Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Welcome to the House Judiciary Committee this Tuesday afternoon, February seventeenth. We're first going to discuss a budget memo for Appropriations Committee. Last week, we took testimony from, I believe, everybody we need to hear from. Yes, we could hear from DOC, but that's really more corrections and institutions anyway. And I took a first crack at, given the information that we received last week, I did a tier one, tier two. They're not in any particular order within the tiers. And this was in part from what we heard, but also in part from what I understood where we were as a committee. And I wanted to discuss what we should have as our priorities. So there are different ways we can do this. I've learned there's different ways that we can do this as far as we can take each individual request from each of these entities and have a vote on whether we consider it a priority, or we can just have a discussion and have like a vote overall where they're prioritized. But we'll wait and I'll do that until we've had some discussions on this. Don't see, victim stuff in here? Yeah, it's up in the next page. Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services. Oh, there it is. Okay. And again, I don't have these necessarily in priority. I mean, I think I did. No, that's the Rural Justice Council. It's kind of last because just recommend, they don't need extra things, I thought it'd be still under tier one. So Oh, aren't in tier two. Which is that Center for Crime Making Service. They're both. So for instance, so here's what I did as far as So the network against domestic and sexual violence, there's one main thing they were really asking for, and that is essentially the same appropriation they had last year to make up the deficit in the Vermont's domestic and sexual violence spectrum fund that they rely on. We had $450,000 one time last year. They want to put this in the base. But they also had a request for $717,000 from the Statewide System of Supervised Visitation Programs. Just from what I was gathering from them, that the $450,000 was the priority. And that they very much want the statewide system of supervised visitation programs, but it was not their top priority. And also it's a big chunk of money, like a lot of these. And so I did the same thing for I didn't break up the Office of Defender General. This is everything they are asking for. There is a question for the committee as far as whether the public defender special fund shortfall, the unrealistic vacancy savings, recall his testimony, those were secondary to the top three that he has there. We could talk about moving that to a tier two. The Vermont State Courts, their main issue was the vacancy savings. And then they had a few additions. All but one of the additions I suggested putting in the tier two. So I it's still 100% of tier one, tier two. Yeah, so tier one is the priorities that I kind of understood from the witnesses. Tier two are kind of secondary. They want them, but this is not priority. Gotcha. That's within tier one, we can just keep them all like this is our tier one, and we can individually vote on them, and we can prioritize within that tier. And I'm open

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: to that It would be great if we agree on, or if we hold on. What is our ultimate goal? Is it to make sure justice There are so many holes in the ship that it would be good to sort of think about what happens if we don't fuck something. Like, I feel if we give them this whole list, it's not going to be a great then if we said,

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: these three things will severely damage our justice system. Well, certainly, as part of the narrative, and it's not necessarily done, this is just I took from all the information that folks gave us and put it in here, that yeah, I think the issue is that there's little to no money. If we're going to get any of these things, it's a particular question. Some of them are a little bit more straightforward, I think that the courts, state's attorney recognized that just moving something from limited service to it's not going to, at least this year, affect the budget. It's all in the budget. I think that's part of it. Here's what happens if we don't push the funds into legal aid, for instance.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: Legal aid seemed particularly vulnerable to me, I think is a good example, also, Nina's network. That's too, given that they've been level funded since 2001, and this would be a chunk of that money.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Right. Right.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: So I just have a question. So if what I'm hearing from you is right, everything in tier two seems like a nice to have versus something that and not nice to have in terms of the benefit of the state and the member of honors, but to the benefit of these organizations. So would it be feasible, right, if we just wiped out all of tier two and then just focus solely on figuring out what is

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: our objectives in tier one? Yeah, no, I think that's along the lines of

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: what you're suggesting when there's any discussion

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: with, I mean, I think I want to recognize that they've asked for these and that we're not pushing them. So I can make that, we don't have to call tier one or tier two. That's just how I was talking about it. I mean, No, it's a good way to separate So I'd say we're putting those in there, but we are not advocating for them, essentially. Tier 1s are gonna be a tough call.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: I mean,

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: that's right.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: But if

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: supervisor visitation is actually an issue, is it? Where are you, Barbara? I'm on the last page of the network's request. People can't visit their kids, like if they have a fourth order, they're saying that can't kids can't see their parents unless someone's supervising a visit, it changes reunification plans, it denies parents' So there's no parental visitation in the state at all right now? I'd have to go back and look at my notes. It sounds like it's very limited, and it's It's not a couple

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: days there might not be. Right.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: There's like a, like I know Chittenden County staff, like a waiting list to get a supervised visit.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: What if you made that a condition of the one that's allocated? Like increase the four fifty, but some nominal amount that it

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: was allocated solely for visitations. Right, I mean, that's the other thing. Would somebody like the network be happier with less than $4.50 and then some amount of money towards the statewide system of supervised visitation programs? Which isn't necessary to gather that from your testimony. And that's not even always a network member that's doing supervised visitation.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: A typical one to supervised visitation, and they are a domestic violence network member. So it is lots of different, like parent child centers through them. It could be whoever has the contract. Right.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I mean, even the $4.50 that they're asking for, I mean, one time money. That fund may be not. Think money, whatever fund it came out of. I think they're asking, I know that network is actually asking for it to go to base funding during the general So they're trying to get away from having to make up the deficit every year. So if that's not clear here, I'll definitely have to clear that. They've been Yeah, guess, are you used to ask me for that $4.50? I don't remember. Not necessarily that amount, but different amounts, because the costs are going up that they have, like everybody's, and the fund is not pushing up. The fund is effectively decreasing. I've got to explain that $4.50 is probably a little higher to replace federal funds, you're not getting, I know a lot of people that sat here talked about not getting their federal funds, which Right, the Human Rights Commission. It's possible for us to Yeah, and I think they talk about this being essentially level funding.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: Since 2001. 2001.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: It was funded, too, so The Network Against Domestic and Sexual Rights. What they get from the state is level funded.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: Which is they get these special federal grants, they've been project based, so they're

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: not paying the rent or the Right. I thought that was Pullman's group. Also No, that's a crime victim. But I thought she was the one that said she was double funded since 2001.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: I I know I asked Sarah, what year is the last increase? I have that in the notes. Are Gen Z also being not funded since I

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: know we have done some things as far as where they get their money and increased them. I know it's not a lot of money, but parents' licenses was one, and I've known, and since I've been in here, I know we've done some other things that have brought them more and different funding, and I assume they're talking about just their general funds, some of the money they get from the state, along with everybody, isn't just general fund. It comes from other funds too. So Angela, does she

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: have anything? It's from

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: the special fund, the domestic and sexual violence special fund, which is fed by the surcharges yes. And so it's fed by the surcharges, a portion of the surcharges and the marriage license fees. And that's what we increased a couple of years ago, the proportion, the dollar amount that was going to the special fund. But that's their main source. They don't have an additional general fund, like base appropriation. They just have the special fund.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: And I think the base funds would be putting it into the domestic and sexual fund, a special fund. It'd be coming from the general fund. That's the conduit for what victim advocates and the network get. Did you have another question before you had your hand raised before we shot

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I was going say, in their testimony, I'm pretty sure that Sarah Robinson mentioned that the 450,000 is not seeking that to make up for federal losses. It was really just what they've been

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: operating It's what we put in this one time on last year. So

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: actually, on a related topic of the 450,000, they know the network, it's in their testimony to us that of the 450,000, they actually only retained $200,000 for themselves for the reimbursement dispersion and $2.50 was distributed out to member organizations. So I do think it's worth noting that of the money that would be allocated, only 200,000 is benefiting the network itself. Granted, I'm sure the member organizations are doing a lot of the heavy lifting for the network, but it could be worth looking into how that $2.50 is actually spent. Definitely.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: It seems we may actually need some more input from some of the folks like I want to understand from the network. It was just kind of the way it was presented to me that the statewide system of supervised visitation programs is important, but it is happening, that they need this amount, but we can double that with that.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: A question about that as well. I wonder, do you know if that is something that would be in the human services budget memo?

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: The network

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: wanted that. That money would go to DCF, not to the network.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Say that again.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: 717,000.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: That it is in human services?

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I was just wondering if it would be in there. If we don't have it, it's a tier two in ours for different reasons and stuff. I just wonder if not that we're limited in how many

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Well, if this is the primarily DERP program, that's not something that I've deflated. That's why, for instance, for Legal Aid, they've really pushed this MAP project, whatever it is, and I don't have that as part of our recommendations because we really don't deal with that program. Somebody else has to do that.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I was just going to add, following up on financial aid. Last year, Human presented the Department of Children and Families to jointly prepare the report for the system of the funding needs. Did you present on that report?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Jennifer Pullman, for the record, Vermont Center for Practicing and Services.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Have no problem at all with level funding anybody. I mean, given the fiscal situation that we're in, and and I don't remember who suggested maybe to lower the $4.50 and and then replace it with some of the money for the statewide system of supervised visitations. And the fear I would have there is then we would be underfunding two programs, and neither one would be able to do, completely do the work that they would be need to do. So is it a one with with a network? We kind of have blinders on right now as far as the goal. I'm all for it. Just don't think there's any money at all for if we fund, level fund what's in tier one, I think there's not much of a chance that they're gonna get any money at all for the brand new 3 quarters of $1,000,000 program. But then again, it's one of the human services top priorities, it may be getting there. Well, that's up to them. It's up to them. I'm just thinking about what we're working on, I guess. In a sense, we are working on it because it's here, but if we have no jurisdiction yet over other than you stop. Keep trying, keep trying. No. Yeah,

[Unidentified Committee Member]: so I maybe even take a step back at maybe round us a little bit to just know where we're going with this. So is our goal to make a decision this hour? Is it having a discussion? Can you give the timeline that

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: we have? I feel like

[Unidentified Committee Member]: that just helped, like, I'm feeling thought I made a decision, and I can know this and, like, be ready. But what how do you see this kind of mapping out?

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: I'm gonna look this.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I haven't gotten, like, a final you think we have a good Friday?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Friday was the date. I didn't was that what it is? Okay.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So you have, like, just asking. So Friday.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: You asked an answer to your question. Already knew the answer

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: to it. Oh, no.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I don't know his plan for getting to Friday.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Discussion today, kind of take that back and see what we still need to hear from other people who stay in the beer. I don't know what I'm gonna fit that in, but wedged it in somewhere. And yeah, and this needs to, middle needs a little more scope too, obviously. First is trying to get a sense of where folks are on these priorities.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Okay. And we're not making any decisions today. But at some point in the week, we're all gonna have to agree on where we wanna go or have a discussion. Okay. That's helpful. If we

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: just read as few minutes in the hour that we had for right now, but the other thing I gotta say about this, I can think of.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: But so if I may continue. Yes. So I find this extremely helpful to have it all put into one place to help digest it and see. So, personally, for me, now I will calm down and have to scramble and make all my notes. But I would love to take some time to digest it and just kind of see. And I will share my initial thought with it is, I didn't hear a lot out of folks of how the current system isn't working or places where there can be cuts. So I feel like for me, where I'm going to be going to, how do we maintain what we have? And new stuff is going to be harder to find moving forward. So that's the lens that I'm looking through with this as I'm doing this. I don't know if that's helpful or not, but that's how I'm reviewing it.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. No. I agree. And this largely does this. It largely takes that approach. So there are some exceptions. Let's just get the offender general for now. But like the Vermont state courts, it was clear that their number one priority was the court positions, making them not limited service, but Limited service, whatever phrase is. I put in there, just because this was their second or third priorities, was adding a position for the technology. We can I'm not asking for a decision right now, but that's one of those kind of things that we could move to just tier two that we're not going to be advocating for any of our positions. A little bit with the state courts and their, I kind of look at them all as tech positions. In the last few years we've really bolstered their tech positions. So yeah, we gave them, I think in 2024 or 'fifty two help desk IT, help desk people, and in their budget document they go over how they really need to have one more. And they also ask for other positions which you'll see in tier two. More in tier two. Yeah, there's like a few more positions that they have asked for in tier two. But they gave us a ranking. They kind of ranked what they thought was most important of their asks and the 26 court positions was definitely number one. But this other one was their second most important one, the additional health care Right. The 26 admissions make them full time? Is that the right thing? Yeah, or what are full time now? Limited service permanent, that's what the term balance is. Do you know what that means? It means that, so limited service position is that I think that we should have meant to be there for a couple of years. So like a couple of years from now, those positions would presumably disappear. If we make a permanent, the understanding is that they will continue So the money they're getting now for those positions is some kind of special fund or something? No, it's in the general fund, it's not one time money space. So to make them full time positions? Does it cost you Well, doesn't impact the budget now, but if those positions go away in two or three years, that money would be on its budget. Yeah, changing from limited service to permanent in the off years is going to affect the budget. So how much longer are they limited service? I know. And the reason I'm asking is maybe maybe if maybe we need to extend it a year, something like that. Because I think if I remember right, we did put those positions in there mainly for the backlog. And if in two years the backlog is caught up, you know, at some point to me, if the backlog is caught up, those positions need to go or a substantial percentage of those positions or whatever. You know, maybe they'll still need a couple to to do whatever. I I think that that was in fact the thinking that I I know that they're extended limited service positions. I'm trying to find the note that's relevant to us. So in a sense, is the right term in those positions sunset? Yeah, I think that that's my understanding. We can So can we find out when that sunset is? It was two thousand thirty. That's the 2030? I thought that's what it was.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Am I right? I think that's the number that's 25.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So the issue that they express is that with limited service positions, are you going to lose people who are getting concerned that they are not gonna have a job for x number here? So that's kind of one thing. The second thing I'd add is that if we get to 2,030 and they aren't needed, that could be accounted for some vacancy savings. I mean, that's kind of already, there are vacancy savings throughout care and that means you are leaving physicians vacant or you are laying people off. So we can still make them permanent positions and still understand at some point if they're not needed, they would be vacancy savings. Something to think, Tom. I like the way it, I think I like the way it sunsets potentially. I mean in a couple years, you know, in two years if somebody still has two years to worry about getting another job, we're gonna know a lot better in two years how well this is all working and you know, by sitting our backlog hopefully plummet and but I would have problem making these permanent conditions. Like the way it is. I mean, a forty year sunset for us is unheard of, you know, of anything. A smooth sunset. Yeah, we can take a look at it every year and look at the numbers as far as the backlog goes and decide if we want to extend a sunset a year. Anybody else on that one?

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I just have a question about limited service positions. Do you know if does anyone know if they include benefits? Yeah.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: They do. I think they do.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: She said they're not guaranteed for

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: suppose they could get past that five years, they're better for some kind of retirement.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: The only thing I would add, well, one, would just want to confirm it's 2,030. That's just what I have in my opinion, but I want to make sure that is the date before we're operating on that. And one of the things are, one, not only is it the concern around people seeing that their job's going end and they might leave, but also that we've heard a number of times that these jobs are really high turnover rate already, and that one of the things that helps the courts keeping people in these positions because as they get more expertise, they get a lot better at their jobs, they can train people below them. And so there is an incentive structure to hold on to people if they can. That said, I hear the concern's fair. I hear it, too. I guess my only other point that we haven't heard is that, one, at least the defender general talked about paying off the credit card debt that is the backlog in a thirty year term. And so I also hope that the backlog drops off in two years and we're down back to our pre COVID numbers, but the reality, at least from what we've heard, may not be that.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I think on the county.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Well, that's also we can

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: go down that. I know. Know. Geographical justice system. I guess,

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: where I'm not just looking at tier one, like, don't really take issue with with what's been included in terms of the organizations and the assets in tier one, but I think what would be helpful is to look at and this is almost like what Karen was saying. Just looking at what level funding looks like and what any additional incremental headcount would be for these restricted locations and have that broken out.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Right, and my understanding, like looking at the fund of the states, they're asking to take one of the vacancy savings to essentially be level funding or, you know, having the same number of people. Right. So they're not adding any well, No. No. No. I'm not

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: saying this for for DSAs. Like like, if you go into tier two for the DSAs on the last page, then you see all the additional headcount that they request. But I think just for it to be very explicit in tier one, where I think it's a little bit more in lots of where people are looking to increase support. Right, and maybe there's not a

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: lot, but I mean, legal aid there certainly is. Yeah, legal aid has a type of position. I have the one position in the state courts that we can be if we move that to tier two. But that depends on where we all, I think, get dealt on the court positions in terms of limited service. If we decide that we don't like that one, we probably should give the court something. But then again, the court has one other huge thing, which is the sheriff's contract. Right. Which, yeah, with that we're not taking anything away.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: That's just decreasing. I don't

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: see where we're taking anything away to have to give them something. You said if we don't give them the permanent objective, that you're needing to giving them something else, that they don't think they'd block. No, that's a good point. Since we have to deal with the $1,500,000,000 of the increased cost of tariffs, I mean, it's passed through, I would

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: say, but it's still the courts to operate. And then I guess also on page two, under Vermont Courts, I'm fully supportive of increasing the hourly rate from 57 to 75, And I assume that's 1,900,000.0 and not $1,929.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: There's a comma there.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Well, was gonna say, mean, for $2,000, we could pass the head on in this room and we could

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: go, oh, yeah. I see it.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I don't like that.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I assume that's 1.9. That would have been 7 tens of better. No. 7. And that's a And then we're hundreds of a cent. Well, said now we're now we're trading pennies. But if not,

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: we're getting rid of pennies, though. But

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I guess to go to that number specifically, if we're looking to increase security costs by $2,000,000 that's an astronomical another one. That is. So that would wipe out a lot of the other players.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: And if we're talking about hearing from people again, the one thing that we have not heard about with this request is how the executive branch contract differs from the judiciary contract. I don't want to misinterpret the testimony, but what I heard was the sheriffs came to them and said, We get paid $75 an hour for the executive contracts. We'd like that to be matched with the judiciary contract. And they said, Oh, that makes sense. But if the contract is really different and requires things of the funds, then it may warrant that being paid more. We didn't hear anything about that. And if it's very similar, then it maybe makes sense that they should be paid this in or out. That's a pretty That's a pretty big increase. I was trying to

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: punt that appropriations committee, but

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Can we just note it here?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah, I guess I can make a little bit clearer than what I did here, where I said the judiciary committee proposes. That's an increasing committee to consider whether an increase of $105 is appropriate, but I can do more of, like, there.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Are they doing them with every

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: one of these, of course? Well, they are. Well, but I will talk to somebody to see who should figure that one.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Okay. It's maybe not Whether it's us. Yeah.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Ultimately Just as long as somebody it looks that way. And we brought up appropriation, but I think there was this earlier. I know in the past we've had these letters and we, you know, had increases and this and that, and we send it to appropriations and let them make the tough decisions. And maybe it's time we make some of our own tough decisions. Yeah. Yeah. No. I agree. And I think that some of the stuff that we're putting into the tier two already are are some of those decisions. We have more yeah. We have more tough decisions for the patients. Yeah. Whittle this down somewhere. Because I get it from certain people on appropriations that it's not just us by any means, it's every committee in the building that does that because don't wanna make the tough decisions for the people they have to sit in front of them every day. Mean, it's not an easy thing to do, you know, to look at whoever's sitting there that's, you you do end up getting friendly with them on some level and that should say, no. Well, that's kind of our job. Yeah, no, I agree, and we can look for where those additional tough decisions are.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Martin? Yeah, I got to go. So one line item I do, I guess, not to take particular issue with, but I think looks a little bit out of place is on page three under legal age, the inflationary increase to budget. I just don't it just seems a little bit out of step with almost every other group's ads. Like we all I mean, every organization and every entity in the city is under financial pressure that I just think it seems a bit out of step to be asking for inflationary adjustments when everyone else is kind of fighting for survival, including legal aid, by the way. And again, it's not me, it's not anything imputing the organization, their work or the other requests that they have, which I think are fair for us to consider. I just think that the inflationary increase the budget. I'm gonna try

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: to find out a little better what they meant by it.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: The way I take that is like inflationary costs in the nation are quote unquote rising, and we need more money to adjust to macroeconomic pressures.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I've Maybe they need more money. Could be what that is. And it could also be that that is the equivalent of vacancy savings or a equivalent of funding. Let me just I'll have to check. Okay. So

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: I know that the courts, the state attorneys, the defendant generals have built in inflationary increases every year. Don't know how much legal aid gets from the state, but we did hear they lost $4,000,000 from the feds. And so it doesn't feel like it's a fully leveled playing field in terms of They might be in the same boat as the network. It's like, when did they last get an increase? Was it 2001? Because they're not a state agency, but they're doing state work. So I just think we should look at that.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, and that's what I'm saying. I just want to understand what they mean, because I have a different interpretation of what that phrasing means than maybe the way it's intended.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah, no, I'll reach out to him and give us a little more information on that. So we haven't talked about

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Maybe do state attorneys chair too?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: We didn't talk about that. I mean, I guess that this was their primary ask was not to have the vacancy savings where they would have to cut back. And if they don't have ready vacancy savings, it's not like they have a bunch of vacant positions that they could just leave unfilled. They would have to, from what I understand, have to lay people off. Think that's not the time for that.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: Why would we suggest a systemic recommendation? The idea of just doling up vacancy savings without It's arbitrary, right? It's a date that was several months earlier. And it seems like if we all could address the There needs to be a true up of freeing someone of love versus feeling of illusion. Asking appropriations to see if there's a mechanism that could be trued up, because it may work out across departments. Like some people filled positions, some people lost positions. And it does feel very different to let somebody go and not maintain what you have versus we're not gonna kill it for six months. Unless it's like the only firefighter in the So I just wonder about trying to look at it systemically. Sorry, raised my hand.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: No, no, that's yeah, I'm lost on the logistics on how this how this is working as far as what Arsenault was talking about, what we're looking at right now. I I don't I just don't understand what it means, the elimination of vacancy savings. So, maybe that's not the best terminology. Think that's what I've heard, or that's, think I how I've heard it referred to is that they don't want to have to have those vacancy saves. In other words, put that 300, don't expect me to find like in the case of state's attorneys, don't expect me to find $330,000 in savings by either not hiring into open positions or more likely from what I'm hearing by having to cut positions, laying off people.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I think the problem is that the administration might overuse the term vacancy savings because it implies that there's a vacancy and that you have savings. And that's not necessarily the case. They're asking you create a vacancy by getting rid of someone.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: We can have Trevor talk to him explain that a little bit better as well.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Yeah, just how they utilize.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: There are several places in here that the only thing we're asking for is not to have vacancy savings. In other words, don't make us cut positions is how I look at that.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Right, like the way that Big Hartman explained it was that they would have to either cut a position or furlough workers for a period of months to create the so called vacancy savings?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Does it go by seniority?

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: I'm first on the chopping down in the soup. Just talking about hard decisions. For me, this one, it's the department I work in, full disclosure. It's already been done by Martin, but putting the DSA requests for the administrative professionals into tier two. It's already been done. It's important. I think it makes sense based on their prioritization. To me personally, that is a really difficult decision. I see from where I sit that that is a request that could directly impact the backlog, would directly impact the ability of the court system to move more quickly and more judicial, more fair and justly to get these cases resolved. We've already seen that with the accountability board, basically getting these things resolved quickly is a better outcome from everybody. And that's a request that I know from my experience, that wish helps best.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: What's in tier two?

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: It's the six administrative professionals. They are part of how these cases actually move because they alleviate pressure and time on the attorneys who also have so many cases. We heard how much their case loads are and how much their victim advocate's case loads are. But at the same time, I'm just talking about difficult decisions, the other requests that they've made are more important. And so we put it in tier two, and it should be in tier two, but to me, that's a tough call.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So that's number one in tier two. It's number one

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: in tier two, but we're putting it there because

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: not laying off attorneys is more important. So I guess just while we're talking about DSAs, so this is more looking at just the victims the work of the victim advocates within DSAS. Right? It's not like, because I'm just trying to figure out, like, where like, to your point, Ian, like, where elimination of vacancy savings is coming from. It seems like this is only impacting victim advocates within the department versus actual states attorneys or DSAs. There's three separate. Those

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: are three.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: So there's a $3.30 on the vacancy savings for, I think, that's just DFAs. Sorry.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I missed that. And then there's one for Yeah.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I'm looking at the 1 40 7. Thank you for

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. Five of that.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Alright. So so we can take

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: a short break before we start and and transition to eight. So what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna talk to Trevor and see if he can give us a little more of an overview of vacancy savings since that's what a lot of this is. I will also try to find out if we need to figure out the difference between the executive and quarantine contracts and why it should be $75. Yeah. Yeah. I think Also, I need to find out about the inflationary increase to the budget and what that really means. Those are the things I I know that I have to do, and then we need to see. It gives us all a little more time to kind of

[Unidentified Committee Member]: look at this and think about it. Karen, it's finding out the sunset for the limited service positions.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Yes, Well, yeah. Yeah.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Right. So what

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I It's creating new terms now.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Sunsetting. Sunsetting for the Okay. See, what I thought the vacancy savings was is when you have your budget and hire X amount of people, and you didn't hire this position, that's what I thought the vacancy savings was. That's what I thought so as well. It's kind of what I, again, I-

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: It is as of a certain date.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: And then I'm wondering if they just wanna take that savings and keep the people they have. I don't No. I think I think there's two things on this, Barbara mentions, is that they picked a date sometime last fall, from what I understand, and it's, are there vacancies in these different entities then? In the interim, could be hired into those positions. That's kind of how I understood it, I'm not sure if that's even entirely the case. He told us that. We've heard yeah. We met from maybe Trevor.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Can we have somebody come in? Yeah, that

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: was out of things I just Terrible idea. Two things that add some additional information and maybe even additional some No. That may be great. The last thing is I would double check with the the network to make sure that well, I think we already resolved that. This other thing is more of a human services issue. But let's just take a break until

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: would like to understand. I would love for all of us to understand. Just thinking about the expansion of the 3B docket and can I say this the most succinctly? I want us to be very aware of the needs of that expansion. And I know there's the 500,000 in the BAA to go towards that. But when we consider these requests or these recommendations, I want to make sure we're setting that up for success and not shortchanging something. I hate to see us do that thing where we identify a solution and then we don't properly fund the solutions.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: And I think there's actually and that's something we thanks a reminder, I'll need to add here somewhere. I believe there's another $500,000 in the governor's electorate for the accountability pocket for FY '27. But I'm going to double check that.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Right. And so that is just a general fund set aside? How is that distributed? Can we consider that in some of these recommendations? That might influence what we recommend. If we know that the DSAs are getting $200,000 out of that $500,000 I'm just making numbers up, obviously, might impact what we recommend.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: That's quite logical.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Okay, big picture would be nice.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: All right, so we'll break until 02:00.