Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I have I'm sorry. I have to pass over the latest. The latest version?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: The people. People are these sort of things. Sorry. Thank you for doing that.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I don't know if I have a nothings. I can look online. Oh, This one. We're live and welcome to the host judiciary committee this twelve afternoon continuing our work. February 12, we're going to be looking at H578 draft number 3.1, the Act relating to penalties and procedure for animal cruelty offenses. We have the last forty minutes that we are going to be spending on this bill, set this up for voting tomorrow. Sure. Unless there's something dramatically wrong or tweak because this bill needs to either get voted out tomorrow morning or go back on the wall for next year. So just for everybody to understand that that's where we are because there's other things we have to get to. But I think we're there. I think it's in really good shape. But over to you

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: And this bill has to go to two other committees, is it?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: It's gonna have to go to Agriculture's already looked at it. We have some additional testimony today. I haven't heard anything back from them. GovOps did look at it and voted eight zero three or something in favor. They looked at the very last section. And it does The most recent draft? Well, the stuff they have to look at. Not It's the very last section. Yeah. Yeah. So, and but appropriations needs to look at does have money in their appropriations. With that over to you, Eric, if you can run through the final changes on that.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, sure. Will do. Good afternoon again, everybody. Eric Fitzpatrick with the Office of Legislative Counsel. As Chair LaLonde said, we're now looking at draft 3.1 of the House Judiciary Committee's proposed strike all amendment to the bill as introduced and activating to penalties and procedures for animal cruelty offenses. The number of yellow highlighted changes has decreased dramatically with each draft. So there really aren't that many in this version of it. So I will focus on those changes unless there's any desire for anybody to review anything. Feel free to stop me if I'm going too quickly. But, but again, drawing the committee's attention to where there are language differences between this draft and the previous 2.1 that the committee had looked at. The first one is down on page five. And this has to do with the misdemeanor animal cruelty offense. Remember animal cruelty has both a misdemeanor and a felony type of offense and the misdemeanor offense in particular has a long list of the types of conduct that constitute misdemeanor animal cruelty. You've added a couple and as the draft has been working its way through and there's a couple of language tweaks to the new offenses on page five. One of them has to do with it's a misdemeanor offense of someone while they're prohibited from possessing, owning, caring for or residing with or having custody or working with an animal, if they do any of those things, while they're prohibited from doing so by a court order, then that is a new misdemeanor offense. So the language changes on line six. So basically it's a violation of that provision. If you're doing any one of those things while you're prohibited from doing so by any court order, it doesn't have to be one that's just issued pursuant to the animal cruelty chapter, but you could be prohibited, for example, by conditions of release order or by an order in relation to relief from abuse or any one of those types of proceedings could also conceivably include a prohibition on this. So you violate any one of those orders, and it would be a misdemeanor violation. So that's that change. Right below it, you'll see, we've done this in a couple of other places, for example, line one, establishing a knowingly amends rea so that in this case, if you're refusing to comply with the court order to permit periodic unannounced visits, you have to knowingly do that. In other words, you can't inadvertently have failed to comply with the order and therefore be violating the statute. You have to know that you're violating it for an order for it to be a misdemeanor offense. So those are those two moving down now to exactly kind of what I was just referring to, which is you remember that in addition to the criminal offenses, the existing statute permits the court to impose a number of other types of sanctions, you know, those can involve forfeiting possession of the animal forfeiting any rights in the future to possess other animals, allowing periodic unannounced visits by the animal control officer and others. Within that section is where the next round of changes are. And that's sort of starts over on page nine. This has to do sort toward the bottom of page nine. It has to do with what I just mentioned. The fact that one of the things that court can order if you're convicted of animal cruelty is that you look at lines twelve and thirteen there you're forfeit any future right to own possess care for reside with have custody of or work with any animal for a period of up to five years. I remember that the committee had done work over the last couple of drafts to make sure that that language have custody of work with etc. It's consistent throughout. You'll see that's added on line 20, again, to make sure that it's consistent in each instance. In that case, it's with reference to the livestock or poultry exemption. Again, the idea that you won't forfeit any future right to work with have custody of livestock or poultry on the basis of an animal cruelty offense, unless the offense was against us, the you you'd committed animal cruelty against livestock or poultry. So that's carries forward that clarification that the committee was making. Over on page 10, now we're still in the sanctions that a court can impose in addition to the criminal sanctions. And this has to do with the topic of education counseling programs. Remember that also is existing law that you're not adding something that doesn't exist already, but you are making some modifications to it. And you'll see, for example, line three, the original language is participate in animal cruelty prevention programs. You had in the last draft had successfully complete, but I think the committee heard that that was a hard thing to enforce successfully anyway. So now it just says complete rather than successfully and clarifying that the program is one that is approved by the director of animal welfare. That's respect to animal cruelty prevention programs. The next romanette, romanette number two is the you'll see the successfully complete changes made again. And then also clarifying that with respect to these animal abuse education account accountability programs, if you're making it clear that if any are approved by the Director of Animal Welfare, then they could be required. Think the committee's understanding was that there may or may not be some that are approved at this point. Moving on to the counseling element in romanette three, again, this language is really actually the change here between the previous draft and the, and the this draft, just skipping down a little bit to what was Roman at two there in the existing lab, the counseling language is different for juvenile offenses and for adult offenses. So what's being done here is you're striking that separate procedure for juveniles and just making it consistent whether you're adult or a juvenile, it's the same thing. And that so that language is really a bunch of it is moved from the juvenile section right up to here to Roman at three lines nine through 12 and, tweaked a little bit. But it would apply to both adults and juvenile same idea. You could the court could order again, this is discretionary, not required at this point, because it's a misdemeanor offense, undergo a psychiatric or psychological evaluation. And if the screening indicates that therapy is needed, obtain psychiatric, psychological or mental health treatment with a licensed clinician, and then making clear remotely or within a reasonable distance from the defendant's residence. The treatment could be remote or in person, either way would satisfy that.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: We'll questions now. We have a question from Angela.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Hey, Eric. Language is I realize it's not new language, but it's just striking me as a bit odd. Within a reasonable distance from the defendant's residence, is that necessary? I mean, it's who's determining reasonableness? Are we what if they wanted to attend in person, not remotely, but it was like an hour from their house? Is that a it just seems like odd language to include.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, it's been there a long time. So I can't really say whether it's caused any issues or it predates me.

[Lisa Michaela (Director of Animal Welfare, Vermont Department of Public Safety)]: That's including New Hampshire or the other states.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: But what isn't I would want to say you can go anywhere you want is if they're a licensed clinician, we're limiting it by saying within a reasonable distance.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Seems odd to me. We're going to keep it. But you weren't

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: really using the there's there haven't been okay.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Keep moving. They are in verbal 3.1 in its existing language.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: So easy to get read. Okay. I think it's silly.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Let the record show. Let the

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Record reflects. Record reflects. Carry on.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Moving along.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I see.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I'll talk to the I'll talk to the senate.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Oh my god. There you go. The times, there's always the senate. Everybody should language out. Always consented.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: All right.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We're moving now over to the next page, page 11. And this is another one of those sanctions that the court can order. Remember, this is line starts on line five. These are unannounced visits by a humane officer in the future to inspect the person's treatment of animals in the future. And you couple of changes you make here. First of all, you add the director of animal welfare to the people who can conduct these periodic unannounced visits in the future, and also the time limitation on line five. So rather than say that those unannounced visits can only last for a year, leaves it up to the court's discretion to decide how long those can be. Those can be extended for but again, line fourteen and fifteen. The court always has the option to under existing law had been extend that one year period. But here, you know, just in the court can increase it or decrease it is what the intent was. You just replace the word extended with modified. So the court can always modify whatever period it chooses in the initial order. Moving on from there, let's see. So those are, as I say, the you look over on page 12, the very just the same language we just saw with respect to the misdemeanor sanctions the court can impose here for the felony ones. It's just the same language expanding or making consistent the language about having custody working with etc. So that it's consistent throughout the throughout the bill. Moving on quite a bit now down to page 14. And this is the piece where again, it's really just making this language consistent throughout the bill. In this instance, it's the language that deals with the ability of a person who has been prohibited by one of these court orders from, you know, possessing an animal in the future or that sort of thing, residing with working with etc. Remember, he created a court process where the person can file a petition to be to be relieved from those those restrictions. So this language is just chewing up the language in that petition process again, with the underlying language about what the person can be prohibited from doing. So again, you see line eight, removing the word successfully as you just did in the underlying statute, pointing out that the approval of the director of animal welfare is relevant, because that's also part of the prevention and education programs piece that you just looked at, like throwing up the psychological and psychiatric counseling language as well. That again, it's just making sure that the language for purposes of this petition that the person is able to file is, is consistent with the language of the underlying prohibitions.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Now

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: we're moving on to the forfeiture piece. So this is the other one of the other big parts of this bill, which is expediting of the forfeiture process. So again, this is different from the criminal misdemeanor felony crimes, as well as different from those sanctions we were just talking about. But in addition, there's a civil forfeiture process that exists in existing law. And the committee has been redrafting this over the past several drafts to an attempt to clarify and expedite it so that it can move along and in a speedier fashion and not not increase the cost for both on the animal for being held for that long and on the rescue organizations that are holding the animal. So some amendments in this draft to that process start on page 16. Remember when that and this is the situation where a warrant can be issued for a humane officer to seize an animal that's being subject to abuse. And this idea of that when the when the humane officer executes the warrant, existing language starts on line 10 provides that a veterinarian must accompany the humane officer during the execution of the warrant here, you're basically keeping that language, that's line 11. So it'll be existing law, but adding that failure to be accompanied by a veterinarian during the execution of the warrant shall not be grounds for dismissal of the enforcement action. So that's kind of similar to the Secretary of Agriculture language that you added. So that again, if the Secretary of Agriculture isn't consulted, I think it was state's attorney Scott Brown, who pointed out that there was a Vermont Supreme Court case that said, well, that's not fatal to the claim. So this is just doing the same thing here. Person, the claim the force action doesn't have to be dismissed just because that didn't accompany the humane officer. Moving down now to page, let's see, I think we're going to page 19. Yes. So now we're at this new expedited proceeding of forfeiture. And this you'll see some changes here. And this is the idea is that is that when a humane officer seizes an animal. And again, I just mentioned a warrant process, but there's another process, which I'm sure the committee recalls, which is that if there's an emergency situation where it appears the officer that the animals in a life threatening situation, you may an officer can seize the animal right away without having to go to court and get a warrant first. And this language applies in those sorts of situations. And how might the forfeiture proceeding work in that context? And you'll see that the way it works is starting on line one, generally speaking, unless someone who has a legal interest in the animal requests a hearing and post security within fourteen days after that initial seizure and the procedures outlined here are followed, then the animal will be forfeit. Now, again, new language you see on lines three and four is making clear something that you had already agreed upon and was in the previous draft, just making it clear that again, for consistency sake, that the process that you've created here permits the defendant, the person whose animals are seized to request a financial hardship exception to this requirement that they post security. I'm sure everybody remembers that piece. We've been talking about it a lot, but in order to be accurate, that sentence needs to also state that the animal is forfeited unless the person requests a hearing and provides the security unless they've also requested for a undue hardship exemption to the security requirement, within that fourteen day period. So you'll see as we go through, if they don't do any of that, if they don't request a hearing, and they don't request the financial hardship exception, right then within that fourteen day period, then the animal gets forfeited. If they do request either or both of those things, then you'll see, and you probably remember, the hearing has to take place within thirty days. And at that hearing, you'll see the clarifying language adherence as well. At that hearing, the court not only decides whether or not the animal should be forfeited, but also whether or not the financial hardship exemption should be granted. So in other words, there's not going to be some separate court process, some separate hearing, some additional layer of procedure, it all gets done at that one court proceeding that has to take place within thirty days after the after the seizure. Now, another reason you may recall it's going to down here in this is lines 14 to 16. Very important. Remember the previous draft, because you had this issue of, that's all well and good for the person who's physically present when the animals are seized because they're actually handed the notice. So they're getting due process fulfilled because they're getting a notice that they hearing you've got they got fourteen days to contest it or, or re request a financial hardship exemption. And the previous draft had said, well, if they're not there, then they have to be served under Rule four. And that involved, you know, the share of personal service for of course mail and posting is permitted under Rule four. But the way Rule four works, the other options have to be tried first. So the the more expedited approach that the this draft takes, you'll see is that it doesn't require personal service if the person isn't there. However, service is accomplished by and you see line fifteen and sixteen by conspicuously posting the notice in a prominent and accessible place at the location where the animal is seized. So that will give the person notice in a as the language makes clear in a conspicuous place where it's very accessible and prominent, that again, they have fourteen days to contest or to request a hearing or to request financial hardship exemption. And if they don't, then the animal gets forfeited. And I think that the conspicuous posting requirement is also under the facts is a good argument for that being satisfactory under due process as well. So that's another avenue for doing it. And that way, it also helps you keep the process moving in a, in an expedited fashion. And then so to be consistent with that, I'm over on page 20. Now, that's what I was just mentioning that, that the clock starts ticking, the fourteen day clock starts ticking for the person to contest it. I'm looking at line four now page 20 on the date of that seizure, because the seizure on the day of that seizure, they're getting noticed either it's getting handed to them or it's getting nailed to the wall or the door or some other prominent place one way or another, they're getting noticed on that day. So the fourteen day clock starts ticking right then. Making clear now on the same page, I'm on line 20. Still, if you look at page lines 15 to 17, again, just clarifying that that same hearing, either or earlier, the court could always resolve the financial hardship request earlier. But if they don't, then at that same hearing, they also have to decide that issue in addition to the merits. So that's all in that new sentence, lines 15 to 17. Let's see. Now we're over on page 21. Again, all this is all clarification to be consistent with this process that we just described. See lines nine to 12. Again, talking about the timeline of posting that security has to be posted within fourteen days following the seizure, but have to be clear there that unless the person requested it reduced or waived on the basis of financial hardship, because in that case, then the court's going to have to decide that issue at the hearing. So it wouldn't be posted until that time. Lines 18 to 20 of that page, take the committee and discuss that it didn't didn't help the process, or it wasn't something that you wanted to continue to include that this, whether or not they paid the security was something to consider at the hearing.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Before you go ahead, Eric, I just want to make clear with respect to that, that taking that language out on lines 18 to 20 does not keep the prosecutor from arguing that the inability to pay the security deposit or the security may be relevant to the fact that this person has neglected the animal. I mean, if the person isn't able to pay, could be evidence that part of the reason why the animal was neglected before was the the person couldn't pay for the basic care. So I mean, it's in other words, I just want to make it very clear that that's an issue that if it's going to be relevant, the prosecutor will probably bring it up.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you. That's good point. And I think I recall a judge is only making that same point that in a given case, it could very well be relevant. And that there the fact that the language isn't here doesn't mean that it can't be argued by the prosecution. Thanks. Yeah, thank you. Moving on to page 22. Line four, I think this was a correction. And we have recalled discussing in the last meeting. I think I'm going to turn to represent again. Believe the words correct rhythm was, but I

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: mean, offspring. Yes. I think it's more correct. You can have a single offspring, but

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: let's go with right.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm going with work. Although it has not been submitted to the prooers yet. Yeah. You say. Yeah. So it'll be interesting to see what happens.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: You're

[Unidentified Committee Member]: better. You can disagree, I think.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: No. Don't know. What sounds better,

[Unidentified Committee Member]: but what doesn't want any changes?

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: It's both a singular and plural word. We are in tricky, tricky territory. Very carefully. We

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: bought that one before. He didn't catch the other thing that's all remotely jurisdiction. Anyway, go ahead, Eric. Sorry.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No problem. One last change is over on page 26. I think this is the very last one. And that's line nine sixteen to 18. And you may recall, so the previous draft, although you had decided to, I think to strike the cost of care action. So that was a creation of a separate type of action that a rescue organization or humane officer could bring to try and recover the costs of care from the defendant. And I think the decision the committee made was well with this expedited process and the security being posted that hopefully that was going to address the issue of getting getting these kinds of costs paid for upfront. But you wanted to make clear that the fact that that the forfeiture proceeding and the security was available does not mean that there couldn't be any other type of action that a person could file. And this is standard language that we've included in several places in Vermont statutes to when you want to make express the point that a person can still file a separate lawsuit if they have one to recover any sort of damage they have. That's the language you see here. The section shall not be construed to limit or infringe upon any other rights or remedies available under common law or any other provision of law or rule. So just making that clear. I think that's the last, that is the last change.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: All right. Any questions for Eric?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yes, Andrew. Eric, do you

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: know which style guide the editors use?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: No. I'm

[Unidentified Committee Member]: not sure. Off off

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the top of my head, I'm not sure. I'm happy to ask though.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I would love to know.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. Hello.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I will follow-up on that. Thank you. You bet.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: All right, Judge Zonay, if you could join us. Good afternoon again. Yes, thank you for your patience and being here all afternoon.

[Judge Tom Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: It was a pleasure. So Tom Foney, Chief Superior Judge. Having in mind it is version 3.1, I would offer one comment only. On page 19, the service provision, where it allows the tap order immediately, the public notice. I would be remiss if I did not highlight that generally, tap orders are permitted after showing of due diligence and the court considers the specific facts that is rooted in due process considerations. And so I will not give a legal opinion on whether attack order immediately with no considerations of facts and circumstances or no showing of an inability to serve as constitutional or not, because that's something that would come before the courts. But I do think it's important to understand that that is something that you should most likely expect that that's going to be something that differs from current Vermont law in a way that may certainly lead to challenges.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Appreciate that. Can see that coming. I appreciate it. Yeah, okay.

[Judge Tom Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: Right, and I won't weigh in on the was work.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Right, no, you can't. Take you on. Right, I appreciate that. That's it, yeah. That's all we got, thank you. Thank you. Have great day, Judge, take care. If Lisa can join us.

[Lisa Michaela (Director of Animal Welfare, Vermont Department of Public Safety)]: Thank you for being back again. Thank you so much for having me here. I'm Lisa Michaela, director of animal welfare for the Department of Public Safety, and I know that you all have put a lot of time and work into this bill, and it's time to move on to other bills. With that in mind, I do have one tweak and then one sort of gap that I have a suggested pill for, but happy to send language on and have you decide to discard it or not. The tweak is on page 21. It's lines seven through nine. It occurred to me when I was thinking about this, it's the amount of the security and payment schedule shall be set in rules adopted by the director of animal welfare pursuant to 20 VSA 3202E. And that is a great approach starting next legislative term. But if this is adopted as of 07/01/2026, it means between that date and whenever you all can approve an administrative schedule by me, there will be no amount set. So there's no security set. So my suggested tweak, gaffling tweak, would be to and I can send the language itself, but to end that sentence with a semicolon and say that until such time, the security shall be and pick a number. It could be a $100, could be $50 per animal. Just set something statutorily until it's possible to adopt that schedule. So that's tweak. And then the other gap I noticed, and you might tell me to take it to the Senate, or you might tell me just to, and you might just fill this in however you want, but on page 23, if we look at the section starting on page line 13, If an order of forfeiture is not interrupted to herein, the animal shall be returned to the person claiming an interest. But then we go down to, If a payment of costs required by the subsection is not made within fourteen days after the final order, the custodial caretaker's costs not to exceed the amount of security posted shall be reimbursed from the Animal Welfare Fund. It doesn't say what happens to the animal in that instance, because the caretaker has to pay the cost of care to get their animal back. And it says if they don't pay it, well then the amount that is probably about $100 from the animal welfare fund can stand in for it. There are 40 states that have similar provisions where there's some sort of hearing, there's a cost determined, and the person can get their animal back, or can maintain title if they pay that cost. And the way that those 40 states all resolve the issue is if the person does not pay the court ordered cost of care, so the court could adjust what was put in, then title to the animal is forfeited. It's like getting a car back from being impounded. This point, we've already had the hearing, and if your car is impounded, you don't get the car back if you don't pay the impound fee. And so that's the equivalent here. Happy to send you language that effectuates that, that's based on the statutes in the other states.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: You can go ahead and send that, but this one might Might be bigger than what? Might need a little time in the Senate. The other one Eric, are still with us, Eric? Is Eric still online? Yes.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I am, but I didn't I'm not sure that that approach works. I get the concept, but

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: On page 21 we're talking about? Yep. So, yeah, that's what I was thinking. I mean, I I Yeah. Didn't think that that worked, but is there another way to have a particular part of this effective at a later date?

[Lisa Michaela (Director of Animal Welfare, Vermont Department of Public Safety)]: Or say zero, security until the schedule's adopted.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Well, I guess it would be zero because there would be no adopted schedules. Okay. Yeah. Was unsure how that would get construed. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. So you see the issue though, Eric?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Yep. And we're on line seven to nine of page 21. Right?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Right. Right. Right. That that's not gonna be in place for some time.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Right. I mean, the one option, but I don't really like it is we make that section effective 07/01/2027. But I think we wanna get this in place before that. Right.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, you could we could ponder it. I mean, because if the let's say the rules aren't in effect yet, then in a sense, the default is that there isn't an amount that doesn't prohibit the court from setting an amount. But I suppose you could say, now that I think of it, did you say, Lisa, that and I'm just picking out a number that I thought I heard you say. Well, that doesn't really cover this cover the schedule issue. Because I was gonna say you could say shall be $100 until

[Lisa Michaela (Director of Animal Welfare, Vermont Department of Public Safety)]: Well, that that does fix it because that sets it in the interim. And then once there's a schedule adopted, that overrides that interim.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Can we just clear the effective date, delay it, and then the Senate can look into it a bit more? We're saying that we don't have a lot of timing to work that out.

[Lisa Michaela (Director of Animal Welfare, Vermont Department of Public Safety)]: Or I could just bring this up

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: in the Senate. I mean, yeah. Well, the one I'd like to try to puzzle this out because in a and I haven't gotten a final word on this, but a text to Chair Durfee that asked if he had any input on the Animal Cruelty Bill. He did first jokingly say, Yes, we've completely rewritten it. And then I said, Okay, well, we are referring it to your commission. So he quickly backtracked on that joke and said, seriously, though, a couple of thoughts to share. And I've asked him if that means language. So I haven't heard back. So if if agriculture does have a recommendation of some language and it's not too complicated, then we can then we will then then this will be the penultimate version. So why don't we just look and puzzle puzzle this out a little bit more, Eric, if if you wanted to kind of think of how we might change that.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: And and if we do that, we can give Angela a a gift of striking the outer part, right? I mean, so I mean, if everyone else agree. Well, I think, I mean, so, yeah, why I'm going back to page 10, Eric, and line twelve and thirteen. I don't know why you can't just completely strike out remotely or within a reasonable distance from the defendant's residence. Yeah. Because this is kind of a voluntary. I mean, this part is. This is if you're trying to Let me say, no, it's not. Wait a second. Let me see this. No. It's not voluntary. Are we telling them Well, let me think for a second.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: It's also Why

[Lisa Michaela (Director of Animal Welfare, Vermont Department of Public Safety)]: do we get this lefty?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: It's on the venue.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Pushing through. It's one of the options.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah, but you don't want the court to say you'll have to go to Grattleboro.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Right. It's limiting. We're trying to be more expansive in where people can get treatment.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: No, we're trying to keep the court from ordering somebody to get treatment in Brattleboro, if he was in the Northeast King.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: That's the other way to look at it.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: That's way I'm looking at it, so we're gonna keep going. We can debate that. So never mind about that. We'll just try to figure out the language on page 21. And we'll find out hopefully from David Durfee very, very soon since we're about to be on the floor whether they had anything besides thoughts on this.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Sounds

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: good. Alright. I'll be in touch shortly. Alright. Thank you. Thank you very much, Eric, thank you, Lisa. Thank you so much for

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: all the loss. I know that

[Unidentified Committee Member]: you 've done a lot. I have a question about well, wait a minute.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Is this an online question? Go off.

[Judge Tom Zonay (Chief Superior Judge)]: It's not

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: to be. Just