Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: We're alive. Alright. Good morning. It is January 21. Tenant judiciary here dealing with s two zero nine. We'll be having a discussion and markup. We also do have two witnesses that we wanna hear from. But before we move into the discussion and markup just so we can have a little bit more information to inform us as we enter that. So I see that Reverend Sparrow is on the Zoom. And are you able to hear us?

[Rev. Lise Sparrow]: Yes, I can.

[Speaker 0]: Fantastic. So I know you're here to talk about S209. Want to give you the floor if you just want to introduce yourself and share what you'd like to share about the bill, that would be great.

[Rev. Lise Sparrow]: Okay, thank you very much for inviting me. I'd also like to say that I had hoped to bring Susan McMillan, who's a deacon of the Episcopal Church, but she's on her way to Minneapolis for a clergy call. I just introduced myself. I was a pastor of a church in Guilford, Vermont for twenty years and I'm now retired and now I'm working with Vermont Interfaith Action and on the Justice and Witness Ministries for the United Church of Christ. So I've been involved in these issues for a long time. And another activity that I have is I work with refugees here in Southern Vermont, two families in particular, but I'm working to develop a network of clergy for support all over the state. So these are issues which are dear and near to my heart, And I really appreciate your consideration of including churches and faith communities in this bill. I really have two different angles that I'd like to present, and I'll do that briefly. I I'm respectful of your time, and I appreciate this testimonial aspect of the process. The first is that I understand in the bill, we're talking about sensitive locations. And I'm not exactly sure what that means, but I'm just going to offer that in Brattleboro alone or in Windham County, most churches have one or more of the following ministries. That would be childcare centers, three there are four childcare centers in churches. One of our homeless shelters, the one for the most vulnerable is in a church. Two have food three have food shelves, and there are a couple of thrift shops, not to mention the kind of counseling that always goes on in churches. So if we were just to sit with me not knowing what sensitive location means, I would encourage you to think about the fact that the most vulnerable members of our communities often go to churches, whether or not they are members of those communities and are particularly vulnerable. Most of them have have had some sort of trauma or vulnerable to trauma. So the idea of unexpected violence and detainment in those places is doubly concerning. So that would I would offer that just out of the gate. As I dug into this more, though, I want to recognize that I'm 75 years old, so I have lived through different versions of churches being sanctuaries. I wanted to talk about that probably more importantly. I realize that when you say something is a sensitive location, doesn't necessarily her back to the First Amendment. But I want to make sure that you understand that the First Amendment protects the freedom of religion, and it does and and guards against the government having the power to control or destroy religious institutions. And with those institutions, our ability to live out our faith. So in my faith tradition alone, the first one that I can think of is the Amistad ship, which came into Connecticut. And I think many of you know about this that protected a shipload of slaves for some months until they could be given their freedom. And what that meant right then, and then I'll talk a little bit more about some of the other cases, is that as long as those slaves were in the church building, then due process could continue and until they left. So there was a lot of effort by members of the church community guided by their faith to make sure that those people could remain safe. In my lifetime, I saw that happen when I was in college for the draft resistors against the Vietnam War is that draft resistors would take sanctuary in churches until due process could happen, and they could go to wherever they were going or have their cases adjudicated. More recently, I'm not I I was aware of the of a situation in Amherst, Massachusetts, where a man who was seeking asylum lived for almost two years with the help of church members until he could be granted asylum. And some of you may also know, if you know Southern Vermont, that Weston Priory also gave sanctuary to a Guatemalan family who were in danger and waiting for their asylum. So there's a lot of precedent about churches being able to live out their faith by providing sanctuary within their buildings. So I I really feel that that's the bigger question here is this idea of a first first amendment right. A secondary part of that, which I'd like you to consider, is the which is the churches cannot be taxed. And for those of you who are lawyers, and I suspect you all are lawyers, The underlying belief of churches not being taxed is that if churches could be taxed, then, they could have the power to basically destroy churches through taxation and our founding fathers basically believed that people should be able to worship without government interference. So again, I'm encouraging you to think about the fact that for us to live out our faith, we need buildings and we need to live out our faith within those buildings. I understand that outside the buildings, the government can do whatever they want. So this leads me to one last comment, which is that currently, for those of you who are church goers, you will know this. But for those of you who aren't, the ACLU has guided churches on sanctuary by helping us understand what we can do within our buildings. And I already, I wanna say I'm already disturbed at this because what it's meant is that all of us have worked together to define spaces within our buildings that are private and that cannot be entered without a warrant. I believe that churches should be able we should be able to carry out whatever we do within the buildings without anyone coming in without a warrant. So at this point, it's as if the buildings have been constrained now so that most churches have a designated area with a sign that says privacy, and that if someone is in there, then the ICE agents need to go and get a warrant. That's a very extreme thing for churches to have to do. And it's it also means that ICE agents can come in while we are worshiping, and I'm sure you saw the news about them having done that to restrain someone. So I guess I have concerns on many levels that I'll just summarize, which is one is that our churches are places for vulnerable people and that we are living out our faith by providing them support. And that any hindrance to that is really keeping us from living out our faith, which is protected by the First Amendment. The second is the history of churches and that means their the buildings being sanctuaries. And the third is this recent diminishment of of what is defined as safe space within churches to just be a space that we put a sign on. So, all these are my concerns. Thank you very much for your time. Happy to answer questions but I'm sure you have a lot to do.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you. Committee, any questions for Reverend Sparrow? Okay, great. Thank you for testifying. It's good to see you and

[Charlie Winserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: Likewise.

[Speaker 0]: I'm sure I'll see you around.

[Rev. Lise Sparrow]: Yeah. Thank you all very much for all your work.

[Speaker 0]: Have a nice day.

[Rev. Lise Sparrow]: You too.

[Speaker 0]: Next up, we have Charlie that wanna yeah. He wanted to testify and provide some input as well.

[Charlie Winserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: Thank you so much.

[Rick (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: See her?

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Yeah. Good.

[Rick (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Let's change.

[Charlie Winserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: Thank you so much. Good morning. Charlie Winserman. I'm the policy director at Vermont National Anti Anti Anti Anti Sexual Violence. I appreciate the opportunity to speak briefly on seven two excuse me. S two zero nine. We appreciate the committee consideration of the bill and would request the addition of social services establishments like domestic and sexual violence organizations to the list of sensitive locations. As you've discussed in previous testimony, the Department of Homeland Security have longstanding guidance that ICE refrain from enforcement actions in sensitive locations. In 2021, social services establishments were added to that list that was then rescinded in 2025 and resulted in concern and a real lack of clarity for providers. Domestic and sexual violence organizations provide life saving services like shelter, legal support, safety planning, and more. This work is highly sensitive, and it often occurs during the most dangerous periods of a survivor's life. So when a survivor seeks support, it's really an act of trust. Trust that they seeking help will be safer than remaining in an abusive partner's relationship or in an unsafe home. Survivors already face many barriers to seeking safety, and so regardless of their real or perceived immigration status, they shouldn't face an additional barrier to accessing support, like the fear that they could expose themselves or their families to enforcement actions. Nine out of our 14 member programs do provide community based shelter, but even among those, many have offices that are not co located with their community based shelter, which is currently named in the bill. So services like support groups, confidential one on one support, pre legal clinics are often in those office based settings, not currently included at the bill. Including social services establishments in the list of sensitive locations would offer clarity and consistency to survivors and the providers who serve them. We've included the relevant language previously in the Department of Homeland Security guidance on social services establishments in our written testimony, in case it's helpful reference to the committee. We appreciate your committee's attention to this issue. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you. I think my first question, is there a definition of social services establishments anywhere that you know of that we could cross reference? Anything along those lines?

[Charlie Winserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: So, I took a quick look through Vermont's statutes. I didn't find anything that was as comprehensive as the social services establishment definition that was included in the previous Department of Homeland Security guidance. And so I have included that definition in my written testimony. When I think about what would be most helpful to providers, I think of the practices that they've established and followed over the last four years under this guidance, and that feels the most appropriate from our perspective for a definition.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Seems reasonable to make the most of the prejudice system federal definition.

[Speaker 0]: Any questions, Charlotte? No? Great. Thanks, Steven. Thank you very much.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: So

[Speaker 0]: with that testimony and prior testimony in mind, I think we can enter a discussion slash markup phase for this bill. Unlike yesterday, I think we'll just start from the top and go to the bottom so we'll replace it. So any initial discussion that

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: we wanna have about this general point or specific sort of? I'm I'm just always worried about siblings and wording and typing it up as much as possible. Community based shelter, I'm wondering if you have any definition for that. I'm assuming it's like a warming shelter or an overnight shelter, I could certainly outside of the. So I'm I'm wondering what our definition is.

[Rick (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So, we're disabled from the Office of Blitz and the Council is. Senator Baruth, what you see, is maybe something different than someone else's sees, so that's a problem that that we don't have that defined. I think overall, when you're talking about arresting people, you wanna be really clear so police can do their job Yeah. And so they can follow the law, especially since you have remedies here that the AG could possibly, you know, sue if this law is violated. So I tend to agree that we can crossword in something, be be more specific or even just be detailed end of the end of definition itself here on the stage to do so. I do have the, Charlie was talking about the previous DHS guidance. I have that document pulled up. You want to see how it defined social services, community based shelter. One second here. This was a policy that was in place, and it started late twenty twenty one. And, pretty early in president Trump's second term, it was representative. So let me show you the top of the page. So this k. This is the DHS memorandum, not executive order, not a law, but advice from the head of DHS at the time being scrolled down. So and, actually, I was gonna share this anyway because they they define this as protected areas. This bill defines it as sensitive spaces. Kinda means the same thing. And I think last time the committee talked about putting some findings in to kind of support the law. And this order may give you some ideas on how you wanna word those findings because it does talk about the reasons why they instituted this policy. So I'm gonna skip down to the second bullet point there. A social services establishment such as a crisis center, domestic violence shelter, victim service

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: center, and I'll let you

[Rick (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: read the rest of them there. Maybe this is what you thought of when you write community based shelter. Maybe it's more broad or I can't imagine it'd be less less than we thought it was, but it's fairly comprehensive, and we wanna be sure that

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: we include which one. I think,

[Speaker 0]: there are a lot of good specifics in that second bullet point that I'm seeing, where to start social services establishment and so on. I think the only thing that could be too big is a community based organization because we can make the argument that anything Yeah. Under the sun is a community based organization. And I know we wanna get a bit more specific, but senator Rhodesky

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I wonder if it also might make sense to use the Department of Children and Families definition of community based shelter, which is the community the community based shelter is defined as a facility or program that provides temporary short term shelter to individuals and families experiencing homelessness, which meets the specific standards set out by the Department of Children and Families or the Vermont Housing Opportunities we're in. We've referenced that in other legislation. Mhmm. I mean, I'm really happy to to do whatever. I just figured I would bring up that we do have a definition of that.

[Speaker 0]: And it's it's for community based shelters? Yes. Okay.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Yes.

[Speaker 0]: So

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: That makes sense to me. This list and maybe I'm misunderstanding the relationships, but this is put out by DHS to guide its own agents in in how they do their job. So it seems like they're less concerned with slippage in definitions maybe than we would be because this has been rescinded, and we're now up against the government that opposes those definitions. So I think we have to be extra careful about making sure that our definitions are specific. So I think the one that Senator Watson just talked about, we should definitely add. I I do wonder if the broader we make this list, whether we are weakening protections overall. In other words, right now, it has court proceeding, which we did, and we heard testimony that that has worked, that people are not being invested on the rates from a court proceeding. But I do wonder if we expand the list too far if you if we make it more likely than the list will be ignored. Know what I'm saying? Sort of. Well, in other words, if you look at this, if we were to take this whole list, it seems to me to be covering a huge amount of ground and space within a community that might look like more like a sanctuary city than sensitive locations in in a town or a state. So I I just think it's a balancing act.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Just ask me one clarifying question. So for the definition of, you know, social service organization, were you suggesting that it made sense if we struck community based service organization because that's too big?

[Speaker 0]: That, yeah, so I guess we're essentially markup for that one piece here in subsection D, so that's where we're at. So yeah, I think the definition that we're seeing in that second bullet point minus the very broad community based organization phrase, but adding what you found from DCF regarding the shelters would make sense. But also, I don't wanna forget, how do we well, what does look like? Trying to make sure that the math is raised by Charlie regarding the domestic violence shelters and the other pieces. I think perhaps replacing Yeah, think adding that second bullet point, taking away community based organization, but adding the DCF definition for

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Community based shelter.

[Speaker 0]: Think that

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: would make sense.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Okay. I sorry. I just wanna make sure. So we're going to

[Speaker 0]: Hold on. Did. Charlie didn't

[Charlie Winserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: My apologies. There was just one piece of language that I wanted to clarify. Domestic violence shelter, there are a few of our member programs who I noted do not have a shelter. They are a domestic violence organization. And so if there's an opportunity to address that in any revised language, that would be appreciated.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Would this next thing get it with the Victim Service Center?

[Charlie Winserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: There are many different kinds of victim services organizations. For example, centers that are serving victims of elder abuse. I think that because across so many areas of Vermont statute, we talk about domestic and sexual violence organizations, that it might just be clarifying to have that language here. So how might I go back to trying to clarify?

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: So you're suggesting we replace DAPE with this definition minus community based organizations with the addition of domestic and sexual violence, and then in a definition section define community based shelter with the DCF definition.

[Speaker 0]: Probably. I that you're on the right think that I also alright. Let let me rephrase. I think for the purposes of Markham, if we strike out the word or phrase community based shelter and then add centrally that entire second bullet point and take out community based organization while also keeping severe weather shelter or emergency housing provided to 33, which is in the current draft that we have. And so and then adding the other section that defines emergency housing, was it?

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: No. Based shelter. Community based shelter would need to get added to this list, and then we would define it.

[Speaker 0]: Got it. Okay. I was exactly. Yeah. I was it's

[Rick (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a new subdivision for that. It's gonna be pretty unbundled if you add in this and then say, based shelter as defined. It's it's still gonna be Right. You probably didn't hear that, but just so it'll be easier to read. It's gonna be Yeah. Pretty lengthy.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Yeah. Figured it may get subdivided, but it's fine. I think further clarification, and I think it's after this point earlier, last clause essentially of other essentials of life to people in need is another yeah, I get it, but it is a pretty broad and vague phrase, and so I don't know if we could include that.

[Rick (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Have one question. DCF is a community based shelter, or

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: That is

[Charlie Winserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: the language that is.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Community based shelter is fine. I should be able

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: to find them with an email. So that'd be great as well.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Okay. I can try. And then the other piece I'm hearing from Charlie is to add specific reference to domestic and sexual violence services because we define that in state law all over the place to the social service organizations list.

[Speaker 0]: What are committee's thoughts on that and what we've heard so far?

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Think what's laid out is fine. Senator Norris, any thoughts? Well, I have a long thought. I just Understood.

[Speaker 0]: That particular being subtle.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: I guess do whatever it would be necessary. How how are you feeling about the proposal concept? You know? I'll ask you a question. Mhmm. On the section of the the overall concept, it's I look at these these places, I'm saying, okay. The courts are already in there. I agree with that. Schools, definitely

[Rick (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: don't see a need for anybody to deal with, but chase your way to whether they're also traumatized, out of town students. Hospitals, I agree with that. I don't feel comfortable in the state, county, or municipal buildings. Appears as though we take the state of Vermont, go to each township, it appears in my mind that we're setting up a bonkers for each county for protection. Then along with that, the governor has already said that, responded twice to this present administration that Vermont is not a Sanctuary state as far as funding is concerned. And I think, you know, the era was the pendulum's starting to swing depending on what we do with this particular situation. And I do have a large concern about individuals being allowed to take court proceedings against someone. For more importantly, on page three, line 12, maybe where it can explain to me exactly what that means. When it says on behalf of the state,

[Rick (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: what does that mean exactly, Ruth? Well, because the AG is, you know, the chief lawyer stating the way, it's just stating that if you violate this law, it is a, you know, violation of state law, and the agency has been set for state law. And so you can sue for damages or injunctive relief. It won't be damages, but injunctive relief basically stop the arrest at that specific location.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: That's And that's existing statute? Yes.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. So I I think if if we're able to go back to the page two and resume the acceptance and markup of these particular exceptions or provisions, I think we got community based shelter piece down. We can start back at the top, which would also, get to senator Norris' point about the state county municipal buildings. Do we have thoughts, concerns, or suggestions regarding that particular section of the committee

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: It's or reminding me of the discussion we have about prohibiting firearms in state county municipal buildings, and one of the things that Alan made up was that those buildings are not just the courthouse, whatever there's. Alice Mitchell's always thought about the salt Shed. The salt shed is a municipal building. I suppose somebody could critique it in that way, that it winds up including a lot of buildings that people might not think of as central municipal buildings. Personally, I would like not to be able to arrest in any of these locations, so I'm happy to vote for a bill, you know, a version that contains more rather than less. I'm just cautioning around specific language and and and wondering if we if we make the list too long, too complete, whether we will wind up unintentionally weaken the permission by stretching and some falling.

[Speaker 0]: I I mean, some of the things that I was thinking about was what we heard from Reverend Sparrow but also some of the points that were raised at the top of the document that's on the screen now about why civil arrests shouldn't happen in these different types of areas, you know, whether it's schools and Senator Norris said, you know, traumatizing these kids or, you know, health care facilities or churches and so on. So, you know, there are different populations that go in there with different needs and different vulnerabilities, whereas state or county or municipal buildings, yeah, can be the salt shed or, you know, almost anywhere. So, yes, good points on both sides of it. Appreciate

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: that it might include the salt shed. I don't know, I mean, don't even know where my municipal board county salt sheds are. So I I don't know that people aren't going to necessarily be going to visit the salt shed. But when I think about state, county, or municipal buildings, if one has to go to those, they have to go to them. You know, they're going to renew their driver's license. They're going to pay their taxes. They're going to do something that they don't have a choice what to do. And that's where, you know, as I think about this, yes, there are places like schools where we've got children, but I I'm also really thinking about what are the things someone doesn't have a choice what to do. And that is where, you know, the state, county, and municipal buildings came in for me, was generally speaking, if someone is visiting one of these places, they have to in order to participate in

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: Yeah.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Their life.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: And to add to that, I don't know if it would hold water legally, but to me, it feels like if you're talking about state county or municipal buildings, because we're serving our rights as the state when we do this. So it seems like if it's gonna be valid anywhere, it would be in our buildings or county buildings.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: And I do know of other states so I think I may have said this on the record, or maybe I said this in passing at this point. Don't know if I've said what But I know Colorado has passed language that covers some of the similar things to what's on this list, and I believe Tennessee has a bill introduced. So we're not the only state to either be doing this, contemplating this, and in some instances, some states are ahead of us and actually passing language like this. Rick,

[Speaker 0]: any legal advice for us?

[Rick (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Speeches to subdivision b. Yeah. Something I've thought about just the last ten, fifteen minutes is what about corrections, jails? So I know Vermont does house some federal detainees. Yeah. Would that be an issue? Because we have an MOU, I believe, with Yeah. With the vets on holding the Navy's authority undergone a civil arrest. So I don't know if that needs to be accepted or discussed. You may wanna have the product corrections. Efficient and here. Definitely

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: a good value to have corrections come in. My question though is simply a process question. If someone has already been arrested and is being detained, why would they be civilly arrested again while in that location?

[Rick (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm thinking it's a good question. My thinking is just would that be a way for that person to would their lawyer have been argued, well, this person is currently under civil arrest.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: Right.

[Rick (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: He's he's he or she is remaining at a jail owned by a state policeman, and this is against state law. So this person is in jail. I'm just kind of vaguely overthinking, but I do I could wonder.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. I I I see a situation where somebody gets arrested criminally. Let's just say the DUI or well, actually, something where they'll get held right after getting arrested. So aggravated assault in their jail, and it ends up somehow on ICE's radar and, you know, happens. But they go in. Would this prohibit them from going in and saying, hey. You have to go in for an immigration hearing now a month or you know, what I I could see challenges logistically in that.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: But if they had a judicial warrant, they could still do that. Like, it's not a prohibited civil arrest entirely. It prohibits it without a warrant. Mhmm.

[Rick (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. Civil rights, typically, there's no warrants or there's any external warrants. Yeah. But as the chair was indicating, if you then they just have probable cause, which still require warrants to assume this person is a remaining carrier without documents, so this person, should be deported or should be held pending deportation proceedings. So that would I think they complex in this under this statute if it weren't passed as per so I think that's when you're gonna

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: need that corrections on that. Right.

[Speaker 0]: So can put an aspis next to that and revisit it. Amber, And if you don't mind, we'll just make a note that we'll we do agenda planning tomorrow. We'll reach out to DOC and see that. Thank you.

[Rick (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I was wondering if we could

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: get a side by side. Colorado and all the state. Don't think you have

[Rick (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a state. So laws. I know some things have been introduced. Pennsylvania has, like, a thousand feet within a state facility. There's, like, very, very degrees since then. I'm not familiar with the state that's passed the law that includes a list like Vermont has suggested here. Some states have, like, New York has professor well, Lynn Posen, who triggered her name, Mike, talked about the executive order. So that's an executive order. It's not passed by their assembly. I can show you side by side of that. It includes state facilities. It does

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: not include schools, hospitals, or churches. No. I'd like to see a side by side of those states that have actually passed laws that have been changed. Just want to

[Rick (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Not just for proceedings, because some states you've got for proceedings, but you wanna see side by side with other similar If you could, please. Yeah. I'll find I'll see what there is to find

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: a whole lot that have expanded

[Rick (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: this yet, so that I could look and see if

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: they could. I

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: won't dig through my, yeah, copious notes and kind of information and try to get to what I have on Colorado and Tennessee and Pennsylvania, California. Like I said, Tennessee's hasn't passed.

[Rick (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Illinois recently did something. You know, there's degrees of this, but they're not as common. Situation.

[Speaker 0]: I think that covers that section for now. If I put an after snack, so let me come

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: back. Yes.

[Speaker 0]: That is interesting.

[Charlie Winserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: Oh, okay. I thought

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: you were done with the whole section. No.

[Speaker 0]: No. Good. Good. Schools, I know that is a definite thing that we'll want to figure out because, again, quite broad, and I suspect there are definitions of the 2200 series and could help have Beth St. James come in and testify for that. Any, any initial thoughts, Rick?

[Rick (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think I may have mentioned this last time, just wanna hear from the committee what you want to include, and I will help even that come in and give you all definitions sometimes. I

[Speaker 0]: I mean, my first thought on it, you know, the way I envision it playing out is, you know, when I think of the schools, I'm thinking of day care centers, public schools, private schools, after after school programs. You know, the places where kids are generally congregating throughout the day for educational purposes or at the school services,

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: which are generally educational. Given the most high value things where he is a college student, I'm wondering, should schools include campuses in college campuses? Yeah. That's a good question. A lot of this. I know some of these things that I hate to keep making an analogy to gun laws, but I know a number of his locations have been defined for a long time, you know, gun laws and schools as it exists. The gun laws doesn't include childcare centers which I was amazed when I signed up and further amazed that there are a lot of people who argue that childcare centers shouldn't become, that they should be able to be when they got into a child. I have already notified him for that.

[Speaker 0]: Any other thoughts or any dramas?

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: So I'm happy for the summer.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: It was

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: And, also, the only thing I would add, did when you say private schools, then who do independent schools? Or do

[Speaker 0]: you call that I I meant independent speakers.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Wasn't sure if those were analogous terms or if they

[Speaker 0]: were two different things. Okay. Any additional thoughts? Space.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: Better now, does senator Norris, anything? Yeah.

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: I was listening in on the on the way down, and and think the senator Norris' point about broadening it so far, and then the senator Baruth's point about if you broaden it so far, like the federal government had the list. Right. You just you stop paying attention to the list. I mean, by broadening it out so far with different things, and I think locations rather in agreeing with Senator Norris on, you know, schools, hospitals, the courts that it's already in law. I'm I'm supportive of. It's just broadening it now. College campuses, what does that encompass? You know, like, vast. There's a lot of different university owned, college owned property, not just in one central area. So it's definitely gonna you know, I'm open to learning more and figuring out what falls into what category, but if we expand it so far, it's not gonna be worth, I don't think, what we wanted to do.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, it would be good to hear from some universities and colleges in the state. Well, don't want to speculate about grants and funding from the federal government that may have got our college and college university campuses. I'll have them speak to that. And is

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: it directed at? It's civil arrest, so it's not just directed at immigration.

[Speaker 0]: Correct. It is raw. It includes any enforcement, within our state that would include local and state and deputies, and it would incidentally Yeah.

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Yep. And just like one other thing, I don't know. I don't think we've gotten this good

[Speaker 0]: yet, please. But just kind

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: of that definition around traveling to, entering, remaining at, returning from. Like, what does that encompass? Because I could I could leave my house at 08:00 for a 02:00 court proceeding, but I gotta go to the grocery store and other things. Is that

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. I I think in a sidebar, initially, the brick prior to the committee starting, I was drawn up as something that we should discuss a bit further. I know it's be it can be complicated. And Rick, actually, if you want to chime in now on that case, and then we'll go to the Senate Rehoboth's question.

[Rick (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sure. Sure, I do have a 10:00 in the House of so I can maybe stay a little bit longer, but just as an FYI. So, I read that and I think, again, the law just applies out of law groups, right? And I think that makes some sense and that's pretty clear. If you're traveling to a courthouse because you have to date some kind of hearings, then you have parents in court. But if we expand it to government building schools, you know, even schools make some sense. You're on a school bus. Like, there are some definite times you're going and leaving school, going to a hospital, going to Hound Hall, that's the as a police officer, it gets complicated. Yeah. And as I've said before, if if wanna enforce this, it needs to be clear what's wrong, what's not wrong. So and I think if you're gonna expand this, gonna be, know, that that should not be able to remove it all, but we're gonna need to kinda set a brand of what is entering, what is leading, what's recurring. You know, remaining that, we know what that is, but, yeah, I think it's a good point that it's certainly rolling

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: your controversy. Just like with two zero eight, you know, I wanna make sure that whatever legislation that we do is actually something that we can do, not just words on a

[Rick (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: piece of paper to say we

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: did something, but actually being actionable. Know, I was taught in school, actions be louder than words. So I wanna make sure that it's gonna be done.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: So this is not my original question. This is in response to this. I know that we have similar language in our Good Samaritan laws about traveling to and from, so I wonder if this may already be defined in statute. I don't know. I haven't had a chance to look it up, but I do know that that language includes traveling to and from. It was also included in our language around drug checking facilities. So it could already be defined. It might be worth taking a look. My question was around it's actually circling back to schools, and wondering if there is a distinction between universities. And you might have to walk with me a minute on my thinking process here between our state universities like UVM and the Vermont State Colleges that receive state money and fully private universities. I don't know that that would apply within our k 12 system because private schools are part of the ecosystem, and they are receiving public money. Like, it's so I don't know because I know that we've had some conversation about not being able to tell bully private entities. So do do you travel with with my train of thought here?

[Rick (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, I do. My first answer, I don't know. My second answer is a private school is not open to the public, if you're right. So I think about that, and also private schools for kids as well as private universities. So can a officer, either federal or state, go into a private university without a search warrant or an arrest warrant? They do get consent, right, from the administrator, and that

[Speaker 0]: would remove any of this, but.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: When again, it's tricky in the K-twelve system because we have independent schools that are actively getting

[Rick (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. I don't want to speak I will let that same thing But universities to me is is is also the funding is different for me, but it is a private to those locations, which by stations should not I mean, they're that in any way, should stay

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: in the police, if they don't

[Rick (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: have a warrant to go into a private location. So I just about these are public. These are already public places. Right. That's something we're limiting here. When we talk about private, you know, places that are not open to the public, that shouldn't be off doing instead of police without open.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I I I think we should have that. And it just as I was thinking about it, I was just sort of thinking about the different, like, a 12 sort of ecosystem as pertains to private schools versus the university system, whereas the state colleges and UVM, like, they're getting public money. Right.

[Rick (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm gonna separate that same information. That's fair. Public question.

[Speaker 0]: And so I know you only have a couple minutes left.

[Rick (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Actually, Anne Marie, do you wanna email is it, like, in house DevOps? Yes. Let them know. I push it. I think if we need to finish up here, that's fine. Okay.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. I think maybe just another five minutes or so, I think, that puts advice in that. Just wanna give people a chance to use the bathroom. Maybe 10:10 to pick up the prop board, if that works for you. Julio? Sure. So we had also heard about I mean, I think health care facilities, that seems all set in terms of whether or it's you know, how it's defined. I don't know that we haven't dug too deep into that necessarily, but I think I guess it does warrant the question of, you know, how the committee feels about it. Generally, being on that list of prohibitions, I'm supportive of it. Any other thoughts on it?

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I support it, obviously, because I put it as

[Speaker 0]: I know there's still the lingering question of differences between traveling to and from versus attending a certain place, and I think that applies. That's a conversation that applies to all of these, to one extent or another. So I think that's that is another piece that we'll have to revisit. Clergy or I'm sorry, churches and places of worship. Were we What Any any thoughts on what we heard earlier, Rick? Missions.

[Rick (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think that type of location, isn't easy or so, constitutionally because of the person in the freedom of religion. The argument is that you go to church to exercise a person in our rights to exercise your religion, and, you know, that means that's a clear path, honestly.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I absolutely support adding this. I'm just wondering if the definition either in state or federal law anywhere of what a church or house of worship is.

[Rick (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm sure there is. I can bring some. I think it'd be next time for your consideration.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I'd certainly support this, but I don't know what that definition is. And and I certainly know sometimes there are nefarious things happening under the guise of religion. That's really more cult like practices, and I just wanna make sure we define what we're talking about.

[Rick (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So do you wanna give any parameters?

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: No. I'm I'm curious what exists. I don't I I'm generally of the opinion that we don't need to recreate the wheel if the wheel exists and it's round and working. I

[Speaker 0]: don't know that we can necessarily cover the final point in five minutes, but perhaps some stuff to think about, regarding the remedies. Did you have any points that you wanted to share with us regarding that section? Because I know it right now, it's only applying in the the language is for courthouses, which exists currently. Do you have any closing thoughts for us that we can think about and then revisit in the next conversation?

[Rick (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So on page three, line six under subsection a, something I I didn't catch lack on because, again, this law is written to apply just to courthouses. And the first remedy is a person who violates that subsection by taking away somebody under civil arrest, is subject to a contempt proceeding and may be liable in a civil action for false imprisonment. The civil action is fine, but the contempt proceeding would apply to a court, where you're gonna be attacked because you're disobeying a court order. So just to clean that up, if you're gonna add more sensitive locations, you'd wanna not just call it contempt. You'd wanna either remove that or, you know, the HIPAA courthouse can send over

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: So

[Rick (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that's that's the only other issue I have, legally speaking, in the revenue section.

[Speaker 0]: Think it could be worthwhile, just to be getting an initial draft that kind of separates the two, and revisiting it as a conversation later.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I seem to recall that the ACLU was going to potentially they had some thoughts about this and making it somewhat more defensible, and I had asked them to maybe get us some language, but I'm happy to circle back with them and maybe find a time to meet with you, Rick, to to dial that in if that is helpful.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Actually Okay. Will. Okay. We'll figure out a time to connect with your.

[Speaker 0]: Anything else regarding that section or generally? Rick, do you have any final points needed to raise?

[Rick (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm looking at my questions from last time and the professor answered some of the questions that I have in person, and I think she answered that via her email. He asked about the history of having general assembly members free from morest. Okay. That's more of a US constitution. The thing that Vermaat brought over is US house members and senate members are also privileged from arrest when they are doing their work in DC. So, Vermont's brought that over. So Vermont representatives are also protected from arrest. That was a question you had. I think otherwise, really, the list of 26 is what is needs to be fleshed out, and I have white orders in front the committee. I believe I think I'm clear.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: So there's no arrest or civil arrest? Just a matter of

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: fact, someone allegedly violates this section.

[Rick (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The individual who bring charges or they deem. No criminal arrest. No criminal

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: No civil tickets. Well,

[Rick (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: no no civil tickets. Does local law enforcement be able to cover involved at any point

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: in time during this new direction?

[Rick (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: As far as enforcing?

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: Yes, ma'am.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I just saw my own notes

[Charlie Winserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: on Colorado. There are a lot

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: of schools and healthcare facilities. And the past? That is my understanding, You but I was doing a little bit

[Rick (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: could be around things pretty quickly. Yeah. Things change.

[Speaker 0]: Alright. Great. Thank you. Yeah. Great. Committee will take, five minutes and be back by 10:10, and we can switch to prop board.