Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Alright. We are live. Alright. Thank you, everyone. We are back. We're left 2PM, and we have with us legislative council, working putting more time in our,

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: on the bus emergency response bill.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: And there were some questions that came up going through the work we did yesterday. So we are here

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: to kind of like dive into those curiosities. With legal perspective and analysis. Good afternoon, Tucker Anderson, legislative counsel here to bring legal perspective and analysis. So the committee had teed up two primary questions that I'm happy to answer. And if there are any other questions that have come up since yesterday about draft 2.3 of the committee's omnibus emergency management bill, I'm happy to at least attempt to answer them. So the first question that came up was there was some confusion about my testimony related to the disability registries and what some of the legal issues that I was attempting to flag for you. So, as initially proposed in the short form in H-nine zero one, there was a proposal to require rules to be adopted at the state level for evacuation procedures of certain housing units. And then the term was just broadly used high rises. And that system of rules would replace the current practice of using disability registries in order to identify individuals who might need assistance during emergency response or evacuation. The high rise rules and evacuation plan rules didn't make it into the bill, but the prohibition of the disability registries did. And the issue that I was flagging is that this is the removal of a current practice without a replacement to assist those individuals during a time of evacuation. So I was trying to tee that up as this might be more of an either or situation, either don't proceed at all with the plan or use both or some other replacement for the disability registry. But there might be unintended consequences, people who need these plans in place, if you remove the disability registries but don't replace it with another system.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Rep, can go back to Christine?

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. Not a question, but a comment. So the original bill, nine zero one, had the high rise rules and the evacuation rules for a certain number of housing units. And that was very prescriptive. And we heard that that might not always be achievable in an emergency situation in some municipalities. And then we left in, and I think it's inadvertent that we did that, the prohibition, the disallowing, I should say, of the registries. Because we heard today, and I'm not sure if you are aware of the testimony we heard today from the U911 board about the chair program. And that, in all appearances, is a registry, and it appears to be working well for the 400 individuals who are currently registered. And it also appears that they want to do more outreach to build that registry, so it includes more individuals. They just need to work on their outreach and their advocacy for that. So if we were to remove this section eight on page starting at the bottom of page 13, section eight, the prohibition of certain disability registries, would we then have a compliant piece of legislation that didn't conflict with other pieces of it?

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Yes. Okay.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: So thank you for that. I'll let you go on to the next question, I guess.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Yeah, that clarified that because

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I knew that there was some concerns about how those get.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: So, that's why we invited Clark Neal in to talk about that screening. Yes, and I

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: was asked for that comment. Thank you very much. So

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: basically, if we're going take this out, we really need to find something to replace it with. We don't have to. It's not a have to. No, but I have a problem, then I don't want to what's the word I want I don't want to discriminate against those who have those disabilities and can't get out of I don't know how you can say that we don't care about disability rights, that's what I'm saying, by taking it out. So I can sort of take that out, are we just tossing them aside after listening to the testimony this morning about how many constraints they have already placed on them? So I don't know, or do we put something in there referring to the care? Oh, the care program? The care program. Is it okay to name a program where individuals self report and encourage that self reporting to the program?

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Yes, but I'd also point out that if you do take Section eight out in its entirety, the CARE program will continue to exist. So you're taking something out of the bill, but that section is a prohibition on a current practice for using.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: We can't really leave it in because it would prohibit the care program from operating, reference and all. Oh, gotcha. Okay. Yeah. But we could make a reference somewhere in the bill to the CARE program, and the fact that it is self reporting and that first responders and town emergency managers could I'm not going to say shall but could avail themselves of that registry so that they would know which individuals in their town would need assistance in an emergency. Because that information can legally be released to town emergency managers and first responders.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: And EMS. You're going from the shall to the May, in the legal sort

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: of sense? Not sure, it's up to the committee. Well, just as

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: far as what you're talking, you're making it like,

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: it's the ability to, it's like enabling, it's not.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Any bullying. But is it, should it then be the responsibility of the local EMS and fire departments to have to go after that registry? Or should it be the opposite direction that those with disabilities should be shall or should or may contact the local to let them know. Don't think you can force an individual person to do anything. They are not being obligated to report themselves to a registry or to their local emergency. But we also, at the same time, don't want to make it force that the local EMS, whatever, have to look for that registry. So that's We could ask the local town emergency managers and first responders to look at the registry to ask if there's anybody in their town. They would have to do that on a regular basis, though, because people move in and out. So I don't know how that would work to require them. I think it would be helpful for the care program to do more outreach. And they said they're working on that, so maybe we give them a chance to do more work on awareness.

[VL Coffin IV (Member)]: Rep Coffin? Just this is more commentary, I don't know if there's anything that would stop someone from voluntarily going to their local volunteer fire department, reaching out to their local volunteer fire department saying, if there's an emergency, I'm going to need this kind of help to let them know without it actually being a registry, but them saying, hey. I just moved here, you know, or a family member saying we just moved here, and we have these needs in case of a major emergency or

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: a

[VL Coffin IV (Member)]: fire at our place or

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: And I would imagine that some folks do that since there are only 400 people approximately on this registry right now who have self reported. There might be others who have gone to people in their small towns and said, hey, you know that I have poor eyesight, or I have poor hearing, or whatever, or I need assistance getting out of my building. There's something happening. So that probably already happens organically. Something

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: that I would note

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: is discussion the committee is having right now is verbatim the description of the program that already exists. Oh, okay. So you've got a registry. People can add their details and information to the registry, and it is available to all first responders who might be called in for a number of emergency responses at that individual's address. And it allows the first responder to access whatever special accommodations or needs information has been added to the registry for that registering time.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. I do want to

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: be mindful of this time. Council's time, we are at seventeen minutes with counsel.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Please proceed, sir. All right. The second big question, second and last was, are there existing statutes that protect law enforcement officers from obstructive conduct or conduct that impedes the exercise of their legal duties. There are, in fact, some existing protections in place. So I'll cover them at the high level overview, flag the standards that are used and the criminal penalties that are associated with the conduct. I am aware of five Title 13 statutes that relate to this. So the first is assault of a protected professional, and that is a person convicted of a simple or aggravated assault against a protected professional. While the protected professional is performing a lawful duty or with the intent to prevent that professional from performing a lawful duty, the penalties are imprisonment for not more than one year, and then for second or subsequent offense is imprisonment of not more than ten years. Within the definition of protected professional, have law enforcement officers, firefighters, healthcare workers. So that covers the first responders that are covered under the proposal in your bill. That is in 13 BSA section ten twenty eight. 13 VSA ten thirty one, interference with access to emergency services. A person who during or after the commission of a crime. So there is a specific proviso there. So another crime is being either committed or has just been committed. Willfully there is your standard prevents or attempts to prevent a person from seeking or receiving emergency medical assistance, emergency assistance from a third party or emergency assistance from a law enforcement officer shall be imprisoned not more than one year or fined not more than $5,000 or both. 13 VSA section 17 o two, criminal threatening. A person shall not by words or conduct knowingly, there's the standard, threaten another person or a group of persons, and as a result of the threat, place the person in reasonable apprehension of death, serious bodily injury, or sexual assault. Person who violates that shall be imprisoned not more than one year or fined not more than $1,000 or both. And there is the express application of this to public servants, including law enforcement officers. 13 VSA section 3,001, impeding public officers. A person who hinders an executive, judicial, law enforcement, civil, or military officer, so brings in the National Guard there as well, acting under the authority of the state or who removes a weapon from the person of a law enforcement officer, shall be imprisoned not more than three years or fined not more than $500 or both. And then finally, hindering an arrest. A person who intentionally hinders an arrest of another, which is being affected or attempted by a law enforcement officer when it would reasonably appear that the latter is a law enforcement officer shall, for the first offense, be imprisoned not more than one year or fined not more than $500 or both, and for second and subsequent offenses, imprisonment of two years and a fine of $1,000 So moving through each of those, they don't universally apply to first responders in each instance. You'll note that for each one of those, law enforcement officers are bundled within the defined officers that are covered by the statute. The fire personnel and EMS are not included universally in all of these. And there's variation in the type of duty that's being carried out and also in the standard that is applied to the individual's conduct it is being deemed criminal by the statute. And I'm happy to kind of maybe flag the Venn diagram of conduct that's covered here so that you understand what exists in current law versus what is being proposed in H six ninety seven and the version of H six ninety seven that is currently contained within draft 2.3. Okay. That's up. Maybe, yeah, to

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: put all those pieces together on the overlay. Yeah.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: No. Yes. We have water.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: It's possible in theory to add EMS and fire rescue people to those other, you know, to already existing.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Statutes to some extent. But again, because some of these statutes apply to specific duties such as arrest, it wouldn't apply to some officers because they don't perform arrests. But yes, in theory, it is possible to include first responders broadly in some of these. Some, not all.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Brett Hango. Question for you. Would that be something that you would be interested in trying to do with this bill? For Tucker, is this something we could do with this bill?

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: So, something that I'll note about each of these statutes as well is that the type of conduct doesn't extend to the scope of what you were considering in draft 2.3, largely because the ones that are universally applicable are typically dealing with, criminal threats or assault And don't cover conduct that merely impedes the exercise of the duty, which might be, for example, providing CPR or whatever the situation may be that an EMS professional is providing. And some of them are contingent on the commission of other crimes. So, right, there was that one that I flagged at the verbezo is that this crime in 13 BSA ten thirty one, interference with access to emergency services, applies if the person is actively committing another crime or has just committed a crime. It doesn't protect the professional or the person who's seeking medical assistance if no other crime has been committed. So maybe it would be helpful if I did map this out for the committee so that you could take a look at what already exists and understand the officers, the conduct, and scope.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay. Rev Nugent, we are at four minutes with Castle.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: All right. I

[Kate Nugent (Member)]: was just curious, yeah, just to confirm that you said so it's not illegal currently to impede someone who's doing those other types of services for somebody like giving CPR?

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: As long as you don't hit some of these other criminal thresholds that exist, I was not able to find it in the time I was able to commit to the research. I did reach out to some others and confirm that I had captured the limited universe that exists. My other question might be more of a research question, but

[Kate Nugent (Member)]: I was just aware of similar issues with airline staff, for example. There's a lot of aggression and assaults happening. So I think Congress passed a law recently, or last year, that gave airline staff more authority to try to deal with similar issues. So I was wondering if we had looked at that or if there's anything we could draw from that, that

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: would be helpful. I can certainly take that. I remember you bringing that up yesterday while I was listening on YouTube, I think.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: To answer Robert Hengo's question, my concern not that I feel like it should be okay to impede people from their rescue activities or that it's okay to assault people. I had to wish I had known that Tucker was just going to come do all this because I wrote it all down this afternoon. I was looking through them all myself. I am and. It's it's the preventing people from limiting the distance that they can get is is really the sticking point for me. It's not that I think it should be Okay to jump on someone's back and they're trying to give someone CPR. And I think that if there isn't a law that specifically prevents that, then that is a preferred avenue for me, even if it's not in this bill necessarily. But I would rather see this come out of this bill. And then we commit to working on it in upcoming years to make sure or talk to someone in judiciary and see if that maybe that's a more appropriate place for maybe for it to be worked on. I just I am so as you do, being bothered by limiting people's access in any way. 25 feet or zero feet, even if people are saying that I heard people yesterday saying, well, it's not meant to target journalists, but I think we often see that. That when even if a lie isn't meant to do something, it can allow other things to happen that aren't desirable. And for me, preventing journalists from doing their work is just a full stop. So if there were other avenues to pursue to make it possible to make it against the law like some of the things folks mentioned yesterday is unfortunate, but it's, I believe, already illegal to hold a gun to someone's head. So some of those things, it seems like if it's already against the law, then you're not going to be like, I know it's against that. I'll hold a gun to someone's head. Oh, but wait, I'm also not supposed to be within 25 feet of this. So wait, I'm not going to go do that. Like, I don't think that's really going to be if it's already an illegal activity. I don't think adding another law to it is going to make it not happen. So I would I would rather pursue it from any literally any other avenue I'm open to. But then adding that distance there and preventing people from doing their jobs as journalists and protecting our First Amendment is just like a full no go. Thank

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: you. So if we removed that 25 foot clause, and we defined what behavior would trigger a violation. Because we heard from just about everybody yesterday that journalists and the media are not the problem. So, the problem, and I think Commissioner Morrison said it very clearly, the problem is when somebody does something that impedes. So if we can define what people are doing to impede or obstruct and go from there and remove the 25 foot barrier.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I would rather remove the entire bill. I'm offering a compromise. Yes.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: So if you can think about that, if he needs to leave, so we'll just let you know how that goes.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I got a hand from Coffin. You have thirty eight seconds, sir.

[VL Coffin IV (Member)]: Okay. So quickly. Sort of like what Brett Hango said, if it was stated in B, it's unlawful for an individual to intentionally engage in any of the following conduct during a public safety emergency. And that removes that distance. And I know there'll need to be more language, but it removes the distance. But also in this, where it says shall be imprisoned, we could change that to maybe, and that gives prosecutor prosecutor the options. And it's also with the sixty days of no more than sixty days is a lesser charge, the lesser time than all the other statutes we heard that go up a year or two. Okay. And that's time with counsel. You're early, sir.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Thank you, Tyler. Thank you all. Alright.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: So I have one problem. That

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: a Tucker or

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Nope.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Oh, no. That is a Tucker. Okay. Yes.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Actually, have two things. Okay. So one of the things I wanted to correct something that I said yesterday when we were talking to, or maybe, no, sorry, it was this morning when we were talking to Barb Neale and I said rounded figures or round numbers for the budget process. That is not coming from downstairs from house appropriations. It's more like I should have said ballpark numbers rather than rounding, because downstairs they want specifics. But for this particular case, because the money was previously appropriated in a previous biennium, they already have the money. So it's not something that house appropriations has to give them above and beyond what they're already giving folks right now in the current budget they're working on. So hopefully that clears that up. And I had a second thing. I had asked Tucker the question about it had come up yesterday, I think, in his testimony to us about the unincorporated gores and municipalities, town fire wardens. That's probably something that we'll have to get ironed out in the Senate, except he did not have time to address that today. So, I will ask him again, and we'll go from there. Because I think we'll have Chalker back in with us tomorrow.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Yes. Is part

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: of our agenda planning process, once we go off. So for those of you who have bills moving, just we know we got some updates on regional planning governance and OPR were voted out. We know those things are in the pipeline. Representative Boyden, you have a bill on the floor today. We are going to do agenda planning once we sign off now to start dialing in tomorrow. And then I had a boss to have my phone in my hand in a private place to have a conversation at 03:15 before I have speakers conversation. I'm sorry, 03:00 phone call, 03:15 speaker, you get to the floor behind 03:30.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: In regards to since Friday, we reached compromise regarding Section B of this bill that we just listened to, is there any way that we could somehow worded that news reporters whatever or would not be part of that?

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Yes, Rebecca.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: It could turn into an issue because we would be carving out for a very specific group of individuals and we would have to very specifically define them. We've investigated that possibility already and counsel advises that that is a slippery way to go. Okay.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: And I think there was

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: a previous bill where we tried to look at a definition within that. I think that was missing if I remember correctly.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: We define it in the when the last session when we were doing that, what was it, two forty four journalism one? But that was we were defining what local news was. We were defining what a journalist was. We worked on it a

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: little bit.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Said I had that in my ear, but then it was like the bienniums past or coming up. It might have been before you were here that it was sticky.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Just remember it being a conversation of why it was

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: difficult to do, especially now with the prevalence of data. So like a credentialed journalist isn't exactly as like a narrowed scope as it gets feedback in the pre digital space. But with that, I'm going to take us offline now as to agenda planning. Yes.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I just wanted to tell everybody one thing first. We got an email at 08:41 that animal welfare is going to be on the floor on Friday.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay. Yes. I see. It stops moving.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: It kind of weighs and means unanimously. Right?

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: It's stuff is moving. Good work. She does. The boat is in the right direction right now. Well done.

[Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel]: Okay. Alright. Take us off. We're gonna

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: do a little