Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Judiciary committee this Wednesday morning, February twenty fifth. And most of this morning, we're gonna be spending on testimony on h six thirteen, and we will start with a walk through with legislative council. So thank you for being with me. We're down some members in the committee. Snow is keeping some other members from getting here. I mean, they're gonna get here but a little late, and we have another person on vacation. Okay. Could unmute that person. I can't. I can't them somehow. Oh, okay, good. Great. Hopefully, here's Michelle.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Good morning. Good For the record, Michelle Childs, Office of Legislative Counsel, and we're going to do a walkthrough of the H-six 13 as introduced. And I just want to give you a little warning here. So I don't usually look a month. It's usually in the third portfolio, but Hillary's carrying a big load already as a newbie to the team. And so I'm doing some of these law enforcement calls. But we have some questions that are probably better answered by some of the witnesses. And so we're going to start looking at the language. And just a few things to note here. So we're working in there's two chapters in Title 13 having to do with victims. So there's the victim statute, and there's the crime victims chapter. Why they're separate? I don't know. It predates the victim. But the crime victim statute deals with restitution, victims' compensation, things like that. The victims chapter deals primarily with rights of victims. And that's where you see the statute with regard to victim advocates that are embedded within state's attorney's offices. That's where you see the rights that victims have in terms of notification of certain proceedings, the ability to provide a victim with impact statement. So I just wanted to kind of note that those two different statutes, because they do have different definitions that are contained in there with respect to who is considered a victim. And one of the things that you'll see in here is you'll see oftentimes this new language added about someone who is the victim of an officer involved shooting. And that's because there are circumstances where they would already be included in the definition of victim, but only if it's a homicide and declared a homicide. So I think probably some of the testimony and things you talked about is there may be an officer involved shooting of a person who is experiencing mental health crisis, but that wasn't determined to be a homicide. Let's start the language. So I'm to start. I assume everybody's got the same version that's guided before.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: That's introduced.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. I know sometimes that we wouldn't I don't know. They show up sometimes as you get a different pagination. But if we're looking at page two, section one So this is again, this is the definitions in the victims chapter. So it pertains to victims' rights, has the victim advocate stuff in it, notification. And you'll see the first change is on the definition of victim, which is subdivision four, line 16. And you'll see right now, it's a person who sustains physical, emotional or financial injury or death as a direct result of the commission or attempted commit of a crime. So the officer involved shooting of a person experiencing a mental health crisis may not be a crime. Could be, but may not be. And it's adding on lines eighteen and nineteen for an officer involved shooting of an individual experiencing a mental health crisis. And you'll note at the top of page three, under existing language, it says it also includes the family members of a minor person who's been found to be incompetent or a homicide victim. Is subdivision eight, and definition of officer involved shooting means a law enforcement officer who discharges a firearm in the performance of the officer's duty. And I will just say I didn't It wasn't the original draft on this. I might just As you motor along with the bill, whatever, I might just kind of offer some more clarification as to some language, but it's not necessary to point things out at this juncture. So Section two, now we're working in the definition section as it pertains to the crime victims chapter. So that's like victim compensation program and restitution. So if you look first changes on page four, subdivision five, the definition of pecuniary loss because victims can apply and receive some compensation to make up for certain losses that they have sustained, not things like emotional harm, pain and suffering, things like that. But you see the definition of pecuniary losses, and these are things that insurance isn't a care wise one would be covering. And so you see the addition of pecuniary loss means in the case of the victim, amount of medical or medically related expenses, loss of wages, in a new language, property damage, and cleanup of biological or hazardous materials or fluids. And so again, something that you're going to see throughout the bill is addressing the situation, I believe you've heard from some witnesses about a month ago or so, around the issue of the state doesn't have a particular response to assist families when they're with cleanup of the location if there's been muffs or involved shooting. Page five, subdivision seven, definition of victim. So right there, again, it's just adding. So on the first line, the subdivisions 7A, a person who sustains injury or death as a direct result of the commission or attempted commission of a crime or an officer involved shooting of an individual experiencing a mental health crisis. And again, it's brought through to address those situations and put it on par with a victim who has been harmed by a crime. It would be putting on par in terms of their ability to receive compensation. Rest of the changes are just technical. You'll see at the top of page seven, there's also the same definition of officer involved shooting. Section three is on the application for compensation. And so I know you've got Jen Fullman, who's going to be testifying to you, and you may have questions about how the victim compensation program works. And I'll leave that to her to fill you in on the details and how that works logistically. But here's how you apply. So victim or a dependent of a victim shall, upon application, be eligible for compensation under the following circumstances. One is that a law enforcement officer has filed a report concluding that a crime was committed. So just keeping in mind around compensation and restitution. Restitution is something that is ordered if there's adjudication of guilt and someone's been convicted and the court can order restitution. So my understanding with regard to victim's compensation is that you have to be able to show that a crime was committed, but you don't necessarily have to wait that whole thing for every play out with regard to the defendant. So that's adding an officer involved shooting of an individual experiencing a mental health crisis on Subdivision 1, as well as Subdivision 2. So, Russ? A question from Jack.

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Yeah, thank you. Actually, I think Tom was first. He had his hand up for a while.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Well, I can

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: see I'll yield to the member from Sheldon.

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Back to definition for Mike Clinton. Seeing is this is all about somebody, an individual experiencing a mental health crisis. Do we actually have a standard for what that is, the definition?

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There is not a definition. What's that? There is not a definition in here.

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: I just think that's important if that's what this is going to be dealing with. Some sort of standard.

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Say again, Tom. Sorry.

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: An individual experiencing a mental health Yeah.

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: That's exactly where I was going. Are you all set, Tom? Yeah. So that was one of my questions in terms of how mental health crisis is defined, Michelle. Actually, my questions really begin on, let's see, where will we? There's page two. And it's not necessarily page two.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: It's really throughout the bill.

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: But the question that I come back to is if the officer is in fear of his or her life and is to justify shooting, I feel like that isn't really captured here. Like, I think there needs to be some carve outs and exemptions that if officers are acting within the bounds of the law and, I mean, the the case that we heard testimony on, although we didn't have a bill at the time to know what to associate that testimony to, While a very tragic instance in any lots of life is tragic, there's a lot more, I think, that we will hear about in terms of testimony about that specific incident where the officers were called in by the judge, and they were serving I don't know if they're serving a warrant or if they were they were intervening on behalf of the courts, and they felt in fear reasonably felt in fear of their life. And so I just feel like that there has to be some kind of protection here for law enforcement.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So it's really just a policy choice for this committee. Where it's being used in these sections is with regard to access to services for victims, and so for either someone who was involved in the shooting or for a family member. So when we're talking about adding that in these sections, it's related to the types of services that they would get. It's not a judgment on whether or not the use of force was valid or not valid. We're going to get to some amendment on here that I'll show you that does amend the statute on use of force. But again, policy decision for y'all.

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Yeah. It just seems that there's a bit of subjective language here. I mean, one of my concerns always for whether it's this piece of legislation or other piece of legislation from committee is whether there is opportunity for it to be abused and for frivolous lawsuit litigated on behalf of what I don't I don't care if it's law enforcement or any other third party. So and

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: we could keep going through

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: the walkthrough, but I think that was just something that that stuck out. And I also think it's rather the language on page five, line 14, subsection b, on intervener. I'm just thinking if someone is injured in the course of a lawful law enforcement operation, is that an intervener, and they put themselves in harm's way? They try to prevent an arrest. They try to prevent law enforcement from serving a warrant. To me seems like an intervener. I don't know if that's defined either in statute.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Can you point me to the language that you

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Page five, line 14, subsection b, an intervener. I don't see that defined throughout the the bill.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I can look to see whether I mean, I think that that would just be a plain language interpretation that I didn't know whether or not any case law looked at the extent of that.

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Yeah. It just seems like and and typically with bills that come before this committee, don't really leave things to plain language. There are pretty copious amounts of definitions that we leverage, so I would love to see one for that.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think when you hear from Jen Coleman, she can probably address the issue of when people apply to the Victims Compensation Board, how they are interpreting that existing provision block, because that's not changed here. She can probably address how they are and they do have policies with regard to how they assess applications. That's fine. Just slide here.

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: I'm all set, Chair.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Next is on page nine, section four. And this is adding a new statute on victim guardians. So you have the existing statute, and I think you guys are pretty familiar with victim advocates who are working in state's attorneys' offices and providing a number of services that are identified by statute for them to provide to victims. And this is a little different, and this is creating the position of victim guardian. They would be within the Center for Crime Victim Services, as opposed to right now victim advocates or the police attorney's office. Victim guardians are to be independent of any criminal investigation or prosecution in order to provide conflict free advocacy for victims. They're to coordinate with the victim advocates and any other advocacy organizations. And continuing on page 10, they're to perform duties in accordance with the job description as identified by the center, including providing assistance to family members of a person who is a victim of an officer involved shooting of an individual experiencing a mental health crisis. Such assistance shall include coordinating with the family to make arrangements for cleanup of scene and property damage that occurred at the scene and any disposition of human remains. At the request of the family, payment of expenses can be made directly from the center to the vendors. And the family does not need to make a request for direct payment and can apply to the victim's compensation program as an alternative for this. So let me ask question if I could.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Sure.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: So just to put Section A,

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: That would be dependent on any criminal investigation. Is that really possible if the Center for Crime Victim Services is a state agency? The victim advocates currently have an obligation under Brady to pass anything information on to the prosecutors and to defense guys. Wouldn't that be the same requirement for victim guardians? You can't just write out the independence if they're a state.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think that those are questions that you probably want to check with the witnesses about in terms of the scope. There's not much here in terms of identifying the duties and scope and how they are to be independent.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: So save that for some of the questions.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So Section five is requiring at least fifteen hours of mental health crisis training in a program approved by the Criminal Justice Council and the Vermont Department of Health. So there's a date of January 2028 that all existing law enforcement officers would need to receive that training in order to maintain their certification. Page 11. And then there's a continuing education component in subsection B, so every two years. One question I had was whether or not it's got to be like another fifteen hours or not, or if there's something different there. And then subsection C is that the Vermont Police Academy is to employ mental health crisis trainer for the sole purpose of training Vermont law enforcement and related practitioners on issues related to mental health. I will note that when we get to the end, you'll see there are positions created for the victim guardians, but there is not a specific carve out or appropriation for this particular position. I'll be talking to this Rubrik.

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: The question of whether this has gone to GFO for financial impact to DPS?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: We haven't asked GFO. Okay. But that would

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: probably have If to happen,

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: there's money that continues in it, yeah. Yeah.

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: And I guess another question is, the program has to be approved by BCJC or DMH. Do we have a sense of preference of who would provide this training? I think that's a question for Chris. Okay.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Still on page 11, is section six, and this is your statute of Title 20 having to do with standards for law enforcement use of force. And so you have the definitions. There's no change to the definition. So we're going to move on to page 12. And there, you have your lead in for subsection B for use of force. And there's some guidance in there with regard to how do you assess whether a decision by law enforcement officer to use force was objectively reasonable. And you'll see on page 13, subdivision five. So you already currently in statute have language around when a law enforcement officer knows that a subject's conduct is the result of a mental condition, mental impairment, developmental disability, physical limitation, language barrier or drug or alcohol impairment, or other factor that is beyond the subject's control the officers had taken into account in determining the amount of force appropriate to use on the subject, if any. And then it adds these new criteria for assessing whether or not the use of force was reasonable. And so you'll see starting on line 13, unless impractical, law enforcement officer encounters a subject experiencing the conditions to employ de escalating tactics prior to using any force, and then it lists a variety of de escalation techniques.

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: What's your question? Yeah, go ahead, Jack. Line 17, imminent threat attack. I assume that's the victims imminent threat attack, committing suicide?

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think it can be anybody.

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: If the officer fears for their life, they can enter, or if they feel that the person inside the dwelling is gonna take take their own life? That would justify force of entry.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I would say yes, but I think you should talk. Those are questions, hopefully, for the people who are working with the policies currently.

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Just simply want to clarify that in the language.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Page 14, section seven. So here you have transitions and appropriations. As I mentioned earlier, there's two new classified positions for victim guardians, and those are created within the Center for Triumph Victim Services. Fully loaded, that comes to $240,000 for the two victim guardians. Money comes from the general fund in fiscal year twenty seven. I did get that number from JFO looking at kind of what the numbers are for victim advocates so that it does track. And then on page 15, subdivision two, you'll see there's an additional $20,000 for the purpose of paying expenses related to an officer involved shooting of an individual experiencing a mental health crisis. And so that would be a cleanup of any biological or hazardous materials at the scene of the shooting, repairs to the property. So if a door has been broken in, things like that, and then also cover disposition of the names.

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: And it has an effective date of July 1. So two questions. The $20,000 is that a single instance of clean eye? It doesn't indicate that. We're just saying $20,000 should cover all of these.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm sure people can debate what the number should be. I think there's just kind of that amount of money, and then it would be up to the Center for Criminal Victim Services in determining how much could pay of that money.

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: It just seems it just seems arbitrary to me. The next thing is on the effective date, we wouldn't have had retroactive application of the law for any cases that have already happened, even if a lawsuit has not been filed on behalf of the deceased against the state of Vermont.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, I don't think any nothing about this has to do with people filing a civil suit against the state. Right. In terms of

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Or seeking damages. Right? There's some kind of complacent complacent.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But that's just an application that's just qualifying them as a victim of crime who can access and make application for

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: But the point that I'm getting at is that it wouldn't be retroactive to cases that have already happened and been litigated.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. I mean, the general rule is that laws are prospective unless indicated otherwise. I mean, I think if you want to look at certain dates or things like that, we could do that. But generally, it's prospective. Yeah.

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Because we ran into something similar with the the water runoff case Yeah. Against the farmers last year is that we run about retroactive legislation. So I wanna make sure that we have protected clause in there.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Alright. Any other questions for oh, not seeing anything. We will next go to Chris Morris. If you can thank you. Thanks for traveling out from Rutland. Welcome.

[Christopher Louras (Former Mayor of Rutland)]: The roads were fine. It was the knuckleheads dry. I have no written testimony. Sorry, Nate. Introduction. My name is Christopher Loris. I'm from Rutland, Vermont. I do apologize to the committee and to Nate for not having written testimony. But the amount I will provide written testimony to the bill as it is currently drafted. And I'll speak to those real quick. And then I'll, Mr. Chair, I'll ask the representative Malay to tell me, ask me to tell a story. That's what I'm going to do. So, name is Christopher Lawrence, Rutland, Vermont. First disclaimers, I am an appointee to the E91 board. I am not speaking wearing that hat at all. I am also a subcontractor working with Glenn Zachoff and Megan Novak with Garnet Government Relations as consultants to the State Department of Public Safety on the Public Safety Enhancement Team that's been rolled out in a few, communities around the state, and I'm not wearing that. So six thirteen specifically. I'm just gonna have a peek at a couple notes, and I do apologize that I've gotta do that. Thank you. Appreciate that. Close the disclaimers. One thing I will say regarding six thirteen, I didn't write down which provisions accommodate for a more robust victims advocate positions within Vermont Center of Crime Victim Services? Yes, absolutely, positively. Crank that up. I was very fortunate that my family and I were able to work with Katie Brighton when she worked for the Department of Public Safety through the Vermont State Police as a victim's advocate. Gold standard. And I would say that I know she's moved on from DPS, but that's the type of individual you need to clone to fit into these positions for victim's advocates. People who take survivors' needs into account rather than statutes, policies, rules, regulations. And that was my lived experience. Another piece I think needs to be accommodated for in this bill is to accommodate wellness for the officers who've been in officer involved shootings. That is an issue that this body has taken up a couple times over the last few years with no funding. And don't forget that piece of the equation that there's somebody on the other end of that weapon who does not want to exercise that authority they've been given for lethal force. So please, as you accommodate for survivors like me and my family, please also accommodate for the wellness of the officers involved. Regarding the training for Criminal Justice Council, another disclaimer, I served three years on the Vermont Criminal Justice Council as a guberatorial appointee from 2020 to 2023. I have the highest regard for the BCJC as an organization, and I trust them to do the right thing to accommodate for the proper training for law enforcement officers and de escalation and working with but interacting with individuals who are in mental health crisis. And I will say on the record also, this may get me in trouble, but at this point, I don't care anymore. I do rely on the professionalism, integrity, thoughtfulness of the VC DCJC with this bill. I would say DMH is uniquely unqualified as an organization to create standards for training for officers. There are subject matter experts all over the country that the VCJC can engage with that would be supported by victims, survivors, victims advocates. But I think that given my years of experience tangentially working in the criminal justice world with the Department of Mental Health, I will say that they may want to be left out of this conversation to create new policies. Because of what I've seen from people within DMH, their acrimonious relationship with the Department of Public Safety and with officers in general. And I have a problem with ceding authority to DMH to come up with that type of thing. So that's me being in the angry witness right now. And I'll leave that be. So on to the story. So I'm here as a survivor. Give you quick story, whether or not all you know it, it's okay. Good refresher for those who do. Back in 2019, my son Christopher was a victim, qualified that way, of an officer involved shooting. He had suffered through eight years of relapse and recovery in the opioid crisis, along with his cousin Nicholas, the most codependent relationship I've ever seen in my life. Loved each other, hated each other, supported each other, undermined one another. Same age, two cousins, and my son Christopher murdered my nephew Nicholas after the wee hours of a in October night in 2019. Christopher drove to the Rutland City Police Department. And with his assault weapon that I didn't know he had because I was able in the previous two weeks to that to secure his handgun that I knew he had. I did not know he had a long gun. He took shots from the car to the front of the Rutland City Police Department and drove away slowly. A couple hours later, hour and a half, I don't know the timing, actually. Never read one article about it. The officers found him in his cousin Nicholas's girlfriend's car and. Some type of chase, don't know what level, ensued. Christopher got out of that tire with his long gun. I don't know if he fired shots or not at the police. I imagine he did, but it was a good shot. The four officers that were there who were friends, were friends, our friends, will be friends, had to do, as I said earlier, what no law enforcement officer has to do. It was a it was a good shot, righteous shot, and those four guys had will have to deal with that going forward. The officers involved and any counselors, therapists I spoke to, victims, advocates, it's clear that it was suicide by cop. And the officers had no choice as he exited that vehicle with the long gun, lightly fired. So that's the story of Christopher. But this bill is about victims and survivors. Yes, he was in mental health crisis. His brain broke. You can't kill your cousin without your brain breaking. You can't go shoot up a police station without your brain breaking. You can't approach four officers after a chase without knowing what you're doing and looking to kill yourself, frankly. I need to reestablish where I'm going here, folks. I apologize. So that morning, I received a call from his girlfriend saying she was worried. Chris was gone. His weapon was gone. I said, what weapon? She told me what weapon. I went to the PD looking for the chief. Chief was unavailable. I was told, hey. Can we catch the chief over at the scene? I went to the scene. Officers at the time in that morning thought it was my nephew, thought it was Christopher's cousin who was in that car. Then I said, okay. 59165, or 511220. And I was told the latter. And I'm like, jeez, so I need to go to the hospital. He said yes. And I asked, is it, was it a fatal? And he said yes. Went and grabbed my wife, pulled the two Christopher's younger brothers out of school, and went and grabbed Justin, Christopher's Irish twin. One month a year to the same age. And Justin, as with the rest of the family, a survivor of this incident. He did engage with Katie Brayton, but unlike the rest of us in the family, he felt he could handle it. He didn't engage with counselor, with therapist, didn't unpack his crap. And over the course of the next few years, accommodated with the isolation of COVID, his brain too devolved. He felt guilt for not having been there for his brother and his cousin, which is false. And unlike me who stayed away from media of all types, you know, he consumed it. And Justin's brain eventually broke. He continued to have very deep feelings of guilt about it, recognized the ghoulishest nature of conversations online and the media and ultimately couldn't take any more and took his own life. Prior to that, he had told me, hey, dad. I'm not gonna do what Chris did. I assumed he was talking about ending his life. He wasn't. He was talking about going out the way Chris did and not losing his own life or taking his own life. So for those of you in the judiciary committee who've got law enforcement creds, No fun clearing two cases when they're your adult kids. I cleared one with Christopher by going to the scene, identifying him at the hospital, and cleared my second son's investigation because I found him. So what does that mean for six thirteen? Whether or not this bill survives, I'm offering up a an amendment, simple amendment. And talk to representative Burditt about it in the cafeteria as well as representative Kenny. Can't pronounce his last name.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: We don't care. Okay.

[Christopher Louras (Former Mayor of Rutland)]: And willing to talk to the other two members that aren't here today. But oh my god. Thanks. Sorry, guys. So what I'm here to ask, plead, and I thought about this for a couple of years, talked to Katie Brayton about it prior, talked to Jen Coleman about it yesterday morning, that as part of the bill to support survivors, please, please consider tightening up public records with regards to dashcam, body cam footage for officer involved shootings. Sometimes they need to be out there. Sometimes they need to be out there. I think, you know, George Floyd, Emmett Till, moms and dads who want to say, what they did to my boy, allow that to continue to be for those those footage, that footage, dashcam, bodycam. But for survivors who don't want it out there, where there is no public interest, please accommodate for that. Because there will be other people like this is brother, justy, left handed, dyslexic, color blind, artist, and the kindest individual who I've ever met. And I said that way back when he was 12 years old. And he never faltered from being that kindest person I knew. And I wonder, had things been different? Had he not known that all that was out there? Thank you. I don't know. But he should have been given a chance not to have to deal with the traumas, the guilt. Should have been able to deal with the issues you need to deal with exclusively of a ghoulish video that the media thought needed to be out there for all the wrong reasons. Yellow journalism grew out of sensationalism, Detail, and I'll say it again, ghoulish thoughts over one hundred and twenty years ago. And until twenty, twenty five years ago, yellow journalism was able to do their thing without footage. And there's no reason why this body cannot and should not accommodate for victims, survivors who do not want that footage out there. For the families that do, you can accommodate for that too. For the families that don't, for the love of god, just disallow public records to include footage in officer involved shootings or other instances from dashcams or body cams. I'm gonna channel one more issue that's still working its way through, I don't through the courts. But a 19 year old girl who wanted desperately nothing but a law enforcement officer in the city of Rock, Died during a chase. It's all I wanted. You know, not gonna editorialize that. But her family should not have to worry about opening up a computer or opening up a paper and knowing that the last moments of their daughter's life is when I pop up on a video screen during an officer involved chase and watch their daughter die.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So I can get a

[Christopher Louras (Former Mayor of Rutland)]: little more emotional about others than I can about myself, obviously. But, that's a simple amendment. And if any of y'all want me to accommodate for members of the press down in the cafeteria to have a heart to heart with any member of the press that would say otherwise, oh, bad, I'm ready to go talk to him. And I think I'll talk to Sensei too. See what else I got here, guys. That's all I got. Sorry for the downer. I know this is a hard one. Before I and any any questions at all before I give you a parting shot? Anybody?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Any questions, though?

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: No question. I guess just a statement. Mean, everybody in Rutland County lived lived it with you at some level. Maybe not at the same level as you today. But You all did. We were still there with you.

[Christopher Louras (Former Mayor of Rutland)]: You did

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: it, though. You were.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: You know, because of your former job as mayor, family's, you know, well known businesses in Rutland through the years. So I don't know if we can do this. You know? We can write an amendment, and we can put it in the bill. But we're I know I I wanna know if we can even do this constitutionally if we can mock up certain public records and make other certain public records public. Gives me the hopes we can do it. Mhmm. There really is. Yeah. I get you. But if it comes down to and I'm gonna guess it probably has gone through a couple other people's minds, makes it unconstitutional to lock up those records, whether it's a good idea or not. There are

[Christopher Louras (Former Mayor of Rutland)]: exemptions for many things, Vincent.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I'm sure there is. That that but what I'm saying is we we can't just do it. We're we're gonna have to you know, we're gonna pick testimony, of course, and find out if we can do it. We like I said, we can't do it. Understood. But time time will tell if if we can leave it in leave

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: it in

[Christopher Louras (Former Mayor of Rutland)]: the building. Yeah. No. Thank you, mister representative representative Burditt. I get that. Yeah. No. I I served my two years in purgatory in this building from during the o five, o six session, so I know what you're up against. I get it. And and I know there are other considerations, and there are always other considerations. But I think this one's more or less a common sense one. And constitutionality requires someone to drop paper to challenge. I welcome that fight with the tress if that's where they decide to go. Anything else, mister chairman?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: No. I really appreciate that. But, coach, unmute yourself if you have a question.

[Kevin “Coach” Christie (Ranking Member)]: Hi, Chris. I really want

[Christopher Louras (Former Mayor of Rutland)]: hear him a

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: little bit.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I can't hear you. We're we're not hearing you. I don't know if your mic's working.

[Kevin “Coach” Christie (Ranking Member)]: Is that better?

[Jennifer Pullman (Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: Oh, I barely hear you.

[Kevin “Coach” Christie (Ranking Member)]: Oh, wow. Got the volume all the way up.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You can hear now. Yeah. Is

[Christopher Louras (Former Mayor of Rutland)]: that better?

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, it's better. Okay.

[Kevin “Coach” Christie (Ranking Member)]: Cranked it up all the way.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: There you go.

[Jennifer Pullman (Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: There we go. There we go.

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: I cranked you up all the way on our end too.

[Kevin “Coach” Christie (Ranking Member)]: Thanks. Chris, thank you so much. You know, my heart's with you, my friend. But I I think, you know, I I have that same feeling as representative Burditt. You know, we'll we'll do what we can and Your testimony. Know, rings true on so many different levels, so, you know, we'll just see what we can do, and we'll have to address those, you constitutional issues, you know, with other witnesses as we move forward with the bill. So I just needed to say that. And thanks again, Chris.

[Christopher Louras (Former Mayor of Rutland)]: I appreciate that. Appreciate that, coach. Thank you so much. And I don't want to leave you guys with a downer. So I will say that. In the world turned upside down, our family. Broadly, the entire Lord of Scam and extended family members in a weird way, including the guy that replaced me as mayor Dave Valaire because we shared Nicholas as a nephew. So just wanna say that our family is strong, stronger than it's ever been. We're really lucky that we're a strong family, including my 92 year old mom, old barn cat who lost her three oldest grandsons, old hill farmer from Mount Holly who is still with it, still engaged. And if I were to call her right now and put her on speakerphone and ask her to speak with representative Burditt so he could explain to her why he's endorsing a knucklehead like Tom Donahue for mayor in the city of Rutland. I think that would be enjoyable to watch.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I don't know if that was appropriate

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: for this. We're not.

[Christopher Louras (Former Mayor of Rutland)]: Just just looking to bring you guys back some levity. I know this was hard for you to listen to. It was hard for me to speak to, and you've got hard work to do. So get your brains back out of emotion and into rational thought, please.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Appreciate you being in. Thank you very much, Chris. Thank you, So we'll turn to Jennifer Coleman, who is joining us by Zoom. Jennifer, thank you for being available this morning.

[Jennifer Pullman (Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: Yes. And thank you, committee. I wish I could be there in person, but I'm trying to figure out that work life balance that people say that I'm supposed to do and my kids are on break. First, I want to Oh, for the record, Jennifer Pullman, Executive Director of Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services. I want to thank Mr. Loris first for speaking and for sharing his experience. As he alluded to, he and I have spoken and I support the considerations he's thinking about. And obviously, that's probably for a different It might be for further conversation, but would want to support that, absolutely and explore where that can go. Turning to six thirteen, I'm not quite sure where to start. So I'm going to start by saying I really appreciate the intention and I understand what has brought this issue forward. I certainly get the desire to increase supports for those experiencing mental health crises and how they may intersect with law enforcement response. So I appreciate the focus on looking at that issue. I listened to the heartbreaking testimony from the Garvey family and it's hard enough to deal with the grief that one experiences with a tragic loss, never mind having to come upon a crime scene that one has to deal with on their own. That being said, the center opposes the majority of the bill. And I don't say that lightly. I'm really disappointed to have to say this because even though we seem to be the most popular entity in this bill, we were not consulted at all. So, I view this bill as a missed opportunity to have actually had constructive conversation with stakeholders that could have potentially gotten us to a different place. Because what this bill proposes would frankly bankrupt our program and goes way outside the bounds of what is feasible. Our concerns start on page two. So I will be an additional downer, but not in the same way as Mr. Loris was. This is just going to be that rational piece. On page two, we are proposing or it's proposed to have a change to the definition of victim under 5,301 subsection four in title 13. That piece speaks to so many different ways in which victims are referred to, are supposed to be provided with rights. And frankly, when I think about the state's attorney's victim advocates caseload impacts them directly. And so I'm not sure since we're thinking about these cases in terms of ones that would not already be crimes, what that does to that definition in terms of their workload and in terms of other ways that we cross reference this definition. This is a solid definition that is in case law. It's cited in Title 28, Title 33. So I really think before we go and change this fundamental definition to victim, we need to really look more deeply at that. As to page three, I'm concerned, especially because it so directly impacts work that we would be expected to do about the definition of officer involved shooting. It says, in the course of discharges their firearm and the performance of their duties. Discharges. There's no statement about what the injury is. If there's an injury, it just says discharges in the course of their duties. So again, that broadens for me right now, and as I read it, broadens what are we looking at in terms of, you know, what the impact on victim advocates is, but also when I get to the compensation program, further muddies the waters. So that is unclear to me. And then we get to the compensation program starting at the bottom of page three. But really more turning to page four. The change to the definition of pecuniary loss starting on lines twelve and thirteen is seriously problematic. First, if there's probable cause, we are covering crime scene cleanup. Property damage, we do not cover unless it's related to a safety issue. So replacement of locks, replacement of if a domestic violence survivor is fleeing and her windshield is smashed, We'll cover that, but we don't cover property damage. So that would in and of itself blow up the fund. As you know, we have a $509,000 deficit projected and we have never covered property damage, just straight out.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Before we go, Barbara has a question.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So Jen, can you clarify in the case of the Garvey family, was cleanup something that would be covered? Like, does the definition preclude people who were killed by law enforcement?

[Jennifer Pullman (Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: No, we only cover crimes. So if there's no probable cause, there was a crime, we So would not cover there's no probable cause at this time that a crime was committed. So opening up in that way would mean. Well, I'm going to get to that, but no, it wasn't that we just said it was coverable. It was that right now we don't have an affidavit of probable cause. So the definition change to pecuniary loss would apply to all of our cases.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Let me back up for just one second. I apologize. I just want to clarify something on this. So an officer involved shooting, months later it's determined that it was manslaughter or there was an affidavit for probable cause, at that point would the fund be able to reimburse somebody for the cost of cleanup or is that already passed?

[Jennifer Pullman (Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: No, we would be able to do that. Keep cases open forever. So if if there were to be who knows what the conclusion of this investigation may be. But if there were, was a finding of probable cause, we could reimburse it.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah, and I'm not talking about any particular investigation. I'm not talking about the current one or just if there is an investigation that leads to probable cause. Okay, thank you.

[Jennifer Pullman (Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: We do work with state police for especially for a while on some cases when there's an ongoing investigation and the minute that they say there's probable cause, then we can step in. So that's pursuant to state law and also federal regulations. But so in terms of changing that definition again, that would in and of itself. Blow the fund up to be quite honest. Turning again,

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: it would do what?

[Jennifer Pullman (Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: The fund would be over. We would have no money. There would be no problem.

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: I thought you said

[Jennifer Pullman (Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: we can't cover all property damage. So that is in and of itself. A problem and again it would have. It probably would have been helpful if we were involved and we could have avoided that, but at this point to completely change it, no other no other state and federal regulations do not cover property damage in the way that this would propose. With respect to I'm going to turn now to the definition of victim on page five, lines 12 through thirteen and eighteen through 19. As mentioned, we're unclear as to what the definition or the meaning of officer involved shooting is, because in this proposed definition it could be somebody that it speaks to discharge of a firearm, and we don't know what that means. So we would need some clarity on that. We would also need clarity as to the definition of a mental health crisis. We have three people who process all the claims in the state, and this would be asking a tremendous amount of them to try and decipher what is meant as the bill is currently written. Again, if there is PC or probable cause, we can cover these expenses, but this bill is opening the door to a whole other level of actions that we don't normally cover if the definitions are nebulous. I do want to turn to lines 17 through 19 on page five. Currently, subsection C exists to be able to allow us to provide support to surviving family members in a homicide.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So before you go ahead, I apologize. If you could back up, go ahead, Zach.

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Thank you, Zachary. Hi, Jen. So before we go into subsection C, I'm wondering if you could comment on subsection B, which is a question that I asked legislative counsel about intervenor. And I'm curious if the network has a working definition or if have an interpretation of what that means, or if you think like other terms in this bill, it deserves further clarification.

[Jennifer Pullman (Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: Thank you very much. I did have that as something to address at the end, but I'll speak to it now. And just remind you, we're not the network, we're the Senator.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Sorry, Senator.

[Jennifer Pullman (Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: But we did go through this, I think last year, because we were concerned that the definition of intervener was overbroad. And we made a change so that it would require physical injury and also included protective professionals. Because what we were getting claims for was somebody who would call 911. I'm thinking of the case, the Red Square Homicide in Burlington. People were present. They called 911. They were seeking coverage as an intervener. That again was not what the original intent was, but we did do an exhaustive search and we asked nationally from our other programs, what does this mean? And there's no actual definition of intervener in the same way. So it's not a good answer, but it's the one that we researched, and I believe Eric Fitzpatrick helped us with this, and we couldn't find anything at the time. This was in the Miscellaneous Judiciary Bill.

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Thank you very much. Apologies for the mix up. I'm still in budget mode. So going in between witnesses.

[Jennifer Pullman (Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: Aren't we all?

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: I know. Thank you.

[Jennifer Pullman (Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: Back to subsection C. This would again change the structure that we have in a significant way because the intent was to support surviving family members of a homicide. Again, looking back to the definition of, or unclear definition of what an officer involved shooting is, that would require us to provide support to all family members in this regard. Under victim's compensation, every family member in a homicide has a right to their own claim. That's a claim of up to $10,000 Not knowing what the implications of that definition are, that's a real challenge for our program. So generally, we have the same concerns with that definition as it impacts the rest of our statutes. I will just turn to the positions that began on page nine.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Before you go ahead, Zach, go ahead.

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Thanks, Chair. Ken, I just wanted to double click on subsection C and kind of the scope and how broad that definition is. So it'd be your interpretation that extending beyond, so any other survivor who may suffer severe emotional harm on line 20, could that be friends of the victim? Could be acquaintances, relationships, domestic partners?

[Jennifer Pullman (Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: Domestic partners are included. There's a specific definition for those. As far as other survivor, we take those to the board. Generally, what comes under other survivor is, for example, a stepchild who might petition for their own claim. We always take those to the board. So we don't make those determinations on our own. If you don't fit into these categories, then we bring those cases to the board and the board, which is appointed by the governor, they make that final decision. So it's a little bit more, again, case by case sometimes. We have people bringing forward a claim because they're extremely close and they have a documented relationship with the person. We're just not saying, well, just everybody. We are taking those considerations to the board.

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Okay. So it seems like there's more of a checks and balances as far as that goes in terms of just being litigious for the sake of getting the $10,000

[Jennifer Pullman (Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: No. We're very careful with our fund.

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Yeah. Well, no. And I know you are. I know you're very good stewards of these sources, but I I just wanna make sure that there's some kind of protection there.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So before you I assume you're moving on to victim guardians.

[Jennifer Pullman (Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: That was the plan, but I'm happy to take any questions.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Well, so I guess I wanted to get your feedback on a general concept which may or may not involve a victim's compensation fund. So one of the things I'm concerned about and would like to explore if there is something that can be done is is where there's an officer involved shooting, whether it was justified or not, that there is seed of the shooting. And whether the There seems to be a gap. If it's a homicide and you have probable cause right off the bat, you're there to help individuals clean up the situation, clean up the scene. But if it's an officer involved shooting, that cleanup is gonna occur way in advance of a determination of if there is probable cause or not. Just going right to it. But my view is that if there's been an officer involved shooting, the state, and I'll say more broadly, the state should be responsible for cleaning up the scene. Just like if there's an auto accident, the state actually cleans up the scene there if there's a crash and fatalities. And that's not necessarily though in my mind would be coming from the Victims Compensation Fund because it's kind of a separate gap that I think is there. And I think there should be some responsibility. Am I right that that's not necessarily I mean, it wouldn't necessarily fit into the Victims Compensation Fund. It might be an other avenue that can be explored.

[Jennifer Pullman (Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: It's almost like you read my mind because this has been an ongoing issue for us even with the Victims Compensation Fund because the fund is utilized for crime scene cleanup. It's not unusual for there to be a victim's compensation claim that maxes out to clean up after the law enforcement response, which means that there are no other dollars available to support medical expenses, mental health expenses. We've had claims, and this goes to a question representative Harvey had mentioned earlier about that $20,000 We've had cleanup go to $30,000 for one particular scene, and we had to ask for a special clearance from the board to go over the cap, but that was all that that victim had for their claim. Because there had been a particular response that was not taken on as the responsibility of the state. And so the victim bore those costs. So I don't think it's a I wouldn't say it's a general it's a gap per se. I think it's an issue because we shouldn't be using the compensation fund that victim has $10,000 In all cases, not in all cases, is it a crime scene cleanup that would warrant the victim to have to pay for it, and the state should bear the burden. So I think it's more of an issue than a gap.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. And I guess I'm seeing where the gap is possibly is with respect to officer involved shootings. And I shouldn't call it a crime scene because it's not necessarily crime scene. The scene of that incident That it seems to be a separate obligation to me if there's gonna be some period of time before we really find out if there was a crime, if there was probable cause. And most often it is not. I trust our law enforcement officers historically have had their use of force justified. It's not even, it's looking at any kind of officer involved shooting. And and it's a little bit separate than if it's not officer involved. I understand that that separate issue, but it's also an issue what you just explained as far as in those instances, it is a crime scene cleanup. And presumably, that can be done with funds from the restitution fund. And that's a separate challenge. I understand that that's a separate challenge. I guess it just seems a little bit Those are two separate issues, seems to me.

[Jennifer Pullman (Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: No, I see them as parallel and adjacent, but I do agree with you that there that is a gap that should be addressed.

[Christopher Louras (Former Mayor of Rutland)]: Yeah. Most of the most of

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: the times that those officer involved shootings, you're not gonna get to the point where there's probable cause. Mhmm. Because most of the time, they are justified. So so it would never really be in the realm of something that would be paid by the restitution fund. So I think it is somewhat separate. Any event, I just want to put that idea out there for you, and we'll ask other witnesses about it as well.

[Jennifer Pullman (Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: I do agree. I do agree. I don't think any any family member should have to walk into what has been described. And I do think that the state bears that burden. I do agree.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Okay. I'm victim's guardians.

[Jennifer Pullman (Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: I like the idea that there's money available. This is not a request again from us. I don't understand the positions and I have a lot of concern, some of which has been mentioned a little bit earlier. To say that somebody has independent authority doesn't give them independent authority. I was a part of the development of the Office of Child Youth and Family Advocate, and there was a lot of work that went into establishing what the powers and authority of that agency is. And I'm concerned about just creating another position that potentially has promise, but really can't deliver because this office has no powers. This position would have no powers. There are HIPAA issues. I really don't understand the purpose, and what this position could actually do. So we do not support these positions.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Would the positions be placed in the center?

[Jennifer Pullman (Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: Apparently, I don't know. Well,

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: my next question is, did anybody contact you and ask you about adding any positions to the center?

[Jennifer Pullman (Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: We have not been contacted about any of this bill at all.

[Christopher Louras (Former Mayor of Rutland)]: Okay. So

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: My fear is,

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: and and I've seen it done before, and and this bill is that obviously got a lot of lot of money attached to it. My fear is is that positions like that are gonna be left in here, but there's gonna be no funding for it. It wouldn't be the first time.

[Jennifer Pullman (Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: Well, we don't have the capacity to take on any unfunded positions.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Right, right.

[Jennifer Pullman (Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: Certainly don't want to take on a position that, again, presents itself as being able to provide options for victims when it really won't be able to do anything. I coordinate, you know, I take calls from victims and survivors all the time and I do my best, and I don't understand how this position would be any different than what me and my staff are already trying to do.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Right. And the way I've seen it happen, and I'm sure you've seen similar things happen, is like a committee like ours will put the money in there, then it'll go to appropriations and they'll leave the bill intact and pull the money.

[Jennifer Pullman (Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: I have other ideas for the money, but I'm not asking for

[Christopher Louras (Former Mayor of Rutland)]: money today.

[Jennifer Pullman (Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: These positions are ones that I don't understand, and I don't want to give victims yet one more person. Now you have a guardian and you had an advocate and you had this person, if the person can't deliver. And there's no actual promise of anything that could be done in a realistic way through the language as I see it with this position.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So I asked Michelle earlier, maybe you're not able to point on this, and you mentioned it a little bit as far as independence of victim advocates. It's my understanding that still have an obligation to pass on to prosecutors information that might be relevant under the Brady standard that would have to be turned over to defense counsel. So my understanding is victim advocates really aren't independent of the criminal investigation. You know, they have to turn over the information. Is that, am I correct in that understanding?

[Jennifer Pullman (Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: Yes. And simply by housing somebody with us who would be, I guess, a guardian, we still are a state agency and we still are subject to public records requests. So there's nothing inherent in what this person, again, I understand it in the language that's here, could do that would protect that information either.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Right. You'd still have to pass over exculpatory or inculpatory information to prosecutor than to defense counsel. Okay, thank you. Got a question for Jen. Yeah.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: So officer involved shooting turns out totally justified. The way I look at it at that point, the officer is the victim. Would they qualify for any of your services? I know the police departments had mental health services for themselves. I don't know if it's state, if it's for the third department thing, would they qualify for any of your services? Because at that point, to me, they're a victim.

[Jennifer Pullman (Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: We have, so this is a little bit complicated.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: That was my guess.

[Jennifer Pullman (Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: In terms of, first responders, they absolutely are eligible if there's, an injury. And if there's an a separate affidavit that they're a victim of crime, yes, absolutely. If they're an intervener, yes. Is it

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: a physical injury?

[Jennifer Pullman (Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: It's physical, but that's broad. We have provided coverage, for example, first responder who provided CPR and some support for someone who was bleeding and they were worried about exposure to disease and we did provide coverage and support for that person. That's a case that comes to mind. So there are different examples in terms of how we've supported first responders as interveners. We can do it in two ways, but those are only two ways we can do that. Either an affidavit that they're a victim or intervening and experiencing injury. But again, as with all things, if a case comes before us and I can think about where your wheels are turning, Representative Burditt, if somebody suffered emotional injury and they were to apply, that's still something we can take to the board. So it's completely foreclosed.

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

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Thanks, Jen, for being here. And maybe you're getting to this, so I apologize if I'm pushing forward. But I'm curious, I really appreciate your perspective on bills like this with the voice of victims and survivors. So it's helpful to hear that you're like, okay, this is not the fit, but it's bringing up likely important conversation. So I'm curious if there are any viable threads of this bill that we should continue to work with, whether it's this session or a future session. Like, what are the pieces of this that we should be looking at? Because I'm picking up that maybe this is not the vehicle, but how do we keep it going?

[Jennifer Pullman (Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: Well, I do think that the training components are important to look at. Great first step. And so, those pieces I would want to keep. I do think, it's really an important conversation and it's unfortunate it didn't happen before this was introduced because I do think it was a missed opportunity. I'm happy to engage with people because I do see this as a very big gap. I don't think families should be put in this position. And so I want to be a part of the solution. It's just unfortunate that it left the the horse, left the barn a little too soon. And so if there's a way to continue the conversation and that feels like something that you want to direct, I just I would like to be involved in that.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Hey. Did you, did you wanna weigh in on any of the additional sections?

[Jennifer Pullman (Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: Think I'm good at this point. Y'all have heard a bunch from me. And again, I'm sorry that I don't have anything more constructive to offer other than the fact that I do want to be a part of the conversation, and it's unfortunate that we were not a part.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Okay, one more

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: question, One last one for you, Jen. On the trainings, do you have a sense of who you think would be the appropriate agency or department to conduct those? Not to put you on the spot, if you, I mean, you can, we can talk offline if you'd like.

[Jennifer Pullman (Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services)]: I do think that, some of what Mr. Loris did bring up as far as, concerns with the MH. I do think it's worth having somebody a little bit more objective and neutral. I always feel like when we put on trainings that people respond more to somebody who doesn't have a piece of the pie and is a little bit outside of that space. I do like that direction.

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: I think that makes a lot of sense. And I also just want to express my disappointment too, that you weren't consulted in this field. I think that's a really a a shame and a missed opportunity for the sponsors in whoever brought this.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Alright. So we're gonna turn to training and use of force next with our next two witnesses, but I think we probably need a ten minute break. So we'll start at Nine.