Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Hi. Welcome to the House Judiciary Committee this Friday morning, February twentieth, in the face of a huge snowstorm. So we're gonna rush through everything today. No. We're not gonna rush. We're gonna let Chris call the time he needs. So, Chris, if you could join us, we're gonna continue our testimony on h three eighty five and appreciate you being flexible and being able to be here this morning. So I'll turn it over to you.

[Chris D'Elia, President, Vermont Bankers Association]: Very good. Thank you, mister chairman. I appreciate your flexibility in in giving me some additional time and certainly wanna get you out of there before the storm. So for the record, Christie, the president from our bankers association, I wanna begin my testimony by saying that all along since this issue has been brought to our attention, we've been very consistent that we absolutely wanna find a solution to the victims of coarse debt, especially when they're in situations where there is the threat or actual violence. And any responses that we've provided to your commerce committee up until now have all been designed to put additional guardrails around a very new program. None of those guardrails would in any way limit a debtor from raising a claim of course debt. And listening to your conversations yesterday, we also understand completely the concern of the perpetrator's identity being known and how that might, in some way create additional harm for the debtor and the debtor's family. So we are very sensitive to those types of issues. But the challenge we face is if this isn't done correctly with the guardrails that we have sought in commerce, our concern is there could be considerable fraud out there. People will try and take advantage of this. We are not concerned about legitimate claims of coerced debt and trying to find a solution for those individuals. So let me go through where we're at and how it relates to you folks in judiciary. So when you look at the bill, once the debtor claims coerced debt and files the appropriate documentation with the creditor, their their responsibilities, if you will, end at that point. And everything shifts to the creditor who has now received the information. And the creditor has to go through that information. And if they agree, fine. If they don't agree, the creditor has a burden of proof. The creditor will see monetary losses that will accumulate over time. And there's a liability if we don't do it correctly or misstep under the statute. And then ultimately, we will step back and say, what's the impact in the marketplace? Because we are going to have to adjust our practices in the market while still adhering to fair lending practices. So what's on our minds as far as judiciary is concerned? You had some conversation yesterday, and and I welcome additional conversation and thoughts, and I'm happy to share some documentation with you about who has the burden of proof in these cases. Is it the debtor who files the information, or is it does it all rest on the, shoulders of the creditor to disprove a claim of core's debt. And then the parties, if they end up in court, we believe in four other states in their approach, would agree that it should be the debtor that proves the claim of core's debt. We did early on in our review look at language from other states that would have required the debtor to go and get a court order first. We did not push that in our conversations here because we were sensitive to what the, the interested parties were saying about the difficulty of a debtor being able to do that. So when I say burden of proof, we're talking about later on in the process. The second thing is if a debtor and a perpetrator have already been involved in a court case and there's a judgment issued regarding coerced debt, we would like to make sure that this bill lines up with that process, if you will. It's already been addressed by the courts. We would question why they would be coming to us to raise a claim of debt at that point. So if a if a court has already dealt with the issue of course debt, then we would question why they would be coming to us to raise the same issue. The third item is

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Can you can you explain that again? I'm not sure I followed that part. Sure.

[Chris D'Elia, President, Vermont Bankers Association]: So if a court has already answered the question of course debt and has already dealt with that in their court decision in review of the evidence that was presented. We we would not want the debtor to have another to have an ability to come to us and raise issue of court's debt if it's already been settled by a court.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Okay. So can I so is that captured on page two, line 14 to 16, that's where was not subject to either default judgment or to a final judgment?

[Chris D'Elia, President, Vermont Bankers Association]: Yes. That was the intent of that language. And if it's if we need to eliminate, the redundancy of default judgment and just say final judgment, I think you folks had a brief conversation about that yesterday. That would be fine.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: But but that cat that addresses your concern. Yes. I wanna make sure. That one does. Okay. Alright. So so keeping track, you're still concerned about the hundreds of the evidence part. But Angela has

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: a question It's just about that in particular. Can save it if you

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Go ahead and ask some

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: questions on that

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: issue right now.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Okay. Good morning, Chris. So I just want to make sure I understand. When you say dealt with or answered the question of If I've already answered the question of coerced or adjudicated the issue of coerced debt, the assumption built in there that the adjudication would involve more than just an affirmation that it was coerced debt or that it was not, but also includes the resulting financial aspects. And, you know, like, that the court order says who is going to cover that debt. Is that the assumption?

[Chris D'Elia, President, Vermont Bankers Association]: No. It's not the assumption because I learned a long time ago from from a former judge who worked with your committee very closely that courts have different views and different opinions. So it's not the assumption. We were saying that if it's already dealt with coerced debt and if the party I mean, the party could provide to us a copy of the court report. And if the court report says that they've already dealt with coerced debt, they've already dealt with remedies or or whatever it is to satisfy the debtor, then it would seem to resolve the issue. Why would you be coming to the creditor? If it hasn't if it's only, if you will, looked at course debt but not issued an opinion or a ruling in that area, then we would not argue against the debtor coming to us.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Okay. Okay. That's that's what I was wondering. So I I don't I I just wonder if the language does that go. I think that's that's it. We can talk about

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

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Adjudicated, you think it does?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. I mean, you already do adjudicate the issue. Yeah. It doesn't say address the issue.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Does that mean they've addressed it fully? Does every adjudication of horror's debt include a a you know, as for said, a remedy, like, an adjudication that, like, the victim of poor stead is not going to be responsible for the debt? Would that be the adjudication? That's what I'm trying to understand, what the adjudication would be. Because I don't wanna say just because it was brought up in court, as Prasad said, like, it's brought up in court, it's like, yeah, you are the victim of poorest debt. The court says you are a victim of poorest debt, but says nothing about what happens next. Then the statement of the Bankers Association that since it was adjudicated, the debtor cannot come and claim coerced debt with the bank.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So not to dive too deeply into this, but there could be so it's adjudicated, it's dealt with in some manner and the creditor who is the subject of the PERSCRET doesn't think it's fully taken care of, are they barred from going ahead and passing? Probably it doesn't fit into here anymore, but the question would be whether their claims are entirely precluded, which gets into a whole area of law of claim inclusion or whether they can proceed with a claim that didn't fully satisfy them. I don't know if that made sense, it's really hard to I don't know how you would say don't know how you would structure to be able to address what your concern is. We can think about it more, but Ian?

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: I think the only other thing I'm just thinking about is in practice.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Why don't we get lawyer on you here? So go ahead, Ian, please.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: I just don't know what adjudication on the merits in a court proceeding on court's debt is gonna be other than the civil hearing that we're talking about. I don't think in a divorce case, there's gonna be maybe there could be, but

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I just don't. I don't Would you mind if there's a finding, of course, that that they're gonna make the creditor continue to pay the debt? Yes.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: The debtor.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: The debtor.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Right, okay. That's I guess that was my question.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. So let's proceed Chris, thank you.

[Chris D'Elia, President, Vermont Bankers Association]: Okay, so the third item and you folks had an interesting discussion about this yesterday, and and this is, if you will, the only area where we can find any relief, if you will, from the court's debt and and potential losses. And that's the ability to go after the perpetrator. And we have to keep in mind, we're not just talking about credit card debt. We're talking about secured debt. So it could be an auto loan. It could be an ATV. It could be a boat, whatever, anything that's outside of the scope of the bill. And we've been noodling around and trying to understand with little luck that if, and I guess I'll just use an example. If if Chris Delia coerces his wife to sign all of the documentation and take out the loan or take out the credit card, she is the debtor, I may not show up on any of that documentation as the perpetrator. I'm not part of any contract perhaps that was signed. And if that's the case, we want to understand and preserve in Vermont statute either existing or in this bill, the ability to go after a perpetrator who forced the debtor to take out the debt. And, again, this is somebody who may not be part of an application, may not be part of a contract document that was signed at the end of the day. You then had a conversation yesterday about who that perpetrator is. We we are sensitive to the fact and do not wanna put a debtor in the position of having to reveal a name that may create a problem for them from a physical point of view, or a family member. We understand that. But this all rely our our ability to go after the perpetrator relies on finding out who that individual is. And, we will respect what's created in the bill as far as not forcing anybody to do it, to reveal that individual's name. But we also wanna preserve our our ability to go after that perpetrator for the actions that they have created for the debtor and for falsely, getting a loan or getting a credit card, from a creditor. And then the final one is

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: But before before you move on to that one, let's talk about that just so first, kind of the first concern, I'm looking at page 15, line 17 to 19, and it seems plenty broad that the perpetrator does not have to be named on the contract and documents. This is the perpetrator who caused the forced debt, the creditor could seek compensation from that debtor, so it's from that perpetrator. So that first part of what you said, don't think is a problem here. And I guess the second part is the revealing of the perpetrator's name. And from what I understood from our conversation yesterday with the judge, if the judge or the judge's order that is in sub section c, it's on page 15 to 16, yeah, that order is essentially saying that the victim doesn't have to provide the perpetrator name. It doesn't bind the debtor or the creditor jeez, I'm having trouble crediting the creditor from independently. And I know that's a concern, but current law or this current bill doesn't seem to prevent the creditor from on its own trying to find the the perpetrator and trying to take action against the perpetrator. Is that that's kind of how I understood what judge said. Yes or no? Is that is that your understanding?

[Chris D'Elia, President, Vermont Bankers Association]: I after listening to the judge, yes. And I that's why we're here in the judiciary committee just to make sure that that is clear. And I would agree with you regarding the judge's comments yesterday.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I know that folks in here have a issue, but I don't know how we could have the court actually order the creditor not to pursue the perpetrator. When it expresses the I'm done to Angela. Thank you.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Chris, so so one of your concerns is that you you would like to know who the perpetrator is so you can go after, you know, so you can

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: go after your money, basically.

[Chris D'Elia, President, Vermont Bankers Association]: Correct.

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

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: and and I understand wanting to to protect the victim. You know, I don't have problem protecting victims, but, and this isn't necessarily for you, Chris. But but going through the process, if if a victim comes forward and has been forced into a into a loan, doesn't the perpetrator at that point, once a court case starts or an investigation or whatever, doesn't the perpetrator know that the victim has dropped their name forward at that point?

[Chris D'Elia, President, Vermont Bankers Association]: No. Because the debtor is not required to provide the perpetrator's name. And if the perpetrator does not does not show up on any of the documentation that was received by the creditor, we would not know who the perpetrator is.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: So it goes through my mind, how can you prove that something was done if

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: you don't have a person who's that did it?

[Chris D'Elia, President, Vermont Bankers Association]: Well, interesting question. We can't prove

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Not not you necessarily. I'm just saying that the the legal system. I mean, to me, how can you make a determination without a body? Mhmm. That's what that's what's going through my mind. And so so again, not necessarily for you, Chris. But so when this starts, that there's no time at all when the perpetrator is notified that there's gonna be some kind of a claim against them or case against them.

[Chris D'Elia, President, Vermont Bankers Association]: If if you don't know who the perpetrator is, then I guess my answer would be no. If it's a joint account, I think there and I and I have to if no. I'm sorry. If it's not a joint account. If if there are two people that have signed the documentation, if you will, that was presented to the creditor, then at least we have another name. Can we jump to a conclusion that they were the perpetrator? I would doubt it, but at least at that point we do have a name. And then again, you also have the concern that if there's communication, is there with that second party, does that in any way create potential harm for the debtor?

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Again, what's going through my mind if if if somebody breaks into my house and I report it and I know who it is, but I'm not gonna tell you who it is. I mean

[Chris D'Elia, President, Vermont Bankers Association]: It's a problem.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: There's no common sense involved in that at all in my opinion,

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: but So just a couple of comments real quick relative to that. My understanding and again, you have Charlie practice is that that whole process of having the adequate documentation in your statement is what's supposed to build that case. Right. Against who? Against well, you know, that's against the perpetrator, but against the fact they had to oppose that. Well, mean, we have There's nobody know if the perpetrator agrees. Well, supposedly, plaintiffs knows, the the debtor does. Yep. No. The debtor doesn't know who it is. We can put so the creditor doesn't.

[Chris D'Elia, President, Vermont Bankers Association]: The creditor doesn't.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: The debtor being Victim. The victim, debtor. Right. Right.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I I and I knew who broke into

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: my house too, but there's not gonna be anybody going to going to TORF. I'm not gonna say who it is. Right. So I I guess I would suggest that that we just look again at the definition of adequate documentation offline, and the definition of where is the other definition? What's the other definition of storm? The statement of George's death, which is on page four and five. And that's what's supposed to establish it. And we can look at it and say, well, is that enough for a prima facie case if the perpetrator is not named? That's the point of this, to get at that. I know. So the second thing, as I was trying to understand your first comment was that if this case is brought, wouldn't the perpetrator probably know about this or is it brought anonymously? I mean, is the name of the debtor victim in the case? And my point only is if the case is out there, is the perpetrator going to know that that case has been brought? Do we have the same concerns about I mean, we have the concerns about victim safety, but have we already compromised that by the fact that the case has been brought? Yeah, that's why I thought that part of what you're saying. Have you already compromised that by the fact that the case is out there with the victim debtor's name? So anyway, that's something to think about. But do you have any more out of context? So yeah, go to Angela and then Ian.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: So well, I'll ask my question. First, I was wondering if you can say a little bit sure you can surmise from yesterday's conversations that I am one. I don't know if I'm the only. But when we talk about people in the room who have concerns about this portion, it's me. So maybe you can allay some of my concerns, if you feel confident or comfortable enough speaking on behalf of the Bankers Association about what might be the thought process that goes into a decision of whether or not to pursue the identity, first discovering the identity of the perpetrator, and then pursuing a collection of the debt?

[Chris D'Elia, President, Vermont Bankers Association]: I will try and do my best. That that is a big underlying problem. Again, I'll start with the perpetrator who created this situation is the only one that we would wanna go after to remedy this. The situation allows a debtor to file certain information with us. We will look at that information, and we will, based on what's provided, draw a conclusion that we agree or disagree. And then, but the challenge becomes if you don't know who the perpetrator is, then then what what what there are no steps to take at that point. We don't we don't know who they are. We're not gonna speculate and run the risk of targeting the wrong person. The only way we might know something is we might know a name, but again, we can may not be able to draw the conclusion that they are the perpetrator is if we have in the debtor's file other information involving other credit that was provided to them where somebody's name showed up, but that is a huge leap to go from that person's name with the debtor to saying you're the perpetrator. And I don't I don't think banks are gonna go down that road. I think somebody said, are we are we gonna be googling people yesterday? And and no. We're not gonna be googling people. But we want to preserve our ability to go after a perpetrator if at some point along the way, because this is somewhat open ended with a time frame, if at some point along the way, we we know who that individual is or it comes to light, then we would want the ability to be able to go after that individual. They're the ones that created the fraud. They created the loss. The perpetrator, the debtor has been taken care of because they no longer owe the debt and they've their credit report is fixed. So when I said earlier, all of this shifts to us at this point, I feel we have a right to try and recover our losses because, to representative Burditt's question yesterday, what did we do wrong in this process? We did absolutely nothing wrong as a financial institution aside from provide credit to somebody, credit that was not known to us that was coerced debt.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Right. Yeah. I wonder if the bankers association, if you don't already, maybe you can contribute to prevention efforts. Well, it's

[Chris D'Elia, President, Vermont Bankers Association]: usually representative, but we also we do already. Good. So you know that all of the iAlta funds that go to the Vermont Bar Foundation are used in two ways. One to fund legal aid and one to fund their grant program. So we already do that representative.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: And I wasn't implying that you don't. That's great to know, because we're all part of this culture. We're all part of this society, well functioning. The victims didn't do anything wrong either. And so it's a tough position to be in. I respect that. And it's tough that we're all in this room doing all of this for a number of people who do horrible things. And we're trying to mitigate fallout from that. So we are all in that position right now.

[Chris D'Elia, President, Vermont Bankers Association]: We agree with you that the victim did nothing wrong as we did nothing wrong, and we're trying to find a balance in this whole process to make sure the victim's taken care of, but that we have some rights as well.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Ian and then, Karen, did you have anything?

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I was just gonna say one more thing. Just a reframe though about I wonder, is it accurate to say that this isn't a claim against the perpetrator. It's really a claim more in favor of the victim debtor, if that reframe helps. It's not a traditional process where it's like Thomas is saying, when someone breaks into your house and you know who it was, it's almost like bringing you're seeking relief without naming the person because you're not going after that person. You're just going after, like you're seeking relief from the debt. So it's not quite the same as going

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: But but you're still but you're still just not paying debt. It it's just still be

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

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Rebars for for the credit.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Yes. And I I guess I'm setting that aside just to, like, reframe what this is and that it's not a traditional No. You did something wrong, I'm going after you. It's more like someone did something wrong, and now we have these relatively innocent parties who have to figure out what the remedy is, sometimes without going after that perpetrator, because that would cause potentially more harm. So it is complicated, for sure.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: And the one thing that I'm going look at a little bit further and will take from saying potentially cause harm. I think there needs to be a higher standard than potentially cause harm to withhold the perpetrator's name. And I'd even look at page 60 and looking at line five, reasonably likely to be resolved. Is the term reasonably appropriate there? Does there need to be a bit of a higher standard to withhold the perpetrator's pain? In other words, likely to result. We have that in RFAs. We don't say reasonably likely. We have likely to result in abuse. So we can look at that. Maybe that helps. I don't know if that helps, Chris. If if if you're looking at that, it's it's trying to have a little bit higher bar for withholding the perpetrator's name.

[Chris D'Elia, President, Vermont Bankers Association]: I'm open to suggestions and we'll happy to work with the committee on any language that you want to develop over time.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Chris, yeah, I had another thought on the same so I think one thing the committee is going to have to tackle is can you establish a prima facie case without disclosing the perpetrator? And that's just a question to consider based on the other documentation that's proposed in the bill. The other thing, and I think it kind of goes down Martin's line of thinking, be I kind of would like the idea and I'd be curious of your thoughts on, it was just a little bit more structured. So you have a hearing, the court establishes that it is course debt. The default is perpetrator is a disclosable piece of information that the creditor gets to know. On a motion by creditor or by debtor, the victim, they can request the court basically not allow the disclosure of that information. Then there's a weighing of the facts and a determination by the court and then one way or the other. But that way both the creditor and the debtor get an opportunity to sort of have the court make a determination based on weighing of the needs of the creditor, based on the amount of the debt and what it is and who the perpetrator may be and the debtor on the risk of harm. And that kind of shifted a little bit from where it is right now where it's almost like there's not any kind of proactive action that the debtor has to take to keep the information confidential.

[Chris D'Elia, President, Vermont Bankers Association]: Can I ask representative, are you speaking of a potential court hearing early in the process or later in the process? Well, yeah,

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: I think it makes it's one question is do you need it? Do you need to have that information? The information of the of the perpetrator to establish the prima facie case? I think that's like currently we don't. We have here, we don't. So I guess that's a good question. If we land on, we still don't need that. Then I would say it would be after there's a determination that it is course debt. I think that's where I would see that happening. So basically, the court makes a determination. Does the course debt? Creditor, you now have a right of action against the perpetrator. Now here's the moment debtor can say, Your Honor, I want to keep that information confident. Don't want to have to disclose that information because I think it's going be a risk to me. Now that's been made and now there's an opportunity for both sides to make their case for why it should be or shouldn't be.

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

[Chris D'Elia, President, Vermont Bankers Association]: That's that's helpful. I I would say representative that we would certainly have comfort in a court process, in a court weighing the issues that are involved between debtor creditor and perpetrator. It it yeah. We would we would be fine with a court process, which I think is allowed under the bill at some point. And we would abide by whatever judge's decision. I I could tell you if if and I'm not asking for this, but I'm just using it as an example. If this were all front loaded with the debtor going to court and the court rendering a decision, we would abide by that decision without question.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So Like at the beginning of the So let me ask you. So if is this issue as far as the identity of the perpetrator, does that in any way relate to the burden as far as the preponderance of the evidence and who has the burden initially? Or are those two separate issues?

[Chris D'Elia, President, Vermont Bankers Association]: And you're getting a bit beyond my pay grade as far as legal processes are concerned, but

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: No, no, I'm just wondering if it was the better who had the burden instead of just the prima facie case but had the burden to prove the course of that and is able to then prove that, does that make it easier to say that they shouldn't have to turn over the perpetrator's name. I don't know if that makes sense. They may be unrelated.

[Chris D'Elia, President, Vermont Bankers Association]: Yeah. I see what you're trying to accomplish. However, the ability to go after the perpetrator, it makes it easier to address the decision, of course, dead or not. What it doesn't do is it doesn't help us to go after where's the car, where's the loan money that you took out, where's the ATV, and to try and recover funds or assets that minimize the losses that the creditor is going to have to absorb.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Right, okay. All right, so yeah, no, it's an idea just to throw up, but I'd like, you know, we can follow-up on this as well, some other concerns. But Karen, I'm gonna go.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: Yes. Thank you for continuing this conversation, because I appreciate the tension that we're trying to navigate and find a middle ground. And so my question, maybe this was offered yesterday, I apologize, is my understanding, we're not the first to explore horse debt here in Vermont, that there are other laws across The US. So I'm curious how other states have navigated this, or is Vermont alone in trying to find this this specific line? And that might be something we can do more research with or the network might have more information, but I just feel like this has been done before. But is it different that we're trying to walk this line with protecting the identity?

[Chris D'Elia, President, Vermont Bankers Association]: Yeah. Okay. So that's a specific question that I would like to go back and look at those states as to how they dealt with the specific question. I would I would be able to answer it in broader terms as far as how, a handful of states have not shifted the burden onto the creditors. The burden rests with the debtors. We have states like, I think it's Illinois and Texas who took a different path. So there are there are certainly different state statutes that are now in play. I think Maine is the only one that's been out there since 2019. The rest are relatively new that we can certainly look at to try and answer your question, and I'm happy to try and do that over the weekend.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: Okay. I just feel like that'd be helpful because we don't need to reinvent the wheel. But, like, if if there is something out there that is working, I think we can find a better solution, but let's at least look at what's already out there. So I appreciate that. And I feel like for the network, maybe you have ideas as well. Or maybe we're exploring new territory and we gotta figure it out.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Yeah. It came up a little bit yesterday. That's kind of

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: an alternate question for anybody. Do relief from abuse orders work? I would say for the most part, And where I'm going with it is, okay, next question is when there's a relief from abuse order issued is

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: the perpetrator, are they notified who initiated the RFA? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So that's almost like a double danger in some ways. I'm sure they're already in danger. RFA and some people it's gonna elevate what they're going through. But where I'm going with it is so

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: we we wanna protect the victims. There there's no doubt about that. It's it's so is there any way that if if the perpetrators you know, if we if it's decided the perpetrator's name is put out there, so financial institutions can justly at what's theirs, and at the same time a relief from abuse order be issued because they do work, nobody said they don't work, and to protect the victim,

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: or something along that line. Yeah, along those lines, I mean, would think, I'm wondering if this whole process is something that only can start after a relief of abuse or has been issued, because then you have those protections in place. I know, I'm just, it's just not. Because somewhere in here, there has to be proof that there is abuse as well. I mean, we're talking about that underlies this, is that they have to determine that abuse has occurred. And another thing that goes through my mind, if something like this is happening, probably not the greatest relationship in the world to start, and there's probably a lot of them that

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: at

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: some point have already had RFAs. I'm gonna guess the high percentage. That's just a guess. Easier if there is, but Right.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Angela, yeah. And I think it's important to I think we heard yesterday that some of these cases are not intimate partner relationships. They're foster children, or they're being financially coerced into significant debt by foster families and other folks who are caring for them. They may only learn a bit when they check their credit. Who knows after they turn 18 or something? It is hard to end. Think we'll end me for testimony that how important it is to have a process that does to cover coerced death that doesn't require a court order like an RFA or something.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Would coercing somebody into signing for

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: a loan qualify as abuse? I think it does.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I mean, have to

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: remember Yes. There's coercial.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: And it may be the only abuse. You know, It wouldn't necessarily be accompanied by physical abuse.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: RFA's work, but not in way you would. Yeah, so I think on that, we're giving Charlie a lot of food for thought over the weekend to come back and I put it on know we have another point that Chris wants to make. I'm not going to put Charlie on the spot right now and think through and talk through on some of these things that we've talked about. But I think it's legitimate to look into that as well. But I also understand what you're saying. This doesn't just cover that. Chris, I think you had one more.

[Chris D'Elia, President, Vermont Bankers Association]: Well, no, I'll just summarize very quickly. So just listening to your conversation yesterday, a few questions I wanted to respond to. Representative Burditt asked the question of credit reports and Vermont does allow for freeze and unfreezing of credit reports. We did that quite a while ago just for your knowledge. There was a question about the the focus seemed to be on physical abuse, but and I think this was answered in your discussion yesterday. But on on page two, line 12, there's language in there that obviously goes beyond physical abuse. There's a question yesterday about valid report and I think. Yeah, there's a question on the word valid, guess A report's a report. It I would think it'd be a valid report. So I'll I'll leave it to you. The the other thing that I thought was interesting was the, comment raised by judge zoning about the qualified third party could involve, brother, sister, etcetera, and we would ask for your consideration that it is, that it is an independent third party that is aware of the circumstances has worked with the debtor and not somebody who may have a potential conflict because they wanna obviously support their loved one.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. We do have we do have a legislative council looking into language for that. Yeah.

[Chris D'Elia, President, Vermont Bankers Association]: Other than that, mister chairman, committee members, I I really appreciate the opportunity to spend time with you this morning and have this back and forth give and take. These are critical issues for us, and for the debtors, and we just wanna make sure that we have a a bill that can work for the parties involved. So I hope to be there next week and happy to look over the weekend at what other states have done to answer the question of the perpetrator. But again, just thank you for your time today.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I appreciate it as well, Chris. And and by the way, very nice sweater. Is that like that Norwegian sweater? I'm I'm a big fan of it.

[Chris D'Elia, President, Vermont Bankers Association]: I can't

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: help us. I mean, I have a sweater that looks very much like that that my my Norwegian aunt did for me. So

[Chris D'Elia, President, Vermont Bankers Association]: Yeah. It it is it is from Denmark.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Oh, the Danes. I tell you. Yeah. The Danes. They're trying they're trying to copy the Norwegian. Yeah. They're trying to copy the Norwegian. Thanks lot, Chris. Have a really good weekend. Thank you, folks. We'll be talking again next week.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Rep. Zachary Harvey)]: Thank you, Chris. Thank you, Chris. Okay.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So we're gonna move on to budget discussion. Can we

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: take, like, two minutes to to to

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: say hello to our former member over there? Yeah. Actually, we could have introductions of the folks that came in and let them know who's sitting in.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Okay. Excellent. That's canary also from the NEK for the same reason. Okay. Who do you work at? Central to ACLU lobby day. Excellent. Kathy Vans from Danville of ACLU. Great, welcome.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Who's this guy in the corner? I don't know. Well, I think he should get in the hot seat.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Rep. Zachary Harvey)]: Former representative from Rutland City who just had a reminder of how boring some of this work is.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: That was some of the more exciting stuff we were doing. Yeah, from the new members, there's two here, is a former representative of Providence City.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Ken And I came in

[Former Rep. Will Notte (Rutland City)]: the same year together, served in

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: this committee for six years.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Don't remind me. I'm off now doing my

[Former Rep. Will Notte (Rutland City)]: own thing and still a current politician.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: And continuing the work that you were doing here in Away.

[Former Rep. Will Notte (Rutland City)]: Yes. For those of you who don't know even foreign politicians, there is, I

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: would say, life and gainful employment after

[Former Rep. Will Notte (Rutland City)]: the judiciary committee. I am the Justice and blind coordinator at

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: the Rutland County Restorative Justice Center.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: That's a wonderful show. Now

[Former Rep. Will Notte (Rutland City)]: I watched Karen walk us through some legislation when I was here on restorative justice, so it made me at least qualified enough to put a resume together. I've

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: said to a

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: few people since I've been when I've been back today, I feel like

[Former Rep. Will Notte (Rutland City)]: I spent six years here doing the hypotheticals, and it feels really good to be on the ground doing the actual work.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Ouch. So real quick, and Will knows the story I'm gonna tell.

[Former Rep. Will Notte (Rutland City)]: Worst one now, you win.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, so I live in, I'm from Rutland City, live in West Rutland. Of course, Will is Rutland City. Always knew who he was because of Board of Alderman and all that. He knew who I was because of up here, but we had never met, but he knew my daughter. First day he walks in, he says, it's really nice to meet your daughter's second favorite politician.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: And the zing for 40 going back and forth never stopped. It's good to have you back, Will. It was lovely to see everyone. I'm gonna

[Former Rep. Will Notte (Rutland City)]: go home now because I remembered how terrible the drive is for Rutland and I'm going to

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: try and keep

[Former Rep. Will Notte (Rutland City)]: the snow and Representative Barrett, good luck you're doing the same.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: We're going to We're have long drives. I appreciate it. Thank you.

[Former Rep. Will Notte (Rutland City)]: All kidding aside, I know what good work this committee does. I'm seeing the good work on the ground that this committee has worked on for years,

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: so thank

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: you all. Good to see you. To see you, Sylvia. Okay, so we're gonna But it's almost nice to see Alright, so we're gonna turn and see how far we can get on the budget memo today. We're gonna skip the network against domestic violence and the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services until Jen Pullman becomes available. So kind of watch for her. Think she's going try to log on at some point. Maybe we'll turn to that right away. When is Jen coming in? Possibly not. Can you say that she's on now? No. She's when I let her in, but I

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: I don't see her up here.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Okay. Alright. Well, we'll wait. So just walking through I've highlighted, having learned that from legislative counsel, the changes from when we last looked at this. And just kind of walking through this Office of Defender General, I reached out to Matt Valerio, and I'm happy to send his response back. But I can just I asked him a question. I asked him whether let me look at my question for him. I asked of these requests, what are your priorities? If I recall right, the first three items were top priorities and the last two are less of a priority. Is that right? His response was, short answer is yes. The second two numbers are part of typical budget fantasy. 610,000 vacancy savings is unattainable. Haven't made 600,000 payments special from the ten years. But they just use those numbers to balance the budget. Essentially, that's why I the short answer is yes. I'm not sure I understood the rest of this answer, but that's why I moved that to tier last two things from tier one. So what I'm gonna do instead of trying to come up with a priority list because we're running out of time of what's in tier one is I'm just gonna like straw poll each of these to see if you agree that it should be in tier one. Does that work? Because I don't know if we're gonna have enough time to debate what should be our priorities or not. Don't know if you mean the best moving forward on this. Have to get into it. I'm not sure, but I do know no matter what we say or what we do, the appropriations is going to do whatever they feel they need to. I mean, that's the

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: way it's how we

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: do it. That is the reality of the book. It's still key. No, I understand. Just on here that, and

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: we could put just put it in as that's what these people are looking for.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: But I think we could at least give them a these are the tier one or the ones that we don't think are. Yeah, I think we

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: could go that simple.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Because I don't think we're going to be able to come to agreement how to rank these things in tier ones. I

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: don't think

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I had a conversation with Trevor last night about this which is great. It's a great explanation in the way it's done and in a nutshell it's like they do what they have to do. Tom hopes like, to me if the weather says this is what each of these departments or whatever are requesting, and that's just the way

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: it is. No opinion. I really don't believe our opinion. It's not that it doesn't matter, but they trump

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: a lot of budget opinions. Think, except I will say that if they're looking at all these various requests from these entities, of the things that can help them decide, if they have a few $100,000 that we have said those things are less important. These things are the both fulfilling, I would say. Yeah, that's our tier one and tier Yeah, that's just my idea. And then, here. You've got this paper right here. I don't think we need to do anything more. It's like what Tom says. Just submit it and go with it. But I need to disagreement that you folks are fine with the way I broke it be true. I'm not, but that's okay. I'm not gonna have anything to say about it anyway. No, except when I get on the floor and vote no. That's fine. But I can go on each of these and I can say, I just want a straw poll on who supports keeping this in tier one. I think anybody could maybe take some little piece of a tier one and tier two and swap them and maybe even put something into a tier three, and we're never gonna probably get everybody to agree on it exactly. But is a guide, and no matter what

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: we do, if we swap something because somebody doesn't like it, well, it's going change the opinion of somebody else. And,

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: yeah, it's a guide for appropriations. I get no complicated. Mean, we can get into an argument about it and say,

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: well, I don't like, you know, these people getting this money and those people getting that money, and I think these people should get more. It's just gonna

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: potentially, it's gonna create animosity in the committee, I think. And I don't think we need to go go through that with this. I don't think we need to say this is our recommendation. I think this is what people are asking for. Stay out of it. I

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: can support that piece. I think one of the other reasons that appropriations has us look at these is to vet them in some way to make sure that they're actually needed and justified. Because there might be ones that were like, it doesn't seem like that's a need at all. And that helps inform them so they don't have to consider certain ones. So I feel like that's also a lens that we're putting on this. I think they would love it if we prioritized and we could all get an agreement of this is the number one thing. If you have $300,000 put it in this. But I agree that we're maybe not at a place to do that. But at the very least, we can let them know, We vetted these. These are all reasonable requests, and now you take that.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: And I guess the only thing still is I mean, if people are fine with it, it takes us a lot of time. Unless

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: it changes with

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Jennifer. Yeah. We do need to hear about that.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Rep. Zachary Harvey)]: Yeah. I guess I just have one one comment is that the delineation between tier one and tier two, I don't want and I totally take representative Dolan's point of, like, we have heard from witnesses from all of these organizations that are all doing very noble work and important work in the state, but I don't want it to be interpreted as if something is in tier two and it's still on the list that it is approved by the committee. Right. Because there's like, for me, I mean, I I don't want speak for others on the committee, but I have a very strong view of a couple line items in tier one that I just don't agree with.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So perhaps this is the way we put it to the corporations. And this is the language I used the other day, is this is what we've heard from these folks that we've heard from them is what they're saying they have to have. Tier two is what we're interpreting from what we've heard that it would be nice to have.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Rep. Zachary Harvey)]: But then it's a longer length. I think that was more the way

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: that you framed it, but

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Rep. Zachary Harvey)]: I agree with the

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: of there are

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Rep. Zachary Harvey)]: the essentials. I think you and I did have a conversation about that, Chair, what's essential and what is probably unessential. Call a spade a spade and point out exactly what I disagree with. I really disagree with the inflationary increase under legal aid. I think they even point this out is that the annual 3% increase that affected state agencies was for state agencies. Legal aid is not a state agency. So they're looking to have access to an increase in funds that was given to state agencies for the work that they're doing, and they don't fall into that category. I think it's unreasonable for them to expect and to even ask for those additional funds.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I also I would move to have Human Rights Commission moved into tier two. But beyond that, I think the work that the network and the courts, the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services, I think those are all very important causes that are justifiably in tier one. So agree with that as far as where you are. But I would still say if we're casting this not as our opinion on these, but this is what we've heard from these entities as their must haves, and these others, they're saying have to have, but they also recognize they're not even gonna get everything that they feel they have to have. That the second thing seems to be more of a very much a wish list or however I wanna put it.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Rep. Zachary Harvey)]: So then the only thing, I take that point, the only thing that I would ask then is that the way that tier one is presented to appropriations is the different agencies are alphabetized. So it doesn't show any kind of favoritism or I mean, if this is purely looking at people

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: that makes good sense. That

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: way because it

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I mean granted like we

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Rep. Zachary Harvey)]: all have areas that we agree with more than others on this. So if it's alphabetized it just looks as a unified. Absolutely. I will

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: also note that it's alphabetized the question around Zach said around the human rights commission, then they can see the same things. That doesn't increase their budget though, does it? 65,000? Well that's they're essentially gonna ask to cut that. Oh okay. Okay. I'm saying that Okay. All right. All right. So the one other part that I just want to call attention to and see if folks and then we'll get to Jennifer Pullman is what I added. I have some additional information from Mark Anderson that folks can take a look at. And perhaps, I want to give people enough time to look at that. But the language I have here, I have a question of should we propose an increase to $65 per hour. But then again, that kind of goes against what we've been talking about as far as just laying out the priorities for the Southern Empathy. Them sort it out for patients. Tom, do have an opinion? I think this.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Yes. Just to clarify a question, what you mean about that is not offering our solution, just keeping their request as helping out.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: No way the corporation wants me to do that, but I feel that that's

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Because they can have a conversation with you or others and your ideas. We can't do the full, what can we get to?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I mean, so I can, as just a representative, I can weigh in and say that I think we should do that with this and make it very clear that this is not the judiciary And I'll make it clear here that we're not holding on any particular priorities. So I'm going to guess that no matter what we did in the past as far as sending our letter over, that they've had questions at some point. The preparations? Not that they've asked. Well, the only thing I told Rob and Shai about the

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: webinar No, don't mean this. I mean in past years. Have they had questions for us?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah, they have. Right, so they can come and ask us after we've given this. They'll say, What's your priority? I

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: think the thing that you're saying with this is that we came up with a solution. We didn't with any of the others.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Correct. So I think I need to take that one. Yeah. It doesn't fly with the rest.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Rep. Zachary Harvey)]: Can we talk about the accountability document?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah, yeah. So that's another thing that I where did I add that? What's that?

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Page three.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Here's another place where Is that one that I take aside and say, hey because once again, I'm saying here that we actually support this. On that one issue, the accountability of documents you have? Wouldn't have it possible for that.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Rep. Zachary Harvey)]: How do you keep it in?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: What? Keep it in.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I I I want I would like I would vote to keep it in. Not that we're voting, but I would and and I I think it's important to tie it to the conversation about pretrial supervision.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Which is in there too.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: The way that you've done. Yeah. We could almost make it even clearer. And maybe if we just call accountability dockets, it gets to the top. No kidding.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: No, Karen, I like that. Not an extension of those.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Rep. Zachary Harvey)]: Have one answer. If we're alphabetizing, I like that.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: I would just ask that we strike last sentence, paragraph one on the accountability docket. So we understand the need for flexibility in the use of these funds and fully support the expansion of the accountability docket approach in Rutland and other counties. I would just strike the in Rutland and other counties part. Okay. So I'm curious.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Well, I But I think I fully understand why. Of course. No. I just think said it's Rutland.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: We already said it's Rutland County, and I just and I just Oh, okay. Okay. I just sort of feel like it's better to say we support the expansion of it. I don't want it

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: to be Yeah. One. Yeah. Whoever. Okay. You get one. You get one. Is that okay? One mention of the I was I was gonna raise my hand and suggest another mention of Robert.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Rep. Zachary Harvey)]: I second All the right,

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: so let's try to sort out what's going on with the network, 450,000 requests as it relates to the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services. Jennifer Pullman, you can join us and shed light, I guess one of the big questions that I had, and you can also talk a little bit further, obviously, is whether the $102,729 general fund supporting the grants, is that anticipated coming out of the domestic and sexual violence special fund and that $450,000 that we have in the networks ask?

[Jennifer Pullman, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services]: No, that's a separate ask. Sorry, for the record, Jennifer Pullman from Montenegrove Crime Victim Services. That is a separate ask from the center to go into our general fund base. We've been doing this work for decades and insofar as administering, like when there was testimony that funds go to the center, they go through the center. And that is the crux of our ask, is that we've been we're a state agency that's doing mandated work for free, and we cannot continue to do that. With the decline of special funds and federal funds, that impacts our administrative overhead, and we're just not in a place where we can continue to do that. So, is a separate ask from us in that.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: So, Jennifer, if the funds go through the center and then to you, and and I'm just gonna throw a number out there. It's a $100,000 and and if that $100,000 goes, you know, has a stop before it gets to you, I gotta believe that there's gonna be administrative fees taken out of that, and the the amount would be less than a $100,000 going to you.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: But if it went directly to you, it would be the full $100,000?

[Jennifer Pullman, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services]: Yes. We don't take anything to administer state general fund dollars that go directly to the network or to the child advocacy centers or to prosecution positions or from the DVS refund. We do not take a single dollar. Where we get our support is through the comp special fund, the restitution special fund, and federal funds. So, as those decline, that means we have even less ability to mean, our staff didn't get COLAs or steps either, and so we need this to support increasing costs to us that we don't get to take part of because we're not state employees. When insurances rise, when rent rises, when IT costs increase, we don't even have access to that ability to collective bargain as a larger contract. So right now, this is unfunded work that is a lot of work and a lot of grant administration. We want this. We're requesting that this would be a separate ask in our in terms of our general fund base. That $102,000 is what we're asking for. That's it. Even though special funds are in decline, we think we can do it and we just would like the support of this committee and hopefully the state.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Thank you, Jen, for being So you may have answered my question, but it also provides confusion for me too. And I wish we could have you and the network right here at the same time because I feel like maybe hearing different things. Because I believe when they shared their testimony, what we heard is, and I'm sure you've seen the whole document that we're working with. Right? So they have this $4,450,000 request. And I believe, and I have my notes, what we heard is 3,000 350,000 of that goes to the network, and there's about a 100,000 that goes to Center for Crime Victim Services. But then I just heard you say that if there's money going through that special fund, it all goes to the network. So that's where I'm confused because I'm hearing two different things. I'm sure there's a common truth there, but if you can help me find that.

[Jennifer Pullman, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services]: I'll admit I'm confused as well, and I don't think that our ask was meant to go as an increase to the special fund. That's confusing to me, and I know it's confusing to my director of finance as to how that would work. It disadvantages us, to be honest. That would not be the we appreciate the support, but that would not be the format that we would. In terms of what would help the center. The center asking for the $102,000 in terms of our general fund base.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Okay. Would you agree then that it could be seen as the same 100,000 that is in the the networks request too?

[Jennifer Pullman, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services]: Yes, I understand that. And I think it would be cleaner from my perspective is if the networks ask was more reflective of the deficit in their fund, which I know Sarah spoke to, which is projected that on our end $343,000 and so that would be $353,350 as she's requesting and just put the other piece into the center's base.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Okay. That's very helpful for me. I feel like that makes it very clear.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah, please go ahead.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Hi, Jen. Okay. So following on Karen's question and trying to make sure we understand this correctly, With the $450,000 one time appropriation from last year, we learned that $200,000 was held in reserve. I don't know if this is the right term, so you'll correct me, but held in reserve by the center and two fifty was dispersed to the network for them to then share among their member organizations. Is that correct?

[Jennifer Pullman, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services]: Yes and no. As the fund was in deficit, we recommended and we have no authority over how the network spends the dollars that we pass through. They decide it based on formulas and different things that they utilize. Our our strong recommendation, was that with a declining special fund that the four fifty entirely should be held and not to give out increases, even though we understand why. Because you're essentially increasing the obligations that are on the special fund in terms of granting. So currently right now, the old obligation was $783,000 The new obligation now, because there was a disbursement of $250,000 is over 1,000,000. So our recommendation was that it would be best to restore a cash balance to the fund. We understand why that they made that choice, but it creates a challenge. So we don't have any authority. I want to be clear about that. We just do our job and if the money is what's appropriated, we provide that. So it was our recommendation that all of it be put in the fund. They, as we understand, split that piece so that they could give some increases to their staff. And again, I completely understand that. It just creates more funding challenges because all of our special funds are not doing very well.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Okay. I think I get that. So, the recommendation from the center was keep all 450,000 in the fund last year. And what ended up happening based on that recommendation, perhaps the network made the choice to keep 200 in the fund and use $2.50 to share, to disperse among their members.

[Jennifer Pullman, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services]: And I understand, and that doesn't even go a long way.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Right, right.

[Jennifer Pullman, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services]: I didn't want folks to think that the center has no authority. Folks to think that we were saying you must do this or you have to do this. It was in looking at the years worth of declines in the funds that we felt it will be best to have that rainy day fund. But again, understand the policy, that decision that they made. It just creates financially a little bit of a challenge.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Gotcha. Okay, thank you. Oops. What? Sorry. One more so I don't I don't know if this is if it's too early in your budget cycle or whatever to know this, but would you recommend do you think your recommendation recommendation will be the same this year that the network is this a common recommendation to grantees or subgrantees to keep some money in reserve in the fund to not increase the what did you call it? The burden on the fund, but Obligations. Obligations, yeah, to not increase the obligations this year.

[Jennifer Pullman, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services]: This is a tough one because we support so strongly the work in the field, which is why we have never taken any pieces in terms of pass through. And something needs to change for our sub grantees. Something needs to change because it feels really awful to say you shouldn't be giving increases to reward your staff. In this financial No,

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: and I don't mean to put you in that position. I'm sort of thinking of, is it fair to think of the center as almost like a fiduciary? That's probably I know that's not that means a very certain thing. But I'm here. Yeah. Think we try to do

[Jennifer Pullman, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services]: the best we can because we are the people responsible to the federal government and to all of you. Yeah. Try and give this bad news that we often have to give. It's not comfortable. Carol's my yin to my yang. She's more like the bottom line, Jen, bottom line. And I'm like, can't we give everybody everything? We don't know what's going to happen and things are very tumultuous and we would not be responsible stewards of funds if we felt sadly in this climate that all of these pieces should go to increases, if that makes sense. I'm trying walk the fine line.

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

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Okay. Any other questions for Ben? And do we know what to do as far as what we're keeping? Are we just going to keep in what we have for the network at this point, Ben?

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Okay. But it sounds like there's 100 that is in the network and also with crime victims' services. So we it's the same it's the

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: same money. I thought I understood. Wait. Let me see. Yeah. That's what I'm hearing. Coming from

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: the network. Yeah. So it sounds like I don't know. Let me take do the $353,000 for the network in the hunt. It sounds like there's stuff underneath all of

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: this, but Well, guess I'm so I thought I understood that the $102,729 is not associated with $450,000 or am I misunderstanding?

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: You are a pretty outstaged point. I think you're misunderstanding because you've heard two different things. So it's a fair misunderstanding. It sounds very possible that the network had included about 100,000 for the center administering the funds in the network's $450,000 ask, and the center included it separately in their ask.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Jennifer, go ahead. I'm sorry, she's going to repeat. Sorry.

[Jennifer Pullman, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services]: Yes, it is separate. And I think that, again, should not be going through the DVS fee fund. That's an awkward mechanism to support the center and the center supports other general fund grants out to the community. So it really makes much more clean sense. And I understand from Sarah on multiple occasions that they were trying to support us, which I appreciate, but it really just needs to be a cleaner ask that goes to the center for overall administration of General Fund dollars, which largely includes the network but includes other programs as well.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: All right, you two figure that out. You can show me the correction on the documents for that. Okay, thank you, Ben. Hope appreciate

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: wrap

[Jennifer Pullman, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services]: up soon.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: So

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: we're going go off live because we don't have anybody until 11:30, but