Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: All right, we are live.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: All right, everyone. Welcome back. It is 02:15, and apologies that delay was a little bit longer than I anticipated. That was my fault, but thank you for your patience. So we're continuing work on, draft two six dash five five zero two point three, which is our, emergency response omnibus bill. And now we're gonna take some testimony on the section of the bill that, was brought in from H 697, which was something we heard about a few weeks ago before break. So, we have several folks on Zoom with us today. Thank you. And so I'm just gonna go write down the order and I am gonna start with Kristen Fountain, Interim Coordinator of Vermont Journalism Coalition. How are you?

[Kristen Fountain]: Thank you so much, Chair Birong, as you said, my name's Kristen Fountain, and I represent the Vermont Journalism Coalition. We're a nonprofit membership organization that aims to strengthen the state's professional news organizations as a strategy for promoting government accountability and public engagement in Vermont's community and civic life. We have 42 members currently from all across the state that span print, digital, radio, and television, for profit and nonprofit news outlets with coverage areas that are statewide and hyper local. We strongly are opposed to including the language from H697 in Emergency Management and Disaster Response Omnibus bill. I just wanna make clear from the outset that we absolutely deeply respect the work of Vermont's first responders, Reporters, journalists were often the first on the scene just after they're there. Local journalists are very aware of their service to our communities and the challenges that they face. And presenting that service and those challenges to the public is an essential part of our job. And that is why we are so concerned by this bill. This bill would give first responders vast discretion over barring members of the media and the public from public spaces. It would allow them to impose an arbitrary buffer zone that could make it impossible for Vermont news organizations to document some of the most important events in our community. A distance of 25 feet is quite far. It's wider than a dirt road. Being forced to stay that far away as a default could make our observations difficult, if not impossible. As I think some previous testimony has attested to, professional journalists are not at the scene of a crime or an accident in order to harass or threaten first responders. We're very sensitive to staying out of the way and not obstructing or impeding their work. If conflicts do arise, they've been managed through clear communication at the scene. And I hope that if particular first responders have any specific concerns, our members would definitely want to understand them and address them. So we believe that there are already other mechanisms available to protect first responders from harassment and harm. For example, impeding a law enforcement officer and reckless endangerment are already considered crimes. I'm not sure folks are aware, but last year, a federal appeals court, struck down a law very similar to this one in the seventh circuit, one that the state of Indiana had put into place. And media organizations are having success challenging others that are almost exactly the same in Louisiana and Tennessee. So if a law like this were to be enacted in Vermont, we would expect that it too would be challenged on federal constitutional grounds in court.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yep, Rep Morgan. Yes, Kristen, what distance do you feel is appropriate?

[Kristen Fountain]: I think that any distance that allows a member of the press to observe what's happening without being in the way is appropriate. I think it varies a lot from situation to situation, which is why I would not want to put a particular number in the law.

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: That's in that doing that, I not disputing your remarks, but I, that's my concern, is now it becomes very subjective, and to the point of where it, like in the military, we do a quick reaction to force training if we ever had to respond with a guard to situations where, like, quite bluntly, riot control work. Some of those distances can get, you know, they can close in quick and fast and get dangerous, to first responders, and I I struggle with that. But but thank you for your input. It's noted and concerned. Thank you.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Alright, that's all.

[Jennifer Morrison]: Do you know what footage Indiana and Tennessee had in their laws that was challenged?

[Kristen Fountain]: I believe Indiana's was 25 feet. I think either Tennessee or Louisiana's there was a 15 foot boundary. It's I think in this case, it's less a boundary issue than it is the arbitrariness of it. It really leaves it up to the decision of the first responder as to whether someone can be in a public space. I mean, I I guess, I think as long as there is clear communication as to where the press should or should not be, our professional journalists are going to respond to those requests.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Robert Hooper?

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: Are you aware of any incidents where a member of the media in any way harassed or impeded efforts by rescue or first responders in Vermont?

[Kristen Fountain]: I am not aware. And I did ask our membership if they're aware and I did not hear any specific examples of this.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: Thank you.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: They pose for

[Jennifer Morrison]: I think there's

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: a comment, but not another question.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: It's just the First Amendment allows freedom of the press, I don't see putting a 25 foot limit on the first amendment to be something that is appropriate. And there's no way I could support anything else that happens here if this stays in the South. Just want to get it out there and completely opposed to it.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: If you took out the 25 foot barrier and left it up to the first responder to keep you back, chances are he might keep you back further than 25 feet. So, if you leave it up to the discretion of the first responder, he can keep you back a lot further than 25

[Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: feet. Well,

[Kristen Fountain]: it's a conversation at that point, right?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Right, but if he feels that you're impeding on the situation, he could say, wait a minute, you got to stand back and

[Unidentified Committee Member]: you can be 50 feet away from

[Unidentified Committee Member]: the sea. Mean, 25 feet is not that far. It's quite far when you're trying to see what's happening. Do

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: we have anything else for anything else for the journalism coalition?

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: Water zones. Yeah, are you? Are there any other circumstances in which you're prohibited from becoming close to somebody who's doing a job or any other, like in a public space, is there any

[Kristen Fountain]: We other just had a good example of one case, which is voting. There are specific areas of voting in which the press can observe from a certain distance, but that is the only one that I know of.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, I'm really glad that you brought that up because we do have limits on certain types of speech at voting places. And we're talking about somebody's life or death emergency situation here where there may not even be time for dialogue. So I think this is a very good example why a law like this is necessary. So thank you very much for bringing that up. I appreciate it.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: Thank you. I mean, I can't speak to the inspiration or the initial thoughts of the origin of June. But I feel like, especially right now with things that have been happening around the country, and the media, and even regular people taking videos with their phones, and documenting, and being able to record and take photos of certain incidents. It seems like now is not the time to be limiting people's access to that. Particularly when it's just this broad atmosphere where I think there's really I'm not saying that this bill came out of a desire to limit people's access, but I think that also it could be part of that same thing, is that it's it's trying to keep people away from capturing things that are are happening. And I mean, offense whatsoever to any law enforcement or first responder, anybody who's doing their job appropriately and well. But I just think being held accountable is, and knowing that there are people observing really anybody, that's why we're on camera all day. Is because we need to be held accountable for the things that we say, and the decisions we make. And it's unconscionable to me to limit the press's access to events that are happening in real time. It's really actually disturbing to me that this is even something we're considering. I understand and respect other people's points of view, why it seems like it's necessary, but it's a problem that doesn't exist. There haven't been any problems with this informatics. I don't know why we're trying to stop people from doing something that they're not even doing in the first place. It just seems, I don't know, I don't like it.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Anyone

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: else before we move on with next witness? Wendy Mayes? Wendy with us?

[Wendy Mays]: I'm here. How

[Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: are you?

[Wendy Mays]: Well, thank you. And thank you for squeezing me in. I will try to be brief. So my name is Wendy Mayd and I am the Executive Director of the Vermont Association of Broadcasters. We're the nonprofit trade association that supports the more than 100 over the air broadcast television and radio stations that are operating throughout Vermont. And many of those stations have broadcast news departments who are absolutely dedicated to providing fact based non biased local news that Vermonters trust to keep them informed. And we understand and appreciate that the objective of H697 is to protect Vermont's first responders as they're engaging in public safety calls. And we absolutely agree that the work that they do is critically important. And we also understand and appreciate that based on prior testimony, journalists are not the target of this bill. However, it doesn't relieve our concerns that we have about including this language into the emergency management disaster response omnibus bill. And that's because just because journalists are not the target, it would still require them to stay 25 feet away from any newsworthy event. And that could be an unintended consequence of including language like that. A distance that far will impact their ability to confirm facts, get clear audio and or video and obtain anything else they need to properly report on their news story. And we very much appreciate the description of journalists made in prior testimony as being respectful on scene. And we take pride in the code of conduct that professional journalists survive by, But they do still have a job to do. And if they are forced to stay 25 feet away from any newsworthy event, it severely hinders that ability. So I'm hoping that this committee will just keep an open mind and consider carefully whether it's worth it to sacrifice journalists' ability to properly report news on the scene of an emergency event by creating this blanket 25 foot rule for all people regardless of their profession. And thank you so much for letting me speak on behalf of broadcast journalists today.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Thank you.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: All right, I want to try and be conscious of the time here. So I'm just going to keep going. Commissioner Morrison, we got you up next.

[Jennifer Morrison]: Great, terrific. Thank you, Chair Birong. My name is Jennifer Morrison. I'm the Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety. And prior to working in state government, had thirty years experience in municipal policing. I assume you want me to talk about this portion of the bill because I think there's a couple of things you wanted me to talk about. I just listen. The media is a trusted partner in this and nothing in this bill is proposed is targeting the media and it does not set up a 25 foot buffer zone around first responders. So those are not true statements. It says that if somebody comes within 25 feet with the intent to do one of these things after being warned, that they should then face some accountability for their actions for interfering with first responders. So I I wanna be clear that this this section of this bill is not something we have spent a lot of time talking about inside the public safety. It was not one of our priorities, but there's certainly a common sense measure here that allows first responders to not be harassed in performance of their duties. And that's not the media that I think anyone is concerned about. That's not my experience with the Vermont media over my career. So I just want to be very clear that this is not in my estimation, attempt to make the media have to stay back 25 feet or harm their ability to collect information. I would also take a little bit of exception to the comments that first responders need to be held accountable by the media. Sure, that's one of many, many, many avenues to hold first responders accountable to a degree that is not seen in other professions in the state of Vermont. As you know, we have robust internal affairs processes. We have the Vermont Criminal Justice Council that can take action against law enforcement and I presume that fire and EMS have other mechanisms as well. So what I see this is a common sense measure to be able to prevent, let's say non professional media because pretty much anyone as one of the previous speakers noted, pretty much anyone can become a journalist, a person recording events of public interest on the spot and claim that they're a member of the media if they're working on face to facebook live or recording on video. It's not the mainstream media that I think this this bill is probably aiming at. It is generally disruptive, people who are intending to impede the ability of first responders to do their job. And so I think we should probably focus more on the what it is going to prevent, but it is not going to prevent media who are cooperative and respectful as I know them to be from getting within 25 feet. So that's really the extent of my comments on this portion of the bill. I'm not sure, sir, how you want to proceed. I've got about twenty minutes before I have to switch to my next commitment.

[Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: Okay.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: So to comment on some of the other sections of the bill, I like to utilize the time that we have you here. Do you have anything to offer on the other

[Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: comments? I'm

[Jennifer Morrison]: not prepared to talk about the emergency management pieces. We obviously will be heavily engaged through director Forand on that. It was my understanding that there was a question that folks thought I could shed some light on about the $11,000,000 initially appropriated in fiscal year twenty four, so in '23 in act 78 related to public safety communications task force?

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yes. So it

[Jennifer Morrison]: was my understanding that that was something you wanted me to to speak to, and I'd be happy to don't wanna guess your questions, but I think No.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: No. I was a little leading. Yes. But that is totally the part we're we're hoping you shed some historical context and lead up into.

[Jennifer Morrison]: Yes. I will try. I'm gonna just start with act 78 from '23 and in at which I just refreshed myself on today. And, the work of the public safety communications task force was organized in that bill. The scope of the work to be done was, laid out in in the big bill, and $11,000,000 was appropriated. It is my understanding that they were that that $11,000,000 was divided into two reserve accounts, for lack of a better word, mean, you're gonna have to talk to the money people about what they call it, but that there was up to $4,500,000 available for pilot projects if the task force deemed that appropriate. There was a bit of a problem with the wording in that it appeared to limit the task force to only being able to use the pilot project money in FY24. Whole another topic because we never got to that place. The task force never got to a place of saying we were going to use it. So 4,500,000.0 set aside specifically for pilot projects, $6,500,000 that the first million dollars was available for the work of consultants and the work of the task force immediately upon passage of the bill. And then there was a provision that up to another, a second million dollars could be approved either by the legislature or by the joint fiscal office if you were not in session, joint fiscal committee, excuse me. And so in my mind, those $2,000,000 that were initially freed up to engage with consultants and do the work of the task force came out of the 6 and a half million and the 4 and a half million is intact for potential pilot projects. That's my understanding of how the $11,000,000 appropriation was divided up back in 2023. And I know that our financial folks are in the room and can give you more detail if you would like, but we've not breached the two first $2,000,000 expenditure mark. So it's my understanding that there's $9,000,000 total remaining or or more.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Ms. Rutland. You. So I'll, continue to have conversations with house appropriations because they gave me slightly different figures, but they may already be taking into the account that $1,000,000 has been spent. So I had an on the fly conversation this morning with them. Can you also remind the committee, please, about the other chunk of money that was the congressionally directed spending that has really no bearing on what we're talking about here in terms of enabling the use of funding?

[Jennifer Morrison]: Sure. Thank you for that question. So this all came about under commissioner Schirling's leadership in '22 and '23. We applied for a congressionally directed spending earmark in order to pass through funding to volunteer would be regional dispatch centers. So the Department of Public Safety in recognizing that we needed to reduce the number of standalone dispatch centers and we needed to shed some of the agencies out of our PSAPs that we were providing dispatching services for, we wanted to become a pass through to allow willing partners to either grow their current capacity. I'm just going to use, say, the Lamoille County Sheriff's Office as an example to take on more customers or to start from scratch, maybe even bring bricks and mortar into being and start from scratch to become regional dispatch operators. So that's how we applied for this congressionally directed spending, and we were thrilled to learn that we were awarded the maximum amount in Senator Leahy's last year, 9,000,000, and absolutely chagrined to find out that the government awarded it to us through the COPS technology funding stream, not through one of the other COPS office programs. The COPS technology funding stream requires that anything that is spent out of that grant be owned and operated by the state of Vermont, by the grant recipient, it's explicitly disallows pass through funding and sub grantees. So we spent a long time trying to get the nature of the funding stream changed, and that was proved to be an impossible thing. So then we had to focus our attention on how could we use this $9,000,000 in a way that honors the original intent, which was to build a stronger statewide emergency communication system that's more redundant, more resilient, and has failover. So the $9,000,000 plan has obviously changed from what our original intent was. It is a plan that has been being executed on for the last two years. And the the funds are I I I would have to get back to a report of how much of it's actually expended or encumbered. But the plan to not get into the weeds, because it can really quickly get very technical, is to build, a stronger, more resilient statewide network all around the state to serve as the backbone of whatever the future emergency communication scheme is going to be. By that, I mean that our land mobile radio network is being extended as part of this $9,000,000 grant. We're adding 10 tower sites, not building towers, adding 10 tower sites, putting in things like, I mean, I'm going to use the example of down near one of the ski areas where we have to take snowmobiles up with gas cans, that's our backup, that's how we keep them going when the power goes out, adding in a cell backup or other types of redundancy. And so it's a more resilient system. The modernized land mobile radio network that's owned by the state would then become the backbone of a future smaller system of systems, which is what the work of the task force has been working towards is what will the future look like and how do we move towards more regionalized dispatch as opposed to the current patchwork of what we have. So that's the $9,000,000 congressionally directed spending and that's well in flight inside the Department of Public Safety. Okay,

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Hans, I thought I saw Waters Evans and then Hooper Wellington.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: Hello. I know you said you don't have the specific figures, but out of that $9,000,000, can you estimate maybe how much has been spent? Is it like $200,000 or is it like 6,000,000 or somewhere in between?

[Jennifer Morrison]: It's several million, but I can't tell you how many million with that. I don't want to get the number wrong. Okay. I'm happy to supply the report to the committee, which we can forward on to you.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Can you also Thank you. And can you explain what is a system of systems? I'm not well versed in the technological aspect of it. So I just was hoping what system I don't know what that means.

[Jennifer Morrison]: Okay, so I'm actually not prepared to start weighing in on the recommendations of the task force and then just for this committee, because I know we're going to have a lot of discussions in this space. I co chaired the Public Safety Communications Task Force for the first couple of years when approximately a year, year and a half ago, Deputy Commissioner Batesy took over my co chair spot because we knew this day would come where recommendations were made that the department, not the co chair of the task force, that the department may not agree with. So I took myself up to the balcony so that I could get up on the balcony and observe the recommendations coming out of the task force. So I am not prepared to be a witness about the recommendations that the task force is putting forward. But to answer your question about a system of systems, what I meant by that when I was describing that is the technology that we own, operate and maintain can become part of other operators' system of communications. Might use one of our tower sites. They might use one of our repeaters. They might use other pieces of the technology as a part of their communication scheme so that we're not building in a vacuum X number of standalone communication systems. They should all it should all be able to be maximized for the good of, broadening the reach of the land mobile radio network and being able to fill in as many dead spots as we can, etcetera. So a system of systems contemplates multiple regional dispatch entities that are providing service and they might share in some of the land mobile radio infrastructure that we own and maintain.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Thank you. And I have one more question, and I don't know if this is something you can And it's really I'm opening a door here that we don't want to walk through. I understand has have we or whoever's kind of managing this given thought to or linked it to the other separate discussions of, like, regionalization and, county government and all of that other stuff? It seems like it might be a good

[Jennifer Morrison]: Okay. So

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I know. I know.

[Jennifer Morrison]: You're gonna start to see some of the frustration that this grant has brought. It is the worst $9,000,000 gift I've ever been given. It's also the only $9,000,000 gift I've ever been given, but it is the worst. The the the the short answer is that, we have been staying trying to stay in sync with where we think the task force recommendations may go. But there is a performance period on this congressionally directed spending. We have to have all this money out the door by the end of next year. So that the timeline to spend the grant does not necessarily marry up with the work of the task force and the recommendations that come forward. And we have done extensive planning looking at that to say, how can we use this $9,000,000 to benefit the entire state, not just the Vermont State Police, not just Fish and Wildlife, not just AOT and all the other people who use our system completely daily, but all the other local and county entities that also rely on portions of our land mobile radio network. How can we maximize it and modernize it so that as the new shape of things comes into being, we are providing a modernized backbone of communication. So performance periods are a consideration when you're trying to navigate congressionally directed spending, and they don't match up candidly with the timeline that we're on with the task force.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Thank you. That sounds like a lot of work and probably pretty frustrating. Thank you.

[Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: Robert Hooper. Hey, Jen.

[Jennifer Morrison]: Hello. Sorry. Two

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: questions unrelated. Did the task force look into satellite as a replacement to land based antennas? If so, why did they rule them out, or did they?

[Jennifer Morrison]: That answer, I don't know because that's part of their recommendations. The short answer is yes. All all technologies were on the table, and they are all represented in the, analysis. There's a very lengthy technical report as part of the work of the task force. So Okay. Yeah. Low orbiting, satellites, traditional satellites, they've they're all in the mix for consideration.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: And secondly, your interpretation of the language, here on page seven was radically different than we had talked about before, which to me says it's sufficiently vague that anyone who's out in the field could either apply it or not apply it kind of at their will. Do you agree that, you know, everybody's gonna want a a crime scene or an accident to be as clean as possible? Could we revise this language? Is it sufficiently vague in your managerial app on that it could get people in trouble? Why are you smiling so much?

[Jennifer Morrison]: Listen. I I think that the that that this discussion is fraught in many directions with as as the previous presenters spoke about from the perspective of the media. I think that on page seven of the most recent draft that I've seen, which I was just referring to, that there is a degree of specificity, and it does not mean just within 25 feet. It there there's several precursors there to saying that the person would be in violation. One is you're within 25 feet. One is the person has identified themselves as a first responder and they've warned you to stay away. And then there's an intention piece that the person is intentionally engaging in any of these types of conduct within twenty five feet. And it's pretty clear that to obstruct or impede their ability to perform their duties or threaten them with physical harm, those are pretty narrow circumstances. And yes, I have experienced those in my law enforcement career. But I don't think it's as vague as what you just said, although I'm sure others might disagree. And then there's the issue of how this would be interpreted in the field by first responders. And I think that there could be a wide range of discretion as one of the previous speakers stated. But that's happened. But when you think about the broad gamut of the amount of discretion we give to law enforcement, I can't speak for EMS or fire. We live in the space of exercising discretion and coming up with the totality of the circumstance analysis to apply what our various authorities are. And so I'm not concerned with law enforcement incorrectly applying this, what I think is does have a certain degree of specificity in the wording. And I would leave it to your witnesses from fire and EMS to to ask them if they have any concerns about their members, applying this with the degree of specificity that the authors appears to have intended.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: What what would be the pathway for a fire or an EMS person to, quote, unquote, charge someone violating this?

[Jennifer Morrison]: They'd have to have a they'd have to have summon law enforcement and provide a sworn statement and etcetera. So it's only law enforcement that can file criminal charges.

[Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: Alright. I'll bring it up. Thanks, ma'am.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. And thanks for talking about the congressionally directed spending, which as I mentioned, is separate, but not really separate, because it sounds like you're using that money to build out a foundation for whatever the task force is coming up with that is future for public safety communications in Vermont. So you mentioned the performance period. Can you tell me, is the end date 12/31/2007 or 'twenty six?

[Jennifer Morrison]: Without looking at it, I'd I'd have to get back I'd have to get back to Dan That's fine. Dan Batesy's in the room. He might know that, but no. He doesn't.

[Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: I'd wanna look as well.

[Jennifer Morrison]: Okay. Dan, you wanna look as well.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. And also to answer rep Waters Evans questions regarding the budget, Deputy Commissioner Batesy is going to be already, was already asked to look into what's been spent, how it's been spent, and provide us with that information. So thank you. And sorry you had to try to pick your brain about that, but it's all good. Thank you. Want to be mindful of your time too.

[Jennifer Morrison]: I would just add one last thing about the origins of the $9,000,000 and Act 78, the big bill. I mean, obviously we have a big bill every year, but that section that put together the task force. It was a series of unfortunate events that happened. We were working inside public safety to try and become a pass through and build an organic system of volunteer regional operators to basically balance the number of agencies being dispatched by any one entity. We were dispatching for well over a 100 entities out of one of our PSAPs and it was really too much. It was really too much. So that was the pathway we were pursuing. Now these conversations around regional dispatch were bubbling in a lot of different spaces And we had worked with Seneca Vops Chair Hardy at the time to talk about some of these challenges and circumstances, but we were not deeply involved in the language that ended up creating the task force and providing this vast, vast scope of work. So at the same time that we were chasing a path that would allow us to pass through money to volunteer entities, we were then given a mandate by the legislature that took us in a very different direction. So and the third the third sort of series of unfortunate events collision in there is that the funding that we were chasing came to us in a way that made our initial plan impossible. So that whole timeframe was very interesting in terms of where we wanted to go and where we thought we were going and where we are now. But that's all in the past, I guess I would say. And I'm really looking forward to you guys hearing and considering the recommendations of the task force because so much time, and I mean so much time, has gone into the work of the task force, the work of our consultants. And I think there's some really positive things to consider about where we head from here.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. And we will be hearing again from members of the task force. So I appreciate that. Guess I'm going to hold any other

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: thoughts Yes, and move

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: yes. Thank you so much for joining us spontaneously on another part of the bill.

[Jennifer Morrison]: All right. Well, thanks as always. And Dan is in the room. If you need anything else from public safety, we'll get it to you as quickly as we can.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Thank you, Commissioner.

[Jennifer Morrison]: Thank you.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Alright, up next we got Lieutenant Todd How are doing, sir? Good, how

[Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: are you? Here? Not bad.

[Lt. Todd Wilkins]: Hi. Yeah. I'm Todd Wilkins. I'm a lieutenant with the Vermont State Police. I'm currently the station commander at the Westminster Barracks. I'm also, the commander of our critical action team, which is essentially our public order team. So we're the ones that get called in if there's any mass public disturbances or anything like that. I have approximately twenty years of experience. The vast majority of that has been with the with the Vermont State Police in various roles. The commissioner kinda stole most of my thoughts, which I expected she would. So, you know, from a from a first responder, police officer standpoint, we support this, as a tool. You know, I've been at countless events. It is never we have never impeded the media from getting within appropriate distance to to view or to record what we're doing. But I think, like the commissioner said, there are very specific, parts within this bill that would help us enforce a law to help keep first responders safe. We have seen many incidents, unfortunately, in my career where people have, impeded and tried to prevent, whether it's police officers, EMS, fire, from doing certain aspects of their job. So to me, this is a tool that we would utilize. Like the commissioner said, you know, we exercise our discretion every single day in what we do in enforcing the laws as long as it meets the elements that are set within that that that bill. So without repeating what commissioner's already said, that's that's my that's our piece from from the road.

[Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: Rutney.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I was wondering, this is an issue that sort of popped up, I think, in a lot of different spaces, the airlines, emergency rooms, even with, I think, journalists too. I was wondering if you had any familiarity or had some thoughts about how this law compares to some other laws that have been proposed or passed to try to protect people who are, I think, seen in authority situations.

[Lt. Todd Wilkins]: Yeah, don't know of any specific other than when I did a little bit of research in reviewing this bill, I did notice that other states do have it. Florida just passed it. They call it the Halo bill. It's almost identical to what was proposed in this. You know, it does give those it's not just a blanket 25 feet. There are also elements that have to be met within that for before we can make an arrest in that. And there are other states that have enacted similar ones. Think some are being challenged, some aren't. I don't believe Florida is currently being challenged in any way.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Any other questions while we have them here?

[Lt. Todd Wilkins]: Great. Thank you very much, sir. And

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: up next via Zoom, we have Bill Lovett, chief Rutland Fire Department. How are doing, sir?

[Chief Bill Lovett]: Doing well.

[Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: Thank you very much.

[Chief Bill Lovett]: First, I want to agree with the commissioner. She's right on track as far as I was interpreting page seven of this bill. I don't see the tie so much with the press. They haven't been a problem for us at all. But I started with the department in 1981. I was a nationally registered paramedic for twenty four years. I was the Vice President of the Professional Firefighters of Vermont for three years on their executive board for seven. I'm a state fire instructor since 2003, and currently I've been the Chief and Emergency Management Director for the city of Rutland for seven years. As a paramedic, I was involved in three instances where bystanders assaulted either myself or my partner. First was a bar fight. A woman was upset because we were treating the person she was fighting with and jumped onto my back and started pulling my hair. I don't have much anymore. So you can see she was rather effective. I had to unfortunately strike her to get her to get off my back. Second one was a male. He was intent on self harming himself. Wasn't happy when we administered Narcan. Running is high. He became very combative and it turned into a brawl until police officers were able to come to our assistance. And the last one was a male subject that embedded a knife in the door casing as I was entering the building. That time I had my track shoes on and myself and my partner were able to get away. But these were the things that we were facing early on. Now this happened at the beginning of my career in the 80s. We had a, I had a twenty four year career as a paramedic. We were averaging 1,800 calls. So these were relatively rare at the time. The only charges that were ever brought was a man with a knife and through a plea agreement, it was pleaded down to the point where he served no time for attempting to stab me. Today, the potential for these events occur very readily. They seem to be happening more often. Pressure on the first responders are incredible. When when I started in the department in 1980, if we had a complaint for an illegal burn here in the city, somebody's burning trash garbage against the ordinances of the city, we used to send one firefighter who go down and educate the homeowner about something like this. It was resolved, extinguished, and was over. But as time has progressed, we had to start assigning a second person, a witness, a protection person. Now we have to send an engine crew, which is four firefighters and a police officer, because everything seems to be ramping up. People seem to have no tolerance for authority or enforcing rules. Now, as a fire officer, we've been confronted by homeowners, oftentimes it's because of concerns over their loved ones in their home. And obviously, those are situations that are unique and nobody would blame these people for this. But lately, we're encountering more people that are very critical of our actions or our inability to meet what they believe our actions should be, as if they've had a background in firefighting. They're trying to tell us how to protect their building, put their building out, or to let it burn. People demand that we do what they tell us. They often tell us that we pay your salary. And it's irritating, to be honest with you. Seems like lately, some people have forgotten how to communicate respectably with other people. Some have no patience. Some are looking for confrontation. Some are looking for a lawsuit, a settlement after an alleged incident, public accolades. They can be a Facebook warrior. And it seems to be that a lot of people feel very entitled. Is this the world that we're faced with, and we have to deal with on a daily basis?

[Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: I

[Chief Bill Lovett]: applaud your, your group here in the process of what you're trying to do. We're trying to make split decision, a split second life altering decisions at an incident scene. And that's very difficult. Having ill intentioned individuals harass the first responders is unacceptable. Threats of lawsuits, physical harm, verbal abuse, basically are very uncivilized. Having a cell phone recording every movement is unavoidable. We know the the situation with the cell phones, but having them thrust into your face on a daily basis adds a a certainly a degree of tension to the situation. Ultimately, who's responsible for the scene? Fire chief or the fire officer. We are responsible for the protection of everyone on the scene. And oftentimes when we try to push the crowd back for their own safety, we're met with resistance now. And I see this bill as an opportunity to perhaps have a little bit of, you know, legislation behind us. We're not looking to exploit it by any means, but if it's there, it's a tool, as the officer was saying. It's a tool in the toolbox that will help us protect the people at the scene, and also to make sure municipalities aren't exposed to senseless lawsuits.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you very much, chief. Do we have any questions?

[Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: Moments for him?

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: No. But I appreciate the testimony. I appreciate you sticking around. I know we're running. Mean, guess we're kind of only a little late right now but it's been a little while and you've been hanging out. So thank you.

[Chief Bill Lovett]: Alright. You.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: And finally on this one we got Drew Hazelton, Chief Fire Rescue.

[Drew Hazleton]: How you doing, Drew? Good. Yeah, pretty good. Drew Hazleton, Chief Rescue Ake. And, I've got a couple different pieces of the bill, if you don't mind. Yeah. So, the rescue makes one of the, harder, teams for the state's swift water response. So we're one of the MOU teams. So I wanted to just put my support out for granting to, the member teams. I think it's important as you look at that section of the bill that you're you're putting those funds towards the teams that are providing a statewide support. So we have a system in Vermont for vetting teams and, through the urban search and rescue team, you have MOUs and we're able to respond by that, mutual aid or surge capacity to areas when they need it. So we appreciate the support there with the grants. I would urge you to put those towards the MOU teams. I'll share same testimony from law enforcement and fire. The the job that our first responders are doing, our EMS providers are doing on the street is dangerous and difficult. And there are many times where it becomes problematic when we have people that are really hanging on top of us while we're trying to do CPR, especially during some of the more Tennessee, you know, doing medical procedures in a vehicle on the side of the road or in the street. And we know we're trying to do these life saving procedures, we're not able to get anybody to move back and and away from us. So, those again, I I you've heard, I've not experienced personally issues with press. I have certainly had plenty of experiences where people have been hanging on us or, physically assaulting us while we're trying to do our job. Moving down through some of the other things I saw in the bill. I serve in a regional EMS capacity. We serve 14 towns and in many cases, we help to set up and assist in sheltering operations. So I certainly support the idea of, accessibility in shelters, but I also wanna make sure that you guys consider supporting those local communities for local shelters. What we learned in, Irene is that the regional shelters become very quickly unavailable to us, when we have floods. So the transportation routes made it so that we weren't able to get patients from our local communities to the regional shelters. So even though we had, you know, very well established and staffed regional shelters, we're having to set up a lot of makeshift shelters within, our communities. Moving kinda down to the emergency management planning discussion. I am curious what medical needs means in the bill. And are you gonna be asking for that service to be provided at a shelter site by your local EMS? And if so, what what is that definition and and what resources they provided to help support that?

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Are you talking about the C MIST

[Chief Bill Lovett]: acronym?

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Okay. So that was brought to us by another representative in a standalone bill. So we'll have to get back to you on that. We're not entirely certain what I think it's probably dealing with people who need oxygen tanks, or wheelchairs, or walkers and just making sure they have what they need in an emergency situation or something maybe that needs to be plugged in and they don't have power, for instance. That's my educated guess. So thanks for asking.

[Drew Hazleton]: Yeah, in my experience that that becomes challenging for us, because patients with medical needs at home, quite often the only option we have available is to evacuate them to a local hospital. And, you know, that creates a downstream effect for the local hospital. So, power for oxygen or, power required medical devices is quite often the issue. We also don't have a lot of excess capacity in our state EMS system to provide that level of evacuation and that evacuation support. We lack the ability in EMS to, bring a surge of resources in Vermont. Many states have EMS task forces that can move from one part of a state to another and support local EMS surge plans. That does not exist in Vermont. So you're already tapped local resources. People that are dealing with the emergency at hand are the ones that are also tasked with transporting and evacuating the medical population. And, yeah.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: On that, thank you so much for bringing this up. This is not really something that I've given a lot of thought about. But it sounds like, of course, you would like to be able to bring these folks to wherever they need to go, but you don't have the resources to do that in a state the size of Vermont. So what happens now to somebody whose power has gone out and they have a medical device that they need to live and they need power, and you get called? What is your best case scenario?

[Drew Hazleton]: So, in our area, we do have a list of people, much like this would prohibit. And we actually have standby generators that we, deploy directly to houses, that we know have critical needs. And then we fuel those over a period of time. Now, not every area has that capacity. And should we not be able to support those people, it's a matter of trying to drag together enough resources to transport them to some place. For us, quite often, that's the local emergency department because their medical equipment may not be portable. For example,

[Chief Bill Lovett]: I'm out.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: I'm just seeing it for a second. Have to quit.

[Drew Hazleton]: Yep. Alright.