Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Hello. Good morning. We are in senate judiciary. It is February 18. We're going back to s one ninety three with our conversation yesterday to see what markup and what questions we may develop for our witnesses who are coming in on Thursday. And we we highlighted a number of decision points raised yesterday. We wanna think of the committee of data, think on things, and see if we're able to get to any decision points and also just continue the conversation that we have from yesterday. And we have led council here with us as well. Eric, did you have anything that you wanted to start off with? No.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think as you said, Senator Hashim, that the committee yesterday identified about six or seven decision points to think about, and there wasn't any any additional language to add at this point. I mean, there were a couple of tangible pieces that Jerry walked through yesterday, and the committee noted it would be on the next draft. But for the most part, it was really just the policy discussion that the committee was gonna have next about, in addition to hearing what exists. I mean, you got a lot of that lined up later in the week as well. But at this point, I think it was more of a committee discussion about policy preferences. Mhmm.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So I guess we can just start with section one. Committee, are there any initial thoughts as to changes that we may want to add? I know that we one of the changes was that we wanted that the services shall include appropriate combination of medication and so on. But anything else in this section at the moment?

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Not for me.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Eric, did you give any thought to the hold without bail

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: hearing for the Haven't had that. No. I'm sorry.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So, I mean, would it make sense to add a placeholder then just stating that prior to somebody being released well, actually,

[Unidentified Committee Member]: would it make sense to have

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: a hold without bail hearing prior their release? But it it would it make sense to have it if the charges were dismissed? Wonder

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: wonder if we might or I could I could reach out to someone in the judiciary or or either side of prosecution and defense because I'm curious about you know, there is sort of this parallel proceeding that does exist with respect to, you know, if someone is found incompetent or not competent to stand trial, I should say, under existing law, and then the court holds that hearing to determine whether they're dangerous to self or others as a result of their mental illness, and they can be committed to that whole civil committee process. So it occurs to me, maybe the same question would have come up. It's sort of a similar question. Right? What if there's a hold without bail order in that situation? Or would they have would they defer the consideration on the hold without bail issue until after competency is retained? So I don't know if that might be worth looking into to see if they already have sort of a sequence that they use for that For the civil commitment? Yeah. Right. Right. It's sort of a parallel idea that has existed for quite some time. So just just occurred to me that perhaps the or or someone else in the judiciary might already be able to say, well, this is how we do it in that. We don't

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: have We we did already hear from judge design, but I think that was a much earlier version

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of the bill. Yeah. For sure.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So I think if that's the only question we have for him at the moment, I think I'll just send him an email to cc the committee and you as well. Sure. See what his recommendation might be. And are there any other recommendations or suggested changes for section one? Anybody else?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: No.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So section two, that is the dismissal piece. I think the only question there was, is it going to be with or without practice? And any changes or recommendations for language and sections in?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: As I said yesterday, I'm fine using with prejudice because Mhmm. The court can still find that a dismissal will be contrary to the interest of justice. So and since they've already waited out the maximum sentence, it seems to me like they shouldn't come up for those charges again. Yeah.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I think there could be two scenarios, I suppose, where, you know, let's say one of these cases is pending and hasn't yet been dismissed. And then there's another life offense charge and the timeline is hit for that misdemeanor offense, then the judge could say it's an interest justice to keep the case. Whereas if it's dismissed with prejudice and then later on another offense that is connected to that course of conduct happens, another life offense, but it's already been dismissed with prejudice, then it can't come back. So there's two pathways that I could go. So I guess I'm I don't know if indifferent is the right word, but ambivalent, I guess, as to whether it's with prejudice or without prejudice at the moment.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah. I I feel like if you look at it from a certain perspective, you would never wanna dismiss a case with prejudice because there could always be some circumstance where you want those charges hanging around. I just think there are other, in my feeling, stronger reasons to dismiss them with prejudice because, basically, the person has already served that sentence. So I I can't see the utility in in having it be without prejudice.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Ordinarily you raise your hand. Ordinarily, I mean, it's you know, when these when these cases are inactive, it's usually somebody who, you know, if they're not being detained, it's, you know, somebody who is on condition of release for a number of years, which is not nearly the same as being on probation or obviously being detained for sentence.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah. So, And and to clarify, if so that's how I would vote. But if the committee votes to have it be without prejudice, it's not gonna mean I don't vote. No. Senator Bobos?

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: Not I'm inclined to agree with some of her, Baruth, that my preference is with prejudice, especially knowing that the evidence of that behavior could still be used in a in a later case to sort of prove that pattern of behavior. And presumably, if someone is not well, I guess not because it's not a life offense. Yeah. I I think I agree with with senator Baruth. That's not my major sticking point in this bill, but

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Fair noise? I said yesterday, I go against the grain again in the middle, and

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: I like it without prejudice. It's in fact that the courts can still use the information at a later date and time if you dismiss it with prejudice. And my concern is, can they go back and and file charges on that particular thing, you know, from something that was dismissed as prejudice

[Unidentified Committee Member]: moving forward? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I mean, historically, far as I'm aware, you know, when a case gets dismissed with prejudice with prejudice, it's usually due to a defect in the case or insufficient evidence or something along those lines. But, yeah, I guess ambivalent at the moment. Maybe

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Looks like we need senator Mattos here. I know.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. This I mean, this particular piece isn't the the field that I wanna dine on for this, but I guess I just need to think on

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it a bit more

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: as to what I think makes the most sense in my opinion on this one. But at the moment, I'm kind on the fence about it. So I guess we can just leave it as it is for now. Unanswered decision point. Okay. That brings us to section three. Any proposed changes to this case?

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm gonna toss out the main decision point too. Yes, I think throughout this section, it's least several times the same decision point comes up the first time if you want to look at it as an example would be page five, line seven, sorry, 60. And it has to do with who bears the burden and what the standard approval mean. I think that's sort of the key, a key question about the not guilty diaries of insanity avenue, which is that track is what's being talked about in this section of the bill. Remember the way the bill is set up is that the what's referred to as the insanity of quickie, that's what the court referred to. Someone who's been found not guilty by reason of insanity bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that they're no longer suffering from a mental disease or defects that upon their release would create a substantial risk of bodily harm to another person. And that's, as I had mentioned yesterday, has been the subject of a lot of court cases throughout the country, lot of different courts. I think the Supreme Court has certainly said that it's okay, it's very permissible to have this person in that as a result of an NGRI not guilty by reason of Sandy verdict go directly to commitment without an intervening proceeding right away or finding right away. I have go right to commitment that's acceptable under due process standards. I think by implication at least, so they didn't address it specifically, cases they were looking at also had the burden shifted. So it was on the person committed to have to establish that they were not dangerous and were not sucker friendly. Didn't expressly didn't decide the standard proof in those cases it was up to ponderance, so lower standard than clear convincing. So I think that we one bit of background on that, because I mentioned SAL. So whatever you decide, because this is such a new issue in Vermont, Vermont doesn't have a statute like this. So assuming something passes, whatever choice you make here, I think you should expect that because under the Vermont State Constitution, a statute of this type has never been analyzed before because we don't have them. We're one of the few if only states that doesn't. So this shouldn't be a surprise. And of course, it will be litigated. Yeah. You know, whatever whatever you direction you choose to go here. So still, whatever policy you think makes the most sense, I think you are free. In other words, no no constitutional reason you can't choose to do that the person has the burden of proof and whatever standard you think is most appropriate. Just for my just one last little piece just so you know too. I I think and then I did read I didn't see all 49 other states. I didn't see a collection of money work. It appeared to me that the majority of states do shift the burden to the defendant, right? The person who's been committed. In other words, it requires them to do the establishing of their state of mind. And it appeared to me that the majority of states used the preponderance standard, not so convincing. But again, both exist and

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: you can choose whatever you think is So the majority use of preponderance?

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Again, it appeared to yeah. I was sort of taking what would you call it a statistical sample, I guess, since I had seen all 49. I looked at seven or eight, and that goes the only one that's used for convincing with federal one, and I'll get this day one. Now it could be that, of course, I happen to have randomly looked at the the first six or seven that I looked at were all the ponders. If I looked at the other 42, maybe they're wrong. I think that's possible. You never know. Seems unlikely. And But Well, no. Go ahead. No. No. Never mind. I'm just

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: gonna say quick maybe just a quick clarifying question. Do you know if at these hearings Uh-huh. Representation would be guaranteed for the defendant? Is it not a not criminal? They're not technically sentenced to jail. Mhmm. They're likely going to be indigent.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's a good question because the language certainly does not say anything explicitly about that.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. I I I would wanna add something along those lines. Yeah. Yep. I have seen that in other state's sessions. I haven't mentioned that. Yeah. Because it's well, yeah. That's I just wanna make sure that's in there for this, and then we could come back around to whether we should have a comprehensive clear defensive. Senator Baruth, please.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: Thank you for asking that question. That was one of mine. Do you have a sense of if one is more defensible than the other? Like, we know this is gonna get challenged, and I feel like we've been dealing with a lot of things we know are gonna get challenged, and the way we try to thread that needle is really looking at what is the most defensible. Mhmm. Mhmm. Do you have a sense in this instance, you know, logically? Again, I know the law often doesn't necessarily work logically, but logically for me, going the way that most other states go feels more defensible. But I don't know if you have a a sense on that.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think it's hard to predict. It really is. The the I think that the shifting the burden generally seems to have been an accepted practice so far. But again, the Vermont Supreme Court, when analyzing claims under the Vermont constitution, sometimes more protected. So it's hard to predict. Okay. I

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: also wonder if and this is not really a question for you so much as the room. If CSG's justice project might have just some information about, like if No, the council and state governments.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: they might have, I don't know, a chart of like how other states do this. I know that they've done that, they've had those before available for other other policies. You know, this is what each state does. Mhmm. Maybe that is a statement for for you as well, Eric, but I I don't know if it would be helpful to have them Mhmm. Sort of give us the broader picture.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah. That

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: can that'd be helpful.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And I could also ask let's see if I can check. Yeah. See if they happen to have you know, got some some work in this

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

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. You use the the jurisdictional survey feature on Westlaw? Was that what you'd used for to figure out Michelle had showed it to me last year.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Was Right. Useful tool. But I do think I was just using the key sites for once I found a couple of cases that were dealing with this issue. Was just looking at jeopardizing them. But that feature is interesting as far as jurisdictional in terms of telling what outcomes up with

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: a list of jurisdictional approaches. Yeah. Basically, if you we we use it last year for an extradition and it compared to all the other states, their extradition rules, the timelines compared to what we were considering. So that might be and I can I can look at that as well?

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm I'm interested in it. So I'll follow-up too. Yeah.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I I

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: didn't try that. It was it was useful.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah. Hi, it's Michelle. Senator Baruth. So my feeling about this is if we shift the burden, we're asking that person or their representative

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: to

[Unidentified Committee Member]: prove a negative, but they're no longer suffering from this disease by clear and convincing evidence. It seems to me that's a very, very high bar. So it doesn't strike me as unreasonable that most states that you looked at went to preponderance. So my preference there, and again, a do or die for me, but I would, if we're gonna shift the burden, would rather have it be a Todd Rhoads family. Yeah,

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: no, that makes sense. I think, I mean, just to clarify, it's not necessarily proving that the person no longer has a mental health issue, but rather proving that as a result of the mental health issue, they're no longer going to be a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Same argument. In other words, if somebody was suffering from a mental illness that the system thought was likely to lead to bodily injury and then the person gets into this hearing, what would be clear and convincing evidence that that's no longer true? I mean, you could say, well, he behaved or she behaved during this interval. Yeah. But so it seems like the best you could hope for is that in the hearing, it might seem more likely that they're not gonna hurt someone rather than clear and convincing because it's not like a broken bone or something where you could say it's healed. Mhmm. You're always kind of there's a certain amount of guesswork involved, I guess. Yeah. I

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: hear what you're saying. I think I mean, this is speculative because we don't have these hearings at the moment. But, you know, generally, what I would anticipate is their counsel representing the whatever therapy they may have gone through, whether they have a support structure outside, whether their behavior has changed since being detained, if they're on new medications that has changed their behavior as well. So I think there would be and they would probably likely call whoever had been treating this person as a witness to show behavior from poor is no longer happening as a result of the recovery and rehabilitation that the person's been going through. So I think that's how a hearing would go. But I think to your point as to it being a preponderance, I would tend to agree. I think in Vermont, our constitution tends to provide a a higher bar when it comes to fundamental rights. And I think that, you know, it's it's permissible to shift that burden. But I was looking again for US versus weed, which talked about the the heightened burden of proof increasing the likelihood of an erroneous deprivation of liberty. And in considering that, I think it would make more sense to shift to a preponderance rather than clear and convincing.

[Sen. Ginny Lyons]: I could certainly support that.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Senator Norris, do you have any thoughts? I do.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Basically, in my mind, this is how I look at this. This is the defense that raises the same defense. And now we're saying and the point that the chair brought

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: up was was a valid point. Okay.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Representation if the fact is ever comes to fruition, obviously. Well, I just don't feel comfortable knowing that someone's being evaluated. They've proved beyond their preponderance, which is, you know, is very minimal scales that they're not gonna go out and hurt themselves or somebody else here, especially if there's any one of our family members or whatever else. So I just I'm not saying beyond a reasonable doubt, but I still cling out to that clear and convincing standards as far

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: as I want a little

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: bit more than evidence. They're not gonna hurt somebody, is what I'm saying here? That seems like it's I don't know. We look at these things all the time as defense wise and whatever else and

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: a potential victim or past victim or whatever.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So I can't go along with

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: the preponderance of evidence, which I brought the point for the days in a in a criminal court. Maybe they do, but I don't see that move that off a preponderance of an evidence. In civil proceedings, you do. Right? And this is what we're talking about is criminal proceedings Well, the lack thereof, I might add. But I'm not comfortable with putting somebody out on the street on a preponderance that they may not hurt somebody. That's that's the way we're looking at this. I think we have a a a not only a duty to individuals being held, we have a duty to the public at large also. If that doesn't rise to the bar, then I'd like to say it.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Senator Bobos?

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: If someone has been deemed not guilty by reason of insanity, they're no longer

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: in the criminal court system. Right?

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: This is all civil court stuff. Because they have been found they've been found not guilty.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's an interesting I think as the attorney general the attorney general's witness was testifying last week, these are unusual proceedings that blend elements of both. For example, dealing the criminal these proceedings are in the criminal division. And yet, because they are commitment, they they are what historically are more civil in nature. So it's a it's it's not a strictly criminal proceeding anymore, but it is in the criminal division.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: But isn't that a hanging question as to whether it should be in the criminal division or in the civil division that deals with this type of hold with that, like Certainly. That's a

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: possible decision for you, by

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the way.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. Mhmm.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: This was, I think, the one of the questions I raised yesterday as if it's a simple division that generally deals with commit involuntary commitment. Shouldn't they sort of deal with all of them regardless of how they get there? Rather, sorry, than standing up a whole new system for I think they said what, maybe four to six people.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, I think that's a discussion for this committee to have certainly. And I I don't know if this was also something I've been alluded to yesterday, but, you know, it's also theoretically possible. Because I remember it came up in the context of the involuntary medication issue. Right. You know, in theory, that issue could be confined to the family division, even if the rest of it remains in the group. Again, sort of given the family division's experience with the doctor medication. Anyway, certainly options for this committee

[Unidentified Committee Member]: to think about. We're in uncharted waters. Correct.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I would say that's So

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: it doesn't matter which one you we're in uncharted waters, this is gonna be challenged. Yes. Okay. So I I don't care if it's criminal sort of whatever else. I'll just talk about the use of progress of it. But I still have difficulty in in wrapping my my beliefs around that we could simply release somebody under the ponders that they may not hurt somebody. That's where I'm coming. I I don't wanna be that guy.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I'm wondering if if we were to switch to a preponderance, if we were to also add a list of factors that have to be proven or taken into consideration beyond just whether or not the person would be a substantial would would pose a substantial risk. And so I'm thinking about, you know, the requiring that the that the court shall consider

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Don't we already have that above? I mean, not that we couldn't have.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: That's the forensic Element. Assessment. Yeah. So and then d is the final piece that gets that goes into the hearing. Yeah.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You're right. That's the forensic risk assessment. Expand out

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: d and include elements. Yeah. That's what I'm thinking when I'm looking at starting on line 15 where it talks about the hearing. Do we add a list of several factors that the court shall consider to make this a bit more specific if we're going to have a lower standard of

[Unidentified Committee Member]: proof or evidence. There's another piece here that we haven't talked about. So it's as as it stands on paper, burden has shifted clear and convincing that it would create a substantial risk of bodily injury. So if it says preponderance and we leave substantial risk, it seems to be we're covering ourselves there. So we're saying, you know, it's it's it's it's more likely that it won't create substantial risk of body injury. So no matter which standard we use, substantial risk is another judgment factor here. And all of this is gonna be decided by the court. So I I feel like what it boils down to is a judge reviewing the person's risk assessment and saying, I don't think this person's gonna hurt anybody. So I guess that boils down to me feeling like preponderance wouldn't, you know, wouldn't be turning people loose that the court believes are gonna hurt.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: But I'm The the I think the counter to that, though, is if it's a substantial risk Yeah. Then it's, you know, it's the person going to go and shoot somebody, or is the person going to go get in a bar fight? And, you know, because getting in a fist fight is I would say that's a risk of injury, but obviously, shooting or stabbing something substantial risk. Or is it taking more into consideration the likelihood? Yeah. Substantial risk.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah. I'm not sure.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think it's the likelihood the way I Yeah. Yeah. What I'm trying to get my head around too, that's it's a watch. That's not able to quite

[Unidentified Committee Member]: do it. Think about what

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: senator Norris was saying and and without just trying to articulate whether you had the word substantial or not, if you were thinking about that and let's say your goal was to make it to use the preponderance standard but to make it more challenging for the person, committed person to meet that statement because you're concerned about them being released on too low a standard, right? Does that mean you include the word substantial or not? See, I can't, I'm trying to figure out how I think

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: it would be more difficult to prove if

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you remove the word substantial

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: when I think of substantial risk, I'm thinking it's very likely. Whereas risk of injury is moderately likely. So right. I don't know if removing the word substantial, but keeping whatever. But adding preponderance Yeah. Gets to the middle road of Senator Norris' concerns, but also the concerns of having us not be clear and convincing.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I know it's like a logic problem. Can't I Senator Norris?

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Just I've got a question here, and it's probably covered somewhere in here. I'm sure if it is Senator Brook pointed out to me. On lines thirteen and fourteen, where it says a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person Mhmm. Could it possibly also report to themselves? Or is that covered here someplace else? And we were concerned about

[Unidentified Committee Member]: their well-being too, obviously. Yeah.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The way it's it's drafted now and it it it doesn't include themselves, but you could if you wanted.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Good point. I wouldn't be opposed to adding substantial risk to themselves or poor risk to themselves depending on how we deal.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Just But a quick thing. So I think what we're talking about is if you let the person out under any circumstance, there's a risk because you can never be a 100% certain. So even if you were 99% certain, there would still be a risk. That seems to me why substantial is there because there's always gonna be some level of risk. And if you reduce it to just risk rather than, you know, substantial possibility, then I think the person's never getting out. So I guess what I'm what I'm trying to avoid in the statute is a situation where there are a number of hearings, but basically, they're for show. This person's never getting out. So I think leaving substantial risk makes sense and we should argue out what the evidentiary standard is with substantial risk in place, if that makes sense.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So are you referring to adding a list of factors that have to be taken into consideration or something? No.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So I might be arguing against myself here. Because maybe if you have substantial risk, people will want clear and convincing. But I think if you take away the modifier on risk, then it's just, is there any risk at all involved with letting this person out? And I think the answer is always going to be yes, there's some risk because they're there for a criminal action. So substantial risk seems to me just recognizing the obvious, which is that there's going to be some level of risk if you let them out. The court's making a judgment call about

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Senator Baruth.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: So I agree with senator Baruth. I mean, there's some level of risk that any one of us could harm someone else even if we haven't done that before. So I I mean, that's just human. My question is around the constitutionality of holding someone in a facility like this not because they're a risk to other people but because they're a risk to themselves. Like I know we can do short term sort of civil commitment for stuff like that but is can we hold someone in a forensic facility that is meant to deal with not guilty by reason of insanity because we're worried they're a risk to themselves?

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's an interesting question. I haven't looked at that question specifically. Went and sort of looking at all these cases. I wasn't focused on that Right. That angle. But it is a fair point that as opposed to the civil commitment context when you're talking about an involuntary commitment of somebody because they might be dangerous to themselves or to other people as a result of a mental illness. This one being a forensic approach which is different, criminal justice oriented, You know, it may be that the other state structures that are in place on this are generally geared to whether someone's gonna harm somebody else, not themselves. And self harm may be more of the civil commitment context. But I'll take a look at some of those statutes. I haven't focused on that particular piece of it and see if there's been any first of all, I'm curious whether whether the other statutes are specifically about harm to somebody else rather than self. And then secondly, whether or not senator Vyhovsky's court has ever been raised and decided by court.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. If I briefly might just touch on I agree with what senator Baruth says as far as 90% is also risk. But let me point out once again. There's a large difference between 5199%. They're in the last market, sir.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So I guess on this piece, I mean, I'm still leaning more towards the ponderance, but developing potentially a list of factors that shall be taken into consideration by the court prior to releasing somebody. And I think that could be a question for, be another question that I asked judge Zonnay and we'll cc the committee. Could also be a question for BMH on Thursday when they come in. I think we should move on because we're running short on time here to the next the remaining parts of this section. Are there any other thoughts?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: This goes back to something Senator Bahoski was raising and I'm on page six. The Commissioner of Corrections shall provide adequate care and individualized treatment at the forensic facility. Are we settled on who's running? No.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I I think that's one of the bigger questions that we haven't reached a conclusion on, which I think maybe we will be able to reach a conclusion on after we after our testimony on Thursday. Okay. I haven't given that additional thought since our last conversation. Did you have your hand up?

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: To make the exact same point, senator Baruth did. I also wonder and has the ACLU been in to testify on this given that they're the sort of civil liberties protectors?

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: No. They haven't. Okay. Any other pieces or recommendations or changes in section three?

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Well, now I'm sure we're working. We'll work our way through this process.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Well we've got the same issue about shifting the burden now. Evidence standard on page six. And then when we

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: get into section four it's the same question of who and where.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: One thing that I did have noted online was on page eight, line six. The timeline for bringing in the commission. So I think that, you know, I would prefer having something shorter than a year, but then we have the accompanying language of unless a shorter duration is authorized by the court. So I'm wondering if that's something where an attorney would file a motion stating that there's been a material change in circumstances, you know, similar to how they would they would spell that out in a motion to modify conditions of release. And if that is true that in their motion they could raise that there are material changes in circumstances and so it's warranted to have a hearing sooner than in one year, then I'm fine with the way it's written. But, Eric, do you happen to know or because this is

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: all new, it's uncertain? I I agree with you. I I I would read it that way. That that second clause, unless a shorter duration is authorized by the court, would like, for example, my defense counsel, I would certainly argue that that provided the court some discretion, perhaps because as you say, the person has taken such significant steps toward regaining, treating their mental illness, toward being less dangerous, whatever those change in circumstances might be. And yeah, I would at least think that there's an avenue there for filing a motion. But again, you know, that's if you I think there's an avenue, It's not entirely clear whether the court would grant or not. So if you wanted to have a shorter period, that's certainly a policy called it is up

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: to the committee. Would it be worthwhile or unnecessary to add an additional point saying that the court may grant the petition and schedule a hearing if there is a material change in circumstances for the defendant? Would that make it more clear? Yeah.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think that would be nice.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Clear. Yeah. Any opposition to adding that?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: You mean replacing shorter duration authorized by the court with that?

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: No adding adding on top of it. Shorter duration is Authorized because there's been a material Is is authorized if there if authorized by the court or if there is a material change in circumstances.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Or even add another sentence because in a way you're kind of giving an example of what or giving a way in which there might be other reasons that the court would authorize a shorter period of time that you're kind of providing an example. You say the court period after court and let's say the court will grant the petition. Now as you were saying, some of shame if it finds it, next material change in circumstances there. It didn't say that may weren't released or something like that. Because the whole thing is that's about a petition for release, so it's something like that. Sort of giving one example, a way in which the petition for a shorter time period could be authorized, but at the same time, not counting the court's hands to say that that's the only reason that they might authorize a shorter time period. Yeah.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I'm I'm fine with that for now. I don't think there's I think that should work.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Do you have your hand up? No. I I don't apologize. I'll ask whoever. Great.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Alright. So I think we can pause there as we get to section four. And that's just going into the definition of forensic facility. And that's that for now. So we'll able to get the new version for tomorrow before we get all these witnesses in?

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I mean, there's not a significant amount of of redrafting at this point. So, yeah, that could certainly be done

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: for Yeah. I mean, if it's if there isn't anything too substantial, then you don't maybe it's not necessary. Mean, as long as they've got these changes and we have our questions for them, then I think tomorrow will be enlightening. I think one of the big questions that we have to resolve is whether or not it'll be permissible to have this forensic facility be physically part of a correctional facility or if we're going to try using the Berlin psychiatric hospital or wherever.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. So hold off on a new draft now? Okay. See Yeah. Yeah. I think

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I think you can hold off for now.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah. Yeah. You can hold off for now.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Thank you. You bet.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Alright. So

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: we can switch gears to S183. 2083. I think you already have it. I got

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it. Great. Yeah. I don't know. Draft? 2.1. That's 182.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Two point one. 11:10AM.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't think so.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: Like I said, I just got an email from Tim McManus.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: It's Emery can have that one. I found it. At

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: 09:15 this morning saying that Erica couldn't

[Sen. Ginny Lyons]: be available. I don't know that

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: she's gonna be available in five minutes, but I can certainly ask. Okay.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. If you could ask, that would be good. Okay. I mean, I know we had testimony on it two weeks ago, but I think

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Todd is on his way as well.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: I've also asked reach out to the governor's office as they're supportive and move back from them. So I've trying to get the people, but it's slow sometimes.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Good morning. Morning. So we're here on s 183 for a discussion and possible vote. We were there any major were there any changes made since we last can you remind us if we change the

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'll just tell you. So for the record, Michelle Childs, office of legislative council, and you should have draft 2.1 committee amendment. And when I was here last week, there was a change that the attorney general's office had suggested on including a change order when you're entering into the contract or you are entering into a change order. And they had just sent it changing at one place, and then as we were walking through, I realized that neither could be kind of brought through the whole section. So I just did a redraft of that. So substantively, it's not any different than what you were talking about at the last hearing. And so what you have here is it's an individual instance of amendment. So it's just one amendment striking subsection b in your bill is introduced. Then we did the other pieces that were in the bills introduced are kind of just some technical stylized changes that we made, you know, when we're updating to gender neutral language or certain drafting conventions. And so this is just in this amendment, it's just contains kind of the heart of the issue, which is subsection B. And it has the two issues that you've been discussing. One is the addition of knowingly the time the person enters into the contract agreement, and then now you added the change order throughout there. Okay. So that's all it is.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Alright. Great.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: There's a quick question, Michelle. On line nine, when you say and it's in a contract agreement, is that, like,

[Unidentified Committee Member]: a proposal agreement we're talking about here?

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You know, I'd have probably. Because if you see, like, written or oral, I was originally included that that's different? I have to take a take a look.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: I don't know why it

[Unidentified Committee Member]: would, but just in case. Yeah.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Well, it's state statute is if it's over 10,000, you need to have it be written for residential contractors. But anything less, you

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: still don't have to be

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a contractor, but you have to get 10,000

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: overwritten.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Over 10.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. For the you have the registry with two registries. One is with the State's office. So if you engage in $10,000 kind of cumulative of business, you have to just register. It's not a good competency assessment or anything. Just have to register.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: But you have to have it if it's over 10,000 written contract. So if it's this is a thousand dollars or more, I'd imagine it could be oral still.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. And you'll see the language right there on line nine where it says written oral.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Okay. Any questions for alleged counsel on this? Okay. And the senator Vyhovsky has a a proposal regarding the AG, the SA. Do you wanna

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: Just the idea? Yeah. Language exists in a bill that's on the wall, which is s 94, but I did not wanna have the Ledge Council to draft an amendment until I actually heard from the state's attorneys that they were going to come in and support this, which I got from them this morning. And that is taking the 80 or so cases of contractor fraud and moving them from the state's attorneys into the attorney general's jurisdiction. Currently, it's kind of shared.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: There's some civil, some criminal. The state's attorneys, and I don't wanna speak for them, are sort of of the opinion that that could streamline these cases. But again, Erica Marthage I I heard from Ken McManus this morning that Erica Marthage, who is the head of the executive committee, could come in and testify, but I don't know if she can come in and testify this morning. But that is the proposal.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Have you reached out to the AGs?

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: The AG is sitting behind you. We have talked about it, they don't support it. It this is sort of I I think it's important to hear from both sides of this conversation about why and what makes sense. And so I spent time last week trying to track down the players. Like I said, just unfortunately at 09:15 this morning, got an email saying, yes. The state's attorneys can come in.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So would would Erica's testimony be different than what Kim testified to a couple of weeks ago when we first talked about this concept?

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I believe it may be a little bit more in-depth and kind of, like, on the ground what is the state's are experiencing. But, again, I have had the information that she was ready to testify for less than an hour.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: So I I'm uncomfortable predicting what she would say, but my my understanding is she's practicing and the head of the executive committee that she might just have a little bit more logistical experiential explanation as to why they think

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: this is a good idea. Mhmm. So,

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I mean, on on one hand, if, you know, what we've heard already is that the state's attorneys support it, the AG doesn't support it, and that we wouldn't really gain I mean, maybe we will gain new information by hearing from Erica, but I'm not sure well, actually, me ask the committee what is the what are folks' general thoughts on further pursuing this this idea and adding it to this bill.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Making a switch

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: from state's attorney to AGs? Not necessarily, but having a different conversation about it.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: We currently have shared jurisdiction, so it would just be

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: You're gonna have to get what's the rationale?

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: Just workload? Workload speeds the speed at which these cases, you know, in this with the sort of overloaded workload, you know, our state's attorneys have on average about 400 cases per these tend to not be prioritized over, you know, assaults. And that and and so that may be some of what Erica can offer. The governor is also supportive of the larger scope of s ninety four, so I've also reached out to his office to see if they wanna come speak to this small piece of it. So s ninety four is taking a whole bunch of stuff out of the essays and putting it into

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Oh.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: Of of which this was one of the things. Gotcha. And so I but I haven't I haven't been back from the doctor's office, so I don't wanna put them on.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I feel like it would be maybe more important to hear from the AG's office because their workload would be increased by this. I think you can usually get a party in government to say, we'll spin off our workload to other people. So would it would it be appropriate to hear from the AG's office

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: at this time? Yeah. No. It definitely would. I'm just trying to gain a sense as to whether or not the committee wants to go further explore this topic. We had it just slated for a vote, but this is a whole another policy change that would accompany this bill. Senator Norris, this is your bill after all. What are your This is the

[Unidentified Committee Member]: bill that I proposed. Yes.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Listen. I just wanna see justice for these alleged victims out there. I can understand why the state's attorneys may be interested in getting rid

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of this,

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: and I can understand why the AG's office may have interested in taking them. I don't wanna get you know, this is going back and forth between the two, state agencies, obviously. Just want a simple, clean-cut way for victims of alleged crimes where they can actually get some satisfaction. And the ship is true. Both officers are capable, but my concern is what I'm worried about is is time frame as far as filing, as far as, you know, I mean, we talk about speed trials. Speed I mean, this pertains to the same thing here. One of the one of the elected victims will be looking for some compensation or whatever else here. How long they're gonna have to wait depending on which office has it? They're both capable. I just want the quickest route possible for Mercedes office or state attorney's office, and that's that's my take on this. I don't have a problem as it exists right now. Okay. I don't oppose what, you know, the senator is proposing here, but I just wanna make sure that the wheels of justice move move quickly on this.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Well, the sense I'm getting then is that it I guess, it seems somewhat neutral towards further exploring this policy idea. So if Erica has new information that

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: she can share, then I'm

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: can't hurt to hear further. So with that in mind, I think we should hear from Todd, He's here now. And then we can find a time for Erica twenty or thirty minutes next week, and then conclude this one way or the other. So, Todd, do you wanna testify?

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: I'm happy to provide it or if you're bringing stick string Martha Jane to convoke.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. I think we're gonna try finding a time next week. And, yes, please. For

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: the record, Todd Delos, assistant attorney general. Good morning. So we continue in opposition of this change, and I'll I think, senator Norris, you sort of flagged it just now. What this bill would what this proposed change would do would be to move these 90 or so cases from a 105 attorneys. So all roughly all the state's attorneys plus the five criminal attorneys we've got at the AGO to just the five. That's really all it does. Right? We already have jurisdiction concurrent with the state's attorneys to prosecute these cases. In the past, we've done it when we had different capacity. We haven't had that capacity. I can go into that a little bit more for the last couple years. But at the end of the day, you'd be taking discretion away from the local prosecutors and handing it to the five folks who sit at the AGO who are currently working on mostly aggravated felonies and the Internet Crack Against Children cases. The other issue you have, which is one of the tensions here, and I think the tension that the bill that Senator Hashim has on the wall, we don't have direct connection with a lot of law enforcement. Right? So ICAC has an investigative body. Work directly with us. Otherwise, with very with only some specific exceptions, we don't get phone calls from the state police. We don't get phone calls from local law enforcement. All the cases filter through the state's attorney's office. And so I think there are other challenges with sort of taking some of these either more challenging cases or less prioritized cases and just handing them essentially carving out the state's attorney's jurisdiction. The only place that exists in law is homicide. That's the only area that the AG has exclusive jurisdiction and she regularly ensures that the local prosecutor has the first opportunity to prosecute the crimes in their local community, especially the most egregious crimes. We offer to support all state's attorneys around any new homicides. Sometimes they take us up on it, sometimes they don't, but that's the collaborative relationship. We can continue in that collaborative relationship. This change essentially, as I said at the outset, would move from a pool of a 100 plus attorneys to a pool of five attorneys.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Todd, just a couple of questions. How many of these types of cases does your office have right now? None. None.

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: Are Sorry. None in the criminal context. We do some of this work in the civil context where it's a consumer fraud claim. And I know one of the arguments has been, well, you've got this consumer expertise. Wouldn't that help in the criminal case? The reality is it's the criminal division who does the criminal work and the consumer division who does the consumer. That consumer division is available to state's attorneys as well. It's not you know, we all are we're all working on behalf of the state. So I it's not as though the proximity within a building is really a little bit affected.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: And and there was another point you've raised regarding prosecuting crimes in the community. Obviously, each state attorney has their office in the county. But as far as I know, the AHV's office is situated in Montpelier and Burlington? Principally just here the criminal division is just here in Montpelier than ICAC. There

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: are elements of ICAC. And then we also have, you know, embedded AAGs and AHS and other places, but those are not germane to this conversation.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So would it be an issue if if assistant AGs are getting these cases in Bennington or Orleans County and they have no to they have no rapport connection with the police department that initiated the case or the community itself, would that be? I think that's yes.

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: I think that's absolutely a challenge, developing those relationships and then also just the logistics of going to court halfway across or three quarters away across the state for these misdemeanor largely misdemeanor cases.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you. Senator Lewis.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Todd just touched on that. My question is going to be, so the fact that it did shift to AG's office, would that make the alleged victims go to Montpelier, or would the AG's office have to go to the individual county or what? And you said you would be traveling to the Bennington's and Franklin County? Yeah.

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: I mean, I think local law enforcement would be doing the investigative side of it, but then working with victims would would very likely mean, of course, it's

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: post COVID. We've got all

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: the technology to do it virtually. But, yeah, when you meet with victims, you wanna make sure you're face to face. And it would be a lot of trouble. And and I'll also just say the reality is, again, as you move from a pool of all the criminal prosecuting attorneys down to just five and about, cases are not gonna move faster.

[Sen. Ginny Lyons]: And what is the average case load of the attorney general division?

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: I don't have the exact number. It is far less than the average case load for the state's attorneys. But I will say there's a significant difference between prosecuting a DUI and prosecuting a homicide with mental health components. Absolutely.

[Sen. Ginny Lyons]: Would not argue argue that. Just yeah.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. That's That's it. It. Any

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: other questions for Todd? Okay. Well, thank you. We'll hear from Erica at some point next week and then decide what to do on this and move forward. Yeah. Thanks for coming in. Happy to come back.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Appreciate it. Yeah. Thank you. Alright.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Next up, we have senator Lyons on prop four. Switching gears here. Good morning. Welcome.

[Sen. Ginny Lyons]: Thank you. Thanks for having me. For the record, senator Ginny Lyons. And I'm here to talk about prop four. And I know that I've been in to talk about it before, but I'm coming in just first to say thank you for the work that you continue to do on this. And secondly, to offer some comments because I think it's important that we continue to emphasize the significance of this inclusive equal rights amendment. And as you know, I started working on this in 2016. And then in 2017, we passed a resolution, which I brought with me. And then we introduced the constitutional amendment in 2022, and it didn't go at that time. There were other things going on. And now here, we are in the second biennium of ready to pass the constitutional amendment. And so my thanks go to you for that. And I will be a little bit repetitious in what you know about prop four, but I didn't wanna share my thoughts very briefly. But we know that chapter one, article one of the constitution states that all persons are born equally free and independent and have certain unalienable rights. That is in the proposed amendment that you have. Chapter one, article seven states that government is or ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people or common benefits clause. When I started thinking about this, I was going to introduce a constitutional amendment for equal rights for women. And I realized very soon that there are other groups that should be included. So an inclusive equal rights amendment in our constitution will affirm what currently exists in our society. Our constitution does not begin, and this is this is a quote or it's not a quote. It's what do call it? I'm taking from Gloria Steinem, believe it or not. Our constitution does not begin with I, the president, or I, the governor. Our constitution begins with we, the people. People working for a democracy in which we are linked as human beings, not ranked by race, gender, class, or any other label. And I credit Gloria Steine for that concept, but it's something I think we all think about. Inclusion is something Vermont's laws continue to express. Vermont values are based in racial, social, economic justice and the freedom of self determination. Historic data demonstrate that specific groups have been discriminated against based on biological determinants resulting in social, economic, cultural, legal, prejudice and bias. These include gender based groups, gender identity, include religion, ethnicity, and racial heritage or disabilities. Holding people hostage as a result of their biology or religious beliefs is antithetical to Vermont values. We we have passed laws to protect these groups, but laws can be changed. So it requires that we don't wanna lead to inequality, but rather to increase legal and or to increase legal or ethical dilemmas. An inclusive ERA provides a constitutional umbrella to protect all of us, regardless of who we are, and build equal protection under the law. 24 other states already have a constitutional amendment comparable to the one that we're looking that you have worked on. And I I just one of the things I list was listening to today was recognition of Black History Month. And the conversation went to well, currently at the federal level, there's an interest in homogenizing and not recognizing different groups. But I think we know that a recognition of differences brings us advances us socially and culturally and legally. We don't wanna homogenize. Rather, we wanna harmonize through democracy and cultural understanding. And I think that this constitutional amendment is a step forward in doing that. And it does represent who we are and who we have been in Vermont. So that's all I wanted to say. Thank you for having me.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you for coming in and thank you for starting this process a number of years ago. It's appreciated. Committee, any questions for Senator Lyon? Okay. Great. Well, thank you for your time.

[Sen. Ginny Lyons]: Thank you. Now I can go back to you. And I have an intern with me today, Sophie from Hi. South Burlington. Nice. Okay. I'll see you guys later.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Alright. Two. Mhmm. Just one second. Got it.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Any further discussion on tropical?

[Sen. Ginny Lyons]: No. I'm excited to see it. Maybe he's up for a vote today. Any

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: any questions? Any additional witnesses that folks wanna hear from? Anything? I would just

[Unidentified Committee Member]: note that we can't change

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it. Right. Yes.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: For anybody watching. Wanna make sure that everybody feels like they could hear from whomever they need to hear from. No questions to let counsel and no witnesses or further discussion with them. Then I would entertain a motion to vote prop four out of favor.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So moved. He needs to. I'll second that.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Great. Any further discussion? If you could call the roll, senator Maddox. Senator Norris?

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Yes.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Senator Baruth? Yes. Senator Matos? Yes. Senator Vyhovsky?

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

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Senator Hashim? Yes.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Five zero zero.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: And I am happy to report this out on the floor. I reported it out the first time around for the experience. So I'm happy to take it the second time as well.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: And we are happy that you are happy

[Unidentified Committee Member]: to report it out on the floor. I'm happy to hear. I'm I'm happy that everybody is happy.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Let's just bathe in that for a brief moment.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. It may be brief. Undoubtedly.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So, Eric, thank you. Yeah. Sure. I'm

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: happy to all of Oh. We're all happy people.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Okay. So

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: next up, 01:51 at eleven. Okay. Anything that That's great. We have to discuss before eleven or folks wanna Lengthy break.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Lengthy break. I'll go for I'm gonna most for a lengthy break. I always support Bob. Okay.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Alright.