Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Alright. Welcome to the House Judiciary Committee. It's Thursday afternoon, February nineteenth. For about a half hour, we're gonna have a about budget, and specifically, there's one request that we received in the court's budget, but also there's an attached document the Vermont Sheriff's Association. And we need to understand this a little bit better. And I guess just by way of introduction and thank you, sheriff Anderson, for being available to come in and speak if you join us. So in so just to center us on this, in the request, it's for $12,000,000,000 1,500,000,000 And from what I understand, 600,000 of this is, I guess, I don't know if the technical term is backfilled, but it's like the last two years, budgeted amount was something like $53, and actually the contract ended up being $57. And so that was covered in the BAA. So $600,000 of that $1,900,000 is essentially to catch up to where it was $57 an hour. It's an additional approximately $1,300,000 to go up to $75 per hour. Rather than saying what my understanding of the justifications are for that, ladies, I'd like to have Sheriff Anderson, you could introduce yourself for the record first and then proceed. Thanks again for being here.

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County)]: Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee for the record. My name is Mark Anderson. I'm the sheriff of Windham County. I am the yes. Thank you. Representative Goodnow. The

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: I am

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County)]: the past president of Vermont Sheriff's Association. I am here on behalf of the Sheriff's Association to cover this. This was kind of last minute. So I do not come with visuals. I apologize. I'm happy to provide materials or the association is if there's anything because we're talking about numbers. I mean, this is a committee about policy. But the reality is that this is a numbers issue. So the years ago, and I can get the exact date years ago, the shares association navigated to negotiating single rates of payment to the state of Vermont for services rendered to the state of Vermont. At that point, before, just prior to that, we had rates that were all over the place. For context, each sheriff's department has its own independent entity. Our funding model is strange. I I will just summarize it as that. We have functionally three budgets. A state budget, which we have no responsibility to manage, but that's what pays the sheriff's salary themselves. We have a county budget when I describe it to my insurance company that pays for the building. But if I pick my building up and turn it over and dump it out, it pays for nothing that falls out. It's just the building itself. So electricity, heat, things like that. They pay for the carpet, but they don't pay for the people. And so then there's the third budget, which is the sheriff's contracts. The sheriff is empowered, but not required to enter into contracts. And so you look at me, it's like, he looks like a law enforcement officer. And I am a law enforcement officer. I went through the Academy Certification Program. I've done a variety of trainings around law enforcement. But by law, I'm actually not the law enforcement authority for the county. I'm responsible for serving civil process and transporting prisoners. So now we're talking about this third budget, civil, I'm sorry. The contract functions that the sheriff provides where I have to, under title 24, raise all funds that pay for providing that service. It has

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: to pay for the car.

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County)]: It has to pay for the the person, the training, the insurances, the health care, the retirement, all of the things. In fact, Title 24 specific that says the sheriff has to encompass all of those costs into the contract.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Like it's like an enterprise fund almost?

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County)]: It's That is exactly how the auditor would refer to it as an enterprise fund. If you're not familiar, basically, the fund is supposed to raise assessment fees much like a municipal water system. Yeah. It's supposed to raise fees that ultimately cover the cost of operating the system. The reason I say that's how the auditor refers to it is we operate more like a business like, hey, we need somebody to provide food in the cafeteria of the state house. You contract it out. They're providing food from these hours to these hours, and it fits whatever your contract says. And so for us, there's not really a way for us to say it offsets an enterprise fund context. Like, hey, your house is attached to the water main, and therefore it costs a million dollars to operate the the water system. And so we divide that across the users. We don't have a way to do that. Everything is through this for profit model of a contract. So now we get to negotiating with the state of Vermont. I haven't talked about the judiciary yet, but I'm coming there quick. We talked to the state of Vermont. We've sheriffs frequently provide services to the Department of Public Safety, the Department of Corrections, the Agency of Human Services, Department of Children and some Families, Department of Mental Health, Buildings and General Services, the Agency of Transportation. We do a lot for the state that are generally things that need stop gaps but don't necessarily need a permanent solution. And so sheriffs are a good resource to fall back to in doing those things. Years ago, we had separate contract rates with all of those places, and I'm sure more. And each department negotiated its own contracts. And so I had one rate that was relevant to what it costs to live in Windham County, what it costs to get insurance, what fuel costs, the good things that cost. And we negotiated. There started to become issues where one department is basically subsidizing the state of Vermont. We navigated to this single statewide rate, which right now is $75 an hour for the executive branch. And so this is where we cross over to the judiciary conversation. It is a separate constitutional branch, so they don't take or follow any of the negotiations of the executive branch. In 2016, my department notified the court administrator's office was terminating its contract to provide court security services because the total cost per hour that we were reimbursed was $26. Now keep in mind, minimum wage was probably still about $10 an hour at that point. You add in taxes, health care, retirement, all the things for a full time employee, and we had seven full time employees. We were far past the $26 it cost to have the core security function. So we notified the court administrator's office under my predecessor that this was losing money. We were losing about a thousand dollars. I think it was a thousand dollars a day at the time to operate the contract. We operate like a business. The contract has to cover the cost. It doesn't cover it. And so at that time, the court said, okay. We're terminating this contract. We're hiring private secure. Private security came in at that time with a total contract rate about I think it was about a $100,000 higher than what we were negotiating for. So like there's you can kind of laugh about it, but it also makes sense if you don't get the service you need, well, you increase the money. So over the years, there was an initiative. We've worked the Sheriff's Association has worked with this committee and others in the legislature to talk about what services the sheriff does provide. When we talk to the judicial system, the court administrator's office, the supreme court, it's interesting because what they are looking for with court security is specifically tuned for what the sheriffs do. It's not technically well, it is now a responsibility of the sheriff to provide court security in accordance with 24 BSA two ninety one A. But the main point is that they are still held to following contracting models. So contract procurement policies, which then say we need to get bids or we need to consider sole sourcing. All of this business speak to basically say we need security from the sheriffs, which then means I need to hire an attorney who reviews the contract to make sure we followed and updated our contracts to match all of the laws and do the things. So what we're trying to do is unify the rates that the sheriffs negotiate with the state of Vermont executive branch across the state of Vermont. If the legislature, which the legislature does contract with the sheriffs to provide security for major events, you've seen them here, I mean, that's through the Capitol Police and the sergeant at arms. But the sheriffs were to come work for the legislature. We'd want to maintain the same rates. It's consistency. It makes it easy. It allows the various people who do purchasing procurement contracting to negotiate a favorable rate for the state, and then we exercise it. So I provided a copy that the Windham County Sheriff's Office has a contract with with BGS for the purpose of rendering security. One of the things that my department does is when we get a phone call from BGS that they have a security threat where they believe state employees are at risk of harm, they will contact us. They will hire a deputy to come provide a service. We'll tailor it to what the specific threat is, but at the end of the day, we can provide that service. This is fundamentally the same thing that we do at the courthouse. Threats often do come to courthouses. By definition, the court is dealing with, well, three primarily three branches. We have the criminal court, the civil court and the family courts. There's environmental and there's other things that we can build off that juvenile court, but it's those three major divisions. By definition, the criminal court is dealing oftentimes with people who are either convicted in the criminal system or are potentially going to be convicted or exonerated in the criminal system. The family court is generally dealing with people who are navigating some pretty intense stuff, whether it is custodial issues, it is the force, it is hospitalization or non hospitalization orders for people with various conditions that require involuntary treatment. Like we are dealing with people the way it was explained to me when I first started with the department, the criminal court is sometimes some of the worst people at their best. The family court is sometimes some of the best people at their worst. I'm generally not a fan of stereotyping people. The categories are good people or bad people. Like, please accept this just as a broad stereotype. But the point is is that when we're talking about people who are coming, they're oftentimes dealing with things where it might be the suspension of their general liberties and freedoms in some way, shape, or form. It might be taking away their physical ability to move around the community. It might be taking away their access to their child. It might be taking away their money because of something that happened in the civil court. So all things that can be compelling at an emotional level to say, I'm gonna do something dumb. We don't want people to do anything dumb. We generally work really hard to be proactive towards preventing things from happening, but things do happen. And so what are we doing separate from the security contract with BGS versus in the court? Not a whole lot in the we don't want people doing something dumb. What are we doing in the court that's different than the BGS contract? It's actually a really unique position when we start talking about what court officers do and how they operate in the the well of a court between the judge and the plaintiff, the defendant, and whatever context the court has those roles, the prosecutor in the criminal court. And we start talking about judicial security, executive security. What happens if somebody attempts to jump the bench, which has happened in courthouses in The United States where a person is attempting to attack the judge or has successfully attacked the judge. We're dealing with managing juries and dealing with not having mistrials as a result of improper or inappropriate communication with the jury. So the security side is pretty straightforward. And I do say security rather broadly. In my county, we have since returned to providing services at the courthouse in, Broadborough because while we do have private security, negotiated through the court, what they don't have is law enforcement. So when a person comes in on an arrest warrant says, I am here to turn myself in. I'm gonna save the state resources at whatever level. I'm turning myself in. I'm here to see the judge. We don't have anyone at the courthouse who can arrest them because private security does not have powers of arrest. They're private security. They are licensed through the secretary of state's office. They don't have some of the functions that law enforcement has. So then we call the Broward Police Department.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So this is Windham does not share Until a couple

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County)]: of years ago. We do now. Okay. You're it was private. It's and still is private. But in It's a hybrid model. And so with my deputy president, we now can rather than depend on the resources of the town of Braddock or the state police, my office is now capable of saying, okay. We have a person here. We can take the person into custody. They go back. We execute the warrant, which is basically say we've removed it from the system. The person's been arrested, and now they go before the judge. Ten minutes later, yep, this is why I missed my hearing. I was in treatment. I broke my leg and I didn't even know I was supposed to be in court that day. Whoops, my bad. Judge says, Nope, that's totally reasonable. We're releasing you on recognizance, on bail, on conditions, whatever the judge does, that's not my business. But in ten minutes, we could have that completely turned around. And so this is a place where when I say we're doing security, we are doing security in a proactive sense, but we're doing law enforcement very much in a proactive and a reactive sense. In Chittenden County several years ago, there was a person who was sexually assaulted in the bathroom of the courthouse. We are there as a law enforcement presence on the property. We would defer to resources that can come in to do the investigatory pieces when it's something like a sexual assault. But it's also a person who can intervene and provide that law enforcement response that private security cannot and generally will not provide because it is a significant liability to their company, to their insurance, to their things, which we manage through the sheriff's office. So why are we asking for this? Well, if I don't come, if the sheriffs do not come to the legislature and say, this is why it costs this much money and this is what we need, you don't hear. I know that there's not enough money. There's never enough money. That's an every year thing. I know that there is a need to prioritize what are the problems and how do we do things. So we're here to say we have been subsidizing. The sheriffs have been subsidizing the state through the judiciary to provide these services. We also subsidize the state to provide transport of prisoners. This is something that your committee has heard about before. Other committees in the building have heard about before. We're not here to say how dare you. This is us saying we are advocating for ourselves to say this is what it costs to do things. We are not negotiating it through the state's executive branch, but we think it is reasonable to say the costs are generally the same. One of the things that is unique but is also similar in the BGS security contract, we're generally not patrolling in a courthouse in a car. The cost of the car is not significant. Some courthouses, we don't even need a car. But our contract negotiates a mileage rate, which is intentional on the use of a car, how the car is used. So if there was a need for a car, I have cars, we deploy cars and use the cars, but then we're reimbursed through a mileage rate. And so with the court, generally, the people are at the building, they're doing the things at the building. Where do they need a car? Well, they arrest someone and they're not being heard and they need to go get launched at Southern State Correctional Facility. I now need a car to drive them. We try to use our state transport deputies who will have a car to be able to transport them, and that's generally what we do. But I have cars at my office that's located about two miles away from my courthouse. So at the end of the day, if my deputy needs a car, we'll get them a car and we just Is that true in my county? Yes. Is that true in, say, Chelsea, Orange County? Maybe not. And so, like, we start to talk about what are the differences of the 14 departments. I don't want to digress into transports too much unless you want me to, mister chair.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: No. I I don't think we need

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County)]: The main point is the Let

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: me just ask about transports. What what what is the hourly rate or is there a different kind of cost or a different kind of charge for when a sheriff does transport? Not that transport deputies were through the Department of State's terms of sheriffs, but There is I I know that sheriffs pick up, you know, do some of that work on an as needed basis. I'll have

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County)]: to get you that answer. There is a rate. I used to know the number. It has been so long since I've used what we call a per diem transport deputy that I just I do not recall the rate. And part of it is because it's not economical for me to use a per diem transport deputy. We pay our deputies more than we can afford on the revenue returned. And again, that's not that they make $50 an hour if that were the rate of the reimbursement. I'm just making up a number at one point it was. But we're also factoring the cost of health insurance, cost of retirement, the cost of all of the other things, workers compensation, law enforcement liability insurance. Very quickly, 50 sounds like a lot of money. On average, we're probably looking at less than half of that is even being paid to the deputy. And the problem that sheriffs are dealing with right now, agencies around us, municipal agencies primarily, but also true to the state police, are starting people over $30 an hour. So the highest I can pay a person is $25 an hour and they can go start a job with no experience at 35 to $38 an hour, well, it's hard for me to retain help, which then means how do I keep a person in the courthouse providing court security when we can't even be competitive with other law enforcement agencies with the same credentials, all the same training through the Vermont Police Academy. Like, all of these things start to become, we are a training ground and a great place for law enforcement agencies to coach our staff from. A couple questions, But so the BGS contract, when when did it go

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: up to $75 rate? And what was the rate prior to the What was

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County)]: in the last contract? I'm just going to review the amendment, which will have the dates in it. I'm trying to remember. Did I provide the contract to the committee? I can send it. Okay. I believe it raised in 2025. I believe before that we're at $70 and I believe that was a three year contract. And generally speaking, I've attempted to get escalators added into legislation. Generally speaking, what we do is we raise by CPI Northeast. So consumer price index, the Northeast index, which is calculated. So we follow inflation. That's usually how the rate is negotiated. There's been times where we've had to go away from CPI because of a unique expense, a target share specifically. One example, several sheriffs contribute to the state retirement system, three retirement systems, state retirement, municipal retirement, teachers retirement. Some shares are in state retirement, some are in the municipal retirement. So

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: on that issue, just looking at the $75, I mean, if if it's possible to have a breakdown of how much of that is going to health care retirement to that unique individual to 5% overhead that some share of I know have for these contracts. So I mean, that's that's kind of one question I have. I don't know if that's something they have readily available or you can get on as

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County)]: an assassination. I can give you a rough estimate. I can spell it out for you. Let's say that we're paying a deputy $25 an hour. We have 7% roughly on taxes for for FICA. We're paying about 18% for retirement. Single person health care plan is about $8,000 per year. So call that roughly $4 an hour. A family plan, we're looking at close to 20,000 to $25,000 a year. So significant increase as we start having people with children, which generally speaking, deputies working in a courthouse are more mature. They have families. And so we have that. We have, again, the workers' compensation. Don't know that right off the top of my head.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: These are probably figures you're gonna probably need to We can map it. To map out for appropriations probably more more so than us. But it's good for us to to know. But I think that if we can't have we're trying to get our memo done tomorrow. So and if not

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County)]: I'll do my best to expedite that work, mister.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. I guess the others

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County)]: do you I know we're just talking Windham, but but generally, are all of the deputies full time and they're getting all the benefits or some of the individuals are covering the security part time certified? So let's separate the certification level from the employment. Okay. The the way we negotiate contracts is based on full time equivalent employees. And so I met and negotiate a contract for one full time equivalent employee for the ground work courthouse. I wanna say I'm making up the the number of employees, I think Bennington is something like 10. And that's an estimate, but they have significantly different presence because they are also their courthouse is providing the services for DCF, probation, prosecutor's office. I think Defender General's office is there. Like there's a variety of things at their courthouse are significantly larger presence. The Chittenden County representative Oliver might know the number of people there, but, again, a lot of people at Chittenden County versus at Chelsea, I wanna say, at the Orange County Courthouse, it's like one, maybe two people. And so like you can see significant difference. The Grand Oak Courthouse, I believe that they have a if they're even open, they have a part time of full time equivalent employee. It's like a point five full time equivalent employee. And so the judicial security and Rob Shell from the judiciary might be a good person to talk about where the current assignment of people are statewide. The judicial security arrangements, sometimes the state employees employed by the judiciary that are civilians who provide court officer services and whatnot. They will move around to some of those facilities while the law enforcement presence will be moved to places where more law enforcement is needed. The civil courthouse in Neufein, we don't have a lot of need for law enforcement presence. If the need changes, if the court's docket changes, like, sure, I'm happy to go support that court. But we haven't really seen the need, so that's fine. And private security satisfies that need. So I have no intent on changing it for my department. But at the end of the day, like, it's what it is. It can be across the board for employment purposes, really. And so the court administrator's office should be able to say, what are the full time equivalent positions because I have one primary deputy who covers the courthouse, but he has vacation time. He has sick time. He has things that he's afforded as a full time employee. I have other deputies who are trained, and so I might have a level two certified officer who goes and backfills while he's out on vacation. And then he's level three full time certified. He has the credentials that we generally want. But this also comes back to our competitiveness, where if a level three officer can command a higher salary, they can go work other places. If we have the means through the revenue of the contract to be able to pay the salary, we do that. So right now, to the point of total 24 and the contract has satisfied the means, how have we been doing this all along? Well, we have all these other contracts and so it's additional revenue we're raising off of those contracts that ends up covering the cost of the state. So

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: there may be other counties where they're using part time, and therefore they're not having to pay the full health insurance and all those benefits. Part time employment, yes. But $75 might buy you different things in different counties, but that's just

[Unidentified Committee Member]: the way you set it up. I do have

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: a few other quick questions then to Ian and anybody else. So do you know about how much is spent annually on the BGS or executive contract? Because it sounds like that's more of a one occasional kind of spending and that $75 may have a much bigger, much lesser impact on the budget than the full time port security for all the courts.

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County)]: Yeah. So I agree on the BGS contract. It is similar or as you stated, mister chair, it is not often used. I might work the BGS contract three or four times a year. But at the same rate on the DCF contract, the DMH contract, we're doing several of these a week. DOC, I have a team working for DOC every week. It's the same rate of It's the DHS. No.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Just use that as a one that is equivalent kind of

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County)]: Just one that kind of describes the same thing, but our rates are pretty much the same. In fact, the judicial contract is harder because it actually requires specialized training and skill. But sheriffs can work with the judiciary. The judicial court administrator's office has developed a great training curriculum to help train the sheriff's because this is in training that's available at the police academy. How to run an x-ray machine? You have a a new process on your single point of entry here at the state house. How do we run an x-ray machine? What's a computer look like versus a gun versus a bot? Like, there's training that goes into all this. Court administrator's office has been fantastic in extending that training out to us. We're invited to training at judicial college week. Like, lot of things are working in this partnership really well. And so that's why I don't think we would say like we need these carve outs for these specialized things because of the support of the court administrator's office. But there are differences, significant differences of what's needed for the judicial needs versus what's needed for BGS, as well as for DMH and for DCF and other things for the populations we're working. It's very targeted and focused on the populations we're working.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: My last question is what happens if we or Appropriations Committee says we can only do $65 Do some counties just say not gonna do it? Or is that gonna cover the cost but not quite even?

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County)]: My crystal ball is as good as yours. However, we've been working with the legislature, with this committee for several years. I think we've done a lot of really great things in the past several years. I mean, we have improved the compensation to sheriffs for court security significantly. That's a credit to the work that this body and prior legislatures have done. Oftentimes, I was left out for different reasons. Don't need to rehash the past except to say it just was. So is anyone gonna take their ball and

[Unidentified Committee Member]: go home?

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County)]: I don't think so. But, obviously, I'm it's my crystal ball that I'm predicting. What someone else would do for me, we would be supportive of working on to say this is why it's important to us. We know that other priorities are coming along and that things are needed. So I would love to come in here and say, no, we need it. We need it. But at the end of the day, like the right thing is we know other people are struggling too. And so there might be a time where we have to say, we'll tighten the belt and we'll figure something out. But we want to be open, transparent partners with the legislature, with the judiciary and with the executive branch to say, this is what that means. And then we can come up with common sense solutions. The judiciary had a report some years ago that talked about what is the appropriate level of security that the Vermont court system should have. We all looked at it and said, that'd be awesome, but there's no way this is happening. So at the end of the day, it's one of those things where we can be pragmatic about it and how do we come to the solution of what's necessary. But the reason we've negotiated the single contract rate is because the executive branch has said that's actually fair and reasonable. It generally follows many of the other contract structures that the executive branch negotiates.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Hey, Martin. Before evolving, yes. That was very refreshing to hear that.

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County)]: And I I appreciate it.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I just Mark, I just wanted to ask because and kinda kick the tires on this because it's I think it's the largest single item thing ever considering in all the budget requests. The one thing that I don't understand about this is, so you have a contract with the judiciary, right? So why is this not just a contract negotiation for the next time the contract's up?

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County)]: It kind of is. So we negotiated a contract with the judiciary. The rate that was negotiated at the time included, I forget the percentage, but let's say it's a 10 increase. Yeah. And the judiciary only had the funding from the legislature for, say, an 8% increase. And so that's where some of this amount is backfilling what was either addressed in the VA or otherwise.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: 53 to 57.

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County)]: 53 to 57. And so now we're saying, let's just move to the the executive branch negotiated rate, which has been vetted by BGS and others to say, like, this is actually reasonable. And so I'm happy to provide the chair with the numbers of how do we break down what an employee cost. But at the same time, like, we've been through these rounds with the state with the executive branch to say, this is why we're charging this rate, and it's fair. When will you renegotiate the judiciary contract? I think we have I apologize. I actually don't have my contract with the judiciary in front of me. I believe we negotiate it every year, whereas the executive branch, we'd navigate or negotiate three contracts usually.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: And so, the only thing about it is the kind of thing where they can't agree to a $75 rate because they're not budgeted for the $75 rate. So when you go back to the negotiating table for the next US contract, if they don't have those funds, then they can't. I guess I just don't understand the process as far as why it's just not done in negotiation.

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County)]: It kind of is, but kind of isn't. But really, it just comes down to three branches government working with each other. And so then we we go around in the circle. We go. We have the conversations we have. We come up with solutions. And then we have conversations like this of why does it work this way?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: It's because it's three branches of government. And the other, like the DOC contract, the

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Department of Children and Family

[Unidentified Committee Member]: contract, those are all within the executive branch. So those are all in the $75 rate. Correct. Okay. Yeah. That makes a lot of sense.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Alright. So I guess I did have one other question. Why wasn't this in the governor's budget? Was it not knowing that this was the $75 yet? Or did they look at it and they decided they didn't want to put it in the budget? Or is this something that's come up after the recommended budget was put together?

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County)]: I can't speak for what the governor's office did or saw. What I can say is that usually about September, the sheriff say we need to come up with what our as a group, we come up with what our agreed upon rate is when we have positions. We develop that rate, whether that is a good rate, bad rate, insane rate, like it doesn't matter. It's a number. And then we go to negotiations with the various procurement professionals. And then it's straight up negotiation. But with that, we empower the organization itself to say, this is what we want, but it's a negotiation. We have to have some authority or ability for that to be a negotiation. So maybe that means we don't get $75 but maybe it means we don't have these things that cost us money to do it. It cost me money to hold people over in overtime. Well, there's no overtime that was authorized. So a judiciary at 04:30, we will be leaving when the contract says, well, we need law enforcement at 05:30. It's like, well, and the money. So it's the why it was not included. I do not know. But what I will say again, like we're working in partnerships, we're talking with people and saying this, we started pretty much with the rest of the summer work that everybody else is starting, and we try to have the conversations throughout. But it's also sometimes things get missed, overlooked. Sometimes people disagree. Sometimes the conversation is truly, you've been making it work this long. Why can't you make it work another year? And I mean

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: That's why we have, like, 600,000 to make up for the last two years. So And it's

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County)]: why I'm here to say, let me advocate for myself because historically, it was not the sheriffs who talked about the core security budget. It was the court administrator's office. And not casting anything onto the court administrator's office and what they did or didn't do, I advocate for myself better.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. No. I I I appreciate I'm I'm glad that we have could have you in to to go over this. It doesn't make our decisions any easier. Well, thank you for that. But it's always good to have you. But we need to turn to another bill. Unless there are any other questions, I don't want anybody else. We're good? Thank you very much again.

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County)]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: And good luck with your testimony wherever that happens. Thank you. Alright. So I'm just gonna ask her from Edie to come over here and introduce the bill to us.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: What is this one, Martin?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Are we still alive? So alright. Yeah.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: We're still alive. So Nate's gonna pass this out. This is a bill that we've been asked to do a drybulk. So we'll take a look at it for the rest of the afternoon and decide Oh, three to five. Yeah, decide if we have any input on it or if we need to take jurisdiction of it, which

[Unidentified Committee Member]: This kind attracts a lot of money.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I don't know.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Maybe different people do it different ways. We'll So there are I can tell you in advance, and we'll hear this more from Edie and from Maria. There are parts of this bill that are not relevant to us, that may be interesting to us. And there's a part that they're actually asking us to look at, which means that we will be looking at that provision and some definitions that relate to that provision. If people are interested beyond that, they're obviously welcome to look at it and track down eating.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Good point. I think you've

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: got it. But please, thank you for being here. If you could introduce yourself directly, then give us a little background on this bill while we wait for Maria to go up for a walk for it.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I am not good at stretching time, so I'm going to apologize for that in advance. But I'll start by very slowly introducing myself. Edie Granny, representative from Jericho, representing Jericho and Underhill, serving across the hall on Commerce and Economic Development. So this bill, H385, which I'm pulling up, the version that you're going see here has not been reviewed by any other committee yet, so there are still a lot of questions. We've been working really closely with advocates, with the banks and the lending institutions, just to try to find a way to help folks when they are trying to get their lives back after being in an abusive, coercive situation.

[Rep. Edie (Jericho–Underhill; Commerce & Economic Development) [last name unclear]]: And so what we're hoping is that, because we're looking at consumer protection pieces, and we're hoping you can help with the judicial pieces and how we frame this in a way that works with our legal system. I don't know how much more you want from me, but that was all I was gonna do. Oh, I guess I will back up a little bit. This bill started, it's a 300, right? So it was last session, and there was a working group. So there is a report from the working group on this. They worked in the off session, and it was, again, the same people. It was the advocates and the lending institutions who worked together to come up with some framework here. The Department of Financial Regulation is not taking a position on it, so we're trying to find a way to make it work. And seven states in the country have provisions that protect people in this situation.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: All right, any questions on the Where did I hear about this bill before?

[Rep. Edie (Jericho–Underhill; Commerce & Economic Development) [last name unclear]]: Well, we've been talking about it for a little while, because we did have We passed on the floor to did it? No, we set up a working group for it, maybe in a different bill, that they would But we did talk about it just a little bit last I thought it

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: was something. Oh, right. I think also the networking, if you've seen the list of their priorities, that's been one of your priorities. Yeah. Wasn't there.

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County)]: It seemed

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: like it was on the floor.

[Rep. Edie (Jericho–Underhill; Commerce & Economic Development) [last name unclear]]: And we could have talked about that. Okay. That's it.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Thank you, chair. Edie, I think it's a great piece of legislation. I just wanna say that at the outset, I'm very supportive of it. I'm curious if there's a specific instance that inspired it. I think oftentimes in this committee, we relate very heavily to a lot of very human stories, and I feel like this has impacted certainly any number of people that we had in our own lives. So I'm curious if there's an inspiration behind the bill.

[Rep. Edie (Jericho–Underhill; Commerce & Economic Development) [last name unclear]]: There isn't, no. One of the things that when we do our jobs well, we protect people who don't get any protection.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: And

[Rep. Edie (Jericho–Underhill; Commerce & Economic Development) [last name unclear]]: this is one of those bills that will do that. It probably won't get used a lot in the state. But for the people who can use it, it will change their lives permanently. And so I have been asked by a couple of people, why are you working on something that a lot of people aren't going to get to access? And it's because these are people who can't do it online, but we have the ability to help them.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Thank you. It's a great question.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Just following up with what Zach just said. Could you just give me a scenario to play through this?

[Rep. Edie (Jericho–Underhill; Commerce & Economic Development) [last name unclear]]: I think that the network will give you scenarios if they come in and testify. Yeah. I don't feel like I have the ability to do that well. Thank you very much for jumping on over from Commerce. I'm going watch you later, because we're working on step two. We might get a bill out today. Thank

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: you, Maria. Maria, thank you for coming to our committee. This is the first time that my calls have come here.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: And so I'm very happy to be here. Maria Royal, legislative council. So I'm sorry I missed the beginning of representative Brady's testimony. I'm sure she kind of gave you the big picture context.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. Very, very short. She was

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: saving most of it for you. Yeah. She was. Oh, that's so nice of

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: her. So

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: well, first of all, the draft that you're looking at is very much a work in progress. There are a lot of things that commerce needs to make their final decisions on. So hence, all the highlighting and strikeouts, a lot of to be determined. But I think with respect to some of the provisions in particular that you're interested in, they're deferring to you. So I just wanted to say that. So big picture, the first six pages are all definitions. And rather than going through them alphabetically, which doesn't really make sense, I thought I would describe some of the key terms to you and then we'll see as they come up in context that might be a little bit easier. So just in terms of a definition of this concerns coerced debt, Right? So coerced debt is debt that's unauthorized. Somebody uses someone's personal information to incur a debt without that the debtor knowing. Or it's debt that's incurred under threat, violence, intimidation, fraud. Importantly, as representative Graney referenced, that coercion for purposes of this bill is in the context of, and the bill is very specific, domestic violence, human trafficking, or the abuse, neglect, exploitation of a vulnerable adult. So those are the debtors for purposes of this bill, and that kind of sets the parameters of the coercion and the coerced debt that's the subject of this bill. The other two kind of primary parties that come up, one, the perpetrator, the person that is responsible or paused the coerced debt to be incurred, and then, obviously, the creditor, person that's trying to collect on the debt. So those are the three primary players. That's kind of a general description of the debt. The only thing, just in case you're interested, I'll further explain the type of debt that's subject to here because there are limitations. It's not all debt. For example, it can't be a mortgage, any kind of debt that's secured by real estate. It's not commercial debt. So if you're in a business with a partner, then it's also not debt that's if the specific subject of forced debt was already adjudicated in a prior court action, it wouldn't be readjudicated here. There are some details to be worked out about that. But just generally so any other type of personal loan, secured or unsecured, secured might be a car, somebody taking out a car loan in someone else's name, just as an example. Yeah.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Thanks, Chir. So a question on the types of debt. So I'm assuming credit card debt would be covered by this. So mortgage, no, but what about mortgage refinancings? Anything tied to the asset.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: It's the real estate. Okay. Yep. Yep.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: And is that due to Vermont regulatory schemes? Is it federal? Like, I'm just curious. Or is it just the intent that the author just didn't include it?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: That's it's just the intent. It's something that was definitely discussed, which should or should not be included, and it's just kind of where the committee landed for purposes of this bill, not to extend it to it.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: I should know this, but for domestic abuse, I assume there's a definition of what that is.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Absolutely, yes.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: And I'm sure we'll get there at some point, but I'm just kind of curious. I have a very specific instance of mine. I'm curious if this bill would be applicable. But I can get into the hypothetical after next week.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Sure, no problem. So if you look on page three, it just gets to right right to what you're asking about. And just on line three, the definition of debtor. So a person who owes or sped and is a survivor of domestic abuse, which is then defined on line 10. But there's a cross reference to the Vermont definition. And to be honest with you, I don't know it off the top of my head. It's not an area that I work in, but I can certainly find that for you, or I can look it up momentarily. Same can be said for human trafficking. There's a cross reference to the Vermont definition of human trafficking. And similarly, definition of vulnerable, who's considered a vulnerable adult and the types of neglect abuse, all of those terms are defined in the adult protective services chapter of Title 33. So that's also cross referenced. So these are all terms and individuals that have been already defined in Vermont law. And I am happy to look up more specifically the details. Any questions so far? Am I going too fast or just trying to provide an overview? Then kind of the next substantive sections of the bill, on page seven, you'll just see a statement that forest debt is prohibited. And I should also mention that this whole bill is enacting a new subchapter in Vermont's Consumer Protection Act. And that's significant because all of the remedies, the authority of the attorney general to investigate violations, potentially a state's attorney, all of those remedies and injunctive relief apply to any violations of this new sub chapter. The next section, I'm probably not going to go through in too much detail, but this is basically what a creditor has to do when they've been notified of the course debt. So they're trying to collect debt. The debtor submits paperwork, basically a statement of the court's debt describing the circumstances of it. And it's a sworn written statement, under penalties of perjury. And in addition, along with that statement, the debtor is required to submit some kind of supporting documentation. And that could either be a police report that describes the circumstances in detail and is subject to penalties if any false information is provided in that report. It could be a court order that already adjudicated co work debt, so say this has been adjudicated, a finding of co work debt. Or it could be a sworn, written, certified, getting the language wrong, by a third party professional. So this could be a clinical, a social worker, could be a court official, could be an attorney who has personal experience with the debtor in their professional capacity and is willing to sign a sworn statement, basically saying that, in their professional opinion, they believe that the debt was incurred by coercion. So three one of the three documents is required along with the debtor statement. So then there's a whole what the creditor will do is an investigation trying to determine the accuracy of the statement, reviewing information provided, anything in the debtor's file on with the bank or or other creditor. And then there's there are time periods that are specified here, but, ultimately, after that investigation, make a determination as to the accuracy of the statement. One of the and I'm sure representative Graney meant mentioned this, but one very important aspect of this has to do with information in a person's credit report. So if you have a debt and it's not and you believe that you did not incur the debt willingly or you did so under coercion, but now in your credit report that the National Credit Reporting Agencies compile, you have this very negative information which may be used to interfere with your ability to get job, get housing, get another loan. So a big component of this is if the creditor does the investigation and finds the information compelling, they would then notify the credit reporting agencies that that information should be removed. So that's a big component of this provision. The second piece, which is still up for consideration in commerce, is whether the creditor, just being simply presented with its information, should be permitted to continue collection activities even if the creditor is not convinced, or whether the creditor should permanently cease collection activities. And that would leave remedies in the civil court. And that's the section we get to next. This is kind of what happens after the event of the at the end of the investigation if it's not resolved. Just

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: to be clear, that section, which is from page seven to 14, we haven't really been asked away. That's really kind of there behind. Yes.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, exactly. Yep. Now we're

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: coming I mean, we're gonna have to go back to some of the same definition, but aren't used in that section. Yes. Yes. But it's it's starting at page 15, right? Yep.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: But what you're saying, we don't get to weigh in on the burden.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: You can weigh in personally with Evie or anybody else in the conversation, but we're not gonna do it as a committee. Yeah.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So now, again, page 15, line six. This is if there isn't some resolution of the matter, what happens next? What could happen next? So line seven specifies that a debtor shall not be liable to a creditor for divorce debt. Two, in any action initiated by a creditor to seek collection of a debt from a debtor, the debtor may establish a prima facie case that the debt is poor's debt by submitting statement of poor's debt, which is the debtor's own statement signed, sworn to, and adequate documentation, which is one of those three documents, police report, court order, or a statement by a third party professional. So in terms of what a prima facie case is, legally, that is basically kind of the minimum amount of evidence that you need to present to a court to validate your claim, not to prove your claim, but to say this is a credible claim. It shouldn't be dismissed. It's kind of the minimum amount of evidence that you need to provide. Importantly, what's significant in this instance is the next sentence. So you've submitted that documentation. By law, you've established a prima facie case. At that point, so if the debtor establishes a prima facie case of coerced debt, the creditor shall bear the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the debt is not coerced debt. So the burden shifts to the creditor, which is a little bit different, but that's an option. It's not typically how things go, but I believe it's probably been used in other situations to be protective of defendants in certain circumstances. But that's just something I wanted to draw your attention to. Yeah. Thank you, Chair. Mary, could you

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: just repeat that one more time? Just the burden shifting back to the creditor.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So this is basically saying for purposes of this sub chapter, if the debtor submits the statement and it's properly filled out as warranted and adequate documentation, one of those three documentations, that's all that's required to then shift the burden to the creditor to disprove that there is forced debt. So if they have other information in their own internal records or about the debtor that suggests that it might not be coerced debt, but it basically shifts the burden to the creditor rather than the debtor having to prove by preponderance of the evidence that So their

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: financial liability would stop there in this instance? I'm sorry, sir. The debtor. The one who's filing the paperwork and is applying for relief. They would no longer have

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: financial responsibility.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: This is in the context of a civil action. So it would still be up to a judge or jury to make a final determination. It's just shifting the burden a little bit. But, yeah, it doesn't presume the it's not valid. It doesn't mean you win because you presented that case, but So it's still up to the fact finder to make a determination.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I definitely want to hear from Judge Zoning, who's going to be on in a bit, what other examples of that kind of burden is different. It is different. But could you before I go up to Tom, so the adequate documentation think the definition but Tom, go ahead first. Think you're asking the question, though. Yeah, just if you can review what the adequate documentation is. Right.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: So let's just jump back to the first page, because it's the first definition. You'll see on line 11, adequate documentation means at least one of

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: the

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: following. So there's a proposal here to combine A and B because they're very similar and encompass the same subject. So what will become A is a copy of an official valid report filed with a federal, state or local law enforcement agency regarding the debtor's claim of coerced debt that identifies the coerced debt and the circumstances under which the coerced debt was incurred. The filing of which subjects the person filing the report to criminal penalties for filing false information, if in fact the information in the report is false. That's one possible document. The second one on line 20, a court order finding that the death was forced. And then the third option on page two, a sworn written certification from a qualified third party professional regarding the debtor's claim of force debt based on information gathered by the third party while acting in a professional capacity. And there's a definition, there are a couple of definitions about who can be a qualified third party and what needs to be in that statement. We can look at that. I think that might Okay, so then jumping to page three, line 16. So who can be a qualified third party professional? Line 17, an officer of the court or law enforcement personnel, a court appointed special advocate, C, a crisis worker, statutory definition, a licensed social worker or a clinical mental health counselor employed at a program that assists older or dependent adults, or persons regarding domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, human trafficking, or abuse of children, and who has relevant training or experience. So any one of those that meet the more specific criteria in that subdivision. So a third party professional could also be a licensed attorney or a health care provider as defined in statute. Go ahead. Sorry. No, Marie.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Just wanna go further. So I think so it's interesting because I was, representative Goodnow had brought up the cross section for the definition of abuse. Yes. And one of the things that stands out very visibly to me is that it relies heavily on the occurrence of physical harm, or at least the belief that physical harm is either forthcoming or there's a reasonable expectation that the victim could expect to receive it or be victimized. The thing that I'm I think it's such a nuanced situation because what I'm immediately going to is in divorce proceedings. Right? If you have a very contentious divorce that's playing out and you have one party's attorney that signs a form on behalf of their client claiming that there is some kind of that was coerced. It's not really being validated by an additional party. And this is not me criticizing the bill. Just thinking And of the I'm also thinking that there are many instances in individual marriages where it may not be physical harm, but it could be extreme emotional abuse, psychological and mental, that someone is using their spouse as a proxy to incur huge amounts of debt for their own financial gain benefit. So that's what I'm wrestling with, which is why I'm asking the questions about the qualified parties and what is the definition of abuse in this instance? Only because I feel like in this case, it might be more narrow than I would like to see. I'd almost think that the definition could be expanded wider to capture some of these more nuanced situations with individual marriages where it may not be physical yet, but it has been some form of abuse for a long period of time?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Well, I think those are great questions. And I'll just mention there was in an earlier draft a definition of economic abuse, which kind of got more to what you're suggesting, not so much the physical, but someone who's control the financial exploitation, controlling the money in the family, not allowing the debtor access to the information.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Because I do think that element of financial control, that is the leverage that in some cases these individuals have when they're bringing on the debt and the other counterparty to the loan or the mortgage or whatever that be is not even aware that the money's being taken out in their name.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. And so

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: And this doesn't really at least in a first blush, this doesn't really capture, I think, that aspect of it that I'm aware of.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, so it it might not. Can I

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: just respond to this real quickly? Yeah, yeah. So just to make sure that you've caught this in the definition of abuse, which abuse is section eleven oh one. I have it up, yeah. Yeah, is abuse, but 1B is coercive controlling behavior between family or household members. And if you then look at the next part of the definition, coercive controlling behavior, captures a lot of what I think you're saying, that's kind of behavior that's sort of physical abuse, depriving the family or household member basic necessities. I don't know if that goes quite far enough, but I'm wondering

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: if you just had seen

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

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Well, that's what Ian and I were having a sidebar on a little bit. It's just that because of the definition of abuse only falls in section one and

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Doesn't do two.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: It doesn't do two,

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: even though subsection B is the course of controlling behavior

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Sorry, yes, of the family thank you. Well, but section one does in subdivision B say exactly the course of controlling behavior, which is then in number two, course of conformed behavior is defined. So it's kind of Oh, I see. Oh. Yeah, mean, is, one, abuse means, B, it's the course of conformed behavior, which then is fully defined.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Okay, so it would actually encompass all of us.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: That's my understanding. Okay. And we add And add add

[Unidentified Committee Member]: if that's the case,

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: then it definitely does.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I spent a lot of time on this day.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: I expected all of you to know that much better than I never go in there.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah. If if it does and that's and that's my fault too because I I

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: don't need to. I guess, like, you're already with only incorporated form.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: But I guess,

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: no, would be

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: And then it's

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: further in the state. It just gives you further definition of what the Yeah,

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: so if that's the case, then I think it does probably encompass exactly what

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Oh, yeah, I think it does. Again, to let Charlie explain.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: And the other thing I'll just mention with respect to that third party professional, you'll see at the bottom of page five, the sworn written certification. So it is a written document. It is sworn. It's subject to penalties of perjury. Whether you think that's sufficient, but that is No. No. I intent to try to

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I had seen give it

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: a little more there. Yeah.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: No, no, I think that's right.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Thank you, Miranda. Yeah. Sure.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Maria, do you think what the I'm looking at the definition for adequate documentation on line 14, page one, and it says a copy of an official valid report. Is there an official invalid report? That's a great question. So this was suggested language. I think it actually came from the New York law originally. I don't know why specifically. It doesn't just say a report subject to penalties for falsehood. Yeah. It just seems like, what are you trying sometimes when we use too many words, it's like, we keep trying to say something, but I don't know what that would be trying

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: to say.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: I will have to look into it. It might be not necessary. Because then it goes further, you know, especially since you have that seventeen through nineteen, like, years you're calling out, there would be an issue if we file the false report. It just seems a lot. Yeah. No, I think that's a great point. Have you finished your walkthrough?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Oh, no, we haven't really said.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: In that case, I'm going to hold.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: We're almost so we're going to go through the civil legal remedies, just so you get a

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Let me ask one more thing. Oh, sure, yeah. On the definitions, because in the A1 or A2, the two things that they are supposed to submit is a statement of and adequate documentation. Now, there's a definition of statement of course debt in the definitions. You could do that. Am I wrong? Absolutely. Yep. So that part's important, obviously, because that's because what's necessary for the all of this, I think we're going have a judgment here of whether we think that documentation and that statement is sufficient to establish prima facie case. Mean, that's one

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: of the big questions, I

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: think, that we have here. So if you can go over that.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: I have another question about that then as well.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: On the statement or?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Still on that adequate documentation.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Oh, Well, going back to adequate documentation first, and then we'll go to the statement. So

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: thank you. Page one, line 20. A court order finding that the debt was coerced, Is the assumption there what is the assumption there? What type of proceeding would lead to that court order? Like a relief It could be in the context of relief and abuse or dissolution of marriage if there's a specific you know, it should be that the debtor has already sought a declaratory judgment about the debt and then is presenting it to the creditors.

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

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: That's considered debt. Thank you. Then just to go to page four about, you know, this further explains what the statement of course debt is. So line five, it means a sworn written statement by a debtor provided by mail to a creditor that includes the following information. Identification of the debt or portion of the debt alleged to be coerced. If available, a description of the circumstances under which the coerced debt was allegedly incurred. A statement by the debtor disclosing that the debtor did not willingly authorize the use of the debtor's name or personal information to incur such debt. Romanette IV. Information Any information known by the debtor, including account information or credit card information, and

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: if

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: applicable, the name of any other individual in whose name such debt was jointly incurred. I'm sorry. Yeah, go ahead.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: So that brings up an interesting So say, again, back to this marriage hypothetical, just because I feel like this would probably be an instance where this would apply. So say the debt was jointly incurred and you have one of the spouses saying, No, we signed on this. This is totally copacetic. This person's having buyer's remorse, essentially, saying, We bought this car and they may not like it anymore. I love it, and it's just buyer's remorse. So does it have to

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: be one party who's claiming this or? It can be one party.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: So I guess it's one person, the other party's invalidation of that person's claim. I I guess this would be decided to-

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: It might be litigated. That's part of what's gonna be, yep. And if that other party is the perpetrator, then they would come in to defend themselves. Right.

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

[Unidentified Committee Member]: creditor who now the burden has shifted to the creditor, if you've satisfied the green fish, get the dead, the creditor called that person as a witness.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: That's not That's yeah, there's some confidentiality issues, given the nature of what's happening, that may come up in this context. But it's a great question.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: We're in Romanette five. By the way, I touched base with you and somehow Romanette came up and that's why. We're very happy to hear you.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, I heard I might get extra points if The room is thrilled. I'd actually never heard that term before. It

[Unidentified Committee Member]: just came right at you.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: I know. Felt like such a fraud, though.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: All very

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: depressed. You

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: go from now on. Whenever you see that, you're going to

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: be I'm able to help you. That's going to do. We all own it now. Okay. You can join us. Good. We're the boss noobity there. Yeah. Tell Michelle if Okay. It's hard. So I think we're now on romanette five on line 17. The identity of and contact information for the perpetrator of the coerced debt, if known, unless the debtor signs a sworn statement that disclosing such information is likely to result in abuse to the debtor or to a member of the debtor's immediate family. Page five, the debtor's preferred language and contact method and information such as a telephone number, email address, physical address or safe address for either the debtor or third party whom the debtor designates to receive information about the course debt, which shall be specified by the debtor, and any other documents the debtor deems appropriate to support the statement. And then line eight, just kind of fleshing out what mail means for purposes of this section. Certified mail, certificate of mailing, or any other similar first class mail tracking method used or approved by the US Postal Service, including intelligent mail barcode tracing. Also includes any electronic or digital transmission that provides a verifiable date, time stamp, or tracking capability. And then line 13 is the self attested declaration. So a statement of poor sketch shall include the following language inserted above the debtor's signature and date. And that declaration specifies, I declare that the above statement is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that if the above statement is false, typo

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

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: I will be subject to the penalty of perjury or to other sanction in the discretion of the court. So that's the statement. Again, adequate documentation, one of the three that we reviewed. So now, jumping back to the civil legal remedies on page 15. Subsection B on line 14. If a court finds a debt was coerced debt, one, the creditor shall have a cause of action against the perpetrator of the coerced debt, and two, the debtor shall have a cause of action against the perpetrator of the coerced debt for any payments made or costs incurred by the debtor in connection with the coerced debt. Subsection c, this section shall not be construed to limit or infringe upon any other rights or remedies available under common law or any other provision of law or rule. However, in seeking to bring an action against the perpetrator of porous debt, a creditor may not compel a debtor to disclose the identity of or the contact information for the perpetrator to the extent known, provided the debtor signs its foreign statement specifying such disclosure is reasonably likely to result in abuse to the debtor or to a member of the debtor's immediate family, unless such disclosure is required by court order. So if the debtor says, I don't want to disclose, I'm at risk, it can become an issue for the court to determine whether it should be disclosed so that the creditor could potentially pursue an action. And then subsection D, in any action involving alleged divorce death, the presiding force shall take reasonable and appropriate measures to protect the debtor or a member of the debtor's immediate family from an alleged perpetrator of Horace debt, including stealing court records, redacting personally identifiable information, and directing that any deposition or evidentiary hearing be conducted remotely. Subsection E specifies that the provisions of this subchapter apply in any action brought in a court of this state, notwithstanding a contractual choice of law provision. So if you entered into a contract outside of Vermont, and it would typically be subject to that other state's jurisdiction. If you're in Vermont, if you're bringing in action in Vermont and the Vermont court has jurisdiction, then you can avail yourself of these remedies irrespective, notwithstanding that choice of law provision. F, nothing in the subchapter shall be construed to preclude a creditor from seeking recourse under applicable law for a claim of porous debt that is knowingly and materially false. G, a person alleged to be a perpetrator of porous debt shall not be a necessary party to an action between a creditor and a debtor under this subchapter. However, no finding in such an action shall be binding on a person who was not a party to the action. So if there's a finding of coerced it, it can't be enforced against the perpetrator if the perpetrator wasn't there to represent themselves. Full due process. Yes. Full due process. So then the next two sections on top of page 17, final two sections concern statutes of limitation for purposes of this subchapter. So first, an action by a debtor against a perpetrator of coerced debt shall be commenced within six years of the date the debtor discovered or reasonably should have discovered the coerced debt or within six years after the coercion or abuse giving rise to the debt ceased, whatever is later. So if they know of it, feel like they can't come forward under the circumstances, the statute of limitations is not gonna run. And then subsection I, line five, an action by a creditor against a perpetrator of coerced debt shall be commenced within six years after the date the creditor discovered or reasonably should have discovered the coerced debt and the identity of the perpetrator. So if for some reason the identity is not disclosed, the court doesn't compel disclosure, the creditor is not gonna be the statute of limitations is not gonna run if they don't have the information to pursue an action against the perpetrator.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Angela, did you? You

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: were Angela. No,

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: no, Angela's first.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I saw Angela first. Angela's first.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Just want to make sure I understand that. Line five. So if a creditor through their own It's resolved between the creditor and the debtor, issue and result, it's determined that it is coerced, then the creditor has the ability to seek out the perpetrator. And even if the perpetrator was, for safety reasons, never identified by better.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: It's key in the identity They have to know the identity of the perpetrator.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: They have to Right. And they can sort of figure it out on their own. Or if they've got like Well, no. They they're basically They can bring in action That six year period doesn't start until they know the identity of the perpetrator. So if it's not known, they can't bring an action. And if they go to the court and say, can you compel disclosure? We want to enforce this debt. If the court finds for whatever reason it's not appropriate. Okay. And I was just trying to think if there would be a way for a creditor to find to identify the other debtor, basically, the perpetrator, and go after them, which would then tip-off the perpetrator if they hadn't been originally dismissed. I just didn't know it. Trying to get to that, if there's a way for credit leaders to do that. Well, I'm not sure. Just related to that, the general confidentiality, somewhere at the bottom of page 17. You know, this gets you any financial, personally so any financial information. So it could be an account, it could be a joint account holder, it could be information related to the perpetrator, and personally identifying information related to a claim that is shared by a debtor pursuant to this subcatheter shall not be disclosed by the recipient, so it would be the creditor, without the expressed consent of the debtor unless such disclosure is authorized by court order. So even if they knew the identity of the perpetrator They don't know if they they might I think if they know the I think that confidentiality pertains mostly to the debtor. So if they I have to double check on that. So if it's the perpetrator's financial information, whether that's subject to this confidentiality too.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Well, I think that's all that we I don't know if there's a need to look at the Septum four ninety five E, because the Deceptive Act of Trade in Commerce, that's a Commerce Committee thing. That's not us here. If you have a question about that in the next meeting, please. I don't have a question about that. Okay, different question. So have we walked through all of

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: the sections that we are covering then? That's my understanding, yes. And so just so I can understand what we're tasked with here is to talk about the civil action, the definitions That relate to the action. Okay. So I just have a couple of questions. I think the first one is for the definitions for the qualified third party professionals.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: We are linking the health care provider in the definition of 18 BSA nine forty two subsection seven, do you want to link the licensed attorney to a definition that means that they're licensed

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: for It a specifies that they're licensed?

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

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: I can see if there is one. And yeah, that's quite possible.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I think one question I would have I don't really know, but one question I would have is, do we want people to be able to use lawyers from outside the state or attorneys in Vermont?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: It doesn't specify here if it's a policy question. As long as they've worked with the debtor in a professional capacity, they meet the other criteria, but it doesn't specify whether it has to be a Vermont licensed attorney.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah. And I don't really know. I don't really know where the conversation has went about it. That's a

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: good question.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: And then I think another question

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: on this

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: was, qualified third party professional So works in professional capacity, does that mean they need

[Unidentified Committee Member]: to be retained by the attorney to be retained and it's representing them?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: That is a very good question. I don't necessarily think so because it might be an attorney that's working with an organization that's providing services to a debtor. So I'd be concerned about limiting it to retained, but that might be a question to ask others how this all plays out. And then I think my other question was,

[Unidentified Committee Member]: so we have this action in civil court between the debtor who is alleging that the debt is coerced and the creditor who is trying to collect this debt somehow. And the prima facie case that we're creating is that with these documentation and this as laid out, that basically it's course debt. And now burden shifts to creditor and they have to figure out, is this debt credit course or not? The language then shifts to a perpetrator. Debtor shall have a cause of action against the perpetrator. Where is the perpetrator established?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: I guess that's like You know what I mean?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Does discourse debt have to have a singular perpetrator?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, because it's under the definition. Is the yep. And we can look at that quickly. So it refers to the perpetrator of forced debt, which basically means

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: on

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: page three, line 14, an individual who causes or is alleged to have caused the poor step. And so Oh, sorry. Yeah. No. Go ahead.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So do we establish in the sworn statement and the documentation that the perpetrator is somehow established in those documents? I would think so.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Yeah. I think, yeah.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Yeah. Okay.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: And then my only other question was for the statute of limitations for the credit bureau,

[Unidentified Committee Member]: which I cannot pitch that sign. Thank you. Would it make sense for it to run from the date of the court finding?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: You may not know the perfect creditor.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: I guess I can't yeah, because we have this confidentiality thing. So the creditor yeah, and they're

[Unidentified Committee Member]: going to have right to have discovery in the civil case, but the debtor will be able to say, basically, we'll have to produce that identity of that individual.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Right. Yeah. So protective orders can be put in place, possibly. It's the situation, and we'll hear more from Charlie on those kind of scenarios. Yeah.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm yeah. Charlie can speak to this better. But I'm just one I'm imagining there might be situations where the debtor was like, it's obviously, the debtor could not have incurred the loan because of where the debtor was or was debtor. So the circumstance is saying that they're not liable, but trying to then that there's evidence against a perpetrator that would need to be established too.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Okay. Yeah.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: It's pretty interesting.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah. No. It's a lot. There's a

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: lot of questions.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Different questions, actually. Interesting.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: It's really a civil procedure. Yeah. Yes.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I think it holds together pretty well. But Yeah. Hear from other witnesses. Anybody else have a question on the walk Thank you very much. You're welcome. Very thorough walk through. We will take a necessary break. So It's a little warm.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Air.