 Hello and welcome. You are with the house judiciary and government operations committee. We are coming back into joint committee hearing to to go through bill language on s 219. And this has been a process of taking a look at the language and and suggesting some changes while while floor was in session so that we could come back and look at some other some other language. Another draft so I'm wondering Maxine if you might be able to sort of characterize for the assembled committees what what you've been sort of driving towards and what we'll see next when we look at the next draft. I remember I was during during the call it a break but anyway, I was working with Bryn on the legislative intent and trying to respond to some of the concerns that I heard in regards to a list really a unattainable list and committing ourselves to too much and when I looked at what the Senate had done. I saw that many of the things that that I had put in were were addressed in the in the Senate language or or partially addressed so I went through it with print and when she's been distracting you'll see that, for instance body cameras is in there and I put in the language regarding certification and accreditation. 21st century policing I know there's concern about how effective that's been. But also I know that that coach wanted to name it and also since coaches in here today I want to make sure that I advocated on behalf of him, because he did take quite a bit of time to send this. So, so I think you'll see that I was able to eliminate a, you know, a number of the things within our larger list on the back. And then in terms of where we have the executive director of racial equity in terms of subpoena power and that that language, it's going to be something like increasing. Getting rid of three and four and instead having something like increasing resources to and the authority of the executive executive director, hoping that that gets at the same thing but and then, and then some of them you'll see they stayed. They stayed in here. Also, for instance, the number eight which talks about expanding data law enforcement is required to collect. And so we verified this with with James Pepper that's in justice reinvestment in section 19 or 19 a. So, so we still could have it in here because because I know it is important to a number of people but that is that is being done, or will be done. And then in terms of for instance, qualified immunity when we get to talking about whether or not we're going to take out take out the new crime, you know, I think we can address that there. In terms of data collection on mental health I know that apparently the Senate did speak about that. There's concern about about HIPAA privacy. So, and we can talk about that too in terms of the new crime, but just we just need to be mindful about saying you know that's going to going to be done so. So anyway, Brennan is working on that. And, but I'm hoping that will will address concerns in terms of too much work but also, you know, recognizing and naming issues that are important to people and and more realistic. So, Brennan is drafting away as we as we speak. Just to jump in. I did just send the chairs a draft, a new draft, which I think covers everything. I'm not positive of that but I did my best. Okay, so if you're ready to look at that I can send it to Andrea. Sure. Great. In the meantime, Tom, did you have a question or observation on what Maxine. I just looked at who had their hands raised and I beat Jim Harrison to the punch I'm pretty proud of that. Okay, Maxine can you just repeat what you said around three and four with being replaced or is Bren going to cover that. I think, yeah, let's wait for, for what bring drafted and we'll see it there. Great. And then, and then I didn't check with bring but Sarah has your language regarding body cams and the policies section six and seven I guess, say that I did I did put in that. Oh, I'm sorry, I couldn't tell if that was a question for me or not. Yeah, no, go ahead. Yeah. I did put it in that. Yes, I because I'm doing this so quickly and while I'm talking on the phone I just want to verify that it's what the committee wants so I assume that's what we're going to do when we go through it. Tom, are you good. Yes, thank you. All right, Jim. Maxine thank you for that explanation and perhaps changing some of the wording I guess when I spoke earlier, I guess I was a little caught off guard. I didn't fully read it but I, we can talk more when we see the language that bring came up with but because as I understand it aspirational kind of a, you know, objective as to what we're going to try to get done. But if, for example, you know we can't reach a happy place on say the subpoena powers or other measures to strengthen the racial director. Director of racial equities position. Is there anything binding in here that would require us to do something. I don't think so but I think I would suggest having bring walk us through it and, and, and get your feedback. Yeah, but my intent was to great. Thank you. Yeah to soften it and, and to really make it realistic. Much much appreciated and helps from my perspective. Thank you. Thanks. Yeah. Robert Claire. Could somebody speak to the six pillars of the 21st century policing or tell me where I could go find it quickly because I'm not familiar with that. I'll post it in the chat for you. That's a starting point. And I think you correct me if I'm wrong, but I think is it in coach Christie's testimony that's online. It is. Okay, I think DPS has been trained to I can somebody help me with that. Nope. I'll search around. Thank you. I just posted it in the just put a link in the chat box. That's helpful for people to the report. Thanks Selena. Yeah, folks may not know this but our, our current commissioner of corrections. I will call him Colonel Baker for when he was at the DPS, but he left Vermont and went down to the international chiefs of police to do to do training on the 21st century policing and was very, very involved in real leader in that so as as he was when he was was here with the state police and going back years but it's nice nice connection. All right, so committees in the interest of time. You can access the next draft. Via email, and I'm sure Andrea will get it posted up on our committee page momentarily but for now, you should have an email that that came from Andrea with the latest draft attached from 318. And so, so bring when you walk us through maybe. Let's see. Looking at line 21 where I talked about additionally the legislative committees of jurisdiction I think that's where we, we put, we started and pull things out and put things in right. Yes, that's right. I can sort of talk about where things went and I tried to do some highlighting again and I'll, I'll try and point it out if I, if I neglected to highlight something. Great. Before you get started on that just just in case folks are opening up the attachment and looking at it through outlook. If you actually open it in word then you'll get the the line numbering and the page numbering that you don't get if you just open the attachment so we're ready when you are. Okay. So, this is draft 2.1 of s2 19. So we've added as the representative grad said we've shifted some some things around so the first things first shift you see is at the top of page two. This is discussing that the current legislative committees of jurisdiction are currently studying some of these issues including law enforcement policies training standards and discipline. And then we've added including accreditation through the Commission on accreditation for law enforcement agencies within the next five years. We've worked on updating a model policy for the use of body cameras so we've, we've shifted that to something that the committees are currently looking at. And then in subdivision be there online 10. I talked about earlier that this sets forth the the intent of the General Assembly that law enforcement agencies use community policing strategies, and we just added consistent with the pillars of 21st century policing. Because that is where where that idea came from with the Senate language. And then subsection see this provides that it's the intent that the legislature continue its work on the issues addressed in this bill, including when you reconvene in August. And specifically the General Assembly commits to working on and then we we drop down into the list of things that you're committing to working on. The first one is increasing the resources to an authority of the executive director of racial equity so that replaces that specific language about subpoena power and the employees that would be added to be dedicated to the executive director's work. And then some of these are the same resituating the criminal justice training council to DPS that's the same as in the last version, evaluating whether to create a new crime. That's the same as in the last version. We've taken out reforming qualified immunity as it relates to law enforcement. That's not there anymore. Subsection for evaluating and revising the provisions of 13 BSA 20305. That is the justifiable homicide statute and 24 BSA section 299. That is a statute, obviously entitled 24. That directs sheriffs to preserve the peace and suppress unlawful disorder with and I this is a quote from the statute force and strong hand if necessary. That is another statute that we've identified that may need to be revisited in light of the issues that are being addressed and S2 19 and some other pills. And then five is evaluating whether and how to gather data regarding the interactions between law enforcement and people with mental health issues. That's a new one. Six is, and this is where I tried to encapsulate the suggestion of the chair. And, and you'll let me know if this is not quite what you were getting at that it directs the standing committees to review the le ab model policy that governs use of force or the use of body cameras for law enforcement. With input from the ACLU are adapt and the Secretary of State to develop a statewide policy for adoption prior to the effective date of section that should really just say section six not section seven of this act and that's the section. That requires that the Vermont State Police be equipped with body cameras and begin using them. So I think that I did section seven a little bit. I treat section seven to. So that could still take effect on passage, but we'll get there in a minute. Are there questions about that section though before I move on because that was sort of a big one that you were talking about Martin. So I think we need to be a little more expansive as far as the, who we're, who we're seeking input from. I mean, we don't have to list everybody but you know, like among others or in addition to other groups I'm not sure how to put it but I know that there's others that would want to weigh in on this. Including but not limited to whatever, whatever kind of language just to make sure that we're reaching out as broadly as possible. There's some language that broadens that to include just other interested stakeholders. As long as you don't want to limit that in any way then we can figure out how to make that more expansive. I think that's a good idea. Any other thoughts on on this section of intent. Okay. So I'll keep going then. Subsection seven there on the top of page four, that's the same as the language in the last draft. So now I'm going to move out of the intent section and into the bill. And some things are remain highlighted but you've already looked at, including that, including the, the language in the data collection statute. So I'll skip to page six. You looked at that in the last version. I'm not sure if you made decisions about that yet. So I'll skip to page nine. If that's all right. This is new. So this is the new category be conduct. The committee was had some conversation about failure to intervene. The committee added some words there so it's failure to intervene or report to a supervisor. Or maybe a supervising officer is more appropriate term. Representative Hashim might be able to tell me the most appropriate wording to use there. So now I'll move down to 2407. This is the limitation on council sanctions. The committee had had some conversation about whether that should be a may or a shall for the council to take action for a first defense for the new category be conduct. So I just highlighted that to flag it as an issue for the committee to decide section five. I'm on page 10. This is the new crime. Just interject and ask a really quick question about just that section. Did it come to us remind me did it come to us from the Senate with this language. Yes. Okay. Thank you. So, I'll keep going. Section five is the new crime. So I just struck that, but left it in the bills you could see. I know that's a decision that still needs to be made. And lastly, if you look at the last page, or I guess it's page 11, this is section six or section six and seven have to do with the body cameras. So in section six, I removed the language about deployment. Is that right? Or is that section seven? Sorry. No, that was section seven. So section six is just the requirement that DPS outfit all of the Vermont state police with these body cameras. So that now takes effect on August or October 1 of this year. And then section seven, this is the, that funding language. This takes effect on passage, but I've changed it so it's that the DPS should include any ongoing costs that it can't cover in its FY 22 budget proposal. And here as discussed, it's sort of to direct the committees of jurisdiction to continue to look at the model or the statewide policy for law enforcement use of body cameras, but leave this requirement on DPS in to take effect in October. So the idea would be that in August, there would be some consensus around what the model or what the statewide policy should be, and it would be either adopted by statute or some legislation would pass that would require all law enforcement to to adopt a policy. Martin has a question. I still think we need to take out the phrase and that the device is recording whenever the officer has contact with the public for law enforcement purposes because that is broader than either the ACLU or the LEA, the policies are. I mean it's inconsistent with all with both those policies so I would still strike that, or recommend that we strike that. All right, not her. I wanted to chime in and agree with that with what Martin just said because, you know, when you're thinking about law and interaction with the public for law enforcement purposes, is it just when they're investigating a case or when they're going to buy a cup of coffee. Because you know if you're recording every single interaction like that it's. Yeah, I just agree with Martin and want to leave that there. Any other discussion from other committee members about striking that last phrase. I mean, I mean it makes sense to me so I don't have a problem with striking it knowing that we're going to come back with recommendations on a much more comprehensive body cam policy. John Gannon. I agree with that are in Martin. I mean it's inconsistent with both the LEA be policy and ACLU policy. We're paying for the data. Anybody, anybody going to want to argue the other side of that or shall we take it out. Take it out. Yeah, great. Away it goes. Tom. Yeah, just another in section seven. Initiate the acquisition of the video record recording devices. Did the commissioner say that can happen by October 1. If he had a timeline that that he can make that happen. So I just want to point out that this takes effect on passage. And we've removed that requirement about deployment. So, oh, and I didn't take out the word immediately. I heard that maybe that word should come out as well. Okay, but it's down below the sections. Shall take effect on October 1. Does that mean that the officers have to have them and are using them on by October 1. Yes. Okay, so I guess I would go back to is. Can they get them by then. Can they get, can they have them in their possession by then. I don't remember anybody saying I don't know what if there's backlogs back orders. What the timelines are for for ordering something like that. Has that date always been in here, the October 1 state or is that it was, it was August 1 and the previous in the Senate version. So the commissioner has testified and has seen all this and even when we had August 1, it didn't sound like he had an issue with it. Right. If he was asked, but so. All right. That makes sense. And I had another question, but I don't remember what it was. I'll come back if I have to. Thanks. I would seriously question whether he could it. The training and the body cans I can't believe they're that readily available I would think they're in in high demand right now. I would, I would be very concerned about, about that part of the bill. Just just my opinion. I don't want to see a set up to fail on that, you know. So I believe it's, but it was the testimony of the department in the Senate that this has been long awaited by the department that they have wanted to do this for many years and that they have it in the budget to be able to secure the cameras. I think the concern was the cost the ongoing cost of data storage and retention. So it's my understanding. And hopefully there's somebody on that can correct me if I'm wrong, that, that this initial phase of acquisition of cameras is not a concern. And the training also run. Well, I'm not sure that they've heard that I don't think that there was much testimony testimony on the training since there wasn't an associated policy to use with the cameras just yet. Okay. So I, I did have a conversation with the commissioner a couple of weeks ago. When it became clear that these bills were, were going to be moving forward and he did say to me at that point that they have been intending to, to begin using body cams across the Vermont State police. I think you're, you're right to flag that can but I do believe that that the commissioners already intending and probably already acquiring the equipment. Tom bird it. Yeah, yeah, I guess I misread that I thought it was saying to, to acquire and and put them into into use and it's just, it's just around acquisition and and that that actually answers my other question. Thank you Maxine. I'm also wondering if that that last sentence the ongoing cost of the devices that cannot be accommodated and where we change it to FY 22 if that also responds to concerns, certainly satisfies my concerns. How I just want to add I remember here in the commissioner say that the cost of storage has significantly decreased, making it affordable. The ongoing cost doesn't seem to be an issue. Right, I suspect when we get into the data storage and public records conversation we will find that the more significant expense is around redacting body cam footage to protect the identity of minors or minors related to the crime that was was being filmed. Kelly. This may be semantics but on on sec the part on a section eight referring to the effective dates section six equipment of officers with video recording devices show. Yeah, as the ones that do already have the video recording devices have to use it as stated. I know that just seems like it's modifying the officers with video recording. Yeah, it's, it tracks with the way the section six is is headed up above but it is kind of a funny way to say that. All right, so committees we have now gone through the bill. And, you know I think it probably makes sense to go back with a more of a finer look from the intent at the beginning of the bill. So that we can be moving towards a place where we can can vote this out of committee committees. So I'm ready to to go back to the beginning and and really take a look at this line by line. Yeah, Jim Harrison. So just a procedural who actually has the bill right now. It's going to ask the same thing because we weren't on the floor. It was assigned to judiciary. Okay, that's. Okay, so our scovops actually take a position on the bill. I was going to suggest that if judiciary has actual possession that we straw poll a recommendation on the bill since we've been working right along and it wasn't clear at the time that we embarked on this process. Who was going to get position possession of which bill and what and which bill was going to be ready to move forward so. We've been here all together right along so perhaps when judiciary gets done taking an actual vote we can take a straw poll. Okay, and then more of a procedural question. If we were by chance to get through this this afternoon. Do we get to sleep into my morning. You mean, am I going to call you to a committee meeting at 830 again. Yes. I have to go run payroll tomorrow morning. So, so I'm hopeful that we will get through this. And now I'm motivated. Thank you. All right, there we go. Okay, so let's go back to the beginning and go through this on a with a fine tooth comb. You hear my door slam. Let's see. So, Bryn, why don't you take us back through sort of just jogging through the legislative intense sections. Section one a is is mostly intact from the Senate version right. It is I did remove that reference to the 2016 act that directed the law enforcement advisory board to develop a model policy. It remains mostly the same except for that language and yellow about the accreditation and also the last sentence. The general assembly is committed to continually assessing the progress made by the state towards developing a system of public safety that is effective equitable and maintains the public trust and continuing its work to achieve that goal that is new. The rest is the same. Great. Any comments concerns edits moving along. So subsection B. This is also largely unchanged from the Senate version. The only new language there is the is the language you see in yellow to refer specifically to the pillars of 21st century policing. And then see is entirely new. That was an addition. So that is taking a look at the specific work that remains to be done, and that you are committing to do, starting with when you reconvene in August. Rob Leclerc. Thank you madam chair I'm sorry my internet's not as stable so I've shut off my my video. Go back just a little bit to section one under legislative intent. The very first couple of sentences there just. I don't know it seems to me that it's saying that we have systemic racism and disproportionate use of force by all law enforcement. Am I just am I reading that wrong it just seems like we're paying all law enforcement with the same brush rather than acknowledging that there is some racism and that there is some excess of use of force but not by all. You have a suggestion. I'm not sure that I do other than, is there a way just to, to say it in a way that acknowledging that there's concern there but I'm not sure what the word I'm looking for is but it just seems like we're. Yeah Maxine's unmuting I wonder if she's got an idea. Well, it's interesting because because when I look at it and it's and I don't see the word all in there and you're, it's not in there. No, I know it's not but I know and and so I realize you're interpreting it that way. Why couldn't you just after the racial bias why couldn't you just add the word concern there. Selena. Well first now I have a question because I'm not sure I understand exactly where back to very first section one a. I believe that was what Rob was asking about. Yes. And is it the, is it primarily that sentence on page two lines four to six. Or is it also. No, I'm, I'm, I'm under section one. Yeah, basically. The first sentence. Well yeah lines 10 and 11. I have the same reaction as a Maxine and then I think Ken was referring to the other sentence that I just referenced on the following page. I didn't see that as characterizing all policing as. As you know that all police are exhibiting these colleges and thinking we're just saying we, we want to reform them where they exist. It seems to me a pretty, I would be wary of watering that down I think. That was actually above that on lines three and four maybe addressing it right at the beginning. That's the title of the bill, which we can't edit right. You can change the title if you want. Yes. It's probably why I'm not a lawyer. I think it kind of starts there though, or somebody could read into it like Rob was saying JP wants to weigh in on this. For those of you. Back to my. I agree with Rob on it and in fact I take great offense at it myself. The general generalization. In line, line three and four. It starts by saying by by law enforcement. And then further down it also says the same thing. Maybe just a minor change of words. Maybe just simply adding the word some law enforcement or something of that nature but here is categories is all on for even though it doesn't say all a l l. It certainly lies that it can be very. Very concerning to me as a 37 year law enforcement veteran. But I also think it'll be a slap in the face that a police officers in the state of Vermont who are going to fall into this category. That's my. Thank you Tom, your thoughts. Yeah. I guess I kind of agree with Rob and the reason I agree with it is if he's reading it that way. He's not going to be the only one. There's going to be other people that are going to that are going to read it that way somewhere. I'm kind of having a little problem with right now is is kind of the whole wording in the sense that general assemblies work over the past several years to create meaningful reforms to address systemic racism. But I don't. Is it proper to add disproportionate use of force by law enforcement to that because have we been. We really haven't done a lot with that in the last number of years. So what kind of went through my mind was after systemic racism and something like and investigate the use of force by law enforcement. And it keeps the keeps the eye on law enforcement, you know, with the use of force. And I think it alleviates the issue that Rob had just something like that. How. Thank you, madam chair. What I would argue is that all of our major institution in this country are challenged by systemic racism. And law enforcement is one of them. And I don't read that it's all of law enforcement, but it's the, the institution itself is challenged. And I heard that even shared by the commissioner. You know, we're not immune from it because we're small Vermont. It does exist here. And it impacts the institution of law enforcement. Yeah, just a quick suggestion. I don't know if this gets at it. My optimism if we're on the first sentence is fading about getting done tonight. What if line 10 address where it says address systemic racism. What if we inserted the word and address. No, not in any address any systemic racism and disproportionate use of force by law enforcement. Kind of doesn't say everybody is using force disproportionate it says we want to wipe it all out if I was as part of our goals. Is that I'm not the English major here but think about that. I like it. That that works for me. Anyone else want to weigh in on that. I want to understand if it works for how I had another recommendation but but if that one works for how. That can work for me. It clearly connotes that there's something going on. I'm good with it to not her. I just wanted to say I'm good with that to make it any systemic racism. I think that. That's a good, good way to go. You're muted. That too. I finally found my other screen back again. I like that myself. It's really again I'll play on, play on words, play on words. The thing of it is, is it get it makes a point and definitely gets a point across but it's, but it's not accusing every of the things that I've done in my life. I'm not a good at. I'm not a good at making it too much of a saucer. Of these. Deeds that definitely need to stop. And and I liked that word. And I really do. And I feel a lot better if we went with that. I just want to add. There's a difference between personal racism and systemic racism. but you're still impacted by a system of systemic racism. So I think it's important to make that distinction as we go through this. It's not personal. Yeah. All right. So thank you, Jim, for that suggestion. Actually thank Pat, Jim, because we know that wasn't your idea. All right, let's continue. Can I just make sure that I have that right? The committee would like to add the word any before systemic. So any systemic racism? Yes, is that right? All right, so after that opening clause, then we run through basically a nice laundry list of the things that I, the things that we have done in recent years. So, and if anyone has questions about what those cross-reference, like if you weren't in the legislature when these were passed, Martin. So I just want to address what Tom had raised as the other concern as far as disproportionate use of force and at least one of the acts that we dealt with as far as the regulation of electronic control devices definitely goes to the issue of disproportionate use of force, the regulation of the tasers in other words. So we have done some work on time. Also the professional regulation bill in 2017 that added a substantial amount of oversight of law enforcement's use of force. Great. All right, so Bryn, why don't you keep leading us through the sections of the bill? Okay, so can I move past section one legislative intent or would you like, are we going through that section again as well? Committee, we need to go through this fairly in a fair amount of detail when we first started this meeting. Are we okay to just go through this quickly? Yeah, I would say if we covered it, there's no need to do it again. Great, super. Okay, so I'll move to page four then. So sections two and three are unchanged from the Senate version. These are the requirements that the secretary of administration review grants to law enforcement and only approve those grants if law enforcement has complied with race data reporting requirements. Section three requires the secretary. Oh, I see a question. Arsha. So this morning, Rep Ganon brought up the fact that these grants are limited. And I'm wondering if we ever came up with a solution or is that addressed in this bill? My understanding is that most of the grants go to the larger forces in the state and very few go to the small forces. That is a, I don't recall getting an answer to that. So maybe it's a less effective carrot or stick, if you will. Celina has a... Yeah, I don't think we came up with a solution to that other than acknowledging the limitations, but I will note in my quick scan of S124, I think they've done some more work around compliance with this issue. Oh boy, now I'm trying to remember what the stick was, but I remember thinking it was a lot stronger than this. So I think there's some other proposals coming forward in future legislation. I think it had to do actually with accrediting. Okay, okay. Thank you. All right, shall we keep going? Okay, I will move on to section four then. So this is the data collection statute. We've made a few changes here, including expanding the data that's required to be collected to include the grounds for a search if a search takes place. And the other change that you've made is if you scroll down to page six, subsection four, this is the requirement that the data be, there was a, as it came over from the Senate, there was a requirement that the data be user friendly when it's posted for the public to review. And you've changed that to clear understandable and analyzable to a reasonably prudent person. So that's new to you. Right, so we're using a tort, we're using a very legal term to describe something that's supposed to be understandable. So I would like to not have the reasonably prudent person standing in there. So maybe if we go back to clear and understandable or understandable, which I know Hal had recommended. Took out an analyzable since so, I think understandable if people are okay with that. Anyone wanna weigh in on that? Can you just tell me where you're just getting rid of to a reasonably prudent person? Well, right now it says and clear, understandable and analyzable to a reasonably prudent person. I think just, you know, understandably. John Gannon. I agree with Maxine. I think we can get rid of the reasonably prudent person. I mean, I spent a semester in torts trying to figure out what the reasonable prudent person was. I'm not sure I know now. It's harder than where's Waldo, right? So I would just note that the statute already requires that the data be analyzable. So perhaps we wanna, it's the committee's desire to leave analyzable where it is. You see it's struck out there online, 14. So it would read data shall be posted electronically in a manner that is analyzable and accessible to the public on the receiving agency's website and clear and understandable. Is that, is that where? It does for me. Martin. Yeah, I mean, I think we have to have it analyzable because that data has to be able to go to other places besides just the crime research group. And that's been one of the complaints about the data is that it's not necessarily as analyzable as it should be. So I think we have to keep that. Yep. And the prudent, the prudent person may not be qualified to do an analysis on it. So. All right. So I think, Brynne, you've got it. We're gonna leave the is analyzable and accessible to the public on the receiving agency's website and clear and understandable. Yeah. I mean, you can also just take out the reasonably, reasonably prudent person and leave it as has to be accessible, clear, understandable and analyzable if that works for everybody. Okay. I'm good. Sure. I kind of liked where it was analyzable and accessible myself. I think that that's a better place for it, frankly. I agree with you on that, Martin. Everyone's in a while, Tom. It happens. It's warm enough. So hell has it froze over though. All right. Shall we continue? Okay. Let's see. So physical force as used in this subsection, you've changed that definition a bit to provide that it's any force that constitutes a greater amount of force than handcuffing a compliant person. So you've removed all of those terms of art that were in the Senate version, made that more sort of just layperson language there. And then the next change, you're going to see on page nine. So now we're in the section that deals with professional, unprofessional conduct. So this is the two new categories of unprofessional conduct that are considered category B conduct. So you've added some words there. So it would be category B conduct to fail to intervene or report to a supervisor when the officer observes another officer using a prohibited restraint. So I think that supervisor is the appropriate term, but representative Hashim will correct me if there's a better word for that. I think that works well and it doesn't narrow things down too much. I mean, if somebody sees their sergeant using excessive force, then they can't go to their sergeant, but they can go to their lieutenant who is still technically a supervisor. So I think supervisor covers all the bases. Barbara? Hello. It sounds like you guys got everything figured out while I was at the doctor. Yay. So I'm wondering about adding failure to call or administer medical care as one of the A's or B's or C's. The other one I've wondered about and it would be part of the body cam thing is failure to have your body camera on when, I don't know when, but violating the body cam policy because again, I know we've seen in other states, lo and behold, the body camera wasn't on when something went down, but the calling 911 or failing to call 911 seems big to me. I would imagine that we are, we're gonna need to consider the issue of body cam policy as a whole when we're working on refining and recommending that body cam policy. And we should certainly flag that as a place where we might want to have some consequences. And what about either administering first aid or calling for aid in the part about reporting to your supervisor or in that section at least? Two different things. And again, it might just be, yeah. I don't know. I'll stop talking. Bob Hooper. I'm wondering why in G, it's discretionary why there's an or there as opposed to an and. Brent? True. My understanding is that's what the committee asked for. Where is that, where's that and an or we're talking about? Failing to intervene or report to a supervisor failure. So your, it's a two count thing. Is that what we're saying? The expectation is that you would do both, but you can get nailed for either one of them. Is that the or? Well, I think the conversation that we were having before is, I think it might've been John Gannon or Nodder who were talking about certain scenarios where you might arrive on the scene to see something happening that you don't necessarily have to intervene in because it stops right away, but that you might want to report, might want, you might want to oblige officers to report. Anybody want to jump in with a thought on that? That that's basically it. You know, there's not, not every scenario will a cop be able to reasonably intervene depending on what's happening, but, you know, a moment or two later when they realize what they observed was wrong and they need to do something, then there's still that kind of backup plan in the statute, which is that they are required to go and report it. In that circumstance that we were talking about before, when you roll up to a scene and you see a fellow officer on the ground tussling with somebody, I doubt it is a circumstance where you're going to stop and say, ooh, what? You'll be beating feet over there to get involved. That's what I wanted to say before on that one. Again, I'll repeat, I think what I said before, this sort of puts discretion in the hand of the person that's witnessing it rather than the supervisory structure that's responsible in this scenario for making determination. So if making a report is discretionary, then it seems to defeat the purpose a little bit. And it might be that English is not my primary language either. Thank you. Maxine. Yeah, I'm wondering if intervene is broad enough to encompass reporting. I don't know, I think, and I think the use of intervene is intentional or was intentional. I actually also had my hand up because back on page two, I just, there was something that didn't make it in there that I didn't notice and actually Barbara asked me a question that jogged my memory. So the word transparency back on page two, line six. Let's see, sorry. Increase accountability and transparency in policing was something that I had suggested. So sorry that I didn't catch it earlier. That seems like a reasonable addition to me. Anybody have an objection to that or want to argue about the place that word? No, it's a perfect place for it. I'm not looking at it. What was it again and where Maxine on page two? Page two, line six. It now says accountability in policing. So accountability and transparency or transparency and ability. I just, I wanted to get the word transparency in there because I heard that in our, from the testimony. I liked that. Okay. All right, intervene or report back to the question that hand Maxine, did you have any epiphanies on that one or should I jump to the next hand? Nope, jump. All right, Nader, what do you have? So, I mean, the question is still, is why are we having the word or in there? Is that really the crux of the question that we're facing? That was my question is whether it should be, and if you see something, should you report it since it's not necessarily a decision for the line troop to make? I mean, I think that the way it's written right now makes the most sense because we have these two possibilities in which an officer may be observing an excessive use of force and knows 100% that his fellow cop is messing up and violating someone's civil rights and he is required to intervene. And it's not like that sort of incident would slip under the radar. I mean, ultimately, you know, if you notice another cop breaking the law, it's going to find its way to a supervisor. Yeah. Well, if I might interrupt, I mean, that's why we have, you know, a month's worth of kind of riots. The only reason I think that the Floyd thing made it so quickly was that somebody else was doing video of it. That, I mean, I'll say it right out. The thin blue line still exists in a lot of places and we don't know where. And I think it's our responsibility to make sure that as much as possible, it doesn't exist here. That makes sense. This is about professional conduct review for failing to report or for failing to intervene, whichever might have been appropriate. I mean, it's not, to me, this is, this is a unprofessional conduct, you know, after the fact where you're going back and asking whether an officer had failed to intervene or whether they had failed to report. So I guess I'm comfortable with the way it's phrased. And Natter, if you wanna jump back in with another thought or I'll just go to the next person. I'm also thinking of, you know, let's say an officer is watching somebody else's video, you know, after an incident and or maybe the cop is seeing pictures that were taken of somebody after a use of force and the cop thinks to himself that something doesn't look right about that. I think that, you know, there's no reason that this person should have two black eyes, you know, over such a simple thing. So maybe I'll go talk to my boss about it because I know that that's a requirement by law. But then if you're incorporating and to this language, would it put them in an impossible position where they somehow have to intervene and something that they can't intervene in because it's already been done? Or am I just, maybe I'm not making sense but it might be an issue. Harrison? I think I understand Natter's concern and I'm fine with the language that's there. If you wanted to wordsmith it and maybe what he just mentioned wouldn't apply but you could say intervene when appropriate and report to a supervisor. So if you just arrived on this scene it may not be appropriate to intervene. I think that's the area of concern that you just can't rush the judgment because you don't know what's going on. Is that help at all or is that just make it more muddy? I think that might have potential to make it a bit more muddy because then the question arises, when is it appropriate? You know, if it's my boss beating somebody up and we have a strict command or rank structure, you know, I have to listen to my boss and he's beating somebody up so it's not appropriate for me to intervene. So I think that potentially muddy things. Okay, then I guess I'd be inclined to leave it as is unless someone's got a magic word you can throw in. Well, we have some little blue hands up so let's see, Tom. Thank you. Natter, that's why I'd like to have the end here. You came up with that scenario of seeing a picture or a video and it'd be impossible to intervene at that point. I think when we put that aura in there, it was purposeful. And I'll throw myself into it. If I'm a rookie, just out of the academy, it's my first day, I'm with somebody that's, you know, got 15 years of experience. I'm not intervening, it's just the way it works. I'm a subordinate at that point and you just don't intervene. But, you know, after the fact, and yes, terrible things could happen, you know, if I didn't, but I still would have an opportunity to report to a supervisor what happened. And I also like to think that you said Natter about if somebody saw something in a picture or a video, they would still be able to report to a supervisor. And I can see those opportunities increasing a lot with body cams. I mean, there's gonna be much more video that people are gonna be looking at and potentially to see these situations that need to be stopped, basically. How? I wonder if and or would address Bob's concern about discretion? Or does that make it even more complicated? Works for me. All right, let's flag that for Ledge Council and or, is that violating any drafting conventions? Yes. Okay. But there's a way we can do it though. It just is a little long and convoluted that we can get there. Does and or change it though? Does it really change it? Anything from being just an or? My question, I think and or is just or. I think effectively, no. If I can chime in, I mean, if one cop is intervening and preventing another cop from choking somebody out or just beating the crap out of them for fun, that I can only imagine is going to get, it find its way back to a supervisor. So if an intervention happens, but then again, I also don't want to assume things, there are ways that sometimes things can get swept under a rug. So on that note, no, I'm not sure. So maybe and or is the best way to go. Well, there's some sort of way to do that. You all are looking at the intervene part and that's really not what I care about. It's the, none of this system works unless the report gets made. No, the port at this time seems to be discretionary under this language. That's sort of my whole point. And that's the last I will say. All right, let's hear from a couple of other folks and then we can decide whether we want to take the long and convoluted route that Bryn has to achieve that. Ken has his hand up. So, sorry to do this, but you have another officer in there. Shouldn't you have another officer or officers? There's a lot of times there's more than one that's involved in that, right? Shouldn't we cover ourselves on that? Yeah, and then there could be multiple officers on the same scene. So when do you want to hold those all accountable? They would be all accountable under this language. Each officer is an individual officer. It doesn't preclude every officer that's there from being responsible under this policy. You don't have to put a plural plural to capture everybody. I'm quite sure. Bryn, is that right? Yeah, that's correct. Thank you. Every officer who? All right, Martin. So the one other way we can deal with this and frankly, I think it's fine and I think that is that this provides an obligation to do both or one or the other, but we could just have an H and have H separate as a failing to report to a supervisor with the rest of it. You know, one of them is failure to intervene and we have separate out one as a failure to report. I mean, if there's any ambiguity that would I think that would make it clear. I like that suggestion, John Gannon. That would work. And I just point out, you know, these are examples of professional misconduct. You know, if you read the category B definition, it includes also violating state policy or the local law enforcement's policies. So that's going to capture this conduct in many instances anyway. So I think this is just setting out examples. So I think we're getting a little too caught up in the end of the war, but that's... Thank you, John Kelly. John, maybe do it, I'm off it. All right, what's the what's the sense? Jim? So if you put it in a separate letter, does that go back to the original word, go back to the original wording that they had a concern about? You just arrived on the scene. My view is that, well, let's ask Nader, but that there's a judgment call. I mean, if they arrive on the scene and they haven't intervened and they are called out for that, part of the whole process of the investigation into whether there was a reason to not intervene, which was I just arrived there and I didn't know what was going on, that would come out through the investigation. So I mean, I think we need to keep it pretty solid that at least it gets to the investigation point if somebody arrives in that kind of situation. That would be my view. Okay, thank you. Do we have clarity on how to move forward on this, folks? No. If we're going with an H, we have clarity. If we're not going with an H, then I don't know where we're going. All right. Are people feeling comfortable with separating out G into two sections? Can it be repeated one more time? Martin could go over it again. I'll have Bryn do it to make sure that Bryn is all on top of what we're saying. Okay. So as I understand it, you wanna add a new category of category B conduct and that would be failure to report to a supervisor if the officer observes another officer placing a person in a prohibited restraint or using excessive force. And that that would also do, I'm assuming that you also want that to be carved out of the limitation that the council has for imposing a sanction on a first offense. That would be in the- That would be consistent with what the Senate has done even though I- That would make it consistent with how you're treating a failure to intervene as well. So I do have- I hate to bring this up at this point, but I will real quickly, hopefully, because I know that Jim wants to make sure he doesn't have to come in tomorrow morning. But I asked or I was wondering with the Senate why they limited that exception on 2407 to only these new E or this new F and G and why they wouldn't have included C and D, the excessive use of force in the biased enforcement. And I heard that this was being considered by Senate GovOps and presumably an S-124. And I'm wondering if they, in fact, ever really did address that. And I don't know if you know that or not, Bryn. I don't think- So I wasn't in Senate GovOps for all that testimony because I didn't work on that bill. But it's my understanding from the chair of the GovOps committee because she's also on the judiciary committee that they were hearing testimony about it. And part of what they did was to remove, it was to make it a requirement that a first defense of excessive use of force could be considered by the council for a sanction. So that was part of what they did. Okay, so that has been done elsewhere, that has. That's also done in this bill. Oh, did I miss that somehow? I probably did. It's a little strange because what it, in the original and existing law, you'll see this on, I think it's on page six. Page six? I think, hold on, let me just find it again. It's at the, sorry, it's on page eight now. Bottom of page eight, under existing law, category B conduct, excessive use of force, is excessive use of force is considered category B conduct only if it's a second offense. So they changed that to- And so that change we've also made here just for consistency's sake. Okay, so how does that read into or affect 2407? Does that, I'm just a little confused. So excessive use of force, if it's a second offense. Again, I'd like to- It often comes as a- All right, let me see. So that's, can you hear me? Cause I'm getting a message that my internet connection is unstable. I hear it, I hear it. Okay. I think it's for us. So if you can hear me, that limitation in 2407, it doesn't carve out the excessive use of force category of misconduct. So it's still true that if it's a, if an officer commits excessive use of force, the council shall take no action for a first offense. But it will, but it may take action if it's a prohibited restraint or the failure to intervene. For a first offense for one of those, yes. So I don't see how that, that, if that's the solution that Senator White came up with, I don't see how that is a solution. Cause again, it seems like excessive force, whether it's first offense or whatever, that there should be an option because it's equivalent to using a prohibited restraint in my view or a failure to intervene. Right. I'm not making a commentary on whether or not- No, I understand. Yeah, I guess that was more of a comment to the rest of the folks here. I know that's a policy decision, but it doesn't seem that that resolves that issue. And maybe it's too late to make that change, but that is something that I brought up before that I thought that the excessive use of force should also be one where the council may take action with the first offense. So Lena has a hand up. Okay, I raised my hand way back when we were talking about section G and future section H and I was going to ask if because, but I actually agree with what Martin just said. I think it would make sense to encompass excessive use of force in the provisions that the council may, especially because it's a may and not a shall, may take action or on a first offense, I would agree wholeheartedly with what Martin just said. And I think what I had been planning to ask about the, if we added a separate section for H, so we added the interim back to the intervening and reporting, aren't we sort of functionally making that in and then because of how that section is constructed because it's been moved from like a second to a shall include. So I'm not sure it doesn't create like more discretion on that necessarily. I don't think in my reading, I'm missing something. That is how I interpret it. I interpret if you create two separate sub-divisions here or if you just use the word and, I think it would have the same practical effect. So would you take the or out of F and put a semi colon? Is that? It would, it's in G. So it would be failing to intervene and report to a supervisor when the officer observes another officer placing a person in a prohibited restraint or using excessive force. Later. What's your preference committee? Well, I had my hand up and it was going to be the same exact thing that Selena just brought up. I mean, by adding a G, where Bryn kind of verified it, we're essentially just putting in an and in the place of or and from what I've heard, it's to intervene and report is just going above and beyond what I believe will happen. Again, the officer that's fresh out of the academy is not going to intervene and report. I believe that there's a much better chance they're going to do the report. And if they do intervene, there a report is going to be done anyway. I mean, I'm dug in on the way it's really written now that failing to intervene or report from everything that I've heard, I think it, I mean, maybe it's not perfect, but I think it covers a little bit of everything that people want overall. Martin. Well, I want that junior officer to intervene and I want there to be consequences if he doesn't intervene. I don't care if it's the captain or the chief, if he's seen this occur, then there should be an intervention. So I mean, I think it should be pretty made very clear that if there's an opportunity to intervene, the person should intervene and they're separately, if they've observed this, whether they've intervened or not, they should have to report. But I think it's easier said than done on an intervention in those situations. Well, I'm sure it is. And maybe if Natter can, I see Natter has his hand up. So yeah. I had Natter. If you want, Martin, if you want to see that happen, it starts primarily with changing the entire culture of how policing actually works because it's, as Tom said, it is much easier said than done, but the paramilitary mentality is very strong in respecting rank structure. And I mean, in some police departments, more so than others, in the state police, it was very strong. And changing that is what needs to be changed if you want to see that sort of intervention of a person fresh out of the academy, telling a 15 year sergeant to stop using force. Well, I mean, I will comment that three officers that watched the officer in Minneapolis without intervening were junior officers. But still, I don't see how not having this as a consequence and perhaps through the whole process when there's an investigation and such, does that come up as part of the investigation? Does that matter as what kind of discipline would be needed out for that situation that you've talked about? I mean, is that where that's captured that problem? But I still think that there has to be some consequence and putting this in there is one step perhaps towards changing, maybe they're not changing the culture, but you're certainly saying that there's consequences for the way that culture is working. And I do understand, Tom, from what you're saying, it's easier said than done, but that doesn't mean that we should let somebody off the hook and make them explain themselves and why they didn't intervene. I don't think that they would be off the hook because they're still required to report what happened. Well, they may be required to report, but you may have a cadaver on the ground. So true, and that's why we've been debating this for so long. All right, Bob Hooper. Sorry, I said that was gonna be my last word and it isn't because you just brought up the crux of the issue. This is what we wanna change. This is our goal. This is what we start in the academy and we move up through the ranks. If we don't start the institutional change of the reaction here, then it isn't gonna change in the field. That's sort of why I considered this to be worth the argument. Tom Burdett. Yeah, so I think a question for Nader, not a situation, Nader, somebody's on the ground wrestling with somebody, the proverbial rookie shows up, intervenes, body cams are on everywhere and it's determined that what was happening wasn't against any policy, that everything was above board. What happens from that point to the person who intervenes in a situation that didn't warrant an intervention? And maybe even the guy gets away or whatever. That person who intervened would probably, I mean, it depends more, depends on the circumstances really, but I mean, that person could get in trouble, especially if the person gets away. It wouldn't be looked favorably upon. Yeah, it wouldn't be looked favorably upon. I can see something like that ruining somebody's career in the state police. Jim Harrison. Okay, at the risk of belaboring this, I think we all agree that we would want the officers and the junior officers in Minneapolis to have intervened. I don't know the right way to do that. My only concern with the wording was Nader's situation of coming onto the scene, you were back up or whatever you pulled in and you didn't know what was going on. And now we say you have a responsibility to intervene when you don't know the situation. I would be interested in reaching out to either the commissioner or the troopers association to see if they have any suggestions on wording or whether they can live with the intervene and report, whether that raises any red flags for them, that's all. And I was only kidding, I am available tomorrow morning. So if I just want to do this right. So I think we all do, thank you. So let's flag this and see if we can wrap up closure on some of the other sections of the bill. And we can circle back to this after we have done the rest of the walkthrough. So am I also flagging for follow-up that limitation on counsel sanctions, whether or not other category B conducts including sexual harassment and biased enforcement and excessive use of force is sanctionable on a first offense? Am I following up with that later? Are we putting that in the next drafts? So my suggestion was at least just the excessive use of force, I didn't, I wasn't suggesting the other category B. Okay, so not sexual harassment involving political contact. I mean, the whole thing seems a little odd. I would reject the whole thing and let the council that they may look at any of these things, but that might be a step too far from where we are right now. But excessive use of force seems very much in line with what we have in F and G right now. Yeah, and I feel like this is for sure gonna be an area that we take a closer look at when we look at the aspects of 124 that are coming over. It doesn't sound like this is covered in 124 as I had thought though, Sarah, maybe. Well, that doesn't mean we can't- That's a nice point, nice point. Punch into it. But are you saying that, are you okay with doing the excessive force at least in here or just keep it as it is right now? I don't have an objection to making the change that you have suggested, but I'm one of many, many members on this. Selena, do you have a thought on that? Yeah, I agree with that. I agree with that suggestion, just the excessive use of force and look at the other categories later, but this is really all of, I mean, it really is all the behavior that we're really trying to get at in this bill. I don't think it makes sense to leave that out from this exception. Maxine? Yeah, and then my understanding is if we did that, we would keep the May as opposed to change it to Shell. I think I heard Selena say that earlier, right? Yeah, I guess I understood that the May was there and you're right, we haven't had that whole conversation, but I think if the May is there, it's definitely an argument for creating more options where the council not less. Yeah, yeah. Bryn, does that make sense? Yep. All right, we're flagging that G and we'll come back to it and let's see if we can take off the remaining sections of the bill. Okay. So we've moved down to section five, the crime. So we've taken out of this draft and if you'll recall, there's that language in the legislative intent section that states that the committees of jurisdiction will consider whether there needs to be a new crime that would impose criminal penalties for law enforcement officer who puts a person in a prohibited restraint that causes serious bodily injury or death. That's on page three, subsection three. Maxine's got her hand up. Thank you. So I wanna bring us back to the representative and Donahue's testimony where she says that if we include the new criminal section included now, there should be a report back in August to allow for potential needed revisions and the effective date should not occur until January to allow for education and training. I think that went more to the excessive force, but I, so one possibility because I also heard very clearly from folks that they did wanna include a new crime because that's really what we're here for. So one possibility would be if we do keep it in there and then with Representative Donahue's suggestion, we could have, for instance, because we heard from state's attorneys from James Pepper that the state's attorneys are looking into this so we could have a group of states attorneys, defender general's office, Human Rights Commission, I don't know, we can name them, but that they could report back to us when we come back in August. And so that, anyway, I'll just leave it at that. Selena? I had a question for Bryn, but don't wanna preclude people from responding to Maxine. It is about the section, though. Maybe I'll just ask and it can be part of the whole conversation. Bryn, I'm, I am wondering if you agree with the commissioner's view that if we weren't to create a new crime here, it would be possible for an officer to be charged under existing law and what I understand to be title 131024, aggravated assault. And if you just trying to understand like how high of a bar that is to me, man. So I think that it depends on the circumstances. I don't disagree that under a particular set of circumstances a law enforcement officer may be charged with aggravated assault. As I mentioned in my testimony earlier, there's not a perfect alignment between the new crime and the aggravated assault statute. I think arguably it may be easier for a law enforcement officer to be prosecuted for placing a person in a prohibited restraint under the new crime because it specifically prohibits the use of these kinds of restraints for law enforcement. And it also, as I mentioned earlier, doesn't contain an intent element. So essentially if a law enforcement officer does undertake this conduct, put a person in a prohibited restraint and the restraint causes the person to experience serious bodily injury or death, then the officer would be culpable regardless of their intent or mental state. But again, that's only if the defense does not raise a self-defense or if they do raise it and the prosecution can still prove that the officer was not acting in self-defense. And the other portion of this is that nothing about this new crime changes or alters the justifiable homicide statute. Which I know you haven't gotten into in any depth, but justifiable homicide is a statute that provides that a person shall not be guilty for wounding or killing another person if that wounding or killing is done in the person's own self-defense or the defense of the person's various family members or if it's done in preventing essentially a violent felony. So, and then there's another portion of that of the justifiable homicide statute that provides that a law enforcement officer can wound or kill another person in carrying out the law enforcement officer's duties. So I would point out that those defenses are available even if the new crime were to be there. And the language affirming in the section that's now that's been removed in this draft on language, affirming the justifiable homicide to offense is really just a recognition of current law, right? Right, it was initially incorporated by reference in one version of the Senate's S219, but then by Floreman, they removed that incorporation by reference because that particular portion of the justifiable homicide statute, it's subdivision three of 13 VSA 2305 sort of stands sort of diametrically opposed to the provisions of the new crime. And if you look at the wording of it, you can see why. So there is a concern that by enacting the new crime, that particular subdivision of the justifiable homicide statute, there may be an implied repeal argument that could be made if somebody were to, if a law enforcement officer were to try and use that particular subdivision as a defense to the new crime. Does that make sense? I know we haven't gotten into that statute a lot, so it may be unclear for some members of the committee. And I'm happy to talk more about that if you'd like, but I don't wanna take you down a path that you don't wanna go. Maxine. Yeah, I think that's pretty, that's significant though. I mean, the whole potential repeal and statutory construction, I think that's right. Yes, that's why the Senate Judiciary Committee had made a commitment to work on the justifiable homicide statute. I think that they felt comfortable at that point moving the bill with the new crime because they heard testimony from several witnesses saying that the defenses of self-defense were still available and the defense under the justifiable homicide statute was still available. There was a question about whether that particular subdivision under justifiable homicide would still be available or if that would be subject to an implied repeal argument. But they went ahead and voted out the bill with the new crime in it and the commitment to working on the justifiable homicide statute either in August, either in the remaining time that they had this session or in August. Tom Burdett. Thank you. Brian, did you say if we put the new crime in there, it makes it easier to charge? Is that what I heard? I think that there is an argument that you could make that because the aggravated assault statute contains an intent element and this new crime doesn't contain an intent element that it may be easier for a prosecutor to prove each element of the offense. But again, it depends on the circumstances of the situation. I guess with an aggravated assault and intent, I mean, that covers everybody right now. And I gotta believe when that law was written, there was a reason to put that intent in there. And I just have an issue with any demographic, if we're gonna single out any demographic and for whatever reason, to make it easier to charge them for basically the same crime. I would just note that the aggravated assault statute does have a provision that makes it easier to charge someone who's assaulting a police officer. So aggravated assault actually encapsulates your concern and reverses, I think, as I understand it. Yeah, I appreciate that, but I still don't look at it as a balance, I guess. I'm just looking at the one new law that we're looking at. And I know in the past that we've really shied away from new laws as much as possible. So anyway, I would have a problem with creating a new law around this and making it easier to charge anybody. It doesn't matter the demographic. And I certainly didn't hear the argument over around why police officers, it's easier to be charged for assault of the police officers. Jim Harrison. I would support what I think I heard for Maxine's recommendation to ask the state's attorneys to come back. They're the ones that have to prosecute these cases. I would, and it sounded like they had some issues with it as it came over from the Senate and would have some suggestions, but they needed to a little time to work that out. So if you, you know, I would support putting something in here to ask them and or other stakeholders to come back with recommendations that we can insert in August. Yeah, if I could just clarify, I was reading from Ann Donahue's testimony. And my understanding of the testimony was that if we leave the crime in to make the effective date later and then have a group report back to us when we come back, so that if we, so thinking is that we could do the revisions, we could hear from the state's attorneys and others in terms of where they've gotten and make the revisions before this new, if needed, before this new crime goes into effect, whether it's, you know, October or something. I forget what she said, or January, but that it's, that's when it, you know, if we decide to put it in there. So I just wanted to make sure that that was clear. And I see that actually as a good compromise because I think they're, from testimony, I think there are a number of people that want us to have a new crime in there. People also want us to get it right and realize, you know, that we can't get it right now, but by having it in there, pushed out effective date with a group of, like I said, you know, Defender General, States Attorneys, Human Rights Commission coming back and they can work on it, you know, before we get back in August. I think that's a good compromise. Yeah, I mean, that's a fair point, Maxine. I guess I'm a little apprehensive if the different stakeholders can't agree or we can't agree with their recommendations that we end up with something in statute that may cause problems that, so I don't know, I'm just, and this would be for Bryn, but is there a way we can put it in but not have it take effect until the legislature signs off? I mean, it's sort of like a two-vote process. I don't know, you know, by a date certain by September 30th or something. I don't know. I just, you know, we gotta get this done and this is, you know, I understand it's an important part to, you know, many. So I just, I don't wanna make it, I don't wanna do something we regret later. That's all. Thank you. Bob Hooper. Bryn, if it's in, prosecutors have complete and total discretion over what they charge under, right? Yes. Yes, they do. So they can charge under either one, their choice. Yes. And as for representative Harrison's question, I think it may be a little bit tricky to require that there be, I think what you'd have to do is you'd have to hinge it on some criteria for the legislature to take another action. I'm not sure you could hinge the effective date on a report unless the legislature took some additional action. Okay. Is there any issue if we put this in and being a task force to come back with recommendations and we change it? Are we undoing something that we just passed? What if we decided the stakeholders said, look, this is not workable at all, take it out? Yeah, so we do that all the time, revise laws that haven't yet gone into effect. And an example of that is the Justice Reinvestment Act actually requires that it enact some legislation at an advanced date and requires a report back prior to that date with the understanding that if there are issues raised by the stakeholders that the legislature will fix that piece of legislation that is not going into effect until later on. So that's something that you do routinely. Okay, I'm just aware of the House rules that we can't negate something that or whatever that redact something. So thank you. Tom Burt it. Yeah, around the same issue, if we put the new crime in there, could we sunset it? That way it has to get worked on. And if the stakeholders don't come to an agreement, it goes away. If that's a question for me, that I... That's a question for whoever wants to pipe in. Maxine. Yeah, actually I had thought of that too, Tom. I guess our committee is just so familiar with Sunsets, right? But no, I did, but really, I did think about it. And, but Bryn, can you so in terms of what we did in Justice Reinvestment in terms of revisiting something, how does that differ from binding of future legislature? Or would we be binding ourselves in August? Is that what... I don't think that you are binding yourselves with that requirement because you're bumping out the effective date to essentially give the next legislature an opportunity to work on something before it takes effect. So it's not binding, it's not, we're not telling them, it's just the... Yes, the idea is that it creates more of an incentive for the legislature to work on something if it actually takes effect at a date certain. Does that make sense? Like rather than not enacting it and putting a report in and having the report come to the legislature and then expecting the legislature to take up that report and deal with it, if you're actually enacting the law at a date certain, then you sort of have to, you have to address that whatever the report is prior to the effective date. So I think it's just a way of, it's your own stick that you're imposing on yourselves, I think. So what's the wisdom of the collective? Do we want to obligate ourselves to do this work by extending the effective date and coming back to this? Martin? Well, I guess... I would write the sunset because it forces us to, just an extended date, does it necessarily force us to do it if we happen to get too busy on something else? It could happen. So I would agree with the extended date plus the sunset. If that brings a long time on all this and we keep Will in here who made it pretty clear that he wouldn't like this if we did not have the crime, then I'm fine with that. I prefer to drop the crime and get it right beforehand but I would go along with that other plan. Right, so both, right? Yeah, I think both would assure that we do deal with it because just because we have an effective day at the end of the year, that does not mean that we will. But so I don't disagree with it. I just don't know what it would accomplish by having both and not just the sunset. I don't see the difference. I would want to have August to try to get it right. Yeah. So I would not want this to go into effect until sometime after the end of the session to actually, because I do see some big issues with it and I have had a communication a little bit more with Pepper and I think there's a much better way to address this. And I do think that the justifiable homicide statute needs to be dealt with before this goes into effect. So I really think we need to, I mean, I'm more set on having the effective date towards the end of the year. I'm throwing the sunset your way to make you feel more comfortable. Yeah, no, I appreciate that. Yeah, yeah, I'm not disagreeing with both. I just didn't see what the difference would make. But yeah, I'm all over that. Selena? Yeah, I was just going to add to a little bit to what Martin said. And I do think it's important to take time to get this section right. I'm wondering the mechanics of these various proposals about how to do that. But I'll note that, I mean, I know state attorneys have issues with this. I also think there's some advocates who really have issues with what the Senate did here. And I don't know if people saw it, but there was an op-ed about this by Will DeWay in Digner, I think today, and that had a lot of critiques of this section and some of which I thought were compelling. So about some of the implications of creating the new crime and offering and then preserving the defenses that were preserved. And so I think there's a lot to consider on all sides about how to get this right, and I guess I just wanted to note that up. So that's a good point. Go ahead, Max. Yeah, so Selena, so building on that, what, so the mechanics of it, I mean, I guess I see if we have an effective date, again, Ann Donahue said January, but and Martin, I'm not sure what effective date you were thinking of, but if we had an effective date, let's say, I don't know, October, January or something like that, and then the sunset would be a year after maybe, because we know we're not good with two years. And then in terms of the group, the stakeholders, I don't think we need to create a commission or anything like that. I think it's building on what we know that the state's attorneys are doing, but certainly need to have a defender general's office. And so that's the, but anyway, some sort of work group. So the two dates wouldn't be pretty close to the same time? That wouldn't make sense? Because if by, whether it's October or January 1st, if the, or whenever we take it up, if the stakeholders don't agree to it, can't come to a consensus on what the language is or what the law does, wouldn't it make sense for it to sunset sooner than later? I don't totally understand why we need a sunset if we have a pushed back effective date that then, and we're waiting for, we're waiting to quote, get it right. I mean, is that just like extra insurance? They think it might, that might send a weird message about our commitment to this. I look at it as a commitment to this because it forces us to work on it. Again, there's probably won't happen, but there's always that chance that we could get busy on something else and it doesn't get done. I mean, there is that potential. And with a sunset, it gets done. Okay. And whatever the date is, I guess, I'm not gonna argue too much. Let's ask the question, are folks comfortable with the sunset and the extended effective date concept? Nobody's diving in and nobody's saying no, I don't see any tears. Mike Marwicky. I was agreeing with you. That's why I raised my hand. All right. And then I guess the next question is, what's the date that we should be looking at? How much time will this process take to, as we've said, get it right? What, the date that is? I'm sorry, I just had a proposal and it was on mute of October 1st for the, for it to kick in in July 1st, 2021 for the sunset. For purposes of discussion. So your effective date of October 1st, 2020 would really hold your feet to the fire as a judiciary committee to get this done during our August, September timeframe before it becomes effective? Yeah, I was gonna ask that as far as timeframe goes. I mean, it's not the kind of thing that I think once we pass, it could go into a, well, I mean, if we fix it, it should go into effect right away. And I don't know what January buys us. If we're, I'm just hoping we're done by October 1st. If we're not gonna be done by October 1st, maybe we should push it off into January. Jim Harrison. I'm good with Martin's suggestion. But I just wanna move on. We're wearing you down, Jim. Well, you know, I didn't exactly get a lunch break and now, now supper break is looming. Yes. So Chair, can we see what other kind of concessions we can get out of Jim now while he's hungry and tired? If he brings donuts, he has to deliver. The only problem I'd have with it, with the July 1st date or a sunset being that far out, if the stakeholders can't come to an agreement, we've got a lot in effect for eight months that nobody wants. Not nobody, but you know what I mean, that there isn't an agreement on. Will. Yeah, I don't think it's a lot that nobody wants. And certainly it's a lot that some people might have some dissatisfaction with. And, you know, I share hesitation, because I'm not sold at all that we need a sunset. And, but I would go along with it to advance this. And again, we have to think about the fact that, you know, there are people throughout the state who have met, who have protested, who've continued to say, this needs to be done. And you know, what the people sitting around these, you know, so-called invisible tables right now on Zoom, what we all know about sunset dates and what that will encourage us to do, that how to make work get done, that is not something that necessarily translates to, you know, the average prudent citizen. I mean, they're looking at it quite possibly and saying they are so disconnected from this, they're so unsold on the need for this that they've got a sunset that's almost immediately falling the passage of the law. What kind of crock is this? So if we do have to have a sunset, if that's what we need to move this forward, you know, I think there needs to be some sort of gap to show people and to help us explain to people, well, we need some time to work on this. We need some time to perfect it. And I think having a passage date and a sunset date that are slammed up against each other will really send the wrong message to a lot of them honors. Yeah, I'm not gonna argue against if they're, you know, if they're separated, but I did want to say that your constituents are much more educated than mine are to understand all that. So Will, are you okay with the July 1st or did you have a different suggestion? No, I'm okay with that, but I certainly wouldn't wanna see it any sooner than that. I mean, that's gotta be the earliest possible date that we shove in here. All right, Barbara. So I think it's framing the issue as there's a sunset date in here and that's to recognize that this may very well not be perfect. And as we're gathering more information in the next year, we're committed to making sure this is the right legislation. It's our best thinking, but we're committing ourselves to revisiting that. I'm asking for that. Right, so I think for discussion purposes, let's say October 1 effective date, July sunset, go back to our intent and see if we've made that commitment or if it's clear enough in terms of what, to capture what Barbara just said. Folks okay doing that? I'm seeing some nodding, good. All right, let's do that. So just in terms of collective expectations here, what I'm assuming we are aiming to do is to get through this run through of the bill, which we are almost done doing. I have invited Mike O'Neill to come and have a conversation with us for a few moments about that previous section that we were hung up on. And then our hope would be to take a short break if Brent needs to go redraft something and then that we would come back and take official action on this as soon as we can see a clean draft, which means that we are on eight hours and 18 minutes already today. So let's see if we can crank through the remaining decision points. Can I just get some clarification on the last one? Yes. So you want the new crime to take effect on October 1st and you want it to be sunsetted repealed on July 1st of next year. Do you also want the justifiable homicide statute subdivision three to be repealed on July 1st to ensure that the work is also done on that statute or are you going to leave that one alone? That's the one that provides that a person who wounds or kills another person and a law enforcement officer in suppressing opposition against him or her is guiltless. That's, I don't know if it can be just taking a good look at that subdivision but I can read it to you if you want. Yes, why don't you go ahead? Okay, so it provides that if a person kills or wounds another under any of the following circumstances he or she shall be guiltless. Subdivision three provides in the case of a civil officer or a military officer or a private soldier when lawfully called out to suppress riot or rebellion or to prevent or suppress invasion or to assist in serving legal process in suppressing opposition against him or her in the just and necessary discharge of his or her duty. So that, I think that's, that may give you the committee's a better idea of why this came up in context of this new crime. So it may be your desire to also sunset that provision to ensure that that statute is also dealt with. Martin. Corinne, I think the age are you on. That is not in the bill. That is another law called the justifiable homicide statute. It's at 13 VSA 2305 subdivision three. So I think that's a brilliant idea. And because that's my biggest concern, one of my biggest concerns about this law, but actually that's the law we should frankly have been dealing with all along because essentially the situation where the law enforcement's called out to suppress a riot, how do you exactly define the riot? We've supposedly seen a lot of those around the country that they would be able to use lethal force and get away with it essentially or serving legal process that they would be able to get away with excessive force or lethal force. I mean, it's pretty archaic. Even though it was passed in 1983, but that was back in different days. So I think that this one has to be dealt with at the same time as we're dealing with the other new crime. So I support that. Maxine. Yeah, absolutely. And thank you, Brynne for catching that. And I do know that the Senate Judiciary Committee is committed to this. It also helps to put that in there to put the sunset in there to make sure that we do that and it makes sense, it absolutely makes sense. I think it could be confusing if we didn't do that. So thank you, Brynne, for catching that. And so that would bring us back to, let's see, page three of the intent, line seven, subdivision three, and whether or not we would need to change this or whether or not it's still okay, I'm not sure, but maybe folks can get there and Brynne certainly could chime in. Yep. So I think that that would need to be changed. I put that in sort of in connection with the removal of the new crime, but I think if you're leaving it in with the delayed effective date and the repeal that we could all, I can create some language that says that the committees of jurisdiction will review that section of law in connection with 13 BSA 2305, the Justifiable Homicide Statute and the other statute that's referenced there with respect to the duty of a sheriff. And we can put in some language about who the standing committees should be working with if that's what you'd like, the state's attorneys and the defender general and others, if that's appropriate. And I think that's great. So I think the standing committees would be certainly these two committees in the house and Senate, right? Or does the Senate Judiciary do? Yes, so the Senate Judiciary did 219, as you can see it's a similar overlap in the Senate for these particular issues. Right, but what about government operations in Senate? Would they be, do we have both? Yeah, okay. I think they would be involved in, particularly in 24 BSA 299. Right, okay. So yeah, I think those standing committees. Yeah, Selena, yeah. Maxine, I liked your earlier suggestion that in addition to some of our frequent fliers in the court system, the its attorneys and defender general that we would also seek input from the Human Rights Commission on. So, yeah, going back to just, I'm seeing when we just went back to that intense section that I had earlier suggested in paragraph six that we make sure we have it broader than just the listed entities, the Civil Liberties Union, Racial Disparities and Criminal Justice System Advisory Board, et cetera, to have that broader that we can bring in other interests. And I think we should do the same for the one that we're talking about right now, not have it limited because we should have it broader because I know there are other groups that wanna weigh in. Agree, Martin. Yeah, yep. Yep, great. Agreed. So, Bryn, does that give you a sense of which direction to go? Yes. That's good. I think I've got some good direction and I've got some notes for where I need to incorporate some things that have been suggested. When is the committee planning on reconvening? Or are you gonna stay convened while I go and do this? It depends on how much time you need. I mean, we do have one other conversation that we wanna have with respect to the language on page nine, which we can have while you're off camera and hopefully at that point we will have some clarity on what direction we wanna move forward. Okay, all right, then I'll sign off for now and email the chairs when I've got a new draft. Thank you. Thank you, Bryn. Okay, so if the committees would take a peek at page nine and I'd like to invite Michael Neal to join us, we have been going around on subsection G failing to intervene or report to a supervisor when the officer observes another officer placing a person in a prohibited restraint or using excessive force. I would love to hear your initial reactions to that. And then I would also invite committee members who have specific questions to raise their hand and be ready to ask Mike some questions. Good afternoon. Thank you for giving the opportunity to weigh in again on this and I've sat and had some time to think about both of these and it clearly is a big difference in whether you are going to be asked to intervene and notify a supervisor or do one or the other. And I believe every policy is going to be changed if they haven't already and probably require both or I think they should require both that you intervene and notify a supervisor. I would assume that this is gonna be an area that is heavily trained and it's gonna be made clear what the expectation is if you observe this conduct and I don't think I could possibly support something that didn't require you to do both. I think it makes sense that you would have to intervene and that you would have to also notify a supervisor. Jim. Yeah, thanks Mike. The reason it was put or was, I think at the suggestion of Nodder in that if you were arriving at a scene, this was the example of you arriving at a scene and you didn't know all the details, do you have a responsibility to jump to a conclusion and intervene and that's why the or was added and also to get at the issue if you looked at a video later, even if you weren't there, you would have a repop obligation to report. So, I think we may be fine with putting in, we just wanna make sure we're not doing something that cause issue for an officer arriving on this scene or some other situation that we're not thinking of. Yes, I understand that and I did think about that and I'm looking at this from the perspective of someone who does defend police officers when they face discipline and the standard they are always judged on is what facts they knew at the time and what action can you take based on the facts that are known and I think it would be very easy in a defense to explain, this is what I knew at that moment and I think that would be a reasonable argument to make at that moment, I did not have facts to lead me to believe that there was anything improper yet but it is a good question that is being raised but I still am assuming that policies will require both. If you have knowledge at the time that something is improper, you must act. If you don't yet have that knowledge, I don't think you'll be facing an action against you. It depends on what you knew at the time, just like any crime is a union representative. I'd like to argue the other side of this, I think, but it doesn't make sense to take that duty away from somebody if that's the responsibility we're trying to put on them. Good, thanks, Mike. I'm good. Maxine? So thank you, Mike, that's really helpful and in terms of the effective date, you said that you think policies are gonna be changed and people will be trained to that. Is that something that's happening now? Do we need to give, I think this effective goes in effect on passage so I'm not sure if we need to give a little bit more time for that instead of a non-passage, non-passage, something a little longer. I can't speak for every department in Vermont. Some of them may take a little longer to get this into their policies. The state police are going to be doing this immediately. In fact, I think the policies already reflect it, but some time may not be bad to ensure that every department has this done before the law goes into effect. Yeah, the effective dates on passage. Tom? Thank you. Thank you, Michael. To be honest, I didn't see that coming with the hand or the R. And from what you said, it's kind of, I don't know if it's a written policy or not, but it sounds like you're, that it's done, those types of things are done anyway. And I'm really pleasantly surprised or pleasantly pleased, I guess, or mildly pleased that it isn't and because it does certainly cover more territory, but one of the concerns that I had that I brought up is a situation that was already brought up if somebody came up on the scene and it was somebody that was fresh out of the academy, intervening on somebody with 15 years on the police force. And I guess I'd like to hear your thoughts on that as far as the potential of somebody not intervening or you did answer one of my questions because a lot of it is judged by what you believe is happening at the time, but yeah, I guess I'd like to know your perspective on the pecking order, I guess you could say, as far as rank goes. That can be a difficult issue and I'd prefer not to get deep into this discussion, but I think this is what occurred in Minneapolis. There were some very new officers there and that is an issue and it's why I feel that this is going to become a big part of training. The initial training is going to have to cover this and make it clear that the pecking order per se is something that has to be ignored when we're in these situations, but it is going to be a difficult and sticky issue for some brand new police officers. I hope we don't find ourselves in that situation, but I do believe it's based on, you'll be judged based on the knowledge you had of the situation at the time. Right, great, and I appreciate your testimony on this and it seems like, I mean, to look at it, whether you're saying and or or I guess to the layperson, it may look like something small, but it's very big to the two committees and we certainly had a lot of discussion around it and I think you've put the discussion to rest. I agree, I think it is very significant the difference between the two, a much different obligation to do one or the other rather than both. Thank you. Martin. Thank you. Just a very technical question then, given this conversation and this isn't really a question necessary for you, Mike, but you can weigh in and whether it would be clear for law enforcement if we just change in this letter G, the or to an and or whether we have a separate G that deals with the intervening and an H that deals with the reporting. I don't think I have a preference on that, so I guess I don't have an answer. And let's do and. Yeah, change the or to and, it's easy. Yeah, it's not. Yeah, I agree. Yeah. Okay, thanks. So if we could feel certain that we want to give legislative counsel some direction on that, I would ask us to also make a decision now about bumping out that effective date so that we can let Bryn know that the draft that she's bringing back to us anytime now should include those changes. So what do folks think about an effective date on that section? How much time is enough time for to be ready? You're talking about the and or that we're just looking Well, the whole the whole section. I know you're right. Right. Yeah. So would that have an effect on the Academy or continuing education? I vote for December 1st. That's generous. November 1st. I was just trying to think how much time. I was going to say October, but. I like October. I thought I was going to be. Yeah, I'd support October, but no later than. I mean, no late, not any further back than December. I guess I would ask Michael if he's still on with that create an issue getting the word out to the state police and all the different departments around the state. I don't believe it would. I think this is an issue that the words going to get out very quickly on administrators are going to have to act very quickly on it. I'd prefer to see some time, but it's an issue we will be able to address. Okay, great. Or they will be able to address. I should say I don't run a department. Right, right. Elena. Yes, I am not totally told or convinced that we need to extend the effective date for this section. So I just, I may be the total ally around that, but. What was the effective date October 1st? Upon passage right now, right? Oh, from passage. I think that's what it is now. Yeah. Well, often, often when we're not still here, if we don't do upon passage, it's often July 1 or September 1st. Well, we could keep it consistent with the other one that was October 1st. And it sounds like people are going to be already reacting to this immediately. So this, but this gives them until October 1st. And once that happens, they have to have it done. Yeah, to me, on passage, I mean, in a perfect world, yeah, on passage, but I think the word does need to get out, you know, at least, you know, to me a minimum, at least giving a month for preparation or for some training or whatever. So then we could do September. Yeah, that's fine with me. I support that. September 1? Yeah. Fine with me. Yeah, I mean, that's two months, right? July and August. And the next level three basic training starts August 31st. So when they get to their second day of training, if this is a September 1, it will be enacted. Kelly? Yeah, I would certainly defer to Mike to make sure that all the training, if this senses other police departments, not just the Vermont State Police are gonna be able to get the training in. I think everybody's pretty aware what's needing to be done. And again, we didn't go back to finding out if people are gonna have trouble making sure they have the equipment readily available. I mean, is there any concern around that? And to get the, I mean, not to say anybody's allowed to vacation between now and September 1st, but if they were, then you have to make sure you're getting all your folks in for training. Good point, Martin. So I would really, on this one, would like to defer to what Gov Ops thinks is an appropriate timeframe since you guys deal with the training much more than we ever do in judiciary. Well, and this is as much about training existing officers as it is about incorporating this into the training of new officers. And so if it were only about training new officers, I would say effective immediately is the way to go. Although if the next class doesn't start until August 31st, it would be sort of arbitrary, but the conversation around how you train existing agencies is kind of the issue that's at hand here. And I guess giving them at least a month to figure out how they communicate this and implement this within their agencies makes sense. So you're good with September 1st? I am. Anybody? I was gonna ask if Mike thought September 1st was giving this two months enough notice to just to get the word out. I think I'd wanna be careful not to speak for agency heads. Yeah, I run one of the unions. I don't wanna speak for a department head, a police chief. I guess I can understand that. Bob Hoeper. Mike, this is more like a directive than it is training. Would you not characterize it that way? I mean, this is a new way you do policing, but it's kind of straightforward. I would agree, it's clearly very straightforward, but it also needs to become part of the use of force training so that it's very clear when you're in these situations, the expectation of you. Yeah, I agree with that. It's not like you're not gonna drag everybody back to the academy for two weeks. No. Thank you. So September 1st? Anybody objecting to September 1st? I think September 1 it is. Yeah, and I have emailed Bryn of the two things that we just decided on, changing the order and in September 1st. Great. So thank you, Mike O'Neill for dropping everything at a moment's notice and coming to join us in committee. I'm always happy to help. And I was babysitting my granddaughter and she behaved very well while I was on. Oh, that's awesome. Didn't you hear any stress in the background at all? None at all, thank you. Thank you, Mike. Thanks so much. You're welcome. Go iron those shirts. All right, so we have a few minutes. I'm not sure how many. If we want to just push pause for a moment so everyone can stretch. And then maybe Maxine and I can communicate with Bryn to find out when she will have, when she expects to have a final draft. And Jim can go get somebody. Let's take a 10 minute break right now. And with the intention of coming back to do the final walkthrough, we are about to get draft 3.1 up on the committee page. Bryn has done some quick work with that. And so we will just give Andrea a moment to get that posted and invite you all to open it up and start reviewing it. How are you doing? Woo. I hear you. And you know, I really like a marathon, but I'm not sure I like a sitting marathon. Yeah, I think I'd rather be running for nine hours than sitting here for nine hours. Oh, you're probably almost done. Yeah, yes, too. I think I need, maybe you don't want to see my face anymore, but my video has been stopped by the host. Me too. Maybe she's tired of seeing me. Oh, well, I'm a co-host. I can certainly get you guys back in business here. Ask to start video. I'm going to ask everybody, let's get Bryn in. I think you can all start your video, can't you? I still can't. Good to see you, coach. It's Maxine. How are you doing, Maxine? Good, how are you? Oh, geez, we had a fun one this afternoon. Oh my, all right. Well, I hope you're happy with what we did. Well, it's a step, you know, in the right direction, you know? We had a, well, it'll be public, well, probably as we speak, but it was the, a little bit of a, well, a bit of a civil rights issue with the state's attorneys. And I think they could have saved themselves a lot of trouble. But... So absent people actually turning their video back on, it's hard for me to know when people are all back from their, from their 10-minute break. I still can't start my video on. Yeah, me either. Well, I just asked you to start your video. Maybe that's fine. Okay, there we go. And who else said they couldn't? Me, Maxine. Yeah, Maxine as well. Yeah. There we go. The list is so long. Coach isn't going to be handing out praise after our second 10-hour day here. We're going to have to, we're going to have to talk. Oh, I hear you. Yeah. And the thing, the thing is, you know, how state government uses teams. I know some people are big fans of teams, but, man, I guess once you get used to using one format a lot, you just kind of get used to it. Teams are great as long as you're not thrown into a box and shaken up. I mean, you know, teams are great as long as you're not thrown into a box and shaken up. Well, that's what they did to us today. Okay, so committee, I believe we are still live on YouTube. So I'm going to jump in and invite folks to mute themselves. And we will ask Bryn to take us on a walk through our draft 3.1, which is up on the committee pages. Okay, committee. Good afternoon, Bryn here from legislative council. You should have draft 3.1 posted to your committee page. And I will go through the changes that you've made in this version compared to 2.1. Everything should be in yellow. That's new. So as you can see the first change is in section one, the legislative intent section, we've added the any. So this act is a continuation of your work over the past several years to create meaningful reforms to address any systemic racism and disproportionate use of force by law enforcement. Second change is on the top. Sorry, Bryn, what. Where is the document in what draft. 3.1 is the draft number. And the document. It's not on judiciary. It's on go. It's on the top. So. Okay. I was. Didn't know what room we're in. Sorry. Maybe I'll wait for a moment to make sure everybody has it. It's 3.1 recommended by Senate judiciary. Other 3.1 at the bottom. Oh, right. Yes. Because there are some Senate. Drafts in there as well. So you want. Yeah, I got the wrong one. Is everybody feeling like they're comfortable that they've found the right one. Now I have it. Thank you. Excellent. Take it away, Bryn. Okay. So I'm going to move past that first change since that one's pretty straightforward. I'll move on to page two. This is the sort of the bottom of subdivision A. And we've just added the word transparency here. So this act represents one step in the legislature's ongoing effort to combat racial bias and increased transparency and accountability and policing. Okay. And then if everybody's got that, I'm going to move on to page three. And now we're in the list of things that you've committed to take up. Both in August and beyond. The first change there is in subdivision three. That's new. So it says that your, that the committees of jurisdiction will evaluate the provisions of section six of this act, which is the new crime. Also 13 BSA 20 305. That's the justifiable homicide statute. Also 24 BSA 2 99. And that's the statute that we talked about briefly before duties as peace officer. That. We talked about it briefly. It provides that a sheriff. Shall preserve the peace and suppress with force and strong hand. Unlawful disorder. So it says that. Standing the committees of jurisdiction will look at these three provisions together. In consultation with interested stakeholders to include the attorney general, executive director of state's attorneys and sheriffs. Defender general and executive director of the human rights commission or their designees and revise those provisions as appropriate. Maxine. Yeah. So, so sorry. We're in. Just trying to find where it says. Committees of jurisdiction because. Yeah. Can you just. Maybe I'm tired and not finding it, but can you show me where it says committees of jurisdiction is actually it doesn't. It's just provides that the general assembly commits to working on these things. So it may, it may make more sense of for. For that language on the top of page. Three lines one and two. The general. Something about the. The committees of jurisdiction. Shall work on or the general assembly commits to. Does it matter? I mean, I don't know if it matters, but. I'm not sure it matters either. Okay. All right. Just a legislative intent section. Okay. It's not, it's not necessarily binding language here. Thank you. Okay. I'll move on to subdivision five. This is the. This is the requirement that the general or the. Statement of intent that the general assembly will review the law enforcement advisory board. Model policy. I also added the ACLU model policy. Governing law enforcement use of body cameras and consultation with interested stakeholders. Including that list of stakeholders that was in the previous draft. And developing a statewide policy for adoption prior to the effective date of section six. That should actually read section seven. Change that now. This act. And that is the section that requires the DPS outfit. VSP with body cameras. So those are, that's the, those are all the changes made in the legislative intent section. Making a few little edits as I go here. The next change can be found on the slide. The next change can be found on the slide. The next change can be found on the slide. The next change can be found on the slide. The next change can be found on page six. And this is just that small revision to the language about the data, how the data needs to be posted. So we've amended this. So now the data has to be posted in a manner that is analyzable and accessible and accessible to the public on the receiving agency's website and clear and understandable. Okay. Please do flag us. If there's something that doesn't seem quite right, but that looks good to me. Jim Harrison. Can I just go back. Really quickly to. Page three. About reviewing the. The policies here is on body cameras. So I'm just going to go back to the slide. I'm just going to go back to the slide. I'm just going to go back to the slide. Is, is anyone coordinating that? Or is that just a direction for us? It's just a, it's just a statement of legislative intent that this, these are the issues that you're, that the general assembly is committed to working on. In the remainder of the 2020 session and beyond. So there is no specific directive. Great. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I don't know when to ask any questions, but. In a. Line 15 on page six of the, and clear and understandable. It just didn't flow to me the way that it should have. Would it make more sense to be posted electronically. In a manner that is analyzable, accessible. Clear and understandable to the public. I think it's going to be a little bit better than. Just sticking and clear and understandable at the end. Or if it's fine, I'm. More than happy to. Go back. I think this is really up to, up, up to you guys. I think that I had a suggestion that it. Be posted electronically in a manner that's accessible to the public on the receiving agency's website. So I don't think it's going to be a good idea. I don't think it's going to be clear, understandable and analyzable, but I think there are some members that didn't like that as much. And so I agree that it doesn't flow perfectly. But I don't think it diminishes how understandable that requirement is. I'm good then. Thank you. Thanks, Tom. Okay. So the next change is on page nine. Top of page nine. This is subdivision G. Okay. I'm a professional conduct chapter now. And the committee took quite a bit, had a quite a bit of conversation around this piece about failure to intervene. When another officer is placing a person in a prohibited restraint. So we've just changed the or to an and here. So it's a requirement that. It's considered category B conduct. If a person fails to intervene or fails to report. If a person fails to intervene, it's considered category B conduct. If a person is placing a person in a prohibited restraint or using excessive force. Okay. So I'm going to drop down to the bottom of that page now. Same page. And then section 2407. And we've added to this carve out that. That a first defense of excessive use of force under the authority of the state. Is sanctionable conduct by the council. That makes sense to everybody. Okay. So I'm going to move on to the next slide. So I'm going to move on to the next slide. So I'm going to keep going now. I think that the next change you'll see on page 11, which is the repeal section. So this repeals. That new crime, law enforcement use of a prohibited restraint on July 1st of next year. It also repeals that want that particular subdivision, subdivision three of the justifiable homicide statute on the same date. And then lastly, we've got the effective dates. And so the second tab is the new crime. No, I'm sorry. Section five is the professional conduct portion, which takes effect on September 1st. So adding that those new. Those new instances of category B conduct. And the. And also the carve out for what is sanctionable conduct by the council. Okay. And then section six is the new crime. That takes effect. On October 1st. So a delayed effective date there as well. Excellent. Any questions from committee members? Just want to thank you, Bryn. Excellent. Really. Yes, Bryn. This has been a marathon of a day and I, I'm sure that there are people in your circle who will be happy for you to step away from the computer for the rest of the. Yeah, I'm sure that's true of everybody here. Mike Marwicky. I'd like to move. We accept draft number 3.1 of S2 19. All right. So we've got two different committees who have to take action. And so if it's okay with you, Mike, I'm going to reserve that to be the government operations committee motion, but I'm going to defer to Maxine's committee to, to take the first. The first round of, of making a motion on this. Thank you. And actually, it's going to be 4.1, Bryn. Is that true? Because you were making some changes. To this. Yeah, I made two really technical corrections there correcting across reference. So I, it will be 3.1. All right. Great. Great. And then. So we can go ahead on and so, because it still needs to go to the proofers, right? That's correct. So it has, it hasn't been edited yet. So. I don't know what your, if the plan is to put it on the calendar for tomorrow. Yes. Okay. So I believe that our editors are, are no longer available. So it may just have to go. Unproved, but. We can, I can have them prove it first thing in the morning and I can get any corrections that need to be done, done either on the Senate side or through the house. Clerk. Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you. So, um, so yeah, so because we, the judiciary committee, um, has possession of the bill, um, we would. We would do a vote as a committee. Um, correct. And then, uh, either simultaneously or after, I don't know how, how we would do this in one big room right now, or if we separate into rooms, but, um, house government operations would. Recommend, um, you know, adoption or passage or. For something. Um, yeah, I think it would probably take more time for us to separate into two rooms to do that than it would if we just sat and waited quietly while you, um, vote on the bill. Okay. Great. Um, before we do that, I just, I just want to, um, thank you. And your committee, um, uh, and my committee as well for, for all of your work on this. I mean, this is, I think we did really, really great work. And, uh, for me as a chair, it was really, it's really wonderful to be able to watch you, Sarah. And, and, and have you. Have you run the show and, um, It's great. So I really appreciate it. It has been a wonderful, it has been a wonderful, it has been a wonderful, it has been a wonderful, it has been a wonderful, it has been a wonderful, it has been a wonderful, it has been a wonderful process of being able to listen to the richness of the conversation between the two committees perspective. So I have very much enjoyed being able to, um, to being able to work with these committees, uh, side by side. So thank you. Maxine, I want to echo what you said also as far as, uh, you know, working with the two committees, it's, um, And the back and forth we had was twice what it usually is because we've got twice the number of people. Um, and, but I also think the compromise was probably, there was twice as much compromise. Um, and, uh, I mean, you know, to be honest, I'm not crazy about the new crime, but there was compromises made on it. Um, and, and, uh, a lot of compromises, you know, in agreements, I guess you could say that, that, um, that I find favorable and, um, and before I go any further, I want to thank, thank Bryn for all her work. Um, I don't think we've worked this hard on a bill in a long time. Um, maybe, maybe we've put in as much time on some bills, you know, recently, but, um, but as far as, you know, getting the amount of work done that we got done, um, was pretty amazing, but, um, and I just want to say I will be supporting this bill. Thank you. So I would entertain a motion to, uh, So, um, so let me backtrack. So would it be, so no, it's not a concur. It's, um, just want to make sure I'm getting, getting the wording right. Um, it's past 3.1. I'll make a motion that we concur with further instances of amendment on 3.1 on S2 19. Does that work? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Right. Cause of the strike off. Yeah. Thank you. Um, So Celine, I see your hand. I don't know if, um, If it's discussion or should we get a second and then have discussion or why don't you go ahead? I, I might not have seen your, your hand before the, Oh, I did have my hand raised just for free discussion, but, um, I'm not also happy to second. Yeah. I want to. Or if you want, whoever wants. So you, okay. I just wanted to make sure that I, I. I failed to see your hand and we moved to, um, to put an emotion. So, um, but if you're comfortable doing it with, you know, Within discussion. Okay. So. Okay. So a second. And okay. So, so discussion, Selena, please. Yeah. I was just going to. I just wanted to reiterate the appreciation that many people have expressed for the process of, um, working collaboratively between the. To committees and for brand and. And really for all our witnesses who came in and gave, gave feedback and. Um, I do, I am going to support this bill. I feel like we did some good work in a short period of time. And I do appreciate that we heated the call of a lot of folks in the community who asked us. To slow down on a lot of things. But I will say that I feel a bit would. That have felt a bit with this bill. I think we're doing some good and important work here. And I hope. And I think we've done a lot of work to embed. Um, kind of future processes and consultive processes. Um, Into our next steps. But it does feel to me a bit like we're sort of fiddling with the knobs of a much. Something that needs like really. Structural. Um, Change. And so I just, I felt like I had to. Say that on record that, um, Um, I feel like we've done a lot of good work here. Um, I feel like these provisions. Um, Doesn't preclude doing that. Necessary and important work. And I think. What I heard first and foremost from so many of our witnesses is that we really need to. Lead and guided. And our work moving forward by folks who have. And really disproportionately impacted. Um, And I think that's a great, a great, a great opportunity to get back to that. And I hope others are as well. Absolutely. Thank you. And I think that is our work. Uh, In a. You know, before we come back and, um, and when we come back in August. And, uh, absolutely. And I, and I hope that our. Legislative intent, uh, the message in there gets, gets through. Loud and clear that we do need to hear from. Um, Um, Um, Um, Those who are impacted, especially the most, um, vulnerable and those who are vulnerable and marginalized. And, um, And find a way to hear. Hear their voices. Uh, Not her. Thank you. Um, I support this bill the way it is right now. And. Um, Some of the. There's some additional points that I think actually Selena, I think that we need to hear. Structures. Um, in our systems that create. A lot of the inequity that we're seeing. Um, you know, it was several years ago, probably halfway through my. Career as a cop where I realized where I started seeing much more clearly that there was a very strong connection. Between poverty and crime. And. Um, I think that there are a hundred years that have just perpetuated this cycle of poverty and crime. And that falls largely on communities of color. And then that also leads to more interactions with the police. So I also. I don't mean at all to take away from any of the work that we done. We've done today or yesterday, but I also hope that. You know, I think that there are a lot of the. Um, Systems in place that have kept people. Um, Stratified in the socioeconomic sphere of things. Thank you. Right, right. And we. And we also do need to hear. Um, From the mental health community. And I'm hoping that, uh, I know in the budget discussions, we started talking about having social workers embedded. In police departments, but that's, that's a very, very important part of the discussion in terms of who has been. Impacted. Um, Uh, And certainly folks with mental health, um, facing mental health challenges or folks that have been. Been, uh, been impacted. So. Uh, Tom. Thank you. Uh, just a couple of things. First, I want to say it was, uh, It was, it was good working with my old Irish friend, Mr. Oh, wiki. Because Mike and I spent my first four years together on human services. And, uh, before I moved to judiciary. So it's just nice to be able to work with them again, but on another note, a proud dad moment, um, on occasion, just on occasion, my son and I will discuss what we, you know, what we do in house judiciary. And, um, and I'm proud to say that, um, he has probably more vision than I do. Um, but he, he knows that there's a need for change. Um, you know, he sees it out in Seattle, you know, even before all the unrest, the recent on unrest, he knows there's a need for change. And, um, you know, and he's part of the younger generation on the police force out there that will, uh, that will bring the change forward. So, um, that my proud dad moments. Great. Any, uh, Anybody else on the committee. Uh, coach or you don't see your hand, but I can't tell if you're trying to unmute yourself or. Yes, there we go. Um, Madam chair, I'd like to thank everyone on the call. Uh, both committees. Um, This, this has been a very, um, Turbulent time internally for me. Um, I thought COVID, uh, Put some incredible emotions in place. But then it got stranger. Um, and especially the last few weeks. Um, but I have to say, and I mean this sincerely. That, you know, we, uh, as a state came together. You know, around this legislation. And it's, it's past the point of meaningful. Um, I think we're clearly articulating. That we mean. To create change. And this particular piece of legislation. Speaks to that. Uh, very intently. Um, It's a proud moment. You know, like, like Tom. Um, There's some things that just. You know when you know. And you don't know when you don't. And this is one you do. So I just want to thank you all. Uh, because it isn't. A thing that happens on its own. You know, it takes a lot of folks. You know, to move this kind of a. A change. So thank you all. And I'm really proud to be a Vermonner. Thank you, coach. That means a lot. Anybody else. Barbara has her hand up. Okay. I'm sorry, Barbara. Thank you. Gosh, it's really hard to go after coach. I'm. But, um, It's been really terrific working. And sort of having both committees work so well together. And I'm really proud to be a part of this. And I'm really proud to be a part of this. Because I, it, the wealth of skills that worked on this. Bill has been incredible. And I feel like. We threaded a line very carefully between. Me jerk overreacting. And like, we have to do something. And hearing from people. To what really is going to be helpful and make a difference. And I'm really proud to be a part of that. And, um, Thank you to all of you. And I know I feel like. I want to be. Brief and not say much more. And a gazillion thanks to Brent, who has been like unbelievably cheerful in addition to being so. Responsive. So thank you. Okay. Anybody else. I just want to make sure I'm not missing. At the moment. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. All right. Well, If there's nobody else. Um, And. So, um, Ken is not with us. I don't know if, um, Tom, do you know if he was going to come back or any, we had to leave? I, because I don't know whether, um, I could text him and see if he wants to come back and vote. I have no idea. All right. Okay. Yeah, we, we have missing right now as well. And, uh, and so when we take our straw poll, we will leave that open for him for later. But if you want to reach out to Ken and make sure that. He's able to. Vote. If he's able. Yeah. Let me reach out to him. And, um, why don't we. Um, Start the vote. I'll have, um, Not her call the roll. I'll reach out to him. Okay. Um, I don't want to hold anything open too late because our clerks, our clerk's office are waiting, but, um, But maybe, maybe I'll hear back from Ken in the time that you're. Taking your vote or something. So, um, So. And just correct what I said earlier. This you are voting on draft 4.1 because I had to remove the watermark. And I want it to be very clear that. Um, I'm not going to look a little different than the one you're voting on because there's no draft watermark there. So, um, before you take the vote, and I just emailed it to, um, both chairs. So you should both have it now. I don't think I need to amend the motion, but in case I do, it's 4.1. Good job, Martin. Yeah. No. I was going to ask you to amend it. Okay. The word to the committee as well. Both committees. Thanks, Mike. Yeah. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Did we want to do a line by line on the new draft? Oh, I think we probably better. Yeah. Yeah. Sarah, can you unmute. Please try to help me to shut his camera off. So you can shut his camera off and mute them. That would be great. We're going to have to have the law about, uh, legislators witnessing and interacting. Intervening if we see. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. But that, that, that violence or. Use of force. I just want us to be clear. The motion I have is from Maxine. And the second I have is from myself. Is that, does that sound accurate? Um, actually I had. Martin making the motion. Selena making this second. Doing the second. Good thing I asked. Not. Happy to let you be second. Yeah. All right. Martin is the motion and Selena is the second. Okay. Great. Um, are we good to go? Anything else? Nope. Go ahead. Thank you. Christy. Coach, you muted. Still muted. Yes. Full burn. Yes. Ghost land. Machine. Yes. Not. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Okay. So I have, I have reached out to Ken. Uh, we will need a. Reporter. I have some thoughts, but I want to hear from the. Committee. Um, People could also think about it and we can turn to. Gov ops. You want to do your thing. What? Yeah. Why don't we go ahead and take our straw poll while, while you guys are mulling over reporting since you will have the lead on this. Um, So I have a. Motion from, um, Mike Merwicky. And, uh, this is a straw poll, but we'll go ahead and take it by role. And so Marsha, whenever you're ready. Okay. I am ready, madam chair. Yeah. Yeah. Kits Miller. Yes. Yes. Yes. The Claire. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. We'll keep the vote open for him. He would like to weigh in. All right. Harrison. Yes. Gardner. Yes. Plastic. Yes. Cooper. Yes. Brown L. Yes. Paul. Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. And we'll hold the vote open for. We'll keep the vote open for him. He would like to weigh in. All right. Harrison. Yes. Gardner. Yes. Classic. Yes. Yes. We'll keep the vote open for Rob. When can I catch him in the morning? He said he would be in touch with me tonight. And we will. I will communicate with you as soon as he does. I let him know that we had. A new draft. On the. Committee page. Okay. Thank you. So thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate it. Okay. And I think, Brynn has, has ice in her veins and has been just rocking it with all sorts of cool competence and patients. During a very, very long day. And so. I would, I would suggest that we. Give ourselves a little round of applause and get out of here. Thank you, Bryn. time to go have a midnight snack. So you got to figure out this reporting because they will need to report to the clerk's office. Exactly, I know and I have not heard back from Ken and I uh so anyway uh so again any uh so the sun is in my eyes um it's a good thing. I was wondering Nader would you be interested in reporting this. I can do that. Does anyone want to help? Well I think we all want to help. Anyway that's supportive. I think given your expertise and contribution and knowing that you aren't running again and law enforcement officer and the uh and the respect that you carry with the body I think it would be quite quite meaningful to have you report it. Yes I think it's a great choice. Thank you Nader. Thank you. Thanks Nader, thanks Nader. Way to go buddy. Thanks Nader. We'll provide emotional support. Great if you need to defer to anybody uh defer to uh Kelly first and then Maxine because that's what she did to me. Nader I'm here for you. Right. Thanks. Right. You know she did a nice job on the floor the other day. She's a rock star. Yeah no thank you. That was uh we didn't really know that was going to happen and good thing I was good thing I was up at three o'clock in the morning checking my email and could start to pull together that report. But yeah thank you Kelly. I know and um I wish we could all mail you little notes or something like that because that's what it's a really nice tradition when people probably yeah. Question the draft that I'm reporting is that up right now? On anywhere? Draft 4.1. Um I think it's posted it Nader. Okay thank you. All right and then um right right um would you be able to do a um a section by section for Nader? I'll send that to I'll send that to you tonight. Thank you. Great and great thanks. I wanted to note that the editors are working on it now so I don't know how much longer the calendar will be open but if you can wait for like another 15 minutes I bet they'll be done. Oh wow that's excellent thank you. Brynn. Yeah great and then did you see that note? I did thank you. Don't embarrass me though. Hey okay. And then um then Mike can you please get Nader the witnesses witnesses right? I don't think that I don't think that's the bear sound but this is the time of night so I'm going to actually I'm going to walk with you. Thank you guys with me um get out of the sun. All right so I just want to make sure that's not really any better I'm sorry. There you go. Okay so I just want to make sure I'm covering all the bases so and thank you Mike for jumping in here uh so Nader you'll have your witness list you'll have a section by section um rest of committee members you can think about speaking to the bill um coach I wrote down what you said which was really wonderful um really appreciated that so anything else? Nope. Thank you. Let me just speak. Thank you. Thank you everybody we'll see you tomorrow. For sure. Are we on tomorrow at 8 30? Oh thank you. No. No you didn't say that. Thank you. All right we can go off live and uh and say our good night.