 All right, everybody welcome back it is still Tuesday afternoon at 340 and we are here with Damien Leonard and Damien is one of our staff attorneys and he's going to take us through a strike all amendment on age 93 age 93 is the way it was commonly called the homeless bill of rights bill that we. I think we passed it out of our committee two years ago and then it got caught up in the coven times in terms of it being just we didn't have a chance to get it any further than out of committee, and so this is. A rewritten version of that at the time we had a different attorney working with us and he had some pretty strong views on what was what was right about the bill and what might have been problematic about the bill. So representative Kalaki and represent trying to work with Damien this fall to try to address some of the issues that were in the bill so I just wanted to hear from Damien and then we'll hear from. Representative Kalaki and try out about status of the bill and Damien if you could do like I guess I do your thing really. Great, thank you for the record Damien Leonard legislative council. Mr chair would it make most sense for me to walk through the streamlined. Bill amendment that representative triano representative clackie and I came up with this fall or you want me to turn back to the original bill. Yeah, just yeah let me yeah that's fine that's great. Okay. Okay, go ahead and share my screen here. Oh, great. So, this would be it's a proposed committee strike all amendment. Obviously this is the first time the committee seeing it so this is just for the committee's consideration. It is not the proposal of the committee at this time. The findings here are the same as what is in the underlying bill those weren't touched. I'm not going to spend time on them today unless the committee would like to go over them. But it is something that you may want to review. If you decide to move forward on this bill just to make sure that the findings are all still in line with the committee's intent. And make sure there's nothing that you don't want to either change or add or remove. This brings us to section two which is the homeless bill of rights which is where most of the work and this draft has occurred. What representatives Calachi and triano and myself identified based on my former colleagues testimony. And some of his observations are just that there are some portions of the homeless bill of rights here that are duplicative of the protections that are added elsewhere in the law and some of that duplication can contribute to a lack of clarity and there were also just some words in here that we've tweaked to try to improve the clarity of the law so I'll walk through it with you and then at the end of this section I'll pause for questions. And then I'll move quickly through the remainder of the bill. So this provides that in addition to any other rights or protections provided under state and federal law. An individual shall have the right and the first is to use and move freely in public places including public sidewalks parks transportation and buildings. In the same manner as any other individual and without discrimination on the basis of an individual's housing status. So it's important to note here that the outset in subsection a we've said in addition to any other protections provided under state and federal law so this includes state and federal anti discrimination laws the state's public accommodations law and so forth. So, all of these we're talking about our additional protections. One of the questions that comes up and this this subset subdivision likely has some overlap with our public accommodations law, but for example, is a public sidewalk really a place a public accommodation I think, arguably the answer is no. And so the idea here is to capture anything that's not covered by our public accommodations law and saying that any individual has the right to move freely there without discrimination on the basis of their housing status. There is no treatment by all state and municipal agencies without discrimination on the basis of the individual's housing status. Again, this overlaps with other laws, but there are areas where there are potential gaps in those laws. And the idea here is this is to fill in those gaps and say you can't to strip discriminate if you're a public agency on the basis of someone's housing status. This is to emergency medical care free from discrimination based on the individual's housing status. Again, individuals do have a right to emergency medical care. And what this is just saying is that to the extent that there's any question within those rights to emergency medical care that care should be provided free from discrimination on the basis of housing status. And therefore, the right to vote register to vote and receive documentation necessary to prove identity for voting without discrimination due to the individual's housing status. There were initially some questions, as we were going over this, about whether this lines up with our current voting laws in the state, particularly in light of the push to provide absentee voting in recent years. With mail in ballots that are mailed out to people. But in looking at the Secretary of State's guidance to local officials. Already the Secretary of State is putting out guidance that individuals who are homeless or transient or don't have a permanent address. Or are registering using a PO box because they don't have a permanent physical mailing address shouldn't be discriminated against on that basis so this is consistent with that. And sort of reiterates that point and calls out in really clear language that isn't necessarily elsewhere in statute that you have this right to vote without discrimination based on your housing status. And then finally the last piece here is to a reasonable expectation of privacy in the individual's personal property without discrimination based on their housing status. And what this gets at is really an issue of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. So Vermont as some of you may already know already has a higher level of protection in our state constitution against unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement. What this is calling out and is specifically focused on is in other parts of the country in cases testing this with respect to homeless encampments or homeless individuals. What I mean are some judges not all ruling that an individual for example living in a tent or another temporary shelter doesn't have the same expectation of privacy as an individual living in a physical house. And this is saying the legislature here is is coming out very clearly and saying that you have that reasonable expectation of privacy without any discrimination based on your housing status. And this complements the heightened protections that we have under our state constitution, although those protections haven't been tested with respect to homeless individuals. So this is really complimenting that. What you'll have noticed here is that this section got a lot shorter, and we've taken out areas where it was clearly duplicative of protections were adding for public benefits, employment and public accommodations which are all covered in the next several sections. The next subsection here subsection be is is clarifying that notwithstanding any provision of law or of a municipal charter to the contrary. No individual shall be subject to civil or criminal sanctions for soliciting sharing accepting or offering food drink money, or other donations in a public place. So this is a clarification of language from an early the earlier version of the bill which talked about being impacted by a law that targets homeless individuals. All of potential problems with that language one is the impact could be positive. So prohibiting any impact, or any law targeting an individual who is unhoused would arguably also prohibit laws that for example make emergency housing available, provide for other services or access to services on the basis of housing status. And so what this is saying is that you can't have a law that creates civil or criminal sanctions for doing things like soliciting sharing or accepting or offering food or drink or money. And it really is aimed at provisions in municipal charters dating back to the early 20th century that permit laws targeting vagrants, the poor farms. There are there are any number of them if you go through the charters in the state which allow the particular select board or city council to pass provisions that penalize people for being unhoused, or for being lacking economic means, etc. And so this is aimed at basically saying you can't have that kind of law, even if it's still on the books because your charter hasn't been updated. Subsection C is a continuation of that. And this is saying that no law, rule or ordinance shall adversely impact or penalize an individual based on their housing status, the provision of supports or services to the individual based on their housing status, or the individual engaging in harmless activities that are associated with homelessness. So the, a lot of this is clarifying here. We, I think my colleague did raise concerns about the language harmless activities that are associated with homelessness. It's not the most precise language. It does leave it open to a judge to determine what a harmless activity is. It's also something that I think it gives. It does give guidance, and we struggled to come up with an alternative way of phrasing that that would be adequately broad and also more clear. And so this gives guidance and discretion to a judge to say without listing specific activities so that a judge could say, yes, this is protected this is a harmless activity associated with homelessness. And so that that was one thing that didn't change from the underlying law here but what we've done here at the top if you can see my cursor in the area I'm highlighting is where we're saying you can't adversely impact or penalize an individual based on these things, you could provide targeted supports to an individual however based on their housing status, and you can also target harmful activities that may or may not be associated with homelessness so this doesn't prohibit, you know, criminal sanctions for, you know, engaging in activity that's prohibited by law. Um, so what we've added here. And what we've done here is we've clarified the underlying bills set a person aggrieved by a violation may bring an action in superior court for appropriate relief, including injunctive relief and actual damages. As well as costs and attorney's fees, and we've kept that language here, but what we've added in subdivision to is that the relief provided pursuant to this section shall be in addition to the relief provided under other provisions of law. The reason for this is because the public accommodations law and the employment discrimination law actually provide somewhat better relief if you go to court, and they also provide other avenues for relief, such as a lawsuit through the attorney general's office. And one of the concerns that we had here was that this could be seen as, you know, an either or a proposition. So we're making it very clear that this is in addition to some other words you have a violation of the public accommodations law but you also arguably have a violation of the homeless bill of rights. You have the right to bring a lawsuit under both laws and seek relief under both laws for those violations, instead of being told, you know, only parts one and two of your three part complaint are covered by your, your lawsuit under the public accommodations law. So those are the changes in that section. I'm going to stop the share for a minute and just see if there are questions. Thank you. I do have questions and I was just going to try to go back. I have one on it just came to my mind and could just be me drawing a connection that doesn't exist but looking at the line 11 on page to the emergency medical care, free from discrimination based on individuals housing status. I know in my community, we can join our rescue squad with a $65 per household that allows us not to have a bill if an ambulance has to come to our home. It doesn't mean that an ambulance wouldn't come to where someone was in need necessarily but is that considered discrimination. I don't receive a bill but someone who was maybe out on the sidewalk in front of my home would for the same service. So, I think, to the extent that the individual who doesn't have a permanent house, like you do could also register with the emergency medical service and get the same freedom from a bill. I don't treat it any different because they don't have a physical address, or a physical permanent home. But they're, they're still entitled to pay that that fee and receive emergency care discrimination, I think that you would be able to say that that's free from discrimination. I think if it's limited only to people who have a house. I think that there's a potential argument. And I don't think I can be the one to settle the argument but I think there is a potential argument that that's discrimination based on housing status, because an individual who's not housed, but lives in that that district is being treated differently. So I think that would be the question but I think you could potentially find ways to modify that policy to if there were concerns that it was discriminatory I know this was my understanding of this is that it was aimed particularly at emergency rooms, but I could see that if it's prohibitively expensive to even get to the emergency room. Then that could be a form of unequal treatment there based on housing status. And it is connected to address it's mailed out to everybody and it's anyone within your household and address so it's very much limited to householders. So it would, and I had another I don't want to belabor saying that there's probably other questions, it's just something to flag, and the other that I would be curious about is the voting, because there's a resident requirement. It's one in our community and it's one that I separate resident from citizen when when we just did some votes this year of allowing people who are residents but not necessarily citizens to vote. But it does require that you are a resident and so I am a little confused. And we're talking about local elections as opposed to Europe. You're a resident of the United States that would apply, potentially in our mind to a different type of ability to vote, but how do you define a resident without the address and I know that's kind of the whole point of all of this but it does just again put up a flag for me of how would we do this. Yeah, so I am going to the Secretary of State right here. I'm on their website right now and I'm just looking for. There we go. Who is a resident for voting purposes. A Vermont election law defines a resident and I'm reading directly from the Secretary of State's website. As a person who has domiciled in the town as evidenced by an intent to maintain a principal dwelling place in the town indefinitely, and to return return there if temporarily absent, coupled with an act or acts consistent with that intent. So that's 17 vs a 21 22 be the law, and then the Secretary of State's website goes on to say the law creates a subjective standards. This means that it is the voters intent and actions that determine residency, not how many nights a year the voter sleeps in the town. A voter who has more than one home must decide on their principal dwelling place. So that says Vermont election law allows a person to repaint registered in the last town in which they resided. If they are in the military in a nursing home, etc. And then going down. Just see here. You may register to vote if I'm homeless. If you are homeless, you may register to vote in the town and in the district within a town that includes the place that you consider your principal dwelling place. The definition of residency applies in the same way to someone who is homeless, as it does to persons who own or rent their principal dwelling place. So what really comes down to for the individual who is homeless is what is the place that they consider their principal dwelling. I think one of the potential issues here. This is just from the way this tripped us up as we were trying to work through it this fall is making sure that this is clear and known to town clerks and election officials across the state. And also that there's education for individuals who are homeless and may say, well, I don't have a, you know, traditional dwelling. So, where am I supposed to register so there may be an education issue here. But the Secretary of State's interpretation is that it's, it's where the place that you consider your principal dwelling is, whether that is an actual traditional house or apartment or if that is a place where you can't spend the night. Or, or otherwise, you know, intend to remain and keep as your, your principal location for dwelling. Thank you very much. Representative hangover walls. I just wanted to corroborate what representative Murphy was talking about the ambulances the emergency medical people who would come to your home. The subscription service really is very specific, even if it's a guest in your home, they do not fall under that subscription fee and would have to pay the cost of an ambulance. So it is definitely address based. Yeah, so this is something where the committee may want to take testimony from emergency medical service providers. And it, you know, I think there are some questions here about whether the language as it is right now is potentially having impacts that are not intended by the committee and so that's really a policy question for you. And it may be helpful to get some testimony from the ambulance services, understand how they deal with individuals who don't, you know, who are homeless, and don't have a physical address to register for purposes of a subscription service. Again, depending on the committee's intent. The language here could be clarified, could be narrowed, or it could be left as it is. So, just some, some options to consider for the committee. Thank you. I need a couple of clarifications. And the first one is very much related to representative Murphy's question about voting. My impression that you needed to have an address to be on the checklist. And I think it can be general delivery, for example, it can be pretty non specific. So I'm just wondering, can you say, you know, the campground in the North 40. I mean, I just don't know how big that can be, if that's an issue. You know, I, I don't know the answer to that question. It might be helpful to have someone from the elections division at the Secretary of State's office to come in and talk about how that's handled and, and, and I think that would probably be the most helpful to understand what I can speak to is just the general guidance and, and FAQ answers that are on the Secretary of State's website and the, the parsing that we did with the statute this fall trying to make sure that we didn't need a broader change to the election law, which was our initial concern as we were looking at that. Okay, the other point I want to make a clarification on is making making sure that they understand that basically this protects pen handling that I mean this municipality cannot pass an ordinance that bans pen handling. I think not in a, you know, respectful manner. I think that that would be a reasonable conclusion to draw from that language that says you can't penalize harmless activities that are associated with homelessness. There, there may be an argument however that you could for example, restrict locations. For example, you know, you could say, I'm trying to think of how, how you would phrase this reasonably but if for example there's a reason why engaging in a specific activity in certain locations is dangerous and could cause harm. You could say for example in this location, it's not appropriate but you know 20 feet away from that or something like that you, you could, you know, kind of limit it but again it's, I'm worried about speculating here, because this this could be pretty case by case but I think the question is going to be, is it a harmless activity, and if there's potential harm, resulting from the activity in a specific location then I think you've got an argument that you could pass a restriction, but not an across the board ban. If the activity is harmless when when done in a safe way. Okay, thank you and thank you and that's what I thought we were doing. Thank you. Yep. I didn't mean to your point here. One of the, one of the questions about discrimination laws that are especially with language like this is that it is hard to say one way or the other. Whether or not this is the right choice that it has to be interpreted by the courts with with this under a specific case is that kind of your, it's not a doctrine it's just the way that the law in this case works is that right. I think a lot of times with discriminant discrimination laws or anti discrimination laws. You know, there, there's a balance between drafting a law that's clear enough that it gives guidance on what you can and can't do without getting overly specific. And what ends up happening is these cases are so fact specific that it's hard to think of all of the facts and to address all of the what ifs. You know that there may be some argument to say that, you know, reasonable regulations related to, you know, this, this section isn't intended to prevent municipalities from adopting reasonable regulations related to health and safety that are universally applicable, but it is intended to prevent you from adopting something that says panhandling period is prohibited across the board or, you know, homeless encampments soliciting food. These things are prohibited across the board, but you could for example say you can't obstruct traffic. Well, you know soliciting donations, and that could apply to people soliciting charitable donations as well as people, you know soliciting assistance, if they're homeless so something like that where it's it's more targeted at public health and safety because there could be a danger if you're doing it in, in the right of way of a street. And I'm just trying to think of something where there's a clear health and safety issue. But I think as you get into this with these, even with these sort of generally applicable laws there are sometimes arguments that there's a disparate impact, and the law was written generally but it's intended to impact a particular group. And that is really something that judges and juries need to evaluate, because the facts are so important in those cases. So I think that's lacking that by wrong. Thank you chair and thank you Damian for this work. Just two things where we've gone so far. One is with Tommy, it is about a public space that is that what you brought up your point about panhandling and so later on the bill will see about public accommodation. And that we include the homelessness protected class so I think we'll look at that there as well the same question you brought up Tommy. And then the second thing about aligning the rights for people without homes to vote and aligning it with the Secretary of State. Representative Bluming and I went to the Sears encampment in Burlington and spend a morning talking to people. And one particular person we spoke to had lived there for 14 months. And it built a home there and they're, you know, and so seems to me that that person could rightfully claim that that was his home and that he should have the same right to vote. You know, and, and, and I think we also heard about a man who lives by the some railroad tracks for five years in testimony in a committee. So it seems to me in this way the Secretary of State, I've said it that that person could could actually demonstrate that that that's where they have lived for the last five years and that's the home. So we're, you know, we're just all we were just trying to align it and simplify it. So those are my two points for now. So my question is kind of clarifying what you're, David, what you mentioned about blocking traffic. I mean, does that pertain to pedestrian traffic automotive traffic or both traffics. Yeah. So, this is, again, this is how you need to have it be a reasonable. You know, it. You can have reasonable municipal ordinances. That are, you know, aimed at, for example, you know, preventing, you know, public health and safety issues such that that might occur from like an obstruction and in vehicular traffic on certain roads. But at the same time, you know, it needs to be reasonable so it can't, you know, you can't simply say people can't walk on, you know, public streets because you have to cross the street. And sometimes you have to walk to get to your car and sometimes like this morning the sidewalks aren't allowed and you've got to get your kid to school. And there, there are issues like that that we engage in here in Vermont. On the other hand, you could see how potentially someone occupying the lane and obstructing traffic on a main road could could cause risks both to drivers and themselves or preventing someone from getting across the street when they're trying to cross in a crosswalk something like that. So I think that the challenge with these is how do you craft it in a way that's not discriminatory. You know, so you're not targeting. And the goal here is, is not to be targeting something like panhandling it's to be targeting something that's not a safe. It's an activity and what this bill does is it says you can't, you can't penalize it because it's an activity associated with homelessness, but you could prohibit something that is generally unsafe. And I brought up obstructing traffic just because that seemed like, you know, the first thing that came into my head. So, but there, there are instances where, you know, you can. So, another instance that I could think of just drawing on on experience with places I used to live is when I lived in the Southwest during fire season they would prohibit open fires outdoors because of the risk of wildfire in certain areas. So that that could be another generally applicable public health and safety thing. And it would, it would impact both housed and homeless individuals. What you couldn't say is that homeless individuals cannot have a fire outdoors. So that's, that's the difference here. There are a number of things, and you can't have like an across the board provision that's targeted at at homeless individuals or an activity that's specifically associated with homelessness. So having a fire outdoors in an area that's fire prone, that's a potentially generally applicable sort of public health and safety thing that may impact some homeless individuals who live in that area, but it would also impact others who use the area. The way not good hairs on my definitions but like what about like unwanted fee for service and we should wash it. That's a great question. I'm not sure that it's a good question. I think that in the interest of time, let's not answer. Yeah. So where are we on the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Where are we on the bill before I let representative try to ask you another question. So where we are on the bill is we're going to fast forward through the next several sections because there's no change. And we're going to highlight just one more section that was added to cover something that was missing from the original bill. So it's the point page. It's. We are on page three of 11 we're going to skip up to page 10. And highlight one section that was added. So we're going to we're going to skip seven pages and get to the end of the bill from this point. Yes, representative. Am I on the right bill. Oh, I'm, I apologize. I'm on the wrong bill. I'm not really going to ask a question. That's called legislative legislating at 418. No, it's not. You have so we did have definitions of housing status added throughout these other sections and so section be here right at the very end is added. This is the section you're talking about. Yep, so let me just pull back up my screen. There we go. And so what we're doing is this is 33 vsa one oh one this wasn't in the underlying bill. But it relates to the policy of the state of Vermont with respect to public assistance and benefits. And this we're basically saying assistance and benefits shall be administered promptly without restriction or discrimination on account of race, religion, political affiliation, housing status or place of residence within the state. And so we're adding housing status and the definition that we've used throughout the bill. And we've changed the effect of date. You scroll your screen to the end there. We're seeing it for page one here. Oh, whoa, I'm sorry. That was very strange. So I Sorry, I, I literally have this. I have it open on two different screens and I was scrolling on the other screen and wondering why you couldn't see what I saw. So, yep, what we're adding here is housing status here. So we've added housing status to the protected classes for purposes of public benefits. And then we're adding the definition of housing status that we've used throughout. And then on a page or line 17 we've updated the effective date to this July one. Yep. So that's it. So I think the questions for the committee really at this point are additional witnesses you may want to hear on some of these issues. The takeaway from our earlier discussion is that a lot of these things that we can think of are pretty fact specific. And in some cases it would actually really take the look at the individual ordinance to really make a determination on, is this targeting someone on the basis of their housing status, or is it a generally applicable. That sort of traditional ordinance that's aimed at protecting health and safety or something like that. And the right now the way the bill is written. It, it says that you can't adversely impact or penalize someone based on their housing status, and a, a what's called a harmless activity that's associated with homelessness. The, the question then would become for under the current language is, what is a non harmless activity. And that would probably have to be determined on a case by case basis. And that for an entity trying to regulate under this, what you're getting at is really the question of, are we targeting a something that's potentially a harmful activity, or a harmless activity and are we specifically targeting something that's associated with homelessness. We are targeting something that's associated with homelessness we're immediately on to a higher level of having to say, now we have to make sure that this isn't a harmless activity. If we're targeting something that's sort of a general activity. The only question really becomes, is this a sort of getting out homelessness homelessness or homeless individuals without saying it. You know so is it sort of a front for our real intent which is to target something that the homeless population in our community engages in, but we're saying it's generally applicable and that's, that's similar to what you engaging with any other discrimination law, we don't have a generally applicable rule in the workplace for example, but it's really the only people that impacts negatively are pregnant women, or our individuals with a disability, or individuals with a specific religious practice. Even though we've worded it generally. So that that's the same sort of considerations that we'd have here without getting into the specifics of each regulation that we can imagine. I see a question from or a comment from representative. Thank you chair students a few things that come to mind on the panhandling piece. I think the case could be made for discrimination if you allow fire departments and rescue squads to stand in the middle of the road and solicit donations, whereas you may not be a may not allow homeless person to do the same thing. The other side of that is that there is actually a section in the disorderly conduct statute that is for blocking vehicular traffic. So, both could be liable for criminal offense I suppose. But you know those are my thoughts on that and I think that what you're saying Damian is accurate I think case by case and we did talk about malls for instance whereas who has the authority to control behavior. Specifically to homeless people within a mall does a shop owner and I think Luke's opinion was that I've had to be the owner of the mall that would have to intervene and not a shop owner who rents. That was another discussion I remember having. So, you know the mall in general is going to come under the public accommodation statute. So by adding protection on the basis of housing status what you're doing is protecting against an individual being excluded simply because they're homeless. So they could be, you know, excluded from that space for the same reason that any of us could be if for example, we caused a disturbance or damaged property or something like that or we're harassing individuals who work at the mall. So those those are non discriminatory reasons to exclude someone versus simply saying, I know that individual is homeless. I'm going to exclude them on that basis, simply because they're homeless. That's, that's sort of the issue with the mall, and then within the mall itself, you know the mall owner or the person who operates it is the property owner so they would be the person who would seek, you know, to exclude someone. That said, I would guess that under their lease, most of the store owners have the right to control their premises and then would seek assistance from the mall owner. But in all of these cases, this bill would, would add language that prohibits you from doing that on the basis of the individual being homeless. You know, but you could do it for all of the same reasons you could do to any other individual if they commit, you know, criminal activity, or are harassing or, you know, damaging properties something like that. See another question. I want to finish as close to 430 as we can. I thought you said hang out I'm sorry thank you, Mr chair. I think that the police department and the fire departments when they do their coin drops. If we get permission from the city or town. I could, I remember they are alderman. When I was at a meeting there. There was a request for them to do that. So I think that might be the difference. Yeah. Yep. I just want to make a point that we had a very long discussion about the term perceived or the perception of being homeless and we never really came to a conclusion about that and I'm not really opening it for discussion today. I think that's something for us to think about, but I did want to ask your opinion, Damian, because I don't remember the answer to this question. As defined in 42 USC 11302 the definition of homeless. Does that there's a US code mentioned perceived homeless. I will get you an answer to that. I think I am. It might take me a couple of minutes and I want to be conscious of the time here. Would it be okay to the committee if I just email you the answer. Sure. Thank you. Okay. Sure, I'll send you the section of code and then Ron can post that for anyone who's following this debate and wants the answer. So I will do that this evening. Thank you. Thank you. All right, committee. I guess we can go on.