don't wanna have happen is we don't wanna be taking a judge from Courtroom 1A, moving him or her to Courtroom 1B, and shutting Courtroom 1A down. We wanna do both. And so my thought is we can bring in retired judges to backfill. If we use a judge, for instance, we'll take Rutland, for example. The plan probably would be to bring the civil judge down to help out. I'd like to have somebody back up in civil. So, maybe retired judge availability. And so, funding is important.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: James and Conor?

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: So, judge, sounds like a good idea. When you're dealing with retired people, how long is that sustainable?

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay, Chief Superior Judge]: It's sustainable for, I'd say, short periods of time until they realize there was a reason they retired. You're exactly right. We have seen that happen. Two, three months. I have some judges who have committed. Judge Maley.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: I have a part two to that. So then would you envision a plan of using retired judges in the short term and trying to get new judges somewhere, like bringing more judges online in the future?

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay, Chief Superior Judge]: My hope would be that if you look at the numbers from the Chittenden program, they were pretty impressive for what they brought down for the dockets. My hope would be that if we focus for an intensive period of time, that we get to the point where we don't need to continue to have that type of focus in that docket. But my hope also is that the resources that we make available to individuals is how we treat everyone coming into the courts. We shouldn't have to wait till you hit five cases to say, okay, great. Now you can come in and get resource. We want to get the resources on day one to stop, but we recognize the practical limitations.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, understand. Like you're dealing with the backlog, is some of it, etcetera, etcetera. It only takes a while, just other reasons. And once you get through backlog, maybe it does level out. But I just didn't know if there was a thought or a plan for long term saying, general, needed more judges, more prosecutors, etcetera, to get this to not be a problem.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay, Chief Superior Judge]: The other aspect that I think is important to keep in mind is these are cases we have to hear anyway. In other words, there are cases that are going to be moving forward. And so what I've been trying to do with the judges, I've asked all the judges when I send out the list, I wanted a plan from each county as to what you would do to address the cases. And some of the plans talk about we're gonna have a certain One of my suggestions is need a separate day. Chittenden is gonna have Fridays. Every Friday is gonna be the 3B docket continue. And so if we use Rutland, Washington, whatever county it may be, if we say it's gonna be whatever day, even if it's the normal judge, even if the regular judge, even if we can't get backfill, at least the benefit is everyone knows that's the day and maybe resources can be there. Maybe Washington County Mental Health says, look, we know they're doing a five plus docket on Friday mornings, we'll show up then. Rutland has already made arrangements with Rutland Mental Health to come to arraignments. And so if we identify a time, if we make it clear to everyone, this is when we're gonna be doing these cases, I think it enhances the potential for them to show up and give us what we need. And so, even if we don't get extra judges, there's benefits and lessons that we can take from what we've been doing at Chittenden.

[Conor Casey (Member)]: Kind of along the same lines. I was left less than enthusiastic yesterday after hearing about the pretrial supervision. It didn't sound like it was clearly defined. It didn't seem like the outcomes were even likely or defined as well. And I just keep coming back like it's like kind of what you're saying. Do we have the structure in place already and we're getting too cheeky and overcomplicated with it? When the real answer is like, I'm on judicial retention. These judges coming before us are burned out. States attorneys, they need people. Public defenders need more people. So is the structure in place? And we're just not resourcing it and we're trying to get too cute with these different programs, home detention, pretrial supervision. But really, we just got to be pumping money into the system that would work and go back to the old days, like you're saying, where people had more time.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay, Chief Superior Judge]: That's the goal. When you talk about, you use the phrase burned out, I like to think, recognize that no one in the system, I hope is not quite burned out, but that they are appropriately tired. And we recognize everyone is working at maximum capacity. And what can we do to do? And so is this plan under this program, what works better for a state's attorney, a defense attorney, or the court to schedule? Having a process where we're gonna file this paperwork for a pretrial supervision. It's then gonna go to DOC, and they have to look at it, they have to analyze it. And then it's gonna come back to the court, and the court has to bring everybody in, and then we have to enter an order. And so step by step by step, and that's time. Does that contribute to somebody having, Oh God, it's a long day, as opposed to saying, Well, they were here at the court that day, everybody got together and we sent them out the door with this program. In other words, the pilot docket, as you point out, in many ways, simplified this down to, we didn't need to take those extra steps. I think that simplicity sometimes is something that can help. And again, it's a policy determination for the legislature. There's two components to this again. Component one, treatment needs that DOC is supposed to help with. And component two is the supervision. And is there a way possibly that you look at it and come up with a conclusion that there's a better way to do it? And maybe even financially it's cheaper.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So let me go through the finances. We put in for pretrial supervision FY twenty five, six hundred and sixty thousand. There was also 06/50000 put in for pretrial supervision during the current fiscal year, FY 'twenty six. So we're at 1,100,000.0, 10, whatever. And some of that has been expended. Because we did have the program a little bit in as six org leads and then got shifted to June. So you don't have the full 1,300,000.0. Close, though. And then the governor has proposed 200,000 for f y twenty seven for pretrust supervision. So you're 1,500,000.0. Just put that on the table for people to think about. You

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay, Chief Superior Judge]: can obtain a lot of resources for $1,500,000

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And it may not be a full 1,500,000.0, because some things were expended in the pretrial supervision, particularly out of the 660,000. But I'm just wondering where we go. And I'll tell you, my gut is telling me.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay, Chief Superior Judge]: It's what?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Sorry. Where we go with this program.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay, Chief Superior Judge]: My gut is

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Telling me to scrap it?

[Conor Casey (Member)]: Yeah. Oh, absolutely. That's tough.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: I don't think you're gonna get too much trouble.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And maybe if you wanna hire folks, because the governor's proposal is for that 200,000, the others that's there, to hire seven P and P folks, permanent positions. I don't know if you need the folks. Or maybe you do need some of those folks. I don't know. And then you redirect the funding to the accountability court I or don't know.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay, Chief Superior Judge]: I know that DOC, again, when their employees were there, not just the pilot docket, but when they can be in the courtrooms and available as resources, it has been very helpful. I would say it helps in moving cases and it helps in making sure that when you move the cases, the results are more informed and that enhances public safety and outcomes. So there are benefits to having employees. I don't know the numbers and structures, but there are benefits to having the DOC people at the table as we've seen.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So were they based out of the field office?

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay, Chief Superior Judge]: In Rutland, yes, they were. In Burlington, I don't know for sure. I believe they were coming over from Burlington PNP, but I can't be positive.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I was just going to ask, did it work in all the different houses around the state?

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay, Chief Superior Judge]: When you say liaisons, does it work everywhere? Every court I've been in when I have had DOC in the courtroom as someone to be able to give information, I have found it to be a positive benefit for moving cases along and taking care of masks.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: The reason I ask is sometimes when they're in the work in one county or another, but maybe not another. In the county.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay, Chief Superior Judge]: I can tell you that I remember in Rutland, someone was there all the time. In Barrie, in Washington County, we had people there. In Caledonia, there were people there often. Orange County, not much because of the location. If we needed someone, we had arraignments, I believe, on Wednesdays. And so they would come on the arraignment day. So that, I guess I would say, yeah, they were there because that was our day. So my experience, and I don't know how much it's changed in the past two or three years, is that they do show up and they're helpful. But I know that they're struggling. They were pulling people back into the facilities. And so I get those stress points. I'm presuming pilot docket and accountability court are synonymous. I refer to it as a pilot docket because every docket, court in our state is designed, and our system is designed to assure accountability. Only the Supreme Court can establish a quote, court. And the Supreme Court did not establish a court. So accountability court is what people call it. And I try to just 3B docket, pilot docket. Yeah. Just don't like to assume. Yeah, that's a good question. Same thing.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Other questions, thoughts?

[Conor Casey (Member)]: I like your instincts, Troy.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah, was beginning to feel this yesterday. It's

[Monique Sullivan, Facility Operations Manager, Vermont Department of Corrections]: You're just

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: not gonna get opposition, don't think an opposition will And

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay, Chief Superior Judge]: again, there's the intent and what was the goal of this. Resources and supervision are important. And the question of difficult decisions that you have to make is, is this the best way to do it? Or has experience now taught us that maybe there's a better way that even financially might be better and could potentially lead to better results and actually be utilized? Yeah.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We The money is there in the system right now.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay, Chief Superior Judge]: I didn't think we'd have a situation where I'd be sitting here ever in your committee with numbers from a program that were less than home detention.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: No, man.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay, Chief Superior Judge]: I just didn't think that would happen.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Anything else of the judge before we go to lunch?

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Surely no. Thank you, sir.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Thank you very much. Very helpful. Chittenden confirms the testimony we received yesterday.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay, Chief Superior Judge]: And thank you for your accommodation. I appreciate it. Oh,

[Unidentified Committee Member]: thank you.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Anything for you, judge.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay, Chief Superior Judge]: Don't say that. You're very kind.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Say that. So we're done. We're back here at 01:00, right?

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay, Chief Superior Judge]: We're gonna hit two right now. Two?

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Because Yeah. We were supposed to be there at one

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, I want to come back earlier because can

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: come back at 01:30.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: She wants to talk about Yeah. I really want committee discussion on some things.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Okay.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Okay. So we're back here at

[Unidentified Committee Member]: one