Meetings
Transcript: Select text below to play or share a clip
[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: We are back in the Senate's Official Area. We're taking up H nine thirty seven. It's a small narrow change that was drafted by the Legis Council. And we're gonna spend a few minutes hearing about that as we await the other two members of the committee so that we can vote on five seventy eight. Floor is all yours.
[Hilary Chittenden (Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. For the record, Hillary Chittenden, the legislative council. So as you will remember, 1849 created a civil cause of action for damages against for constitutional violations submitted by government actors, whether at the local, state,
[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: or federal level. One second.
[Hilary Chittenden (Legislative Counsel)]: Do we have the bill, the amendment language? So today is just a presentation of the idea, and the draft language will come when Michelle walks through the next version of the. In some further discussions with the AAG's office, we talked about an issue related to suits against state employees. And so there's something that could be ambiguous. And we think it makes sense to go ahead and clarify that since it's been raised. So the Vermont Working Claims Act specifies what happens when state employees are sued and basically when the state of Vermont steps in, how it indemnifies employees, and under what conditions. There's a specific provision of that, which is 12 BSA 5,606 that speaks specifically to what happens when they when the suit is under 42 USC in section nineteen eighty three, which, if you'll remember, is the federal statute after which age eight forty nine was modeled. That section of the Vermont Court Claims Act, section 5,606, imposes a cap for liability for section nineteen eighty three and similar actions. But in conversations with the EAG's office, we think it could be clearer that that also applies to any new civil action under created by H-eight 49. So the proposed language to add to the Miss Linney's judiciary bill would clarify that and essentially say, you know, either add a reference to the new provision or just make clear that it is section nineteen eighty three and similar state and federal statutes. So that's kind of the picture of why we think it would be useful to clarify and avoid any ambiguity and what the change would apply to them. So am I right in my assessment that this really just sort of maintains the status quo that is currently what would happen, and it's just clearer? Exactly. So the liability caps are what were currently happened, and the conversation was just that shouldn't be ambiguous. Okay. And so clarifying that six zero six would make sure that it is not So it really is a technical change? Okay.
[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Any issue with that technical change?
[Hilary Chittenden (Legislative Counsel)]: So the language will come before the committee to review, but that's little.
[Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Seems reasonable to me to be as responsible. Theme
[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: It's a theme of the job
[Hilary Chittenden (Legislative Counsel)]: in many ways, but I'm going fast.
[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Excellent. Well, thank you. And it is five minutes before ten. So are you all set with the changes?
[Hilary Chittenden (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Emery has a copy, and I can share my screen if you'd like to see the version, the clean version for voting. Sure. Alright. So this is draft 2.3, the version we talked about at nine with 2.2. The only change in this version will be in the voluntary surrender section. I suppose I could control f two, but we'll scroll through.
[Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Give some more time for our listening committee effort here.
[Hilary Chittenden (Legislative Counsel)]: Alright, so this is page 15. And as discussed, this is the voluntary surrender subdivision, which now has only the one added sentence that failure to have the handle examined and assessed within seventy two hours or as soon as reasonably practicable shall not be grounds for dismissal of the enforcement action or exclusion of evidence. No second sentence. And that is the only change made on this version.
[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Committee, any questions or concerns thought that I'd like twenty minutes ago, so it's nothing. Okay. Leave that, Senator Baruth. It's Chair to entertain a motion. I would move that we approve track number 2.2. Is it 2.2 or two point two? Point three. Oh, okay. Would have to tell that in those rooms. One second. We need a motion. I second. Think we do need a motion. Yeah. Don't think we need a motion. Okay. Any further discussion? Great. So did we get a I I
[Hilary Chittenden (Legislative Counsel)]: think the last time we did this when the clerk was gone, acted as clerk being the former clerk.
[Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: This is it's favorable with the network. Yeah. Okay. Senator Norris? Yes.
[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Senator Baruth? Yes. Senator Hibbskin, yes. Senator Hibbskin? Yes.
[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Case four zero one.