Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Judiciary committee this Friday morning, March twenty seventh, we're looking continuing our review of the amendment to h nine thirty seven by representative McGuire. Brought this a couple days ago. It's an amendment to a miscellaneous bill. I've been working with Eric and Michelle and Ian and Angela have helped out some as well to try to come up with something that we can move forward with, given given the input that we received when when we first looked at the draft from representative Gwyer. He would be in here right now, but he has a bill that he has to report. We've been given leave of the house to be voted off the floor to take up some testimony on H nine thirty seven's amendment. But we'll start with a walk through. Michelle, thank you for being here. And thank you for all your work over the last twenty four hours from this.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No problem at all. So for the record, Michelle Childs, Office of Legislative Counsel. And everybody should have a copy of draft 3.1 of the Maguire amendment. So I'm going to just give you a brief walk through since I know you really want to hear from your witnesses about what they think about it. So it's adding 10 new sections to miscellaneous judiciary. It's all session long, so nothing is being put in statute. There's a lot of similarities to the earlier version, and one of them being that it's just for a two year period. So then there's a repeal. So that's all the same, and that's why it's in session law. So Section 31, our findings. I don't think I necessarily need to walk you through there unless you want me to, but you can read those yourself. Michelle, can you walk through them? Sure. No worries. Subdivision 1 is at the Pilot Accountability Court in Chittenden County, which was referred to as the Pilot Accountability Court, was a project proposed by the governor and implemented by the judiciary in collaboration with the various stakeholders. Subdivision two is that the docket helped clear a backlog of repeat offender criminal cases involving individuals with five or more open charges, many of whom were unhoused and struggling with mental health and perhaps substance misuse issues. And the docket brought together judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and human services staff to resolve cases faster and connect those individuals with services that could be helpful to them. Subdivision three at the bottom of page one, the docket achieved a clearance rate of approximately 300% or roughly three times the judiciary's typical clearance rates. Moving on to page two, subdivision four. More importantly, repeat offenders were held accountable to the court for complying with conditions of release with orders to connect with service providers and appearing for scheduled court hearings. And subdivision five is that each county that determines that employing a proportional model of a rapid accountability docket that takes into account the unique needs and resources of the county should have the opportunity to operate such a docket.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Yeah, thank you. Sure.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So Section 32, this is new. This is not something that was contained in the earlier versions. And this is kind of stating the purposes of a rapid accountability docket. So you'll see there stating the goals of these dockets. So subdivision one is accelerating court proceedings for repeat offender cases by ensuring consistent and timely availability of judicial resources. Subdivision 1B is dedicated prosecutorial and defense resources, C is the availability of resources from DOC and AHS. And D is sufficient transport services for detained individuals. Next, subdivision two, the next purpose is connecting individuals with treatment, housing, and social services to reduce the circumstances that might be contributing to recidivism. Three is reducing the number of pending criminal cases that involve individuals with multiple dockets by providing targeted resources for a limited amount of time to improve the overall efficiency of the courts and utilize the known deterrent effect of consequences that are close in time to the alleged offense. Four is improving accountability for individuals with multiple pending legal cases by providing immediate follow-up and a court schedule that is more responsive to their needs. And five is improving collaboration among law enforcement prosecutors and social workers to provide a faster resolution in repeat offender cases. So those are the goals. And you'll see in the following sections, there'll be some references to those purposes. So section 33 is county deployment strategy. So here, the executive director of DSAS, in consultation with the chief superior judge, the defendant federal and the Secretary of AHS are to identify the order in which the counties are to employ a Rapid Accountability Docket. And then at least thirty days prior to one of those dockets starting in a county, the state's attorney in that county would convene all the stakeholders together to assess the needs and resources within that particular county to develop a plan to implement an accountability docket in accordance with the goals that we just went through. So the goals here were to provide somewhat of a structure and facilitate these, but provide some flexibility for each county to be looking at what they have available, how many people are eligible for this type of docket, and for the local folks to be determining really what do they need and what should it look like in that particular county, because every county is likely to be a little bit different. So section 34, we're at the bottom of page three, is the dedicated court space and judiciary staff. The chief superior judge is to assign a sitting retired judge to each rapid accountability docket and provide a dedicated courtroom and administrative staff to implement the plan for each county. Page four at the top, subsection B. Each operating period is to last up to ninety days, but can be shorter if the goals of the docket are reached earlier, as determined by the state's attorney, in consultation with the judge and the public defender. And each docket is to give priority to defendants with five or more pending cases, but the state's attorney or the public defender can request to include other defendants with fewer than five pending cases where faster action would serve the interest of justice. So it's going to be focused on that. But if they find that they have room for and it will help to be addressing some other individuals, then they can include those. Section 35 is dedicated prosecutor and lead public defender. Subsection A is that the governor in consultation with the respective state attorney and executive director of DSAS can appoint a special prosecutor, or the state's attorney of the particular county can appoint a designated deputy state's attorney to serve the docket. Subsection B is to the extent resources allow. DSAS is to ensure victim advocates and administrative staff are available to support victims and efficient operation of the prosecutor. I don't like the way that's phrased, but I might change

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member, House Judiciary Committee)]: that, Sarah.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Right?

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Subsection C, line 18, as the DG is to identify a lead public defender for each of the Maybe

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: I'm missing the supplemental messaging, but why would you change that language?

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: To support victims and the efficient operation of the prosecutor.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Why does that need

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to be changed? It it just kind of sounds like it's the particular person, the efficiency of that particular person. I think it's more of the process or the prosecution instead of the prosecutor.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Okay. It just seemed that there was an understanding that I was missing. We can have a ask Kenneth Madison just weigh in on that page as well.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Subsection C, as I mentioned, the Defender General has to devote resources. Page five, Section 36, Executive Branch Resources, is the governors to ensure adequate resources from the various agencies that have a part in this program, recognizing that each county will have different needs. And then you have a list there. And I think these are the same as what was in the earlier drafts. DOC is to assign a liaison to each docket, DSAS, local law enforcement, DMV, DPS and DOC In collaboration with the sheriff's office are to ensure timely transports. Secretary of AHS is to assign staff to each docket to address the complex needs of certain defendants. Subsection B, the governor in consultation with the Secretary of AHS, DSAS, and the Chief Prevention Officer are to designate a rapid accountability docket coordinator to track the data and assist with deployment of resources. The docket coordinator is to identify best practices and monitor the data during and beyond the initial implementation period to ensure that information is maintained and distributed to evaluate the program efficiency of the programs. Then you'll see next in Section 37 are the requirements around data collection, and that's going to be kind of collected and reported by the docket coordinator. So you see starting on line seven, it's the number of defendants served, the number of cases resolved and types of outcomes, the number of defendants connected to services and the types of those services, the number of times each defendant appeared in court for the docket, the number of probation or furlough violations of the defendant's sentence through the docket within six and twelve months. And so that's not about things that are before the court on the docket. But if they're sentenced to a term of probation, they're tracking once they've been sentenced, then how many times are there probation or furlough violations in a six or twelve month review. And six is the number of defendants charged with a new offense within six or twelve months and the types of offenses. Where

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: did this language come from, Section 37?

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It originally in Representative Maguire's proposal, and there were some recommendations for a couple of additions that came from DSAS.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: And were all of these captured in the Chittenden County accountability board?

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't I don't know if have

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: access to Not that's what we said.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So section 38, reporting requirements. So subsection a is that DSAS, Defender General, AHS and the judiciary are to appear before the Justice Oversight Committee this summer at its August meeting and give a little update, report progress, say how things are going. Then moving on to page seven, subsection B is that on or before December 1, the docket coordinator is to submit a written report regarding the implementation of the rapid accountability dockets as of that time. And they're just submit that to the House and Senate committees on judiciary as well as the governor. Section 39, something you've probably seen in some other bills, which is the duty to implement is contingent upon the availability of funds that are appropriated in 2027. And Section 40 is your repeal of all of those sections as of 07/01/2028. So it's a two year program.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge, Vermont Judiciary)]: Actually, I have a question if they actually be for Trevor Swirl.

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: For who?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Who happens to be here? So I just had a question for you that I just caught now. This is on our section 39 contingency funding, says the duty to implement the sections of this act is contingent upon the availability of funds appropriated in fiscal year twenty twenty seven. Would that include the BAA funds? Or do we need different language to make sure that includes the BAA? Okay. Alright. Alright. So we will make that change. I understand now that's where the funds are for the funds. It's not the funds of this project currently, that's where it is. So you can figure

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: out the language on this.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Any other questions? Any questions from the child? That's any questions? Are you prepared to to I'll have the judge join us. And, Terry, please? Yeah. Please. Judge and Terry, you have

[Teri Corsones (State Court Administrator, Vermont Judiciary)]: Who was the

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: working group again for this? It was Angela,

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge, Vermont Judiciary)]: Ian, and you primarily. Good morning. I'm the Chief Superior Judge.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Yeah, yeah, and actually Thomas as well.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge, Vermont Judiciary)]: I've had a chance to look at this. I know Terry has some comments also that she can offer. On page three, section 33 talks about the county deployment strategy. As currently worded, has essentially the executive director of the Department of State's attorneys deciding where the court, the docket will be held. Decisions as to what courts are going to hold what dockets should rest with the judiciary. And so I would suggest that this say that on line 11 shall recommend to the judiciary the counties, shall recommend to the judiciary the order in which the counties should employ a rapid accountability docket. I would note as a practical matter, those are discussions that we've had. And so that's something that I have full confidence we will be able to reach agreement even if the court making that decision. Section 34, it should on line 20 where it says, Each rapid accountability docket should say, and the Supreme Court administrator shall provide a dedicated courtroom. Instead of administrative staff, it should say court staff and secured, which is what would be needed. On the following page, page four, tops lines one through seven, talks about ninety days, but maybe shorter if the state's attorney in consultation with the judge and the public defender, it should be as determined by the judiciary in consultation with the state's attorney and public defender. The court should be in charge of deciding how long the docket's run with that input. Beyond that, I think, Terry, may have had some comments on some matters.

[Teri Corsones (State Court Administrator, Vermont Judiciary)]: No, think that you did pop into comments, and I was I was trying to say, but really appreciate the responses to the concerns that were raised in the Kutzius testing on the end, especially the was done.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member, House Judiciary Committee)]: Just to clarify, I think on 1.2 of page four, Judge Zioni said that it should be as determined by,

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

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member, House Judiciary Committee)]: you suggest the chief superior judge and the state's attorney?

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge, Vermont Judiciary)]: Maybe shorter. If the goals are met as determined via, could be by the judiciary in consultation with the essay and public defender that allows, that would bring in, if you will, Terry, myself, and the judge as a policy decision. If you want it just to be the judge, whoever's sitting there to make that decision, but it should be made by the judiciary representative.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Any questions? No other questions for the judge. So if we can hear from Department of State's attorneys, if you're ready to weigh in. Good

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: morning.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Good morning, Kim.

[Kim McManus (Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: For the record, Kim McManus, Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs, you for the rapid work that's been done. This draft really seems to balance the need for this to be county focused, while providing some structure and some goals that we want to see in every county, being able to rightsize to the county. Our department, quick read from our executive director's office, we support this amendment. We absolutely hear the judiciary's concerns that were just raised. As long as we're in consultation with the decisions, I think we would be fine. I'm sure our state's attorneys would be happy to be the ones making all those decisions, but we would understand that that might not be quite the right process. But we would leave that to you all to decide. The question raised, Representative Harvey, about reporting. Do you want me to address one question?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Before you get to that comment, on page four of line sixteen seventeen, We just and a sufficient operation of the kaizo but it could weigh in a minute. That's needed. It needs to be changed. It doesn't seem

[Kim McManus (Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: When we read it, we understood the objective there. I think it could be reworded to the efficient operation of the

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Prosecutor? I

[Kim McManus (Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: mean, that's fine. We had no the prosecution. I mean, we had no issue. That didn't jump out at us. I can understand while reading out loud why Michelle paused, but it wouldn't impact how we would be staffing this. I'm sorry, representative Harvey, did you want me to note that Well, I will note it, because it's of interest to us. We had a lot of data that was captured during the pilot program, and that was spearheaded by Zach Waite, the special prosecutor, who did such a wonderful job with that and he has that brain. Very much, as I mentioned yesterday, we like the idea of having one person tracking this data throughout and not having it be prosecutor led. And we very much like the idea of tracking the data after the fact. We want to know the impact of that. And again, having that in real time as this is moving around counties, but then looking back at the counties where it's been. So we had suggested some of those additions to the tracking data, and we appreciate those being added. But we are in support of this amendment.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Questions for Not seeing any. If we could be joined by Jay Johnson. Thank you.

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: Thank you for having me this morning.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you being available. Sure.

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: Again, Jay Perchin, Johnson, Gender Stratzinger Council. So I do have, and I did get some feedback from our AHS partners in the short room in Rutland County, which indicates to me the issues with the very short timeframe, and we don't have to go into those today. But I think it informs my comments to the draft, which will actually Are that having a system where the judiciary decides county by county, what the structure will look like, and then every other party is expected to adapt to that schedule. It's not necessarily an efficient or particularly productive use of resources. So say for example, in Rutland County, when you have a very high need, a population that needs a high touch approach, similar to what we had in Chittenden County, one day a week is basically a schedule where maybe the human services folks will have one contact with an individual. Because the focus, given the short timeframe, is on moving cases. And they are doing what they can and adapting aggressively to the short timeframe, but there's only so many days and hours devoted to this. And there's only so much that they can do in terms of ensuring appropriate contact with the defendants. So there is that practical reality, and it likely will move some cases faster. But it's not at all clear that with a high needs service resistant population, like they have in Rutland, actually, Rutland has also actually been using bail as a tool. Another factor that feeds into this is Chittenden had not been using bail as a tool, and actually was an incentive for a lot of people to actually, if you were leased into the community and you weren't succeeding there, bail would be imposed, you would move into the facility. Here, you have a population that apparently bail is not much of an incentive. So they're trying to adapt to the reality of the shorter timeframe and some other things. Another thing would be the shorter timeframe necessitated the starting with individuals in the DOC facilities. In Chittenden, they started with individuals in the community, and it was much more effectively, the human services folks could much more effectively address the needs with the tools they had. So we are doing what we can, but I guess my larger point is it's not sustainable. So to the extent you create this in a way that leaves the discretion of the court to create what the docket looks like. And I completely appreciate the point that judge Zonay made about the need for the judiciary to make those determinations. But I can't commit the resources of the executive branch to a system that is not going to be reliably sort of constructed in any particular county, with the expectation that all of those executive branch resources will be brought to bear regardless of what the court looks like. I mean, that's the problem. That's the issue we're grappling with. So I can give you my comments to the draft, and I do really appreciate it. I think that the work that was done was great. I think that you've made a real effort to I'd like the findings are generally pretty similar. On page two, line four, I would say that proportional is not a good word. I would say replicable, because proportional can mean a whole lot of different things to different people. So line four? Yes. Proportional is maybe what some people see we did in Rutland, but it because there are fewer cases. But I think that proportional is not a realistic or appropriate measure of what is needed in Rutland County. Then employing a replicable model of a rapid accountability court that addresses the unique needs and resources of the county. Because that was really the point of bringing the executive branch resources to bear. We address the weaknesses in those counties. So it takes into account, I guess, potato potato, It's your your call. I would then we get to the docket, the purpose, which I also really appreciated, and I think you did a great job on that. So thank you for that. I would say in line 17, number two, connecting individuals with treatment, housing and social services to appropriately address the circumstances that may contribute to recidivism. Cause again, I think the point of this whole exercise is to address those problems, not simply, I mean, again, maybe potato, potato in the end, you're reducing the circumstances. But I think what we're trying to get at is addressing the underlying circumstances that contribute to recidivism. Then in the last line there, 20, I think I would remove by providing targeted resources. Would remove for a limited period of time. While this is definitely a surge of resources, the goal is to end up with sentences that actually are much longer term. They're getting people into appropriate treatment resources, and then recovery resources, and potentially something like recovery housing. Those were the kinds of things that were being lined up longer term for the individuals in Chittenden, and I think could be in other counties as well. So then on page three, to continue there with that same sentence, to improve the overall efficiency of the courts, I would say, and the criminal justice system, or something to that effect. Because while the overall efficiency of the courts is critical, the backlog and the efficiency of the courts is so relevant to the ability of every other stakeholder in the criminal justice system to do their jobs well. So as the backlog increases, and each state's attorney has over 300 cases, and each defender has over 200 cases, I mean, etcetera, etcetera. Right? So it's really, to the extent you can improve the efficiency of the courts, you can absolutely improve the efficiency of the other stakeholders.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: I think changing that to criminal justice system instead of courts makes a lot of sense. Yep.

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: Okay. Then you have the number four. I mean, this seem minor, but I mean, to me, have some relevancy to what we're trying to do. In line four, improving accountability for individuals with multiple pending legal cases by providing immediate follow-up and a court schedule that is responsive to their needs. I would take out more responsive to their needs because, I mean, I take out more because what's happening now is not responsive to their needs. Something slightly better is more responsive to their needs. What we're trying to do is be responsive to their needs is the significance I would attach to the word more. I would also, on line six, number five, say, improving collaboration among the courts, law enforcement, prosecutors, and social workers to provide faster resolution of repeat offender cases. The court here is absolutely essential to the success of these outcomes. So I think to the extent the court is working with these stakeholders in the courtroom, that's how you're getting your better results. So the county deployment strategy, I really liked. I could have anticipated the judiciary's response, and I get that. But what's key about it, finding a path forward, I think in this section, is the plan that's referred to in section 34 on line 21. These stakeholders all come together to come up with, and I would say, I would delete in line 11, I would delete the order in which the counties So I don't think it's the order so much as the counties. So shall I identify the counties? It won't be every county. Like the idea that was discussed yesterday about, well, how are we going to do Essex County? I mean, are some counties that they're not even asking for it and don't think that it's appropriate. So I think those kinds of red herring got tossed around a little yesterday, and I don't think that that is an issue so much. But if you have a process for identifying which counties, and that's why I said So what I would say is, child identify the counties seeking to employ a rapid accountability docket? So essentially, you have this little body of deciders who talking to who are hearing the outreach from the counties. Typically, would imagine the governor's office hears it first. But to the extent the court hears it, that, you know, this is a good group for deciding which counties are appropriate and in what order, but that is something, you know, with respect to preparation, and that will be an ongoing conversation probably, to see sort of a within thirty days, because then you say, at least thirty days before a court starts, the state's attorney shall convene the stakeholders to assess needs. I think there has to be some assessment of needs prior to that time, but there has to be some at least thirty days prior preparation for the board. And that's where So I do really like this idea of a multi stakeholder decider group, but developing a so called plan. And that's not used in 'thirty three, but I like how it's used in 'thirty four. That wording to me and parity across the branches will be very important. So if the judiciary is responsible for development of the plan, and the plan is to have court one day a week plus every other week, that then is what everything keys off of. So the judiciary decides how many people are necessary to implement the plan, but you you can't have you can't expect the executive branch. And I guess I'm really looking at 36 on page five. Or should I read?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Yeah, I'm trying to get I'm not entirely sound.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member, House Judiciary Committee)]: Okay. Go

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: ahead and answer your feedback.

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: Do you understand what I'm saying?

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member, House Judiciary Committee)]: I I'm Can you point to where you see in here that it's saying that the judiciary develops the plan?

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: Oh, I'm just sorry. Sorry. To the extent the judiciary had that edit in their comments before

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: I think that that was just regarding the counties and the order.

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: I think it was just about assigning

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member, House Judiciary Committee)]: the judge. I don't see anywhere in here that says the judiciary comes up with a plan. I see that it's the online 13 and page three, the state's attorney in each respective county shall convene stakeholders in the county to assess needs and resources within the county

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: to develop a plan. Really the local stakeholders. Yeah, If we can develop language that the judiciary can agree to, that would be great. And so I think that needs some clarity.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: So let me, I guess, alright, well, I'm not sure, I'm still not following, because I think it's the first sentence that we're talking about the judiciary being, they're making a decision of the order and and perhaps also which counties are gonna be involved. Mhmm. That's that's where the judiciary is is the decider there. Okay. And it's that group is in the second sentence headed by the state's attorney or convened by the state's attorney that's going to come up with a plan.

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: Well, again, if this means that this this thirty day group decides the appropriate number of days in the courtroom that would be and and this group decides or somebody is designating the judge. Right? In 34, the judge is is is assigned to implement the plan. If the thirty day group here is developing a plan that determines that four days a week is appropriate, or that say, five days a week is appropriate for the first month and a half, and then the next month and a half is three days a week. If that is something the judiciary can agree to, I would love language that says that, and that would give us a great basis for moving forward. So that's my question for the judiciary. But that is kind of what I would be looking for, some parity of what that means in terms of allocating resources. Because we are prepared to step up and do this five days a week, because there's a model that works. We are hearing that that is not appropriate in other counties, that remains to be seen. But I do think that to the extent that the judiciary is gonna be calling the shots on without reference to effectiveness of the input of the executive branch, then we also need to have some say in whether it's sustainable to participate in whatever it is they've come up with. You see what I'm saying there?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: I see what you're saying. I'm not sure I necessarily agree with it, but but I I understand.

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: So you're thinking that whatever so like Rutland, one day a week, every other Tuesday, three half hours a week. That is something that our human services folks are saying, We're working on it. We don't think one touch is going to be effective for this population, but we are throwing everything we have at it, right? So it's gonna cost a tremendous amount of money. It's requiring all kinds of staff at AHS to jump through hoops. But we don't have anything to say about the structure of the court. All we have to do is show up and try and bend over backwards to effectuate the services piece. Is that the expectation of the committee?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: No, no, my expectation is that if this group gets together and they say that it's five days a week, for that period of time, that that's what the court is going to have to do under Section 34. Correct. And that's the intent of this. And there's also an important check back to the joint justice oversight, which comes later, to make sure that this is in fact happening that way. Great.

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: That is perfect.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: I just don't think it's needed. And we have the check back to make sure that so.

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: I just want to clarity with the analyst.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk, House Judiciary Committee)]: I'm wondering, it seems like the governor wants to see outcomes. And so in a way, having the ability to say, we don't have to be involved in every minor decision, but we're holding you to producing these outcomes. That's what we're investing in and making sure that there's a tie between outcomes that the governor is expecting. It's almost like the governor is contracting this group to do work that will deliver the outcomes that happened in Chittenden County, or even better, and making the tie into that rather than the everyday minutiae. And I like what Martin just said, but I'm just wondering again, if people went off and started doing different things, it's like, wait a minute, that's not what we paid you for, or this isn't working. We're not gonna keep doing this. What's going on here? Yeah, right. But I mean, I'm not sure exactly. If

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: you're thinking about the two branch effort, we do have to collaborate if we want the kinds of outcomes that we would like to see. And that's the key there, I think. And I guess the question is, is that possible from a drafting perspective? And maybe it is. I mean, I completely agree with what the chair just said. That should be exactly what we're expecting.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: That's the anticipation. I mean, it's for the goals. And it goes with respect to the executive branch resources, prosecutorial and defendant- So that's, that's why I

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: have some few minutes that follow along those lines. So to the extent that the court is, I would just then say

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Which page are you gonna just

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: Right now I'm on page three still. Fine, the court administrator and court staff and security to implement the plan for the respective county. I think that's important language to be applied to every other stakeholder. So we're not there yet, but what comes up first is the ninety day period. Each operating period shall last up to ninety days. I don't think you need the but maybe shorter because up to ninety days is zero to 90. But you can leave it whatever you want.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Make sure that it's not like ten days or something. It's better if you've achieved your goals, then it could be shorter.

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: So I would say each operating period shall last up to 90 as needed to meet the goals of the Rapid Accountability Docket, as determined by. And the thing about the Chittenden Docket was, it was very often the judge in consultation with the prosecutor and the public defender. They had a lot of time to develop really good working relationships. So I have a lot of confidence that that could work in that setting. So that was my only suggestion there. And then, so is the first time that this plan concept comes up. So in B, 35B, which is line 14 on page four, I would say, again, to the extent resources allow, think I would take that language out, because you have that language at the end. So it would say, the executive director of the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs and the State's Attorneys shall dedicate rather than ensure, because there is no assurance by the courts, shall dedicate victim advocates and administrative staff sufficient to implement the plan for the respective county. And that takes out the problematic language about victims and efficient operation because we know what they do. They support advocates. I mean, they support victims, and they support the operation of the prosecutor. So I guess I would just have that say, dedicate victim advocates and administrative staff sufficient to implement the plan for the respective county. And to the extent you have a working group deciding together what that looks like, should have, people should be agreeable to the And if you can't work it out in the thirty day group,

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk, House Judiciary Committee)]: you can't work it out. That's another, I think, sort of

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: test of how well we can work together to make these things work. And then the same thing for C, line 18, same sort of test. Or some line 19, accountability court docket and coverage sufficient to implement the plan for the respective County. Then executive branch resources. Similarly, I would say the governor shall dedicate resources from all these sources, sufficient to meet Sorry, sufficient to implement the plan for the respective county. And then I would take out all of those specifics because

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: So tell me exactly what the where on the line? Or where

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: Oh, so in sorry. Line two, it would say the governor shall dedicate. And then you would delete the language on line five, starting with r at the very, very end. And then delete lines six and seven, and simply insert sufficient to implement the plan for the respective county. And then delete eight through 16, because that's really up to the governor to determine sufficient to implement the plan.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge, Vermont Judiciary)]: Mister chair. Yeah. Go ahead.

[Unknown Committee Member (House Judiciary Committee)]: This just led right into what I was thinking. Is there is there gonna be a lot of time spent setting up this plan, but very time very little time to implement this plan with with, like it was five days a week up there, and now it's very little time, and to actually do the actual work in setting up the necessary people we need and all that stuff. It seems like that's wasting a lot of time.

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: Well, I think that if the thirty days is appropriate, if you get it started, if you get those conversations rolling, and I think some of them are rolling, is sufficient, and if you're working with the group of stakeholders identified in this bill. So you have AHS at the table, working with the court and the prosecutor and the Defender General on what that next court is gonna look like. So I think that they have to, it seems to me, and that's again, why I think it needs some clarity, they would have to agree on the plan. And to the extent AHS say could not agree, that it would be feasible to participate on a certain kind of schedule in a particular county, well then they would be part of that conversation. And I think thirty days is fine because what follows is the court itself is ninety days, up to ninety days.

[Unknown Committee Member (House Judiciary Committee)]: So just to be clear in my head, are too many entities involved in this already to get things done?

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: I you need these entities at the table. So when Rutland was established and we kept hearing about the stakeholder group, I don't know that the, I mean, our office was never involved except for one time, and we were told what the plan was. So I don't I think that as this moves forward, some greater collaboration, like we had in Chittenden County would be helpful, more productive in my mind.

[Unknown Committee Member (House Judiciary Committee)]: So just to finish up on my way of thinking, the executive branch has to be I mean, you're sending all sorts of resources, taxpayers' money, and

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: all committing to that because we saw that it's a system. It was a it was a program that actually worked.

[Unknown Committee Member (House Judiciary Committee)]: Right. So are you are you comfortable that the executive branch is involved enough in this or no?

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: I what I I so I guess my concern is the opposite, is I don't want the executive branch resources committed to the extent that our participation is simply not sustainable, right? Because of the way that the courts are choosing to operate the Rapid Accountability Court. I think that if this section thirty five three works the way that the chair articulated it, that would be I think that would be great. Right? I mean, you need to have I mean, if you have the state's attorney in the county convening the group to discuss needed resources, I am I can get comfortable with that.

[Unknown Committee Member (House Judiciary Committee)]: I think we were saying the same thing, it's just different words. Yeah. Thank you. Sorry.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Don't be sorry.

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: So so then I would delete lines eight through 16, and the executive branch would have the same leeway to assign resources that is basically allocated to everyone else.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: So I guess if we're gonna do that, I think we could be more general elsewhere, like for instance, for the court. We could simplify that to make sure there's much discretion that we would be giving to the executive branch, saying that the judge shall dedicate sufficient resources to implement the plan in respect to county instead of, know, details are added for the court, but we're taking away the details of the executive branch.

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: Well, not exactly. You still have a pretty long laundry list there of state resources. So you can articulate

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: it reading 88 through 16?

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: You see a, lines two through five. Those are the resources being brought to bear. You could specify if you want to continue to specify the role of each of those resources, then I think we could do that in the section for the judiciary as well.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk, House Judiciary Committee)]: That's Angela. Yeah, I'm

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member, House Judiciary Committee)]: not really comfortable with taking out lines eight through 16, seeing us. This we're talking about replicating and replicable. Mhmm. And, like, this is this these are all this is, like, the good stuff. These are all the things that really these are the added elements that really made the difference. If the cord was running. Yes. Well, I mean, in the in the model. Mhmm. If we call the pilot program a model Mhmm. I would be really concerned about just taking all of this specificity out when we're saying, we're trying to replicate the model.

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: Okay, I can live with that. We have dedicated these resources. We are standing by to dedicate the resources. We don't have a place to dedicate them. We have one day a week to dedicate them somewhere. But we are learning that for a high touch, high needs population, one day a week is not sufficient. So we can continue to, for a period of two years, allocate all of these resources to a working court, or like I said yesterday, if you just wanna move cases, you don't need the executive branch at all. If you wanna move them in an effective way, you have to set up the court to work in an effective way. So we are committed to dedicating these resources, and I don't object to this language. But I am thinking that to the extent we have this commitment, everyone should be there needs to be a parity of the level of commitment.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member, House Judiciary Committee)]: Yeah. And so I hear that. And I think what's challenging is the focus on Rutland experience and the one day thing, and that may not have been the right way to go. But then I'm also hearing there wasn't even a defender available the other four days, like a defense attorney.

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: That isn't what

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

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: I don't think it was other four days, but there were some other problems.

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: There were conflicts.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member, House Judiciary Committee)]: No, no, we can identify I can

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: tell you that even for the Chittenden experience, lots of problems were identified and overcome. So we can choose to overcome them, or we can choose to throw up a lot of problems. And that is always possible. And I'm sure the executive branch is the chief offender in that area, but we are, in this instance, really trying to problem solve. I mean, that's why I would hope we have shown in good faith that we have done that with a successful model and trying to replicate it in Rutland. So I'm just saying it's the the parity there has to

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: be a parity, a commitment of resources. And the I key, from what I understand with the court, is judge and dedicated courtroom and staff and security. And we are listing that and saying we have to do So, and to fill up the picture, think having those additional details on your executive branch, just to understand. Again, that's subject to resources as well.

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: No, I completely get it. Mean, subject to resources, we're willing to live within those resources and assign the resources. Right? I mean, we have been willing to do that. So I have no objection to leaving it in. I just I think it if you take my point

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: No, I understand your point.

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: Thank you. Okay. Then this is just on our reputable, still here, good. Because to the extent And we love the concept. And in an ideal world, a rapid accountability docket coordinator would be wonderful. But we don't have a person with the time to take on another job, which would mean another person. And we don't have the money for that to the extent know, I mean, you'd be using up 20% of your resources on day one just to hire a person to do this. So we have been collecting data. The the judiciary has seen it. The joint oversight committee has seen it. We are figuring out now how to put together the sort of the how are people doing long term data. And a lot of that is from executive branch sources. So we can get re arrest data from Valkor. We can get additional court data from DOC. We can do that, and we are working on a way to do it. But to then turn this into, we need to bring another person to do this work, I think it's a great idea, but it's a

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk, House Judiciary Committee)]: two year program, and I don't know

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: that your priority is hiring a data and operations coordinator. I mean, that's where I wouldn't prioritize the allocation of my resources. But if we can come up with some language that is flexible enough to sort of bring to So when I looked at this list, number of defendants served, we can get that from the DSAS and the courts. With a number of cases resolved and types of outcome, we've been able to do that with DSAS. The number of defendants connected to services and types of services, that then is gonna be sort of a, more of a deeper dive with AHS, I guess, to figure out where people ended up and how that happened. Some of them won't be easy because they're in DOC custody. The number of times each defendant appeared in court for the docket, somebody is gonna have to feed that to a coordinator regardless. So I don't know, I mean, that's fine as a data point, but somebody needs to be keeping that to feed it to the coordinator. I just don't know why hiring a coordinator

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: I think So you see what I Yeah, no, see a big chunk And of

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: we can collect all of this data, except for maybe that one. We'd have to somebody will have to get us that. Probation furlough violations, number of defendants charged with a new offense. We can get all of that through DOC, our sort of DMV public safety apparatus. We can learn what we can learn about the individuals in the human services system. So we can commit to getting that data, but I wouldn't wanna And we have done that. So that's the other thing, to the extent a lot of this has been organic, to the extent we are using junior staff to do a lot of this work is great for them because it gives them an opportunity to sort of have this kind of exposure. But it's hard to figure out from my perspective how to codify that requirement. You can put down your data collection objectives, and we'll figure out how to get that information and report it. But I mean, to sort of give this responsibility to another person, I just see that as one more thing.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: No, that's fine. So the main reason for that was to specify somebody to collect that information.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member, House Judiciary Committee)]: I know, I know, and I get But

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: the other idea of who somebody should be or what I don't think we should just say, if we just say for each accountability doctor, there will be the final data, we have to tag somebody with that responsibility. And I'm I think we are open to who that is. Right.

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: So I I do kind of hate to just obligate the governor's office to do that because

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Right. Right.

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: But I think but we are doing it now. So let me sort of take that back, see what the thinking is. We're obviously doing it now. We've started to do it to the extent we can get our arms around the Rutland data. So it's not an insurmountable hurdle. And we've started on the Chittenden data and how to bring all of this other information together. So let me just noodle on that a little bit and see what might be appropriate for who

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you know,

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: how we veil the cats.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Right. Yep. Well, that sounds good.

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: So then oh, yeah. I have the same observation about the fiscal twenty six money. Is Right. It is 500 in there now. I don't know what you're anticipating to put in there for fiscal twenty seven, but that's

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: And so we'll have to also, for the report, if we don't have a docket coordinator, have to designate somebody So you could think the same thing for that one. Yes.

[Teri Corsones (State Court Administrator, Vermont Judiciary)]: Okay. I do. I appreciate that.

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: So that's, I guess, it for me. Do you have any questions? Any questions?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you very much for going on with us. Thank Thank you your help. Zach and then Angela. So one of the things, Jay, is one of the things I'm very mindful about this amendment in particular is to make sure that we strike the right balance between interested parties. And one of the and again, I don't mean to ask this in a very pointed way, but I'm wondering if you feel that the amendment is overly differential to any one party, maybe the judiciary in particular.

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: I think, honestly, if the section 33 can be clarified that this plan is a collaborative process to which the stakeholders and these stakeholders in the first paragraph have agreed. I'm thinking it could move forward like that. I mean, it is definitely, and I do appreciate the chair has made this point a couple of times, the need for flexibility in this process and the organic nature of the way it grew was important. And I actually appreciate that about the reporting requirement, which is what do we learn from this one and how do we move forward with best practices? I think that's important. But I think if 33 works the way it was described, that's a way to move forward.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member, House Judiciary Committee)]: So just a couple of specific language questions. On

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: page two, line four, you mentioned replacing proportionally replicable. Yes.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member, House Judiciary Committee)]: I'm wondering if there's a third option, because to me replicable means exactly the same. And so I'm wondering, proportional was trying to get at the right plan for the county, needs of the particular county. So I don't know if you have any thoughts on something that captures that idea, but I understand what you're saying that proportional is not the folder. Yeah.

[Teri Corsones (State Court Administrator, Vermont Judiciary)]: I hope it would be a database.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Each county that determines that you're employing a rapid accountability docket modeled on the pilot project, something along those lines.

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: The finding is the general assembly funds each county that determines employing a model takes into account the needs of the county, and I'll show them the opportunity to operate a docket. So what's your priority in that long sentence? Is it each county?

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member, House Judiciary Committee)]: I think it's that county has the opportunity to to use you know, to have a rapid accountability ability docket that takes into account the the unique needs of that building.

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: Yeah. I think that that's

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member, House Judiciary Committee)]: So then yeah. Maybe just to

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: You don't need to refer to Yeah. Right. I mean, we have language about the model in the prior paragraphs.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Right. And I think Tom is making a good point that that's the additional language that takes into account the unique needs and resources of CONI that

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, we were saying

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member, House Judiciary Committee)]: we could just take out Oh, well, I think you could just take out that whole it could say each county that determines that employing a rapid accountability docket, that takes into account the unique

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: But I still think you need to say modeled on the pilot project in the county.

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: Modeled on. I

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: mean, yeah. This is just a finding, so Yes.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member, House Judiciary Committee)]: Okay, so then my other question is not in a finding. So stay on page 120.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: What page? Since you were

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member, House Judiciary Committee)]: Page two. So I believe, Jay, you suggested getting rid of for a limited period of time. And if I understood what you were saying correctly, you were referring to the targeted resources or resources targeted at the individuals. But I think this one is actually referring to resources targeted to the courts or to the prosecution. So that is for a limited time. It's a surge. Oh,

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: I see what you're saying. Yes, yes, Reducing the number of pending cases that involve individuals with multiple dockets by providing targeted resources, not to the defendants, but to the system. Would it help to say that? I I don't know what limited time means. I mean, define all that in your system. Later.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member, House Judiciary Committee)]: Yes. Yeah. Days. Right.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: I don't

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: know why you need it, but Providing targeted resources, right? I mean, we know, and I think Defender General Valerio is correct when he says, you could in some ways predict the outcome that by devoting resources to the problem, you can actually move the needle on the problem. It's just how you define the problem. If you're talking about moving cases, you can devote resources and move cases. If you're defining the problem as really getting at the root causes of the problematic behavior, then you have to do it. That's a different question. Yeah. But yes. I don't know why I need it, but sure, you're right. Is

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: just And you're right if you don't, but I

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: just wanted to make sure that I I appreciate that. Yes. You're right. Any

[Teri Corsones (State Court Administrator, Vermont Judiciary)]: other questions?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: So I think the plan could be that we'll have Michelle implement I don't think folks okay with those cases. Mean it'd be better to see them all. But we'll have Michelle do that. We'll distribute that. And I'll ask Bart and Jay and Tim to weigh in just electronically of whether you want to weigh in more. And perhaps we can even come back for a straw poll on this later this afternoon and get this done. Did want to ask one question for I'll start with Portia ask Kim as well. And that is with respect to the Rapid Accountability Document Coordinator. If you have any input on that

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge, Vermont Judiciary)]: I do have some input, but I'll defer the essays off the script.

[Kim McManus (Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Well, as we put on record to make on this partly six years in terms of as I testified earlier, do you think it's critical that we gather this information? I don't necessarily think it needs to be a standalone position, a full time position. What I'm concerned about is that way our prosecutor, our special prosecutor did majority of this and then did work with the governor's office who provided support to make the graphs and put the data all together in a visible way. Not every prosecutor is going to be able to do that. I'm concerned about us holding that water in every space. We definitely are part of it, we're part of gathering that data and sharing it. But I I think it'd be incredibly helpful if there's one person overseeing that. Where that person needs to live or come from, we're completely flexible. If you'd like to give us another position, we'll happily take it to have somebody do that. But whether it's with the judiciary or with the AHS, we do think it's critical for us and for you all to have that. So it's just a question of where we can pull that up.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Yeah, yeah, so Jay and Just then the

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: some clarity on how that comes together. So with Zach, it's true, he maintained a spreadsheet and he kept it updated in real time. So it's all the names, it's the number of offenses and then it's the status, active or closed or warrants or whatever. And then there is a real time update of each case. We in Rutland, our office provided Rutland with the templates, a spreadsheet with columns and it's a matter of, if the data coordinator can't get that information from the prosecutor in the first instance, then I don't see how useful a data coordinator is. So to the extent a prosecutor can fill out a spreadsheet in real time, capture the updates of the case, I guess I don't understand how balanced the data coordinator is gonna get that information.

[Kim McManus (Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: We can respond to that. We're not saying that we wouldn't provide the data. And if it is clear that that is part of the designated deputy attorney's position to do, absolutely, we need to get that data. We're also making other suggestions for additional data to collect, and I don't think a designated deputy seat's attorney is necessarily going to be able to follow those furlough violations. That's where the central person's view to say, possibly, we have to wait your data for the week. Do you see any data for us? That's where it's hard for not to live solely with And I don't think it should be. From where it lives, we're very flexible. I do think it's important.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge, Vermont Judiciary)]: Yes. Line 20 on page five has two duties for this coordinator. It's to track data and assist in the deployment of resources. So the data, I agree with Kevin. That'll be figured out, but that's not a huge issue. What we saw in Chittenden is that we've heard about Zach Wade. Zach Wade was the guy who was picking up the phone. He was making calls. He was doing things that really led to the success of that program. He was working, as I understood it, with the governor's office. So that resource of having him to work with the governor's office, know, well, we have this plan or that resource, he was critical through that action. And so I understand that there may be funding budgets and other issues for whether there's a person who can do that, but the reality is just like treatment courts, there's a coordinator who helps people with treatment. I, And what I understood Zach was doing at times was he was literally on the phone saying, can you get over here? Let's do this. And that's what I see this position as too, not just that. And so that aspect of it, think is critical to have someone because otherwise, is it going to fall to the prosecutor to make the phone call? Is it going to fall to the defense attorney, the order clerk, AHS? So having someone to spearhead that is usually helpful.

[Teri Corsones (State Court Administrator, Vermont Judiciary)]: If I could mention representative Schroer indicating that understanding now that this is a proposal for this position, that's something that he would be happy to discuss in terms of what the needs were before when he asked about the needs. It was limited to basically the judge, the court staff, the admin expenses, etc. But it sounded like he was open to seeing what the monies would be. In terms of doing that, we would in our normal course provide a number of these data points and that's what we provided state attorney when the information comes in to attorney. Some we would not, DOC would need to provide it for example, but I think as Judge Somney said, that's I think fairly doable. But it does sound like certainly, especially to have continuity among the several counties, another employed person who could be responsible for ensuring that the information that you all need and that we can benefit from.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge, Vermont Judiciary)]: It changes the dynamic from here's how we did it to here's how we can do it and I have the experience in it. If this individual is in Rutland County today and we're working on Washington County tomorrow, he has the ability or she has the ability to say, well, here's the people, I've got them all here. They're not handing off a folder saying, here, go talk to these people. This is who you're gonna need to talk connect.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member, House Judiciary Committee)]: Can I ask a question of anyone in the room, and it's not to

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk, House Judiciary Committee)]: you know, we're not well, actually, we

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member, House Judiciary Committee)]: do make anyway, I'll just ask the question? Is there is that a furious is there such a thing as, like, stipended position like, stipends, like contractual You know, like temporary. Have to deal with this stuff. I'm thinking of schools have to deal with this type of stuff. We put stuff on schools all the time and tell them to figure it out. And they work within their employee pool and offer a stipend, and someone does it on top of what they're already doing, but they're paid for. A lot of people I don't give you don't know. What about Matt

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Valerio's recommendation of having asking Prime Research Group as the entity, but they will only be doing the data part.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member, House Judiciary Committee)]: That's I lot think the coordination is really important.

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: You guys have a budget on the floor right now, right?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: It's already passed.

[Teri Corsones (State Court Administrator, Vermont Judiciary)]: We don't have to say anything.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: So

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: I just, I mean, it is great that, I think there is no money, They all are a little bit aware of that, and so I appreciate it. I guess from my perspective, this is a solution in search of a problem. We have been collecting the data, we will continue to collect the data. If this becomes a problem and everybody loves the accountability for it so much that we need a data coordinator, maybe to think about hiring the person at that time.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member, House Judiciary Committee)]: But it's not a data coordinator. From my perspective,

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: I heard was that person was with each state's attorney to make those calls that Zach was making, or so that's the other thing. What is that role that Tom just articulated? I don't know if it's the role you were thinking, but I do think that then you are talking about a more full time person and then you are struggling with what exactly it is that person does, but I think that if the issue is data collection, radar data is being collected.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Can you

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member, House Judiciary Committee)]: present it in a way that

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: I rarely see in any committee, in real time.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: So I don't think it's the data. I think it's about the coordinating of the services, and I really think that there's a point here that if we're gonna move this rapid accountability document from county to county, having some kind of experience moving from county to county with that feels really important. Can have a let me finish. If you have a exact weight that's appointed for each county and they basically have to rebuild the system each time, then you're losing a lot of that institutional knowledge that could be effective and deployed in the next county where it's going to happen. So I think that's a big part of the coordinator that doesn't have anything to do with data.

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: That would be very nice. In each county, it is going to be different because of the different needs of each county. You're gonna have a separate prosecutor. I mean, you could be very well asking for a special prosecutor to be appointed by the governor for every county. That would really maintain the continuity you need across the state, but actually it wouldn't because in each county you're gonna have different vendors who are gonna have similar issues to the ones raised in Chittenden that you're have to address in that county. You're going to have all the different service providers who are going to

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member, House Judiciary Committee)]: have to figure out how they're going

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: to staff the courtroom. You do have right now a woman, and you met her in hearing, Nicole DiStasio, who is the AHS coordinator working on coordinating services. So that's happening really, I mean in Rutland it has been a huge challenge, but they are doing it. You could, again, I'm not completely sure what this person has been meant to do, data or this, or both, but I feel like if,

[Teri Corsones (State Court Administrator, Vermont Judiciary)]: I mean, this is,

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: you can throw a body at this and we can figure out what the best use is, or we could wait to see where the gap is and address it.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: There's, which brings me to the question, so there's $500,000 BAA, that's agency of administration, right? So if whoever's working on this in this group, you know, the state's attorney convenes a group and they are figuring out their needs, if they need to have a coordinator, they could ask for that funding or DSAS could presumably say, I got an idea. I've got a person who can help us with this. We need $50,000 of that $500,000 That's the way that could happen, right?

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: Is that how that works? So just keep

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: it open like you were saying. Oh, sure.

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: Mean part of it is, it was never intended to be a piggy bank for the stakeholders. I've heard the defender general make a pitch for his contractor, everybody could make a pitch for more staffing, I mean everybody wants more staffing. So that, yes, you could, to answer your question, but it was never intended to be a piggy bank. It was supposed to chronic costs that were incurred for the operation of the court.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Right, and if it's determined through this process, that would be a good use of that limited funds, that's not prohibited. Even if we take this out, it's not prohibited. I still need to be able to identify an entity or person responsible for that Yes, said

[Teri Corsones (State Court Administrator, Vermont Judiciary)]: I would get that.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: No, I just had one question. I certainly appreciate people's opinions as far as needing a coordinator goes, and whether it's data or whatever moving it from county to county, how did it move from Chittenden County to Rutland without a coordinator?

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge, Vermont Judiciary)]: We had meetings, we had things, but I would actually offer the fact that we're hearing how there seems to now be dissatisfaction with the plan that everybody came up with in Rutland that maybe if there wasn't an actual coordinator we'd have someone to say, yeah, this is what everybody agreed to and here's the way it went. Mean, I think that the fact we spent so much time hearing about why it's looking different and the disputes about it right now, I think a coordinator probably might have been able to resolve some of those issues. It's broken up.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Some of the new language that should resolve some of those issues too. Hopefully. Ideally, yes.

[Teri Corsones (State Court Administrator, Vermont Judiciary)]: And the Rutland stakeholders are meeting as we speak in fact.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: What's that?

[Teri Corsones (State Court Administrator, Vermont Judiciary)]: The Rutland stakeholders are meeting as we speak. They meet very related and looking at it, including information that came to mind in this room. That's, from what I've seen, all the interest, including HS and everybody that was involved

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk, House Judiciary Committee)]: in the initial meetings. And with the treatment court, that's been such a vital role in terms of even making the connections. Absolutely. So, right. Well, yeah.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member, House Judiciary Committee)]: It sounds I don't want to lose sight of the fact that, A, there is a person from AHS doing, I think, that part of the service coordination, right? So

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: I think taking out that about the motivator doesn't preclude that from happening. It's, I think, ultimately my point on that. We probably shouldn't say that they have to have one at this point. Kind of it'd be nice, but unless I want to go and talk to Trevor and see if they want to add an FTE. I don't know if they're a defender no, not defender. I think that's prosecuting.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member, House Judiciary Committee)]: I'm just saying, I don't think it's a

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: full time job. Well, probably it's not.

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: But I was just saying, I can get you some language

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: of I

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member, House Judiciary Committee)]: need a job.

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: If that helps you get comfortable with this issue, but if it's more, I'm not sure how I can do that.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: No, no, I understand that. If it's the assisting with the deployment resources, that's the point person concept. But we kind of have to decide this fast. If we're gonna either do this this afternoon or first thing Tuesday morning. Can't some vague

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk, House Judiciary Committee)]: language note in there that

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: they probably have to be How about this? How about this? We'll change the shell to May. Ah, okay. Line 19. Where are you? We're gonna change shell to May. What page? Oh, yes. Page five. Page five, line 19. We're changing shell to May. May. I still need to have the different person for the data coordinator, I mean, for the data, so I'll still wait for you So

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member, House Judiciary Committee)]: would you take out to track data in SSS, or would you

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: just No. I'd keep in May. Right, right, keep it in May, but would it be made to designate

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member, House Judiciary Committee)]: to assist deployment of resources because you're going to identify someone to track data?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Alright, so my suggestion is on the data at this point, so we also don't have to wait. I'm sure will get back to me quickly, but is that we just say for each accountability docket, the following data will be tracked. It will be passive voice. Won't say who it is yet. I mean, don't like that, but this does have to go over to the other body. So can buy them. So we'll just kind of use passive voice, but in this particular instance And it's here. Following data will be tracked.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member, House Judiciary Committee)]: That's cross your fingers legislation.

[Teri Corsones (State Court Administrator, Vermont Judiciary)]: You know what you say. Like that.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member, House Judiciary Committee)]: Cross your fingers legislation. A

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: little bit of that.

[Jaye Pershing Johnson (General Counsel to Governor Phil Scott)]: And plenty of our bills that would have not had a model, but through the death. Yeah.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: All right, so I really appreciate everybody's work on this and the help on this. I think this goes a long way towards what Eric McGuire started us off And I really appreciate that. And like I say, we'll have a version sent out to everybody because there's still a possibility we can just wrap this up today, if possible. Crossing my fingers. So we don't have another half a dozen amendments coming to us over the weekend. Yeah, that's the So I do need to get do we have to eat? No. Think Windsor's did he put through this? Oh, he did it? Yeah. Are we still live? Oh, he did it. He's still live, dude. I'm still live. So so we will probably get off the floor again to take a straw poll or take a final look and see if we're okay with it. We also need to hear from Gina Gelfany. Probably do that at same time. At the same time on her unconstitutional measure. So we are adjourned