Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Very quickly, there was a minute. They came off yesterday as far as an effective date for this bill to allow agencies to have time to update forms that provide for swearing only to have swearing or affirming or sworn or affirmation. I reached out to the Secretary of State's office to Secretary of State, Sarah Kobel, Kansas and her deputy. Is that I think Lauren? Yep. And they did say that, yes, they thought that some more time, like six months after passage that would be appropriate times. So to do that or to do this, we are suggesting in the amendment that Jen sent to us is on your desk today, a 01/01/2027 effective date. And I did confirm that that was an appropriate date. I can't find your email, but it should be on or will be on soon, right, as far as from the exchange that I had with them. I think it just says six months in there, but I actually ran into Lauren Gibbards on the street. And I said, we're gonna go on January 1, okay? And she said, yes. There we are. So that's the only thing we have as far as the amendment, but I just want Jen to hear in case there were any final questions for Jen. Well, seeing questions. Yeah, go ahead.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So just for clarification, we're basically already doing this in a large 80% or something like that at the time anyway, right? 90%, right? I mean, this isn't even a fiftyfifty issue.

[John Carpenter (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: John Carpenter from the Office of Legislative Council, because of the language in Title I, we're effectively already doing this anyway. It is just not stated explicitly in each statute that allows for or calls for an oath or swearing. This is adding that language in each place in the statutes, even though we already have that that prior code in Title I.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: It

[John Carpenter (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: is making a change to the surgeons.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Thank you. Do you have questions? So I'll take a motion to Oh yeah, quite down.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I was doing something else. Thought you'd read it.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Is there is there a procedure when when someone is going

[Unidentified Committee Member]: to be fired to actually permanent wearing where they are at if they have a preference?

[John Carpenter (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Think it depends on the situation. So I think sometimes sometimes yes. Think sometimes the the practical effect is do you swear or affirm? And Christian says yes.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Well, the reason I ask is that many of the courts have just been having people affirm and not been on.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah, I mean it's in our statutes that's saying we're not taking swear out from anywhere. We're just adding the firm. And we can look for future, are there any places where it just says a firm it doesn't say swear? Well. And that would be a bill that we can have them work on, but I don't know that that's the case. Well, asked the question in

[Unidentified Committee Member]: the courtroom, and I was told, well, this is the way we have to do it now. They don't keep the other.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: That may be a court rule. That's almost certainly a court rule, not statute.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Or I

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: don't even know if it's a court rule, if it's just like the procedure they use. Wouldn't they just follow what

[Unidentified Committee Member]: the state of Vermont recognizes?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: It's the tradition. We can look into it, we can ask Judge Loni about that.

[John Carpenter (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I do think at least some of the corporals, I believe, do use both swear and affirm. That's

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: not

[John Carpenter (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the way it's been operational, it's not easy. Implementation issue. Right,

[Unidentified Committee Member]: so how does that get fixed? Because it should be that way.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: You should have your Yeah, you should have your choice, which is interesting. I don't think that that's dealing with Title I through 10.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I believe, and I can try to recite it, I've heard it so many times, think they say, Do you solemnly swear under the pains and penalties of perjury to tell the truth?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. Tell the truth and nothing but the truth. That's swearing. Solemnly swear doesn't sound like they're saying the firm. And they're adding the pains of perjury, but that applies to either an oath or an affirmation. Either way. They're so healthy,

[Unidentified Committee Member]: but not ill. That's what people might do.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I don't think that that's generally used anymore, including Well, got away from it indefinitely, but I'm just wondering if

[Unidentified Committee Member]: well, our constitution allows for that.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Or swearing or affirming. But I don't think constitution says swearing, so help me God. I don't think it's so help me God language that's not there. That's understood. That is to a higher power.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: You good? I'm good.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I'll take a motion to first of all Is it affirm? How long has it been? Approved? That's the word I'm looking for. Affirm. I see why I have an affirm in my hand. A motion to approve the amendment draft number 2.1 to h 28, seven forty four a. We're just Just on the amendment. Just on the the the date change. Well, amendment is more than a date change. It it as Jen explained yesterday, it's it's because some statutes in the interim have changed.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: So this is the motion on draft 2.1?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yes. Yeah, just the amendment. And then once we vote on this, we'll vote on age 28 as amended. So there's two votes. I will make the motion. Any seconds? Second. Any discussion? Yeah, one question I think for you, Mr. Chair.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: People have concerns with the bill that in the future, you know, the swearing option could be eliminated and and it's just not in this room that people have concerns and I think that somebody has a concern. It deserves to be addressed and so what I want to ask you is, is there any intent going forward, any intent in the future to eliminate the swearing part of the oath? By and then I'm gonna say by this committee because we can't speak for Right. You know, I was

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: gonna say I was gonna say that we can't We can't speak for the legislature. But as

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: far as this committee is concerned, is there is there any intent to

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: do that? There's no intent, and and I won't take up a bill as long as I'm the chair to to do that. I I'm certainly willing to take up a bill if there is a bill in the future that if there is any place where it just says affirm to add oath and swearing, either way is fine. It's just my understanding that that wasn't an issue. But in the future, I'm happy to take that off. Any other discussion on the amendment? Not seeing any. We can just do a voice vote on the amendment, and then we'll do a roll call on the is that right? Am I right about that? I can just do a voice vote on the amendment.

[John Carpenter (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Don't know. The first time, it's right.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: I'm so

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: sure that is in fact the case, but I figured I might as well ask the legislative council. All those in favor of approving draft number 2.1, H-twenty eight, the amendment say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay, moving on to H-twenty eight as amended, I would take motion to approve age 28 as amended. So moved. Second. Second. Okay, any discussion on that? All right, I don't know if the clerk could call the vote. Arsenault. Yes.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Dolan? Yes. Yes. Alright, yeah. Harvey?

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Yes. Malay? Yes. Oliver? Yes.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Rachelson? Yes. Let's see. Burditt? Yes. Malay?

[Alicia Malay (Member)]: Yes. Thomas agreed this time has agreed to a report bill. I would have been happy to, but I'm not going be here for the third reading. All right, thank you very much again for being here. Thank you all for bringing the chance to be done.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: And we're going to move on to H409, but we need to let's see if we can get Zonase and Zonase available. He's gonna be zooming in for a while. In fact, he had a physical therapy for a time that I had scheduled for being able

[John Carpenter (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: schedule. We live?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yes. Oh, Yeah, sorry. We're live. Sorry about that, Kafya.