Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: We are live. Alright.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Good morning. It is February 4 in senate judiciary. We are starting off with s r 21, which is a resolution regarding ICE and Operation MetsoSurg and a statement from the Senate. We do have Senator Mahosky on the Zoom right now,

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: and

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: generally for resolutions, you know, if there are senators who want to hear testimony to clarify anything or there's things that don't make sense, we can get that testimony. Generally for resolutions, it's my opinion that senators can read and understand what they're looking at. They can make a decision as to whether or not they want to support it. So those are my initial thoughts. Senator Norris or Senator Bahosky, any initial things you want to share regarding this? Senator Bahosky?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: No. I mean, I'm a cosponsor on the resolution, so what it says is fine. I think the only thing I said to you in an email was it would be great to make sure that we've captured everyone who has been harmed, not just the most public people.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Did you have language that you wanted to add for that?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I can certainly work on making sure I've got the most up to date numbers. I know at least a couple of weeks ago, it was at least, I think, eight people, but I can see if I can track down up to date numbers and making sure that it is in connection to Operation MetroResurge and not sort of the larger picture.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: My thought, I'd like to get this out sooner rather than later, and I'm not sure how much we'll be able to find out regarding, you know, all the other folks and, you know, the the details of what happened to them. And I think I'm not saying that we shouldn't address that as well, but I think that given the amount of information that did come out about the two individuals who were filled, whereas I mean, I wasn't even aware that there were others who were in similar situations as the two that are described in the resolutions. But would you be able to get that by today?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I can certainly try.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: Okay.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: And there was also another suggestion from Senator Brock, which I told him I would raise in the first resolved, which is at the bottom of the first page. He wanted to add that based on initial and substantial evidence that the Senate of the State of Vermont unequivocally them as the extra district billets. Are there any thoughts on that? Alright. One sec.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: Oh, I'm good.

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: So, I see I see Senator Brock is on here. Is that in your discussions with him? That's not inserted here or they might just have.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: It it was something that I I want to speak from too much. The the change was something that he had requested, and I believe he said that he would support it regardless. That's as best as I can remember. There were a few other folks who were on the fence about having that and I don't dig deep into it, but those are the two or that that was one of the points. So I guess you can wait until we have the rest of the committee here on about those. Then then also send us our own space points as well. We can forward that to Michael Chittenden as well if we do decide to make an agent visit. Does that sound like a plan?

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: No? Yep. Okay. Great.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Oh, and I'll also ask, is there anybody that you folks feel we need to hear testimony from Waiting for, him and Tucker. Right?

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: So probably just many.

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: Just on Tucker. Yeah. Tucker based often. But, yeah, this Okay.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Both of these terms. Sounds good. Do you wanna get started now, or do I wait till 09:30?

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: Whenever you're ready. I'm ready. We can get started.

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: Office with Woodside Council. I don't know if memory

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: is supposed to be

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: abandonment 209 did.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Oh, we do have copies.

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Copies. Okay. Fantastic. It's not online. It will be online soon. Okay. I'm gonna eventually share my screen. But, yeah, you should be looking at draft 1.1 of the committee amendment to s two zero nine. This is the seventh location bill that I've walked through a few times. What I'm attempting to do here is draft an amendment that reflects some of the discussion in this committee on this topic and happy to entertain further discussion about these proposals. So, okay, let me just share. Okay, so, highlights in yellow are the changes from the bill as introduced. No changes to the first page. We're looking at the second page, C1, the prohibition language. So you may recall that under current law, the one place a civil arrest cannot be conducted is in a court proceeding, traveling to entering, vermining as, or returning from a court proceeding. Subdivision B has been updated. Previously, it was a state in a smaller county building. I believe it's how it's worded. So now we have a building controlled in whole or in part by the state or a local subdivision of the state in which governmental services are provided to the public. So in my opinion, this does not include a consult shed that's been mentioned a few times in this committee. We can discuss, if that's the right way you wanna word it. C, upholding place, and that is defined later in the bill. Educational institution, also defined later in the bill. Submission E, this is, taken mostly from the DHS advisory that we went over maybe last time, the time before. A social services establishment, includes a crisis center, domestic violence shelter, victim services center, child advocacy center, supervised visitation center, family justice center, facility that serves disabled persons, homeless shelter, substance use disorder counseling and treatment facility, and an establishment distributing food or other essentials of life to people in need. Beth is also a new place of worship. She is new by a facility that is regulated by the Child Development Division of the Department for Children and Families. These are meant to include daycares, after school programs that are not covered by the educational institution definition. And a facility license as a children's camp pursuant to eighteen forty three zero one. These are specifically summer camps or day camps. So these two are intended to cover basically after school care or summer care, and the former child camp summer camps. And that healthcare facility, has not changed. That is the cross reference to eighteen ninety four-two.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: Go ahead, continue. Go ahead. Okay.

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: So one change that I noted that I wanted to make was this the remedy section where currently because it's just specific to courtrooms, the, one of the penalties remedies was contempt. Does not make sense if you're in school or hospital. So in this case, I've kind of reported it to, if you violate the subsection by knowingly and wolfingly executing or assisting with an arrest prohibited by any one of those categories, you may be liable in a civil action false imprisonment and shall be subject to contempt proceedings if the arrest is pursuant to subdivision one a, which is the court proceeding. So that one remains a remedy for a court proceeding, so the arrest. Page four. The definition is active. Civil arrest was previously defined as an arrest for purposes of obtaining a person's presence or attendance a civil proceeding, including an immigration proceeding. So we have added what it does not include, and these are two things that colleagues from my office have brought my attention. So one temporary custody of a person pending a warrant pursuant to eighteen seventy five zero five or holding a person for admission to a hospital for an emergency examination pursuant to eighteen seventy five zero four. These are mental health holdings. So in these cases, it's a person that is showing signs, of either a danger to themselves or a danger to other people, and that those two statutes allow typically a law enforcement officer to hold a person until they can get a warrant, go to a judge and act and get a warrant to take the person to a hospital or evaluate him. In some cases, a mental health professional can be involved in these cases. So, this is up to the committee to determine what you want, but my thinking was you did not want

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: to complete this and what a civil arrest is. So just to, clarify, these are an individual that's being detained and just real world hypothetical suicidal person hasn't committed a crime, isn't suspected of committing a crime, but there's enough evidence that law enforcement thinks they're suicidal until it's not. There's no crime there except for them, but they are being detained to be taken to the office. That's what these are covering.

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: That's a pretty good summary, David, Like you said, there is, a person, either a law law enforcement officer or even a local criminal has deemed this person to be either suicidal, endanger themselves, endanger other people, and there is already laws in place for that person to be detained without an warrant. In my brain, I can see this as a civil arrest. People may say this as civil arrest, especially

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: when you look

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: at way you define civil arrest, which is an arrest for purposes of obtaining a person's presence or attending a civil proceeding. You know, is taking somebody to a hospital for an evaluation, is that a simple proceeding? I think the entire process is kind of a simple procedure. It's not criminal. To avoid confusion, I would suggest the committee consider putting that in, but of course, it's up to you.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: No. I think that's a opinion, I think that's a good catch, and it's something that I would like to have in there.

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: I'll give my colleague Tucker Anderson a little bit of credit. Just a tiny bit of credit for thinking about that. And then Katie McGlynn also, I talked to her about

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: about this line of Okay.

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: So I'll answer the rest. These are redefinitions. BI, educational institution. This is the Beth St. James, exclusive list of, you know, just about every possible definition in school. It did not include, you know, certain out of school programs that are not on school property. That's why we included the the day camp and the summer camp include things there. No new languages of what she presented to you all. Skipping down to page six. This is also at St. James' educational institution also extends to grounds operated by, activities sponsored by, transportation provided by, and programs related to educational institutions. Where is that cross reference again? Which one are you looking at? The educational institution. So we have it in the list of prohibited locations, just defined as educational institution.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: On

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: page two, line 10.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Where I think what I'm looking for is the regarding activity sponsored oh, it's on the it's on page seven.

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, yes. Sorry. Last page. Yeah. Oh. Great. And then we have the polling place cross reference, which is used in Office 17. It's a place that a. State has a polling place for 1717 B S A 2502. So those are the additions to the bill as a committee amendments. Like I said, if you have questions about I mean, Tucker had a little bit of time. So if you have questions about the the buildings, the government building sections, might be able to help you with that. Otherwise, happy to answer questions.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Great. Any questions for Rick? I'm sorry, go I saw Senator North, please.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Great, thanks. Rick, going back to the narrowing of the definition of state, county and municipal buildings, I know we had kind of a longer conversation about what we were trying to capture, and I'm just wanting to make sure that that does capture that. Does that allow someone to attend a town meeting, pay their taxes, come to the state house?

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: So in my opinion, the phrasing in which governmental services are provided, I certainly think the town clerk's office where you literally go to pay your bill or go to check your property taxes if they've been paid or some other government service. Do think that's included.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: Okay. Great. Well,

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: I have good questions in reference to B, the buildings, but you said that Doctor. Woodley would answer those questions. But I do have one on page three Yeah. Line 15. I agree.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: Uh-oh. And that's

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: just action for the policy. Does that refer to federal immigration, or

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: does that refer to local law enforcement? Give me

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: an example. This this could take

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: a process that falls in prison. It could be

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: a while down the road here. Right. So first of all, currently in statute, it's not new language, a current remedy of a civil arrest is you can sue, and the cause of action will be false imprisonment. It's kind of a a not antiquated, but it

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: is a

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: civil, generally a civil a court is the correct language where you cannot hold somebody in a location and not allow them to leave. You have a right to not be held against your will. In this case, the cause of action that the law is providing is through false imprisonment. So an officer that is disobeying this law and is conducting a civil arrest in a hospital and a school, the remedy for that person would be false incrimination.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: So this only pertains to those sexes that we've highlighted? This this bill, correct? Yes. And I guess the buildings. Yeah. We had a question about Yeah. One more. I don't remember

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: page six, line four. Was that something that you added? I don't remember that being at the

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: polling places. Polling places. That was a request from maybe not you specifically, but they're requesting the committee to discuss going to vote if that's not included in state government buildings, which it wouldn't always be. It could be in a church. It could be any public place that obviously, churches are covered here. But I guess to cover the gap in case if an employee spend is not clearly included in

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: the list of sensitive evictions. Although there's a

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: lot of gaps left, may not be affected.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Yeah, I mean, Rick, largely, you know, as we were trying to narrow the state county and municipal buildings, this fell kind of outside what that narrowing covered. So it sort of was part and parcel as we tried to capture what we meant by state, or what I meant by state, county and municipal buildings. This got added as we narrowed the other aspect. So it was was meant to sort of capture what I intended with state county and municipal buildings while not looping in, you know, the salt sheds that I did not intend. So that that is why this this got added, was as part of that forcing out what do we mean.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Sorry, boss.

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Well, Tucker's here anyway, so I'm just gonna ask this question on on section b of page two. So looking at this, I don't see where anything has changed other than it's a little bit longer now. Florida, rather, state buildings, county buildings, municipalities. And when he's talking about governmental services, I guess, I need some investors. Someone's going to a state park and they're just that they're an employee of of the state of the office governmental service. Does that include that? Or, I mean, how how big

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: is this gonna be? So a park, right, wouldn't be a building, necessarily. So that's one thing to consider here. If it's and this is you know, happy to discuss a better way to word this. I think the way I I've worded this was trying to, yes, in some ways, narrow it because you you had and I have the language here, state, county, or municipal building that to be would include Salt Lake Road. Right? Because that would be a building owned by the state. Our governmental services being provided to the public now at that type of location. So I do think it is narrower, but maybe not as narrow as the committee would like. Again, happy to entertain ways to certain things. If you can give me more locations, like you mentioned Park, if you want to give me certain locations that you think, well, this maybe shouldn't be, then maybe I can find a way to word that in a different way.

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Just to follow-up on this, political subdivision of the state, what do you refer to either? Town, town, city, any So they're they're they go back anyways. It's go back Right. Right.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: For places of worship, just thinking about the phrase sincerely held religious beliefs or sincerely held spiritual beliefs, would it be more clear if people put religious places of worship, is that more helpful? Admit them to I would want explicit as to what that refers to.

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: Is it more helpful as far as it is it more clear of what you're trying to include? You know, I thought this was clear, but, you know, I I I I would be curious what other places would come up that are not clear in this definition. You know, it's a really good level restaurant, and you think of it as a. Yes. No. I I yeah. Right.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. I was just wondering.

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: And and we we certainly if you wanna put, you know, sincerely held, actually think it's blending it up, I'm good. Yeah.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Maybe anything else for Rick before we move on to talking?

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: No.

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you, Rick. Oh, yeah. I'll take her off for a little bit.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: Hey, good morning. Doctor. Anderson, Legislative Counsel and Northern Spokesman. Thank

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: you. I mean, yeah, you heard the testimony earlier, so I heard the questions earlier. I think seeking additional clarification and conversation about buildings. Were you also coming in for Katie and regarding pre childcare?

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: No. I stay if I'm Bill Nass of government operations. I'm always happy to converse and clarify as the committee desires. So, you know, I heard some of the questions about the scope of the subdivision around buildings that there are qualified state or political subdivisions in the state. Some further clarification there.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel) [override]]: Senator Norris, you asked about political subdivisions in the state. What are they? It is everything from the largest district in the state, which is the Northeast Kingdom Solid Waste District, all the way down to the smallest unit of incorporated government, which would be our incorporated village. Also include those unified towns and boards and unincorporated territories that exist in the county of Massachusetts. It's everything below the state level of included counties. When we talk about governmental services, it is one of the things that I actually discussed with the break desk this morning, that it is an area of law where you could have some debate around what a governmental service is, particularly there are folks who would have interpreted that as being those traditional governmental functions, or it's just services that are provided by one of those political subdivisions to the public. The latter is probably the strongest federal position in country. It's a building where the political subdivision provides service to the public. Recall that this sill attaches to the building itself, whether or not governmental services are being provided to the It is about a building, what is dispensed to have that building be. So the example of the park doesn't fit, not a structure, not a building. If you were to bring some other examples such as the salt shed, no services provided to the salt shed. Neither would there be services provided to the public in storage facilities that are used by the state or any of this political subdivisions? The most likely examples for dealing with cure are alcohols, and administrative offices, places such as the Pennsylvania. The question also came up around polling sites, why that was separated out. If you were a talented, hardworking and diligent government operations team pointed out that many municipal corporations that commute to board based voting do not have municipal buildings or wherever their citizens go. They use other facilities that are lent to them for the molded. Turkish were brought up as a physical, but there are other, like, nongovernmental facilities that are used for purposes of molded. There are also drop biases.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel) [override]]: Doctor. Page two, line three, prohibition of purchase term. So the civil arrest while traveling to a

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: manning out of attorney from a it used to be just court proceeding. We say now it includes all of the loans.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel) [override]]: So basically, if you look at the personal residence, doesn't be all Sunday. Always,

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: there won't be a sanctuary state.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel) [override]]: It'll be $6.07 for months except across the different buildings. Well, going to the shop, going out to be there. A million other things that people do, and I'll still be at fear for their liberty.

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: 2,000,000 no and 1,000,000 yes. Okay. I'll give you that.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I think one of the questions we had talked about last time but didn't quite come to

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel) [override]]: a

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: conclusion on is if there could be a radius into a 100 foot radius or if you just say, come to and from a courthouse and then for the others saying remaining or

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel) [override]]: I'm driving. I was just gonna say I think you have two of the prom radius that's not needed because you're actually covering way beyond the radius. You know, if I'm traveling from Burlington to a port appointment in Willis, that's all covered. And if we said I was only covered a thousand feet from the port house, I would be subject to a less almost a full rent. You know what I mean?

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. I I think those enters the vagueness territory because, I mean, this there are many, many places on this list, and, you know, a person has to exist at some point in between going to and from many different places. Is it reasonable to say that somebody's planning to go to church later in the day, but they're somewhere totally different, and then going to make a few decoys along the way. Frolics. Yes, a frolic. Are they still technically going to church or school or wherever it may be? So I think keeping it applied, personally I would like to keep it applied, but I think that making sure it's not constructively including basically the entire state and every moment of existence between going from point A to point B.

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Would need to be

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: narrowed down to the center of the whole state.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: So I agree that I would prefer to keep it going to and from, and how do we navigate that with courthouses now? It has that language and someone could theoretically have a court appointment at 4PM, get up at eight, go to the grocery store, at what point are they traveling? I mean, that already exists. And so how is that defined for courthouses? I don't see it as any different. If I am taking someone to school, or if I'm going to a medical appointment, and I stop six times along the way, if that wouldn't apply to courthouses, it wouldn't apply to those other places.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah, so I think it goes to the point of how much this is being expanded and the risk of constructively making it so that almost anywhere to, from, or within these different locations becomes so broadly encompassing that one, it could be described as vague, but two, it could be described as constructively interfering or regulating federal agents. That's the concern that I'm trying to clarify here. Not put you on the spot, but I don't

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: know the answer. So providing the radius gives the law enforcement some kind of certainty as to where the bounds are boundaries are, you know, literal boundaries. But I believe that's that the Baruth last time said the court proceeding language currently works. But I think the the argument there is usually at the time that you're due to the courts. You have some type of Yeah. Testimony due or doctor the police would have to ask you

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: for that. They could. So

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: I yeah. I I certainly, you can I can draft something for the committee to consider, if you wanna have all of these have a boundary or just everything but the court proceeding, keep corporate fit the way it is, have these other ones have a boundary, it's really up to you all how you wanna structure things is about to have?

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: Quick question for Rick and for Tucker maybe. I know that this is all speculative and can't go until something's litigated, But as it now stands, it's a very expansive list of places. So we're going from court, courthouses, and now to, if you take social services establishment and all the educational institutions that are drawn in, as well as the other places now, it's a very expensive list. Does the length of the list would it conceivably figure against us in court that that we've got too many, too expansive? In other words, when it was just courthouses, it seemed extremely surgical, and now it's very broad. Any thoughts on that? So in my experience, the volume or length of exclusions is not going one way or the other, look at whether items in that list fall outside of whatever the basis of scrutiny is for the court. So is there some attachment between the policy at a rational basis or strict scrutiny basis for the exclusions. And once you have a departure from that, that is where the state's position is. So it's more about the cohesion that is in the list the basis we're adding. Thank you. In your opinion, are there pieces of this that threaten to fall into being outside the basis of inclusion. I wish that I could give you that ad hoc analysis right now, but unfortunately I cannot. Do understand why I would ask, but it's

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: So all we have to go on is one district court ruling in New York, which New York had an executive order in New York City that let me take a step back. So the the court we're receiving is a common law principle that this country has had for hundreds of years. Some states codified it, like Vermont since it's happened. But in general, it's known that you don't arrest somebody in court, civilly arrest somebody. So some New York City added state municipal buildings to their list of sensitive locations. That was litigated. The state won. The the The judge in the district court, one district court, right? So taking the brain and soul, the judge in that case indicated that you have this Immigration Nationality Act, the INA, that allows vets to come in and arrest people with a defense or defense, right? That's a thing that they do. However, you have anti commandeering.

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: You have the attempted amendment.

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: That allows the state to exert some sovereignty over their state. You cannot say the entire state of Vermont is a is a sensitive location. That would be something that would be too extreme. But the state the the INA law does not specifically provide the federal government with the authority to arrest certain locations. Mhmm. So can the state say, you can arrest people in Vermont but not in these locations? Yes. How far can you go is not clear.

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: So that's so that, like

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: my colleagues, can't give you an answer, but that's what we know.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: But I I think my sense of this list, expansive as it is, is that it does involve Warren Bodgett and Princeton, which is these are places that people either have constitutional rights, but it's really like a place of worship, or there are things that they need to go to in the daily course of their life. So for instance, the social services establishment, all of those things are places where people might need to go for governmental services in the same way that they might need to go to court. That's a way I would add. So if at any point either of you has elements that don't seem to be cohesive, it would be good to know that. Because I think that's the basic logic we're working with, is that people don't have a choice I

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: believe so, but I know Senator Vyhovsky has her hand up and all that, see if she find it on.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Yeah, absolutely. I agree with Senator Baruth that that is the rationale. Also, sorry, there's a couple things. One is about severability. I would assume, like most of our laws, if one of these places was deemed to not fit, the rest of them would still stand, yes?

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: Correct.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Okay. So I think that that is important. The other thing when I think about the problem we're trying to support staying with going to and coming from rather than a radius, is we have heard people testify that they're not going to their cancer treatment, they're not taking their kids to school because they're afraid of that travel, and a radius does not solve that problem. It does not open the ability for them to go to the places they have to go to live their life and in some of those instances, those constitutionally protected things like education and voting and etcetera.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Any other thoughts, comments, Sarah?

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I think, as Rick said, some description, if you worry that we're getting into a gray area, gotta sort of mass. Let's just stop talking about this because we wanna talk about it in all places we've had out there. So I think if if speaking of the constitution, I think there may be

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: some constitution issues here that we

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: unforeseen constitution, which is that we can't see as far as telling the federal government what they can and can't do. There's such a broad spectrum of law here. Like, there's a wage alert, wage invade. I don't feel comfortable with that. As you well know, I've talked about Section B to begin with, and I understand certain places we have in here, the way this is written right here, I don't feel comfortable with that.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: We're just doing the entire thing of a monitor. Do you, are you pointing at the social security piece mostly, though?

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Well, says in the establishment of distributing food or other symptoms of life to people in need, we're in

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: the Constitution to say that. Speaking of the Constitution of Michigan. Well, don't think it says specifically, but basically we'll make for the argument that we're protecting our semi sovereign state right to protect our own people, health care, their spiritual rights, you know, that they have a right to live and go about their lives and get the services they need without being harassed and detained. But, yeah, I mean, what makes it feel expensive, I think, is the definition. Like when you look at the list social services establishments, if we didn't have what followed and if we don't look at any other sort of educational facility, I think the list looks pretty common sense. It's just that educational facility includes a lot of different kinds of things that have to be enumerated and same in social services. So I think in practice, it would not feel like a huge amount of cover.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I'll also mention the police where it's online 11. Social social services staff. I believe that was it's almost verbatim from what was in the previous federal guidance for where civil risks can't be made. It was rescinded, I think, recently. And then we had one just to cover what was requested by the network that we That's the

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: I remember the history, Fred.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: Yeah. The domestic violence shelter and eviction services. Yes. You know, a lot

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: of these I can see,

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: but a lot of them I cannot see. So I guess I've got a long way to go.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Senator Vyhovsky, I then we're going to pivot.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: So I have a question and a point. I think the point I will make first, and then I'll ask my question of legislative counsel. The point I want to make is I think that to Senator Baruth's point, while there is a list here that makes it seem like a lot, the list actually narrows what just having social service organization might mean by enumerating. This is why I generally hate lists, because it limits what is on the list. So I think that even though it sort of looks broad, it actually limits the interpretation of what that might mean. My question for legislative counsel is the fact that we borrowed this language from previous federal guidance, in your view, does that make it more defensible?

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: No. Okay. I think I can expand on that, but the the PDHS guidance was not law. It was a memo that said it is our policy not to conduct arrest in these locations. So it was not based on any law. It was just and they they it was much more expansive. They included parks, for example. So, you know, I wouldn't use that as like a a law document necessarily.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Okay, that is helpful. And to just understand the context of that, I do think that given that that was previous federal guidance and things that people at that time could, like were sort of upholding protections people previously would have believed they had. Some of them, not all of them.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: Thank you. Thank you, Paul.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Back to you, Senator Mattos, do you have anything you want to give to us? Yeah, was listening in on the way down,

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk) [override]]: and I appreciate the the child development divisions, those facilities being added in there. But like Senator Norris, the is is really a sticking point for me. That is awfully vast, even though it's dragging the narrow down. It just gets weight and broad for my liking, if you will. Social services, I think it hits the point that we were doing last time, like we talked about last time. But really just that fee, there are many ways to get your services done online, mail, things of that nature. Something cracking out there. But I think it's just it's too vast for me to get.

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Thank you.

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Clerk) [override]]: Thank you both.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Jay, just I just want to take five minutes real quick while we have a full committee. Go back to our resolution. This Do you have a copy of it? Yeah. So for the senators were weren't here earlier. We had just some initial conversation about it. What happened was as long as we could read and understand what the briefing was. I don't know that it's necessary to take any testimony. But if there are questions or need clarifications or requests for testimony, then we can do that. Is that Did folks have On time.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: Advanced three I did. I think it I have them dramatic. Of course. So on the second page, second resolve. It says that the senate of the state of Vermont further declares that the lawful exercise of these constitutional rights and that to continue the sentence can never justify and violate federal agents, blah blah blah, nor should be employed Take the forced option. Paralleling the or the structure of the previous calls. You know I'm saying? Sure. A thousand percent. Yeah. Yeah. But other than that, I I think it's very well written, and I think that's all of it a 100%.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: And maybe any other tunes? 20 something. I don't I was

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: I'm just curious what the because I I really don't know the answer.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: How often do we quote, like, an article in a wrestling movie? Does it I I don't know. I yeah. I I don't know.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: He knows that not every time, but I've seen that a lot of times when there's a resolution about a person honoring them, he'll run-in quotes about them funny.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: That was a request from Senator Beck to include that specific quote.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: What was that? The child only record. Like normally, like I'm thinking of

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: sports resolutions, you'll quote the paper.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: Yeah. You know, the team didn't X, Y, and Z. Right? It's truly just a question on why that's in there for when this Vermont Senate is talking about all these other things.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: There was a request from Senator Brock, which I had raised earlier with on the first page, the first result at the bottom where it says that the senate of the state of Vermont had put the date of death and condition killing. Senator Brock had suggested based on initial and substantial evidence that Senate of the State of Vermont unequivocally condemns. It's kind of all the best about that, anecdotally.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: Think it's fair enough. You know, like, it's not untrue. Yeah. It's just it's a little more qualified than what we're saying. Yeah. Since we are still as early days on the investigation, even though we had videos that seemed to show what's going on with each other. Right. I know, like, out there, I'm not in law enforcement or anything, so I I hate to jump to a conclusion,

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: before more comes out.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: And I again, I don't know if they're pulling out of this metro surge already. I know there was rebelling about it. I don't know if they're actually doing it.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. I I got the got a notification fifteen minutes ago that they're withdrawing a bunch of ice agents from Minneapolis. So, ideally, I'd like to get this out before it becomes a moot point. Yeah. That's that's my feeling. Senator Vyhovsky, you had made a request regarding six other individuals?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I've sent a couple of text messages to people who have indicated that there are others, but, you know, in the last thirty minutes, they have not gotten back to

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: me. Yeah. How do you feel about the other changes mentioned based on the initial and substantial evidence of Senator Baruth and the grammatical change of Senator Baruth.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Think the grammatical change makes sense. I have sort of mixed thoughts on the other change. My sort of inclination is to make sure the grammar is correct and kind of leave it as is if we're not making other changes. But it's also very difficult to hear everyone but you, Mr. Chair. So I'm missing a huge portion of what's being said in the room.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Got it. What Nader

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: says

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: matters. Yeah. That that is good. Which is weird because you're the furthest from my Yeah.

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: I know. That might be part of the.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Yeah. Everybody else sounds like they're underwater, and it is difficult to understand. Do I can hear you? I just can't understand you. What

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: what were your thoughts on the based on the initial and substantial evidence? Is that are are you indifferent or does it cause problems or are you fine with it?

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: Think I'm somewhat

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: indifferent. I think I would support it either way. Think I sort of yeah, I think I'd support it either way.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: With, so, I'll, I mean, I'll also say regarding the six other folks who were killed, I think, Right? I mean, you know, part of me wants to vote on this before it becomes a moot point. And, if if there are other instances open to entertaining with traditional resolution, but, know, I don't know how expansive we can necessarily make this in a short window. Senator Baruth

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: I agree. I think we should get it out quickly, as quickly as today. I I do think it's important that we show a unified front, And I don't think Senator Baruth's submission to gun violence was always a bad one. So I would support that for both of us. Think it makes a certain amount of sense to point out that we're not rushing to judgment based on the evidence we have so far this is the CDC. And then the second thing is if that brings Republicans on to the resignation and some sense. Thoughts on

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: those two changes? I

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: personally like that because it does, again, like I stated, I go with all the details, and, you know, what happened in Minneapolis is really awful, and I think that speaks to it perfectly. We set a chance that senator brought this. I would just suggest that it go that the senator's state of Vermont, comma, based upon blah blah blah, comma, I

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: know you said you're fine with the changes?

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: I was just going back

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: back in the back here that that this is gonna soon become a moot point. We're in such a hurry to get it out. Why is that it's gonna become a moot point? What do you mean? You said that we're growing

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: ICE agents, whatever, now in Minneapolis, and they said you'd like to get this out ASAP before it

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: becomes a moot issue. Yeah. What does that mean, Jennifer? It means pointless.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: And they're only withdrawing from what I understand, 700 of the 3,000. So it's clearly a very partial response to the they're forgetting, but they're leaving the bulk of the force there, which leads to the same dynamic place. And so I I wish I was wrong, but I bet a month from now, this resolution is still. Yeah.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: And and the two killings also. And that's never going to be Alright. We are we have Jay up next, and when we take a break at 10:30, I'll send the two changes to the degree. I can turn it, and hopefully, it's gonna go to the.

[Jay Nichols (Vermont Principals’ Association) [override]]: Okay. You wanna do that? Thank you. Good morning, everybody. For the record, the Association. And also for the record, policy not to send testimony instead of Baruth ahead of time because of the red ink issues that we've had to deal with in the past. Your concern is for me. I got you. Yeah. You wouldn't need to straight talk. Yeah, it does. So Yeah. Thanks for having me. My testimony today is on S-two zero nine, focusing basically around protecting some children and students in our schools and making sure school employees know what they can do. So I'm gonna share some guidance that we sent out. We said in our guidance that stand Governor Scott rejected the accepted reports of tactics, life and restoration authorities in our state, especially in schools. Our schools must remain safe and welcoming spaces for every student and family. We need to ensure that students, parents, and educators can participate fully in school life without fear that it had been classed, school events, or school based services, both schools have misleading, dangerous or unethical practices. As school leaders, we see every day how trust in schools is foundational to student learning, family partnership, and community well-being. So we wanna say that we're committed to work with the legislature, the governor, to be part of those community to ensure that our schools are safe, so that children are being as well as civic and naive, learn. And here, our schools provide traumatic home support for students who may experience to maintain science. So we sent out basic guidelines to board members recently that I know for line of the ag and BSVAs, and other members as well, copied our guidance. We said schools should only allow law, and we met with educational lawyers throughout this. Schools should only allow law enforcement and or ICE officers on campus if, one, they're invited by the school for the student's education reason or emergency. Two, they present a judicial warrant. Or three, they insist on entries by objections, in which case staff should not interfere. So we talked first with the superintendents about, you can say that no, you can't enter, but they insist on entering and do not put yourself in a position where you're gonna be in a progressive, not even without a legal counsel on the times. Under FERPA, which is the law that governs federal anti people rights protection act, only direct reinitiation can be shared without a warrant or subpoena. For warrants, we have to honor them immediately. If you do, or subpoena is required to notify infected families, while the right to object to court. And we mention again about, as you're considering policies as a school, make sure you talk to your legal counsel about that. And for public events, schools should live in law enforcement presence only if agencies are notified in advance. Before issuing any specific protocols or communications on these matters, we advised schools again to talk to district leadership and legal counsel. District was saying any support that the general assembly can provide parents and students and our more vulnerable school populations would be greatly appreciated. So recently, Education Week, which is the weekly national education specific newsletter, reported some of the following numbers based on a national survey conducted at the spa. And they asked people, these were principals, teachers, and district leaders. During the current school year, this school year, how, if at all, are federal immigration enforcement efforts impacting their immigrant students? So I wanna be clear. This data is from November. So this stuff has happened in December and January. These have really wrapped it up. So how many of your families have expressed anxiety or fear that have illicit students? Fifty percent. So one out of two. How many have said there hasn't really been in that for thirty five years? How many have said there's distraction or lack of engagement in class because students are worried about these types of things? Twenty four percent. Reduced student attendance at 24%. Increased need for tests, twenty one percent. So one out of four, one out five students are all saying prior to December that ICE enforcement ramp up across the country has impacted their attendance or their ability focus on school. Why do we think two zero nine matters? School that are supposedly recognized as sensitive locations of the bill, alongside courts, government of the shelter, health disorders. Senator Harrison Point were retestifying in relationship to the media as a introduced bill, not because of the maniacal census. We believe that allowing civil arrests on or around school grounds, especially related to civil or immigration proceedings, undermines sense of safety in students and families needing engage fully in American. When families fear that coming to school events, meetings are even drop off to pick up, but exposed to civil arrest, and it's a mandated trust in school leadership suffer. The impact on students to learn any school enforcement action on school grounds, even if ethnically civil, can be traumatic for children and adolescents in this destabilized school climate well beyond a single incident. As 02/2009, we've already seen that. Stamplain Valley School District and how the places respond. As two zero nine helps ensure that students do not see their caregivers or community members taking away from school premises. This will help reduce anxiety and disruption of environment on students. For our vulnerable students, such as those in emergency housing or whose families are already navigating complex legal or integration processes, knowing schools are protected, safe, but it's essential for the regular attendance of the next couple of years. Another point, we think it's important, clarify what S-two zero nine does and does not do. The bill does not interfere with criminal law enforcement. It explicitly preserves arrests and or mutual warrants and court orders, arrests for attempts, and actions needed to be paid for order for safety of the school. School principals can come out and have their log log if they come to arrest somebody or they don't submit the property. This doesn't take that money. It's narrowly targeted towards civil unrest, defined as arrests secures from the president's side of civil proceeding, including immigration proceedings from safety responses, criminal investigation, emergency interventions still remain fully available. So for principals, this clarity's health. You can say to our families, our campuses are protected from civil arrest actions, Now we don't have to ask parents to feel that it's off for them. At the same time, can say to other parents, kids will be here for legitimate public safety, school resource officers, or calling local law enforcement business. S two and I support vulnerable bands and shelters. Just wanted to touch on this because we have a a pretty decent homeless population in Vermont now. We have more kids that are homeless. About 2,000 students are homeless. And so my side of her, maybe 80,000 kids, 2,000 are homeless. That's pretty serious. So many of those are having interactions with shelters. So you don't wanna have that be inferior to the public school. We also think that, and I'm a little bit of a bottler person, but we think that this bill preserves accountability and trust in our institutions. The bill has real consequences in contempt of poor and civil liability for somebody who's engaging in prohibiting civil arrest as well as a private right of action. So if somebody's actually doing something they're not supposed to do, the attorney general can step in and be tested for it. We like the idea that school leaders can say that schools are a sensitive location, that there's a designation that's not just symbolic, that families' rights can be protected, and by clearly stating that other rights and remedies are preserved, and by excluding actions taken by the judiciary to maintain public safety and reliability, We think the bill balances civil liberties with institutional needs. And finally, Vermont principal is responsible for safeguarding not only academic outcomes, but also, I think the process is also formed by the defense of emotional safety of students, basically, the duty to care, the duty to care, where we basically serve as the parent and assets of the parent. S-two zero nine strengthens our ability to save families, especially those that are already under progressive positions. They come to school for conferences, sporting events, dance attendance, performances in the AM course, that they're safe there. They don't have to be poor without one of these situations happening. So we would request that you do support S two zero nine once you've worked out any constitutional issues that you were just discussing before our present month. So that means we continue to operate this trusted environmental policy. That's my testimony. So if you have any questions, you can ask me. Thank you, Jay. You're very welcome.

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: I think

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: my head committee hat on. Is there anything in the bill that you think would increase the workload, administrative or otherwise, for teachers, staff, or anybody else in the schools?

[Jay Nichols (Vermont Principals’ Association) [override]]: I really don't wanna say so. I think they can give them pretty clear guidance. So again, they can say to the law enforcement that comes in, you know, this is civil proceeding. You can't do this here. Law enforcement system, but you anyway, we're advising us. It's not by the way. But law enforcement will be what they'll do, and then we'll involve our lawyers working with the state's attorney general, I think the revenue they might come after that. But I don't see it necessarily pretty much to work. Maybe some for our counselors and principals in terms of making sure parents understand their rights. But it's work that I think you need to engage in so that it's safe to be in front of school. Students from the Hispanic places that are not in school. That's what's really serious issues. Yeah. Senator Baruth? Yeah, I just wanted to point out something that's obvious once you think about it, but we have masked agents that are not identifying themselves. That's another Bill two zero eight, yes. So you have masked agents who are armed coming into a school building where it is prohibited to bring buildings, they're not marked as law enforcement professors. So the assumption, I would think, would be if you're a school resource officer and you happen to be there, that these are people who are not identifying as law enforcement. Are armed. There's a state law against that. So it seems like you set up an inevitable clash if you're insisting that they mask armed and unidentified and send them into a place where we specifically buy stable operating notes. So this seems likely to deescalate that situation. One One would would hope. Yeah. So I just think people haven't quite brought to consciousness if ICE agents go into a school, how do you know it's not two Right. Who are just walking in and harassing the kid, or two people who are out to shoot on the school who know that now they can, wear a face covering and a tactical gear that they can get on the internet and they can get right past all of the security. That's certainly a concern. Also concerned. I I don't want to touch my toy. We're also concerned around the training use. When I went to two school districts at two high schools that I was superintendent for for about a decade, when we went to school resource officers in those buildings, we had an outstanding sheriff who made sure that people were properly trained. And so we had a good feeling that people knew what they were doing. Have somebody come in that's not trained in de escalation skills, doesn't know how to work for kids, just comes through the door, that scares us. And what we're seeing in all of these videos is the lack of That sheriff is right there in the bible. Oh, okay. But, you know, we see a lack of training, and you see them immediately doing the things they should be trained against. So for instance, in the street, immediately walking in front of the of the aisle with the driver in it, all of their guidance says don't do that. They knew it, then people wind up dead because they're poorly trained and overly privileged in what they're allowed to do. And the masks are scared. Yeah. I've a lot of kids, you can see people coming with masks, it's scary. Yeah. Well, especially with, again, mass shooter trainings. Right. Training all the time to avoid people like that. Right. Exactly. Sergeant Norris. Yeah. Sorry. Are we on tool or whatever? We're on. Whichever one you wanna talk. I'm not No. Answer questions. I realize I can. So first of all, I this is one portion of call I'm strongly afraid of at this time is that any individuals who went into a school Appreciate that. So I do appreciate that. I wanna protect our our youth, grandchildren, that stuff, so forth. Everybody's just this is unfortunate. But the question that I had, Gabe, was, will you

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: give us these page three?

[Jay Nichols (Vermont Principals’ Association) [override]]: The national statistics here, great. That's fine. Do we have anything from Vermont in Vermont only, or is it even the national statistics? Now we have nothing from Vermont only, and now we have that. My records, as I was looking, I couldn't find anything nationally that stated in December or January. That's why I pointed out this is October, November. I would assume, Senator, this against assumption, but given publicity and things that have happened in Minnesota, would think that those, that appear would be much, much higher. I've got yet the dovo evidence of people saying that in Burlington, but I do not have the raw data or research I can show you on that.

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: That would be nice. Yeah.

[Jay Nichols (Vermont Principals’ Association) [override]]: Find it. All right, thank you. No problem.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you. Any other questions? Great, thank you, Thank you

[Jay Nichols (Vermont Principals’ Association) [override]]: very much.

[Rick (Legislative Counsel)]: Appreciate your work.

[Jay Nichols (Vermont Principals’ Association) [override]]: Thanks, Jim. All right.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Maybe we can go off until 10:40 and then we'll come back and put

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: you in. I'll