Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Kirk (Committee Assistant)]: Test.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: The procedures for animal cruelty offenses. The big picture in a few sentences about what's going on in this bill, there's really three main things. One is to expand the penalties for the existing criminal offenses of misdemeanor and felony aggravated cruelty, aggravated animal cruelty. You have animal cruelty offenses, one's a misdemeanor, one's a felony. It expands the type of conduct that comes under the criminal prohibitions. So, that's big picture number one. Number two, in addition to the criminal penalties, when someone gets convicted of animal cruelty, the court can also impose a number of other sanctions in addition to period of imprisonment and a criminal fine. Those sanctions may can include things like forfeiting the animal that was subject to the cruelty, not being able to possess an animal in the future, consenting to periodic unannounced inspections by the Division of Animal Welfare, those sorts of things. So the animal expands those provisions at the end. So the bill expands that range of civil sanctions that the court can impose when someone gets convicted. That's big pick point number two. Big point number three is the one that brings me here today. And this is, in addition to those two pieces, another mechanism that exists in animal cruelty law permits an animal to be seized by a humane officer. Humane officer could be a law enforcement officer. It could be the local humane officer who's been appointed and properly trained and certified. Animal can be seized either with or without a warrant and then subject to a forfeiture proceeding. So the animal can be forfeited civilians. It's not a criminal proceeding. It's similar to the way that a motor vehicle can be forfeited in the DUI context, for example. Doesn't require a criminal conviction. So there has been concern that the judiciary committee was trying to address that the forfeiture proceeding when animals are suspected of being victims of animal cruelty is both difficult, too long, and too costly. So, the provision that's in the bill both tries to expedite those proceedings. The reason that they view it as too costly, or that has been evidence taken to that effect. If you imagine if an animal is forfeited, it takes sometimes a period of time before there's going to be a court proceeding and the animal gets forfeited. During that period of time, the animal's been seized, it has to be housed and cared for somewhere frequently, the animal will be in need of serious veterinary care. So expenses are increasing dramatically. And then even if the animal is forfeited after six months later after the court proceeding, many custody organizations, humane societies are finding themselves with a big financial bill that the person may or may not be financially able to pay. So the other piece of the forfeiture proceeding that the bill does, besides trying to expedite it and move it along more quickly, is to require a security to be paid upfront by the person whose animal has been seized. There's a proceeding for that that's supposed to pay. There's also a provision that, a constitutionally required provision, that the person be allowed to claim financial inability to pay, in which case it would not be seized right away until after a hearing. So they get a hearing first, and I'm sorry, it might still be seized, but they wouldn't be required to pay until after the hearing. They could contest it and say, I don't have the ability to pay. However, assume that doesn't happen. Assume the seizure occurs, the bond and the security is paid, that is what leads to the financial aspect of the bill. And that procedure that is laid out in the bill, in the big picture of that, is that the person's animals. Forbidden, they pay security. The security is then taken by the court and transmitted to the Division of Animal Welfare in the Department of Public Safety. Division of Animal Welfare then is able to also there's language in the bill that provides for this. It's able to take that money and distribute it to the to the Humane Society or the animal welfare organization or the custody organization, whoever it is that's been holding on to this animal and paying for upkeep, whether that's food, shelter, veterinary costs, whatever costs they may be, they can use that to help offset those costs on the front end instead of waiting until six months, however long later it would take until an annual court issue and order a final forfeiture. So their view of the committee wasn't that there was necessarily any financial impact, but that's sort of the involvement of some money. It's security taken in by the court, sent to the division of animal welfare. Animal welfare then pays it out to humane societies, animal custody organizations, other folks that have been holding on to these animals after they've been seized pending any forfeiture. And then also, just kind of related to that, that bill also requires the director of animal welfare to issue rules about how that process is going to work. And not only how it worked, but the testimony was that costs are going to be very different depending on what kind of animal it is and how long they're going to be held. And so, they're gonna have to, by rule, develop a schedule of the types and amounts of security they would ordinarily have to pay, depending on the type of animal it is and how long it's been held.

[Chris (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: So that's the big picture. Sorry, a little

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: bit more than four sentences.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Appreciate it. The earlier parts with fines, just a reminder, our jurisdiction is fees, but not fines. Just for yeah, I know.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: That's a

[Kirk (Committee Assistant)]: it's yeah.

[Chris (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Fine.

[Kirk (Committee Assistant)]: Fines, not fees. Fees, not fines.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Does anyone want to see the language, or did people all get a chance to read it in that blessed half hour I gave everyone? Okay, Chris, tell us, thanks.

[Chris (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Sure, Chris, you've joined fiscal note. I have very little to add to what Mr. Fitzpatrick gave in his summary. I just want to let everybody know that it's no fiscal note for the bill because it's really impossible for us to quantify a fiscal impact for this. This really does just set up structure to remit these securities with the new special fund and direct the director of animal welfare to promulgate rules that have a schedule in place with the bill itself to describe that. We also have really no way of estimating the frequency or types of occurrences that would occur. We looked at this, we really don't see any physical impact that we can write up.

[Kirk (Committee Assistant)]: Thanks. Any questions for Chris?

[Chris (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: One, the security we're talking about, is it a bond that, is there any value to the security unless until it is is it a performance fund? That's it. I

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: think the understanding was that it would be cash. Cash? Yeah. Money. I might be able to set up credit cards, something like that, but yes, it's not a performance. Correct.

[Kirk (Committee Assistant)]: Anyone else? Fine. Thank you.

[Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: Madam Chair, having all of our questions answered Expecting to be. Satisfactorily by counsel from our fiscal office, would move that we find page five seventy eight favorable.

[Kirk (Committee Assistant)]: Thank you. What happens next, team?

[James Masland (Member)]: Second. You want a second?

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Thank you. I do. Thank you, Representative Madeline. Representative Kimbell moves age five seventy eight favorable. Representative Madeline seconds. Any discussion? Seeing no discussion, Kirk, could you please call the roll? And thank you, Eric. You don't have to sit there anymore.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: You bet.

[Kirk (Committee Assistant)]: Representative Branagan? Yes. Up at yes, it's representative Burkhardt. Representative Higley? Yes. Representative Holcombe? Yes. Representative Kimbell?

[Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: Yes.

[Kirk (Committee Assistant)]: Representative Masland?

[James Masland (Member)]: Yes.

[Kirk (Committee Assistant)]: Representative Ode? Representative Page? Yes. Representative Waszazak? Yes. Representative Canfield? Yes. Representative Kornheiser? Yes. We have voted a bill favorable eleven-zero-zero. Thank you. Does anyone want to report it?

[James Masland (Member)]: Do it.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Thanks, Jim. Okay. Saoirse is going to send you an email in the morning about it. Okay. Thank you, everyone. See you tomorrow at nine. And thanks for an incredibly expedient time.