Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I know, John. I know a lot

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: stuff. Good afternoon, everyone. How are you? Welcome to the Senate Committee on Government Operations meeting of Thursday, whatever date it is, next week's agenda, right? February 20 02/26/2026. So apologize to those of you that weren't on line and on the screen. The Senate floor ran about an hour beyond what I thought I was going to do. We're gonna pretend it's 02:00 and start with what we would have had there. And up for consideration right off the bat is S275, an accolade to creation of the Cemetery and Vandalism Response Fund. And we're joined by Tom Giffin, who's the president of VOCA. And for those of you that don't remember, the Vermont Old Cemetery Association, and also Chris Book, who is remind me again, Chris, you're the president of Vermont Funeral Directors Association, correct? Correct. Okay. So I think we had a couple of questions when we looked at this bill last time, and one of them had to do with the $5 fee that is currently being assessed but not necessarily ever collected by the funeral directors. And so I did receive a note from Tom in the interim for one of the funeral I call them parlors. Is that what you still call them? I don't even know if that's a right term.

[Chris Book (President, Vermont Funeral Directors Association)]: Funeral home.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Funeral home. Okay. Who says this, the $5 for the vandalism fund would be paid through the current burial permit $5 fee, which would be discontinued. The burial fee, which is apparently rarely collected, would now fund the vandalism account resulting in a fact that the bill would have to no replacement. In other words, there wouldn't be any difference. You wouldn't have to raise any additional money that the $5 fee would be replaced with the vandalism fund fee, so no new funding source is necessary. Do any committee member remember if we had any other oh. Tom Lurks. Town Lurks. Clerks. Oh, you should mention that. Funeral homes could pay monthly to the agency designated to accept the payments. That is historic preservation, not a bad idea, or any other agency. But with this proposal, the town clerks would not be involved at all. The funeral directors or the homes would send the fee to the designated agency, and then they would send it to the local folks. So I think there's a path forward here, but I wanna hear from the committee member. Oh, go ahead. Senator, I'm just going to remember. I didn't

[Trevor Whipple (VLCT; Chair, Law Enforcement Advisory Board)]: think they wanted to do that.

[Ken Hawkins (Deputy Director, Vermont Police Academy)]: That's the way the bill's constructed currently, right?

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I don't think there was any call out for who was going to do that. We should call the bill, if you don't have any. Well, me have Tom weigh in on that. Whichever one wants to go first.

[Tom Giffin (President, Vermont Old Cemetery Association - VOCA)]: Chris, go ahead and weigh in.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: No, go ahead, Tom.

[Tom Giffin (President, Vermont Old Cemetery Association - VOCA)]: Weigh in as far as the, how the money would go through or what

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I don't think there's anything in the bill that prescribes the way that we would get that back to you folks. In other words, there's no mention of town clerks in the bill.

[Tom Giffin (President, Vermont Old Cemetery Association - VOCA)]: My understanding would be is that the money would be collected by whatever agency that the state would designate, and then we would check out what needed to be done. And then the agency would basically would go, the work would get accomplished by whatever means and write a check to either the VOCA or whatever group that wish to have the monument repaired by.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Like what was the treasurer's office or? Well, suggestion was the preservation, not the The preservation trust of Vermont. Historical preservation.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Under the Department of Housing and Community Development.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: It's just a suggestion. It doesn't have to be. It could be any agents.

[Tom Giffin (President, Vermont Old Cemetery Association - VOCA)]: It was suggested, if I may speak, that the victim's fund may be something that'd be appropriate. I don't know if they wish to be involved in this at all, probably not. But when a drunk driver went through a cemetery fence on West Street in Rutland, I received a check on behalf of the city from the Victims Fund for it to help repair the fence for the cemetery.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Senator Vyhovsky?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Would that be what the Center for Crime Victim Services navigates?

[Tom Giffin (President, Vermont Old Cemetery Association - VOCA)]: Yes, I believe that's where the money comes from, yes.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Is that where the victim

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: So I mean, we were gonna explore that, we would need to hear from Jennifer Pullman, and my concern is that there aren't enough people working in crime victim services and they're already incredibly overwhelmed in supporting, you know, people coming through as victims of violent crime. I would wanna hear from Jennifer Coleman.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I actually think that the Department of Housing and, Community Development within, the department the division of historic preservation is actually a great, place for it to to to be conceivably. I mean, that they oversee they do our historic markers. They do our our historic sites. Yep. They are engaged in this work pretty fully, and these are these are special pieces of our Vermont history. So I think actually that might be a great idea. Okay. I'm looking here because that way they can

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: see me.

[Trevor Whipple (VLCT; Chair, Law Enforcement Advisory Board)]: That's right.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: They can't see me

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: when I look there, but they can see me when I look here.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Did any committee member have any other question that you noted on the bill when we took it up first time? I see Senator Clarkson's got

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: other notes. I do have other notes. I was just looking at the notes. I have historic preservation to to testify the LCT, other states, and funeral directors. Well, we try the funeral directors. Right. And what the other states do? I guess we there there's been a question about what the other states do because we all have this problem. And do you know, Tom, whether what other states do? How do other states do this?

[Tom Giffin (President, Vermont Old Cemetery Association - VOCA)]: Well, funny you should mention that. The bill that was introduced was basically copied from what the state of New York currently does.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Okay, thank you.

[Tom Giffin (President, Vermont Old Cemetery Association - VOCA)]: Other states usually have a fund of some kind to assist when communities have this vandal so they can repair their history. New York has been very, I mean, that was the bill that I looked at that was most encompassing, think.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: And Tom, I may follow-up. So Tom, where does the fee, where does the $5 fee go in New York State, you know?

[Tom Giffin (President, Vermont Old Cemetery Association - VOCA)]: They have a was just talking to the guy who was getting some money from the bank and he I'll goes to get the answer and I'll send it to the committee, So won't speak out of turn, but I'll find out exactly where it goes.

[Chris Book (President, Vermont Funeral Directors Association)]: New York State has a cemetery state agency. I suspect it's probably there, and I'm not sure how much the fee is that you pay in New York State.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: About $5. It's $5.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Oh, they have a lot more.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Better way.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Thank you, chair. So the one point of concern that I would like us to address in the bill that had come up previously, I believe it was from the woman who was a part of the natural barrier or the forest burials, if I remember correctly. She had noted that there was an inequity in the way that the fee was described in the bill for folks who did have headstones, who weren't getting ultimately a monument.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Those had to be.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Yeah. Those folks are still, as it's drafted, required to pay the fee. And I understand that it would add a layer of complexity to try to divvy out who's getting a headstone or who's getting some kind of service above and beyond having your body be disposed. I don't know the right terminology. But other than properly having your body be taken care of when you die. So I don't know how to parse that out, but I do think it's a fair point. Okay. And if there is a way to address it, I would, because there is funeral inequity. There are folks who cannot afford. And $5 is a small amount, but if someone is already not getting anything, there's probably a reason. Okay.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yeah. Senator Vyhovsky?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Senator White actually spoke to my concern around people who scrape by I mean, we have a fairly large percentage of people who can't afford funerals. Yeah. They might, even though it may not be what they wish for, choose cremation or some other way of just Even more. But, yeah, what is the right word? But I would also love to know in other states if there's a way that they address that. Is there a potential for waiving that? Is there a potential to because because the other thing is is we actually do have a fund to help people who are indigent, but the amount that is awarded is not even a quarter of what the average funeral costs.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Senator Clarkson? So I believe Christopher can address this because I know Greg Kent has addressed this many times before, But I believe every funeral director has the ability to, and there is a fund that we collect in Vermont to support families in need of financial support with funerals. Is that correct, Christopher?

[Chris Book (President, Vermont Funeral Directors Association)]: That is correct, yes. Can apply to it.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yeah. And people apply, and it's a it's a pretty robust as I recall from at least from Greg's talking to me in the past, that that that's used with some regularity, and that that my guess is we could make this fee waivable for families that or people that were not able to, both cover the cost of the funeral.

[Chris Book (President, Vermont Funeral Directors Association)]: You could waive it for anybody that applied for general assistance burial.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yep. I think that

[Chris Book (President, Vermont Funeral Directors Association)]: I do wanna correct, some testimony from the last time. Yep. Michelle testified about the insurance covering the headstones for this the cemetery insurance covering the headstones. That's not possible because the cemetery doesn't own the headstones. So the cemetery's insurance cannot cover, individual family's headstone because it's not owned by the cemetery.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: So if I could ask senator Clarkson to make sure she's, keeping notes on this. I was hoping to, take it up again when we get back and move it.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Right.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I think it's a good bill. I think there's some tweaks that we need to make on it, but I'd like to think that most of the, maybe all of the committee feels that it's worth pursuing for the long term. Yes, Senator?

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: I have a few changes that would, it sounds like just based on that feedback, probably not possible for us to divide up the piece, but I do wonder if we should work with legislative council to try to come up with some waiver option. I'm not sure. So I'd like to work on Well, I

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: think we just talked about that.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Yes, but how would you like us to move forward if we have those rep changes? Should I be working with legislative council and bring an amendment or something?

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I think we could turn

[Ken Hawkins (Deputy Director, Vermont Police Academy)]: it in the bill.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: And then, so in that case, our lawyer on this is?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: John Gray.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: John Gray. Okay. Yeah. I was like, I can't remember who it So I will go ahead and email John Gray and request something.

[Ken Hawkins (Deputy Director, Vermont Police Academy)]: With our

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: full permission.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I think it should be aligned with the waiver that already exists that the funeral directors already there's an ability for every anyone to apply for general assistance. Is that right, Christopher? There's a form for if people wanna apply for help.

[Chris Book (President, Vermont Funeral Directors Association)]: Correct. The funeral home has to apply, and it's just a simple form that we we fill out and then the family sign, and then we email it, and it's usually approved within a day or two.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Okay. And then the other piece I was hoping to have some slight amendment on, and I spoke with both Mr. Gibbon and Mr. Bach about it, but putting within the categories of prioritization that's in the bill, the possibility for those who have been explicitly discriminated against by the vandalism based off of a protected class. So if someone was specifically because there's prioritization within it that this group is going to use to decide how to allocate the funds. And I think a group that I would like to have highlighted would be those under protected classes. So if someone is vandalizing specifically veterans, if they're vandalizing specifically a Jewish cenotem, they're vandalizing You get where I'm going with this list. I a part of the LGBTQIA plus community. I would like to work on something that adds that as a priority point within their

[Tom Giffin (President, Vermont Old Cemetery Association - VOCA)]: Senator, make it a point if there was something along that line where any identified group, you

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: can put

[Tom Giffin (President, Vermont Old Cemetery Association - VOCA)]: it in the bill, but speaking on behalf of our organization and the funeral director, we would target them anyway.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yeah. Just be prioritizing strategic funds.

[Tom Giffin (President, Vermont Old Cemetery Association - VOCA)]: Yeah.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Cool. So I'll tag you next time.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. Senator White here, we're gonna work on changes.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Yeah, that's what I'm hearing, because I'm gonna email John Gray. Sure.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: And I won't okay. Hey.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Let me know if can also restrained.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Oh, you're welcome, Alison.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yeah. I just Christopher, could would you just remind me, insurance can't cover the cost of of the repairs because they don't own because the cemetery Doesn't own the mine. Right.

[Chris Book (President, Vermont Funeral Directors Association)]: The the monuments are owned by the individual families that place them.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Right.

[Chris Book (President, Vermont Funeral Directors Association)]: And so most of these cemeteries, they get vandalized. The families are long gone.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Right. Is there such a thing as insurance for individual monuments for that families would take out?

[Chris Book (President, Vermont Funeral Directors Association)]: So an individual family can add their monument to their homeowner's insurance?

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Some of them are very expensive if they're made of certain stone.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Oh, I great great uncle finds in Vienna was astonishing, so I can see picking out insurance on that one. But yeah. That's true. Some of them are very involved and would okay. Thanks. Well, that's very helpful.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: So we will take this up again when we come back the week of the ninth. I think it's the ninth. Yeah. You're right. Everybody said.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: We are I think it's that. Yes. Thank you.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Senator Vyhovsky?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: oh. I think so. Okay. I think so.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: We'll look at a revised

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: We're still helping at a $5. Yeah. So pretty much Okay.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Tom and Chris, I apologize for our delay, but I did wanna get to it today so we can prepare to move this when we get back.

[Tom Giffin (President, Vermont Old Cemetery Association - VOCA)]: Oh, well, thank you for hearing hearing us again, and we greatly appreciate it. And we didn't dawdle, by the way.

[Trevor Whipple (VLCT; Chair, Law Enforcement Advisory Board)]: You didn't dawdle.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yeah. I dawdle. I didn't jump to my reputation.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Thank you, guys.

[Tom Giffin (President, Vermont Old Cemetery Association - VOCA)]: Thank you

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: very much.

[Tom Giffin (President, Vermont Old Cemetery Association - VOCA)]: Thank you. Thank you

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: very much. Okay.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: We have a VSEA request, we've already taken up at least once. I remember Tom testified on it. And we have Kenneth Hawkins, who's the deputy director of the Vermont Police Academy, and Jennifer Furlow, who is the law enforcement certification and training coordinator for the Vermont Police Academy. She, I believe, is on the screen, but certainly, Ken, if you wanna take a seat at the head of the table, we'll talk about the this is the trainers who are right now forced, maybe that's a small word, to go to Group F, and they want to stay at Group C, right? So thank you very much, please,

[Ken Hawkins (Deputy Director, Vermont Police Academy)]: for having me. Sure. My name is Ken Hawkins. I'm the deputy director for the Remuncular Dysters Council and for the Academy. I first really need to show some appreciation, some thanks to senator Vyhovsky for even bringing this up and through the VSEA who it was nice enough to come down and cure us out. We spent several years without having a real line of communication. So to be able to do that was get tested, so thank you both. And I think, you know, listening to some of the testimony that's occurred prior, one of the things that we wanted to make sure was that you had a sense of who you were. Mhmm. When we talk about the academy, the academy is not a law enforcement agency. Mhmm. And as such, we are not currently in group c. We are not bringing folks in from group c. We are all, currently in group f. That said, it means that we're asking anybody that is currently a law enforcement member throughout the state, whether they are municipal or state, to give up ten years of retirement to come work for us in the sparkling town of Pittsburgh, which for many people, depending on where you're from. Yeah. It's something of a commute. Driving from Virgin's to Pittsburgh every day for the last fifteen years, I've come to appreciate the time, but I also understand that that can be challenging for folks that are perhaps from further out in the state. So given that, for us to recruit folks that are subject matter experts, currently certified law enforcement officers, or even just folks that wanna come to work at the academy in the community inclusion section and impartial in the domestic violence as Jen does, who may not be certified law enforcement coming in. We're asking them to essentially do the same work. We're asking them to provide testimony. We're asking them to provide education to new law enforcement officers. And what's a many and varied subject matter. We are constantly looking at new ways nationally, to bring the best training that we can to Vermont law enforcement officers. We're currently in the Iowa's revision for our entire curriculum that's going to bring us to a nationally certified standard, which will be the first time Vermont will have ever had that. Right now, Vermont has fortunately been for many years a place where other states particularly New England look to to find out what we're doing for training because we are held in very high regard, both from the the NES back standards for state police, but also for municipalities and other academies called New Hampshire, Maine, specifically. We've had a great relationship with both of those agencies. We've done a lot of back and forth to find out, hey. What are you doing? What are best practices for you or that you're seeing? We suffer with a best practice analogy sometimes and that who defines what best practice is. So we're trying to make sure that we're up to

[Trevor Whipple (VLCT; Chair, Law Enforcement Advisory Board)]: date with all of that.

[Ken Hawkins (Deputy Director, Vermont Police Academy)]: And that and to hire someone that is already working for a law enforcement agency or that wants to transfer from that and become a trainer, we're asking them to give up a fairly substantial amount of money right off the bat because we don't have overtime, which is fine. We ask them frequently to spend at least one night overnight at the academy. There are only so we have 16 positions. We are currently at 14 positions still. We have a hedge, trainer for k nines that's still open that we're trying very hard to fill because we recognize the need. But we also have, an in service training coordinator position that's been available for some time, and trying to find the right fit, whether in state or out of state has been challenging in part because of, the rate of pay, which is frankly fine. We're not arguing with that at all. However, a lot of folks that would come over are having a tough time giving out a twenty year retirement or a thirty year retirement, adding on to that that we're not contracting out these positions. That's we want to bring people in full time to work at the economy full time and to be trainer that we expect them to be on-site, not to do it off-site, not to, phone in from home, but to actually be there for that. I have something else that I've taken. So one of the questions that was asked last week or two weeks ago was, is it possible for folks that are currently sworn or currently certified to maintain their certifications outside the academy? And it is. So we have three members that are, formally sworn that are maintaining their law enforcement certification while at the academy as trainers, but they they have no law enforcement with the or power. There are two of us that right now maintain both our, level of certification, our full time level of certification, and are sworn by municipalities, so that we still have our law enforcement authority and still have law enforcement scope, but we are not actually classed out on a regular basis because we're part time for those agencies. We do not have benefits. We do not have the, retirement plans, etcetera, for those agencies or for the state. So, yeah, we're we're at And seeing some of the, the proposed language in February, we truly feel as though the folks in the academy staff certainly should be at least looked at for possibility of going in group g, considering what some of the other workloads are looking like, what some of the other risk is looking like. One of the the anecdotal things we've heard for years was, well, the accounting deficit taking the risk of somebody that's working full time on the road might be. I would gladly have whoever those folks might be come down to the range with me with some new level two folks and ask them how safe they feel when there's an accidental discharge, or when a weapon is pointed out. Or when we have somebody from New York City who's been trained only for the purposes of getting a license but has never actually driven because they've been able to take public transit for most of their lives. So we'll get them in a car, we'll take them out in the back parking lot where we do all of our EVOC training and see how comfortable people feel and whether that's a real one to one ratio or it's just anecdotal again. So I think for us to remain viable, for us to remain competitive from a hiring and retention standpoint, we really need to focus on how we are looking at the academy personnel, not just the training coordinators, but all of the personnel. TC Furpo being one of those folks who would be eligible if we were to simply keep the language at group c or training coordinators and law enforcement certification, she would be eligible. I would not. And we'd have many members that would not be, and we're going to create a divide within that group that I think is both unfortunate and perhaps untenable. And I think this body would be probably really good at looking at and saying, This does or this does not make sense, whichever direction you decide to go. Our concern is that, again, because of our size, we are so small. We the last thing we wanna do is create a us versus them within our own group. We already have folks that are sworn, folks that are police officers, and folks that are not. We fortunately are in bars sometimes to family, but we all get very well, and we'd like to maintain that. Bringing more folks in as trainers means that we would like to be able to offer something that's not a thirty year on top of what they've already done for education, on top of what they've already already done for a profession prior to coming to the academy and adding that additional thirty years is difficult. Green c would force us into a mandatory retirement. So many of those folks would never get to that. The last thing I guess I'll I'll throw out is that we have never had someone retire from the above list ever.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Oh, that's tough.

[Ken Hawkins (Deputy Director, Vermont Police Academy)]: It's telling, and it's disappointing because there's been a tremendous of good amount of good work that's been done there. And, occasionally, recognition of that would be nice to be able to send somebody off knowing that they've done their full diligence while they've been there, but that's been difficult to do. I think right now, we have not had a member from a c group come in, since 2011. They left within a year in part because of commute, but also because they came from a seat group. And they went back to that group so they could, in fact, get that twenty year retirement, and they were eligible for overtime and walking back to the road. Fair. But for us, disappointed. That said, our turnover has now started to seriously increase over the last five years. Right now, TC Furbo and I are the only remaining members since 2020, that are still there. We've had some ups and downs. Some folks that might remember some of our history means that it's been challenging at times. And the ever changing world of law enforcement, both statewide and nationally, means that we need to find the right people. We need to do the best that we can to retain them, but also to make sure that they're training what the state of law and the people of law would like us to do. So with that, can I have her to the TC protocol? Sure. Hi, Jen.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: We can't hear you. You're muted.

[TC Furpo (Training Coordinator, Vermont Police Academy)]: You would think after all of the time I have spent on Zoom, would not do that, but here we are. Good afternoon. As Director Hawkins said, I'm TC Furpo, training coordinator and domestic violence response instructor here at the academy. Thank you for the opportunity to hear us out and hear what we're saying. And I think one of the big things that I would like to make sure that is kind of top of mind on our staff becoming part of the group G retirement is that I'd like

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: to

[TC Furpo (Training Coordinator, Vermont Police Academy)]: echo Ken's thoughts that it needs to be all full time staff, not just the training coordinators that are offered this. We are such a small agency. We only have at max 16 people, And we're at 14. There isn't one person on our staff who is less important to our mission than another. They may do different things. Our admin may not spend the night when we have recruits in like the training staff does, but we can't get the things that the training staff needs done if she's not doing her thing. So we want everyone to be equal because as Ken said, we are a dysfunctional little family down here in Pittsford. Another thing that I would like to address is that I think there was some confusion with the last testimony about law enforcement working at the academy. And I think perhaps some of you may have been thinking about our adjunct faculty of instructors who come in to instruct all of these subjects that that we just don't have staff for. We have an incredible group of law enforcement officers and subject matter experts from around the state who very often are in fact donating their time to come and educate our recruits because we are such a small agency and we can't retain enough people to teach every subject that comes through. So, yeah, I think that's pretty much what I wanted to offer to you. And of course, we're more than happy to answer questions.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Senator Clarkson.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Ken, I think you answered my question in part. I was going to ask, what is the average tenure of your faculty? And it sounds like you and Jen are the only people who are still there since 2020. That's only five years ago. Yep,

[TC Furpo (Training Coordinator, Vermont Police Academy)]: I'll be celebrating ten years in May.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: And you have how many faculty again?

[Ken Hawkins (Deputy Director, Vermont Police Academy)]: So we have adjunct faculty of 98 to 100 personnel outside the academy. How many full time? And they are all volunteers.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Right.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Adjuncts are all volunteers.

[Ken Hawkins (Deputy Director, Vermont Police Academy)]: They are all volunteers. They come from across the state, different law enforcement agencies to come help us teach. We have training coordinators. We only have one full time instructor and that is for our parent and partial. She was just hired within the last year. We have a community inclusion director who helps with all of that and to help us we follow the fair and impartial curriculum through all of

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: the things that we're currently doing. So, how many full time people do you have? 14. 14. That's right. You're always

[Ken Hawkins (Deputy Director, Vermont Police Academy)]: Yes, ma'am.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Right. With two vacancies, so you should

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: have 62. Right. But what is disturbing is for you to say that no one has retired from the academy. That's bad. So that leads leads directly to support the concerns that's addressed here. And how many people, given most of your faculty are adjunct, this could at best only apply to 14 additional people?

[Ken Hawkins (Deputy Director, Vermont Police Academy)]: 14? If we're talking about the group G and G, yes, we would put a total of all of our current academy staff fall under agency administration. Which is currently for Beth. Are currently for Beth. Everyone.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: So, Vyhovsky?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I have a question, and I'm fully gonna recognize that you may not be able to answer it. So

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: of starting.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: No. Well, because the question might actually be for the pension people. Sure. So I'm trying to understand the fundamental differences between group c and group f.

[Ken Hawkins (Deputy Director, Vermont Police Academy)]: Yes, sir.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: And I'm wondering if you can highlight those for me.

[Ken Hawkins (Deputy Director, Vermont Police Academy)]: I can try as a person. Yeah. So group c is currently twenty year retirement. So once you've hit your twenty, you have maxed out what you're going to be able to put you to retirement from your average final compensation every teeny monthly cap. So at whatever time you start to collect, are only gonna get roughly half of whatever they're probably buy at They have a mandatory retirement that's seven for group c. Mhmm. That may have changed. It was group excuse me. It was 55 and we'll need that. 57. Group f has no. Obviously, on the other side of that has no mandatory retirement age and has invested at KYCAD with their injuries.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Okay. And so the concern that was raised, about group c is that under federal law, we can't I have to think it's unconstitutional for us to have a mandatory retirement age unless you're doing law enforcement. Right. And so I'm I'm, like, wrap try to Sure. Think around is it may not

[Trevor Whipple (VLCT; Chair, Law Enforcement Advisory Board)]: be

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: possible constitutionally to put you all in group c, but is there another We don't

[Ken Hawkins (Deputy Director, Vermont Police Academy)]: want b c. Oh, okay. Thank you. No. That's so my hope was based on the bill based on February that you presented, to change the language from force excuse me, from the law enforcement certification training coordinator from the Vermont Academy, which is to Vermont Lakes Academy staff.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Great.

[Ken Hawkins (Deputy Director, Vermont Police Academy)]: So group c, you're absolutely right. We have a law enforcement agency, and we are not a law enforcement agency. So you're absolutely right. It's not appropriate for us to ask for that. Okay. We have no desire for that.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Wonderful. The last testimony we heard, it sounded very much to me like that is exactly what you were asking Thank you for clarifying. Please do that.

[Ken Hawkins (Deputy Director, Vermont Police Academy)]: A big part of our concern is we would lose a lot of folks from the age perspective. Right. We had retirees. If we had chiefs of police that decided they still had a lot to give and they wanted to come back, whether it's in the director's position or what have you. For them to be able to add that time on, can personally would not be able to they would not be possible. Right. With group f or excuse me, with Group G, that may still be possible or at least a possibility. It depends on what system they're currently in as to whether or not the state may have to add on to that or they would say, no, you're not eligible because insert language here.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Got it. Oh, that is so helpful. Thank you.

[Ken Hawkins (Deputy Director, Vermont Police Academy)]: Absolutely. Thank you. Again, we've only had one person from group C since I've been there since 2008. Who's come over from a state system and they they weren't able to say for all the right reasons. So beyond that, we've never had somebody from group c try to come over. So to add that as specific language, it really wouldn't

[Trevor Whipple (VLCT; Chair, Law Enforcement Advisory Board)]: Gotcha. Got

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: it. I am really glad we had you in because like I said the last time you had people like that. Yeah. I

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: think that may have

[Ken Hawkins (Deputy Director, Vermont Police Academy)]: been confusion on BSA's part. Okay. I think their understanding was that a a law enforcement officer within the state of Vermont currently would be group c. So it makes sense for them to believe that if we took someone who was currently a law enforcement officer within the state that wanted to cross over to the academy, could they bring their group seat with them? And I understand that a lot. We have so many folks that are not state law enforcement officers that are experts in their fields that we would very much like to be able to entertain that as well. And that would seriously help us retention. Okay. Some of the folks that were identified in, the current language, force protection officers within the military department, DCF workers, all of these folks are I used to my former life, as a military member, I was the first, state's deputy colonel marshal, for the TAG, and part of my responsibility was to help train the state security officers. Absolutely makes sense. I think you could make an easy argument that the staff of the Vermont Police Academy is at least on par, if not beyond, than some of these other groups. If we're talking about risk or if we're talking about longevity and subject matter need to publicly buy.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Did we get a fiscal note?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: No. This is the one this is the bill if you that the treasurer came in and said that we would need to do an actuarial study to bring so many more people. And I think my proposal would be to ask and what did they say that would cost? $60,000? Yeah. Was a book. They're also doing an actuarial study this year. So my proposal would be that for this year to ask that we appropriate the money for the actuarial study, because I actually don't think we should move forward until we know True. What the impact of the pension would be, because we certainly don't wanna stabilize the pension as we just spent so much time stabilizing. Okay. So that was that was my thought on this, because they said they needed the actuarial study, was to ask for the appropriation to do the actuarial study. And I, could do this next draft of this bill that asks instead to do the actuarial study to do this, if that is what the committee would like. But I very much heard what the treasurer's office said and the pension people said, that like, Woah, woah, woah, hit the brakes, you gotta do an actuarial study.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Senator Vyhovsky.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you so much for coming. I think I've now added a layer of confusion to myself on this conversation because I feel like I thought the ask was for group C. So now this is new information to me and I'm trying to track. We have two bills on this topic generally of the retirement groups. So we're currently talking about you're in support of both.

[Ken Hawkins (Deputy Director, Vermont Police Academy)]: We are in support of February.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: February and?

[Ken Hawkins (Deputy Director, Vermont Police Academy)]: The academy staff can be represented within that bill as opposed to just the law enforcement training board in there.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Yes. Mhmm.

[Ken Hawkins (Deputy Director, Vermont Police Academy)]: Oh, the in favor of that. Group c is lovely. And we could certainly, I'm sure, use that as a as an emphasis to say, we'd love to have you come to work here and steal you from whatever other agency or department you might be now. This will make us huge versus the hated pipelines agencies. Yeah. But at the same time, we recognize that that there are so few, folks in that pool right now, that would want to do that. But if we are in group g Yeah. We're not changing that retirement. So they would not lose anything from the retirement standpoint to go from group g. Okay.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: So you're in favor of $2.95, which I thought was your bill related to Oh. It

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: is my bill. Oh, okay.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: This is where I'm super confused. So what is your position on the other bill related to your organization?

[Ken Hawkins (Deputy Director, Vermont Police Academy)]: As far as group c, which was February in the year Yeah. We are not in favor of that.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Oh, okay.

[Trevor Whipple (VLCT; Chair, Law Enforcement Advisory Board)]: If

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: This is where I Well, don't know

[Ken Hawkins (Deputy Director, Vermont Police Academy)]: if I again, I think this was

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: signals on this.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: This was

[Ken Hawkins (Deputy Director, Vermont Police Academy)]: this, I think, between what the VSEA was hoping would help solve part of our problem. Oh, okay. But senator Vyhovsky is nice not to include us in the group g. Oh. So that that would take care

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: of You want group g.

[Ken Hawkins (Deputy Director, Vermont Police Academy)]: Please.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: And now I'm understanding. Now I'm understanding.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: And so my objection would be that we add the staff people who are talking about and ask for the actuarial study. I think the other change that might be needed in that bill has absolutely nothing to do with the Vermont criminal justice training people is to pare down, because my intention with DCF was that it be the direct On

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: the ground. On the ground.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: And right now, the way it's written, I think it includes the entirety of DCF. Yeah. So would it be okay for me to ask for those changes and bring it back to

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: the Yeah. Okay. Cool.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. Ken, thank you very much. Thank

[Ken Hawkins (Deputy Director, Vermont Police Academy)]: you again for your help.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Thanks, Ken.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Of course. Thank you for helping too. Just like, wait. I also thought this is the big thing.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Do we have?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I also really appreciate you going down the hall and Oh, explaining to

[Trevor Whipple (VLCT; Chair, Law Enforcement Advisory Board)]: Sorry. Took him early. Know

[Ken Hawkins (Deputy Director, Vermont Police Academy)]: we publicly have a lot of parties.

[Trevor Whipple (VLCT; Chair, Law Enforcement Advisory Board)]: Thank you. Thank you.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yeah, I haven't heard that Okay. Awesome.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: So let's move to our final item, and we can snaggle.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Senator Hardy is probably in the rather intense finance

[Ken Hawkins (Deputy Director, Vermont Police Academy)]: Yeah.

[Trevor Whipple (VLCT; Chair, Law Enforcement Advisory Board)]: Meeting. So

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I don't know if you know everybody in the room, we can I no need center?

[Trevor Whipple (VLCT; Chair, Law Enforcement Advisory Board)]: Okay. I I know of everybody. It's been a while since I've been here under a different profession, so I'll be So

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I asked you to come in because I got a note regarding the law advisory board, law enforcement advisory board. Leah Vyhovsky, is that

[Ken Hawkins (Deputy Director, Vermont Police Academy)]: how you L E A B.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: L E A B. And I'm especially sensitive because I'm from Rutland, and we had a tragic situation some years back, not that long ago now, with Jessica Ebbenkausen, with a police chase. I thought that there was going to be at least some discussion, continuing discussion about possibly getting a statewide I know the state police, DSP, has a statewide policy regarding police chases that unless it involves, I think it's the Big twelve murder, all that kinds of stuff, they're not gonna chase somebody. And I know there's differing opinions when you get underneath that VSP level where the sheriffs might have one and then local law enforcement police state police departments have another. But I guess I'm just asking, where are we with all that discussion? Is it likely or unlikely that we'll ever get to a kind of a statewide policy?

[Trevor Whipple (VLCT; Chair, Law Enforcement Advisory Board)]: Well, I think first, for the for the record, Trevor Whipple. Yep. I currently represent Vermont League of Cities and Towns. I fulfill their seat on the Law Enforcement Advisory Board. Okay. And I was elected in as the chair of that board in September. Chief Burke, was the chair. Yep. When he went back to Burlington, his duties were such that, he felt he didn't have the, the time to continue to be chair. So, so we we did discuss if there was appetite within the LEAB to produce a statewide model pursuit policy. Now mind you, the LEAB, and I've brought a list here just to give some idea for folks that may not know it, and

[Ken Hawkins (Deputy Director, Vermont Police Academy)]: you may, and forgive me if

[Trevor Whipple (VLCT; Chair, Law Enforcement Advisory Board)]: you do, is made up of there's 17 seats on the law enforcement advisory board. Yeah. And they include the public safety, state police, fish and wildlife, Department of Motor Vehicles, Capitol Police, chiefs, sheriffs, myself from VLCT, the Vermont Police Association, the attorney general, state's attorneys, US attorney, the criminal justice council, defender general, the troopers association, constable association, and the VSEA. So that's the group that makes up this law enforcement advisory board. Yep. When we discuss an interest or a desire to craft a statewide policy, you will see in the report from not this year, but last year, in that report that was given back here to legislature, it included the Vermont League of Cities and Towns. We produce, and we do have a model policy at VLCT. We insure, 52 of the 54 municipal police departments. So we insure everybody except South Burlington and Burlington. We also ensure the constants. So we do have a a a model pursuit policy. It's not mandatory that everybody adopt it. It's discretionary. I highly recommend it. That's my job at BLCT as a risk manager for law enforcement. So we brought forward the safe police policy that you've already referred to that, and I do agree there's 12 of the major felonies that gives them authorization to pursue. We brought that policy forward with the VLCT policy. We also brought in, a best practices recommendation guide that was produced by PERF, the Police Executive Research Forum. And they did an assessment and kind of a recommendation of what they would, suggest that law enforcement leaders consider when crafting a pursuit policy. It it was at the time this was brought before the LEAB, there were differing opinions. There were, some sheriffs that felt they were more rural. They had different environments. There were also the belief that there were different expectations in communities. Some communities, many times our policy is driven by community desire and community expectations. So a police leader will develop a policy framed around that. And so, when I was in South Burlington, we had a we modeled the VLCT policy, which is not as restricted as state police, but still is very restricted. So the the short answer is when this came up, when I brought this up as the new chair, the response I got back from the multitude of participants in the LEAB was that there was not an appetite to try to develop something that would fit everyone. Now granted, there are opportunities to mandate that through different mechanisms. The LEAB doesn't mandate, we recommend. And so because of the varying constituents, the varying police agencies, it was felt, by the the board, that it would be left to each law enforcement executive to develop a policy that fit kind of their policing desires, what they wanted for a culture or history in their agency. What I can I don't wanna derail, but what I can speak to, you mentioned Rutland? Their after action or their internal investigation of that very unfortunate event was not a lack of policy. It was they had a policy, and according to that analysis that I read, had they followed the policy, the situation may have been very difficult. So it was not the fact that they did not have a good policy, it was the fact that, now this is only going from what I've read from the publicly available report, but was the fact that they frankly didn't follow the policy. So,

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: this is taking kind of a big step back because I'm trying to understand the jurisdiction of the LEAB versus the Vermont Criminal Justice Training Council, because generally my understanding is that it's the criminal justice council that does statewide policies and model policies. So I'm just I'm trying to understand how it all works together.

[Trevor Whipple (VLCT; Chair, Law Enforcement Advisory Board)]: So it's very interesting, and I too was in that position. I took over as the chair, I would say, I really wanna understand what my charge is here. And I think it really comes down to, the LEAD in statute, does have the capacity to develop and recommend model policy. They do have that capacity. Now there have been dictates that have come down from, this building that have said, you know, passed certain legislation that says, we have we direct legislature directs through statute that a policy be developed, and may be made available. Now some I don't know if you've ever required that you adopt a specific policy, but there had there is legislation that says that you must either adopt the policy that legislature has directed be developed either by the training council or the criminal justice council, or there have been some directed to the LEAB. We are reviewing right now our, the CEW policy or the TASER policy. When that law was crafted, it was directed that the LEAV would create the policy and would review it every year. So I think depending on which statute we look at, which law it was, it's either criminal justice counsel or the LEAV. Now generally, in a in a kind of an at will situation, the LEAV may, of their own free will, develop and recommend a policy nominee.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Okay. So it is a little confusing. I appreciate that. And I wonder too how much of it because the criminal justice training council as it is currently constructed is fairly new. So I wonder if some of it's time frame too, if it went to the LEAB before they have to mandate Figuinale. And it sounds like the biggest difference is that your policies are advisory, whereas the criminal justice training councils now

[Ken Hawkins (Deputy Director, Vermont Police Academy)]: Just to further confuse you, senator. So,

[Trevor Whipple (VLCT; Chair, Law Enforcement Advisory Board)]: for example, let's take the the CEW, law that was passed. The CEW law directs, certain elements of when you can and and how to train on taser use, CEW or taser use. And in that law, it directs the LEAB to develop the model policy, and it directs law enforcement agencies to adopt that policy or a policy that contains the essential elements of the policy. So it's still depending on how a law is crafted, it could go to either Ken or Trevor.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. Okay. That's about as clear as mud, but I appreciate

[Trevor Whipple (VLCT; Chair, Law Enforcement Advisory Board)]: And I cannot give any reason as to the wise. I I do not know.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: That's probably our fault. Yeah. So is your recommendation in the instance of high speed chases

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: that it's okay, that there should be

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: a model policy, that what what's the LEAV's conclusion? So

[Trevor Whipple (VLCT; Chair, Law Enforcement Advisory Board)]: the LEAV did not really develop any conclusion to that degree. The conclusion simply was that by consensus, the the folks that were in attendance to that meeting, did not, have the desire to craft a model policy, period. There was belief that agencies had policies. There was, to this day, and I don't know if Ken is aware of any, I don't know of pursuit situations, that a different that this policy wouldn't have already covered. So that, where we hear of instances of things going wrong in pursuits, it's my belief that in a vast majority of them, and I can't speak to all of them, that it's a failure to follow policy. Mhmm. It's a failure to

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: It's a failure follow follow

[Trevor Whipple (VLCT; Chair, Law Enforcement Advisory Board)]: existing policy. To follow policy. And I think that, you know, when you look at our policy, it's not as as restrictive as state police, but ours really, requires a violent felony. So it's a little more open, because, you know, my belief, this is my personal belief, that there may be instances that don't fit within those very specific top 12, where a community might expect a police department to just not watch them drive away, to at least engage with them and then apply all the other elements elements of the policy. What are the driving conditions? What's the weather conditions? And we always keep a sanctity of life foremost. We always train to, even if you do meet the threshold to initiate a pursuit that, and I think Ken and I trained very similarly on this. I I'm the liability trainer for the criminal justice council, that we always, teach, whether you be a new or seasoned police officer, that we must always keep the safety of others, the safety of the people we're pursuing, and the safety of us for paramount.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Senator Clarkson.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Thank you. I apologize. Had to say in the house, James. It was really fun. The question I have for you is do you have so you tend to leave these up to individual department policies. So does that mean the are are they similar to the state police, for example, because most of the high speed chasers we hear about are with the state police, not with local police. State police are yep. Yeah. That's what I thought. So they already have a policy.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Right? Yes.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: And But most departments do as well.

[Trevor Whipple (VLCT; Chair, Law Enforcement Advisory Board)]: Well, and and we hope. You know, nobody You haven't asked

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: to say they aren't required to.

[Trevor Whipple (VLCT; Chair, Law Enforcement Advisory Board)]: What we do at VLCT, because we insure 52 of the 54 municipal police departments, is that we have a package of over 100 model policies. And there really are I call them the top 12 policies, which are the most high liability, high risk, events that police officers engage in. Pursuit is front and center. And I re remind our police chiefs regularly that we have the policy available. We update it every two years. We go through and make sure that there's no changes that need to take place. And I also, on a very regular basis, encourage our police chiefs to train on the policy. Policies are no good if we don't train our people to the policy, but then also that we don't hold them to the policy. You know, we had a situation in South Burlington where an officer went outside the policy. Nothing bad happened, but we had a very clear mechanism to bring that officer in, do a review, do a training to have some accountability, because I really think when I do engage with other risk managers like myself around the nation, I believe, and I conferred with our general counsel today, that we have very few instances of pursuits gone bad. And I do like to credit good culture in police agencies. And I cannot guarantee you what policy everybody has. I don't know. But

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I love that you described yourself as a risk manager. Yes.

[Trevor Whipple (VLCT; Chair, Law Enforcement Advisory Board)]: That's Former my job police chief, current risk manager.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Senator Beale's job. Oh,

[Trevor Whipple (VLCT; Chair, Law Enforcement Advisory Board)]: sounds like

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I appreciate that we don't have many instances of chases gone bad and that most of them probably were people not following the policy. But I sort of believe in when we're taking really high risk stuff like that, that we should prevent it from happening, not respond once it's gone wrong. That's right. And so I'm wondering if there are any best practices. Does the International Chiefs of Police have best practices? Because I feel like at the bare minimum, we should know that all of our law enforcement agencies are following best practices.

[Trevor Whipple (VLCT; Chair, Law Enforcement Advisory Board)]: Yes. So certainly I can guarantee you that the policy that the LCT has, and we have a vendor that writes our policies, LLRMI, the Legal Liability Risk Management Institute. They follow best practices. I actually reviewed in anticipation of being here today, the best practices document provided by Perf, which was in, developed in concert with the, US Department of Justice, and that these are the best practices that they recommend, to include the when to initiate a pursuit. The violent felony or, and I can't give you the exact verbiage, but the extremely dangerous driving that endangers others. Okay. That

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: is helpful. I just wonder if it makes sense to perhaps I I just think we should actually know that all our law enforcement agencies have that as their bare minimum policy. Again, it doesn't make me feel very comfortable that we're not sure if every law enforcement agency has a policy.

[Trevor Whipple (VLCT; Chair, Law Enforcement Advisory Board)]: Without doing, you know, a a query, that would be the only way I would know, is to to reach out to everybody and say, you know, do you have policies? And mind you as well that, our model policies are available, not mandatory to be adopted, but there's also a smattering of, non VLCT agencies as well. There's all our county sheriffs. There's the state law enforcement agencies who aren't state police as well, and I'm not sure what they're doing.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: What so when I and I guess then my question, and I sort of outlined this, because I know in many instances when we've done sort of a must adopt model policy, it's like you either wanna do this or something that's more robust. Yep. I wonder, you know, it sounds like the state police's policy might be argued to be more robust, more protective. I'm I'm just trying to understand.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: More strict. More strict.

[Trevor Whipple (VLCT; Chair, Law Enforcement Advisory Board)]: Well, think that, you know, I think that if somebody were to consider that, so if there was a consideration that somebody wanted to mandate a policy, and you look at that state police policy, and state police, you know, good for them. I think that it it, their troopers, very clear. If it doesn't meet one through 12, then hands off. But, you know, what I would just ask is, you know, are communities going to be accepting of that? Are, you know, a small rural community who has their own police department, if a crime outside that happened, it may have been a very serious crime, but it wasn't one of those 12, would people in that community be okay if a police officer didn't even have the opportunity to consider, is it safe to try to catch this individual?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Would so I wanna be clear. What I was sort of thinking is if the the BLCT policy was for something like it was sort of the baseline. I wanted to make sure that the state police policy would be considered more robust.

[Trevor Whipple (VLCT; Chair, Law Enforcement Advisory Board)]: It absolutely is.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: That I I actually some I take senator Clarkson's point that our state police are are they're often on the highways. They're often dealing with different circumstances than than in a small town, and that makes sense to me that their policy might be stricter. And

[Trevor Whipple (VLCT; Chair, Law Enforcement Advisory Board)]: and it's a

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I I see possibly some dissent.

[Trevor Whipple (VLCT; Chair, Law Enforcement Advisory Board)]: And it's a leadership decision. It's a

[Ken Hawkins (Deputy Director, Vermont Police Academy)]: leadership decision, and it's gotta be tuned to the environment in which the officers and or the department works. It stated, least, as you just said, frequently on the interstates, frequently on the highways, safer to be involved in a pursuit situation on the highway, maybe, maybe not. For municipality, schools, residential areas, time of day, nighttime, daytime, what are the best practices for driving given each of those conditions. There's a variety of things that are all going to go into whatever that policy might look like, and it may be very specific for a municipality or sheriff's department for the safe place. Mhmm. To have one that's overarching and then neck down based on where you are might make a lot of sense. Or I'm gonna make my director nervous now. What training have you gone through that puts you in a place where you feel as though your officers, your sheriffs, your troops, are in place where they can engage safely in a pursuit, bring us to the resolution that the community is looking for, safely for the offender, the victim, and last name for the officer?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Is that training that happens in our police academy?

[Ken Hawkins (Deputy Director, Vermont Police Academy)]: Somewhere I'm waiting to get there.

[Trevor Whipple (VLCT; Chair, Law Enforcement Advisory Board)]: The door was offender. Have definitely been in

[Ken Hawkins (Deputy Director, Vermont Police Academy)]: the parking lot through the back. And

[Trevor Whipple (VLCT; Chair, Law Enforcement Advisory Board)]: I do. Yes.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: We don't have a bill in the place. One

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: big racetrack.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: The idea was just to have you come in and kinda give us Yeah. Where we are with it.

[Trevor Whipple (VLCT; Chair, Law Enforcement Advisory Board)]: So Yeah. So it's not to confuse senator Hovsky, but, yeah, we're kind of here and there, and, you know, it, it is available to agencies. I am, miserable when it comes to risk management because, you know, I'm very fortunate that, it was Ken that invited me, but when I transitioned from police chief to risk manager, I kind of lost my instructorship at the academy. I was the juvenile law instructor and was missing my friends, and was asked to, repurpose and come down, and so I teach all the police liability components now. So, this is and I use and I use the unfortunate example of the Rutland matter in training to to teach officers, here's the baseline, pursuit policy. Here's what it means to me. And I really think that, you know, we do need good structure for our officers because I have been there. I have been that frontline officer, and there's something about, I don't know if it's who's drawn to the police world, it's human nature that it's almost like a cat and mouse. And when you engage in a pursuit, you you lose some of your thinking, and you become focused on catching, catching, catching. And so I think the more we do in training, certainly we have the policy to direct us, but in training, to make sure that we implant through this continual repeated message that we just need to remember that there are more important things than catching the person you're after, even if it does meet the criteria within your policy. And I tell the recruits, I'm there week two, that it's okay to let people go. You know? Tell your chief, tell your sheriff to come and see me. I am giving you permission that it's okay. Even if you do have reason to start a pursuit and it's justified, that if you get to the point where it just suddenly, the tide has turned and it's now feeling unsafe to to the public, to the person you're chasing to you, just stop. It's not worth it.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I think the public perception is, for those of us old enough to remember the OJ Simpson slow chase through the streets. I mean, they had it on TV, and the people were glued. And then cops, the other show that people and Facebook where that's probably the most watched thing is some lunatic. And I do think you respect getting chased.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Arm. You know, television shows have high speed changes. But Culturally. Yeah.

[Trevor Whipple (VLCT; Chair, Law Enforcement Advisory Board)]: And and I but I do think it sends a message, Senator, and this and I am gonna bring this message back that this is important enough that you invited me here to speak about it today, that you are interested, that you wanna make sure that our officers are, doing things safely and not endangering our community or themselves. And I do think you know, I I speak highly of Vermont law enforcement. I think what they're doing at the academy is just phenomenal, and the changes that have been made, recently, and Ken and I speak frequently, and I think there's this constant drone of messaging that's very similar that they continue to hear about issues like this.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Well, we thank you for your time today.

[Ken Hawkins (Deputy Director, Vermont Police Academy)]: For sure.

[Trevor Whipple (VLCT; Chair, Law Enforcement Advisory Board)]: I thank you for your invitation.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I think to your point, mister chair, it's there is a lot of media consumption and ideas about in in the public sphere about what looks like, what brutal justice looks like. And it gets even more critically important that we're grounding what we're doing in best practices and data, and in fact, and not letting that creep into how how we're doing things. And so I I really appreciate you being here. I know there's not a bill this year, but there might be next year, because I think it's not just about best practices in the agencies, but also appropriate training.

[Trevor Whipple (VLCT; Chair, Law Enforcement Advisory Board)]: I'm Have a good day. Yeah. Me

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: too. Thank you both, Ken. Good to see you. Thanks very much. Thank you. Very much. Nice to see you again. We managed to catch up time wise.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Every time.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Unless you have something else? Don't. And I know that the bike had to go at four.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: It's off six.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: We'll adjourn for the dance. See all they do tomorrow.