Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: Continuing testimony on h five seventy eight. So we are gonna look into I don't think we need to keep talking about the posting and or attack order. I I'm inclined, although we'll get some more testimony out of from judge Zoning, that is something that's used. So we're going to look closely at that, so we can move on from there. Wonderful.

[Lisa Milet]: So this is Lisa Milet, Division of Animal Welfare. I don't know whether or not there needs be a reintroduction.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: No, no, it's great.

[Lisa Milet]: I'd like to look at page 23. It's sub E, so if the order of forfeiture is not entered, the animal needs to be returned to the person upon payment of the custodial caretaker of the all actual costs of care and keeping during the period of impound, unless there was no reasonable basis for seizure. There needs to be a timeframe in there for the person to pay in. So if it's just that the person has to pay in what they owe, and then they get their animal back, could that extend for a month? Could that extend for a year? How long do they have to pay? Usually it's something like a five day period or something very or a three day period, something pretty concise where the person has to pay what they owe, they get their animal back, or they forfeit the animal. And so there's just no timing element in there. And let's look at page 26, lines nine and ten is where

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: Move on to 23, because the one thing that I do believe that we need to have in here for due process is the opportunity to waive, and I'll have to figure out if this affects this provision that you just talked about as well. Just wanted to flag that. That makes sense. Good. So, go ahead.

[Lisa Milet]: Yeah, so page 26, it is lines nine and ten, which is about reducing or waiving the security. I wasn't able to see where that process was. How much does that add to this timeline? Does that fall within the thirty days where the hearing is gonna happen, where that gets determined, or is it another?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: No, it would be that within the thirty days. Everything gets resolved And at that I know that was an issue when we talked about it last time, but we've decided not to have another preliminary hearing, just all resolved at that hearing.

[Lisa Milet]: Okay, great. And then with respect to the cost of care action, I understand why it's struck from this. It's section K on page 26, so line 16, you're almost the end of

[Erica Holm]: the bill. Unless

[Lisa Milet]: the timing element is resolved so that there is necessarily going to be a pretty quick determination of the forfeiture, you might want to consider leaving in the cost of care action so that a humane society that did step up to help a case and has, let's say, 10 animals in their care, civil forciture has gotten really bogged down. They can move ahead with the cost of care action. We do have an example of a shelter in Vermont that went bankrupt. It was holding eight or nine dogs for an extended period of time. Their total bill was more than $50,000 and they went bankrupt from that. So, unless civil forfeiture is going to get resolved very quickly, it could be very helpful to still leave in the cost of care action as an alternate route, so that that entity doesn't go bankrupt from caring for the adults. So I just wanna flag that as I think it was removed because to some extent it was seen as redundant.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: Yeah. And I'm a little concerned because we haven't paid that much attention to that section, and this may bog this down, and this has to go through at least three additional committees. And so I'd be inclined to leave it out for now. And if this presents a problem to reconsider it, you know, but especially if we're gonna do the posting, takes away that concern about the service. Hopefully that will resolve that. The only other thing is that we might be able just at least to make it clear, maybe we don't even have to make it clear that this doesn't preclude any other actions. You know, that we have the civil forfeiture, doesn't preclude the human society why we're going after the individual. But I'll have to double check that because that will just bog this down and we're running out of time. So if we do the attack order, do you think that that kind of resolves some of that timing issue as far as why we may want to keep in this other action? I

[Lisa Milet]: think that it does. You should ask Executive Director Erica Holmes when she's testifying, so she is one of the shelters that But I think that that would, if there's the attack order, that that means things will be moving along much more quickly. We don't have that bomb in the middle then.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: Thank you.

[Lisa Milet]: And I wanted to answer the question that, representative Arsenault had about sorry. Water can wait. About the the decision between any security being paid to the court than over the animal welfare fund versus the animal welfare fund directly. I don't know that DPS could support this if amounts are being paid to the animal welfare fund directly, because there's no cashier, there's no public interface for DPS, and people would have to travel to Waterbury anyway to access it, which really bogs everything down. And So paying any security that is determined due at the same time you ask for a hearing in the same place can just be an electronic transfer over to VPS then, and that means that the court knows, Oh, I am actually scheduling a hearing because the money is here, and courts have public interfaces and cashiers. And

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: you don't?

[Lisa Milet]: I don't. I have me, so I don't even have change.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: So I guess, is it can you explore that a little bit more before we have Judge Zonay on talking about that particular issue, among others? Just expand a little bit on It's be very difficult for the direct payment to the Animal Welfare Fund.

[Lisa Milet]: Yeah, the Animal Welfare Fund and the Department of Public Safety is not set up to take a $20 payment or a $100 payment from random citizen. There's no cashier like you have at a court that is used to taking a fine amount, is used to processing payments for individuals, has a bank account associated with, And they have people who are used to doing this. Department of Public Safety, the administrative office, there's no cashier in the bill, and it's located in one place in the state. It's where we're in Waterbury. So if somebody is going to pay the animal welfare fund, there's no bank account associated segregated bank account associated with that. There's just procedurally, I would need an assistant effectively to process lots of little incoming payments. I've already talked

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: to

[Lisa Milet]: our accounting folks about paying amounts out. We would have to set up each rescue, shelter, vet that we would be paying these amounts to as an individual vendor, but the truth is they'd be repeat players. And so we can do that most likely. I have to clear it with the commissioner, but in talking to accounting, they said we can do that manageably, but it's a different thing to take $20 from one person, dollars 100 from another, a money order from another. We just don't have mechanical It sounds ridiculous, right? But we don't have the administrative capacity for that. Then the final thing was just a response to your question about the 67%. So there is a surcharge to each dog license of $3 And that surcharge is split two thirds to the animal welfare fund, which frankly pays my salary. And one third goes for rabies control program. So the owners of rabies vaccinated dogs pay for rabies control to fish and wildlife, to ag and to the department of health. So that's where the other third goes.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson]: That be gone up over I know that's ways and means, but I just wonder if it's due for an increase, if it's on your schedule to an increase or

[Lisa Milet]: $2 that is equivalent to the 67% actually only came into being with the 2024 legislation because my division didn't exist before then. It was specifically so in that sense, yes, it has had an update.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson]: And just dogs? There aren't cats?

[Lisa Milet]: It's only dogs and wolf hybrids.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: I got a ton of questions.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver]: I'm trying to go back to express some reluctance of law enforcement to help with the process service. Is that what it was? Or or just the attempt to

[Lisa Milet]: My understanding is that law enforcement would prefer to seize animals when an owner is not on the property because there is less chance of violence. That might not be uniform. Law enforcement is reluctant to help with seizing animals because they have no place to take them. I think every law enforcement entity in this state probably had the situation where they did the right thing. They saw a fully treated animal, they seized it, and then they said, Hey, where do I take this animal? Some of them end up taking them home, honestly. Our law enforcement officers end up with extra animals that they seized from a cruelty case in their homes because there is no place else to take them or there is no money to pay for them to board. Other ones have started taking them to out of state vets. So taking legal evidence in a criminal case to an out of state vet because the out of state vets have not yet been burned by not being paid for housing in the house. I think they end up getting paid, but the bigger problem is a vet does not want to house an animal for eight months in a kennel. Again, that just isn't good for anyone involved. And so I don't know that these cases are more or worse than they've ever been, but I think there is enough sand in the gears now that we'd have to figure out how to blow that out and move it ahead.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver]: Having done this, I think law enforcement considered everything where there might be a problem. They try to avoid it. But obviously, you can't. So I don't see anybody denying assistance. It

[Lisa Milet]: can be difficult also to catch somebody when they're on their property, because a lot of people house animals on a property they don't live at, and they go by every day or two. They don't even go by twice a day to give water that even in cold weather where it's freezing, they go by once every day or two to replenish things, sometimes less. They should go by more. Should have in winter, at least, summer, the animals should have water 20 fourseven, really, but there's logistical issues. Then when you try and coordinate timing so get a search warrant, I need my law enforcement officers to be available, I need subject matter experts to be available, I need a humane cyber rescue organization or a vet to be open and available, and I need a vet on the property with me. And all of that just becomes a really difficult logistical. So going in when there's an opportunity, when everybody is arranged, and not necessarily waiting for someone to be on the property can be the way to save the lives and be more

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: efficient. Barbara?

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson]: When Tom was asking the question, it raised for me something that I wonder we didn't talk about at all with this bill. And my understanding is if somebody sees, especially in the summer, a pet in a car, that there's a provision that law enforcement rescues that animal right away. Yes. I don't know if that's considered cruelty or neglect or how that immediate It seems like that immediate rescue has worked pretty well, just from my very anecdotal

[Lisa Milet]: So that would be based on exigent circumstances. So because it's taught out and this animal is in immediate danger, you don't have to go get a search warrant. A law enforcement officer can see it's based on exigent circumstances. But the same That law enforcement officer still needs a place for that animal to go, right? And so we're back in this full cycle of where does that animal go? Well, it's hard to help if there's not a clear and short timeline for helping.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson]: So where do they go? They're going home with the law. It's like back

[Lisa Milet]: to A lot of times they're going home with law enforcement officers. They are going to a vet's office. They are begging humane societies or rescues to help. And where it's one or two animals, sometimes that works out. But the problem is we are seeing the seizures of a dozen where there's a dozen animals in the home, sometimes because somebody can get the first one altered, they just freak out. Other times it's because they are intentionally collecting animals or they are intentionally breeding them. But we're seeing these the larger seizures are where it's really, really problematic because, like I said, a lot of Canadian societies only have four dog kennels to begin with. So seizing a dozen animals, you're filling several shelters.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: Any other questions? Alright. Well, I hope that this is the penultimate version. You. Judge Sonay, should I go with you for ten minutes or do you want to come back after your 11:00 testimony and send it to judiciary?

[Chief Superior Judge Thomas Zonay]: Well, if you go with me for ten minutes, that might mean I can go quickly. We can try that.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: Let's go with that if that's okay. Yeah, let's do that.

[Chief Superior Judge Thomas Zonay]: So Tom Zone, Chief Superior Judge, good morning. I'm just gonna go and I did hear the testimony about the programs and that was something I'd highlighted about where they're actually on page 10 about whether there were accountability programs. I would note that those provisions come in under the May section for what a judge can be able to impose. And so that provides an opportunity for the court to if circumstances change and something that doesn't exist today exists, so that would work. I do note on page 10, line six, talks about treatment with a clinician licensed in the state of Vermont, a policy decision for the legislature, but about people in Gil Hall and White River who might have to go over the bridge to get treatment? They might not have treatment in Vermont that's close, and certainly we want to get treatment, if someone can get it. So, in any case, we don't generally restrict that. That doesn't Also, it could be people in Brattleboro to go to Keynes, just on the border towns.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: Could also be telehealth potentially if we have agreements on that So maybe we don't tie it to state of Vermont. Okay. We'll look at that a little bit. So go ahead.

[Chief Superior Judge Thomas Zonay]: If you look lower on that page, lines 11 through 20 talk about juvenile adjudications. It's different and this may be intentional, but it's set up different in that section than it is for the adults. In the juvenile section, you talk about psychological assessments whether it's clinically necessary. In the adults, there's nothing about psychological assessments and whether it's clinically necessary, and there's different phrases used. I just highlight that because I think the court does have the ability in any event to be able to order a psychological assessment before ordering a program. But I don't know if that was intentional, but there's two different sections. Page 11 on lines one through 10 talk about the periodic inspections that are permitted for a year afterwards. It says that can be extended. There's nothing that says it could be shortened. That's a legislative policy decision, but do you wanna leave open the possibility that there may be reasons that it could be shortened? Because if it's part of a sentence, there are strict requirements on revising sentences, and if it was viewed as part of a sentence, then you have a sentence reconsideration, but after that you wouldn't have an opportunity to change it. So you may want to consider shortening that.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: Shortening the what, the one year? The

[Chief Superior Judge Thomas Zonay]: one year periodic unannounced visits order.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: But it could be shorter because it's just for up to one year. So it doesn't that give you the discretion, the court the discretion?

[Chief Superior Judge Thomas Zonay]: Correct, but if the judge orders one year and there are subsequent circumstances that indicate it only needs to be six months, there's no provision like there is on page 13 where you can shorten Oh, okay, the yep. The possession restrictions.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: Yep, so it'd be on line 10 as well. Okay.

[Chief Superior Judge Thomas Zonay]: You may be able to bring that into if you look back on page 13 when we get to page 13, there are provisions about shortening the possession residential restrictions. You might be able to put tie this into that and allow the judge to alter either of those. On page There was another I think representative Rachelson on page 14 was talking about the Vermont licensure, and so that's something you'd want to pick up there too if you were going to change that about the psychologist or psychiatrist. On page 18, the bottom of page 18 going on to page 19, this is what you were just discussing about the service issues. I'll start out by saying I am not going to opine on the due process considerations. The Vermont Supreme Court has ample case law on what is due process when a property right is to be taken and what is necessary for appropriate notice and opportunity to be heard under the constitution. And so that's something I understand that there's a thought that, well, if you don't let the tack, if you will, notice to be just left there, that that could add time. That's a policy decision for the legislature. You may be, I would note, trading one issue for another because if you do proceed with the notice issue, you very well may have someone challenge it, in which case then you're certainly going to have an extended period of time if there's extensions and it goes up to the court. And so I will leave the committee to rely on its own legal counsel and other testimony as to the due process under Vermont law for service and whether it needs to be under the whether service needs to be reasonably calculated to actually go to somebody and only then can you tackle that. That's up to the committee.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: Isn't that I mean, there's established law as far as tackle orders that has to be reasonably calculated to provide the notes. And so presumably,

[Chief Superior Judge Thomas Zonay]: So that's a question the courts would have to decide. Right. I would note that on pages eighteen and nineteen where you go from if the person was not present service, I think I heard Eric Fitzpatrick to be saying that he might do some tweaking with that language, and I think that's probably a good idea because it does get a little clunky. It should be very clear that if someone is present, the service they get there is deemed adequate, and if they're not present, there can be other servers. But I heard Eric to be taking care of that. Line on page 19, lines one through three, you have the fourteen day period, but it does say shall include the day the service is effectuated. That is inconsistent with the Vermont rules of civil procedure, and I don't think there's any benefit to adding an inconsistency there because it adds confusion where everyone's used to not counting that day under the rules. Right. Also, the fourteen days, I think there is a practical problem the way it's structured because somebody has fourteen days to file the answer, the request for the hearing and file the and they also have to file their any security by that date. However, they also have the ability within that time frame to file for a hardship, and there's no way the court's gonna have a hearing if they file on day 14 for the financial hardship. So theoretically, on one section, it says the court has to do the forfeiture after fourteen days if they haven't filed the haven't posted. But the reality is they have fourteen days to say they have a hardship. And so you have one day as bringing everything together, and I think that needs to be looked at closer and evaluated. Everything combining on that one fourteen day period. Then on page 21, it talks again, same issue. The top of the page, it says it counts the day on which the animal is seized, which again is inconsistent with the rules of civil procedure. And we get in and how can they post it if they are doing everything else timely and haven't had the judge tell them they can have a hardship. Lines two and three, it's a policy decision on the collection. I understand the testimony for DPS and their issues. OCS collects the money directly. The restitution collects their money directly. They have mechanisms for that. The only place that we do collect it for something like this that usually comes in is rent escrow, and that's because there's no one repository. We might be having 100 people in the county who are going to get the rent monies as opposed to sending it to just the animal welfare fund. But again, I understand their dilemma, and the courts do have structures in place that do allow us to take in monies, and I cannot sit here and tell you that it would be an insurmountable obstacle for the court if we had to take that in. Would it be extra work? Well, we just heard that they would have to add extra staffing for it. So short answer is yes. And so there will be a budgetary impact on the courts if we have to expand on what we're going to be taking in for money in and out. There should be no expectation that if we took the money in, it's going to be sent out the next day. It will be done in the normal process for the trial court operations when they send money out to different entities. And if it is permissible, I see it's 11:00 and I am supposed to testify in Senate Natural Resources. If it's okay, I'll go there right now and I'll come immediately back when I'm done.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: That sounds good. Thank you. Thank you. All right. In the interim, we will move on to Erica. If you can join us. Hi. Yes. Welcome, and you'll identify yourself. You for being here.

[Erica Holm]: Yeah. Well, thank you for having me. So I am Erica Holm, and I think on the agenda, it had me there is the chair of the Animal Cruelty Investigation Advisory Board, the ACIAB, which is a board that was established by our legislature in 2015. I think we started working in '16. I am also one of the co executive directors at Central Vermont Humane Society in East Montpelier. I live in Callis, and I for about fifteen years, I was an animal control officer for the towns of Middlesex and Worcester, and I grew up in Berlin. So I have a lot of connection. Central Vermont is important to me. The ACIB has not had an opportunity to review this bill as a board and talk about what's in here, what was for may not support, and it's also changing quickly. So we will be meeting soon and potentially would be asking if we could provide testimony in some of the later committees that you've referenced. We so I think primarily I'm gonna be speaking right now to you folks as the co executive director of Central Vermont Humane Society, and the concerns, that I do bring to the ACIAB in my role there as an animal welfare agent and, the, Center Vermont Humane Society. But I do want to also clarify that, like I said, we were created in 2015. There's already been many, many years of work on changing Vermont's animal welfare laws, regulations, and situation. At the time, you know, it wasn't great, but it wasn't a crisis. And so if some things had been changed and implemented back then, we wouldn't be in as tough a spot as we're in right now, because we are in a crisis in the state. As you all know for all the work that you do, thank you very much, we have a housing crisis in Vermont, and the economy is struggling. And both of those factors really, really impact animals because it impacts the people who love them and own them. And so it's important to understand that because of those increasing problems, that everything is kind of exploding in the state. And along with that, we went from, you know, like, 12 brick and mortar shelters and a couple of rescues to an explosion in rescues in the state over ten, fifteen years, which means more animals being brought in without regulation. It also means some of those rescues are hoarding situations themselves. So we've had more issues where it's large numbers of animals that need help. 2015, there was a case in Eden. It involved 90 dogs in one person's home that I helped bring those dogs out. So, you know, to Lisa's point, when we're talking about the capacity for shelters to help, You know, 90 dogs, no one shelter in Vermont can do that. Luckily, we spent the entire day working with the owner to convince her to surrender the animals so that we, instead of seizing them, so that we could disperse them among Vermont and New Hampshire shelters, stepped up and helped so that all of those animals went to shelters that could then effectively treat them, work with them behaviorally, and get them adopted out and out of the shelters quickly. So surrender is always preferred over seizure, and it does not mean that we can't criminally charge people if they surrender their animals. That that should still be happening when there is animal cruelty. So I talk about that to start off because I do want you to understand that, lucky for you folks, you don't hear about all of this that's going on, right? It doesn't all make the news. We have animal cruelty cases around the state pretty much daily right now, and certainly weekly, especially in the winter when their conditions are so critical. And we are all working with them and working with law enforcement and trying to help as best we can. So it isn't just what you see in the media. It is really going on a lot. And the humane societies, because of the impact to our communities and their increased numbers of surrenders of people in our town. So, like, Central My Humane Society, we handle Washington And Orange Counties. You know, it's a loose agreement among all the humane societies in our areas that we handle. So, you know, there was a while, this summer, we had a six week waiting list for us to be able to take in a dog, and we had to hope that the dogs already in our kennels would get adopted out to be able to bring that dog in. So, there's no wiggle room for helping in seizure cases, and there's you know, we would do whatever we could to help in a surrender case, cruelty case, if they got the person to surrender, But seizures have just made it to the point where humane societies aren't able to help because we do not physically have the space. And, also, staffing has been a huge concern, recently. So having people to care for these animals, we're not gonna go we work very diligently to make sure we meet capacity for care. Right? So even if you had a 50 kennel shelter and you put animals in there, you don't have the people to care for them, then you're now being neglectful. So people may not understand the amount of work that it takes to help with these cases. A case a recent case in the past helping, you know, 10 animals coming in that need to be examined by vets, need to be set up outside of our regular dog kennels. Right? So we need to do an emergency space in our shelter, and I need staff members. They still have to be doing their jobs and adopting out our animals and taking in the ones we'd already scheduled. So then it's coordinating volunteers. VDART is very helpful, our disaster animal response team that sets up

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: What's that VDART's name?

[Erica Holm]: Vermont Disaster Animal Response Team, and they have that's the, sort of overarching organization, and then each area has so central run is CVDART. And so they've been established. They, like CVDART set up the Barrie Auditorium Animal Shelter during the floods so that people, as they are displaced from their homes, can go into the Red Cross shelter and their animals can be nearby. So those folks are trained, and they like opportunities to help care for animals so they can keep up their training. So we work to schedule them and get them in for periods. There's a lot of cleaning, especially animals that have not been properly cared for or do not have good housing. They're not house trained. Right? So there's a huge amount of cleaning and feeding, watering, of course, veterinary care, and then figuring that all out. So gathering all that information initially, and then determining, say for example, you have a 10 dog seizure and half of them need dentals. I don't know if any of you have ever had to have a dental on one of your pets, but they're extremely expensive. So sometimes those can wait, right? Like if somebody has tartar buildup that is starting to show some infection in the mouth that get them on antibiotics, it could wait a little bit. But when you have animals that are improperly housed and chewing on kennel and crates, cages, really, that they're kept in, they now have broken teeth and abscesses, and they need to be relieved from that pain soon. So that has to happen quickly. So the point is that a lot of humane societies have really backed away from being able to help, especially in just the past five years. And it's not because we don't want to help animals, it's what we do, but we're helping our community's animals in other ways also. And Vermont does not have a place to house for the state or even regionally. And so the expectation has always been these private nonprofit organizations have taken on the burden and the cost of that. And one of, you know, the functions for the ACIAB was to, you know, figure out how to take that away from the humane society so that we are not the ones doing the state's work. This is really something that the state needs to step up and do. We've crossed over a line and we're very much now like other states. And if you look at other states, they have municipal shelters, their counties and their states. If we don't have that, we're reaching a point where we have to have that. We're also seeing an increase in the cruelty because of the same things I mentioned, housing and economy, that impacts people's ability to properly care for their animals. And they may love them very much, but love is not enough. And I know that this has been mentioned about their property, but these are also sentient beings. And so in a seizure, they can't just be put on a shelf in an evidence room. It's got to be looked at very differently. It's much more similar to taking children out of their home when they are not being cared for properly, and the animals can speak even less than the children can in many cases. So I think it's imperative that we find ways to consider how do we work through these due process concerns and such. Like I said, I didn't even have this version of this bill until 07:00 this morning, and so I was able to get here to hear the walk through, most of it. So I will try to just quickly touch on some of the things that stood out to me. And some already have been addressed as to what I made notes. Page 11, I did wanna say, up at the top where it talks about the periodic unannounced visits. We're having enough trouble getting humane officers who are really law enforcement out to locations where there is cruelty, that the expectation that they are gonna follow-up on somebody who's already been convicted, and and now we have a year to make sure they don't get other animals or whatever that period is, that I think it should include the director of animal welfare, not just humane officers, so that in effect, that division can also go and do inspections when we've got, you know, gay mourn, state police, or local law enforcement that are not able to do so. Otherwise, I just don't see it happening. Okay. And that's concerning.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: So if we could Kenny has a question. Yeah. Can I just back up one second? Oh, of course.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant]: The massive amount of animals that are coming in from out of state for adoption or a lot

[Erica Holm]: of That's what they're coming for is adoption.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant]: Not money making, not the breeding part that they haven't been properly cared for. They're trained, a lot of them that are coming in are probably should be in houses to begin with. And then it falls on us and it creates even more of a problem. So I don't want to use the term puppy mills, because they're not, they're adult ones that are just abandoned from I think where's the big city right here? Louisiana or something?

[Erica Holm]: Oh, there's Louisiana, Alabama. I mean, many from the South, yes.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant]: So, and that is just compounding the problem that we already have in Vermont, and then making it so we have more people that wanna quickly adopt an animal that cannot properly take care of it. And then it falls back more on you and the rest of us that we can't do the job that needs to be done, which quite frankly, I love pets, don't get me wrong, I but, wanna take care of them, but they're coming in and all of a sudden they're hour or awful.

[Erica Holm]: Yeah, I mean, we get phone calls at the Humane Society all the time for people that either, say went on Petfinder and then made an arrangement with a Southern shelter to ship the dog up here, So they're not even working with a local shelter that does transports. That's not the huge amount of them, but those are problematic. We get calls because the dog got off transport and on day three, it attacked their family. So we've also seen some illnesses in Vermont now that we didn't used to have, that probably are as a result of transports over the years, such as heartworm. Is, to your point, there's absolutely dogs being bred, and we do have puppy mills in Vermont, and I know you're saying it's adult dogs. Yes, the adult dogs are the ones living in the most abysmal conditions because they don't get out, right? They are used over and over and over again, and the puppies get out, but some still horrible conditions. So ACIAB has presented to the legislature every single year since we have been in effect, and we have provided information to create overarching legislation that would also address rescues and, shelters transporting, provide some standards and, regulations for care of animals while they're here in Vermont in shelters and rescues. And there is another bill, eight forty one, that's, h eight forty one touching on that. So, moving forward along those lines, get giving this Department of Animal Welfare some policy writing authority. So, we're moving in the right direction, finally. This division of animal welfare creation has made a huge difference for us to start to get some of the things fixed that are a problem. And you are right that once those animals are here, they become a problem for Vermont. But they're here because people want to adopt animals. And so, for a while, Vermont didn't have a lot of local dogs to adopt. We've done an amazing job for spay and neuter. And so, the South has not done as good a job, and they're trying to transport their way out of their population problem. And when you have the New England states all saying, Sure, we'll take your animals, It doesn't incent them to improve, and it sends animals up here. And that's fine. We're okay with helping save animals all over the country. But Vermont first, then New England, and it also needs to be done in the right way. We shouldn't be allowing rescues or shelters to ship up animals that then the receiving rescue is not even getting them spayed or neutered before adopting out. I'll talk forever about animal welfare in Vermont and the country, if you let me, but that's not what you want to hear about.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: Did you ask me a question? Did I answer it?

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant]: You did a great job.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: Okay, thanks.

[Erica Holm]: We say squirrel at work all the time, because we just, you know, like our dogs, attention. Alright. So I don't need to look at all by little notes. I wanna talk about the forfeiture. Because, as I said, the humane societies, we're struggling struggling with capacity, either physical capacity or, you know, people to help, right, staff, volunteers, and such. And we don't want these animals going from one bad situation to just being held at some rescue or shelter, and their care is not even much better. There is a case a couple of weeks ago during that really, really cold weekend where some large dogs were pulled out of a really bad location, and because the officer didn't have anywhere for them to go, the place they went was really not much better. And so then some humane societies got together and helped out and each took a couple. But then we're left in this problem, if those aren't surrendered, and in that case, they were surrendered, but in seizure cases, humane societies, we just can't do this. We cannot take on the burden for the state, and we wanna help these animals. So it's not that we're turning our back. I think representative Oliver had made a comment about it. He didn't think anybody would deny helping. I wasn't sure if he was talking about serving whether post versus service or whether he was talking about humane societies and vets stepping up. But the reality is there's limitations to it. And so, know, the Franklin County Animal Rescue that went bankrupt years ago over just having they didn't go bankrupt because the cost of care was $50,000 for those dogs. They went bankrupt because they couldn't operate as what they were intended to operate as. Those dogs took up all their kennels. There are restrictions on who can handle them. They had to provide those dogs care and could no longer take in dogs from the community or from transport and adopt them out. You also can't fundraise on that. So, you know, your whole revenue source dries up. You have dogs sitting there for a year that you can't even really talk about. So, we want to help, but we need some guarantees that these animals are moving through this process very quickly. It does not make sense to have them for a minimum of three months in a shelter. We're a wonderful shelter. Some of these animals that come to us by surrender or seizure, it's the best place they've ever lived. They get the best care, the most love, and they really blossom. But shelters are also Kennel life is really detrimental to some animals, and we have seen animals fall apart in a kennel to the point where they're no longer living a humane life, and then they're euthanized. So the longer this drags on, the more likely the outcome is, poor for that animal. So for humane societies to be able to make any consideration of being able to help, we've got to have this written so that this can't be dragged out. Three months is too long the way it works now, and an opportunity to appeal over and over is problematic, that the animals are in our care. I also have concerns about the waiver of fees and even just security deposit, and that they can beg the court for hardships. Well, if they can't pay that fee, how are they gonna feed their animals if we'd left them there? The same with posting. In the most recent case, was posted. The owner should have seen it the next morning, the animals were seized in the evening, but a neighbor told him later on that day to go. But he should have been there feeding and watering the animals, especially because their buckets were frozen solid when we were there. So if they're not there within twenty four hours to see that post, then they are committing animal cruelty. And you asked, you mentioned fourteen days that possibly they wouldn't be going back even within that fourteen day window. Well, if they didn't, their animals would be dead. So whether it's from a cold right now, or whether it's lack of food and water, they're not gonna survive fourteen days. So, then there's still a case, but the animals didn't make it. So I am very much for saying that's got to be considered due process. These are living beings we're talking about. Alicia mentioned a car, right? Having a citation on it. It says, These aren't cars. I mean, we're already running into problems with the animals abandoned in apartments because they're property, it puts landlords in a really tough position, right? They're not allowed, they have to store somebody's furniture when they abandon an apartment. Well, they can't get a storage unit for their pets, right? So, then they're in a tough place. They can't surrender them, but it's not a seizure. So I think it's really critical that that is resolved. The money piece of it, the cost of care, I do think it's critical to have that built in there. There will be some people that can pay that and drag this out. So I feel like you have to have both. There was a case in New Hampshire of 88 Great Danes years ago, and that woman was a millionaire. And so she could keep paying, while this was all played out, and it was millions of dollars to the main side of The United States to care for them. So there are going to be those cases, people with money, that cost of care won't stop them. That's why we need the timeline for the forfeiture to go through. And again, separate from criminal charges. So, we want to focus on the animals, their living sentient beings, getting them what's best for them, even if their owner isn't concerned about what's best for them. I did feel on page 21, it sounds like you guys had changed one word too promptly, that the final order being issued promptly. My definition of promptly might be different than yours. So it's very concerning to me that we have a word like that in there instead of a set time. I know that our courts are all really, really busy, but they're asking for some leeway in here for them to make decisions. They're asking you guys not to take away their ability to waive charges and that type of thing, but yet they're flammed at trying to hear these cases, so they don't want us to set timelines on that. But again, we're talking about living beings. If these kinds of things aren't resolved and the humane societies end up going bankrupt and aren't there, then we really have nothing in the state to help us through this, because the officers should not be taking the animals home. I don't know why it had an asterisk there. So I would like to see something about cost of care put back in. I know you're worried about that really bogging it down, and maybe that can happen in a later committee, but we feel like we really need cost of care and civil forfeiture timelines, and those timelines need to be as short as absolutely possible. This can't be dragging on for months. I did wanna somebody asked about the impact on local towns, their government officers types of things. So animal control officers, I do wanna explain, are not humane investigators anymore. And so, yes, they might, law enforcement officer may ask them to go on the property with them, they might know them, might be related to them, help with that type of thing. But in towns, most towns, they think of their animal control officer as the dog catcher, and that's really all they want them to deal with, stray dogs, dog bites, that type of thing. Many animal patrol officers, because they love animals, they want to assist in this type of thing, but that burden isn't falling on them. And these towns have no Very rarely do they have holding facilities. Some towns have grown up kennel they go and buy at Tractor Supply as a place to put the dog, a stray dog, but what they're finding is they're not getting claimed now. So now they're running into problems. They used to be claimed and fine, they were there for a day. And so now they're looking for resources. That's another thing that impacts humane societies. We're trying to help our towns manage their stray and abandoned animal population. So, again, leaves us less space. So I just wanted to touch on that about ACOs and the burden on towns. One of the reasons that ACI B was created was because there was different ways of investigating cruelty in every town. So everybody was different, and that hasn't changed a whole lot yet. It's still very fragmented, but getting that humane officer definition changed and fixed, that these are crimes that belong with law enforcement, helped to provide some consistency, but it's a huge burden on fish and wildlife, state police, and local law enforcement. So, having some experts to assist them is really important, and we're happy to do that. You need help. The big but. So, I just wanted you to understand that that's why, I mean, in the case I was talking about, the recent case, taking 10 dogs, I don't have 10 empty kennels, and other humane societies that we have really close working relationships are like, sorry, I can't help you. You can't take a seized dog. If you get them surrendered, we'll take six of them. That's a problem. So, long term, we're looking at potentially housing these dogs for at least three months, the way the system is right now.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: Certainly hoping that this is gonna provide significant improvements. As we keep on going and I think Never hopeful. Issue as far as the posting we'll hopefully get us pretty close. Any questions? Thank you very much for your testimony. Thank kind of re centered us to really what is happening. Well, thank

[Erica Holm]: you for all the hard work you're doing. I'm not a lawyer. So you guys are really paying attention to the absolute nitty gritty, and that's important because if there is cases where people are going to court right, to fight that, we want it to be as tight as possible. Hopefully it would happen once, and that would then set the precedent so it wouldn't happen right

[Lisa Milet]: away.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: Thank you very much again.

[Erica Holm]: Thank you all, really appreciate you.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: So Judge Zonay, you could come back. So you may have had more, but I did have one question. I just wanna make sure I have this clear. And I'm looking at page, really the bottom of page 18 and top of page 19, that provision. So where I perceive the next rendition, the next version of this is gonna go is that we'll be doing, it would be a seizure or attack order. And we'll put whatever necessary language as far as attack order reasonably, whatever that language is, they're gonna see it. Know, the reasonable expectation that the notice will be provided. So the fourteen days would run from that date of seizure or tackling. So we have that. Do understand the 14, do we need to say on the fifteenth day something happens? I think I understand that part. But as I perceive what we're trying to do is that they will have the notice, they will be able to ask the court for that hearing, and at that time they'll either provide the security or they will ask for the waiver. If they ask for the waiver, it's really not until everything would be handled at that day 30, as far as within the thirty days, whatever that hearing is. There wouldn't be an extra hearing, but that hearing would deal with the forfeiture, it would deal with whether the waiver was appropriate, that kind of thing. So I just wanted to make that clear that that's kind of where I think we are now. I don't know if you have

[Chief Superior Judge Thomas Zonay]: Yes. You mentioned like the fifteenth day. That's the tweak. If you just put in the language that says shall be forfeited here it says fourteen days after the seizure.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: So can you tell me exactly where you are on that? Line

[Chief Superior Judge Thomas Zonay]: 21 on page 18.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: Okay.

[Chief Superior Judge Thomas Zonay]: It says shall be forfeited pursuant to fourteen days after the seizure. If you just put shall be forfeited if they don't follow it, in other words, you don't have to put in, you can put fifteen days if you want on the fifteenth day or something thereafter be forfeited.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: Will work. Okay, thereafter, like, or fifty. No. No. But we wouldn't say thereafter. We'd just say shall be forfeited if they hadn't done that in the fourteen months.

[Chief Superior Judge Thomas Zonay]: And that's very clear. There's a lot of talk there's been quite a bit of talk about timing and the process. The courts are busy. These cases will be competing with cases involving stalking, landlord tenant, cases where people are having other important civil matters that affect their lives and the courts have to be able to balance what's coming in and how we're doing it. And the timelines and use of the word promptly and other language in this makes it very clear that if this bill is enacted, that the legislature wants us to prioritize and move these ahead. It's understood, and we would do that. So I understand there's concerns about moving ahead. Those concerns are understood and they are taken into account when we look at scheduling and trying to bring cases in. We don't want to have people on the hook, if you will, for money that they're never going to get. We want to have humane societies who are willing to work and take animals to provide protection. So we understand that and we will work to effectuate it as best we can. The prior witness just made a comment and I thought, wait a minute, the judiciary didn't ask for that. She said, they're not asking something about like the judiciary asking to remove charges. That's not the judiciary's request. That's a policy decision. We've never asked to remove charges. What I did say was, if that's the policy the legislature is going forward on and you have the hardship provision that the legislature, that your committee came up with, that it should be something that is workable in terms of timing. And so that's the only comment. Please, I hope no one's hearing the court to say we are advancing those types of policy interests, we're not. Yes, for your committee.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: I didn't understand that to be the case. Alright. So, I don't know if you had finished earlier. I'll I have take

[Chief Superior Judge Thomas Zonay]: one more thing and that was it on page 21 on line seven through nine. It says whether the defendant pays the security required by subdivision D3B shall be a relevant factor for the court to consider when determining whether the animal was subjected to neglect. That's a legislative policy decision. I guess the question I would that it gives rise to is, can the legislature say that something is relevant if the judge and court finds it under the rules is actually not? For instance, is it relevant if a per a renter, does not have the money to pay rent into court to prove that they weren't paying rent six months before as alleged in the complaint. And so I just point that out because you can have that in there, It sets what the legislature is there, but I can foresee a universe where judges would say, well, you say it's relevant, but it's not. It could be relevant in a case, but it ever and always, I would suggest can give rise to concerns and problems because I can see many cases where that would not be relevant.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: So would it be better to just flag that that the court shall consider that? I mean, and considering it can then we're not gonna presume that it's relevant or not. We just want this to actually be one of the factors that's considered in this. I mean, so I'll answer that question then I'll go to my second question.

[Chief Superior Judge Thomas Zonay]: Again, the threshold determination under the rules of evidence is whether something is relevant. And if you a rule, a statute that says, we say this is relevant, and the judge is on the bench going, on the case before me, this has no relevance. How that how's that tension resolved?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: Well, I I guess I'm saying I just want the court to consider it. And and they make the decision on the relevance or not, but I don't I don't want the the lack or, you know, the having sought that financial waiver to not be part of a whole process. Let me go ahead. The other question that we would have is that so the issue is that if the person hasn't paid that security, are they able to care for that? Are they able to feed the animal or provide them veterinarian care and such? And I'm not sure if that has as much relevance going backwards for the neglect, although it could be. It could be. Whether we say if you don't pay that you've waived or you've had the waiver of that fee, should you get the, I mean, has been witnesses have been saying that, should the person get the animal back?

[Chief Superior Judge Thomas Zonay]: That's different question than whether it evidences neglect. Right. Because that question looks going is prospective. If they don't have the money to pay this, as you point out, how do they have the money to pay for the animals going forward? But the fact that someone may not have the money on 02/05/2026 doesn't mean that before Christmas they had the money

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: So or didn't have the maybe we put this something along the lines in page 23 in sub section E that the court shall consider whether the person is able to provide the necessary resource. I don't know how we'll put it, but essentially the question will be there. We're not saying, I don't want to say that absolutely the person doesn't get the animal back if they don't pay. But I want it to be a consideration. So yeah, we're not forfeiting, but I don't know if that fits because you're saying, all right, we're not entering this as a forfeit because it's essentially forfeiting the animal.

[Chief Superior Judge Thomas Zonay]: Well, you don't find the cruelty of animals, animal neglect, the court can't act as forfeiture, right?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: Right.

[Chief Superior Judge Thomas Zonay]: So whether they can going forward, how that ties in is the question. It seems to me that if these cases are going the plaintiff is represented in a case where that is a relevant factor, the attorney should be advocating that and bringing that to the court's attention saying, judge, in this case, they don't have the money to pay. They can't do this. And so that's going to bring it before the court.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: That'll be part of the, whether it should be forfeited if they haven't, if they've not been feeding the animal and now we know in part why they haven't, because they can't even pay this security, that's where that would all come out. Okay, yeah.

[Chief Superior Judge Thomas Zonay]: Yeah, absolutely. I can foresee where it can be relevant in the calculus of the courts. The court, when they say, well, have the money or whatever it was, I can see where there could be relevance in certain cases. In other cases, it might not be.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: Okay, thank you for helping me think through that, muddle through that, might say. Anything else?

[Chief Superior Judge Thomas Zonay]: That was it. And again, if there's any questions, please let us know. There's a lot here. And I know the other question came up about, well, the cost of care hearing. As you wrestle with that, that's a policy decision for the legislature, but keep in mind, we're a zero sum game with five days a week, eight hours per day. Do you want us to focus on bringing in the cases that are going to get us to the final resolution of forfeiture, Or do you want us to also be focusing on a cost of care hearing because if there's only X amount of hours, something's not gonna be heard?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: Right, right. Yeah, it

[Chief Superior Judge Thomas Zonay]: might be one of those, it might be a different category. And so, you know, the determination for the legislature is if the bill that you are entering is able to streamline the process and the courts are able to deliver on the timelines and keeping things moving on what this new bill would have. Do you really need the cost of care hearing? Because if you do have a cost of care hearing, as you pointed out, I believe earlier today, it's another proceeding, and that does take time.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: So I guess the one other question I would have is that there's nothing, I think, we don't have the cost of care, there's nothing to prevent a humane society, if it's not very much money, to go to small claims court, if they are not getting the money through this other method or even filing a case in civil court? Or do I need some sort of savings clause to say, notwithstanding the forfeiture component that doesn't prevent these entities from bringing

[Chief Superior Judge Thomas Zonay]: up There the are provisions, for instance, in connection with restitution orders that, as you point out, clause that specifically indicate that notwithstanding this, the parties don't give up their rights. And so Right. To add clarity, it may be if if that's the direction that the committee wants to go in, it may be helpful to say, notwithstanding this, you know, you can develop the cause of action and say, Humane Society can bring, it shall not prevent Humane Society from bringing an action for any amounts or whatever it may be. That's a policy decision. But making it, the clarity of that would be helpful so that you don't have a humane society one day saying, we're going to bring an action, it's not mentioned here, and the court possibly looking at it and saying, well, that's not a remedy that's afforded to you of the statutory framework.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson]: Barbara, question? I'm just wondering, our chair actually raised the question about successful completion of treatment and what happens if that doesn't occur. And I know it's in other statutes, so I wondered if you could weigh in on that.

[Chief Superior Judge Thomas Zonay]: Where that is contained within this statute is under the conditions for sentencing. And so if someone is sentenced to a term of probation, that would be a condition of probation. If they do not successfully complete a condition of probation, they can have their probation violated and they can receive the underlying sentence, whatever may have been the suspended sentence upon which probation is based. And so the remedy for not successfully completing a program that you are ordered to complete as a sentence of probation is the violation of probation and the sentence that's imposed.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: Right, all right. Yeah, that satisfies the conservative risk. All right, thank you very much, John. I appreciate it. And are you gonna be on for a moment or two? Because I just wanted to address another issue after we have Kim talk to rest of Kim, why don't you join us? Good morning. Good morning. Thank you for being here.

[Kim McManus]: Good to be here. For the record, Kim McManus, Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs. Did you want to start with your question?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: No, no, no. I just want you to weigh in on graph number 2.1. All right.

[Kim McManus]: Just a few points from the department. Regarding the civil forfeiture process, we very much defer to the advocacy of the Director of Animal Welfare. She's the subject matter expert in this area. As a department, we support any policy decisions that shorten the timeline and protect the humane societies and other organizations that are caring for these animals. But then we have no great solutions for you in that area. Okay, wonderful. Just download to me for that one. It appears this draft addressed State Attorney Brown's two issues that he raised. I did check-in with him quickly on page five for the wait, wrong draft maybe. Oh, sorry. Wrong folder, in fact. One second. Sorry. For the failure to for the refusal to comply with the court order to inspect the premises. Here we go. We would suggest adding knowingly refuses to comply.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: Can you not knowingly refuses? Can you accidentally refuse?

[Kim McManus]: Well, I was going through a few different scenarios, and I just wanted to suggest avoiding that a humane officer may think there was a refusal, and did the person have the opportunity to really comply or refuse? And it's similar to DUI refusal for a blood warrant that we have you knowingly refused that court order. So just to be cleaner that way.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: You'd like a mens rea rather than

[Kim McManus]: one. I was just thinking of worst case scenarios that, yes, would be strange, but we all know those strange things happen. We would suggest adding that. And the clarification that consulting with the Secretary of State is not grounds for dismissal. We appreciate that addition. And then I only have one that I had heard the testimony earlier about successful completion. And so, Judge Zornay, can absolutely correct me if I'm wrong about what I'm about to say. I do remember we debated this in H222 last year around requiring the Domestic Violence Accountability Program and the successful completion. And I thought we'd gotten to the point where we just said completed in that the program decides whether you successfully completed a program, that the program design's like, did you finish the program or not? And then that would be inherently successful that you completed it. And so whether or not we need that successfully completed language and just something that jumped into my mind when I heard the mention earlier. And I did go back and look, and it does just say completed the devout. So just a question for the judiciary, whether or not does successfully add another issue, should we just take out that adverb? And with that caveat, agree that any of these programs are approved by the director of animal welfare and therefore knows inherently in the program what is successful completion, that someone just can't not show up and complete. So if these programs are approved by the director of welfare and there's criteria for completing it successfully. Just a question of whether or not we need that adverb in there. Those were the only points we had,

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson]: if there are any questions. Any questions?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: So it sounds like we have some places where we say successfully complete, now we also have that from last year just complete. Judge Zoney, do you have any preference for what the court would like to see? Or is that a policy decision?

[Chief Superior Judge Thomas Zonay]: No, can help you out on that one. If you just say complete and available animal cruelty or complete, if you drop the word successfully, what you will have in the general standard probation terms, it would probably come under the specific condition that talks about having a screening or completing a program, and it says for general probation, you must complete the counseling or treatment as directed by your probation officer. You must attend and comply with the counseling or treatment requirements and satisfy those requirements. So even if you don't put successfully here, we'll get it on the back end with the actual probation order where it will be ordered. So I think dropping that would be fine.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: So maybe we should be consistent with what seems to be our more recent practice. Okay, thank you very much, judge. And I think that's all the testimony for now on this. We will have another version sometime next week, hope, because otherwise it's not gonna make it

[Chief Superior Judge Thomas Zonay]: through

[Rep. Martin LaLonde]: all the other committees.