Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: We are live. Hi. Welcome back to the House Judiciary Committee. It's Friday afternoon, March twenty seventh, and we have a couple minutes. Amendments that we're gonna be looking at at four h nine three seven, starting with one from Gina Galfetti, and thank you for being here.

[Rep. Gina Galfetti]: Thank you. For the record, Gina Galfetti, I think it's probably pretty clear to all of you that these amendments are unconstitutional. I brought these amendments forward. I had a group of constituents that I worked hard with all summer that came up with a lot of the provisions in these amendments. Disappointed when I returned the oil that was actually possible to pass to them without these unconstitutional provisions. So I am offering this amendment just as to do my due diligence to my constituents to give them their opportunity to be heard. And quite frankly, I plan to withdraw the amendment, and I'm just hoping to use this as an opportunity to get the conversation started about the need for a constitutional amendment that would consider public safety and repeat repeat offenders that are that are awaiting trial when when judges are considering bail. So feel free to put it down. I wouldn't blame you if you did.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: One thing that that is gonna help with repeat offenders is we just finished up today McGuire amendment on accountability court. Yep. Which is goes a long ways with with repeat offenders with five five dockets. Is that the right term?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yep.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Five dockets or more. So it's it's really gonna and the accountability court was just up in Burlington or Chittenden County, I should say, Chittenden County Courthouse. It was gangbusters up there, and it's moved to Rutland right now and and and and working. Hopefully, we can with the the revisions to the amendment, it's gonna work better in Rutland and and better through the whole state. So there is and and the way I look at it, I think it's it's monumental, you know, the work that we did on it, and it's gonna go a long ways with with the repeat offenders. Agree. Not just throwing them in jail either. That that's that's not the intent at all. It's just throw everybody in jail. Gets some people will go to jail just because of the way the system works, but the main gist of the accountability court is get people in front of the services that they're gonna need to rehabilitate them, whether it's mental health, going to treatment or whatever.

[Rep. Gina Galfetti]: Yeah, and the corrections committee is right there with you and the judiciary on that. We see the good work that's being done and we've taken some testimony on it as well, it's very promising. I'm happy to bring that back to my constituents as But they were very passionate about this, and I just felt like it was the right thing to do to get them some airtime.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So just real quickly, I mean, in general, from what I understand, the amendment would expand the ability to hold people on bail, just for flight risk, but public safety risk. Correct. Just have on the record that section 40 of the constitution related to excess of bail pretty clearly says that everybody's bailable unless they're a flight risk. You know, some people can be held without bail, but it has to be a crime of violence against the person or a crime that carries a life sentence. Yeah, it is pretty clearly unconstitutional. And with that, I would ask that we find this unfavorable. I take a motion to find this unfavorable. So. And all the, I can't afford discussion. We need more discussion. All those in favor of finding, wait, that's all it works. In favor of finding this unfavorable, please raise your hand. Anybody who wants to find it favorable, raise your hand. So it is 1234567. Coach, are you weighing in? Unfavorable. Okay. 8. 81. 811. 2. 2. 81 Yeah. Barbara's okay. 812. 812. Alright. Alright. So Barbara needs to know that. I will take. I'll let Barbara know that. All right, so So let's let us have Michelle now. Thank you very much again.

[Rep. Gina Galfetti]: Thank you, committee. I appreciate your time, everyone.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: You.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: All right. So this is H937, graph number 4.1, the amendment. McGuire and I decided to join it. Because Eric McGuire is going to do a general introduction, then I'm going to do a quick walk through, and he felt comfortable having to do that part. So but we'd like hear what the latest is. These are amendments based on the input we've received from the witnesses earlier today.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So for the record, Michelle Childs, Office of Legislative Counsel, and everybody should have a copy of 4.1. And I did some highlighting on this. I didn't do kind of like showing the strike through of language that I've removed, but you can compare it to your previous Oh, you gave me a clean version? Yes.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Okay. I can post the highlighted version.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, it's okay.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I'll the clean version? That's the clean version that you have.

[Unknown committee member or staff]: Okay. There is a highlighted version of it. I thought that

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: was what you were referring to.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's okay. I will I'll point out the changes for you. So first change is in section 31, so your first section, but it's on page two. So these are the findings. And on finding number five, there's just been a little tweak to the language there. You might recall the debate about the term proportional. And so instead it says on Subdivision 5, each county that determines that employing a rapid accountability docket modeled on the pilot in Chittenden County that takes into account. So just a little language tweak. Section 32 on the purpose for the docket. So the first change is in Subdivision A2. So that's on line 18, subdivision two, connecting individuals with treatment, housing and social services. And it's again, just a language tweak that was recommended by the administration to say that to appropriately address the circumstances that may contribute to recidivism. Before it said in the early version, it said to reduce. Subdivision 3, that took out the language. In the previous version, it said reducing the number of pending criminal cases that involve individuals with multiple dockets by providing targeted resources for a limited period of time. We removed that for a limited period of time. Once again, on recommendation of the administration. Top of page three, continuing on with that subdivision three, we're talking about why you're doing that and it's to improve the overall efficiency and the earlier version said of the courts, and this has been changed to the criminal justice system. Subdivision five, still on page three. And that is we just added the word courts there. So improving collaboration among the courts, law enforcement, prosecutors and social workers. Next, we're on section 33 on the county deployment strategy. So this has changed, a little bit, small ways, but so it previously directed, executive director of DSAS in consultation with the defender general and the secretary of human services, and the chief superior judge shall identify the order in which the county should employ the rapid accountability docket, and that has changed to DSAS in consultation with the DG and AHS shall recommend to the chief superior judge the counties identified as appropriate for the accountability docket and the order in which the counties shall implement. And, again, that was in response to the judiciary's testimony around, they're the ones that control the docket. They're the ones that have the constitutional authority to be making those determinations. So they would be making a recommendation to the court. Then on that second sentence, there's just on line 17. Was just let's see if I could change it. It's just adding the word to implement the docket in accordance with the goals identified in section 32 of the act. So again, just a little very small language tweak. Section 34 on the dedicated court space and judiciary staff. The court had recommended on line 21 that it's the court administrator that is providing the appropriate staffing there. And they have also asked for it to read instead of, I think it said administrative staff to implement, is that it's now court staff and court security. Then on subsection B. So the previous version was that there's a ninety day operating period, but it could be shorter as determined by and previous version was that the state's attorney in consultation with the court and the public defender. But this is, again, around the issue of controlling the docket, but maybe shorter if the goals of the accountability docket are met as determined by the judiciary in consultation with the state's attorney, public defender. So it just kind of flipped the state's attorney and the and the court in that instance. Section 35 on the dedicated prosecutor subsection b, there was just a change on changing the word on line 17. It said it used to say shall ensure victim advocates and now it says shall dedicate victim advocates. There was some language that the state's attorneys had asked for yesterday that said to the extent resources allow. So that was in the previous draft. That's now come out. So that's not there. It's kind of baked in already. And just some small little language tweaks on line 18, which is that they're dedicating the appropriate staff sufficient to implement the plan for their respective county. Subsection c, the same language that's at the end of b has been added to the end of c, which is just to implement the plan for the respective county. Page five. So this is on section 36. So executive branch resources, subsection a previously ensure adequate resources. It now says the governor shall dedicate resources. Also, in the previous version versions, it had, DSAS listed under the subsection a, but governor doesn't control DSAS, and so that has been taken out. And then just again, that same language that was in the earlier section and subsections B and C on that last line on line five is sufficient to implement the plan for the respective county. Subdivision two, there's no substantive change there, but because I didn't have DSAS up above with the little acronym, I had to spell it out there, but it might look different. Want you all to note it. Subsection b, this is around the issue of the rapid accountability docket coordinator. So you remember that the earlier version was directing that the governor in consultation with the secretary of AHS and DSAS shall designate someone as a coordinator. This is turned into discretionary. So there's a May there on line 18. And the previous version said it was to track data and to identify best practices and assist with deployment of resources. And the data piece has been taken out there. So in this version, the coordinator would just be there to assist with the deployment of resources. Subsection c is new. And so here, it's the administration shall coordinate, executive branch resources to track and report the data as required by, section 37, And the Secretary is to ensure that information is needs needed distributed to evaluate the programmatic efficiency and dispositional outcomes.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I guess prior to that, that was language suggested from Jay Johnson. She was going go and identify who should be listening. That's who she identified. So

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: sections 37, in the earlier versions, it was the docket coordinator that was compiling the data. Now it's gonna be the secretary for of administration. Next change is down on section 38 on reporting. And on subsection b, it had been the docket coordinator doing the end of the year report, and now it'd be the secretary of administration. Page seven, section 39, the new language there is after fiscal year 2027, and that references the appropriate language in the BAA where funds exist that they can pull from.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Any questions for Michelle? I did send this out to the witnesses. I didn't hear back from Jay, but I reverted back from the others, and they were fine with it. I gave them all a deadline, I'm assuming. Yeah, so I'll go ahead and get a motion on the table that we can have discussion. I take a motion to find H. Raph number 4.1 of the Maguire bedbet, H. Nine thirty seven, favorable. Don't move. Any discussion? I think you already hit it on the last one. Last, you explained the good work that just happened when we were talking about the Gal Fetting event itself. I'm not seeing any additional discussion. All those in favor of finding this favorable, please raise your

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

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Coach, where are you on this? You're muted if you're there still. Right, well we'll see. Right now it's 123. We didn't have much right now. Minus two, okay. So it's nine through two. Minus three. Minus 3, but I bet you have students that we Excellent, so that's it for now. Just a really quick heads up for people on what is happening next week. Let me just list the bills that we're be looking at. Hest $20.18 it's just a drive by. That is the chloride or salt bill that we saw in the past. And supposedly since we looked at it last year and there were things in there that we had concerns about, we're gonna look at it again, even though my understanding is all the things that we are concerned about are gone. But just to kind of confirm that, I think we're only gonna have the That close to the New Hampshire model? Not exactly sure. Can ask Mike or Grady, but my understanding is the things that we have concerns with within our jurisdiction. When we had concerns beyond our jurisdiction. And then S-one 183 and activating home improvement or independent recruitment fraud, and then improvement fraud. S-one 179, this is gonna be the most exciting one and aggravating to the Uniform Disclaimer of Property Interest Act. I'm sure Kenneth would love to report that to you as well. S-two zero three, that has to do with the DUIs and S209 that's the sensitive locations one. So a lot of bills, they're mostly short and pretty straightforward. Also S181.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Did I hear that we're having

[Unknown committee member or staff]: a hearing as well? And I

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: was gonna mention that as well. Thank you, yes. And on Tuesday at five to seven in the chamber, we're having a hearing for the public to weigh in on the events a couple weeks ago in South Burlington on March 11 regarding the protests and such. We had a lot of requests from individuals that wanted to be able to voice their viewpoints. So people will be getting two minutes in person. There's a few people who may need an interpreter, but we probably have four minutes. Should be interesting, so that's in the chamber. Yeah. I got an email from a constituent on this event or hearing. Is it just people come in first come, first serve, or is there a sign up sheet? There is a sign up form, and and you can get that get that from there was a press release that went out that had the sign up form is my understanding.

[Unknown committee member or staff]: I think it might be on the house overview page.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: House overview So she was asking me that out and that somehow will get them into the queue. And is there a remote is there a remote option, or do they need to be there? Yes.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Great. So there's no sign up

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: here then? No. It'll be everybody will be signed up in advance, which is better than what we've done in the past, I think. I agree. This will warm us up for the Prop four hearing, public hearing that we're obliged to have actually.

[Unknown committee member or staff]: We're insured until Do you want to just say, in case anyone actually checks our brief, Washington's, whatever, but it's legislature.vermont.gov, and rate on the home page of the general assembly there, there's all the way to the right, it says announcements, public hearing, community safety concerns, and there's a link that brings you to the press release, which has a link to sign up.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So it's a link inside a link. Yeah. Alright. So one question for Ian and Angela is how long do you think we need to look at your likely amendment to h six fifty seven? Maybe, like, two hours?

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Ten minutes?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. Alright. So we're so we're adjourned until 09:45 on Tuesday so that we can take out that amendment

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Right.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: On 06:57 before