Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: We are live.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Welcome back to the House Judiciary Committee this Thursday morning, April 2, continuing testimony on S209. And we'll turn to Leigh Sparrow. Thank you very much for being available today. Identify yourself for the record and proceed.

[Rev. Lise Sparrow]: Yes, thank you. And thank you all for this work. It's been really inspiring for me to see your conversations and the depth to which you're taking this. So I appreciate that. For those of you who don't know me, I live in Westminster West, which is just north of Brattleboro. For thirty years, I was a professor at School for International Training. I have a doctorate in language, culture, and literacy. And then mid career was ordained and have been a UCC pastor for twenty five years. And currently, I'm working most as a volunteer, but extensively with refugees in our community through Saint Michael's refugee ministry and in concert with ECDC, which is the refugee organization down in Brattleboro. But during my career training teachers for public schools and then also worked with the Community Equity Collaborative as a pastor working with racial and multicultural issues in the high school. So I know some of the issues. I was really interested to hear your previous person talk about the schools. And I wanted to offer just two things, one in response to your first person, the doctor, and then second to the other, just really quickly that might be helpful. And then I'll just offer my testimony. And if you have questions, I'd be happy to answer. So one of your colleagues had asked about data about noncitizens or children from other cultures in the schools. And I've called a colleague, and I can send that to Nate. One of you one of you was asking if we have data, and we do have data, lots of data. So I'll make sure you get that. Called her, and she's it may happen before you close today. But if not, I think is it appropriate to send it to Nate?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Then Yes, please. No, that would be great. Thank you.

[Rev. Lise Sparrow]: All right. I also just wanted to because you were talking with the Doctor. Greene, about the sources of fear, I just wanted to mention that I personally work with two families. We have what are called co sponsored teams. One of them is Eritrean and is here as an invited refugee, the other came as an SIV from Afghanistan. And that offers a contrast. So I just wanted to mention that every family is very different in terms of how secure they feel. So Afghans at the moment feel very secure because they came as allies, and they have their green cards, and they trust that the government is going to protect them. So they have very little concern. And sometimes I wish they had more concern, but they don't. And the Eritreans are different in that I don't know if you know that all green card applications have been halted. So where they were just flowing through and people could trust that they would have a status for the last year, there have been no new issues of green cards. So that's a very different way to be living. It's just wondering if it will ever if that will ever change, and we don't know. So that's a sort of ambiguity that people, live with, and I just thought that might be interesting to know. The other thing I would just mention is that depending on the levels of literacy in English, people have very different sources of information. So some depend a lot on TikTok and their communications with other people, sometimes in other states, and others tend to be working in environments where they have access to really current information. So we have a there's a wide range, and I think that really affects how different families feel in relationship to a sense of fear. So I just wanted to offer that. My own testimony is relatively brief. I just thought I'm just here to provide information. So I live and have worked in Brattleboro. And in Brattleboro, most what what we call churches or faith communities have childcare facilities. In fact, I was counting them up, I think there are five or six, all of whom have childcare facilities that don't necessarily have affiliation with the church, but the church is the building where those facilities are held. So by nature, these buildings, whether or not it's a Sunday morning or a Saturday or Friday night. Sorry. That's the person calling with the information about the schools. So we when we're talking about places of worship, we're also talking about facilities that have various things going on. One church in particular, Center Church in Brattleboro, has four different faith communities worshiping in one building, and they also have a food pantry that serves a thousand families twice a week. And then there's Bridget's Kitchen, which operates out of the near the Catholic church, which also operates two or three days a week. And one of the evangelical churches also has a food pantry. So that they are by nature places where people who are at their lowest of the, you know, who are very vulnerable are are likely to be, and often they will be there for other reasons just because churches and faith communities are are thought of as a places of sanctuary. I'd also like to mention that I'm assuming I was invited to talk about places of worship. So I I would just like to also mention that within the last few years, as you know, places of worship, like schools, have become targets for violence. So we already, maybe ten years ago, did trainings for what to do if a mass shooter were to come and how we were supposed to proceed what we're supposed to do. And that's very we were hearing about children and families worrying about the safety of going to school, there's already a ripple of

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Are you comparing mass shooters to law enforcement coming into

[State’s Attorney Erica Marthage]: No. No. No. Civil arrest and things like that?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: No. No. No.

[Jessa Barnard]: I'm just

[Rev. Lise Sparrow]: saying I'm just saying even before this whole immigration thing happened, we already were on Tender Hooks. We have a fantastic police our our local police are fantastic.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I'm just make having trouble making the connection between mass shooters and and and police. I'm I'm I'm awful work.

[Rev. Lise Sparrow]: Gotcha. What I'm trying to talk about is why places of worship are sensitive locations. So I thought that's what I was supposed to be talking about.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: No I can appreciate that but this bill does nothing to deal with mass shooters.

[Rev. Lise Sparrow]: No I'm just sort of setting the scene that we're already have heightened anxiety and I'm sure any of you who attend worship may have gotten that training. It's already heightened and then to have now, we have many refugees that worship with us. So, that just adds to our concern that what is supposed to be a place where people can come to worship and when they're in a time of vulnerability that they feel vulnerable. So I guess if I'm talking to this actual bill, I'm just hoping that you will include places of worship along with schools, along with places where vulnerable people gather is that it is a place where people come not expecting any sort of anything other than a chance to be peaceful and have and create community.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey]: So we have a question here about Zach. Please, thanks for your testimony, and I appreciate you working so expeditiously to get that data for myself and my colleagues in the room. I think

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: that

[Rep. Zachary Harvey]: you're operating on lightning speed, and I appreciate that. Specific to places of worship, I have a couple of questions, and I don't know what denomination is your church. Not that it matters, I'm just curious.

[Rev. Lise Sparrow]: No, it's congregational. Congregational. United Church of Christ.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey]: Okay. So the reason I ask is, so I'm a practicing Roman Catholic. And when you pray the novena or you're praying in adoration, typically you have time periods that could extend from twelve hours, if it's shorter adoration, but it can extend as long as forty eight hours. And one of the questions that you probably heard in the lead up when I was asking the legislative council was specific to how long because this bill is a really nuanced bill. It captures people in transit to or in transit from some of these sanctuary spaces, if that's what we're going to call them, safe spaces or whatever the language is that we want to use. Do you have a sense of how long that person should be able to remain in a church in one of these sanctuary spaces? Because if I'm praying in adoration, I'm not likely staying in a church for forty eight hours. So I feel like forty eight hours to me seems like a very reasonable cutoff. I'm just curious if you, as someone who's also practicing their faith, I'm curious if you have a sense of that time period.

[Rev. Lise Sparrow]: Well, I'm a pastor, so I feel like everything that is supposed to happen in a church anytime is sacred. So it's not just the prayer time. I mean, could be counseling time, it could be any So frankly, I probably am not the best person to put a timeline on it because I really feel that churches by nature are supposed to be held sacred. And unfortunately, I think we're living in a time where people have forgotten that. I will say, and I don't know that this is speaking to your issue, is that back in the nineties, we had a period where the Western Priory, for example, had some Guatemalan refugees there in sanctuary. And I know another church in Amherst where they had a man who was seeking asylum who was there for two years and never left the building. And the assumption was that the building itself, whether people were praying or not, was a sacred space. So I personally that that would be how I would I would think of it. Once people leave the building, then it's a whole other question.

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

[Rep. Zachary Harvey]: So your parish is open

[Rev. Lise Sparrow]: Go ahead.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Sorry. I was

[Rep. Zachary Harvey]: just gonna ask, your parish is open twenty four hours, seven days a week?

[Rev. Lise Sparrow]: We used to be. Used to be, now of course we've had to lock it.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey]: So

[Rev. Lise Sparrow]: that's a whole other thing. So I don't know. I wish I could answer your question. No. Because I think you're saying is what's the longest time we'd ever be having a worship service, right, of some kind? Is that what you're asking?

[Rep. Zachary Harvey]: Four hours of operation, because I think that really puts a fine point on it. Because I was looking to go to a Catholic mass here the other day, and they only offer at 08:10 and 12:15, and they're closed in between those mass times here in Montpelier. So I do think that there's reasonable question here about what hours of operation look like. Because to your point, you're not open twenty four hours a day. So if someone's looking to seek asylum, I assume that someone isn't going be seeking asylum in building that's locked.

[Rev. Lise Sparrow]: Right, that makes sense. The only thing I would say if I could have a little addendum is that the church that I pastor for twenty years is also the emergency shelter. So there were times during the winter when we would have people there twenty four hours a day so I guess if we have working hours not be the ones posted on the door but as long as people are in the building something like that that would that would be reasonable, I would say.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey]: I understand that. That makes a lot of sense. Again, I'm not sure. My last question is, are you a five zero one(three) or a five zero You're a five zero one(three), so presumably you have a tax code that you report to the IRS. One of the questions that we were debating earlier is what really is a place of worship? I think very clearly, if you're a registered five zero one(three) and you have a tax code within, say, Vermont, that to me signifies that that is a tax entity and that is a place of worship. So I think we would want to maybe look at that as a potential definition in the legislation itself of what is a place of worship. Because I think that legislative council didn't have an absolute answer there, and I think there actually probably is a definition that we can arrive at and agree.

[Rev. Lise Sparrow]: I'm glad you say that because when you were talking earlier, of course, it was not appropriate for me to cut in, but I would I would say that that's a way that the state already discerns what is a place of worship. And, yeah, to me, that would be a very me, it seems logically, that would be a perfect way to define it.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey]: I agree with you. Thank you very much for your testimony. Karen?

[Rep. Karen Dolan]: Yes. I think this is question for you, Chair. I don't know if it is important or helpful, but for terminology, I feel like we are like, what is the word to use? It's safe space, sanctuary space. I feel like in the bill, it referred to a sensitive location. So I don't know if that helps us to be like, let's use the term that's in the bill.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Right, other folks are using herbs, but yeah, sensitive spaces is what it is in the bill. Ian?

[Rep. Ian Goodnow]: Louise, thank you so much. Great to see a Windham County. Oh, my pleasure. Yes. I think my only question is, for the reality in Brattleboro having places of worship that are also childcare areas and also food shelves and maybe providing other services, do we feel like, and I don't know if you have the language of S209 in front of you, but do we feel like the way that we have described this in C1D is sufficient?

[Rev. Lise Sparrow]: Gosh, I have to go to another screen to look at that.

[Mark Redman]: And I don't want to put

[Rep. Ian Goodnow]: you too on the spot on it. I just want to make sure

[Rev. Lise Sparrow]: that- I'd be happy to look at it and then respond to you.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey]: If you want to- I

[Rep. Ian Goodnow]: want to make sure that we've kind of done a full wraparound on that, that we're not weeding out, especially if our intention is that we're doing childcare services.

[Rev. Lise Sparrow]: The other thing to mention, and you know this too, Ian, is that one of the churches also houses our homeless shelter, a wet shelter. So that's another whole but I think that is in the bill, at least from

[Rep. Ian Goodnow]: That one is. And I think that would be captured under it. I'm not sure about the childcare.

[Rev. Lise Sparrow]: Yeah.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Okay. And then I think yeah, no. Well,

[Rep. Karen Dolan]: it's a question for Ian. Are you referring to the definition of pre qualified private kindergarten provider?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I don't know. So we still need to have, let's say James perhaps answer those many questions.

[Rev. Lise Sparrow]: Is there something about early childhood education that often, because that would probably be the term.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow]: I don't know enough about it to understand whether or

[Rev. Lise Sparrow]: I promise to look and write you.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow]: It sounds like we have another witness that

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: will be able to weigh in on that with the force as well. That will be sometime next week.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey]: Anything else, Lise?

[Rev. Lise Sparrow]: Of course, this is always nervous making. I'm just trying to No, I guess I would just say feel free to use me as a resource for what's going on as far as the refugees because that's something that I'm really I mean, I am a pastor, and I know a lot of the churches in the state. So if there if there were if you did needed more information, I'd be happy to get that for you. But I really appreciate you taking this up. I think it's really important.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony. Thanks. So we'll go to Mark Redman next. Thank you, Mark, for being available.

[Mark Redman]: Good morning, Chair LaLonde and other members. Thank you for inviting me to testify in S209 today. My name is Mark Redmond. I'm the executive director of Spectrum Youth and Family Services, And Spectrum has been around since 1970, so fifty six years, primarily in Burlington, but in the last five years, we've expanded to Franklin County as well. I've been at Spectrum for twenty three years. I've actually done this kind of work for forty five years. And we're definitely in favor of s two zero nine. If you look at section C1D, it lists off the different social service establishments, and it's got homeless shelter in there, and we definitely do that. Substance use disorder counseling, we definitely do that. And an establishment distributing food or other essentials of life to people in need, we definitely do that. In Burlington, we have two separate shelter spaces. We have 26 beds all together in Burlington, and youth have to be at least age 18 to stay there, and they can stay up to their 20 birthday, but that's unusual. And this past June, we opened up 10 beds in St. Albans. And we have a drop in center in each city as well, where youth can come in and receive breakfast, hot lunch, hot dinner, get clothing, take a shower, do their laundry, use the computers. And also we do substance abuse. We have 14 licensed mental health and substance abuse counselors on staff. So last year we worked with almost 2,000 different young people. And when you look especially at our shelters, the young people who are coming to live in our shelter, So a lot of young people who've lived in poverty their whole life, a lot of young people who are in the foster care system, and now they hit age 18 and they leave DCF and they frequently try and go back and live with the families where they might have been removed from when they were babies. And many of the same problems that were there then are still there and it often doesn't work out. Then they start living with friends and they couch surf. And then before you know it, they're living in the back seat of a car, they're living in a storage unit, they're living in a tent somewhere, and then they come to us for help. And the drop in center, it's interesting in Burlington, it's mostly 18 and above. These young kids, same thing in the children's mental health system. That's another big driver. Youth who were in the children's mental health system did well, now they hit age 18 and you think, okay, now they're gonna go into the adult mental health system. Well, they may not have the right diagnosis, their IQ may be too high, so there's a whole avalanche of youth who end up becoming homeless after leaving the children's mental health system. So young people come to our drop in center and I was up in St. Albans recently, met a young man, they're younger there because there's no boys and girls club up there. There's no YMCA up there. It's really us. And I saw a young man, he was 15. And I just always ask him, I'm just curious why you come here. And just matter of fact, he said, oh, I come here to escape the violence in my home. So it shows you the lever of poverty and distress that they're in and then really the trauma that they've already experienced. So that's why we're in favor of this bill because it's not a house of worship, but to me it's our shelters are dropping centers. That's a sacred space for youth who've really been traumatized, really have emotional disorders where a lot of healing needs to take place. We have a very good relationship. I feel with Burlington Police Department and with the St. Albans Police Department. When I was interviewed twenty three years ago, the board of directors said to me, we have a terrible relationship with Burlington Police Department. So that is something that I really, really worked hard on when I was hired and I've worked hard on for twenty three years. If the police wanna question a youth that we have, or if they have a warrant, they know not to go into our drop in center. They know not to go. They know to call me, you know, or they know to go to the side door and look for a supervisor, you know, and we handle it that way in the same way in St. Albans. And if there is a youth who is charged recently, we had a youth who was charged and I even got Gravel and Shay to provide a pro bono lawyer for him. And we have very good resolution to that case. So I just really believe, I'm glad to see this bill. I think it will help us. It will just provide a degree of safety and security to our staff and the young people who've really been through very difficult time in their lives. And we have a lot of success stories. We have a young woman now who's halfway through her master's degree. The first time I met her was five years ago and she was living in the backseat of a car. So we have young people going to college, young people getting their own apartments, young people learning how to be plumbers. And it started with coming into our drop in center and getting lunch, you know? And they're frightened when they come in, but they learn to trust us and we work with them and we help them find work, go back to school, learn a trade, open a bank account. We even have someone on staff teach them how to drive a car, which you have to learn in Vermont.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Anyway, we are

[Mark Redman]: in favor of the bill and appreciate the bill.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, have a question here. Yeah. You talked about your relationship with law enforcement in the Burlington area, It sounds like it's working out pretty well with, you know, they'll contact, you know, you or supervisor or whoever before they before they do anything. And I'm gonna assume, and maybe I shouldn't, that you may know what goes on in the rest of the state just because that's the industry you're in, and is it a problem in any parts of the rest of the state as far as law enforcement just busting into these facilities?

[Mark Redman]: I not heard that. We're part of the Monk Coalition of Runaway Numerous Homeless Youth Programs, and nobody has said that, that they've had those kinds of difficulties. So I'm gonna hope that, I'm hoping they have the same cordial relationship that we do. I've heard about that voice.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: It happened, you'd probably hear about, it'd be in the papers.

[Mark Redman]: Yeah, it would.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Especially in this day and age.

[Mark Redman]: We used to be in the papers a lot. I'm glad, but if we're in the papers now, it's for something good.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: No. No. No. That's great. So, I mean, that that gives me positive as far as why we would need the bill to protect something that's not happening.

[Mark Redman]: Right.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Just a question I have.

[Mark Redman]: Oh, why we, I don't know. To me, it's just reassure, at least it's reassurance for us that, you know, it would be in statute. And I don't know, we'd love to see that.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. Ian? Mark, thank you very much

[Rep. Ian Goodnow]: for your testimony. So twenty eight years ago, relationship with the Burlington and South Carolina Police Department wasn't good?

[Mark Redman]: Yes. Well, twenty three years ago. You were sorry, twenty three years ago.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow]: Twenty three years ago. So is it possible that in the future that relationship gets strained?

[Mark Redman]: It's possible, but I hope not. I mean, anytime we've had a new police chief I'll be honest with you. My first week on the job, I walked in to meet the police chief. I won't say who it was. And she turned to me and said, Spectrum, boy, you have a long way to go to get the reputation of your agency back. I did ride alongs at 1AM, 4AM, you know, went and met with all, and we really repaired a lot of the relationships, you know? So anytime there's a new police chief, I'm in that person's office within the first week. You know, I know the lieutenants, and we wanna stay on a good positive. They nominated me for some citizens award last year. So it's a relationship. Same thing in St. Albans that we have to work on.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow]: Yeah. So it's relationship based. This statute, if it were to go into law, would provide a statutory protection that would not be based on the relationship between your institution and any police department.

[Mark Redman]: That's true. But I would advise any other director like myself, okay, even though it's in statute, you should advice would be go and do what I do. Right? Go and get to know those officers, go and get to know the lieutenants, be on that kind you know, just don't rely on legislation. It's personal relation, especially in Vermont. Right?

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

[Mark Redman]: Sure.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: If I could just say something really quick. I remember Spectrum well before you were there. You've done an amazing job with Spectrum now.

[Mark Redman]: Thank you for saying that. That means a lot. Thank you for saying that.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Thank you, Mark. Thank you very much for being available. Oh, I'm sorry, Zach, go ahead.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey]: Thanks, Mark, being here. I just want to get a question before we wrap up. So I think what I'm hearing from you, and this is kind of piggybacking off of, you know, rep Goodnow's point is that you've done the hard work. You've been both proactive in creating a productive relationship with law enforcement, which I think is a model that so many agencies and groups could learn a lot of lessons from. And I think it's very admirable about the great work that you're doing helping Vermont's children, which I think is great. One of the questions I have, because one of the things that has come out in testimony today, and then when we were talking about this bill prior to crossover, was that there really is an undertone of this bill that's very specific to immigration enforcement. And so what I'm curious about in so far as your experience with Spectrum, is how many instances are you working with youth that are part of this population of non citizens in Vermont?

[Mark Redman]: It's not a big percentage. You know? When youth come in, honestly, we don't ask, what's your status? Show us your you know what I mean? Like, if a youth is hungry and needs a sandwich, we're gonna give them a sandwich. If they're literally sleeping in a tent or in the back of a car, we're gonna take them into our you know? But it's still but my impression from our staff is it's a small percentage. Know? It's mostly Vermont youth. There's this myth. They're all coming here from out of state. No, they're not. These are Vermont youth who come from poverty. They've been in the foster care. We all know they're in all of our districts. They're in all of our areas, right? Young people who've really had a difficult experience.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey]: Absolutely. As someone who represents Rutland County, we see it every day.

[Mark Redman]: We used to be in Rutland and I wanna be back in Rutland. Wanna I be know you need what we supply.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey]: Yes, we do.

[Mark Redman]: So offline, let's talk about that.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey]: I would love that, Mark. And so I think one of the questions, during your testimony, you were talking about youth trauma and violence and how that is extremely disruptive in the homes, obviously, and potentially deadly for children that are impacted by these behaviors. I'm just curious because I think, again, very specific to this bill and what's seeking to accomplish is, do you have the sense that the impacted youth that this bill could be seeking to help are disproportionately impacted by violence and trauma in their families and in their communities?

[Mark Redman]: I think they are. Think it's just I think it's disproportionate. I agree with Okay.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Thank you.

[Mark Redman]: Thank you.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Thank you again, Mark. I appreciate you being available. So next on Kal Haile, please join us. Identify yourself for the record, Lewis. Nice looking here.

[Cal Hale]: Yeah. Thank you. For the record, Cal Hale, testifying on behalf of the Vermont Library Association or BLA. And thanks for inviting me in today to share our position on s two zero nine. Vermont Library Association is an educational nonprofit that works to develop, promote, and improve library and information services and librarianship in Vermont. The organization is Vermont's chapter of the American Library Association. We have over 300 members, including public, academic, and school librarians, as well as library trustees and friends. BLA supports the objective of s two zero nine to prohibit civil arrest in sensitive locations. I'm joining you today to ask that your committee protect the safe and stable environments in which libraries throughout Vermont provide a multitude of services to their communities by adding public libraries to the list of sensitive locations where s two zero nine would prohibit civil arrest. In making this request, I want to highlight the increasingly broad role that libraries play in Vermont's communities and the wide array of programming that Vermont libraries provide. Libraries stopped being quiet reading rooms a long while ago. They're now vibrant and lively community spaces. And in many rural communities, they serve as a lifeline for community members to access important resources. The working group on the status of libraries in Vermont's final report in November 2023 documented this evolving role and some of the ways in which libraries fill social service gaps in communities. This report characterizes libraries as the only gateway to the digital age, the only place where patrons without reliable home Internet can reliably access resources online. As more and more resources are accessed solely through the Internet, libraries are an increasingly critical space for patrons to access judicial proceedings, legal information, health care, and numerous social services, all services that s two zero nine seeks to protect. Librarians have shared with me some of their experiences of patrons regularly utilizing library resources to send and receive materials related to immigration proceedings, print court documents, seek information about their rights, and access space for meetings with social workers. Libraries have served communities and community members in their most vulnerable moments, functioning as flood recovery hubs, food distribution centers, and extreme cold weather shelters. New Americans in particular are served at Vermont libraries through Vermont Adult Learning Services for English Learners and a variety of programs from the US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants. For students, libraries are an important third space, a place where they can spend time and access programs outside of home or school. Libraries offer numerous educational opportunities, including after school and summer programming, and frequently serve as hubs for students to gather at the end of the school day. In these communities where libraries effectively serve as an extension of local schools, it is important that students utilizing these spaces have the same level of protection that they do at educational institutions. The inclusion of libraries in s two zero nine would benefit both patrons and library staff. For patrons, it would ensure consistency in the bill's impact. As Vermonters access the essentials of life, they would be able to do so in environments that are protected from civil arrest. This would be particularly important for individuals working towards citizenship or legal status, who rely on libraries for access to necessary information, programs, and judicial proceedings throughout their immigration process. For library staff, s two zero nine would provide clarity and consistency for developing policies around law enforcement and libraries. Currently, library staff, many of whom are part time or volunteers, must understand the complexities of what kinds of documentation permit law enforcement to access different parts of library buildings and library information systems. S two zero nine would offer clear guidance by designated designating libraries as protected spaces from civil arrest. S two zero nine will not prevent law enforcement from ensuring the safety of library patrons and staff through standard law enforcement practices, including making arrests in cases where doing so is necessary for patron or staff safety. Finally, I want to explain the importance of using specific language to include public libraries on the list of sensitive locations in statute, even if the committee may consider extending the protections in s two zero nine to municipal buildings as the bill was originally introduced in the senate. While the inclusion of municipal buildings in s two zero nine would include municipal libraries, 73 of Vermont's public libraries are incorporated libraries, not municipal libraries. Incorporated libraries provide identical service to their communities as municipal libraries do. In fact, most Vermonters would have no idea whether their library is a municipal or incorporated library. However, incorporated libraries are chartered as separate nonprofit entities, so they are not included under the definition of municipal buildings. Therefore, regardless of whether or not the committee incorporates municipal buildings in s two zero nine, it is important that the following language be added under section one subsection c to ensure the inclusion of all public libraries. And that's public library as that term is defined in 22 b s a one zero one sub two. Thank you for your consideration of this request, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Okay. I appreciate you being here, Tal. And I guess one of

[Rep. Zachary Harvey]: the questions I come back to is actually in relation to testimony that we just received from leaks. And I

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: think you're in the room for that.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey]: One of the things that she spoke about is in some parishes, people can seek asylum for a period of up to two years. And I'm just curious whether you can confidently say that the Vermont Public Library System has the infrastructure and the ability to sustain asylum seekers for a two year period inside your facilities.

[Cal Hale]: I I don't think that the Vermont Public Library system has that capacity, and I don't think that's the intention right here. This is about protecting library patrons at times when the library is open while they're accessing services that we feel are consistent with the services they would be accessing at a lot of the other places. Sure.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: And I

[Rep. Zachary Harvey]: appreciate that. I do think that access to a library is different than a church, than receiving healthcare. I love a good library, but the services are different in terms of what's being rendered to patrons. With all legislation, it might not be the intended it might not be the intended stated goal the legislation has passed, but our job is to kinda suss out what the unintended consequences could be. And I think that is where one of the concerns that I have among many with this legislation is what the unintended consequences could be and what it could potentially lead to. And you I mean, you telling me that the library system could not sustain someone for saying they're forget two years, even a month. The local library that I have in the town of Castle's in, they already have very limited operating hours, just like the churches here in Montpelier. So I think we do have to try to understand the scale and scope of what the unintended consequences could be if this legislation passes. I appreciate that your you know, the intent is well intended on your part and what your clients are looking to accomplish here, but I just just have real reservations about what this could lead to. Yeah. If there's any other questions, we've got.

[Rep. Karen Dolan]: Yeah, Angela. Not a question, but just a statement of support. Just the point about libraries and the the many social services they they provide or facilitate, maybe not direct provision of those services. But I know for sure in my district, our library is steps away from the elementary school, from the five through eight four through eight Nope, three through eight elementary school. And the library for many years now has just opened their doors to kids of a certain age after school, coming in and just being there, being in community, being safe, being cared for at a public library. And it's really an amazing thing, I agree wholeheartedly with the point that any protections that are extended to kids in school should It's actually quite logical that they would be extended to kids and adults, but particularly kids in the library.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey]: I actually have a question, piggybacking off of what Rev Arsenault just pointed out. Because one of the struggles that we see, especially between maybe more urban areas in Vermont versus more rural areas, is the disparity in resources. And I think my question to you is, in terms of what the Vermont Public Library System is seeing in terms of funding, would you say that's on the is it increasing or it's on the decline historically over, say, the last, like, three years? Library funding over the last three years? Yeah. Would you say it's on the climb, that a lot of libraries have the resources and the programs that were just mentioned? Or do you because I see cost cutting. I see a lot of libraries that are having to restrain resources because they just simply don't have the budget.

[Cal Hale]: Yeah. I I appreciate that question. I'm sure there's libraries that have seen funding going up over the last three years, libraries that have seen their funding going down. I'm happy to connect with the association. And I would love that. Yeah. I'll try to get you some follow-up information on that. Thank you.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Any other questions for Cal? Right. Not seeing any. So just for folks at 11:30, we have to turn to another bill that we're trying to wrap up today and actually have a vote on. So I don't know. I don't wanna shortchange the other two witnesses. Jess, do you want to kind of get started and then come back or?

[Rep. Karen Dolan]: You can be very brief.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Okay. Yeah, let's have Jessa and you can be brief, but we like basketball.

[Jessa Barnard]: Well, that's okay. I'll keep it brief.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I apologize, Lauren, that we might have to reschedule.

[Jessa Barnard]: I'm Jessa Barnard. I'm the Executive Director of the Vermont Medical Society. It's been a little bit since I've been in this committee. So I'll just remind you, we're a physician and physician assistant membership association. So we're really speaking on behalf of the individual professionals, not necessarily the institutions or facilities. We want to express our support for S209. And Doctor. Andrea Green is one of our members, and I think she did a great job. So I will try to submit written testimony. I'll try to keep this brief. One piece I wanna add in terms of healthcare is actually the impact on the healthcare workforce. A lot of our healthcare, not a lot, a growing proportion of our healthcare workforce are not from Vermont and come from other states, other countries, speak other languages. It's actually an area of policy we are trying to support. We have a shortage of all spectrum of workers in our healthcare systems, from the folks who provide brain surgery to the folks who are cleaning the rooms overnight in the hospitals. And so need everybody working together. And we've seen in other states, but we've also had real feedback from here in Vermont that the fear of immigration enforcement activity has led to people feeling concerned about showing up at their workplace and coming to work healthcare. There were, you probably, maybe you had this background in your first walkthrough. So I apologize if I'm repeating, but there was guidance around healthcare, federal guidance around healthcare being a protected location. With that being rescinded, we're really left with institutions trying to navigate kind of what's a public space and what's a private space under the Fourth Amendment, which leads to some difficulty when you're a health care provider, you're not an attorney. It's a complicated situation right now. And both patients, as you heard from Doctor. Green and employees are feeling concerned about showing up and being even in healthcare organizations. The testimony I submitted, we had another family physician who really wanted to be here today, Michelle Dorward, and she was not able to be available. So I just encourage you to read her comments as well. It's admiring statement. So

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: have there been any immigration enforcement actions in hospitals or medical facilities that you know of?

[Jessa Barnard]: Off the top of my head, I am not. I know there's been a lot of work and we've provided education for our members. The hospital association has as well around delineation of how to respond to different types of warrants or court documents in what places. I'm not aware of any in facilities. Was an example of somebody traveling to the workplace, their workplace in the Burlington area a couple months ago. But I don't believe that took place in the workplace. I think it was while traveling to the workplace.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Question? But we had this problem a couple of years ago with health care workers getting assaulted and all this stuff, we passed that bill. So I was under the impression that actual incidents have declined even though we still have this serious lack of mental health care that's needed and stuff like that. Because as I understand it, it's more that and it's more the drug use, whatever you want to call it on that. So I'm still not a 100 I'm not even close to being a 100% convinced. I'm more worried about this bill doing more damage and bringing more bad actors to the front and knowledgeable to do more bad things, if that makes any sense, that's my concern. You think of

[Jessa Barnard]: it I that hear your question. I think those instances that I'm aware of are really more criminal issues around assault and violence against healthcare workers and not enforcing civil warrants. So it would be a different it's interfacing with local law enforcement around criminal violent behavior, not around enforcing civil.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: So let me be more precise. We have somebody going there and using their facility as an excuse to be there and causing a commotion and putting others at risk for doing what they're doing in that vicinity. Do you see what I'm saying?

[Jessa Barnard]: I do understand your question. I don't

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: wanna give people more idea.

[Jessa Barnard]: No, no, no, I do understand the question. I would think, and I am not a criminal attorney, but I would think if there were I don't believe, and maybe it's a question for alleged counsel, that the language in this bill around enforcing civil warrants would preclude a facility itself from calling local law enforcement to prevent criminal violent behavior happening in that location. So I do understand the question, I don't think they are in conflict, But you could ask the legislative council to clarify as well.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Thank you. That's more of my

[Jessa Barnard]: Yeah. No. I understand that. I appreciate your question. Yep.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey]: Thank you. I have a question about following up on the testimony that the VPA provided, and I think you're in the room for that, how they have very clear guidance for educational professionals across the state that ideally you're not to engage federal law enforcement. If they insist on entering a school or whatever it might be, if they're coming to a field or practice after school hours, you're not to engage. I'm curious what your guidance is for medical professionals in the state, whether you have a similar guideline that you really, if federal enforcement is coming in, probably best idea is not to engage with them.

[Jessa Barnard]: We, as the medical society, have not put out our own guidance. We do have resources on our website directing folks to other sample policies out there that certain hospitals or other organizations use. And then it's up to each organization or facility to craft their own policy based on that. But we don't have our own organizational guidance. Again, we in a little unique position. We work with a lot of folks who work in facilities, but we don't represent, say, the hospitals or the federally qualified health centers. We're really working more with the individual providers.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey]: Right, but I think that also would be incumbent, especially even in private practice. I think of, specifically Rutland by the hospital, you have a ton of private practices that are supportive offices, administrative offices to the hospital itself. So if you're gonna go see a specialist, a lot of them, you're not walking into a hospital facility, you're walking into a small mom and pop office that has been in operation for several decades. So I think it could The disparate application of the policies And I hear you that some policies might exist in hospitals or in some offices, but the disparate application could present some really potentially dangerous scenarios if medical professionals in the state of Vermont are intervening in a federal law enforcement operation, especially if it's legally authorized. And it could put your professionals in a really dangerous position. So I think I'm just coming from a place concern for Vermont's medical professionals that it seems like there really should

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: be a policy in place.

[Jessa Barnard]: And again, we provide, I'm happy to send you the link to our website. Have a lot of resources on our website that folks can get and modify to their practice.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey]: I would love that, and I would also love some of the anecdotal evidence that you have of medical professionals feeling concerned. The similar emotive landscape that we were talking about earlier, I would love to see quantifiable qualitative evidence in that.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Thank you. Thank you. All right, thank you, Jess. So I don't think my next witness for the next bill is online yet, so we can get started, if you want, if we just start a few minutes later on the other bill that hopefully won't take that long anyway.

[Lauren Hibbert]: So thank you for being here. Thank you very much for having me. For the record, my name is Lauren Hibbert, and I'm the deputy secretary of state for the great state of Vermont. We are here to support this bill. And just ironically, I have Sean Sheehan, the director of elections here. And ironically, as we were walking over, he told me that the bill that prohibited firearms in polling locations was also S209. So there is a theme with two zero nine protecting our free, fair and impartial elections. We support this bill because we want people to feel like they can exercise their constitutional right to vote without fear and without concern. And we have heard from voters, but also from town clerks, concerns about federal law enforcement, civil and criminal coming to polling locations. This makes sense because that has been stated by the president that he will send in law enforcement into polling locations or operationalize the National Guard, both of which would be problematic to have free and fair elections. There are already several federal statutes that prohibit law enforcement from being in polling locations. We talked about those a lot when we were talking about S209 of 2003. And so it was 2004. In any case, we talked about it quite a bit. And I'm happy to provide those statutes to the committee. Also, I plan to submit a one pager that we provided to all the town clerks in conjunction with the attorney general's office in response to concerns about federal law enforcement, not state or local law enforcement, to be candid. We've had a really wonderful relationship with state and local law enforcement and with the FBI. In anticipation of the twenty twenty four election, we had a summit. Were doing tabletop exercises for what would happen if the internet went out, what would happen if there was another flood. We were preparing for a wide variety of unanticipated things. Because when you have to pull off an election that only occurs on one day, you can't control what's going to happen on that day, and you need to be prepared for anything. So we were working with local, state, and federal law enforcement in anticipation of that election. We anticipate that we'll be doing the same in anticipation for the next. And actually, the National Guard was there, too. But with the discussion nationally around elections and with the president saying that he wants to utilize law enforcement in polling locations, it has caused some concerns. And so we put together this one pager for town clerks. I will provide it to the committee. But there are several federal laws that specifically prohibit military or federal officials at polls and also armed people at polls who are part of the military or federal officials. There's lots of laws around voter intimidation, both at the state level and the federal level. And we have provided guidance to town clerks with the attorney general's office, which is very much in line with what Jay was speaking about. We recommend to the presiding official officer, who is the town clerk, to politely and firmly tell agents that you are responsible for maintaining an orderly election and that you need them to leave the premises. If you believe that a crime has been committed, call local law enforcement or Vermont State Police and then to call us here at the Secretary of State's office, our Elections Division, and we will coordinate with the attorney general. So that's the advice that we're giving town clerks right now. And this is in direct response to town clerks asking us what will happen if ICE comes to our polling locations. Now, we have some locations in our state that allow Before you go to that. Yeah.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: It's Tom and it's kind

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: of a question. So there's some that was federal law or a state I think it was federal law. You said that doesn't allow, like, military and armed Yes.

[Lauren Hibbert]: That's federal law.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: At at polling places. But on

[Lauren Hibbert]: the other hand, this bill will allow undocumented workers at polling places? I don't believe that it allows undocumented workers at polling places. There's nothing in here that specifies that undocumented people can work in polling locations. This bill doesn't address that topic at all.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Okay. If they're not allowed well, some towns in the state do allow it because they allow undocumented people to vote. I think

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: she was just about to get to that.

[Lauren Hibbert]: Some some communities have passed charters to allow for undocumented people, non citizens, to vote on only local matters. This body has approved those. But that also does not specifically say that people who are noncitizens can work in the election. I whether or not that's happening, I don't know, but that's not dictated by federal law, state law, or in charters.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: So so we have passed laws that that do allow it as long as the town passes it.

[Lauren Hibbert]: So the town has to to pass it, and then it needs to come before through the charter process, and then it needs to come before the legislature and get passed by the legislature and and presumably signed or overridden by the legislature.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: To me and and and I'll ask you, would it make sense to have wording in the bill to protect just those polling places and not all polling places?

[Lauren Hibbert]: No. We support this for all polling places, and I'm gonna echo what other people have said. There are people who are noncitizens who are married to someone who is a citizen. There are people who are citizens who are legitimately afraid that they will also be targeted by ICE. There are people who are concerned that regardless of citizen status, that law enforcement will be coming to polling locations during the election season and be watching for noncitizens. And that, in and of itself, is a chilling effect on voting. And voting is one of our most sacred and most important rights that we hold as Americans, and we need that to be free and fair and impartial and allow citizens to come without fear and without any concern to come cast their ballot.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: What types of federal law enforcement can go to a polling

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: place? You had mentioned some

[Lauren Hibbert]: At this point at this point, based on the law, it would be none unless there was a crime

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: This law?

[Lauren Hibbert]: In federal law. Okay.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Kenneth, is that So I'm kind

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: of lost to this whole thing. So we're worried about federal law enforcement being around there for protection of all, hopefully, The same as state, same as local, and and stuff to protect a certain people that are voting, but and it's I'm gonna use the word segregated. It's like, okay, we're gonna protect we're gonna protect this level here, but we're not gonna protect the average or the other people that's there, right? What about their fear?

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Well, I

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: this bill sounds so politically motivated, that it's like, and it's going way over the top that people mean, you can disagree with me and that's fine, but I mean, this is all about controlling an election the way whether whatever the the the current president spills out there or not, there's a level of of concern at all of our levels. Like like, why am I being why does my rights not count and everybody else has these special rights? I don't have a problem with federal people being there, right? Is that because I'm a white privilege, old guy male? I mean, I don't understand that.

[Rep. Karen Dolan]: Think Are you helping here?

[Lauren Hibbert]: Yeah. I'm happy to. I think we as a as a nation have had a long standing tradition of law enforcement does not participate in elections. That's part of training of law enforcement. They only attend elections if there is a crime that is being committed. So it's not just particular communities that are unease. And I say this with a lot of respect to law enforcement in the room because I think that law enforcement has a wonderful, sometimes damaged, but on whole wonderful reputation in our state. And it is unsettling to have law enforcement at a polling location. That has been why that federal law has been in place. I don't believe that it wasn't put in place to protect any one person or one group of people. I think it was put in place because that is not the appropriate place for law enforcement to just be.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Well, unfortunately, the political divide is certainly showing up in this this bill, and that's really, really, really sad.

[Lauren Hibbert]: Well, so what I think this bill does is ensure that that law enforcement continues to not be at polling locations just like they have not been historically in this country for a very

[Kim McManus]: long time.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Right. And we can hopefully respectably agree to disagree.

[Lauren Hibbert]: Well, I'm not sure what we're disagreeing on, quite I

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: personally don't have a problem if we have a situation that both, that all sides are certainly interested in in in it's certainly been out there widely, whatever, that a lot of a lot of of of voting has gone on. I mean, you it's very simple. I got carded last night buying alcohol. Mean, but I don't get carded. I don't have to prove that I'm a resident to go in public. I mean, it's screw down. I mean, and we can say it's not politics, but you know what? It is. So whether anybody wants to admit it or not, it's fine.

[Lauren Hibbert]: Well, I think I would love to talk to you more about that if I could. Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: No, no, that's fine. So I'm gonna have you back next week because I know there's at least two questions. I have questions. You need to answer that. And I have Erica Marfidge and this is a bill that we need to get out. So we're definitely gonna have you back. Thanks. There are some questions still. Sorry to have you back here, you're just on the street, so that's okay. Because I do wanna get to Erica and Kim on S183 since we have Erica here. Great. Thank you. Thank you very much. I love Erica.

[Lauren Hibbert]: I'll take that. Maybe I could be more at the beginning of the schedule next time if you can ask.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: You will be the first person.

[Lauren Hibbert]: Thank you.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yes, you will be the first person. Thank you for being here. Kim, do you want to go first? And then how do you want to go about this? This is S-one 183 we're turning to and that's the Home Improvement Enlightenment with Fraud bill.

[Kim McManus]: Different topic. I have a few overarching remarks, and then I'm going to turn it over to Pennington State's Attorney Erica Marthaj, who handles home improvement fraud cases directly and has the most intimate knowledge of these cases versus my background. As a prosecutor, I never build a home improvement case, not once. But I would like to just speak to the bill in general. For the record, Kim McManus with the Department of State Attorneys and Sheriffs, it is wonderful to see you all. And thank you for accommodating my schedule for being out for a little bit. First, the amended language to this bill that adds in the knowingly entering a contract and knowingly the intent to defraud knowingly piece. That does, we believe, address the issue that was raised coming out of a few Superior Court decisions about some of the unconstitutional central issues with our current law. One thing we want to caution the committee, and we raised this in the Senate, is that this language is not a cure all for the home improvement fraud issues, in that any of these cases that are a mix of fraud and contract dispute, when it's hard to know when the fraud starts, those will continue to be an issue and a problem for us to bring forward. And I believe this has been discussed in the past. Contract disputes are civil litigation. It's civil law. We're trying to handle them in criminal law, and it does not go well. It is not any of what we do as prosecutors. So we're always in this other land working with experts to work through when the contract fell apart and who knew what when. So we just want to make sure that the committee is well aware that this does not solve our home improvement fraud issues. As a department, we highly encourage the legislature to continue to look at what civil support there could be for these issues that are contract disputes. And again, state's attorney Marthage can give you some examples of when it's clearly fraud, theft, larceny, those are going to get charged. When it gets really murky about when the person's trying to defraud, was it at the very beginning of the contract, did it happen later, that's when things get tough for us and that we believe homeowners in the state of Vermont need more support from their civil remedies. And whether or not that's the state supporting them in any of those civil actions or providing some additional support or whether that's providing more regulation to the homeowner sorry, contractor industry would be something for this body to consider. So those are our overall remarks. State's Attorney Marthage will be able to give you some more details again about where this falls apart. And I apologize, I did not listen to testimony while on vacation. I do not know how much you heard about this the other day, but State's Judy Marklege provided a ton of knowledge to the Senate, and I wanted to make sure you all had that as well.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Great, perfect. I really appreciate it. Thank you. So Erica, if you could unmute and join us.

[State’s Attorney Erica Marthage]: Hi there.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah, thank you for being available.

[State’s Attorney Erica Marthage]: So I just thought it would be most helpful probably to just tell you the kinds of cases I see and what ones I'm prosecuting and what ones we just don't file. Prior to the change in legislation that essentially removed the intent element of it, we mainly would see cases that were contractor or builder shows up at someone's house, says, Yes, I can do this job. I need this amount of a deposit, and then that person either never showed up or showed up and then stopped showing up. Clear cut home improvement fraud. Some of the cases we would charge, we did. I got a little creative with some of them with the charging because it didn't quite fit into the home improvement fraud, but it was, say, for a while we had an individual that was going to elderly people essentially and saying, I can rebuild your deck or I can do something on your house. And then that person gives them a deposit and either never shows up or does the work that's so shoddy that it's obvious that it was either something the person didn't know how to do or they never had an intention of actually doing it right. Those we've been trying to I've prosecuted as false pretenses. If I can get home from a fraud, I do that, but mainly it's been exploitation of an elderly person, which an elderly person is defined way too young. I wanna say it's like 60 or 65. So those are easily charged. After the change in the law, I started getting, and I just actually returned one, consumers coming in. They're making reports to the police, but then they're coming in and giving me binders with hundreds of pages of documents, including contracts, all of the text messages and emails and information that has to do with one couple in particular in Bennington had a huge renovation on their home, and there were multiple back and forths about, I wanna change this aspect of this renovation. I wanna, you know, change the color of something. I wanna change a door. And then the builder coming back and saying, you know, too late. I've already special ordered this thing. And Those are the cases that I undoubtedly am declining to prosecute because that's a contract dispute. That's not something that my office can be involved in. The other thing I've noticed just in the last couple of years is I'm seeing a lot more people that are building second homes or they don't reside here, and maybe they have a different understanding or different expectation of what is gonna happen when you hire a builder. And as we all know, Vermont is not the same as some other states as far as certification or licensing to be a contractor or a builder. What seems obvious to me, I wouldn't hire the guy that shows up and says I can do this huge renovation for you. And he has no crew and nothing professional looking about him, but they're doing that. And then because the market is so tight, they can't find anybody else to do it, and then they're making complaints to the police when things don't work out. So it really is like a case by case. We probably review I was trying to pull a report. The problem is we don't we get case reviews, and the officer doesn't put a particular charge in there because that's why they need it reviewed to see if there are charges. So I just was looking through kind of the case reviews that we've done over the last six months, and we're probably getting between six and eight in a six month period. Of those, 80% of them are not being charged as home improvement fraud. I have After the decision out of the Washington court, I reviewed all of the cases I had pending. Two of them I just dismissed without any further hearing, and two of them I refiled as false pretenses. So I think the frustrating thing for those of us in the criminal justice world is that the home improvement cases we are getting, even when we can prosecute them, are nothing is happening in the criminal court that is really meaningful or it's not making the victim whole. It's not preventing this from happening again. I have a number of cases with really what I would call serial home improvement fraud people where there are multiple people out there that this person has done this to even after I've charged them with home improvement fraud. So there there's definitely a disconnect somewhere with the people aren't checking some registry to see if they're on a registry. Most people don't even know that exists. And to me, it just the resources and the time and for the criminal justice system to try to do something that in the end really results in nothing. No outcome that is meaningful to the victim or to the community. It's not preventing this from happening again. I hate turning away people that make complaints to the police that, you know, I feel like it is a legitimate complaint. They should be angry. They should be frustrated, but there's nothing that we're doing in the criminal court that's gonna address it.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Great, thank you. Karen has a question.

[Rep. Karen Dolan]: Yes, thanks for sharing this. It sounds like a very frustrating situation that you are in and appreciate the different ways that you're trying to approach it. I guess my question, we're not going to solve everything with this bill. Like, it's clear. There's more work Do to be you agree that this is a step in the right direction and will be a tool to help you with those situations, some of those situations.

[State’s Attorney Erica Marthage]: Definitely. Definitely. Yeah, there's just Right now, it's just too I didn't think the statute needed to be fixed to begin with, but then it kind of opened this huge door. That's helpful. And here in this situation, it's like, let's do one thing and what we treat more things. Yes. Absolutely.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So any suggested changes or anything? Are you good with what we have?

[State’s Attorney Erica Marthage]: No, I'm good with what's been presented. I totally, after doing this for a number of years, understand the baby steps approach, and this would this would be a significant improvement over what we have now. Right. Because it it does make it if you all probably know because you're from all around the state, it's very different in every county the way it's going to be reviewed and enforced because it's just so amorphous right now. It's just very gray, and the courts that are Oh, plus these cases take years in the court system. They're not cases that are because typically the person accused is not incarcerated, they're in no rush to resolve anything. We have pages and pages of documents, and typically it's a lengthy trial because we do need to go into really the minutiae of building. And so I just, those kinds of cases always make my skin crawl just because I worry about backlogs.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I appreciate that. We all appreciate that. So this presumably should narrow the cases that really should be brought at all. This is what we're at. Okay, great.

[State’s Attorney Erica Marthage]: A low hanging fruit, definitely.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Excellent. Well, I really appreciate your work on this and your testimony and hopefully we'll get this passed out actually as it came over by the Senate so we can get it into place as quickly as possible. Although it doesn't take effect until July 1.

[State’s Attorney Erica Marthage]: That's okay. Okay. Thank you.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: All right, thank you very much, Erica, for being available and taking the time to testify. So, all right, so we are adjourned until about 02:00, I think, is when we're gonna be and I think Kevin is gonna be back, right? Maybe back at two Is that what we said, 02:30? I think we're gonna move it to two because I think our floor is supposed to last. So I think two, and then we can be done.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: How many proper announcements we got today, though? Takes a few minutes.

[Kim McManus]: Think that's all.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Mean, there's a one third meeting. So we're off live, Nate. So we'll see you at two And

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: May