Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Captain,

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: we are live. Good morning.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: It is May 6, the Senate Judiciary for taking up the House of Proposal of Amendment. It's really long and complicated on S-one 179. And we have a Ledge Counsel here to give us the walk throughs.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. Good morning, Eric Fitzpatrick with the Office of Legislative Council here to walk the committee through, as the chair said, a very brief amendment that the House made to S 179, which is the Uniform Disclaimer and Property Interest Act. Everybody have a copy of the ads passed by Senate. If you look at page four, it's in subsection C lines five to seven. Now it's funny because you may recall that that subsection, that's the one that prevents a parent to disclaim on behalf of a minor. So that was in the bill as it passed the Senate. But there was a minor, there's a small, not minor, small change that was made to this subsection on the Senate side as well. But when that change was made, there was a typo and that typo is corrected in the House version. That's the only difference.

[Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So if

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: you look at the word Yeah. Line six, the word minor, to define on behalf of the so to the extent there's no material conflict of interest, a parent has defined it so and so. And this claim on behalf of the parent is minor, right, see that? So there's a missing word there, the word being child. So that's what the House amendment did. After the word minor, inserted the word child. So that would receive would read, can disclaim on behalf of the parents of minor child if a guardian has not been or is not required to be appointed for the child's attorney.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So would we then also wanna add the word minor on line seven at the end where it says, point for the child to the point for the minor child?

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I think that that is it's referring back to the previous sentence, to the previous clause, you're probably okay in that situation. But if you wanted a reason to make an amendment, you know, you can certainly do it. Hang on. But I don't think it's grammatically necessary in that case because proceeding costs being referred back to the first time. In the first instance, it was the first time it appeared. So that was why it should be said, Eastern Gulf War.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: But other than that,

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: they agreed with the bill as passed the Senate in its entirety.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I'll be an adult if not recommended.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Don't want to be that adult. I'm

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: confer with this once we get a full committee. Right.

[Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I don't think there's gonna be

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: any issue with it. So Yeah. All right. Thank you.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah, sure. Like I said, was pretty brief. I hear from the same witnesses you guys did. It went to the same page up there

[Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel]: that went through down here, and

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: didn't have any issues other than.

[Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Excellent walk through, actually. Yeah.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Happy to help. So let's switch gears now to United States.

[Tim Dunfield, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Oh, sorry. Good morning, everybody. For the record, my name is Tim Dunfield. I'm just like the council. For you, you have s two ninety eight, what was called the Voting of the Rights Act. The house just passed a strike all amendment. First thing they did was prename it to the Voter Protections Act. And for purposes of today's committee discussion, the chair would like me to just address the provisions with criminal penalties, or would you like me to kind of run through all the changes to the bill? Think

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: if if you could run through all the changes the house did to what we sent over, Jack.

[Tim Dunfield, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. Very happy to. For that purpose, I provided a, bill overview that I think we would find useful. This illustrates and summarizes the content developed and then illustrates what has changed from sentencing the House to the House to the House changes in red to prepare for this reference. So first thing in addition to changing the title, it reorganizes vote denial and resolution aspects of the bill and instead of giving it its own chapter it's been providing it goes into the existing chapter Senate GPSC chapter 35. This the offenses against the purity of elections chapter, the effect of which would be that the attorney general's office already has civil investigation authority under that chapter, so the agency's office would then have authority to investigate those types of motile pollution. The impacts of those vote denial pollution sanctions has not changed since the left us chamber for, let's see, except for the fact that it will now apply to not only race or color but within membership in the language minority group but also for individuals with a disability. 45.1 spent which is in disability language is new, if the rest is maintained. The next part of the bill we have is the voter adherence or the appearance of election section. And this committee took a look at House Bill five forty one, and then they took a look at the original parallel proficiency in this mill and I came in and talked to them about the vis a vis each other and provided a side by side To summarize three, so

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: two ninety eight had four

[Tim Dunfield, Office of Legislative Counsel]: distinct prohibitions with criminal penalties and House Bill five forty one just had one essentially was born general lines but really dated after much the same conduct. The House took out the four provisions and inserted it into one. So the language will look very familiar. There, fill in if blank or I just quickly return.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: It. So are you I guess which pages of the bill are the bottom?

[Tim Dunfield, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So this will be the section two, and two being added in '17. Let's see, then fifteen seventy five. So we'll find that. Okay. Page two. And, again, just, this will also modify the Act 72 to remove the two d a redundancy of the language there. Subtitle of substance, law will be that second half of page two there. Interpreterance of voters and intellectual officials will be brief. No person shall intentionally or recklessly intimidate the threat animal reports or attempt to do so. Any other person, the purpose of obstructing the right to vote or to vote as the other person issues or causing the other person to vote for or not to vote for any candidate in the public office, public question, and then the election. And also, again, the purpose of job attention is to make the attorney general course, we tend to do so. A public servant, an election official, or a public employee for the purpose of obstructing an initial ease of election, we would like to penalty provisions such as violators from being imprisoned not more than two years or found out more than $2,000 in the courts. So that, again, is the language coming over from age five forty one replacing the four distinct sentences. Is the penalty the same as what we sent them? Pretty much. Yes. Let's see. Have been over here and side by side that all of these are mostly the same, that is Chauvin was not one to two years not fined more than $2,000 There was one of the four, essentially half of one of the four, That was the 1934 sexual interference in voting in which there was a lesser penalty that George B. Prisoning on six months earned a fine of more than $1,000 in voting the election.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So, did they, so I see in our draft that we had sent over, it's what was 2022, intimidation of the London officers. Is that captured by what is described on lines nine and ten of page two, where it says, no person fell intentionally intimidate, threaten, or coarse.

[Tim Dunfield, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. I would say let's see. No person shall intentionally threaten, intimidates, threaten, or force. A public servant, elected official, or public employee for for the purpose of obstructing the encryption. So, administration of elections. So, let's say that an informational elected official, largely the same conflict that's captured here. There's more specificity in the underlying bill versus the House has changed. For example, they enumerate some of such examples of intimidation or function officers. So bribery, intimidation, rent suboriginals or so what we have there or other means of violation of election law, hinder or prevent. So we have some near synonymous language. It's very, say it's very verifiable of this. Actually both the lack

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: of contact evidence are inhibited here. They but it doesn't look like the communication of false information for voters, that is that captured in any

[Tim Dunfield, Office of Legislative Counsel]: of their campuses? I would say it could simply fall under, let's see, recklessly intimidating, sorry, potentially recklessly, through intubation threatening coercion that seeking to obstruct the rights of vote. The obstruction part, I think, that was going nicely, It's strange policy formation. But are is it being done? Let's see. Intimidating, threatening, force of manner. It's undetatable. Although it can also be read this early in this sense, personally. And I'd say, yeah, it has to be kind of couched in intimidation, threats, or coercion. So, depends. That's my optimal word of the answer, but I would say subcontinent is lost. Is there

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: any what was the rationale for you to I can't speak to them. Rationale at all?

[Tim Dunfield, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I can't speak to them.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Did they have a rationale?

[Tim Dunfield, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I was now present for all discussion of this. All this, I can't really call this.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: No, no worries. I was trying to figure out

[Tim Dunfield, Office of Legislative Counsel]: if the Google Lincoln half of the House had

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: been Yeah, I would Just explain.

[Tim Dunfield, Office of Legislative Counsel]: The director of the reporter who, think speak up as chair of IRON before. Maybe he represents water sentences too. Know in

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: government operations, we've been having it recommend water evidence.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: And they took out all the civil rights of action for the cause of action?

[Tim Dunfield, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. Yep. Sling wishes don't have a of a pseudo private right of action. Kind of like they'll have individuals who are aggrieved to seek belief in the treatment space. They couldn't. They don't like the liberty of China is born because of the city. But this bill is enforced live in the attorney general's office for civil investigations. And then in the criminal aspect, his office will say the criminal that it it it not speak to any sort of anything that looks like that provided by a factual or interference of voters in life's permissions. And by any chance, do you know

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: what witnesses they have to come in or actually memorize theirs? You'd be able to check their witness list and

[Tim Dunfield, Office of Legislative Counsel]: see who might be able to have someone

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: come in for this. Yeah. So, okay, anything else in the block

[Tim Dunfield, Office of Legislative Counsel]: of images? Sure, just to quickly note that I probably asked this before too, on page three, line 14 where it says denial or abridgment of the right of the specific United States Of America. Race or color, common membership and a language minority group. Of course, I live in Franklin County,

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: right on

[Tim Dunfield, Office of Legislative Counsel]: the Canadian border, we'll just refer to as an example, someone who speaks French. Good. What does that mean exactly? It's not defined here and it's not objectively, it's really defined in prior versions or the Virginia or federal law, which is based on. I think there's a, essentially, common understanding that it would mean some might be some sort English. However, if a court were to issue what is considered a good work that would drive the board of court, likely in their approach to interpreting this, if they said, okay, then is there a plain language meaning? If not, then they would then work elsewhere into federal agencies or other states with similar statehood and rights act. They utilize it. We'll have to find it elsewhere. I'm not sure if another state had to find it, but our review of Virginia materials, mean, and all materials didn't really actually solicit and find that. But there's some point to reduce the issue that's essentially likely individuals who are not single on attending this issue. But so it's a wide open point interpretation that yep. You have to find it.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. My understanding is that comes directly from federal law. It's used in federal law. It's not Right. And do you have any sense of when it was first introduced as a concept in federal law? Yeah. Believe it came in when the Federal Voting Rights Act was amended and taken to federal meetings. K. So it's been around and and a term that's been used and understood for forty plus years. That's fair. And

[Tim Dunfield, Office of Legislative Counsel]: just quick to note that the Griffin visuals are modified by analysis with local board members in the state for the checklist and certain affirmations taken necessary to share those. And then disclosure mandates disclosures. It's a mandate state. Sorry. The disclosures of the candidates who are running for state legislatures the offices. There are provisions of the court who has to close what the queen had to the state's office. So then, obviously, we have penalties and a temporary suspension for a point here of the enforcement of the head lease for any candidates who were statements in the final financial disclosure. And then there was slight obligation for the safety protection for candidates. That is that that was changed to the San Francisco's financial rule. Two, they explicit that expenditures that include would be incurred for provision of think we'll need to get

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: some more feedback from the house, some rationale as to some of these changes. And then is there it seems like there are

[Tim Dunfield, Office of Legislative Counsel]: a couple of significant changes. And

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: so we'll hear somebody from that side and perhaps another witness if they grow up with the committee wants to do with the bill and

[Tim Dunfield, Office of Legislative Counsel]: then we'll take it from

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: there. Okay?

[Tim Dunfield, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Thank you. Thank you.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So we're taking out $7.72 now. We have Lynch Complex.

[Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Morning for the record. Cameron Wood on this legislative council. Had a new draft of an amendment to seven seven two. This is draft 3.1 based on the conversation that we were having last week where I drafted up a few new provisions, which primarily around the security deposits and the trespass language, which there were some other minor fees, authorities to authorities file. So I'm coming into a Zoom meeting and I'll share my screen. The first change there on page one, the reason that's highlighted, that's the reader assistance heading. And I think previously it said termination of residential agreements. Yep. It's a termination of residential rental agreements. That's really amending a lot of things in the residential rental agreement chapter, not just termination. So I felt that that probably wasn't the best reflection of what that next section is so I just changed it to residential rental agreements. First changes in this bill based on our previous conversation is gonna be on page five. This is where If you remember above, we're talking about this security deposits. If you remember the bill above, it adds in new language saying that a landlord cannot charge for or receive a security deposit exceeding an amount equal to two months rent. And then there's some additional language in there about the landlord being required to give half of the security deposit back if there's a no cause eviction, allowing a landlord to charge a separate security deposit for allowing pets, etc. But the key thing here is about adding in specifically that a landlord cannot charge more than two months rent for a security deposit. Currently, there is a subsection in the security deposit section, Subsection G, which allow the municipality to adopt an ordinance governing security deposits on dwellings. And I think the the key language to focus in on is the language on lines two and three, which says that the ordinance has to be supplemental to and not inconsistent with the minimum protections of the provisions of the section. Currently, is no limit on security clauses. So you have some municipalities that have moved forward in inactive limits on what a landlord in that municipality can charge Burlington is one they have a limit and it is less than two months rent it's one month's rent and so the concern that's been raised was in adding into statute that a landlord can only charge two months rent what happens to these municipalities that have an ordinance that may be providing for less than that? So what this language is intended to do is to continue to allow the municipal ordinances to be enacted and to have a force in effect going forward. So a lot of this language is into just kind of breaking up the section so it will, you know, it will work. So the key piece here is the language on sub A lines six through eight. The ordinance may limit the amount a landlord may charge for a security deposit to an amount less than two months rent as provided in subdivision age of a dissension. So simply allowing those municipal provisions to be pulled and not be challenged. The next change is gonna be regarding the Chagresa Act.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Before we go to that, I was looking at the changes on page seven regarding the expedited hearing process. And I just wanted to share with the committee, We had a chair's meeting just yesterday regarding, we had a session. Our committee basically has forty eight hours left for the rest of our bills. This is not a bill that I don't see die.

[Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And so, but

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: there is clearly a lot of disagreement elements in the provisions within the expedited hearing process. We are creating a study for a housing docket to be created next sessions and to get that information back next session. There's a part of me to work from the politics of all of this, which is there's a part of me that believes that if we are going to entertain creating an expedited hearing process, which is which is quite new in this context, it would make sense that it is part of the housing docket and incorporated into that study. I don't think that the language that we have right now that we're going to be able to implement something that we all, that there's consensus on. I think that there's one more question as to some of these elements. Looking for MIDI, I was talking to someone this morning about moving the equity adherence process into the study and how will that be

[Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel]: incorporated into that study.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Because we'll also have to determine what type of resource in the judiciary we need if we're going to be creating a housing document and creating this new expedited hearing process. And what will be looked at is some of the questions that we've been lingering on, such as whether or not the damage to the property, if we consider the factor, whether there should be an ongoing threat or the district's gonna be a single instance of a threat, and also balancing, looking at the interests of both the tenant and the imprints of

[Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel]: the landlord, as well as other tenants in the property.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So that will be as well as the other timelines that brought up in this bill. So those will be incorporated into the studies. They won't change the current law that we have related to this section. And that's something I want to be aware of. At a minimum, personally, I would like to make sure that at a minimum, no trespasses the council on. And I think that that is one of the components of holding off and making sure that

[Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel]: we have the census on. And, just wanna make that announcement. So any questions? Thank you. Quick answer. Please go ahead. Good segue into pulling out the most recent version of that language. So as I mentioned, we're gonna be on page 21 moving into the sections related to trespass. First change here on line three, the a change in the word that would raise the concerns raised by Senator Baruth about using the term overruled so that's been changed to override and I've consulted with Aaron Fitzpatrick and this term is acceptable to accomplish what the sections are intended to accomplish. Then we get to the new language on page 22 to address some of the discussion that we were having last week. So the first piece is adding in a new subdivision fee there on lines five through seven. As we talked about, this new trespass subsection would allow a landlord to issue a no trespass order against a tenant's, guests, their invitees or licensees. And we talk about whether or not the landlord should be allowed to under this section, whether you want to have in here the ability for the landlord to issue that no trust ass order if the person had previously been ejected from the property. And so this is what the subsection D is intended to cover. The landlord can issue that no trespass if the invitee or licensee has previously been ejected from the dwelling unit under 12 b s a chapter one sixty nine due to a termination of a rental agreement under nine BSA 4,467. There would have to be the object that the person would have previously been in a dwelling unit. They've been objected, but it's only based on terminations that were brought under 4,467 which are the terminations because the individual has violated material terms

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: of the rental agreements

[Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel]: or because the individual with their current law has engaged in criminal activity, illegal drug activity, or acts of violence which threaten other people. So you're limiting to those. Now I will say there is, you know, a little bit of, you know, the the courts may have to sort through because a landlord can bring, an ejectment based on multiple different terminations. You know, the landlord did issue a termination notice under different sections of the termination section four four six seven. So it's going to depend on the circumstances. But my understanding from the discussion was you wanted to limit the ability to issue these no trespasses to those circumstances because somebody may be ejected for a no cause And this was a point of discussion that you all were having last week about how this vaccination should be. So I'll keep going and then let's see how questions come up. You have the subsection two here which talks about individualized consent being required. Consent under the subdivision A1. You remember the landlord can issue the no trespass if the tenant consents to the order and there was discussion about if a landlord could put sort of blanket term in a rental agreement that would make the tenant pre consent, if you will, to any order against your trust passed of their guests in the future. And I made comments that, you know, there could be arguments that a provision like that could violate implied, covenants of good faith in contracting or the court could determine that those provisions are unconscionable in violations of public policy. That's an open question. I was just making a point that that argument could be made. And we discussed that if you want that to be the policy that needs to have to have individual review, then it's probably best to put something in the statute. So that's what subdivision two here, starting on line eight, would cover. Consent required under one a shall be provided on an individualized basis and it shall be against the public policy of the state for a tenant to provide a blanket consent under subdivision one a to all invitees or licensees in this, and any provision of a rental agreement that provides blanket consent from a tenant shall be void of the non enforced penalty. And then you move on to the subsection three, there was discussion about how long should the no trust pass order be in effect. And people all talked about having a one year applicability period. So that's what subdivision three is intended to address. An order against trust pass served under the section shall be enforce able for one year from the date the order being served. The order may be renewed for subsequent one year periods if the landlord causes to be served under the order. So those are the provisions that we were discussing last and that's what I've drafted up. I've run it by Derek Fitzpatrick, and he reviewed the language and was comfortable with what he had here. So happy to answer any questions that people have about these. Okay. The only other changes that I've made, and apologies here on page 23, I've simply included the definition of premises. It doesn't mention above that the invitee has been injected since subtee. The invitee has been injected from a dwelling unit on the premises. So, the reason I think, the reason that can

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: be applicable is, if

[Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I've injected you from some other premise that has no relation to where you've been invited as a guest, there's a question of whether you want to, you know, how you want that to play. And so what I've drafted here is the invite to your license has previously been ejected from its volunteer upon the premises. You can add in a premises subject to the Northcrest Pass Order if you want to ensure that that is absolutely certain. But that's why I had to add the definition of premises. It's defined as the dwelling units, its apartments, its buildings, grounds, areas. The dwelling unit is the dwelling unit within the overall building premises. The only other changes I've made here are towards the bottom and this gives me an opportunity to kind of circle back Mr. Chair for things that you were commenting on in the study. This is the study language that I had penciled out in a previous version And I've just made consistent throughout the language that this would be looking at creating a dedicated housing docket. I think that's a dedicated housing court and then talking with the general period team, there was a recommendation about using housing dockets. So I've just think that consistently you can see throughout those subdivisions. But here is where I can add language in saying that as part of this study, it needs to be reviewed. Could this housing docket, what's feasibility the of the housing docket being able to address the expedited hearings that you have introduced in this bill and whether those timeframes could be met? How do we incorporate the current expedited hearing processes that are in statute into this new housing docket. And Mr. Pierre, you mentioned balancing the interests of landlords and tenants, So I would add some of that into the second here.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: And it would also look at balance or at the other proposed changes to the timeline, the notice timelines, Philip Baruth? Yes, sir.

[Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I I think I would wanna work with the language, but, you know, something to the effect of, you know, ensuring that as they're providing you a report of what this housing docket should look like and what resources would be necessary to ensure, you know, effective administration of the docket, looking at not what the current law is, but looking at what the proposals are in H. Seven seventy two with the notice timeframes that are built and how the bill came over with the House drafted that way. That's a route you would be looking at those timelines and not the current statutory timelines. Many of you have questions or comments? Reckon the housing court study and see what it says, the court administer shall submit. Are there other members on this particular study or just the court's not approved in his office? It's not drafted as a study, so it's just drafted as a report from the judiciary and I was kind of stealing some language from previous types of reports that they've done. I think it's intended to be a study in the sense of you know for viewing how this would work. They need to study that but it wouldn't be a committee of individuals. We can graft that way if that's the direction that you want to go. This was just something I had like I said previously I think I had based this off of stuff that you had previously regarding creating a drug related court documents. The reason I was asking is episodic housing courts.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Sir, yes sir.

[Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel]: But for example, if you could require them to engage with certain stakeholder groups in developing the information, if that was something that you would tell would be necessary, How expansive you want to get with the requirement?

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. Think since I guess there's two two sides to it. I think that judiciary will likely say this is a policy decision. And if we are asking them to figure out how to create an expedited hearing process in this new housing docket and that they shall consider how to make the hearing or how to have it be a much shorter timeframe from the notice to the adjutantment, whether it's seven days or fourteen days, as we were describing earlier in the bill, I don't think they're gonna come back and say, we think it's a better idea to just not do it at all. I think that they would likely come in and say, but we want judiciary to be able to do this in fourteen days.

[Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel]: We are the resource of being used through DANS.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I guess on the other hand, the question would be taking into consideration of the elements like damage to the property. With that one, I think they would just come back and say that's policy decision. If you want it to involve damage to the property, that's the legislative's choice. So that's all to say, I'm not quite sure we should or shouldn't add any other stakeholders to this. That's all. Maybe you have any thoughts on this.

[Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And one point I'll mention, before you go to the discussion, know one thing that the court could look at though is to say if we're going to create a housing docket, here's what the resources needs to be, here's the structure that it could pay,

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Then if

[Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel]: you obviously have the stakeholders able to engage in that court process in order to accomplish what they're trying to do with the objective, the defense of the objective, etcetera, so if you may want feedback from those stakeholders to say, court comes in and says here's the housing docket that was proposed, here's the resources that we need, here's the timeframes that exist in order to accomplish policy goals that you've outlined for us to accomplish, and do you want those stakeholders to engage with the court during this review process to say that does work for us, that doesn't work for us, etcetera. Open to you all and so just a suggestion that you can take as part of your discussion. So what exactly would that look like in the language? Think we could draft something up and say that the court shall engage with relevant stakeholders. The court may come back and say, We don't like a very vague term like that and tell us very specifically who you want to engage with. But I could imagine you're drafting something on a four foot point that says, In developing this housing forward docket, this housing forward docket sits down, you need to engage with the stakeholders for feedback and provide that feedback as part of the report in writing to you also have it. I'm not telling you, you need to do that, I'm saying it's something that I can imagine you're acting up and requiring you to do. And so that's I've been comfortable with it for quite a reason. The reason for that is because people are asking the court to do this feasibility study, and when they come to life, it may not be useful for this body, they would be for an insurance agent to sell gaze or mouth. This is what they need, and this is what they tell us. They take, where do we go from here? And then there's potential or possibility of looking at bringing other stakeholders into the picture, let's see what they need for this formal approval.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: And then following that, too, when they come back next year, whoever's sitting in these seats, they can hear from the stakeholders. It's almost impossible to capture every single stakeholder in raised on a study, somebody will feel left out.

[Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah, all right. So I'll move it to that. Senator Bowen. I

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: don't necessarily have a strong opinion one way or the other on this, but I wonder if it would make sense in our consideration of including stakeholders in this discussion to ask some stakeholders if they feel strongly that they should be included. The only thing that sort of so I don't really actually have a strong opinion, but I wonder, you know, if the court comes forward and says, This is what we would propose, and then we bring the stakeholders in and they're like, No, that doesn't work for us. Do we start back at ground zero, saying, Okay, go back and propose something different? Do you know what I mean?

[Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I think so. However, I think

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: my counterpoint would be that the courts, rather the judiciary knows what works best for the judiciary branch and how the courts operate. And it's certainly not uncommon for any party to say, we don't like how the court is doing X, Y, and Z. And then the court may come back and say, well, that's how we have to deal with her.

[Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That's what we have the resources for. And yeah, the top of the legislature. So

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: that's my initial thought. Other other thoughts on adding stakeholders or leaving this to the court to figure out?

[Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. I think the judiciary of the health aspects, and I'm sure they would have

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: That's for input where needed, right? And we, or whoever is here next year will

[Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel]: have the opportunity to also work those stakeholders on the 2nd Floor.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Figure it out.

[Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Thank you. Alright. Anything else on this bill? I have not drafted up new language. There were obviously a few other points of discussion that you were having. Mr. Jerry, you mentioned that why I kept the language highlighted about the specific Lancet termination from the Lancet and the Lancet the the Lancet Lancet Lancet questions that I recall from the conversations that I've been in the room.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I was gonna say it seems like the issues that are of primary intention or disagreement are going to be incorporated into the study.

[Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Would

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: you be able to come tomorrow with that draft? My vote would be that we voted out tomorrow at

[Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Thank you very much. Yes, I'll be back tomorrow with a draft form going on. Oh, I'm sorry. There was one other question that was brought up very, very quickly. You were discussing when does a guest become a tenant? And so just quickly I went and I was penciling out what is the kind of guidance out there that exists and actually a town that will give them a shout out there in the room. There was, I thought, a pretty good guide pulled together by Vermont Legal Aid and Legal Services of Vermont kind of identifying for individuals how this area of the law works. What's really my understanding here is it's got to be a back to civic scenario. There's not a bright line rule that says you stay in a dwelling unit for this number of days, you automatically become a resident of that location. It's going to be dependent on what the relationship is between the guest and the individual who has legal possession, rights of possession of that unit. What are the agreements that they have? Has the person authorized that person to move in and live there? They now have a verbal agreement that allows that person to live in that unit. Given the person keys to the unit, they come and go as they want. You know, those are gonna be kind of factors that a court would look at and making a determination of whether somebody is now a tenant of that dwelling unit. So it really just gonna depend on the facts. Have you told that person, hey, you know, you can live here, but you can only stay here for this number of days and then you need to leave, you know, during the stay, does the person continue to, you know, put the crystal notice that you're just a guest and say, oh, here or here, my permission. It's really gonna be a fact specific scenario as to whether or not the agreement between the parties has given that individual guest's penance status, is how we call it, and that we can't a right to live in that unit. So I just wanted to mention that. I'd be happy to send those two here if you could find it online if you want to. Know it was pretty helpful. Yeah, if you don't mind. That's something that would be great. That was the other question that came up that I meant to bring up this one. All

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: right, so we can take a break. We have Michelle coming in soonish. So let's take a break for tablets. Gotta come

[Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel]: back. Thanks.