Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Good morning, we're back in Senate Judiciary picking up 08/1978, and we have Lisa Mylot here. Floor is on us.

[Lisa Mylot (Director of Animal Welfare, Vermont Department of Public Safety)]: Thank you. So Lisa Mylot, Director of Animal Welfare for Department of Public Safety, and you actually pronounced my last name correctly. Well, Chair, the team and the committee, thank you for having me here today. I appreciate that. I thought I'd start by giving you a little bit about my background, because I know the updated committee, and then talk about how the H578 ties into the comprehensive plan submitted to the legislature in January, as well as giving some context for some of the provisions of it. There are a couple of things that were brought up late in the day in house judiciary. And so there's still slight gaps in adult things that they want to think about and decide what they want going want to to deal with. Prior to coming to Vermont I was the Ann Woodham Stanford Distinguished Professor of Hannah Noel Parallela at the University of Georgia where I lived there for eighteen years and worked on animal cruelty issues in Athens Park County, which is a home jurisdiction of about one thirty thousand people. And my students and I work with jurisdictions around Georgia on animal welfare, part of my property company animal welfare skills class. We also work on state legislation. Since it's an area that I'm very passionate about, is

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

[Lisa Mylot (Director of Animal Welfare, Vermont Department of Public Safety)]: really important thing and I think the law is doing the exciting things in this area in bringing up the establishment of fishing and animal welfare. So in January, submitted a comprehensive plan to the legislature about the status of animal welfare in Gravant, as well as proposals for the legislature and Ethiopian to decide which way they want to move on various topics. And this bill itself touches on two of the issues that are in that comprehensive plan. One of them is the modernization of the approach to animal cruelty, the substantive part of the law defining what animal cruelty is. Vermont was an early adopter of protections for animals, but in many ways its animal cruelty statutes have not been progressed as much past that initial wave of support. So I did suggest that in the plan that that be something that be taken as an overall review with stakeholders with discussion for modernization. So a lot of the provision with respect to some kind of animal cruelty, I'm going to touch on what's covered in this bill, but for the most part, I'm just finding that I think that it might be something that comes back in a couple of years to have a more holistic work to be done. I don't know if you're going into details of that or as the other current stuff, which is a lot of those details right now. And then the second topic is that Vermont, unlike a lot of states, does not have municipal shelters that house animals that are seized as part of the cruelty cases. Many states have local governments pay for those expenses and provide the housing for those animals. Vermont relies on private organizations choosing to help save where animals are seized. And many of the private organizations in Vermont for the last ten years or so have chosen not to help with seizures because the process currently is fairly cumbersome and slow and it means that the private organizations bear all of the costs of holding animals for six months, a year, or more. Just holding them. While whether or not the animal's going to be returned and the owner gets worked out. And during that time a lot of those animals degrade. It was really hard for social animals to be held in a kennel for months on end. In fact, in dogs there's research showing that after two weeks they start to degrade from the stress levels. So expediting the time during which decisions are made does this animal go back to the owner because we don't think that there's a large risk to it. Or does the title get stripped so that this animal can be rehomed? Expediting that timeframe is something that's very important, both in terms of reducing animal suffering, but then enabling your private organizations to take on the burden of assisting the state in holding these animals. A few quick things before I dive in this little orciture process, which is where I spend most of my time and where I'm going spend most of my time today. The first is on page two. When we were discussing this bill in committee on Wednesday, there were questions about specifically three fifty two-one, which is page two, line 11, about the right of its owner to kill his own animal or to kill somebody else's animal with that animal's owner's permission. There were questions about, Oh, is this for livestock slaughtering practices? Could Christina, for example, legally shoot her puppy in Vermont? The answer is three fifty one, which is not included in this draft bill because it's not being amended, specifically excludes normal livestock husbandry practices. The livestock husbandry practices, poultry husbandry practices, and actually fishing and hunting practices are all excluded from animal cruelty. So this does not talk about those. That's not what this is covering. Instead of saying, Yes, you can shoot your puppy in Vermont if you get tired of it. So that is a premise of water. That's one of those things I think we want to think about maybe in the future adapting. But currently I have six dogs. If I decide I don't want them anymore, I can go home. And as long as I don't do it in the wrong way, I don't torture them, don't do anything like that, I am allowed to kill my dogs for no reason. So just know that that is what this is saying since that was raised this question.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Sorry I just wanted to clarify so that's what current law is and this does not change that?

[Lisa Mylot (Director of Animal Welfare, Vermont Department of Public Safety)]: This does not change that. It was just flagged as a question on Wednesday. Yeah, current law, that is current law. And there are some good reasons for it. So for example, for livestock animals it might be difficult to find a way to have somebody else euthanize them if it's a pet livestock animal but it's sick or it's elderly and you don't have a way

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: to deal with it.

[Lisa Mylot (Director of Animal Welfare, Vermont Department of Public Safety)]: So we allow one or two of them themselves. So we just don't delve into those questions. So this bill does not change that fact. But it is something I'm just saying it might be that your committee in future years is interested in thinking more about modernizing these factors and doing

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: it, but maybe not. I'll flag that as personally something that I would want dive deeper into. There's a way of distinguishing between other grain livestock versus putting down your own domestic pet. Yeah so I'm just flagging that as something hopefully we could revisit.

[Lisa Mylot (Director of Animal Welfare, Vermont Department of Public Safety)]: And I'd be happy to talk about those because there are examples from other states somehow just draw those lines. There's a difference too in euthanizing a pet because it is ill versus I'm just sick of it. Yeah. No, I agree. Could be the line drawing. Maine, for example, allows you to kill your own cat or dog if you can do it in one adult shot with the animal humanely restrained. Georgia says that you actually can't kill an animal unless there's some legal justification for it like self defense. Once they're put in the side, hunting, fishing, livestock, are all a different category. But in truth nobody's going to prosecute you if your dog is old or infirm and you end up killing it unless you don't want to talk to him. So there's prosecutorial discretion that can play into this. You could have a defense to anything be that the animal was terminally ill and suffering and you were not able to get a bed point because that's one of the things we have to think about is that there actually is poor access to vet care in some parts of the state. So while in Burlington you've got beds, you've got number of vet clinics right there in that area. It might not be that hard to get an animal euthanic who need to. If we're going to Northeast Kingdom or somewhere, it might be much more difficult to actually get that assistance. But again, I think that that's part of a big discussion about that and this bill doesn't actually directly cut on it. So the next thing I wanted to mention was just with respect to the adding the bestiality counts to this build. I just want to say that I think it's great that that's being expanded here. Bestiality is one of those things that are really heinous and with no good rationale or having it. It's hard to say, Oh, did it because I had to, or I didn't know better, or something like that. And the other thing to keep in mind with it is bestiality and pedophilia are actually very closely linked to crimes. The videos are found on the same North Web websites and the same people seem drawn to both. So dealing with bestiality when it occurs is a good way to perhaps head off issues with pedophilia down the road. So that's just blank. So thank you for taking up the skill because I know none of these things are fun to talk about. And then finally just on the substantive part, from the sex and sentencing on page eight. One of the things that this bill does is it does provide more guidelines for prohibiting somebody who has committed cruelty who has been found guilty of committing cruelty from having possession or oversight of animals for some period of time. It bolsters that as a remedy and all of the research says that is the best way to prevent recidivism of animal cruelty is to take away the opportunity. And the way people have opportunity to commit animal cruelty is they are alone with an animal. These things or they in some way have a severe control over an animal. So thank you once again for taking up this portion of the bill and bolstering that. That's in line with empirical evidence on what works to prevent the drug tool taking. So when we move on to the seizure portion of this bill which starts on page 14 which is about enforcement, we've got search and seizure procedures and then we have the post seizure elements. One of the things you discussed on Wednesday was page 14, lines seven through 13 with respect to consulting the Secretary of Agriculture. If it's a live doc report question. And I do want to imply that livestock includes forces. Just so you know it's the fine term that livestock includes forces and forces get online safe. But the current language of Secretary of Agriculture shall be consulted prior to any enforcement action being brought. And the suggested revision to this provision is failure to conduct consultation shall not be grounds for dismissal of the enforcement action. And you all rightly flag that there's somewhat concrete inquiry terms. You shall do this, but there won't be dismissal if you don't do it. Part of the discussion about this in House judiciary and actually House Ag because they brought the council and state vet from the Agency of Agriculture in to discuss this bill. Part of the discussion there was, first of all, the consultation isn't always needed. If you think about the point of the consultation is that Ag can tell you whether these are normal livestock husbandry practices. And so law enforcement can say, Oh, I don't need to seize the animals. They're allowed to slaughter a cow that way. And so it protects law enforcement from being overzealous perhaps. But the thing is there are livestock cases where if you don't need, there's no question. So if I decide to intentionally hit a horse with my car, I don't know why I will do that because it's not going to work out well for me or my car. But if I decided to do that, that's pretty clearly not a normal animal as we've been practicing. Should law enforcement have the weight, consult the agency of agriculture before they take that horse to a vet? Balancing the need for, we don't want to be overzealous and seize animals that don't need to be seized with, we want law enforcement to be able to act reasonably. My suggestion here, and this is going be the same comment on the next page when we're talking about a vet on the scene for seizures pursuant to a warrant, would be headline seven, and when I suggest language I'm going to send you written comments after the fact that have the language that I'm saying, Hey, might want to consider in it so you can have that in writing. But here, the second degree of agriculture, food, and market shall, comma, if practicable, comma, be consulted prior. So soften a little bit. So if it's practicable, if it makes sense, consult Secretary of Agriculture. And then the final sentence where it says failure to conduct consultation shall not be grounds for dismissal of the enforcement action and or exclusion of evidence. Since the point is to know whether or not they're being overzealous, this can also be dealt with in the court system because you're not going to get the evidence you need if they're not there and you need to collect some evidence on the ground that they're advising you on. But this gives law enforcement a little bit of flexibility. So I'm not going to try calling Secretary of Agriculture at midnight on a Friday to get his weigh in on whether or not I can take this horse to the back. So I think that shall be practical linked with that failure to conduct consultation shall not be grounds for dismissal before the action or exclusion of evidence. Here's what the agency of agriculture was asking for when they were asked about this bill, as well as the current case law, which actually provides that exact thing. This is incorporating current Vermont state case law that says we're not going to exclude evidence if the agency of agriculture is not consulted first.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Where is that located? We're on page 14. Sorry, meant the exclusion of evidence.

[Lisa Mylot (Director of Animal Welfare, Vermont Department of Public Safety)]: Right now, lines 12 through 13 says failure to conduct consultation shall not be grounds for distemple of the Enforcement Act, and I'm suggesting adding four exclusion of evidence, and that's coming from case law.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Right. Case law? Or do you know what? I don't on the I

[Lisa Mylot (Director of Animal Welfare, Vermont Department of Public Safety)]: can get those to you. Go

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: through this.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I was just curious because I'm curious about what the scope is of what evidence may or may not be excluded if such a clause were to be added, you know, evidence that is perhaps unlawfully acquired. I just want to make sure that we're not creating a sort of blanket that's moved in unintended. That's just something that I would want to look a bit further into.

[Lisa Mylot (Director of Animal Welfare, Vermont Department of Public Safety)]: Okay. I have the same sort of comment on the next page, on page 15, lines one through 12, where that is about execution of a search warrant. And so the veterinarian licensed practice in Vermont shall, they changed the must accompany an community officer during execution of the search warrant to shall, if practicable, accompany an community officer during the execution of the search warrant And adding a sentence states that the House Judiciary is because adding a sentence saying failure to be accompanied by a veterinarian during execution of the search warrant shall not be grounds for dismissal of the enforcement action. And I would add or exclusion of evidence. And again, will read you the cite, but there is case law saying that the veterinarian being present is for protection of the animals and so failure to comply with that should not be a reason not to bring cruelty charges against the owner of the animal or exclude evidence from that search. So I will again get you that case audit permit. And this one is really important because unlike the consultation with the Agency of Agriculture, having a vet on scene when a search warrant is executed actively circled means that search warrant does not get executed immediately. There are no state paid vets that go along with search warrant executions. The state vet works on securing our food supply. She's not available to help with search warrants. So this would mean law enforcement has to find a private vet who is willing to come out. That usually means during work hours so that private vet is canceling their appointments with no notice because search warrants aren't planned weeks in advance. They're planned a day in advance. So you have to find a vet that can cancel all of their appointments, come out and either provide free services or affordable services and that's all for protecting animals. And we see a number of cases where the animals don't need immediate care. Their convictions are the issue. Animals are being housed inadequately so that they have no shelter from cold weather. A vet there doesn't add anything to protecting the animals because the animals just have to get out of the situation. Or a recent case where was a videotape, a man videotaped himself having sexual relations with his dog. He posted those videos online. The videos themselves establish the evidence. A vet being seen when a certain warrant is executed does not add anything to that. This has been a barrier in some instances to being able to remove animals from cool situations because lining up a bed and time only is not possible. And so I'll get you the case law where it says this is for protection of the animals and so evidence should not be excluded on the basis that there was other veterinarians on the scene.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Just to sum

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: up quickly, what about animal control offices? Should they exist in a municipality like people over here in South Toronto? It seems to me the original thinking might have been having a veterinarian there because there's an animal who may be injured or whatever, so having a professional who knows how to deal with that animal would be good if we can get in. So there's the shell. But an animal control officer could maybe serve that same function just to draw on the pool of the people who might be able to respond.

[Lisa Mylot (Director of Animal Welfare, Vermont Department of Public Safety)]: I think that will be possible, but again, it's not always needed. So saying this must happen

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: like your suggested change. Just wondering whether including animal patrol officers or vets in this situation.

[Lisa Mylot (Director of Animal Welfare, Vermont Department of Public Safety)]: I think that's a great idea and when I get asked when law enforcement comes back and says, Hey, there's a situation we're not sure what we're doing. I immediately say, Is there an animal control officer? Because they're the subject matter expert. They're not humane officers. They can't execute the search warrant. They can't seize the animal. But law enforcement partner with an animal control officer. And then if we think that there are injured animals on-site, then also having that back there is a good thing. But I think having a flight, but suggesting that this is a good thing, think, yeah, I think that's great. Okay, you. Okay. So that's sort of preliminary to the actual civil war with your process. So that's all that happens up until the animal is actually seized. With respect to seizures currently, the first question that gets asked when an animal control officer or a law enforcement officer wants to start the process, they have good evidence, probable cause, believe an animal is being abused in a home. The first question they get asked is, Where does that animal go to seize life? Vermont does not have municipal shelters. Vermont does not actually have large amounts of vet boarding and that costs a lot of money, and Vermont municipalities don't have the money to pay for six to eight months of boarding for a dog in case. And so the first question always is where will they go? And so private organizations are the ones stepping in and helping. The rescue organizations or the animal shelters are the ones typically stepping in and saying, Okay, we can help with this animal. But they all have very limited space. Your animal shelters might have five dog panels. It's not a municipal shelter like the one in Athens where we had 130,000 people. We have a municipal shelter. There were 41 dog panels. Even where shelters and rescue organizations use fosters, fosters are not available and unlimited supplies, and cruelly treated animals can be difficult to place in a foster home because of their behavioral and medical needs and because they can't be altered. These shelters and everything can't stay and neuter the animals where they get a virtual fee seizure because they still belong to the owner and that's a property right so it can't just be taken from them. And having an intact female dog, one of them has other dogs, you're going to have fights. When they go to eat and you're going to have a mess and the intact animals try to wander because they're looking for mates. And so placing deceased animals in foster homes is not an easy thing even if there are foster homes available. Realistically, at least with dogs and pets, they generally end up staying in a shelter. Again, that shelter might have five dog kennels total. If you think about seizures you've seen on the news, 55 huskies seized the Memorial County piece of money. That would fill every shelter kennel in the state if they had to go to it in state shelters. In that case, was able to coordinate with the ASPCA to come in and help and take possession of them, but you have a very limited capacity to hold animals in Vermont. So putting animals in kennels where they're going to have to sit for an extended period of time, the answer frequently is we have nowhere to put them. And so even with those huskies, if that had been dealt with a year prior when there were half as many, that would have been much less burden and we wouldn't have had another year of suffering. But when that question gets asked of where will these animals go, a lot of times the answer is we don't know. And that's my interest in the civil forfeiture process, is speeding things up so the animals either go back to their owners more quickly or they are able to be renamed quickly. So you know Franklin County Humane Society about ten years ago went bankrupt because they had approximately eight dogs that they were holding as part of seizure case. Well those eight kennels were taken up. They couldn't bring other animals in to adopt out so they had no revenue stream, they had no donation stream, they still hadn't cared for those animals and they went bankrupt. And so your shelters are now very, very low to say yes to taking seas of animals from cases. And this means that the animal victims get left in abusive homes. Hoarding issues blow up by the time they get too big to not pay attention to anymore. The animal's suffering is prolonged. So for example, an animal that is being tethered out and does not receive water, if you can't seize that animal and the owner's not willing to give it water, you're just going watch that animal die of dehydration. Law enforcement bargains away charges in your current surrender. They say, I will not charge you with animal cruelty if you sign over title. We don't do that with any other crime. We don't say, If you give me your drug stash, we won't charge you with drug dealing. If you give me the gun or you stole, if you just return it, we won't charge you. Give me the gun you shot someone with, I won't charge you for shooting them. We don't do that. But in animals we do that because we don't have an answer to where will the animals go and if they are surrendered they can be rehomed quickly. So right now we're bargaining on way of records so we have no record that this person committed guilty before so when they do it again there's no record of that. It's a first offense. The Vermont Supreme Court in St. V. Shepherd, and I can send you that exact reference, has told us that the treatment of animals is different than that of other property because they are living sentient beings which the law may provide protections in their own rights. And building on that concept, the Vermont State Supreme Court in State versus Ferguson allowed evidence of severe neglect from three weeks prior to the execution of search warrant to support the search warrant and provide probable cause even though evidence that is three weeks old is generally too stale to provide probable cause for. So the Vermont states prove important principle that animals are a special category. So we can have slightly different processes and rules with respect to them in order to protect them in and of themselves. Animals that are confined long term, social animals like dogs, cats that are confined long term in kennels degrade and sometimes become unadogable. We've seen that recently in one of our humane sites that has had dogs impounded since September, I believe, and one of the dogs has degraded to the point where she is now fighting people. She's not going to be adoptable. That's purely because of the confinement over this period of time where she has not moved on to being able to be in a home. So in order to speed things up, there's a couple of things that I would suggest for this bill. Once again, specific language I can send to you if they found it, you can ignore it if you want. But the first thing is the time period before there's a hearing on ownership needs to run from seizure or impound, not from notice. That means we have to make notice very clear and very fast to protect due process rights. But if we wait for normal civil notice procedures to happen, an animal might be confined for months prior to even starting the process of getting to a hearing. So this bill tries to address that by saying, An owner has to request a hearing within the first fourteen days or they lose title. And that's what this is addressing, is the fact that he can't have the normal way around. If my car is stolen and I don't get on it to affect personal service for six months, I'm the only one injured. That's different with animals because the thing itself gets injured and you can wait around that long. So that's what the automatic trigger, initial fourteen day period, is trying to deal with is the fact that we need to start these things, start these processes relatively quickly. So this bill provides that fourteen day period starts from seizure. Now the question is, how do we protect due process? How do we protect the owner's rights so that they know they have fourteen days to request a hearing before they leave ownership? And this provision on page 18, so lines five through 11, takes the approach of if an owner is physically defensive when an animal creases seas, you do personal notice. That's easy. You just hand on a copy of all the information. The question though is what if the owner is not there? And this bill addresses it by saying, And you come to notice. You hang it there. Now, acting can be permissible under Vermont law, as I understand it, and the Arracking way and much more or less, if it's reasonably calculated to give notice to the owner of what's being hacked. I would suggest that in addition that we do a three part notice. This is something I hadn't thought about before we were in house judiciary. I'm very privileged. I knew for the first time that there is precedent in the law for this. Personal services, the owners, they are known. Tacking regardless, and reasonable attempts to make personal service within ninety six hours of the seizure. So it's called nail and mail, apparently, where you tack it and you mail it. And if we give ninety six hours, that's four days, That's going take care of any holiday period. So the post office is going be open, mail can be attempted, showing at the person's house can be attempted. But where law enforcement has to make reasonable efforts in that first ninety six hours to give notice. That bill gives ten days for a defendant to exercise his rights and ten days is what the Minnesota statute, if this is modeled on, uses anymore. They have not had due process challenges. They had due process challenges to an original version of the law. They revised it about twenty years ago to account for them and that law had been in process allowing for a ten day period to request hearings. So that would get us to that ten days if the law enforcement tries to do that personal service in good faith, reasonably those first four days. So I think that personal service, if they're there plus nail and mail approach, is probably going to give a little bit more robust due process protections than what's in this bill currently while still not seeing things die.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah, think that's definitely a helpful solution. Mean, that was one of the things that I had on my mind as well because I know there

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: are I

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: know there are some, you know, that I'm thinking of Windham County, there's plenty of fenced off areas where there isn't a house in sight and they could live ten minutes down the road or they could live thirty minutes away, but maybe they're renting a theater, leasing some space and you may have no idea who owns that space or is renting it. And then you know thinking I mean one of the other ideas I had which I think would be more cumbersome was requiring moving, brought narrative service, that that would require more court time and that it would be cumbersome. But the other idea was also in line with yours of, you know, if the person's not there hacking it conspicuously, but also making a due diligent effort in serving the person, whether it's by mail or an in person. So I think that's definitely that's something that I

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: would understand.

[Lisa Mylot (Director of Animal Welfare, Vermont Department of Public Safety)]: He's not I think yeah. I think it's an important thing. So we're not trying to find a court time of litigation over the legislation. Yeah. And part of the reason why it is more plausible that taxing provides adequate notice to an owner, with an animal than with a car, is that animals have to be cared for. They have to be fed. They have to be provided water. In fact, state laws that they have to be provided water at least once a day unless there's some clearly alternate source. So a diligent owner is actually going to go to where their animal was, let's say at least once a day. Now, animals wander them. That's the problem. They might wander off and let's say the dog has a name tag on it, it is straight, you still want to contact that owner and get them noticed. So I think that having some way where it's time limited though and where they don't have to go back and forth because it's just not going out and quickly.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I did have another question for you a bit further down in line 16 on page 18 regarding a person claiming a legal interest in an animal and I'm thinking of I guess a hypothetical where let's say parent owns an animal that was seized and another family member or maybe an ex of this person, or maybe a child of the person wants to get that animal back and this other person is, they're suitable to have an animal. But perhaps the person from whom it was seized was the only person who paid the adoption fees and has it in their name at

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: the town clerk's office if

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: they registered their pet. So I'm wondering about that type of situation where somebody's trying to get back an animal and you know, the legal lens, it's somebody who should be able to get back the animal, yet when I'm trying

[Lisa Mylot (Director of Animal Welfare, Vermont Department of Public Safety)]: get Yeah, I do. What I would hope, and maybe that's not a good enough thing to hang anything on, is that no humane society wants to find a homeowner for an animal. There's a good person to owner in front of them, so somebody who does not live with the title because you don't want the animal living with the person who abused them, but who has a connection to the animal, I don't know anyone who would not, assuming title was gotten away from the original owner, because you still have to get title away from that owner. I don't know anyone who would not then say, Yes, you're a suitable adopter. It could come up, though. Yeah.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Think you're quite a little more research into what legal interest might mean and whether or not we could just clarify, if necessary, Yeah, take that okay. Thanks.

[Lisa Mylot (Director of Animal Welfare, Vermont Department of Public Safety)]: I think it's a good thing to yeah. Then the second so this initial time period to start at the Civil Warfare Actions is one place where currently timeframes are just really long. Because state's attorneys have to turn from whatever they're working on to do this sort of petition they haven't really done before. So that's what that whole initial fourteen day period and the packing is trying to overcome is that delaying the process? The next delay comes is, right now there are timeframes in the civil forfeiture statute, but they're not required to be adhered to and so they're not. So for an example is there were 13 dogs seized in late January. The Civil Formal Trip Petition was filed within two weeks, which is about the amount of time they typically could get filed and when the evidence has come in. So somebody's parties would immediately commit it in two weeks. The statute says that there has to be a scheduling conference within twenty one days of that petition and it happened in this case. It was on March 11. And then the court, under current law, is required to set a hearing for within twenty one days of that scheduling conference, which would be early April. But they're allowed to but it's not a binding schedule and so in that case the hearing has been set for May 25. So not twenty one days, two and a half months later. That might have been fairly fast with the way the process currently plays out. Last summer 30 some horses were seized in early July. Their hearing on forfeiture did not happen until the first stage of it was in December, the second stage was in January, and we are now in April and they still don't have a decision on it. It's going to be a year even with everyone acting diligently, because the timeframes are not mandatory. One suggestion in House Judiciary was first let's move these from criminal courts to civil courts. Because criminal courts are dealing with all of these really urgent matters and so civil courts maybe prioritize these cases better. The problem is there are no finding the conference again and what state's attorneys tell me is that the civil courts in practice because they don't have the surgeon of cases do things even more slowly. And so under this current proposed bill that we look at we look at page 19. Page 19, lines 12 through 15, tells us that you're originally held within thirty days after the request unless the thirty day period is extended by court for good time shown, so thirty days is not a real deadline, in the territorial unit of the Civil Division of the Superior Court where the offense is likely to occur. So we move it to Civil Court to try and say, Prioritize it, but then we say, Don't worry about prioritizing it. And that's going I have to tell you, that's going to be a problem for the shelters and rescues. If they don't know what these on graves are, they will not say yes to taking the seas to animals. And we will stay where we are now, where the animals are staying in abusive homes. We know they are because there's nowhere to put them. And so if there's not going to be firm timelines, in a lot of ways it's better to leave it in criminal court with where these cases currently are because that's where state's attorneys practice so they know the rules of criminal procedure, which are different than the rules of civil procedure, and so there's less burden on states attorneys and actually public defenders if these cases stay in criminal court. The reason to move to civil court would be that these cases are more important than most other civil cases. Maybe not landlord tenant cases, but like landlord tenant cases, they put F-five 85 frames. So these moved ahead before the stolen car case went ahead. That's something-

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Just to give you a heads up, we do have a hard stop in about five minutes. Also welcome Okay. To come back. I'm sure we'll have additional questions, but just wanted to give you that Okay, heads

[Lisa Mylot (Director of Animal Welfare, Vermont Department of Public Safety)]: so we have that problem, that thing for you all to think about, how to balance these. Okay, 19 lines 12 through 14 and the same thing comes up on page 20, line 11 where a court is directed to issue an opinion promptly. As I said, a hearing in January still doesn't have a decision, that's what But this language creates, is those sort of situations where all the information's in, animals still have to be held. And then finally, a final thing I want to flag is there's a gap in the bill as to what happens to an animal if an owner is required to pay some amount of money and does not do so. So this is not where a court is waiving the security because of indolentancy. That's they don't have to pay it. It's where the person is supposed to pay a security and they don't get it waived or where they're supposed to pay the cost of security or their animal back and they don't do it. This bill does not address what happens. Typically in the other 40 states that have cost of care type bills that are related to this, If somebody does not pay an amount they're supposed to pay, they lose title. It's like if your car is impounded, if it's towed to an impound line and you don't pay the impound fee, you don't just get the car back. That's a gap in this law. It does not address if the person does not pay the fees that the court tells them they have to pay. It just doesn't say what happens. So I think that you need to think about in terms of policy what you think should happen in those cases. I can find

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Which line were you on?

[Lisa Mylot (Director of Animal Welfare, Vermont Department of Public Safety)]: 19 it comes up at the bottom of it where we're talking about paying an additional amount equal to the estimated cost at the very bottom, page 19 through 21, line 19 through 21. An additional amount equal to the estimated cost of parenting of the animal for a subsequent thirty day period due every thirty days thereafter until the owner relinquishes the animal or court issued an order of court return. It doesn't say what happens if they don't do it. And then the bigger issue is on page 22, lines eight through 12. If payment of the cost required by subsection is not made within fifteen days after the final order, the custodial caretaker's cost, not TIC CGM, security posted, shall be reimbursed from the Animal Welfare Fund, but it doesn't say what happens to the animal and what happens to the excess costs. It just said, so this is really troublesome on page 22 just because the answer will be if the person gets the animal back without paying those costs, if they wait fourteen days, every single person will just wait fourteen days. We're just tacking on holding period because no rational person will pay the costs. And so those are the two places where there has to be a Your answer might be they can just get the animal back, in which case it should just be drafted that way, think. There should be no fourteen day period, wait period of that. In other areas of the law, like I said, with impounding a car, if you don't pay the fee, the court tells you you have to pay your car back. Don't get your car back. I can talk here real quick and like you said, get a hard stop and I'm happy to answer questions. I will send the specific language as well as the case Yeah, thank

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: That was very helpful. I suspect we'll probably have you back in here. We'll go through Markup probably sometime next week when we make some changes after we get language from you. And yeah, I suspect you'll be back in here and we'll have more questions for you. So thank you.

[Lisa Mylot (Director of Animal Welfare, Vermont Department of Public Safety)]: That sounds great. I appreciate making us find out you have a lot of fun.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Well, do, but Yep, Senator. Just quickly, I mean, if you're gonna come back and you just think about this, I support the biblical intensity that it presented, so you'll be marked up. I revert back to, she always say to the officers' birth appearance or whatever else, from crippling experience, from dealing with forces of dogs, main things. The lack of shelters, the lack of resources, the lack of who do we call, who do I call. So is it your intention or the state's intention to start building that resource list of veterinarians? Franklin County is where I'm from. Franklin County Rehab, I'm very familiar with that situation, but I can't even imagine in a lot of part of the afternoon, someone decides to not use regularly accepted agricultural practices and hitch their forts with a cart. Or Chuck and I arrive, don't know what it was. It'd be much easier for me to bring the veterinarian here. You had mentioned that horse says, we we don't have those three purposes. We're not ready for that to happen. I mean, the first thought would be probably that the doctor on the scene would say, I need to put this horse down. I'm not a veterinarian.

[Lisa Mylot (Director of Animal Welfare, Vermont Department of Public Safety)]: Can't really do that. Yeah. But the dog horse belongs to that person. What they wanted was an injured horse.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: But what I'm saying is we need a resource list. They need a resource list. I'm not doing it on the road. Facilities, I was fortunate, but I would emphasize trying to find what a resource list that local law enforcement can actually turn to. We have resources available for everybody else who have to stay. These are unique situations. We don't have the shelters, don't have the resources, we don't have the veterinarians in the world to come out to eat just this.

[Lisa Mylot (Director of Animal Welfare, Vermont Department of Public Safety)]: I completely agree. I think that we need to build resources and we need to build the lists that are accessible to law enforcement so that they know who to call. Right now, I'm fielding a lot of those calls and I'm trying to figure it out. Okay, so you told me you're in Hyde Park, I will figure out what I'm going to do. You told me you're in Danville, I'll figure out what I'm going to do. But I completely agree and this is one of In H-eight 41, which is before House of Ops, part of it allows the Animal Welfare Fund to accept grants and donations, which right now it's not set up for, which would hopefully be used to help build those resources then. Then a database that you can search by part of, I have a horse issue that needs to be transported in this part of the state, or I have a cow issue here where I need a veterinarian. And you're right, lot times with livestock that's going on-site, so who's willing to do that? Who's got the confidence in? If it's a goofy case, who's been trained in forensic techniques so that we can paralegal and collect their evidence simultaneously, I think you're completely right. Thank you very much.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Mr. Chair, if I could just take a second to pass, we have nothing on the action calendar today, but we have four bills on notice So we've got 744 and activating the procedures for release. We've got 849, deprivation of constitutional rights. Those are both yours, Mr. Chair. We have four ten, Senator Norris, six twenty six, Senator Klosky. Can any of those work out on this event before I'm not done?

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: A bill in here that has appropriations, cash code in it. It'll be

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: voted out.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Well, I thinking of something from education?

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: My bill that aren't reported has appropriations, it's only $12,000 Okay,

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: so if you're, yeah, yeah, the recidivism, okay, yes. So does that one need to go to approval?

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: I don't know, but if it doesn't, would you be ready to do it?

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Well, be a question for Bob. No, I'm talking about July. Probably not, no. August. It's gonna a very slow one. No, 849, it's gonna be The air is not open.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Alright, it's fine. We'll just gavel in and gavel out then speed. But I thought I'd say it

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: could clear some of the calendar. And 07:44 on each day will be ultimately very short. Okay. That's just a little free change. Alright, thank you. Alright, so budget letter. So this was, this was, this is a draft of our letter to the corporation for she never, Thank you to applicant for helping put it all together. And they're currently not listed in any priority order. They haven't been modified. I do think we should spend a few minutes just making sure that we're all on the same page that what's written in this draft is accurate. Thankfully we have Senator Norris here. I So guess we can just start at the top. And then once we just confirm all the accuracy, we can go through our priorities. Regarding state's attorneys and sheriffs. That one was easy to confirm. They had

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

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: straightforward document which we saw yesterday, those three priorities. Everybody recalls that? So the three priorities are listed. You can see that the first one is the elimination of the vacancy savings that was already in the House budget. And then two that weren't in the house budget operating expenses and the additional positions are also listed there. So does anybody think that's incorrect? So crime victim services on page two. That one was also another one that was very straightforward. They had their ask in this green box here, we have to date for, and it includes 49,000 to 102,000 the fiscal year coincides, is that? This is a little

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: hard to know because it doesn't list what the House did. Yep. So it's hard to know if they're asking. Like, for instance, I'm looking at the Human Rights Commission. I know there was a position in the House of Developed. But in the other areas, I don't know what the House is.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Like for the Crime Victim Services? For

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: everything, yes. Yeah. Some

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: of them are, not all of them. It was unclear in some of these presentations as to what was in the House budget or what wasn't.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: You're right. Including. It's a big factor. If the House already said yes, it's a lot easier to say yes. If the House said no, for instance, the Human Rights Commission is looking at, it seems like it's asking for three positions over the governor's recommended, but I think the House okayed one of them. So they're really asking for two and over the house. That seems like important information to know or to know how I feel about any individual expenditure.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Was you able to, Bob, are you able to? Which one are we referring to? Well, let's skip to where we were at the crime victim services and then we can go to Victim and Rights Commission.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Okay, so pass the state's attorney's insurance. Their bucket. Yeah. Am I saying? Yes.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: The house included the operating expenses and additional?

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: The house included the 1st Floor, and we're gonna have to discuss the operating expense of $100,000 They've put it in there for psychological valuables, believe they're overdone for us. So I haven't done a check before. See the additional positions, that's gonna give a bit of a talking point, if you know you have all that. That's and that was the third on the request as far as yeah. They had one, two, and three. Did the hell ever

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: want to include any of that?

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: I don't know. Is all. Conviction Alright. Services? That is good. Great. It is because it helps.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Human Rights Commission. It sounds like there may have been one position in the House granted.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: They did. That sounded like a check with her. It was 130,000. 130 for one position. Was it an attorney position or was it the All senior? Well, I can't say for sure. Because we thought it was a pretty good deal for an attorney at $130,000 they got an intake position last year as a volunteer. Yeah. So they're asking for more positions. When it comes to positions, we can send a letter of support if you'd like to. That's gonna be a discussion in The Philippines as far as we have Ms. Nader, Ms. Nader our position, as far as 35 positions throughout the state deserve to be questioned. So there's a lot of positions every year, unlike that, every year seems to be a lot of positions for the government. And the state's attorney chair is one of 26 limited service positions. Currently classified. Yeah. The money's already there, but in future years obviously, what they're saying is it's nice that we have the money, we have twenty four months and we get toward the end of, say we're in six, five months, and it's hard to maintain. So I'm gonna tell them, we're gonna be here for the other two years, we've got the people on these one time out of the 80%. I don't really think it's fair to say the money's there, because the money was there till the end the service. So, you know, a commitment was not made going forward. That's not to say we don't often convert them, and it doesn't cause a problem that matters, but because we've got the salary representing, But, you know, originally the argument was we'll need this for two years or four years, and then some days we need it forever.

[Lisa Mylot (Director of Animal Welfare, Vermont Department of Public Safety)]: I think sometimes we, they say they need it forever and we give them a limited service position. I've certainly seen it happen where they've absolutely represented that they need that position and our response is to say we can have it for a little while.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: And but same thing if we authorize limited service. Yeah. Anyway. Okay.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So, I want to press sticking to just confirming the accuracy of what's written here first and then we can revisit the plan on what? Their cooperation discussions? Yes. So we're confident that what was included in the house was a new staff attorney position? Yeah. So one position. And for the Attorney General, I was speaking to Todd earlier, he confirmed that the only request that they're asking for above the governor's right handed budget, 85,000 convert the home improvement specialists. Well, no, 85,000 for the home improvement specialist as well as converting it from limited service. Well, yeah, that's what I've heard you had. And I don't know if that was in the house. The house put it in. I

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: had burned the homes in the first place and put furniture in the basement. $85,000 is in the houses.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Defender General We asked for they didn't send in the documents of their presentation yesterday or whenever it was that Madam testified. Hope Emery and I followed up to get that this morning. Senator, he just emailed me. He just emailed Oh, Okay. Put a pin in the deck, Jen, unless you happen to know.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: What's the question? It's a better general's office, very comfortable to exchange in the money stuff that helps take what interest $350,000 Michael was asking the defendant general was asking for $3,000 back because he gave up during the COVID era to put on that plan, but he did. Now he wants the box because how's his position is they're gonna give you 350,050, which can give us four years training. And another 300 can be used for all these other positions that he's looking at. These monies, the product that came from pre-twelve supervisions because they were, it was placed in two counties, wasn't working, we'd keep compounding in one each year, $6.60, $6.60, place wasn't getting used so we wanted to use it for it. Some of it they went back to General Bonner And Robyn allowed him to do some for judiciary, judicial stuff, which was the public defendant of. So right now you get $350,000 in the courtroom or less.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: And he

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: can pick what? Pardon me?

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: More so Heat and Vic Wood. Where he wants to divvy that? Well,

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: court of the House, yes. And the government by corporation members in

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: the Senate asking us so. It's negotiable. Email that we got from Matt was that three ten is their biggest concern reducing those vacancy savings to three ten is six ten is unachievable. So

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: I've got it.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Any additional information for that does seem accurate?

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: How big is there? About

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: $22.22, 30,000,000. I thought it was 29 that's in my head. Yeah, was 39. So the hell it

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: came out was his question is 22,300,000. That's the help. $3.10 is his major concern which we can recommend it send them on to appropriations but it's been $3.50 so it must be just $40.43. For example,

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So the House didn't include the $2.90 or the $2.50? Didn't. No, they just simply said that we're going

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: get the $3.50, 50 to use for our training and then 300 to prioritize that $2.41.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: The add or again, recommendations as for and the judiciary, their requests will be used before above the house budget, if you want it. Correct. Please do. $2.85 for the vacancy savings. $2.18 for the maintenance space. You know, the contract and security costs, $3.38.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Right now the house is gonna join $50,000 to security policy.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: You can actually send $150,000

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: to the additional security policy, And that's a moving target, that's what we want to support

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: them. And what about the $2.18 for the the rent they have to pay for their courthouses? Judiciary? Yeah.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Terry, you said

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I don't have the answer

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: to that. That's okay. Terry gets pretty good.

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

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Network is She called after me. Don't know what the.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: No. They were asking for all the guard, what, 20,000 additional in base to DCF for the statewide system of supervised visitation. According,

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: the house approves 130. Well, they approved 130 for the statewide system of 6.5 visitation. And then but overall, the Biden's three fifty and one time funds. Which is just some level of funding.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. But it's a straight posture. Again, I've also asked the motive, crimes crime center for victims of the state agencies. Yeah. That's saying that brain didn't answer. Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: That was a little confusing for me to follow is

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: because several of the funds that

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: that work is asking for, crime victim services is also asking for, but it's the same funds. So that was a little confusing for me. Yeah. I mean, figured it out. But as it's represented here, some of that money was asked for by both organizations, but it's the same money. So I think that makes sense. It does.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. Have their doctors.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Hold on.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Program. So let's just back up one Yeah.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: If you don't mind. So the help of the 100,000 miles after the additional $137.05 and 4 reduction to supervised visitation funding net neutral with the B three seventeen services, so it's going to DCF, the shared thing, so it's a non neutral shift. So they do have it in.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: Right, but it's not the full amount that they asked for. Probably not.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Okay, and that'll be a point of step up. So you have to what we want to request or prioritize their,

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: approach. Human rights have found it. Eliminate vacancy, save us, add funding for a position of $172,540 and the house knows that.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: 172. 172.5. The which position?

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: I'm not sure which position she's using it for, but I somebody clarified. I think it's an attorney's position, I'm sure sure. I said it's not mine.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: So the total was 172? And that includes the elimination of the vacancy savings and

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Elimination? Vacancy savings and added added funding for a position of a hundred 72.54. The governor's recommended 1,400,000.0, and the house put it at 1.5. Okay.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: So just doing the math, that's the paralegal position because $64.05 40 plus 108 is that is from '72. So we have

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: to put it in there. House with the paralegal consent. Yes. So legal aid, you have to move to Vermont back to Vermont Legal Aid a different one.

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

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I went off what they had on the back page the four items and it looks like two of them were maintained or their request is to maintain two items from the house budget the 200,000 and the 100,200 thousand for integration and the 100 for statewide legal and then I believe their additional ask is $5.10 for the tenant representation program and then an inflationary increase 3% which is equal to two thirty five. Vermont Legal Aid is asking for about 1,000,000 more. Is that what I

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: get? Inflationary increase of their 3%, $435,000 We maintain health pass budget $200,000 the Gurney funding for and then statewide legal health funds are $100,000 and then to we request an additional $5.10 for the 10 registration programs.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah, it's $5.10, $2.35,

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: 200, 100. The $201,100 is the house budget.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Right, but overall. Gotcha.

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

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: let's Maybe we can start from the top as to what we want to prioritize next year. The state's attorneys and sheriffs.

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

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I'm generally fine with keeping things that are already in the house budget moving forward. So unless are there any opinions on the maintaining the elevation of the vacancy savings that are in the House budget for the state's attorneys and chairs?

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Anything that you want to modify on that?

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Operating expenses, house included 54,000. State's attorneys have requested 100,000. Initial thoughts?

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: They're operating expenses where they're operating expenses. Like, they're they're gonna have to pay them.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: If I said the $100,000 for the 200,001 is the outside psychiatric evaluation for the mental health that they have put for the other kids to afford their own I could put a $100,000 a month. Yeah. If you're gonna have to put it on, I wanna get it. One would be valid.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So do we wanna have folks feel about just supporting the 100,000 that the essays are asking for? It's a 54.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: Physicians. Yeah. I'd like to get rid of the positions they need. And I know it's a paid budget year, so I think my suggestion would be to make the recommendation for what I asked Tim if he could support, which was two, one, and one instead of four, three, and three.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Additional thoughts on that? I'm more inclined to just say one additional legal assistance rather than 211 and 01010 more realistic. The concern there is such as I ask them what is the

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: are they supposed to be in care? Where do they go in there? Where do they mean help? They They didn't have the dad or what time to say, well, Chittenden needs to call Franklin needs to find them. They exist. So you're asking for positions, you haven't shown where they're going and why. So that can be a bit of a raw support. I feel too well on, but I mean,

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: I think my concern with not with the victims at particularly around victims advocates is I certainly know that that system is under a pretty significant stress. And, you know, as he said, there are carrying case loads of six to eight. And I just I think I I just think we have to actually make investments in moving things through and speeding up that process so people, victims and defendants, aren't sitting around waiting because this is under immense stress.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I don't disagree. I mean, is.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: I think it's already 43. Victims advocate. Yeah. And that's defense of trust.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Two zero zero. Yeah.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: They're all neat. Don't get me wrong. Yeah. Prioritize the positions, of the difficulty the direvolts and the saddened. And so yeah, our deputy state senator handles 300 cases to the victims advocate, or handles the families that have twenty, thirty victims with independence, their speaking increases even more. I'm still concerned as to where you're put on my wallet. You all have to do all the time, sort everything and I think it's obvious.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah, I mean, in such a tight budget here, I'm looking at all these requests that if it's, you you're at like a 30% increase in your budget, you need to be rational in what we're asking for. And like Senator Vyhovsky said, they're dealing with so many different families. Think victim advocate one and along the same lines of robbery and footy other people, asking for what would that

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: be, 10 new positions. We should probably throw all that back a little bit.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: But again, it's not our decision. We're just saying what we're paying.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: We're gonna take this list. The letters from different committees, letters of support, of our bills, they'll be able to to provide a nice list financial statements for the state of law. That's the problem of our focus. You can advocate for whatever.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: It seems two positions for victim's advocates. So two zero zero, they're overthinking. Oh, we're going all the way down to zero? Realistically. I mean, thinking back to what Tim was saying, and what I mean, he said it was it's hard to list them in a priority order, but I'm remembering how it seemed like the victim's advocates were the most strained. And again, I wish I could give them four three three or recommend. So We'll often take that recommendation seriously. Yeah. Yeah. The

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: need is there, we're all agreeing. Yes.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: We get to move on to the climate and circumstance. Does anybody else wanna so it was all included. Everything that was there was included in the House budget.

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

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: I don't have the liberty to do anything. I I I

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: don't keep it as many as is. Any I recommendations or else? So we can move to human rights commission. We already had some discussion on that. The house included one position, a paralegal position, And and they didn't include the vacancy stables?

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: They did include the vacancy stables. Oh, they did? Yeah.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: So think it's fine. So here's

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: I just did the math. The total the house did over was $1.72 $5.40, which is apparently for the agency's.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I'm comfortable with keeping what the hell is recommended for this. I mean, I think the fan of the Human Rights Commission, but and they've yeah. So, I mean, I'll I'd I'd recommend keeping them terribly efficient and the vagueness of savings. Any thoughts?

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: At some point, I think we're going to have to be really prioritizing that work. I think we're gonna see an influx in human rights And committee the rights that we have are really only as good as the paper they're written on if we're not able to enforce them.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: No, I agree. And I think we're going to try getting a number list order of prioritization. Can figure out where we want to keep things. The Attorney General requested, are we getting moved to the 80? The Attorney General, their only request in addition was the $85,000 that was in the house, the home improvement checklist, relatively speaking, 85%, not much.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: As I recall too, that position has given that it exists in a limited service capacity now has also actually brought money back into both stable renewables and pockets. So for me, this is one of the positions that has a net positive return on investment, which makes it a good investment. Yeah. Generally speaking, I feel like investing in things that make us money is a good idea.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Well, it puts money back

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: in Well, so there's some there's some level of that like what Todd was saying. Yes, it puts money back in Vermonters' pockets but it's also putting money back in like, as I don't remember exactly how he explained it, but it is both. Vermonters against the states. Don't know if that's fines or fees or

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: The consents we paid the bill. Even more of the fact that we're hurt. This is Bob's fault. This is. All right, so we're good with keeping the AGs as All it right, so DeafGen. Their request was to go down to $3.10 with a vacancy savings. Right? And that's different from the house. But how do the vacancy happens?

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: So yeah, sounds like it doesn't include the vacancy savings. It's less, I'm guessing that is the first line, the case related expenditures and training. Although the math isn't really and then I've got maybe it's PD special control. Well, I don't know.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: It's my understanding that health

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: care for everybody to know how big you were just interested in for training. I'm sure that in three fifty years It's up there to try to retire. Between the special fund shortfalls, between everything that has the analyst people in there. And

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: so that's $450,000 he asked for. Yeah.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Well, personally think he should get more, but we wanna mean, cases aren't gonna move unless people have representation. And the alternative is ad hoc council, which is substantially more expensive. So instead of three fifty, do they want to recommend four fifty?

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: So I'm gonna say five, but four fifty five can agree to?

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: I don't my original information. I was asked if it's 580,000. Am both of the first training and $2.50 for Cost related expenditure of $2.50 for a side councilor. So

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: you're $5.08 was the €585? You're $5.80. That's the one from your blow up. I know. Hey.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: I may I'd be I'm asking, and and then suddenly, of course, You can identify those two areas you're talking about. And the PD ops. It should be the PD ops, case with expenditures, assigned counsel, need for

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: training. Getting that first three. And then keeping the three ten, or reducing the vacancy savings number to three ten would be good for that, supporting that.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: I just think the practice of balancing the budget on vacancy savings is problematic generally. And confusing. And confusing. Especially if the vacancy savings are for 10.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Finiciary. That 2,000,001.9, that was the rate change from like

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: 54 to 57 an hour. Is that what that was? I think so.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: The sheriff's murder? 54 to 57. Was that what it was?

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: It's just an awful lot of hours to get the one on the phone signing up. Or is that the total amount? I'm sorry.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: That 1,900,000.0 under your fiduciary for the sheriff proposed rate, is that the total at 57 an hour or is that all at $53 We're

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: at 57 now. My recommendation obviously wants to be requested 75 per hour, and that 75 per hour, that's a total of $1,900,000. That's a big increase.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: That's Wait, so they're at 57, and they're going to 70 or 100 Yeah. Well, they can tell you this. So $18. Wait, so the 1.9, the total at 75 or the total number of hours the difference 18? So that'd be

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: one hundred and seven thousand hours.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: How many of them are there?

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: That'd 51 people. Yeah, I mean there's four.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: How many? Yeah, that's 14. There's 14 of them. State courthouses, and then there's 14 county courthouses? No, how many transport sheriffs? 46. Okay. So that's Over time too because then you have to calculate in the the overtime increase.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: But it's the 1.9 is the rate change number or the 1.9

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: is not for the state paid debates?

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: It says it's the Sheriff Association proposed rate.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Or potential sheriff rate cost. So I found I have a letter that they sent to the judiciary. The increase in total cost for the proposed rate of 75 an hour is 1,900,000.0. So that's at the total 75 an hour, not just the difference what it is. So the current base funding is for $53 an hour, the house funding is for $55 an hour, the

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: current

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: rate is for $57 and they requested that and it was granted in the BAA but it's not in the PACE budget. So I'm not sure, I don't think the 1.9 should be on there. I think that's a

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: $75 an hour comes up to 1.929 different from the public. They got it broken down, $57.6 $65.7 $57 an hour different from the public. It's $588,000

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So I think that instead of 1.9 that number is supposed to be 588,566, does that sound right? That's 57.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: If you use 57 an hour, there's

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So they are asking for 75.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: They are asking for 75. Don't think that's

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: I I don't think we can do that. Increase. I don't think

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: From 57 to 75, that's probably a little bit of mistake.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: That's probably unrealistic. But I don't think because it sounds like the house proposal has them taking a pain comment, which I don't think they should have to do. But I don't know that I can support that a 30% increase? So

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: this little dyslexia pump is 57.75 So

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: what if we just keep it at the current rate?

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: What would a 3% increase be, which is sort of the general cola?

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: $60 an hour would be $7.26 7.6% increase with the contract.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: I feel like I could support that. Want to level generally speaking, I prefer not level fund anything because that's really a pay cut because of inflation.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So $7.02 $6.04 $0.01. I have a 60%. I can agree with that. Yeah. And that rate covers everything. Right? Like the deputy, the card, the dad. Is that all in there? Is there a

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: separate estimate? Something I'm not

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: about that. So that's going up to 60? It

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: was 60

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: for the dollar an hour or That's

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: a 3% of them up to just shy of

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: 59. The deputy center, they may hire for a jury. There's there's more than one that they get a screener out the door, but, anyways, for every deputy in that bill, that's $60 an hour.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: But that $60 an hour includes That's everything. Car. Mean, there's not $60 an hour and then daffle of inside the pool. Yeah. So I mean, if you think about it that way, that's pretty

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: reasonable. Including all that.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So we reduce if we're do if we are reducing that ask significantly from 1,900,000.0 to 726,000. For how long now? Fine. We're keeping with supporting their requests in the three bullet points above. Because that'd be what? 1.23

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: does? Yeah. And that is

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Where are we? 567840. So it's still saving 400.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: Yeah. I mean, the first two are sort of like the vacancy savings. Again, they're not real. Yeah. The rent that they have to pay, they have to pay it. So I so and then the contract with security yes. I'm fine with supporting

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Go down to $7.26, but keep it off. Keep the other three. The network.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: I think we need to get to network.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: The House Gateway three fifty and the House Gateway

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: three fifty one time, they're asking us to convert that to base funding?

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Well, if it's one time, then Charlie has to come back again next year. Right?

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: Would be happy to come back next year regardless.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So the House approved 01/2030 and they're asking for an additional 120 for the Supervisor visitation for the House.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: I'm inclined to support their ask given how critically important that service is to keeping children and families safe and together. This is long game savings. I think the more we invest in the well-being of children over the course of their lifetime, the more likely they are to have a positive economic impact in our society.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So do we, who supports an additional 120? Yeah. Yes. You,

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: yeah. Whatever you want there on this one, they'll come up for discussion, you know, they want the base. It may be a one time appropriations. I don't know what the committee's doing. It's one time appropriation. She can put in a sponging of 121, February 21. So I was, I think, speaker could have appropriations committee.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So that whole seats. That leaves us with Vermont Legal Aid and all the few minutes left. They're out for a lot. Since two passes, I definitely need five ten.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: Well, also think it's important. Here's another one where they testified that that five ten actually saved our systems $1,900,000 So it's a again, it's an investment in savings. So we can either pay the $5.10

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: the investment or idea, but We

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: can pay the 1.9 when people are now unhoused.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah, it's not a question

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: of, for me it's not a question

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: of whether we want to invest, it's we have the principle to invest. We need the money first to invest, to get money back.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: I think two, three or four bullet points under there. You can ask for the $5.10 also on top of that book. The 3% of $2.35, the house already put in 200 for the integration and 1,000 a month for the William and Hub line. 3% for the 300 or 3%.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So that 300 at the bottom two is over and above what was in

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: the budget the governor should act like. Yes. He did that one. So they got 535,000 more. Total overall, over the last year. The stains, yes, the two thirty five, they're at three percent, and then the hell they put in, three hundred deaths going for the immigration systems and on the town of the statewide, live with cell phone. So

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I'd like to keep the two things that are already in the House recommend. Sure. The House, but if you wanna keep or strike or modify the tenant representation program or the inflationary increase?

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: I I'd like to keep them, but

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah? We can, but it's a big number over like 3 to 800,000 hour of 2.6 per creation

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: days. It's all good and gentlemen. I would probably probably two, three, four is a little more realistic, but you can't ask for the Biden country again.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: I just as I as I sort of look at it, if we don't make that investment and find a way to make that investment, we're going to pay the 1.9.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I understand. I'd be fine with striking the two thirty five, the inflationary increase, but keeping the five times 10 representations. I think that's one of the increasing issue.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: How

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: does everybody feel about that?

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: This one, Gaffer and Cabellet. Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: But I think they're probably having a hard time getting the coral because of that.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So what committee, what I'll do real quick, well, over the weekends, for tonight, I will make these changes. I'll send them all out to you. And if they appear correct, just let me know. And then I'll send it to Andy. Sorry, Senator Kirschle. Senator Kirschle. That sound good?

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky)]: Sounds good. Perfect.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Oh, alright. We can go.