Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: Welcome back to the House Judiciary Committee this Thursday afternoon, January twenty ninth. And we're going to continue taking testimony on H578. And we are lucky to have Elise Bailot, the Director of Welfare, back to talk with us, if you could join us. Thank you again for being here. I appreciate your help with this bill.

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: I appreciate the invitation. I am going have Matt pop open, if that is Okay, because I don't have anything printed. Absolutely. I'm Alicia Malay, I'm the Director of Animal Welfare for the state of Vermont, and I'm very happy to be here with you all today to talk about the revisions to H578. I know that you guys have been putting a lot of time into this, and so I'm going to try and be fairly concise, but definitely ask me questions, let me know how I can help you.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: And

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: so I can go through some of my line item thoughts on the bill. But there's two big picture things that came up this morning that I just wanted to lay out, because I think there are tensions and there are policy questions that are for you all to decide. And I think that you're grappling with the right things as a law professor and as a animal welfare expert. I think a lot of this is difficult. One of the things that I heard you asking about is the tension between having the ability to care for your animal and being allowed to keep your ant. Because those things work together. Having an animal, of course, is a choice, and there are costs, necessary costs that come along with that. But at the same time, we don't want to say that just because you don't have many assets, you can't have an animal. And so one of the things I heard questions about is, how do you deal with the fact that where an owner cannot pay for the cost of care for their animal, somebody is going to lose out? Because it's going to be the vet who provided the care and can't collect from an owner. It's going to be the humane society that has been providing care for the animal, and now is not getting reimbursed. Or it's going to be a municipality who is responsible for putting up that animal and isn't going to get the money back. These are all tensions, and I have to say, every state struggles with them. The cost of care bills are intended to try to put the burden on the owner to the extent that is possible, and to the extent someone cannot pay for the cost of the care for their animal, to strip title, so that they no longer can have that animal cruelty. The animal cruelty law itself sets up an obligation to pay for food for your animal and to pay for necessary vet care for your animal. You are committing cruelty if you do not do those things. And so that is the core part of the security under this bill, would be requiring you to pay for these things that cruelty law already requires you to pay for. And so when you say that that is possible to be waived, you're saying that the person doesn't have to comply with the basic care obligations for their animal. So that's just something to keep in mind when you're balancing these things. We're not saying that with the security, it wouldn't be a question of putting in for boarding, or for things you might not have to pay if they were in your house. It's simply putting in money to pay for food and for necessary medical care. And so to the extent a judiciary is saying, Owner, you don't need to do that. It's basically saying that you don't have to provide non full care for your animal, and it is putting that burden on somebody else. Somebody else is necessarily paying those amounts, and there's no fund for that. The animal welfare fund, for example, where payments are coming through, has no excess funds and actually will be in the negative come this summer unless other funding mechanisms for its current obligations are identified. So I just want to put that out there, and this is all tied in with your due process discussion.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: That's a good question. Yeah.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: Thank you, because I appreciate you bringing it up, but I hadn't thought through that. And as you're saying it, it's making me think, yes, I get that that is something that's needed is to pay for food and for the animal care. I feel like the original owner could say, Well, I could get the food from some other means, or I could get it at a lower price, or I barter for it, which is very different than this sum of money right at that moment. So I just hear that and I feel like there's room for navigating that. It could be the other side of it.

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: I think that's right. They could be going to a pet food pantry, for example, for the food. It might be though that necessary vet care is something that you don't want to allow to be waived. If somebody's dog, for example, has a broken leg, they are obligated to get vet care, to surrender that animal, or they are in violation of criminal law. It might be that one way to think about this, and once again you need to decide what you want to do, is to say that the judge can waive the food part. So where the animal doesn't need vet care, you can waive the entire security. But where there's necessary vet care, being able to pay some amount in. And I don't mean the normal cruelty exam. That's not necessarily necessary vet care. But where there's therapeutic needs of the animal, and that's part of it, it might be that you want to parse through how much of it is waivable. It could be that you decide that these things are better borne by a nonprofit or by a municipality, and we would rather put the burden on them. And that is perfectly that's your choice. But I just wanted to make sure that those elements were thought through, but I think that's a really

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: And I good just appreciate the message that we're talking about animal cruelty, but then we're saying, but in some cases, it's okay if you don't hatch. So I appreciate that, and I just wanna broaden it that there can be different ways people can get the food and services. Yeah. No, especially with the food. I mean, there's great organizations to help with that. And so you're necessary about carrots. It's little

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: bit harder to say there are ways around that.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: I understand question. So I was wondering the same thing because I know that even some places where you board your dog, they say, Bring the food. So I don't know if one option, and I'm sure it's very different for horses or cows, but for cats, it's like, Here's the food I bought for my cat this month. I'm sending that along because I would take my money out for that, which I don't know if that would be allowed with our legislation. And then I'm thinking about the situations where were saying necessary medical care, and it might be because they have not been feeding their cat. And for whatever reason, neglect cruelty, in which case it seems that can't Returning your pet, if you're not going to be able to feed it, is going to be an issue. Again, in the child abuse situation for neglect, we would try to connect them with resources and see if, can we work it out so that this is temporary and we don't have to re home their child because you can't feed them. I'm just wondering if you think this bill allows for somebody, and again, I don't know if that's a weird situation to send the food along, if that's an option. Like, I feed my dog Science Guide every day, and I don't know what the caregiver is going to do, but it's probably better for the pet to

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: It depends, is the answer, because the truth is it's to be a higher burden for the caregiver, because now they have to have this outside food and store it in some place. For example, rodent free storage in a place that already has stock food, probably. So you're creating a fire burden on a caregiver. So with respect to the food, think it makes sense probably that that could be something that I just want to push back just on the medical care, though. I think that is worth thinking through whether you want both of those waivable or only one element. There will be cases that don't have necessary medical care. For example, if they're being seized for conditions, animals that are being housed outdoors right now, without appropriate shelter, without insulated or heated shelter, that animal is not going to have necessary They're going to need a cruelty exam, but that's not medical, that's not therapeutic care. So in that case, maybe waiving whole security makes sense. It's only about food, and maybe they could have gotten it elsewhere if they have indigency issues. But if that animal has a broken leg, that seems like a different category, and it's also a different quantity of expense for the caregiver. Because generally, the vets are not going to bill that owner individually, because they're not going to get paid. So that vet will stop working with the impounding organization if the vet is told, bill the owner, because every one of those is going into default.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: And is necessary vet care pretty clear? Because as a pet owner, my cat had a tennis elbow, and my vet was like, We should x-ray her, but I felt it and I don't think it's broken. I'm like, Well, what will we do if we have an x-ray? And she said, Well, probably nothing. I mean, she didn't Yeah. Right. So it's like, Well, am I denying necessary care to my cat if I'm not getting an x-ray right away? Well, we can find it

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: as a drafting question because the language in the cruelty statute, I had to look back at it, is not exactly necessary, Karen. And there's case law on what would be required as opposed to what's discretionary. And so I think that's a drafting question, but I think that that could be effectively drafted. Because I feel very strongly that, that things like the cruelty exam should not be billed through to the person until we get to the criminal conviction stage. So think drafting that language is both doable, and there's examples out there of what that is, since there are legal requirements and would be important. Especially to have owners too, to

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: know when they're like, I don't want to neglect my pet. I

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: agree. Think these are all really hard questions also, right? Because of the human animal bond and the fact that animals can't talk, so we don't know about suffering. There's a lot of nuances here that I think you guys have important decisions to make about it. And all of this is tied into the due process. Could you tell

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: me where the labored part is in the appeal? Are you able to point out where For it would

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: each '24, March. You.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: Waived by the court, okay, on the basis of financial hardship, but this is where we We would could distinguish,

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: we could leave it like this.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: Can I just ask just to make sure I'm understanding the level of exposure of the caregivers as well? So the way this is set up now is that with the change to fourteen days that we talked about this morning, is that an animal is seized and their service hopefully at the same time, but the service is tied to the fourteen days. So in fourteen days, the person will often from your experience in Minnesota, from what I understood, won't bother to contest. And so that's taking care of things because they can dispose of the animal one way or another, adoption, whatever. But they do have to put

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: the money in Minnesota. There's no waiver possible in Minnesota of the amount in order

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: to In Minnesota. Yeah. No, I understood that. So if they do want to contest it within fourteen days, they get a hold of court. And then thirty days, they have the hearing. And that's a hearing to determine if the animal is going to be forfeited. And then you look with that at that hearing within thirty days, hopefully sooner than thirty days. The state actually has lower burden of proof as well preponderance of evidence that the animal subject to cruelty. Right. And presumably if they're unable to meet that burden, the animal goes back, there's probably not going be a criminal case because you haven't even been able to meet preponderance of the evidence if it's over. Or they do meet it, and so there's really just like a forty five day best case scenario. Maybe that's not the case. Oh, I'm gonna say worst case. Worst case scenario, I should say, the thirty days to forty days. Worst case scenario as far as the exposure. And my understanding that right? I know that's still money and it's still cost, but I'm just trying to make sure.

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: With the caveat that it could be slightly worse if there's an appeal, for example. So that's just to get through the trial of the preponderance of the evidence. If the court finds that the state met its burden of proof, then the defendant can still appeal. But it's less likely that's going to happen a lot, and so odds are it's going to be taken care of in fourteen through forty five days.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: And is that that forty fifth day or earlier that the security part of this money would have to be provided? Is that or is that

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: No, for this minimal amount, the food and the necessary vet care amount needs to be paid in the first fourteen days. It's to get that hearing. And part of that's intentional, so that if somebody can't provide that necessary vet care, for example, then they shouldn't get the animal back. And so they default at that point.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: Okay. And I do want to

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: say there was a case, I think it was 1995. Minnesota had an earlier version of the statute they have now that this is modelled on. And in 1995, their statute said that title was forfeited in seven days unless the person put in the actual cost of care, which includes boarding expenses and things like that. There was no provision though for hearing or for explicit notice. And so there was a due process claim brought against Minnesota. Minnesota lost. So they revamped their statute, and their statute they have now is either from 2000 or 2001, and it provides for the ten day default unless the person requests a hearing and puts in the actual cost of care with no waiver. Without the waiver. Yeah, so there's no And there have not been further due process concerns with that statute in the subsequent twenty four, twenty five years. And there are just about every state has some version of cost of care statute where people lose title if they can't put in the money. And there's no pace of finding that those violates be possible. So I just want to put that out there. You've got the judge counsel, who is your counsel. But just on the animal specific point, I think ultimately, the answer is I think it's purely a policy decision for you all, and less of an outside one. So it's about policies you want.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: But you've given us some good nuance as far as they can't pay for at least the veterinarian therapeutic care, the JBT today. Or should they have should it be forfeited right there? But if it's the food,

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: then maybe there's Yeah, then maybe there's good argument that Yeah.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Has the revamped Minnesota law from 2008, 2001 been challenged?

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: I didn't see any evidence of that. I dug through it last night again in just the 1995 or 1998 appeals page, but something is. Alright.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: Go ahead. Okay.

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: Then going through the draft more on a page by page, although I start on page nine, I don't really have much specific before then. I know you guys are dealing with the definitions of cruelty and what exactly counts, I think that think the considerations there, but on page nine, if we look at Cap C I, so for the first violation of section three fifty two, with each of the things in C, I, C, II, C, III, questions whether or not you want to include domiciled with. In the earlier section, I think Phi, you didn't include it here, so I'm just wondering if that's

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: I think we're including that and we're adding the work with. Yeah. Thank you for that.

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: And that would also be page 11EI, page 11d1, and page 13, line seven. And maybe Eric can just do a global find and replace.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: That's just

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: what I noticed there. And then page 10. I'm not seeing the page. Okay. Where it's talking about having reasonable visits in the period after the prohibition period, so when someone's prohibited from having an animal for some period of time, then there are reasonable visits in the year after that to make sure that everything's fine. There should be reasonable visits during the prohibition time as well, if you want that to be enforceable. You've got the great enforcement mechanism, like the SA was saying. And I have to look back at the number because it doesn't match up with what's on my screen right now. And you might want to consider on page 10, section F, which is the prohibited from working with, in addition to the point about for profit businesses, you might want to include volunteering for these ones, just because human societies and rescue groups aren't running background checks regularly, and so if it gets caught, it would be nice to have recourse. And this is a point from last time on page 12. If we look at 3C, in determining whether to approve a petition to remove the disability. And maybe it should be whether the person successfully completed an animal tool supervision. I know that that got picked up from earlier, but I just wanted to flag that.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: Can we back up for a second as well? I'm exactly page 10 at the top as far as the visits. State's Attorney Brown raised the issue of whether or how that could be enforceable. Do you have any opinion on that part?

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: I would defer to him. I'm happy to think about it. But in terms of the mechanics of the criminal law enforcement, I suspect the essays.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: Yeah, just wondered from other people. I can look at that. Okay, thanks.

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: So page 14, line five. This is a point that was flagged by investigators for me. It's talking about which animals can be seized.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: As part

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: of Sorry, page 14, line five. That tells us that any humane officer may enforce this chapter as part of an enforcement action. A humane officer may seize an animal being fully treated in violation of this chapter. Being fully treated is a legal conclusion, and we don't know that they're fully treated until we get to court and we determine that they were fully treated. And so one option that you might want to consider, and there would probably be others, would be instead having language of something like sees an animal as part of an investigation into a violation of this title. And I'm saying violation of this title, not the cruelty statute, because there are actually other crimes against animals in the title. So having it be slightly looser because it's part of the investigation, and not having this legal conclusion of bullet treatment. What's that language again? About Seize an animal as part of an investigation. Seize as in SEIZ. Yeah, SEIZE. An animal as part of an investigation into a violation of this title. Part of this title,

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: or did you is that what you said?

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: In violation of this title. In the as part of an investigation into a violation. So the investigation triggers the right, and they're gonna have a search warrant or they're gonna have exigent circumstances.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: You have a question?

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Yeah. But isn't the seizure for the purpose of relinquishing, taking ownership of the animal because of the cruelty? And that's why we're working on trying to expedite this process. If it's more of like seizure for investigatory, can we already do that? Can we just seize animals in the sense that they are evidence in a separate process. I guess I'm just merging them in sort of like an investigatory tool. Kind of we're going down a path of a procedure here after that that's all about taking the animal because it's been poorly treated. And that's why we're trying to move this more quickly. So, we're kind of shifting that from the animals poorly treated to we just need to seize this animal because we're doing an investigation. Then why should we have such a fast process

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: beyond the suit? Right, right. So another option is to, I think, get at both these things is why can't it be I think you get the legal determination because you say in violation of this chapter. I mean, isn't there some common sense of an animal being cruelly treated? In other words, just have it as part of an enforcement action, a human officer may seize an animal being cruelly treated, period.

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: Well, part of the problem is you're not sure at the moment of seizing. So Lee Lee is an example of somebody who has two dogs, and the person beats one of them up, and that's known. Then officer intervenes and wants to seize animals, but he can only Under this, he can only seize the one that is currently being beaten up. He can't seize the other one to see if it's got contingents. Or in a case with a horse, it was a There's the horses One horse seized was because Well, they had to determine on the ground that, by a very high standard of proof, that each of these animals being seized was being fully treated, but there were other animals that there were visible signs of severe neglect, they weren't sure it would rise to cruelty treated, so they couldn't seize those because of this language. So that's what's been flagged for me by the investigators and their concern about right now they feel constrained to only take the animal, for example, with the open wounds, Not the one that, with a husky, you're not going to know if it has any problems until you shave it.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: Right.

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: So this isn't an emergency seizure? This includes search warrant seizure. It includes voluntary surrender, which doesn't matter. But two is for search and seizure using a search warrant.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: So that's not an emergency seizure. Level b at line three to five. What kind of seizure is that? Is that a seizure without a warrant?

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: That's sort of just establishing the different types. Search and seizure, using a search warrant, search and seizure, without a search warrant voluntary surrender, right?

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: Yes. Seems different. I mean, it's a warrant if it's like an emergency seizure, that seems odd to say that it's as part of an investigation into, like, the lines that you have to say. And so I guess the questions I have for our council as well is where do we start running to due process concerns if we have an enforcement where there's a reasonable cause to believe that an animal is being poorly treated, or something along those lines. That could work, too. Reasonable cause to believe an animal

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: is part of it is the was. There has to be a what. Like the person's not physically beaten at this moment, but was five minutes ago. Right? Or is in threat of.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: I mean, we can play with that language. Yeah,

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: I think that's great, and I think your counsel can probably come up with better language than I am. But it's the concept of investigators want the ability to seize more than just the animal that they can say unequivocally was fully treated, because this is an investigation into a crime that's a little bit broader than. And then we take care it on the other end by saying, If there was no probable cause seize that animal, you're getting whatever security you put in back, and you're getting the animal. But

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: we're in the civil. Aren't we in civil seizure here?

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: No, this is still criminal, and then we go into civil title forfeiture. But this is about the criminal This is 35413 BSA.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Okay, so we're still in

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Okay, so we're all talking about seizing the animal, either emergency or non emergency, in the criminal context.

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: There's no authorization for civil seizure of animals. So, for example, if an animal is outside in this weather, a short coated dog outside in this weather, tethered out, and it's currently 20 degrees, so it's arguable he's not being fully treated at this moment, you would like to seize that animal and say, Let's hold him and make the owner fix circumstances, but let's not hold him out at negative 10 to nine. There's no provision for that, actually. So in my comprehensive plan, I suggest that we look at this and think about what would be helpful in terms of expanding the civil protections the civil ability, so that we can prevent things before they get here. But that's a conversation for a different year. So yeah, this is about criminal seizure, but then we have the civil forfeiture process to strip property title.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Which kind of gets to Tom's point about there basically always going be a criminal with the civil, because if there's no civil I guess I never really understood that complexity of this, that basically the only way you get seizure is through criminal investigation. So you're holding them based on the criminal conduct, but then you can move for the civil forfeiture while you've got them.

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: Yeah, the only impounding for nonfemoral process that I've seen is running at large. Dogs running at large can be impounded, right? And that's not the same sort of process like this, but it doesn't fall under the statute either, and that's only if your jurisdiction has that order.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: At least I can go on for a quick notice.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Sorry, I'm not back.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: Yeah, okay. Yeah, go ahead. Take that. So we're going to work on that, though.

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: Yeah, there's that. I will be interested in seeing what you come up with. Happy item. Then, page 18, line eight. The court shall hold a forfeiture hearing if a request gets made within ten days after the seizure by a person claiming a legal interest in the animal at the time of the seizure. It might be a little bit clearer to specify end payment of the security under the rebate. They have to go ask for the hearing and pay the security, or have it waived under whatever process you're determining for waiver. But instead of just I think that it's a little bit If I was reading this as a layperson, I would think all I have to do is make a request. Then page 19, line five. And this actually should tie in with the point we were just talking about with respect to which animals get seized. It says the state shall have the burden of establishing by preponderance of the evidence the animal was subjected to cruelty, neglect or abandonment in violation of section three fifty two or 352A of this title. I would suggest saying that the animal was subjected to illegal treatment under this title or seized in connection with another animal that has been determined to have been illegally treated under this title. That allow for and that is a call for your part, if a officer is seizing 19 horses, and one of the horses was seized lawfully as part of that. She had a foal that needed to nurse off of her, and the foal was cruelly treated. So the other horse was also But there isn't the evidence that that particular mare was cruelly treated, but she's part of a whole collection that were seized at the same time. Do you want her title to be believed to be forfeited to, or do you want her to have to go back? And so right now she has to go back, and this happened recently. This is a scenario that just happened. She has to go back because if you can't prove that she was subjected to cruelty, but she's going back to a place where there has been repeated rounds of cruelty seizures. And so thanks for you all to decide, and maybe Eric can give you some suggested language, and I'm happy to look at some too, but just how many of the animals are we stripping title to? Just the ones that we can point to and say, You had this particular thing? Or since we're talking about title and discretionary ownership of animals, should it also be the other ones lawfully seized with those animals?

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: And that's just And you're talking about And I apologize. I'm just trying to keep all of these different Having them in two separate courts and two tropics. Because now I'm also realizing that basically we're taking the discretion away a little bit about moving forward with civil forfeiture because you're only doing it through the criminal seizure.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: Well, not necessarily. They may still possess the animals that you've tried to get forfeited. But our whole timeline is kind

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: of built around serving them with notice at the time of seizure on the civil killing. And so basically, we're kind of getting I'm sorry, I'm kind of going off, I'll bring it back. So you're talking about the civil forfeiture of animals outside of the animal that is alleged to have been abused, you want to know whether we want to expand the scope to try to capture those on the civil side.

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: Yeah, if they were lawfully seized as part

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: of the

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: criminal investigation, so they were lawfully seized as part of that and some animal in that bunch, it's been established in the civil case by the promise of the evidence, was poorly treated. Should the other animal seized at the same time also have their titles seized, or should they go back to that person? So yeah, it's a messy process. Different than other things that get seized, right? Because other things can sit in a locker, and you don't have to feed them.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Because then there's probably an argument to be made that, well, if there's a pending criminal charge there where they could be adjudicated and determined guilty and it's their first offense, then the judge has the opportunity to, in our current language, basically has the discretion to determine whether they should be foreclosed from having other animals than just the one that's abused. Preventing criminal preventing them from having animals on the scene. They don't have them anyways, but they never had the opportunity in the criminal court to essentially put on their case and potentially not be found guilty.

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: If in any seizure, I would think not just because

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Or I might not understand that right. Trying to no,

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: hear that.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: I'm trying to kind of

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: Yeah. But I think there's also enough time where a couple of the animals will get seized on day one, and the other ones don't need to be seized as part of the investigation. So all those ones are still with the person. That way the judicial discretion will come in.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: And

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: it's just the ones that are seized. Yes, this does take away that judicial discretion on that end about whether or not the judge decides if they get them back or not. This is answering the question.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: And your experience is that to other animals that are seized, it's because they think they're being abused and they want to make a determination.

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: Yeah, so it's the ones that are borderline, where they don't see the open wounds, they don't see the clear starvation. With long haired dogs or with goats and things like that with their winter coats, you don't know on scene, because you have to shave them in order to know what's going on with their skin.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Typically,

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: not every animal in a home is seized. It's the ones that have clear signs plus the borderline. Okay. But it's a policy question. How broad do you go with the protection of the animal? Or how much do you focus on keeping property with a person? And what's a policy?

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: In your experience, you said, well, the way it is now, they only take the animal that's obviously being abused. In your experience, when people have multiple animals, is it common for only one animal to be abused?

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: It depends on the form of abuse. We see it's like with children. So sometimes there are cases definitely where somebody chooses one of their animals to abuse and not the others. And I've had cases where one dog was starved, there was dog food in the house, the other dogs are healthy. But then in other cases where it's anger issues, a lot of the issues with animal cruelty are around anger issues, drug dependency, other mental illness issues ultimately, right? And in that case, all of the animals generally have some level of abuse. It just depends on which one has gotten it in this instance. So

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: It depends. Okay.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Ian? I just want to explore this very briefly a little longer. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, so let's just use your hypothetical. We got three sheep dogs. One sheep dog, open wounds, easy to tell, poorly treated. Other two, suspicion, not entirely sure. We seize all three of them under just human officer may seize animal being cruelly treated. We've got suspicion, so we've seen all three of them. Now, ten day time period's running. Defendant or in this case respondent says, I want this hearing. So the hearing's done. Other two sheepdogs are shaved. One has wounds. There's now an argument to be made that this other animal is clearly treated. Third sheepdog, no wounds. Totally fine. Then wouldn't it just be basically at the hearing? Either there's a negotiated resolution where two of the dogs are seized and the third dog, which there's no signs of abuse, is relinquished back to the respondent? That take care of that whole. Or are you saying, should that third one that we seized, even if we didn't really have evidence, should we also be relinquishing that one?

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: That's ultimately the question for you. Yes, that's And provided by

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: I'm sorry, it's just taking me a while to get Okay, so should that third one be Legitimately in as part of the investigation. Yep, because there's suspicion.

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: But now we can't prove this one by a proponent, so the evidence was abused. So should that one have to be relinquished if there's the evidence

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: that

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: two others were.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Thank you very much.

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: And it might be that you want to split these two things and see slightly more animals, but only corporate title. The ones that you have proponents of the evidence that they were in fact, predate in violation of the title.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: That's right. Yeah, if you're found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then you're losing the way it's written now, and you're losing all your animals. And you're not allowed to have any animals for up to some amount of time. Well, maybe. The judge has discretion about that. It's discretion on first, discretion on the first, that's true.

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: Same page, line 12, that should be D. The line four has C. Is page 19, so C, and then follows over to the next page also with the front of line four and down. Alright. Page 21, six through 10. So here, this is saying that if the defendant can't So if the defendant wins the hearing, but there was probable cause to seize the animals, he has to pay the cost of care in order to get caretaker to get it back. He has to reimburse the person who's been taking care of his animal to get his animal back. Typically at that point, if the person doesn't pay that money within a period of time, that results in forfeiting title too. If you can't reimburse the humane society that has been caring for the animal on the other end, you typically lose title. This instead says, if payment of the cost required by the subsection is not made within fifteen days, the custodial caretaker's cost not to exceed the amount of security posted. I misread that. My first point stands. The second problem is not here. I thought I was having to pay things out from the animal welfare fund that didn't go into it. But in fact, Eric drafted that very nicely. So my first point stands, generally, if you can't pay the cost of care, because that's the bond or forfeiture, you do lose title. Just know that that's not what you are doing in this part of the statute, and you might want to think about whether you want to do that. And that's

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: the cost of therapeutic veterinary care that we're talking about?

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: Typically, it's the whole cost care, but it could be very much divided. Again, that's your

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: For the waiver, for waiver.

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: Yeah, could be once again has to provide that therapeutic amount, but the rest could, the boarding and the food could be waived. But typically the person doesn't get off with getting their animal back and not having to pay the actual out

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: of

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: pocket cost of the caretaker.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Can I ask one question on that? Yeah. So is that from Minnesota as well?

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: That's actually universally. That's the 40 states that have cost of care type bills. They all have that sort of provision where you lose title if you don't put in the actual cost of care at that point.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: Okay.

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: And so that's just

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: So they just don't allow a waiver? Other states don't allow a waiver.

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: Well, I mean, you shouldn't, but other states don't.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: So the tricky part of it is, as I'm trying to understand, is we're proposing to lower the civil standard to preponderance of the evidence, and we are waiving hearsay, and we're saying that the state cannot prove with a preponderance of the evidence and with no hearsay or with a hearsay exception, they can't prove that the animal was abused, But the individual can't pay the cost of time that the animal was held, and they still forfeit. But you keep

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: on which Yes. Well, I think the waiver of hearsay was in the original bill. I think it's showing as added because the original stuff is all deleted out in the ad. But I think the waiver of hearsay is in the current statute.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: I don't know. The current statute has affidavits are admissible.

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: Yeah, that's the same.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Anyhow, just understand that that's Some amount you can't pay, you forfeit.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Yeah, and it might be that you

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: want to define a very clear out of pocket, so not caretaker costs, not space costs, and maybe not food costs, but out of pocket medical therapy costs as being bottom line. Other states don't have the waiver possibility, just so you know that that's the general practice. And then page 20 Angela.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I just wanna I'm really stuck on this. I've heard it a number of times that other states don't have the waiver possibility. How is that not penalized to poverty?

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: Because there are baseline expenses that go along with having an animal. And so, unlike a car, where you can have your car You can't drive your car actually without paying some amount, so you can't get to a job without paying registration, without inspection, without your driver's license. There are fees associated with many things in order to actually, in those cases, have them be useful. And that here, the animals' uses in their homes. So it's the same sort of concept where it's not penalizing poverty, but it's acknowledging that some things are not necessarily a right, but a privilege, and caring for another life. And we know that all the animals we're talking about are considered sentient beings. They can feel sensations, they can suffer. Caring for a sentient being is oftentimes seen as more of a privilege than a right, just as driving your car is a privilege. It's not a right. And so there are expenses associated with exercising, making a choice, like having pets or having homestead animals, which are one of our huge categories of issues, is people who want to do homesteading but actually don't know livestock care. This past weekend was a really interesting weekend because even though Vermont gets cold weather a lot, the number of cases I was juggling with animals, short haired dogs, housed outdoors, with no insulation, no bedding, no protection from the elements, in wire houses affected, so absolutely none. The homestead animals on a mountainside with no shelter, the horses in a pasture with no windbreak or constructed shelter, even though horses below zero degrees, by every standard out there need some sort of constructed shelter, the number of these cases that are happening are really high, and I think that they're you need to think about the costs to the animals if there's not some base level of care somebody needs to be able to provide in order to have them, because it's large numbers of animals. When we talk about three shelters form, a constructive shelter, we're talking about four pieces of plywood, or three pieces and a piece of tarp. It's not high standards that the animals aren't getting them. There are very much some animals, there are an awful lot of farmers that take great care of their animals. They are an investment. There are lot of pet owners who take great care of their pets. And so we're talking about what should that minimum be? Should somebody have to be able to both think about the fact that this animal has needs to prevent suffering and then take actions in conformity with that? Because somebody will end up paying those costs. The animal will die, or it will be injured and untreated, or we're going to end up paying a lot of money as a state between our donors and our taxpayers for rehabbing these animals. And it's much more expensive to rehab than to prevent the problem. But it's really a question of how do you think about the ownership? Do you think it is a right where everyone should be able to have animals even if they don't feed them, or can't feed them? Or do you think it's a privilege where we want to make this as accessible to as many people as possible, but we acknowledge that there are some people who will not have the resources for us. That's why I'm happy you all are the elected legislators and not me. And then setting that cost, setting that floor. Yeah, defining which things are bare minimum do you need. And we have some of them in the Foolty Statute already. They're not quite clear enough, and I don't want to police ownership for Foolty. I do think that having civil mechanisms that can intervene early, I'm big on prevention, would be ideal. But that's just not this bill. This is once we're at the point where animals are being seized for a criminal violation or a sufficient criminal violation.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: What do we do from there? Good. Thank you.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: This goes back to what we were talking about at the beginning. I totally get this, and I feel like there is a piece, there's a difference of what an owner might think is adequate care, type of food, a shelter, that kind of thing. And then what a humane society, whatever their degree. And so I just feel like somehow I've got to meet that. And it's like, no, I can't afford this, but I could afford this. And that's what I want to make sure is connected.

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: And I think that's a very real question. In vet care, it's called spectrum of care practice. So their school standard is what most private practice vets learned in vet school is like, let's do all of the diagnostics, let's game out all of these and see which one it is and then intervene. And then there's the fact that that's not accessible to a lot of people. So their only option is to euthanize if that's what they would have to do. And so how do we think about, well, what is the minimum acceptable care? And that's where we are.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: Yeah. So maybe that's what's maybe just how you said that. Like, it is the minimal acceptable care, like that is what they're looking for, not

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: the facts.

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: Yeah. We're not looking for gold standard. Right? It's enough. The UK recently did a report, because they're revamping their programs, and it's their strategic plan effectively, and they define a life not worth living, a life worth living, and a good life. And so their goal is to say, the life's not worth living. That's where you want to prosecute people and deal with the issues there. A life worth living is decent, but in some instances you're going to want to acquire a good one, where somebody's discretionarily interacting with this is not a need in some way. But I think if we think about those things, which things are necessary so it's not a life not worth living? That's what we want to prevent, is people treating their animals in a way where that life is not worth living.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Angela, do you want to

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: Just to of circle on that.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: And I'm coming back to this too.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Yeah, so that's the question that's lingering in my mind is like, what is the minimum threshold? What is the minimum expectation in resources for care? And then what's the gap between that minimum threshold and what most care providers would need? Is it the same? Maybe there's no gap. But I'm just thinking, if we're setting in trying to solve a problem, I guess we're not I don't want to solve a problem by I want to leave the fewest gaps possible. And so if one of the main problems we're trying to solve is the cost of care and making sure that caregivers are being made whole ish, we just But yet, we want to be very cognizant of the varying abilities of people to provide for their animals and how it looks different. It will cost different things. I'm worried about that. Not worried, but I'm just aware now of that tension and wanting to set a very reasonable floor, but then making sure that reasonable floor doesn't leave caregivers, in

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: the case of seizure, to still be footing these big bills. Well, can tell you that the humane societies I've spoken to, and basically everyone I've spoken to about this, that's sort of in this world, speeding up the time this takes is their number one priority, because that's the biggest drag. You're right, there might be a gap between the care this animal was given and the bare minimum that the law would have required, and it doesn't seem right to make somebody put in the money for the gold standard if what they would have had to do if this animal was in possession of this other one. And I think that's accounted for here, because when we talk about then the actual cost of care the person has to pay if they lose, that's something a judge gets to decide what was the reasonable cost of care. And that's when you make the argument that they went above and beyond. They plated that leg when they could have amputated. And a plating is going to cost you several thousand dollars, an amputation might cost you $800 And they're both reasonable outcomes with a broken leg. And I ran a shelter medicine program where for animals at a municipal shelter in Georgia, I raised the funds and I made the decisions about the medical care they were getting. So I learned a lot from vets about And there's a range of decisions you can make, and it might be that the Human Society made the decision to place the leg. I never made a decision to place the leg. I couldn't justify that. I had legs amputated, those animals are living great lives. And so that's the judge, people get to make those arguments about, at the end of the day then, what is the cost of care amount this person will actually have to put in to get title, and that's an argument to make there. My intention, so you know, if for some reason you adopt this and there's going to be a scheduled amount that gets told to a person the day their animal's getting deceased, is I would on the low end, because I think that somebody being handed a bill for $5,000 because maybe this leg needs to be plated. To me, that doesn't seem reasonable. You have a chance to look over schedules, as I understand it. If it's an administrative schedule being adopted by rule, that would have some oversight. But I can tell you that one draft of this was circulated. Actually, I think that S-one hundred eighty two, maybe not, one draft of this icing had a cap of about $250 for that security someone has to put in, based on caps on gun storage fees and impounds of cars. And that seems fairly reasonable for that upfront security as opposed to what they pay at the end if they lose the trial. And so I wouldn't think that because the amount has to be calculable on day one, so when a humane officer is seizing an animal, he has to be able to write on that form how much money person has to put in. It's not going be particularized, gold standard care. It's going to be for a dog or cat, it's going be $2 a day for food, plus if they clearly need therapeutic medical help, it's going be $150 Something like that where it's still constrained to That's what I

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: was kind of going for, and knowing that you will have, the person in your position, presumably you, will have some authority to set this minimum expectation.

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: Yeah, and my thought always is that amount upfront is going to be less than the actual cost of care. It's going be a drop in the bucket. It is something to show the person is serious and they're able to pay some amount towards caring for their animal, but it's not going to be a $5,000 bill. Once again, I would be fine having a limit, you guys can decide that, or leaving it open and knowing that you get to review what comes through, but that would be mine. That's helpful, thank you. I ran programs in Georgia where we provided free vet care to folks in systemically disadvantaged neighborhoods, because I think that providing the resources is incredibly important, and that there are a lot of people who don't have resources who can make very, very good pet owners, and they seek out help, but they show up in these free products. That's different from the person who doesn't take food in the image of the house.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: So this is very helpful, and I appreciate you taking the long walk with us through all this stuff. So it sounds like the hypothetical that I'm thinking of is not what would happen, but I want to run through the hypothetical just to confirm. So state seizes thinks cat is being abused, does veterinary care on the cat, x rays, different things based on the suspicion, comes out, there isn't really anything there. The respondent contests, wins the contested hearing, no cruelty, is relinquished back. But boy, that x-ray, that blood test, that this and that for the vet care, that's a couple grand. Taking care of a cat, generally speaking, is not that much money. And so to say that now suddenly someone who's paying for the cat food doing the thing, now suddenly the state says, Well, yeah, but we had to do all this vet stuff because we need to make sure you weren't abusing your animal. Now you need to pay that. Because of your schedule structure, that would not be the case.

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: That would not be the case in terms of putting the money up upfront. You're right, there's no control on that on the tail end, except if a judge gets to decide what was reasonable. The judge has said by reponderance of the evidence, there is no cruelty here. Can't imagine that judge approving that claim. And so maybe that's something the guardrails have to be put in, because to me, that's more the cost of investigating that's evidence collection, right?

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: But the problem with us merging these processes even more than they already were, it's like they kind of are one the same in some ways, right?

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: So maybe this is another time where we're talking about on the tail end. The person wins the case, what do they have to pay to get the animal back? Maybe you draft language that specifies the therapeutic care. Because diagnostic is not the same as therapeutic. There's nothing on that other end. There are ways to break that down. And it might be that you want to put guardrails on what that person has to pay if they win that hearing. Honestly, that sounds reasonable to me.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Yep. Okay. That's very helpful.

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: But on the front end, no, they would not be paid. I would not

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: have- That initial amount. Yeah, no.

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: In order to get the hearing, I'm imagining it would be a relatively low amount, but not no amount.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: I'm gonna do a time check right here. We're actually at time, but we can go probably for about ten more minutes because I believe what we're gonna hear from Judge Zonie on H540 is not gonna take the whole half hour. Judge Zonie, does that work for you another, get to you in about ten minutes?

[Hon. Tom Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Yes, absolutely.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: Deep break. What's that? Yes? Wanted to try one more thing. Go ahead, yeah. Try one more thing, and then we'll get

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: So page 24, line one: The time limits established in this section are not jurisdictional and may be extended by the court for good cause shown. I just want to flag that there's two sets of time limits in here. One is the time period, the initial fourteen day period, after which somebody loses title if they're non responsive, or if they don't choose to have a hearing. And then there are the time limits in terms of the court needing to hear the case within thirty days.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: It would apply just to the thirty day.

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: I think that's the intent of the language, but to me, it doesn't clearly say that. So I wanted to flag that. I'm happy to answer any other questions.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: No more questions today. We're gonna move to this other thing. We're gonna be back. I mean, when we have the next version of this, I guess if there are questions if there's a question of any if there's anything else on section six, which we didn't have you weigh in on, if you could, we can talk to you offline. If there's any language changes, we can get Eric. But yeah, have a number of decisions we have to make, and we are going to hear from Judge Zone tomorrow morning and Kim McManus at 11:00. Great. And hopefully you can be here and maybe if there's some more questions for you. But we want to get to Judge Zone on age five forty, then we'll take a break. Then we'll come back and vote on age five forty one. And then we'll have some folks on the mental health day who are going to come in and talk about mental health and criminal justice.

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: I do want say I will not be here tomorrow morning because I'm in one stop ops. But if there's questions, I'm always happy to answer them. Absolutely.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: So yes, just changing to age five forty. Thank you, Judge Zone, if you could weigh in on this. We're just doing a so called drive by. This morning, we had a walk through. We also heard from Kim McManus and CJC person as well, Jeanie. So over to you.

[Hon. Tom Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: All right, so good afternoon, Tom Sohnay, Chief Superior Judge. If you've already had some individuals tell you about it, I will shorten up my presentation that I gave to the corrections and institutions committee. H5-forty came from what used to be H645 in this committee where you created the post adjudication reparative working group. The working group was myself and Derek McDownach from DOC. We had Courtney Whitimore, Neil Favreau, Jeanie McLeod, Damian Barnes, and Casey Viato from restorative justice centers across the state. I had to mention their names because it was an absolute joy to work with these individuals and try to effectuate what your bill asked us to do, and we believe we did that. I was chair of the committee and the committee relied on information from stakeholders. We reached out to entities that were identified in the act as well as other entities that included state's attorneys and sheriff's office, attorney general, the Center for Crime Victim Services, and to all the CJCs. And what happened was, the group got together, we got the information, we reviewed the statutes, we relied on each other's insights, and I think Derek said it best in house corrections a couple days ago that, there's a we believe that we accomplished what you asked us to do in the bill in, h June. And if you look at H five forty, section one is the section that starts what the group did. Essentially, section one does nothing more than straighten out the language into a format that is consistent with the other provisions in section 7,030 of title 13. And I want to be very clear, the group did not change statutes substantively as far as what was already in legislation. We restructured it, we put things in other areas to make it clearer, to make it work better, and there were areas that were added. I'll talk about those in a moment, but when you look on page two of age five forty, everything that's crossed out, it's just put somewhere else. It's still part of the law, so we haven't made a substantive change there. This was just a way to take the language that was there that's being crossed out and essentially put it into title 28 into a new statute that would be a one stop shopping if you will to identify how does post adjudication reparative probation work in the state of Vermont. Section two is one substantive change. The committee does believe that it was appropriate to delete civil contempt of child support orders from reparative probation. That was something that no one could think of ever being used. And so the group's consensus was to remove that. Section three is really the meat of what the group put together and that is it talks about, the ability to order someone into restorative, justice program in the case of a conviction. In section nine thirteen a lines three through seven, it talks about what cases qualify. That does not change existing law. It's just put in a different spot. So this does not change who qualifies it under this bill. It will be the same on 06/30/2026 as it will be for who qualifies on 07/01/2026 if this bill were to pass. The line eight through 13 talks about the referral as part of a sentence. That doesn't change anything, it just clarifies how it works and puts it in a spot where it highlights that you don't have to be on probation to have a sentence of restorative program and it tells what happens if you don't successfully complete it that you come back to the court for sentencing. Subsection C lines fourteen and fifteen identify that you may as a condition of probation, have a restorative justice program sentence. Section D sets forth relevant factors for the court to consider when determining whether to order someone to participate in a restorative justice program. This is new. Currently, there are no factors. And so the factors here are a combination of what each of the stakeholders and each of the members had had indicated that these are concerns. These are things that we believe should be looked at before someone is sent into the the restorative justice program and so, those were set forth in subsection D to identify the judges need to look at that and the parties need to look at that. The language says including which means it is a non exclusive list of factors. There may be other factors that are considered. Subsection E is something that provides geographic access all over the state and geographic equality in terms of we're going to have standardized forms if this bill passes. That was something that the CJC has believed was important. And it also adds predictability for what it's going to look like when someone is referred. And then finally subsection F talks about the court may adopt procedural rules. At this time I don't know if that would happen but highlighting it there just makes it clear that if there is a criminal role or procedure that is deemed appropriate to address this. For instance, we have rules that talk about probation revocation, sentencing hearings, things like that that it's clear that the court may choose to do that. The final aspect of this bill that I would note is the cost. Zero. It costs nothing. There is no budget impact and the view of the committee was that, the working group was that not only is there no budget impact, but it provides clarity and improves what we currently have in a manner that we think will have it have the post adjudication reparative programs utilized more than we have now. And it will provide the ability for citizens in all of our counties to have, if you will, equal footing for how things are gonna work when you're going into these programs.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: Fair enough. So questions? Go ahead, Angela.

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: Hi, Josh. I just wanted to

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: ask a question that I asked of Ms. McManus, Attorney McManus earlier today. I'll change it slightly for you, but I'm looking at page four, line four and five. So, in the considerations, the relevant factors. I'm sure you recall that a few years ago, we changed the law so that cases involving domestic and sexual violence could be sent to community justice centers or reparative programs. Can you opine on how a judge might consider whether there are any orders of protection in effect or previously in effect between the offender and any victim?

[Hon. Tom Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Well, the factors when you look on page three and four, the six factors, the court weighs them. They're not counted. I know I was asked a question in another committee where it seemed like there may be a perception sometimes that when you have factors you have to go through and okay, you got four here and two here or whatever it may be. But it's like when we deal with parental rights and responsibilities, you weigh the factors. And so when a court is looking at these factors, judge would look at you, you looked at specifically you said five and six or four and five for number six. Orders of protection, the court has to consider how does that play into the current situation? Does the victim believe that this is something that the the victim wants to go through as a process? Does do the underlying facts indicate that even if the victim wants to go through, the judge may still believe that there's a concern for safety that needs to be addressed. Does the CJC based on the court's experience as they weighed in on this? And so I I think that when you look at these, you can't say there's a one size fits all model for how a judge considers it, but the judge has to look at all the factors and say, is this case when we have those orders of protection that were here, what were the orders? Was there a violation of those orders? Did the person file them? Is the order now gone? Was the order several years ago and the people are now having what we would call normal contact after that order that and then something still happened as a crime and so you have to have to weigh it out like that.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Yeah okay And do you think that there's a when there are factors that the court must consider in your experience, are they because we're talking about, you know, moving toward consistency across the state in all counties. Not sure this is even fair to ask, but are factors I would imagine there's training on how to consider the factors and things like that. But how this go further to How does this further that goal of consistency? To me, it seems to introduce a lot of continued subjectivity.

[Hon. Tom Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Because there's always going to be subjectivity when you look at sentences. There's always going to be a weighing of factors. Right now, the way the system works for whether someone's going to be sent, if you walk into any of the 14 counties, there's no list of factors for the judges to consider. There is essentially no baseline of consistency that is built in. This builds that in. So you're actually, while there will be subjectivity, you're reducing the uncertainty and you're bringing into it, these are the factors you have to consider. Now there may be others a judge considers, but anytime you put these factors in, a judge should be looking at them and essentially as I'm sure many of you would do and say, okay, let's look at number one. Let's think about that. How does that go? How about number two as you're weighing things out? And it also provides the state's attorneys and the defense bar the opportunity to address that. Keep in mind that most sentences in the state of Vermont are sentences that are agreed upon between the state and defense as part of a plea agreement, and so historically these conditions come to the court not at a contested sentencing, but more often than not, in the vast majority of cases, it's the state and defense saying, this is the terms and he's gonna do or she's gonna do rep board. And so, this I think puts everyone on notice that there is an expectation of consideration of things that people might not have been considering before when they were resolving cases.

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: Okay, thank you.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: Thank

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: you, judge. I just wanna share my appreciation for you in leading this working group. I can remember when we did the first bill that launched the work group, I remember being disappointed that we couldn't get recommendations like these into that bill. But this is lovely. This is exactly what we were looking for is to have language to be able to put in there. So I'm glad that it worked out well and that we can

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: keep moving it forward. So thank you.

[Hon. Tom Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Thank you again. It was an exceptional, I was so pleased and it was a pleasure to work with the exceptional individuals that were on that working group.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Thank you very much, Jud. Really appreciate it.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: Thank you. So for this particular bill, like I'd say, we were asked to do a drive by. I don't know if Alice is expecting a straw poll from us or not, but let me just ask, are there any, did anybody have any issues with this? And that might be all that she needs me to tell her. And if she needs more, I will do a straw poll tomorrow. But Well Issues? And why don't we just do a straw poll instead of coming back, potentially coming back to do a straw poll? Do it once instead of twice. Okay. Are we all I'm just Are

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: you setting us up for failure, Tom?

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: Are we are we Are we are we all fine with the same message? Alright. I will take I will take a motion to find that we think this is what how did we ever decide exactly what I'm supposed to say in straw poll? We approve. We love this. We we we are endorse the good Do

[Hon. Tom Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: we handle this?

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: Yes. We're gonna take the straw poll. All those in favor? The bill that we All those in favor is not available as it is.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Sure.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: Okay. You don't know what we're talking about. Yeah. Thank you.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: No. No. Okay. I do. I just have I wanna flag a couple things for their community.

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: You flag you

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: can Like, the stuff that Karen's are it's not it's more like in future work.

[Hon. Tom Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Do we need more discussion? I think

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: I think that one, let's let's flag that as your flags instead of the mixed flags just at this point. Is that is that right? Sure.

[Elise Bailot (Director of Animal Welfare, State of Vermont)]: Because Yeah. Yeah.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. Because it I mean, if it was like, we recommend changes to the language, that'd be one thing. I understand what you're flagging for

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: them. Yeah.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: But and and I agree with that, but, you know, I agree with what you're flagging. But I don't see any language. That's why I

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: think Sonya is watching. That's

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: Because Judge Sonya did such a fabulous job in being, know Judge, you're welcome for the entertainment.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: Wait, what was the result of the straw poll? Was

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: Unanimous. Four-eight-zero-three, and I will ask Kenny and, well, Angel, if it's fine. Thank you, judge. Thank you. Have a

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: great day.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Burditt (Vice Chair, acting Chair)]: On We'll see you tomorrow morning at the That works. We're gonna go offline for fifteen minutes. That means twenty five to Twenty five minutes? No. Twenty.