Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: We are live.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Alright. Welcome back to the House Judiciary Committee this afternoon, Wednesday, February 18. We're gonna hear for I think we're down to two minutes from Trevor Swirl on telling us how this whole vacancy savings thing is calculated and works. Or doesn't work, if that leaves me. All right, that's the question. Representative Torres, Florida, whether it's House Appropriations. Best way to explain it, it's part of the budget process, right? So departments and agencies in their budget to telephone are asked to look at what they project for the coming year, let's say for FY '27, what

[Speaker 0]: have they

[Trevor Squirrell (Department of Finance & Management)]: for open positions and what those dollars are attached to that. Department of Finance and Management, when they get the development of the budget thrown into departments and agencies, they'll look at that number amongst other things, but they'll also make a comparison to the information that's in human resources, usually in the August, September, when they update positions that are available, and there's knowledge attached to all those positions. And so if I'm a department or an agency and I come in and say, I want a vacancy savings of $500,000 for three positions, and F and M goes and looks at the database and says, well, over the last three years, you essentially have had 10 positions, then it's incumbent on the department and the agency to explain why you need something different. We have to make your case. If you don't make your case, then F and M can go back and say, This is your vacancy savings based on that data. Right? And I think one of the questions that came up here before is that if in fact X amounts, vacancy saves put in, which accounts for X number of positions, and you fill those positions going forward, then you're in a position of having to cut positions. Then I think that's a legitimate concern for a committee like this. The very opposite would say, then that's probably not a valid vacancy savings going forward, right?

[Unidentified Committee Member (likely Rep. Thomas Oliver or Rep. Kenneth Goslant)]: Kevin, can

[Trevor Squirrell (Department of Finance & Management)]: you explain that again?

[Speaker 0]: You said if there's open positions, then you fill them

[Trevor Squirrell (Department of Finance & Management)]: No, let's say I present the budget to finance and management in '7 budget, right? And at the time I had X number of positions and I put that in my budget based on historical data. And then through some whatever, I was able to fill those positions. And then if the budget passes, I would have to cut positions to bring it back to the vacancy savings that's in the gov rec vacancy savings in the budget. To me, that's a legitimate question for our committee and for your committee to say, that doesn't make sense, so we should make some adjustment to that. I suspect that that finance and management, if you give them a reasonable argument, also agree with that change. So I help understand how it works. So if states attorneys, for instance, are coming to us and saying, the one thing we need top of our list is to get rid of the vacancy savings. For states attorneys, they say $330,000 Our question probably should be if we don't give that to you, you're just not gonna fill positions that have been open for a while as opposed to losing positions. I think that's a good question. And that's the way it should get answered. I mean, they should answer it that way. And the other question would be that position you've been trying to fill in Orange County for the last year, just really difficult to fill, but it's still a very much needed position. That's another thing we can hear. Don't know if that's the point. Vacancy savings does nothing with the positions that are available to an agency or department. They don't go away. They're just not filled, right? Right. But if they need to fill the position- Well, if they need to fill them, but historically they haven't been able to fill them, clients and management's gonna say no.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. So Angela, can you have any questions?

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I did a few minutes ago. Well, so I just It's a point in time.

[Trevor Squirrell (Department of Finance & Management)]: It's a point in time for financial management And certainly the departments and agencies can use that same data to make their decision also.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Would we ever expect to see in the recommended budget something that's called vacancy savings, but in fact, put teams to positions that were already filled? Or would that just that would be called something else? That's saying, we need to cut four positions, rather than calling it vacancy savings, right?

[Unidentified Committee Member (likely Rep. Thomas Oliver or Rep. Kenneth Goslant)]: We moved it to the three of those angles.

[Trevor Squirrell (Department of Finance & Management)]: Yeah, I've never known in my x number of years an appropriations department agency come to me and say, Please take these positions away from me.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Well, but if it's Is that ever a recommendation in the budget? You new Department of State attorneys and sheriffs?

[Trevor Squirrell (Department of Finance & Management)]: There is a process that if positions don't get filled, given resources can pull them back into the pool. In other words, take them from the department, so it's no longer available to the department. But they're state positions and state governments.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: But that wouldn't be called vacancy savings for

[Trevor Squirrell (Department of Finance & Management)]: the That's nothing to do with that.

[Abel Luna (Organizer and Interpreter, Migrant Justice)]: Okay. I get it. Sure. I have two questions.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: I apologize if you don't have time. Sorry. What? You gotta go. Is did you mention that there's an appeal process that a department could do?

[Trevor Squirrell (Department of Finance & Management)]: There's no no. There's no appeal process. It's just make the case.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: Okay. You have to make so if they found that, they could, but that would need to be before the budget went up.

[Trevor Squirrell (Department of Finance & Management)]: Well, as part of the budget process discussion, right? So as a department, you're presenting the budget to finance and management. Your vacancy savings in your budget that you're presenting is different than what historical data might show. So finance and management will say why.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: And so we could also assume that that process probably happened. I mean, we can ask too, but then finance and management, for whatever reason, they may have heard that and they're like, well, we're still keeping it.

[Trevor Squirrell (Department of Finance & Management)]: That's entirely possible.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: Okay. My other question is switching topics, I'll look to the chair to see if it's appropriate. But we also had confusion about what limited service position meant in asking them to be made permanent. What does that involve financially?

[Trevor Squirrell (Department of Finance & Management)]: It means nothing financially, whether it's salary and or benefits. Doesn't make any difference. They're temporary to positions. There's a difference. And there's very few temporary positions that we're supposed to do with service. The use of limited service positions typically is because you just received a federal grant for three years and you need 10 employees to execute that claim, but it's time limited. So that's the purpose of limited service positions. We did some work a number of years ago on funding the criminal justice system after the pandemic, We did a lot of actually limited service positions with increased positions because we thought over time they wouldn't be needed. Agency of Natural Resources received a lot of ARPA money into the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. So we actually gave them 50 limited service positions, which are all phasing out. Generally, when a limited service position is given human resources or someone, there's an agreement as to what that end date is, okay? And sometimes it's arbitrary, we've had to go back and change them. And in the case of some, we did limited service positions a couple of years with state's attorneys and for judiciary, but there was no end date on it. And we converted those limited service positions to the state's attorneys last year to permanent classified. And then the judiciary still has limited service positions that are in their base budget that have no end date. So we were probably gonna convert them to this year. Okay. Which is probably a good question now for them to do. Yeah, that's their top request.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: But it's not a budgetary.

[Trevor Squirrell (Department of Finance & Management)]: But there was no end date on those limited service decisions.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: But that's something we should ask or you ask and get to we also heard that for some, there is an end date. I think it was for a judiciary position, so 2027 or 2028. So like A lot of them do. Yeah. End dates. So is it possible that you can either extend the end date or you turn it to a permanent? Is there a difference

[Unidentified Committee Member (likely Rep. Thomas Oliver or Rep. Kenneth Goslant)]: between? Well,

[Trevor Squirrell (Department of Finance & Management)]: only difference would be that if I'm at department or agency hiring folks, it's easier to hire someone for permanent classifieds than those things. To me, that's the biggest difference. So it's hard to keep people.

[Speaker 0]: So the positions the judiciary has right now, you said usually it's they they'll come those positions will be funded through grants and that type of thing. Are are are those positions funded through grants or are they federal No.

[Trevor Squirrell (Department of Finance & Management)]: Not in the case of the judiciary or the state's attorney. What I was saying before is that typically limited service positions, way to look at limited service is limited, right? So typically when you get federal grants, we can plan limited. That's where you see a lot of limited service positions. In the case of the state's attorneys and judiciary, we did limited service positions because we thought what we were offering may have a short term need. It's ended up being a longer term need,

[Speaker 0]: quite frankly.

[Trevor Squirrell (Department of Finance & Management)]: So it's a little different animal. Longer term need, not necessarily longer longer than the chill.

[Speaker 0]: That's probably No, did you say you guys are having a discussion about making the judiciary positions permanent?

[Trevor Squirrell (Department of Finance & Management)]: They have a request to us on those positions as it came to this committee. We both have that request. So we need to act. Oh, gotcha. Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: Gotcha. So I guess there would be some choices to make, just to continue to extend the timeline on it or make them permanent.

[Trevor Squirrell (Department of Finance & Management)]: Since there's no end date and it's in their base budget, if we make no decision, they'll still have the position. Oh, okay. Okay, all right. Thank you very much, Trevor, for any time. Anytime you want to take care.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Except after lunch. Feel free. So we're gonna move on to Thank you. Take care. S209, relating to prohibiting civil arrests in sensitive locations, and we're gonna start with legislative council. Rick, thank you for being here. Thank you. Walk

[Abel Luna (Organizer and Interpreter, Migrant Justice)]: us through it.

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you for working on

[Falko Schilling (Advocacy Director, ACLU of Vermont)]: my schedule. Busy afternoon. Yes, they are.

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Rick Segal with the office of Lipslith Council. It's good to be back in cast judiciary. Nice to have you back. I felt like I got banned for

[Speaker 0]: the little bit.

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Maybe. Welcome back with open arms. Stunned. Not banned? Okay.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: That's not me too.

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's a temporary holding. So, S209, share my screen. I can't remember. Yes or no? Do have a preference?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I think we all have copies on everything. We all have copies, please. All right.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: What's that? Okay,

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: sure. Share your screen. Sure. Go. Sorry. That's the last

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: person that speaks. Yeah, the

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: last person that speaks. And just so you know, is it pronounced Abel? Did I pronounce that right? Abel. Abel? Sorry, apologize. So you're gonna hear him in the background a little bit. He's translating. I just want folks to know that that's happening. So Go ahead.

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, thank you. So thank you, Mr. Chair. S209, I wanna start with a little background on the bill before I get into the language on the on the page here. So you'll see in the beginning of this statute, 12 VSA thirty five seventy seven, there is a privilege from arrest. And this is a very, very old law. It's so old that there's no date of when the General Assembly actually enacted the law. It predates the system in which we included the session and the date that

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: we actually passed the law. Michael Chittenden concise enough.

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: He probably could. He probably could. If you really wanna know,

[Speaker 0]: mister Chittenden, I'll get that for you.

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But this is a general kinda common law privilege that is thought to exist for government officials. And you'll see the language here. The governor, lieutenant governor, state treasurer, and you all, members of general assembly, when you attend a state house, you are privileged from arrest. And there are a couple of exceptions like felonies. You don't get that privilege if you commit a felony. However, there's the idea that when an elected official goes to their place where they do their business, the state's business, you should be privileged from rest. That's kind of common law principle that Vermont codified decades ago. In 2022, the General Assembly decided to take up the idea of another common law civil arrest idea, and that's courthouse arrests. So in the same statute, and I'll get here in a second, the General Assembly in 2022 updated thirty five seventy seven to prohibit civil arrests in and around courthouses. And this applied to everybody, not just elected officials, but people who are going to a courthouse, returning from a courthouse, on their way to the courthouse. They are protected from civil arrest. And you may wonder, what is a civil arrest? The two words are oxymoron. How can you be civilly arrested? It's not common. A civil arrest, people think arrest, you think handcuffs, you think you're going to a holding facility. Civil arrest is not quite that in many aspects. The most common type of civil arrest is a contempt of court, where you're in a courtroom and you argue with the judge, or you say something that the judge deems unworthy of the court, and you are holding contempt. You've probably seen it in movies. Take this person away. They're in contempt of court, right? That is a civil arrest. Another civil arrest is, let's say you have a subpoena to go to court because you're a witness, and you received the subpoena for 02/18/2026 at 9AM, and you don't show up. The court could send the sheriff or whatever law enforcement works at the court and come and get you, go to your house, go to your place where you work, grab you, take you to court to be a witness in a proceeding. There's also the immigration civil arrest, where the Immigration Nationality Act through administrative warrants, non criminal warrants, administrative warrants allows federal officials to civilly arrest somebody who they suspect is here without authorization. Any questions about that general civil arrest?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Thank you. No. I I understand there's criminal and civil arrest regarding being here how awfully, I guess. And that would depend on how you got here. So I don't know how I would know the difference if somebody crosses deceptively and I understand that's a misdemeanor. That's a crime. If you overstay, that's a civil.

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So there are different ways that the law defines someone that is here without authorization. There are a couple of times that it is a criminal issue. Most of the people that are here without authorization, it's not a criminal offense. It's a civil offense. It's an overstay or something. Yeah. Or a visa or even people seeking asylum who come here. That would not be even a even a civil wrong. But certainly, there is a line distinction. It gets fuzzy, and I may have a colleague come in, and if that's a question specific to the immigration offenses, What is criminal? What is civil? We can do that. But this would just apply to the people who are here in a civil offense manner, if that makes sense. So words on the paper. Page one, no change to the current law, but you'll see, I'm gonna start at the bottom of page one. This is the prohibition that currently exists in law. A person shall not be subject to civil arrest while traveling to, entering, remaining at, or returning from a current law limited to court proceedings. This was the 2022 edition the journal simply made where that is a protected place. And let me, again, take a pause here. This court perceiving protection has been a common law principle for I think it goes back to the English time, where there's this idea that when someone is due in court or they go to court, you don't arrest them in court. So Vermont and some other states decided to codify that. Vermont did it in 2022. Some states have not done it. Vermont did it. And a few other states have. So again, Vermont's intent back then was to codify this common law principle that going to court should protect you from civil arrest. So the bill, S209, adds, as you can see, several places that would be included as protected from civil arrest. A polling place, which is defined in a little bit, I'll get there, educational institution, which is also defined, I'll get there, social service establishment, which is defined here, includes a crisis center, a domestic violence shelter, a victim services center, a child advocacy center, supervised visitation center, family justice center, facility that serves disabled persons, homeless shelter, substance use disorder, counseling and treatment facility, and establishment distributing food or other essentials of life to people in need.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Quick question, just because we're on this one. I'm just curious why this one is defined in the underlying statute, and it's not just in the definition section, but the rest of the ones that are defined. So I'll

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: speak to the exact just why it's like this and not the intent maybe. But the reason it's structured like this is because DHS, Department of Homeland Security, in 2021, I believed, had guidance. It wasn't law, but it was guidance they published for ICE Border Patrol employees to say, let's not conduct civil arrest in these places. And this is almost verbatim the way it was. I think they included maybe one or two other things that the Senate Judiciary Committee don't include, but it was worded very similar to this. So that's why this one's

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: a little bit different.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Just like took it in.

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Okay.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yes. Think

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Zach, while we're taking questions, place. It's gonna get there. You're gonna get there.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Yes. Well, you're just you're going through D, so I'm just you'll come

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: As back to I mentioned, we're gonna define polling place and educational institution. That's right. I didn't I wasn't here for that. Okay. I'm sorry. Don't. Yep. I appreciate the clarification, though. Subdivision e, place of worship, not defined. So happy to answer questions about that one if there are. 11? Sure. I'll take that one.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Go for it.

[Unidentified Committee Member (likely Rep. Thomas Oliver or Rep. Kenneth Goslant)]: Exactly. I

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: mean, just come from mass.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: How is that defined broadly? I mean, includes I assume this includes synagogues, mosques. So you're looking at

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the three words that define it. There's not a It's not really a term of art. It's not really a statute we're cross referencing. So in my opinion, it's fairly clear what we're talking about. But if there's a disagreement about to one person, this would be a place of worship. To some someone else, it wouldn't be. We do use this phrase in Vermont in our statutes.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Again would feel more comfortable probably being a little bit more specific there. I just think if you carry that out to its natural conclusion, I think you could have individuals claiming fake protections, or maybe they don't exist.

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Ian?

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: You have an opportunity, can we get some of the other statutes where this specific phrasing, place of worship, is used? Sure.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: And I'll add to that. If there is any court understanding of what that means, there's any

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: case law.

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If there is case law, I would still advise you all, if you want to be specific, be specific. If you don't want it to be this general, then you should use words that you want to use. So if you have a Supreme Court of Vermont case that says, This is what this means, that's pretty good. But you could also intersect with some federal stuff here. So I would just advise, if you don't like the words, if you don't think it's sufficient, then we

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: should work on that. That's just gonna be nice.

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But again, happy to give you all this information. And Rick, if

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: you can just speak up a little bit, please. Sure.

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Facility Subdivision F that is regulated by the child development division of the Department for Children and Families, or licensed as a children's camp pursuant to 18 DSA 4,301, or that serves as a day camp. So these two aren't intended to, When I get to educational institution, I will include They're intended to include the after school programs, the summer camps, and the day camps. My colleague Katie McLenn helped kind of flesh this out a little bit. So because not every school has their after school program at the school, it's my understanding. I don't know for sure, but this is what I've been told. So this is intended to cover the after school programs that are off-site, perhaps at a park or some other non school building. In

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: terms of who pays for those camps, I'm thinking like Boys and Girls Club, some of it is paid for by the state of Vermont, subsidized, some of is not subsidized by taxpayers. I just think, I mean, in statute, does it clarify who is paying for these programs or are they just generally available?

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know. I don't think so, but I can double check. I think that

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: we'll wanna dig in there.

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm quite certain the day camp can be a private entity that

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Right. But I'm not not necessarily thinking about. I'm thinking about both boys and girls clubs. Because I know, for instance, in Rutland County, a lot of them are subsidized by the taxpayers. So I think we're gonna wanna I will want to understand what that means.

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, then you have Subdivision G, a healthcare facility, as that term is defined in '18 BSA 94,026. I don't have that pulled up, but you're welcome to look at that cross reference. It's very detailed on the types of facilities that includes. Okay, exceptions. This is currently in law, and I'll explain why some of it has been changed. So Subdivision 1, which is all those places, including courthouses. Subdivision 1 shall not apply to an arrest pursuant to a judicially issued warrant or a court order. So think about that. Right? If somebody, police officer, state, federal, whoever, has a judicial warrant, which is gonna be a criminal issue, you can arrest somebody in a church. You can arrest somebody in a courthouse. That this prohibition is only for civil arrests that are not backed by a judicial warrant. B, an arrest for contempt of the court where the proceeding is occurring. So, if there is someone in a courtroom that has been issued a order of contempt, that person can still be taken away. This law does not prevent that specific instance of a civil arrest. Or C, an arrest to maintain order or safety in the court where the proceeding is occurring. The remedy section has been adjusted a little bit because this was written for a court proceeding. So I had to kind of reword how this is done. Nothing really changed substantively, but I do want to clarify what I've done here. So, remedies, a person who violates the subsection, meaning a civil arrest by knowingly and willfully executing or assisting with an arrest prohibited by subdivision one of the subsection. The old language, or the current language, is shall be subject to contempt proceedings. That doesn't make sense because if you are arrested in a hospital, that's not really a contempt situation there. It applies to courtrooms. So, the language is may be liable in a civil action for false imprisonment. That's current language. And shall be subject to contempt proceedings if the arrest is pursuant to a court proceeding. Again, just kind of restructuring how that is laid out. A person I'm gonna read this because these are the remedies. It's important to know what you're looking at here. Subdivision b, a person who is arrested in violation of this subsection may bring a civil action against the violator for damages, injunctive, equitable, or declaratory relief, punitive damages, and reasonable costs in attorney's fees. The office of the attorney general may bring a civil action on behalf of the state of Vermont for appropriate injunctive, equitable, or declarative relief if there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation has occurred or will occur. Zach?

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Office of the attorney general. Would this necessarily always default to her office to Trump review, or can we make a case for state's attorneys?

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, so the current law is the AG, but you can certainly discuss, yeah, changing that if you think it's a good idea. I'm sure she was consulted to make sure she has bandwidth to take this off. She, meaning the current AG? Yeah. So I didn't write the 2022 law. I would always advise committees, don't assume it's the same person right because the AGs change. AGs come and go. So I don't know if the AG was consultant. Assume they came in and testified or at least one of the assistant AGs. But if you wanna change that, yeah, that's something we can talk about.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: I mean, does most civil actions fall within her purview?

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Do most civil actions fall in that office? In what regard? Any civil matter?

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Just generally speaking. This seems like mean Does it seem like an anomaly to you or reasonable that this wouldn't necessarily fall under her purview?

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't do a lot of Title 12, so I don't know if that's common. Maybe a question for one of my colleagues or the chair may know. Did you draft this language? Not the underlying language. It's 2022. Okay. Yeah, no change. This current language. Okay. Yep. D, no action under the subsection shall be brought against the judiciary or any of its members or employees for actions taken to maintain order or safety in the courts. You have me brought seven more minutes, mister chair. Yep. Okay. The section shall not be construed to limit or infringe upon any right, privilege, or remedy available under common law or any other provision of law or rule. Notwithstanding section thirty five seventy eight, the protections and remedies afforded by the subsection apply irrespective of when the privilege against civil arrest is invoked. Okay. So these are the

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Okay. We're done.

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Almost done. The definition section. So civil arrest, that main definition stays the same. It means an arrest for purposes of obtaining the person's presence or attendance at a civil proceeding, including an immigration proceeding. That has not changed. Subdivision I, II, civil arrest does not include It's Romanette. Romanette. Here Romanette

[Unidentified Committee Member (likely Rep. Thomas Oliver or Rep. Kenneth Goslant)]: we go.

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Past Jewish. Almost said Romanette, but I didn't. Does not include temporary custody of a person pending a warrant. I'm gonna read both of these, and I'll explain them. Pending a warrant pursuant to 18 as a VSA 7,505 B, or holding a person for admission to a hospital for an emergency examination pursuant to 18 VSA 7,504. These two types of custodies are mental health situations. Somebody is a danger to themselves or others. And under current Vermont law, you can look at these two statutes. It allows either law enforcement or a mental health professional to temporarily hold a person, pending either an examination or a warrant for that person's more long term custody. So, the intent of the bill is not to include those two things in this prohibition.

[Unidentified Committee Member (likely Rep. Thomas Oliver or Rep. Kenneth Goslant)]: What

[Speaker 0]: other type?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: There's other types of civil arrest warrants that are

[Abel Luna (Organizer and Interpreter, Migrant Justice)]: not because

[Unidentified Committee Member]: they're a judicial warrant. Does that make them exempt from this?

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So there's more civil arrest warrants. Can you name one that I can maybe think about? Yeah. Child support. That would be one. So, yeah, it would it would be if it's a judicial warrant, then it would be outside the scope of this

[Speaker 0]: where you couldn't conduct that. But if

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: there is no If it'd be

[Unidentified Committee Member]: a civil dead point as well.

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, then that wouldn't They would apply to this. So child support civil arrest cannot be conducted in these locations. Yes. Yes. It's like a subpoena, right? If you get a subpoena for a court and you don't show up, that's civil arrest. Right? If it's a child support order that you have not paid and you didn't go to court or you you have child support. Right. But they do put bail on that. So it could be an arrest warrant, and that would be difficult. If it's a judge signed warrant, it would not be a civil warrant. It would be a judicial. Right. It would be a judicial warrant, which should be outside the scope of this. So if you may want testimony, do you have a question about that? No. Educational institution. This is a list, a very comprehensive list that my colleague, Beth St. Danes put together for the committee that includes just about anything you could consider a school in Vermont Of course, public school, independent school, a regional CTE center, an approved education program, a pre qualified private pre kindergarten provider, a post secondary school, an educational program operated by I believe that's BOCES, I've learned that recently, a tutorial program, an adult education and secondary credential program. And it also extends to grounds operated by, activities sponsored by, transportation provided by, and programs related to educational institutions.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: I'm sure you guys have thought about this about homeschooling. I'm sure it falls somewhere here.

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Beth St. James, I think, is coming on Friday. She'll able to speak to that.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: But so to your knowledge, Rick, is homeschooling included? I can't

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: speak to it, don't know. You don't know? Okay. Yeah.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Foley Place, I'd like to get to it.

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's a cross reference to '17 BSA 2,505 F. In that, that's the election's title. And the way it works is a municipality sends a list of locations before the election the secretary of state's office as, like, these are our polling places for the next election. So that list would be considered a polling place. And it would be updated by the municipality when they send the list to the secretary every time there's an election. And it would take effect on passage.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Ian and Thomas?

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Two very quick questions. One, and maybe this is for And I'm sorry, who was the other attorney?

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So Beth St. James, education. I

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: think I'll probably ask her, but I'm wondering, do we think that these definitions are going to change with the work that's being done in education?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Good questions for her.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. I'm going ask yeah. I can do

[Abel Luna (Organizer and Interpreter, Migrant Justice)]: it as much.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: And then my other

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: question was for I'll look

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: at '17 BSA 2502. Is it only when they're being used at new places?

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Another good question. I will not say because I do not know. I'm not going to guess. So I will get back to you on that. Okay. And I think it may not be clear, actually. Yeah. So, maybe you can have a discussion about what you want to do with that.

[Speaker 0]: Page one right at the bottom.

[Unidentified Committee Member (likely Rep. Thomas Oliver or Rep. Kenneth Goslant)]: I'm glad you told me that

[Speaker 0]: Yep. Traveling to entering, remaining returning from wood. Somebody was just leaving the building before they were going, say, to their vehicle to return from, is that a time that a a civil arrest could be made? So there's a lot of gray here.

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. And again, this is current law. I don't know. And some other states have kind of also worded this way. This is a popular way of doing it. To me, you want to be clear to law enforcement when they can and cannot affect a civil arrest. So if you're the person, the suspect, and you tell the officer, I'm going to court or I'm coming back from school. If you're at the grocery store, maybe a harder argument to make. But if you're literally outside the school or you're outside the courtroom, I think the law enforcement would need to say, Okay, this is likely a true story that they are returning or going to court. Okay. So did I go way over your question?

[Speaker 0]: No. So I'm pretty sure what you said. If they're leaving the building and going

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: to a vehicle, that would

[Speaker 0]: be part of the definition of returning from.

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So you're asking leaving the courtroom?

[Speaker 0]: Or whatever building.

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, returning. Returning would be That would be considered returning. Right.

[Speaker 0]: What if they left the property and were on a public sidewalk or public road? Yeah. Just things going through my mind. Does that make it more of a gray area where they are on that property any longer?

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Are they returning from a courtroom? Have they stopped anywhere else in between the courthouse and their home office? Yeah. Okay. And I mean,

[Speaker 0]: my guess is this is to me, I mean, I was around for when we did the court proceedings thing. And and and and I remember there was a lot of deliberation and debate as far as, you know, going further with it, and this is just an incredible expansion that I never would have seen coming. But and I know why the expansion is done. It it's all done, you know, around the immigration issues we have going on. But and that leads me to my next question is are the feds bound by this or we don't know unless it's challenged?

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This is a good intergovernmental immunity question. I think my colleague Sophie wasn't here yesterday talking to you about that. They are bound by it under state law. Right? That if you break this law, that the AG could bring in action or if the person that is arrested can bring in action. Is that the person going to claim as a defense that I'm a federal employee? And you're talking about federal employees, because this applies to all law enforcement, right? Right, right. The federal aspect.

[Speaker 0]: On 02/2008, we're gonna you know, we've had the same kind of same discussion whether the feds are even, have to follow these laws. That's why

[Unidentified Committee Member (likely Rep. Thomas Oliver or Rep. Kenneth Goslant)]: I'm bringing it up here.

[Speaker 0]: That I expect the definitive answer, but Right,

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I wish. Actually, I don't wish. Y'all wouldn't need me. There's one court decision from New York, which is nice. It's in our circuit that New York has an executive order that applied just to state buildings, not the expanse By the way, is Vermont would be the first state to do this. This is very unique. The expansive list, you'd be the first in the country to do this. The state building, which is not in this bill, there was a provision in the introduced version that would have included state buildings. And that's actually fairly defensible because the state does have sovereign ownership of its buildings. And that personally gets what I'm saying here. That district court in New York did say that the state does have an interest in protecting its buildings, and you can not tell the feds what to do. But it's also and there's a lot to talk about here that I wish I had more time for. The federal law, Immigration Nationality Act, where you can arrest people without a judicial warrant, is not specific where those arrests have to happen. So a state does have some authority in saying that not courthouses, not buildings. Can it say not houses of worship? Can it say not schools? It's actually unclear. It's truly unclear. It's South jurisdiction, do we have a right to public?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: And you do have some.

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But to your ultimate question is, if a federal employee violates this law, they would be subject to this law, how's going

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: to work? And that's a good question.

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Same thing with a mask bill. It's like, how's that

[Unidentified Committee Member (likely Rep. Thomas Oliver or Rep. Kenneth Goslant)]: going take? A couple of years.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So if you could send me that case, your case, just so we have it on.

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It was December 2025, so it's really recent too.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Oh wow, yeah.

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's been appealed, but yeah, it's helpful

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: to have that analysis.

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: All right thank you so Yeah sorry

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: to Thank you. I've been asleep for another place.

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I can answer one question. I'll

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: leave exemptions. He's so close to me.

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: He would just be very mad if I

[Unidentified Committee Member]: just You're right. All these exemptions on here are all very pretty much have one thing in common, and they're all things we're getting to some of companies would expect to have at night. The one that confuses me the most is polling

[Speaker 0]: place, because

[Unidentified Committee Member]: think this is targeted at an immigration thing, and I'm not sure these folks wouldn't be able to. But US civil arrest warrant or I should say state civil arrest warrant, would that be prohibiting?

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, you mentioned child support.

[Abel Luna (Organizer and Interpreter, Migrant Justice)]: Right.

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: But that's exempt.

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. If there's a warrant. If judge there's warrant. So again, the types of civil arrests are not common. Subpoena

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: to come

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to court, some type of contempt in court where you, which is usually subpoena, you gotta show up. So there's not a large history in this country of civil arrest. So you're not really looking at a whole lot.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: It seems like adding a gas station. I I don't know. If somebody needs to be at a polling place, they're there to vote. Correct? Typically?

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The intent to the law would indicate. Yeah. That's a it's and the Prosperity is we're good now.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I've just been informed by education committee is looking for you right now.

[Speaker 0]: That's a figure. Can't.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Thank very much. Thank you. That committee should say, you know

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'll see you soon, Isaac. Thank you, Ray.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: And I

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: can come on Friday as well if you'd to come.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. Alright. Yeah. We may maybe just be around

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: when is Beth coming?

[Speaker 0]: There's new support.

[Unidentified Committee Member (likely Rep. Thomas Oliver or Rep. Kenneth Goslant)]: Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: So then that would only be direct mail. It was all at 01:30. Right.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: It just seems strange that we have

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: a walk It is an electronic It's

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: just strange that we have a

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: walk through before he could answer a lot

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of questions.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: She wasn't available today. I tried to get her today. She couldn't do it. So she'll cover that tomorrow. That happens. There's some times where Legislative Council deal with different parts and we take

[Unidentified Committee Member (likely Rep. Thomas Oliver or Rep. Kenneth Goslant)]: it along the street. So.

[Abel Luna (Organizer and Interpreter, Migrant Justice)]: Charlie. Good afternoon, gentlemen. Good afternoon.

[Charlie Lusserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: I'm Charlie Lusserman. I'm the policy director at the Vermont Networks Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. Thank you. Hello. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of S209. We greatly appreciate the committee's consideration of this bill and support the current inclusion of social services establishments like domestic and sexual violence organizations on the list of sensitive locations. As noted by legislative counsel, the Department of Homeland Security has had longstanding guidance that immigration and customs enforcement refrain from enforcement actions in sensitive locations. This guidance was rescinded in 2025 and resulted in a lot of concern and lack of clarity for providers, including domestic and sexual violence organizations. Domestic and sexual violence organizations provide life saving services, shelter, legal support, safety planning and more. This work is highly sensitive, and it often occurs during the most dangerous periods of a survivor's life. When a survivor is seeking support, it is an act of trust. Trust that reaching out will make them safer than remaining in an unsafe home or with an abusive partner. Survivors already face so many barriers to seeking safety, and we feel that survivors, regardless of their actual or perceived immigration status, should not face an added barrier of fear that accessing support will expose them or their families to enforcement actions. S209, which includes domestic and sexual violence organizations in that list of sensitive locations, would just offer clarity and consistency to survivors and the providers who serve them. We again appreciate the committee's attention to this issue, and I would be happy to answer any questions. Questions

[Abel Luna (Organizer and Interpreter, Migrant Justice)]: for Chuck? Yeah, Zach, go ahead.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: So it's good to see you, Charlotte. I assume that you're

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: in support of the bill.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: Yes.

[Abel Luna (Organizer and Interpreter, Migrant Justice)]: Can you tell me why?

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Beyond the prepared remarks, I'm just curious why.

[Charlie Lusserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: What I really think of is what is going through a survivor's mind when they are questioning whether or not to reach out and seek help to get themselves safe. There are so many barriers to seeking that safety. Your physical safety, your emotional safety, whether you have the finances to sustain yourselves and your children after you make that move. And until for a few years there, survivors did not have that added barrier of, if I go to this shelter, may I face an immigration enforcement action when I take that step? And that was a real, I think, boon to survivors and the providers for that period of time. And that does not exist for survivors anymore. And that will prevent people from seeking help. And so that is why we feel this bill is really important to prevent that chilling effect for them.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Do you think there are any possibilities in your mind that someone would take advantage of this bill?

[Charlie Lusserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: I do not. I mean, our providers are still held to all state and federal laws, and this bill doesn't change that. It changes the decision making process that a survivor will go through.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: And that's exactly where I'm kind of going, is if federal enforcement was coming to one of your locations and they were demanding you to procure one of your patients or one of the victims that you're currently sheltering, would you comply?

[Charlie Lusserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: I think that these situations are very fact specific, but as I noted, we still would have to comply with all state and federal laws.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Right. So I guess the way that

[Abel Luna (Organizer and Interpreter, Migrant Justice)]: I interpret what you're telling me in the way

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: that the bill is written is that even if it's passed, even if it seeks to accomplish whatever the bill's authors are looking to do, if federal enforcement came to one of your sites, there's something you could do anyways. You have to comply or else you're in violation of federal law.

[Charlie Lusserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: I think that it depends on the facts. It depends on the type of warrant and would certainly defer to our civil liberties experts for those details. But as I noted, our providers always follow state and federal laws. This bill would not

[Abel Luna (Organizer and Interpreter, Migrant Justice)]: change

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: that. Glad to hear that. And I'm not sure that you're correct about that if somebody comes to the door without a judicial warrant.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Well, I'm not saying they're coming without a warrant. Yeah.

[Abel Luna (Organizer and Interpreter, Migrant Justice)]: So if they're then

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: I mean, I know I wouldn't wanna step in between myself and the federal law enforcement agent. I mean, just isn't where I'd wanna put myself because that's where situations become could become really difficult. And I would never and here's the thing is we heard enough tough stories in this room already. I would never want you and your staff to be put in position where you're stopping a federal law enforcement investigation from happening because that would put you in harm's way. And I just wouldn't want to see that.

[Charlie Lusserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Well, I appreciate that consideration. Yeah.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Disagree with what members said. Don't think We can disagree, but Martin, that's a perspective. It is a perspective, but I want to make very clear that I don't think that somebody, if anybody comes to your door, law enforcement, without a judicial warrant, you shouldn't feel that you've been put in danger or jeopardy. I'm not saying that- By saying, well, that's what I heard you say.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: I'm just saying if they're coming with a warrant in this case.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Again, that is I just

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: just have what to wanna put in between. Right.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: If it's a warrant, they need to absolutely comply with a judicial warrant. Right. Not an administrative warrant, that's a different item. Anyway, but that's not I apologize for that. I didn't mean to have to debate with my fellow member here, but I had to just weigh in on that.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: No

[Charlie Lusserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: apology is needed. And just noting again, the language on social services establishments has been Department of Homeland Security guidance for several years. So our providers understand what that means, and it will simply provide them the clarity and consistency they're looking for.

[Abel Luna (Organizer and Interpreter, Migrant Justice)]: Any other questions for Chuck?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Nope, good. All right, thank you. So we'll have a bell. Did I say it closely this time? Did I get close?

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And all

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: done? Yeah, please, please, is there another chair? Chair.

[Unidentified Committee Member (likely Rep. Thomas Oliver or Rep. Kenneth Goslant)]: She's also not here for that's a policy. I think it's a it is the way yeah. Oh, is there taking up this bill very hard to deal with when we're only taking Synagogus and follow, for lack of a better word, proper protocol to get the answers that are needed here. I'm having a very, very, very difficult time trying to follow all this without all the legislative council stuff that we have to go with.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So I think the only other legislative council stuff that we have to go with, other than the fact that we've asked a number of questions we can get back to us on is the definition of education. That's all we have Beth St. James coming in to talk about. Otherwise, Rick is the person. He was here. He heard questions. He said he has to get back to us. But that doesn't mean we stall all other testimony because they've asked questions that legislative council have to come back to us for. So do have, the witnesses now are gonna talk more about kind of the impact of what they're seeing. I don't know how much they're gonna take into the language at all, frankly. We're gonna hear from Felco Schilling, who talk a little bit about the constitutional issues that only somewhat address King Rich.

[Unidentified Committee Member (likely Rep. Thomas Oliver or Rep. Kenneth Goslant)]: Just one quick question. So I thought they were from the last mail, a lot more information that they needed from the legislature council, including Rick to get answers back to us. Yeah, Rick needs to provide us with the details. And we're taking up a pretty,

[Abel Luna (Organizer and Interpreter, Migrant Justice)]: high level bill for lack of

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I guess it's relatively straightforward, the bill. And again, frequently, in all of our legislative council, questions come up, and they come back to us later.

[Abel Luna (Organizer and Interpreter, Migrant Justice)]: And I

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: don't see how this is different with respect to the questions we've asked in a break.

[Unidentified Committee Member (likely Rep. Thomas Oliver or Rep. Kenneth Goslant)]: So I think what I already heard is we put, those of us that were here in 2022 or whenever the first bit of language that was put in there for protections and all this stuff, I remember the courthouses, I remember all that stuff there, it seems like now we're really expanding that scope, correct?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: We need to hear from witnesses on the witness of that.

[Abel Luna (Organizer and Interpreter, Migrant Justice)]: Yeah, one second. I'd like to

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: hear more from lawyers. So we've heard from Charlie with respect to at least, the domestic violence shelter. Did have a witness who was, I think, an address, place of worship, but apparently we've been unable to get ahold of her. We are reaching out to somebody from the London Hospital Association regarding that. So I get all that. It's the Ledge Council.

[Unidentified Committee Member (likely Rep. Thomas Oliver or Rep. Kenneth Goslant)]: And maybe I'm overreacting. I don't know. If I'm overreacting, I apologize. Trying to understand the full scope of what we were doing. More questions than usual that we're gonna be hearing back. I won't agree with

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: you on that. I don't think that prevents us from here the next two minutes. We only have two days.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: We just haven't yet been at really any clarity for break. And it just seems strange that we haven't had a full walk through of the bill.

[Abel Luna (Organizer and Interpreter, Migrant Justice)]: Again, the only part of the walk

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: through I understand the numbers. We still haven't had a full walk through, which I think

[Unidentified Committee Member (likely Rep. Thomas Oliver or Rep. Kenneth Goslant)]: is It didn't much frustrating. We we had a full walk through, and there are particular So

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: we heard about education.

[Unidentified Committee Member (likely Rep. Thomas Oliver or Rep. Kenneth Goslant)]: Education.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: We have and so you who are here today made the time to come here, and I just feel like it's important to hear from us.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: We're proceeding with witnesses, and we'll get more answers from Rick tomorrow or the next day. Okay, if you could identify yourselves for the record and proceed with your testimony.

[Abel Luna (Organizer and Interpreter, Migrant Justice)]: Thank you very much for being here, for being patient. I'll be interpreting at Organizer for American Justice. I'll be interpreting for the public Oga. We'll be providing testimony, and then after Oga, I probably have something depending on how, you know, how how we're feeling. And also, if you're gonna ask some questions, I ask you to please speak really loud and really slow because I have trouble hearing, and so I wanna make sure that everything is communicated.

[Unidentified Committee Member (likely Rep. Thomas Oliver or Rep. Kenneth Goslant)]: I was just gonna ask you the same thing.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you. If

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: you could just slow down a

[Speaker 0]: little bit because I have hearing aids too. With your accent, it makes it a little difficult to understand where you slow down a little bit, I'll be able to understand you much better. Thank you.

[Abel Luna (Organizer and Interpreter, Migrant Justice)]: Okay. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Olga Chouz. I'm a dairy farm worker here in the state of Vermont. This is my daughter, and my other daughter is in school right now. And I think it's more than clear why we're here today. You know, we're here today because we want to ensure that the places that our community is gathering and frequenting, those places are protected. And, you know, I want you to think of us as, you know, residents of the state of Vermont because we have been here working and living for a long time. We have our families, we have community ties, we have our children here, and you know, we're working just like any other Vermonter. And there's also, you know, important things that are happening in our lives. For example, you know, just like anyone else, one of the things that one of the places which we our community, frequently, it's, for example, the DMV. And, you know, we want to ensure there's a lot of places where community is gathering, not just the DMV, there's other places that have been mentioned here, as we were reading the bill, you know, that are that are covered, and we wanna make sure that, you know, all the all these different places are are protected. We wanna ensure that our community can gather safely, that our community is accessing some of these services without being worried or being detained. And, you know, as we've been talking, there has we've been talking a lot. We have heard a lot. There's also, you know, a lot of questions that have come up throughout the hearing. And and one of those, you know, questions is, well, who's gonna pay for for certain things? You know, and we shouldn't be thinking about money, you know? I wanna make sure that as a mother, I feel, you know, safe bringing my child to, you know, to the center where they take care of, where they take care of my child, and that shouldn't be up for for question. And I understand that, you know, making change or changing things is probably difficult. But that is, you know, why you're here today. We wanna ensure that you hear from us. It is in your hands to ensure that our communities feel safe. It is in your hands to ensure that, you know, the places where we gather, you know, our community can feel safe. We've done a lot of good job and a lot of good work in the state of Vermont to improve in that regard, but I think there's more that we can do. Also, as we're talking about immigration and people being arrested, I think it's important for you to know that the tensions are happening with a warrant or without warrant. That is the experience of our community, and we want to make sure that that is taken into account, that our rights and our humanity is being respected. I wanna make sure that as a mother, as a woman, I feel safe bringing my child to the school. I wanna make sure that I feel safe, that my daughter is not gonna be picked up by immigration while she's at school. You know, I think it's very different, and it's very difficult for me as a mother and as a woman to give myself or imagine, you know, something happening where I'm going to the DMV, for example, and I get arrested. What happens with my children? What happens with my kids? And so those are things that you need to consider. You know, one of the conversations that I have with my daughter constantly is, you know, and my daughter sort of tells me, you know, mom, I feel, you know, afraid that if

[Unidentified Committee Member (likely Rep. Thomas Oliver or Rep. Kenneth Goslant)]: come

[Abel Luna (Organizer and Interpreter, Migrant Justice)]: to the activities at the school, if you come to the activities that I'm involved with, you're gonna be picked up. Right? You know, and I'm afraid of that because of this, you know, the skin of our color, the color of our skin because, you know, of our language and if we look different, those those are targets, you know, that that puts a flagging on our on our bag, you know, and the reality that our communities are at a high risk. And so I wanna I wanna ensure that's that goes through. This is sort of the reality that our communities are waiting and experiencing, not everyone can be here today because people are afraid of showing up and coming to the State House, know, but I'm here and I'm speaking for my community, so hope you can take that into account. That was all this testimony and if possible, I would like to add something and, you know, put it up for questions if you guys have any. And I think it's it's a it's a very sensitive sensitive issue, and I think it's super important that this conversation, know, happens and that that we ensure that our our communities are safe. Been living in Vermont for thirteen plus years. You know, that's that's a while. And I remember and it was it was difficult to, you know, go down to, know, grab a a pizza or, you know, take a walk on the streets in Vermont, because you know the reality of what could happen. It seems that Vermont has changed a lot, I think, through the work of migrant justice, the work of other communities and organizations. Mean, Berbemont has become a better state, not just for the migrant community, but really for anyone else. And it's also in our experience as an organization, and as a community, you know, that changes only happen when there is legislation in place and laws in place, you know, that are comprehensive and that are crafted to truly protect, you know, the communities that are most affected. And I think it's important to understand that, you know, we've seen the benefit of, you know, for example, the driver license campaign, we've seen the benefit of the foreign departure policing policy, we've seen the benefit of people not being arrested at the courthouses, that has had a huge impact on our community. And so, you know, having legislation that truly works and and focuses on on people's reality, you know, it's a it's a win win win for you guys. It's a win for for our communities and for everyone else in the state of Vermont. You know, we're living in in very troublesome times. As Olga mentioned, our communities are under attack through many different ways and directions, and I think that the rhetoric around the country, you know, like anyone can get arrested, know, if you don't look like that that you don't belong here, you know, you're, you're at risk of deportation. And, you know, I want you guys to think for a second, what kind of impact that has on community members who are trying to access basic services, you know, women that are facing domestic violence, know, people that are trying to move freely throughout the state of Vermont by accessing a driver license, people that are trying to get help at the doctor or at a hospital. You know, when you hear that, you know, immigrants can show up at these places, at the DMV or any other place, you know, it prevents people from actually going to these places. It prevents people from actually, you know, living more fully and having a dignified life. You know, and we're talking about, you know, people that are milking the cows so that we can, you know, eat free milk or eat dairy products. We're talking about, you know, people that are, you know, cleaning the hotel rooms. We're talking about people that are probably washing the dishes when we go and dine at a restaurant or any place. These are our neighbors. These are people that are in our communities, you know. And so it's important for you guys to, you know, to really think about, you know, what kind of law, what kind of bill are we trying to pass? And I understand there's a lot of discussion and questions, but at the end of the day, it comes down to basic human rights. The more complicated we get, you know, we tend to distance ourselves from the reality of what our communities are truly living. And so, you know, we don't need to to make it too complicated. It's about basic human rights. Who has, you know, are we gonna ensure that our communities, have access to loan you know, to the hospital to go get a driver license? What kind of laws are we creating? And I say that because we've seen a pattern across the state where people are staying home, people don't wanna go to the doctor, to the hospital, you know, because people are afraid. It's true, you know, you could go to, you know, that idea that I might go to get some help and I might not make it back home. I might have to, you know, get arrested, and then what's going to happen to my family, right? And so we've seen a pattern when people are, you know, not going to the hospital, the doctor, people are going to the DMV to access the driver licenses, people that, you know, practice different religion for peace of mind, or for well-being, or mental health, you know, people are staying away, you know, our community, you know, it's sort of staying in the house, and so I think, you know, as we think about, okay, you know, how do we make Ramon a better state, a safer place for everyone, I think it's important to take into account, you know, that this is important. You know, just like, you know, places of worship, just like, you know, schools and other places, know, places where our community frequents, the DMV and other places where our community is accessing basic services, and I think it's important for us to, to think about that, put ourselves in the shoes of a migrant immigrant mother who is afraid of dropping out their child at a care center. So think that that is sort of the reality. And so we're urging you to get, urging the committee to, you know, really take those things into account. You know, this is, as Oliver mentioned, this is the reality. You know, this is what people are facing. This is a pattern that we're seeing, and this is not gonna go away. So we have an opportunity here to truly make a change and ensure that, you know, the people that are putting food on our tables are not afraid of accessing basic services. And so

[Unidentified Committee Member (likely Rep. Thomas Oliver or Rep. Kenneth Goslant)]: So I think Ken has a question. Yeah. So I am trying my darnedest to follow all this. When you were just talking, was that coming from you or from her?

[Abel Luna (Organizer and Interpreter, Migrant Justice)]: Oh, that was my That was you?

[Unidentified Committee Member (likely Rep. Thomas Oliver or Rep. Kenneth Goslant)]: My opinion. Okay. So did you say you've been here for thirteen years? Yes. And you've been living under fear for thirteen years?

[Abel Luna (Organizer and Interpreter, Migrant Justice)]: I worked with Migrant Justice. I'm an organizer with Migrant Justice. And what I'm referring to is a basic pattern that we have seen in Argentina, you know, before there was a driver license, before there was a party policing policy, before there was, you know, the the the the law, you know, to prohibit arrest at at courthouses, people were afraid of of, you know, showing up. You know, people were afraid of driving. You know, women were not leaving the farms and being in, you know, suffering from domestic violence. And I'm saying that there's a history, you know, when there when when our communities are not protected, you know, there is a pattern of people, you know, being afraid of accessing basic services that people need. And so what I'm saying is, you know, let's change that around. Vermont has done a great job and a good job of taking steps in the right direction to, you know, make some improvements and to better the quality of life of our communities. But there is still, you know, some way to go. So

[Unidentified Committee Member (likely Rep. Thomas Oliver or Rep. Kenneth Goslant)]: so my question was, for all 13, have you lived with this fear?

[Abel Luna (Organizer and Interpreter, Migrant Justice)]: That's the experience of our community, the reality that our community is facing, yes.

[Unidentified Committee Member (likely Rep. Thomas Oliver or Rep. Kenneth Goslant)]: Okay, thank you. Oh, Karen, Zachary, Angela.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: I just wanted to thank you all for coming here. It's lovely to meet your daughter, and just really appreciate you sharing your story, your experience, and feel like critical community members. And I feel we need to do our work to make sure that all of our community members are protected and can get access to services. So I'm committed to doing what we can with this, and I'm sorry you're experiencing this. Thank

[Abel Luna (Organizer and Interpreter, Migrant Justice)]: you. Thank you, Chair.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Will, thanks for being here as well. So I guess a couple of questions. I guess first to Olga, you'd mentioned that you'd seen in your community warrantless arrests. And I'm wondering if you can tell us where that happened. And Will, for you

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: you don't understand.

[Abel Luna (Organizer and Interpreter, Migrant Justice)]: Absolutely. Thanks. Don't know. Abel. Yes. There is a lot of places, you know, if I could share, you know, I probably wouldn't wouldn't have enough time to to name everything. The reality is that, yes, arrests without warrants are happening. I'll just to give an example, for example, there's a person or two people in a vehicle and the driver gets pulled over by immigration, what usually ends up happening is that both people, both persons get arrested, not just, know, they're not just focusing on the driver, but if you think that you're undocumented, if you're immunogrammed, that has been the reality. People have been arrested. You know, I have family friends, I have members, My my own family, I have friends. I I know of a lot of families that have been separated because, because of this injustice.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: And I'm sorry. I saw Will on the witness list. I came late, and so a bell. And I guess in terms of your testimony specifically from migrant justice, in your view, does this bill go far enough?

[Abel Luna (Organizer and Interpreter, Migrant Justice)]: I think we sat down with our community. There was some there, and we were talking about, well, what do we need to do? What are some of the things that we need to include? And I think there's room for improvement on the bill. One of the things, I think, as we've been hearing and mentioning, a lot of things are included, you know, like the the child care providers, the center the child care centers, as Jose Olga was mentioning, you know, places of worship, hospitals, clinics, and I'm not gonna name everything, you know, but I think one of the places where our community is afraid of stepping into, it's the DMV, which is, you know, a a place where, you know, people need to go, people need to go get their driver licenses. So we've we've seen a pattern where people, you know, you get your driver permits online, and that's where people started to stop. You know, they don't continue moving forward with the license because that requires you going into the DMV. It requires you being probably. And people are afraid. And the reality is that everything that is happening, right? I think the question is, or the question is, or maybe it isn't the question, right? But like this idea is that know, we're we're disclose of something horrific happening and and people being arrested, you know, DMV and other and other places where, you know, you know, and and and the idea is that through legislation, through this bill, we can prohibit some of, you know, we can prohibit that from happening. You know, people are afraid because, you know, people are afraid of showing up because there is this, you know, fear of, okay, I show up, might be arrested, that's preventing people from accessing certain things, certain services, right? And so what we wanna do, and that is to to make it more comprehensive. A lot of the things that are included are awesome. I think one of the things that we would like to, you know, for you guys to consider is the idea of adding, you know, public buildings. And again, you know, there's a fear, people are afraid that this can get too broad, you know, but I think there's very clear examples such as the courthouses, right? That's a very clear example. It's a public building, a state building, and, you know, it it didn't it didn't get too broad. It got really specific, and I think what we're saying is there is very specific places where our community is gathering and frequenting or trying to access services where we want to ensure that those places are safe for our community to go into. And so it's good, but if you guys are asking, can we make improvements?

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Yes. Yeah. And so I guess thank you for that. And so just one follow-up question. So were you all able to get a chance to help craft the language when the draft was going to be set up?

[Abel Luna (Organizer and Interpreter, Migrant Justice)]: Yes. We we, as migrant justice, we're we're involved. You're involved in the craft of

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: the language.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: And on polling places, this was a great question from my colleague, Goodnow. He was wondering specifically whether polling places applied on the day of polling on the election day, or if something's identified as a polling place would apply year round in off election cycles. Do you guys have a view on that, of how you'd

[Abel Luna (Organizer and Interpreter, Migrant Justice)]: like to see that applied?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Basically,

[Abel Luna (Organizer and Interpreter, Migrant Justice)]: the the idea is that, you know, we wanna make this bill as comprehensive as we can. You know, we would like for everything to be included, you know, anything that we've mentioned and anything else, you know, that protects our community, you know, that is idea. You know, that includes polling places, that includes the DMV, that includes the doctors, the hospital, you know, child care centers, you know, in the local city, everything, you know, shopping centers, that's, you know, where we go and buy our food, you know, people are, that is, where we go and buy our food, you know, those are essential needs and essential things that we need as a community in order to be well above. To answer the question, if I may add, of piggybacking on what Alden just mentioned, one of the things that we're seeing also is you know, people not, people being afraid of going to buy their own food at shopping centers. You know, we have had, you know, calls from community members where, you know, hey, you know, I see this weird person at the store that's looking at me, I'm not sure if it's an agent or it's not an agent, you know, and they're asking me questions, so, you know, work gets around, you know, people are afraid of going to buy their own food, and that creates dependency on, you know, on the farmer, dependency on someone else that's going to take advantage of that. So I think that's automation. Under the sun, we would like to see sort of everything included to make sure that our communities are certainly protected. We know that it's hard to pass everything. But that's the task of this committee, to figure out how we're going to ensure that our communities are safe and protected.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Angela, in this last question.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Thank you so much. I was going

[Charlie Lusserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: to ask a similar question about

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: what's missing. And I hear you saying the DMV came up a lot. I would love to add that. And I think it makes sense to add state buildings. And I'm aware of the fact that we're sitting in a state building right now, and we call it the People's House. I spoke with representative Dodge just before this hearing, and we were talking about that fact that it's so important to hear your voice on this matter and a number of other matters. We want people, we want to feel safe coming there to inform our laws. And so it seems to me really important to include other state buildings, particularly the building we're in right now.

[Abel Luna (Organizer and Interpreter, Migrant Justice)]: Yes, the DMV, it's an important place, as everything else that we've mentioned. It's a place where our community, we we bought for the driver license, and and we won the driver licenses back in twenty twelve, thirteen, you know, to ensure that our communities can move freely, you know, without fear of being, you know, pulled over and and deported, that our communities can have access to buying their food and other things. So we won these laws, right, and we want to make sure that we can access these buildings where you know, that is the only place where you can go get a driver license, right? And what happens, right, if, for example, I'm arrested at the DMV, that's going to create a chilling effect that's going to affect not just myself, my family, but everyone else in the community. All of a sudden, people are not gonna go to the DMV. All of a sudden, people are gonna be afraid of stepping into this accessing these services that we have won before. And so I think it's important to to ring both both things. Right? We want something. We wanna access it, but we are afraid of doing so, you know, because we are at risk of being, you know, detained or or, you know, deported and separated from our families. As you were mentioning the the state house, for example, you know, we wanna yeah. That'll be great if we can add, you know, not just the DMV or, you know, public buildings, but also state buildings, you know, where, for example, you know, like, the the State House, that that that is a place where, you know, we have to come back, here, after here, after here, you know, because, we're facing many issues, and the only thing to change them is by by coming to to the State House, the People's House. And and it's needed so that you guys can hear the reality that we're facing, that you guys can hear the stories of our community, you know, yes, sometimes I'm afraid, I'm afraid of stepping into the state house as of now, as I'm now, I'm afraid that as I'm leaving the state house, you know, I'm gonna get picked up, then I'm afraid because my husband is not here, my my other daughter is not here, you know, and sort of what what what's gonna happen with them? So ensuring that, you know, that that that people feel safe entering the State House, if it's any other building, it's gonna be critical.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Thank you very much. I appreciate you being here, and I really appreciate your testimony. So we'll go to a We are kind of running on a little bit of time, so we're gonna just go right to Felco. And then we do have a few people coming in at 03:00 to answer a few more questions on the budget issues. We had yesterday. Thank you for being

[Falko Schilling (Advocacy Director, ACLU of Vermont)]: Dick, frequent flyer and sweet. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Name is Falko Schilling. I'm the Advocacy Director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont. So I'm here today to talk to you about S209. And so S209 is a bill that you've heard a good amount about in terms of the kind of four corners of the bill and what it tries to protect. I'm gonna walk through that, some of the legal underpinnings of it, because I think we got a little bit less of that with this bill than we did yesterday, though a lot of that is overlapping in some of those same justifications and some of those things that need to be considered. I also have some proposals for potential modifications to the

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: bill that I'd like to share with you.

[Falko Schilling (Advocacy Director, ACLU of Vermont)]: So I can kind of start there that we were supportive of the intent of this bill and for the state, which is for the state protect the core functions of our state government from interference and disruption caused by warless civil arrests at sensitive locations. And as have been mentioned by other witnesses, for years, it was the policy of folks like Department of Homeland Security to limit arrests at certain enumerated sensitive locations. And I think what you see in what passed the Senate is an attempt to, in many ways, capture that list of locations that was in that guidance issued in 2011, then reissued in 2021 within this bill. And so I think many of those line up with the legal underpinnings. Some of those might have some more concerns around the state's ability to actually enforce a prohibition if we were to put one in place. So in that guidance, I included schools, including K through 12 schools, vocational trade schools, colleges and universities, medical and mental health facilities, places of worship or religious studies, places where children gather, social services establishments, places where disaster emergency response relief is provided, places where funerals and grave places where funerals, graveside ceremonies, rosaries, weddings, other religious or civil ceremonies are observed or occur, and places where there's ongoing parades, demonstrations, or hours. So obviously not all of those are covered within the bill, but that was what was in the DHS guidance in terms of trying to preserve access to those sensitive locations so folks could fully participate within society. So in 01/20/2025, DHS rescinded its previous guidance and left enforcement in these sensitive locations to the discretion of individual officers. So there's no longer a policy in place. And what we have seen since the rescission of that memo is there has been enforcement in a number of these locations. I think we've seen most examples around schools. And we saw in Minnesota where there were certain school districts that had to close classes and no longer hold in person learning because of some of the disruptions they saw around immigration enforcement. And we've also seen, and this has led folks, as you've heard, concerned about being able to fully utilize access to these essential services, which can jeopardize livelihoods. In some circumstances, their very lives. So that brings the question of there's this concern about people trying to access these services, being able to maintain the core functions of our state government. The question is, what can the state do about it? So as recognized by the tenth amendment of the federal constitution, Vermont retains broad sovereign police power to protect the health, safety, legal rights, welfare of its residents. You heard a little bit about this yesterday in terms of the police powers, just not necessarily limited to actual police, but it can encompass many other things within those categories. Vermont also has sovereign power over its property, its own government, and the means by which the state exercise and implements its sovereign prerogatives. And Vermont is just a healthier, more prosperous state when all residents can access the services which they're eligible and feel empowered to fully participate in civic, economic and political life. Residents of the state should not hesitate to participate in court proceedings, attend school, seek necessary medical care services or shelter out of fear. And civil arrests conducted without a judicial warrant have the potential to disrupt or interfere with these services and operations that are vital to the health and safety and well-being of Vermont residents. Moreover, fear of being subject to civil arrest conducted without a judicial warrant deters residents from seeking and participating services beneficial to the individual health, safety, well-being, and collective well-being of the state. And for those reasons, we and many Vermonters across the state are asking the legislature to prohibit civil arrests without a warrant at locations which the state has sovereign interest in protecting the efficient operations and a sovereign interest ensuring the maximum access in order to achieve health, safety, well-being of its residents. Now, we do have some concerns about, with those underpinnings and the legal underpinnings within our authority within the tenth amendment, that there are some places where there might be some questions about how far it can go. But historically speaking, in terms of folks being concerned about enforcement happening, there's two sources of protection. So you heard from Rick and Ledge counsel about the common law protection around courthouses, and we also have a provision that prevents the arrest of legislators when they are trying to conduct their duties. I've even heard of legislators who would be able to defer civil tickets because they said, Look, I don't have time. I need to get to a vote, and that has happened, then folks have followed up later. So those have been used and have been on the books for quite a long time. The other is the Fourth Amendment. And the Fourth Amendment is one that is not exercised by government, but is exercised by individuals or groups of individuals against the use of state power. And so in some of the instances, we think that the best protection individuals might actually have is asserting their Fourth Amendment rights. So just as we talked about before, in your own home, you have the right to not allow a law enforcement officer premises, onto into your home, unless they have a judicial warrant. So that is where then you no longer have the option of not complying. But if a law enforcement officer comes to your door, they don't have a warrant, you say, I'm not allowing you on the premises unless you come back with a warrant. That's something that any one of us can do. It also applies in private institutions and private businesses, other places like that. So that is a place where that's another source that individuals have to try and assert rights against interference by law enforcement or others. And we think this bill is right in its focus on extending protections of courthouses. And as case law says that, it's probably where we're on the safest constitution. The places we stay to the example of the courthouse, the better ground we are on in terms of legal protection. And I think you've heard that sound from Rick as well. The close more and alleys we can make some of those restrictions on when arrests can happen, the better legal ground we're getting. As we've heard, this is somewhat untested in a number of these areas. And so as we give this advice, we can't point to case law and point or a number of these things, but it's our best understanding of existing case law and how the state could proceed to minimize any potential legal exposure. And I think when I talk about legal exposure in this case, my biggest concern is not that the state could put forward a statute that might be struck out, because we have severability built into our statute. So if there was one location where we said arrest could not happen in this location and one did, and it was challenged, we tried to enforce that. There was a challenge, and that had to be struck down. That would not be a huge detriment to the state of Vermont other than incurred litigation costs. But a larger concern is creating a false sense of safety for individuals who might be subject to arrest. So those are some of the things we're trying to balance when we're looking at this bill. So one area that I think raises some concerns from the perspective of the ACLU is the inclusion of houses of worship, because though that is an area we think is deserving of strong protections, there could be challenges when the government is trying to regulate the activities that happen within a house of worship. So that is one that we have to mention and one that we flag for the Senate as well. I know folks could probably argue it the other way that merely you are stopping the government from interfering with the practice that might be happening within that house of worship. That we've also seen examples coming out of Minnesota, for instance, where you had a church where the pastor was an ICE agent, and we don't know what activities that congregation might want to be conducting and how they might want to move forward. So in terms of the things contained in this bill, I think that's probably the one that's maybe the furthest afield from protecting the core functions of state government. Whereas something like state buildings, as you've heard discussed, which was removed from the senate version, is on a very strong round in terms of protecting the core functions within government buildings. And I think there's some discussion around polling places as well and some questions about that. I think polling places in particular have a very strong justification because if people are being deterred from being able to exercise their fundamental right to vote, that gets at really some of the core functions within our democracy and the inability for people to participate. And I know one of the things that was raised is that noncitizens are generally not voting, though there are some municipalities in the state where the noncitizens can vote on local matters. It could have a chilling effect in those municipalities. But we've also seen that the practice of DHS in their arrest is not only targeting noncitizens and also targeting people who are trying to go through an immigration pathway in a legal way. Folks who have legitimate asylum claims, which have been made themselves identified to immigration authorities, have been trying to go through all the legal pathways. Those folks are still being brought in. They're still being detained. And when the prevalence of Kavanaugh stops, this creates an additional chilling effect. So the Supreme Court said that the immigration officials can detain people based on perception of race, national origin, and other as long as it's paired with one other factor. So that also further could chill people's ability and desire to participate in public life, things like elections, things like entering government buildings in other places. So I think the addition of polling places makes a lot of sense and falls under that similar justification for courthouses where you need someone to be in that court for the court to proceed. If that person is not there, the court cannot proceed. We also have a justification there in terms of the traveling to and traveling front. You know someone has a court appointment. You know that they can call a judge. They can show they are meant to be at this place at this time. If someone is directly transporting someone, that's also within what some of what just discussed. But so that's, I know, another point that was raised. But I think largely just say, we're supportive of this bill, we're supportive of these efforts, we think it's extremely important. Another piece that I think could be added into this bill or other similar pieces of legislation to help bolster and go above and beyond the protections that are offered here beyond the additional locations that I discussed is the inclusion of guidance for the private sector. So if you look at H745, which is a house bill, which was trying to get at a number of similar things, it went a different route in terms of saying that if you are operating at sensitive location, you're required to post public and non public spaces, have a procedure and not allow judicial warrantless arrests to happen on those locations. It went in a different way in trying to offer those protections. Paired with that, that bill envisioned asking the Human Rights Commission to produce a guidance for folks operating in the private sector to give them a better understanding of what exactly their rights are in terms of when they do need to allow law enforcement officers onto their premises, when they have a right to refuse, and other things like that. And so I think it'd be good to hear from the Human Rights Commission, either in this bill or other bills, if you're considering this, about the possibility of creating a state guidance, because we are doing a lot of know your rights work right now. Our attorneys have been going across the state holding webinars. We have one coming up with representative ballot quite soon, talking about some of these things. And we can do a lot of legal education, but we keep getting questions, even when folks have talked to us already and having something that's been produced by the state that folks feel like they can rely on, I think would help provide more of a sense of safety. That would be especially helpful in places like a place of worship where you have that Fourth Amendment protection, you can exercise those rights. And so that's something that it's included in the language of H745, and whether it's in this bill or a different bill would be something worth considering or hearing from the Human Rights Commission on. I think they are willing to do that, even if it's not necessarily in statute, but that could be something that is helpful in making sure people feel comfortable exercising their rights as individuals who are on their own private property. And I think with that, I'll kind of wrap up my presentation on the bill and say, we really support this effort. We appreciate the committee taking this up and trying to move this forward, and we'd be happy to answer any questions.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Other questions?

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Go ahead. I'm just curious, in your opinion, is it helpful that there is this Sounds like we could look up to years of guidance from the Department of Homeland Security, which previously shown an interest in carving out these spaces, limiting civil arrest in certain spaces. That history help our case from a legal perspective, or is it irrelevant?

[Falko Schilling (Advocacy Director, ACLU of Vermont)]: It's my opinion that I think that does help the state's case. As we heard yesterday when we're talking about a possible intergovernmental immunity defense, one of the questions is, has the state tried to control the activities of a federal actor, or is it incidental to the activities of a federal actor? And I think by the existence of those practices for years, that shows that it is not necessary to conduct enforcement activities within those areas to effectuate the goals of DHS. So I think that's something that a court, I think, would take into consideration, similar to how the case you heard about yesterday in California took into consideration the fact that there was no guidance requiring masking and basically leaving that up to the discretion of individual officers. Similarly, in this case, enforcement at these sensitive locations is left up to the discretion of individual officers. So I think that that would help bolster, since that was a pattern practice for years, bolster the argument that in putting these restrictions in place, the state was not trying to control the activities of law enforcement, but might have an incidental impact on it, which would help it survive a challenge. That's my opinion.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: And just one more question I about the wanna make sure I understand the Fourth Amendment versus Tenth Amendment.

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

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: The functionality, I guess, and uses. Is it the opinion of the ACLU of Vermont that the Fourth Amendment essentially already provides a good amount of protection and that this would be a supplement to that?

[Falko Schilling (Advocacy Director, ACLU of Vermont)]: So I think there are two different sources of protection, and it also depends on how they're exercised. So within this bill, what I see the state trying to do, as I try to One thing that might be helpful is kind of listing out some of the purposes of this bill, which I tried to enunciate some of what we view as those purposes of this bill. The tenth amendment, that's a right that gets to be exercised by the state. The state says we are going to prohibit these activities or require these activities in certain situations so that we can ensure the core functions of our government can move forward, people can be included in daily life, and then we can maintain the order we seek within the state. So that's something that the state can assert. There are limitations in terms of how far that might be able to go, whereas the Fourth Amendment, those are rights that are held by an individual. And they are not You can waive those rights at different times under different situations. So say a law enforcement officer comes to your door without a warrant and says, Can I come in? You can allow them in. And then up until you actually assert those rights, they moving forward with the understanding that you are not asserting those rights and they have access to those private rights. So that requires a little bit of public education about to folks, about when they can exercise those rights. So they are there, but they need to be exercised. And that can be done in the form for especially businesses in the form of signage and in a sign of a verbal assertion of those rights. But I think that's one of the differences. It's who can assert those rights, because the tenth Amendment is asserting the rights of the state, often in the face of potential federal action, whereas the Fourth Amendment are individuals asserting their rights against government action, whether it be state or federal officers. So in the same way that any law enforcement officer comes to your door, you have the right to say, I don't want to enter without a warrant, similar to your car, similar to other areas where you have those protections. So think I they're complimentary, and I think them working in concert makes a lot of sense. And from what I've heard from folks in the community, there's a definite desire to get a better understanding what those rights are and how to exercise them. This also might be a preview for testimony later in the week, but then there's also a concern that rights without remedies are not really rights. And so then there's another question about how folks would be able to have a remedy if those rights are violated, say, as we've seen in some situations where agents are entering homes without judicial warrants over the objection of individuals. What do you do in those situations? What recourse? And I think we're going talk a little bit more about that on Friday with page eight forty nine as a way to think about that. So we support both approaches. And I think they pair well together, both with the state asserting its rights and trying to educate individuals about how to effectively assert their rights in situations where those might even be stronger. Because there's a lot more case law developed around when you can assert your Fourth Amendment rights and how those apply to individuals and some stronger protections there and more well trodden ground than some of the Tenth Amendment interactions that might come into play in this bill.

[Abel Luna (Organizer and Interpreter, Migrant Justice)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Great. Any other questions? Not seeing any. Thank you. Thank you very much, Fauldre. Thank you. We'll continue our discussion on Friday. Appreciate it. So we have a few people who we're going to just answer some questions that may not take very long that folks had regarding the budget memo. So I'm looking for my demo to ask the questions. I guess we'll start with Sarah, if you could join us. Angela, do you the Angela, do you want

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: to clarify?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Because you've had some questions.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Yes. Hi, Sarah. Thank you for being here.

[Sarah Kenney (Public Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: No problem. Thanks for having me.

[Abel Luna (Organizer and Interpreter, Migrant Justice)]: I was

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: hoping to hear from you again on a note that I had as well, but here we go. I have in my notes that the $450,000 one time allocation

[Charlie Lusserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: appropriation last year

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: was divided. And I'm trying to understand that. $250,000 So that money, 450,000, goes to the Center for Crime Victim Services, correct?

[Sarah Kenney (Public Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: That one time $450,000 allocation, yes, went to the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services. Okay. And there was some language in the budget that said that that was to be directed to the Domestic and Sexual Violence Special Fund.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: You're turning up, and I apologize for Sorry.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Are you having a hard time hearing me? Is that

[Sarah Kenney (Public Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: any better? Might be on mute. Okay.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Thank you. Yeah. Go ahead. Yeah. I missed that because I couldn't quite hear you.

[Sarah Kenney (Public Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Alright. Can you hear me now?

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Yes.

[Abel Luna (Organizer and Interpreter, Migrant Justice)]: Yes.

[Sarah Kenney (Public Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Okay. Yes, the $450,000 was one time dollars in last year's budget. There was some language in the budget indicating that that was to be directed to the Domestic and Sexual Violence Special Fund. It went to the center. We met with them early in the fiscal year or right after the legislature adjourned, and they requested that they hold $200,000 of those funds back in the fund. And so it was really just $250,000 of that $450,000 ultimately went out to the field and was divided between the 15 member organizations of the network.

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

[Sarah Kenney (Public Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: And in terms of the rationale for that, you know, truly, you know, Jennifer Coleman and I have talked about this multiple times. I'm sure she'd be happy to talk to you about it. It was really, you know, their recommendation to do so and had to do with their administration of the fund.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Okay. There was some confusion about that yesterday, I think, about what exactly happened with the one time funds in FY 'twenty six. And so for FY 'twenty seven, the request for 450,000 addition to have that added to your base rather than a one time, in that case, the full 450,000 would go to the network. Is that correct? Is there still this pass through mechanism?

[Sarah Kenney (Public Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: There is still a pass through mechanism. And so it would really have to do with kind of what the directive language is in the budget. But we are getting monthly updates from the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services. And the last update I received was that we had a $350,000 deficit in the current year. So when we get to July 1, they'll be short $350,000 and would have to cut that from providers in the field. Separately, the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services has for many years said that they don't receive any funds for administering the special funds, and so they've made a request for $95,000 to support their administration. So the $450,000 request that I put in my memo includes that administrative support, as well as the $350,000 shortfall. And, you know, they may be able to provide you with a more up to date, you know, estimate of kind of where they're going to end the year. But the last I heard was just over $3.50.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: It was like $3.68 that they were gonna be short. So with that, if if things work similarly to last year, would you have any reason to believe that that, in that case, the the network would actually receive, I didn't do the math. It's like, about a $100,000 if we're taking out the $3.50 and the administrative. I mean, it's less than a 100,000, isn't it?

[Sarah Kenney (Public Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Yeah. All the money just to be super clear, none of the money comes to the network, meaning, like, your network organization. It goes out to the mem this these funds are for our member organizations. So the $4.50 would include $3.50 to our member organizations or just over on what they need in order to stay whole, and then the remainder staying at Center for Crime Victim Services to support their administration of the fund.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So $3.50 and 150, is that what

[Abel Luna (Organizer and Interpreter, Migrant Justice)]: I understood?

[Sarah Kenney (Public Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: It's like $3.50 and 100.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Oh, right. I'm sorry.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: Question? That's on this?

[Unidentified Committee Member (likely Rep. Thomas Oliver or Rep. Kenneth Goslant)]: Yeah. Karen and Tom.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Thank you, Sarah.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: I don't know if you've seen our memo. No. I have not. Okay. I'm just curious. I feel like there might be a repetition of it that we have the 450,000 that the network is advocating for. And then Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services is seeking the

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

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: Well, it's 102,000, and it's to administer grants.

[Sarah Kenney (Public Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: So Well, what I will say is that if the $4.50 goes to the domestic and sexual violence special fund and we're keeping folks whole, like level funding them from this fiscal year to the next fiscal year, the worst case scenario is that we don't have to come back to you next year for as much money. So I think you may be right, Representative Dolan, that, you know, the $4.50, we had included the administrative fund, the roughly $100,000 in administrative funds for the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services. But if the $4.50 goes into the fund and the center is funded elsewhere for their 100,000, then the worst case scenario is they have less of a deficit next year.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So we have to just double check that we're not double counting. Like, where's that $102,000

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Coming

[Teri Corsones (State Court Administrator, Vermont Judiciary)]: And

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I'm just not understanding fully how we can't I think the term you used, Sarah, was directive language in the budget. Yes. I'm wondering if we need to suggest some directive language to it to just keep the network the the the fund, the domestic and sexual violence sexual violence fund, like, level funded. Right? Is that what would take $350,000

[Sarah Kenney (Public Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Yes. I think if and I'm happy to send you some potential language, but I think essentially the language would be directed to the domestic and sexual violence special fund to be distributed to Vermont Network member organizations in order to level fund those organizations in FY27.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: And that would be the $3.50, just to be clear.

[Sarah Kenney (Public Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Yes. I will follow-up with the center and try to get the most up to date estimate as of right now. But the last I heard, it was just over $350,000.

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

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Okay. Yeah. I think if you could share that language. I tried to write it down quickly, but that would be great.

[Sarah Kenney (Public Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: I'm happy to follow-up in an email, and I will also follow-up with Jennifer Coleman and Carol Brochu at the center and just try to get the latest and greatest estimate on kind of what what the deficit is looking like.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Great. Thank you. Oh, okay.

[Speaker 0]: I'd also like to

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: have Jen come in here just to

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

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Jen. Yeah. Yeah. Fill us in on her thoughts on it.

[Speaker 0]: Sarah, I'm just wondering, the fiscal year you're in compared to the last fiscal year, the entities that you deal with support, you know, financially on some level, how much they increased from the last budget to the one to the fiscal year we're in now?

[Sarah Kenney (Public Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: $250,000

[Speaker 0]: So in a sense of late terms you get $250,000 raises or they have to come in with, I gotta believe they gotta come in with some kind of, proof that they needed, I guess, or new programs or whether they they've given raises to, you know, to their people or or whatever.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: All the above.

[Sarah Kenney (Public Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Great question, Representative Burditt. So as I'm sure you can imagine, these funds are one part of their budgets. And there are other funding streams that, some of which have been negatively impacted by kind of the shifting federal landscape. And so what we're hearing from our member organizations is that in general, the funds they're getting in the domestic and sexual violence fund, really not seeing a net increase in their budgets. They're seeing it these are helping to fill other holes, But I think you're right that these are used for core organizational operations, and that's mostly salaries.

[Speaker 0]: Right. Was some of the money potentially to replace some of the federal funding that they lost?

[Sarah Kenney (Public Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: For some organizations, yes.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Any other questions for Sarah? All right, not seen. Thank you so much, Sarah. Appreciate it.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Thank very Paul. Yep.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: We'll go to Terry Person's next. Thank you, Terry, for joining us from Rutland, is that right? And you're on mute still.

[Teri Corsones (State Court Administrator, Vermont Judiciary)]: Sorry.

[Speaker 0]: Oh, there you go.

[Teri Corsones (State Court Administrator, Vermont Judiciary)]: Thank you. Greetings from the Rutland Criminal and Family Courthouse.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Excellent. So if you could, I think you're the one who had the question or the question was, you could talk a little bit more about the request to go from the limited service to the permanent positions, if you could just address that a

[Speaker 0]: little bit further.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Were taking questions and we weren't sure about that. Go ahead.

[Teri Corsones (State Court Administrator, Vermont Judiciary)]: Right. Thank you, Terry Corsohn, State Court Administrator. And Greg Mosley, I think, is also connected. He's our Chief of Finance and Administration in case there's kind of specific finance questions that I don't know the answers to. But in general, the fiscal year 'twenty four appropriation to the judiciary included 26 positions, and they were funded in the general fund, but they were termed limited service, which is unusual because typically if your position is funded in the general fund, it's a permanent position. This came about at the very end of the session. It was kind of confusing. And Greg spoke with them to ask for clarification. And we were told that their term limited service, but longer extended limited service than at that time limited service. This was kind of just following the COVID era. Limited service typically was like a two year, maybe three year at the most kind of duration. So they said consider it more extended, and they suggested using four years because we said when we hire people, we need to tell them for how long is this position. And they suggested 2028, but and recommended that we come back before then in order to have a conversion of the limited service title, if you will, to permanent. In the meantime, ever since then, have been part of the general fund, part of our base budget. So the conversion doesn't, from what I understand, then allow for any new monies. It's monies that's already part of our budget. At the same time that we were given in the statute these 26 positions, the sheriff's Department of State's attorneys and sheriffs had nine positions, same kind of approach, limited service, come back. They came back last year and got their conversion of those positions to permanent positions. So we felt since now all of those 26 positions have been filled, they were thrilled to have them, hate to lose them, and they're starting to get nervous. Okay. This is we're told through 2028, it's 2026. Do we start looking for another job, or is this something that we can rest assured that we have this position? So that was the reason behind our coming this year to ask for that conversion. But that's the background to it.

[Speaker 0]: Hi, Terry.

[Abel Luna (Organizer and Interpreter, Migrant Justice)]: The limited

[Speaker 0]: positions where they first off, we we heard from Trevor Squirrel this morning that it it is a little different as far as that money for for these types of positions coming through the general fund that they usually come from grants from somebody. And so, you know, there's a definite end date to them anyway. Mhmm. So totally understand your your confusion, I guess you could say as as far as the way this one's working, but and and I'm kinda I'm not sure why they were why they were created in the first place. Were they created to help out with the backlog? Was that the original reason?

[Teri Corsones (State Court Administrator, Vermont Judiciary)]: No, because they include first 10 judicial assistants, 11 court security. I mean, the court security positions are not geared to the backlog. We need court security at courthouses, period. Whether you In have one case or 100 the judicial assistant positions in particular, we were asked to basically analyze what is the need of the courts, because we were, in my view, perennially understaffed in the courts, always kind of scrambling to even have basic coverage. So we did an analysis statewide of cases filed, full time positions per cases filed, and there was quite a disparity from county to county in terms of that ratio. So the 10 judicial assistants were designed to ensure at least a base modicum of coverage in all of the courts. So that's where the judicial assistance positions came. Not connected to the backlog. I mean, with the backlog, you're working continually all day every day, eight hours for the day, whether you have, I guess, 100 cases that you're working on or 400 cases that you're working on, it's not the backlog is not going to go away such that, oh, well, we need fewer judicial assistance because we have fewer filings. Just with the number of new filings that come in consistently, there's a base level of need that, again, unless, I don't know, people stop litigating or people stop committing crimes, you're not gonna have a change at least for the past, you know, fifty years, as long as we've been keeping these records.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, don't know where he said it or where I picked it up about the physicians for the backlog, but I'll have to try to figure that out,

[Unidentified Committee Member (likely Rep. Thomas Oliver or Rep. Kenneth Goslant)]: who brought that up. Well,

[Teri Corsones (State Court Administrator, Vermont Judiciary)]: the pandemic, my understanding is that there were limited service positions that were geared to a variety of things, including all of the workplace kind of chaos with so many people leaving when remote requirements and also the electronic filing coming on, electronic case management, pivoting to remote hearings, trying to get caught up or, I guess, transitioning to the remote hearings. I think there was, if you will, a flurry of activity that was more temporary, and that's why there were the limited service positions during the pandemic. But these positions are not geared to that set of circumstances.

[Abel Luna (Organizer and Interpreter, Migrant Justice)]: Right, okay.

[Speaker 0]: Next question would be for the state's attorney, so I won't ask

[Rick Seigal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you. Alright, thank you.

[Teri Corsones (State Court Administrator, Vermont Judiciary)]: Okay.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Alright, thank you very much, Carrie. I appreciate you being flexible and available.

[Teri Corsones (State Court Administrator, Vermont Judiciary)]: Oh, no trouble, anytime. Thank you for the chance.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Absolutely, and next we'll go to the legal aid aid.

[Unidentified Committee Member (likely Rep. Thomas Oliver or Rep. Kenneth Goslant)]: I believe we have, I'm not sure who we have on. We have Betsy Adams.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Hi. Betsy?

[Betsy (Interim Executive Director, Vermont Legal Aid)]: Yes. Hi. I don't know why my camera's not working.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Well, we can hear you fine.

[Betsy (Interim Executive Director, Vermont Legal Aid)]: Okay. I'm just gonna try one thing. There.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: There you are. There you are.

[Betsy (Interim Executive Director, Vermont Legal Aid)]: Good afternoon, everybody. I'm Betsy Bais. I am the interim executive director of Vermont Legal Aid. And I understand that you have a question about the $235,620 that we were proposing as an inflationary increase to our base agency of human services funding.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Correct. Yeah, we're trying to understand what exactly that was. That it's because, We've seen other places where they haven't used the terminology inflationary increase. If that's really what this is as opposed to Well, you describe it. I'm not going to try to go back to what the question

[Betsy (Interim Executive Director, Vermont Legal Aid)]: was. Sure. So we have not received any increase in that base funding for the past three years. And so, we made a simple calculation of 3% of that base funding and did not compound it, but we times it by three, and that's how we arrived at the number.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Go ahead, sorry. So essentially that's following what the governor's standard or requirements for the administration, was no more than 3% increase. Think that we've seen that the past at least three years and probably much longer than that. Is that kind of why the 3% is trying to match what the rest of state government, that that was their guideline?

[Betsy (Interim Executive Director, Vermont Legal Aid)]: To be honest, that was not what we were thinking of. But we certainly have not received that. But we were just thinking it over inflation's been somewhere usually in the area of, actually, Andrea's saying maybe we were thinking of that a bit. I just saw a message from her, but I had understood that we were just thinking of inflation being somewhere in that area and we're trying to be actually really conservative about our ask because you know we did not add in the much larger percentage increases that we've all faced in trying to provide health care to our employees. We were just this was a way of us trying to kind of just stay in place and not further erode our ability to provide these services.

[Speaker 0]: Okay, all right.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah, and I think could very well be that that 3% was set by the administration reflecting the average inflation. All right, well, was the main question that had come up. And I think that you've answered our question. Anything else for Bessie? I don't see anything else. Thank you so much for being available on such short notice.

[Betsy (Interim Executive Director, Vermont Legal Aid)]: Of course, thank you for the opportunity.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: All right, thank you. All right, so we will go off live until tomorrow at one because we are in the house chamber all morning for voting on things. So