 Good morning and welcome to Vermont House Judiciary Committee. It is Thursday, April 22nd. And for the next half an hour or so, we're going to be discussing S seven, which is an act relating to expungement. What I'd like to do now. We don't have any witnesses. I just want to have some. So we have a discussion and I'd like to outline a proposal for S seven and ask your support. In terms of some background, we've been working on this bill since March 18th. And we held hearings on it on the 18th, the 24th, the 30th, April 8th, April 13th, April 14th, April 20th, and April 22nd. And we've heard recently that we heard opposition from the state's attorneys on April 6th, the state's attorneys submitted written testimony stating general support for the bill and highlighted fiscal concerns. And it was only this week that we heard a number of other concerns that I very much appreciate regarding unintended consequences, including certain crimes and not knowing the full list of other issues that may raise concerns. Certainly these are concerns that need that need addressing. Late in the day yesterday while we were in committee, I heard from the bankers association that the administration through DFR asked the bankers association to oppose the bill. I've asked Evan and he has posted their concerns. Very much appreciate these concerns and certainly they are very important to look into. But I can't help but note my frustration at the timing of this recent opposition. Nonetheless, this is a critical bill that we need to get right. So what I would like to propose is to take a pause on S seven. And then separately direct the justice oversight committee. And then we'll move on to the issues that are currently in S seven that we were originally going to ask the, or as the bill is drafted, I'm going to ask the sentencing commission to look into. However, I think it would be better to have the justice oversight. Committee to do it. We've been asking the sentencing commission to do a lot and haven't necessarily followed their lead. This bill was a recommendation by the sentencing commission. So I've asked, I know that Brynn is working on this language. I've been in touch with Senator Sears. So, you know, we both, both of us feel that this is a very important bill. This bill has, experiment general has been supported by this committee for a number of years. I think often unanimously or if not close to that. So I do want to keep the issue alive. And so. So stay tuned. Okay. Okay. As I said, we'll be working on the language. I would like to put that in the miscellaneous judiciary bill. The directive to the justice oversight committee. Cause it's too important to, to totally stop work on this issue. So, and I would appreciate your support. Where we are. Open to discussion time. Go ahead. Thank you. I think at this point, that's the right thing to do Maxine. I feel I'm partially responsible for bringing up some objections late in the game. You know, mainly around the, you know, the exploitation of children and, and I've also brought up and talked about domestic violence. And I've been giving it more thought that there's, and again, I don't know what all the crimes are, but I do know that, you know, in recent years, we've, we've got, we've got rid of statute of limitations on a, on a number of a number of crimes. And, and, and I don't know if that may be something to look at as far as not being potentially not being expungible. Because if we're, if we're, if we're looking at a crime that's egregious enough to, you know, to remove the statute of limitations, is it, is it too egregious to possibly expunge them? Just an idea. And again, my, my views, especially on the exploitation of children or anything sexual having to do with children, I would have real trouble, you know, you know, expunging those types of crimes. But anyway, I think, I think overall your plan is a great plan and we'll certainly support it. And, and, and I agree that expungement is important and it is something that the committee has overwhelmingly supported through the years. This is, this is a big expansion. And I think the individual crimes need to be definitely need to be looked at a little closer. Right. Right. Thank you. Yeah, certainly. And there's, there are distinctions between Mr. Meener sex crimes felony sex crimes. And so we need to definitely, whoops, I lost all of you. There you go. Wow. Sorry. Definitely need to sort, sort all that out as well as crimes where someone can be a sex offender registry. And so, so lots of questions again, I appreciate it. You know, timing is, is, but we're not, we're not all on our, on our best game these days. So let's see Barbara and then Martin. And then yeah. So obviously it's so important that we get this bill, right? Because if we, if the first round passed and there was God forbid a something that went wrong, somebody that got their record expunged committed, like it would, it would have consequences moving forward. So I agree that we have to be really careful and thoughtful as we've been doing of how to get this passed. And it is unfortunate timing wise, especially given all the things that we could work on that could get done, but we've been incredibly productive. And I think this makes sense rather than trying to pass this and get a veto. So it sounds like you want to seal it, not expunge this bill. And until the timing is right with the justice oversight committee, which I support and think it's wise at this juncture. Thank you. I gotta say great analogy, Barbara. I know I'm thinking to myself, it's boy, I wish we could do a virtual cabaret because we're starting to get a lot of, you know, puns and materials as we. Oh yeah, right. Martin and Selena. So yeah, I think we need to put this on pause. Just one other concern that I have is that we need to line up what's expungible and timing with the sex offender registry. And we need to really take a deep dive on that as well. I'm not so sure I agree with where it's going, but that's fine. I actually still believe that the sentencing commission in the first instance should line up our expungement with the revised criminal code. I think eventually that needs to be done and it would save time if we just did that now and it would also be a lot more straightforward, but I understand the timing issues. So I think if it has to go to the joint justice oversight committee, that's fine as well. I guess I'm a little concerned of, maybe you can enlighten us a little bit more on how that would work with the joint justice, because the sentencing commission presumably would have more time to dig deep into this or is that not the case? I just don't really understand so much how the joint justice oversight committee really works and how much time they're able to put towards something and dig down deep or have witnesses, or is that not really what you're envisioning? No, no, those are great questions. So the committee generally meets once a month in the off session for a good part of the day. It's 10 to 3 30 ish or so, and we do take testimony. And so, for instance, this would be on the agenda. And we would take testimonies from state's attorneys, from victims, from let's counsel. And we would, we would ask the question about different crimes, the relationship between, you know, expungement, sex offender registry and, and take testimony as we do in these committees, but it's, but it's just much more, I want to say, intense, whatever. And Brent actually has staffed the committee for a while. And so, so, Brent, I welcome you to chime in, but we, you know, we, we give the directive. And through, through the testimony and hearings, the committee gets that information. And Brandon, am I missing anything or? No, I think that's a really good summary. It's operates very similarly to the policy committees, except for that it's a full day meeting. And, and I agree that the intensity is pretty high. There's not a, you know, they do, they are able to drill down pretty deep in those full day meetings. And for the past several years, you've actually met more than once a month because you've requested additional meetings. So I think, I think last year you met maybe 12. Or maybe it was a year prior to COVID. There was a, there was 12 meetings. So they do manage to get a lot done. And also because Ledge Council staffs that we have access to all of the, all of the work that was done during the session. So we can rely on that and crafting any recommended, recommended potential of proposed legislation. So I assume also that presumably stakeholders can be working informally on this, just like happens in the regular session, you know, that they could be doing their homework offline and, and also consulting to, to figure this out. Okay. I appreciate that. Yeah. Yeah. No, absolutely. And yeah, thank you for it. And it is a lot of work for our legislative council. Yeah, quote unquote off season. And I think it's, it's demanding for, for our council as well. And then it is joint house and Senate. And there are members right now. It's a judiciary in the house. It's a judiciary corrections. And human services. But as you know, in, as three, we're looking to put some healthcare on, which I think makes sense. And then on the Senate side. It's judiciary, but you sure also does corrections. Health care. Right. And really sort of the same, the same committees are the same policy committees are represented. I do have one other question as well. So I continue to be concerned that we're not making progress on revising the criminal code, which I think as long overdue and is definitely necessary. I mean, I, again, I feel that the next step with expungement is to line it up with the revised or criminal code. My concern with the joint justice oversight proceeding with this is we're going to have further setbacks on being able to get to a point of a revised criminal code. What is the chance of, you know, if I work with the legislative council. Before this is taken up by joint justice oversight of an alternative proposal that aligns that sets forth the alignment with the revised criminal code so that that's before the joint justice oversight committee as well. It's just, I, we keep on going down this road. Working with our relatively jumbled criminal code. And we have this good work that's being done by this committee, as well as the sentencing commission. And I think aligning, you know, now might be a good time to present that as an alternative. And, and, you know, I'm willing to give that a shot, but is that a waste of my time if I do that, or is that something that, that could be presented to the joint justice oversight. I don't, I don't think it's so wasted your time. I think it certainly could be presented and. No, I think that, I think that would be valuable. So appreciate that. Yeah, thank you. Selena. Hi. I accidentally turned my camera on. I just wanted to say I, I think it's no secret I'm a really strong supporter of expanding pros and cons. Um, and, um, I don't share many of the concerns that I've been raised about the bill. And I also think it's. I want, I want, I want us to be able to expand expungement. Um, just hearing the kind of volume of the concerns that have been raised here in the final hour. I think it is really important for us to take enough time to make sure we can really build support around the policy that comes out of this committee. And so I do support your approach, Maxine, and just, you know, I feel, I think the heart, the thing that's hard about it is just, you know, thinking back to Mareto Riley's testimony the other day about how she has like long-time clients who are just waiting for us to pass this bill so they can get their lives going again. And so I think it's important to take the time to get it right. And I, but I also really hope we will continue to feel some urgency about this and really appreciate where I hear you coming from Chair Gradd, which is, which is to make sure we have a strong expungement policy that can become law. So I support, I support your proposal here and just wanted to share those thoughts. Great, thank you. I appreciate that. And yeah, no, this is expungement is it's workforce development issue and it's an public safety issue. And it's it's critically, critically important. And my hope is by having justice oversight continue to look at it. We do keep the conversation going as opposed to putting a stop, total stop on the bill. So thank you. Appreciate that. Selena, Kate. Thanks. I'm sorry if there's some background noise and my camera off. I guess I just felt compelled to raise my hand one to say, you know, I really appreciate the approach that you're taking, Chair Gradd, as a, you know, social worker, I'm all about process. And I think we have to get the process right. And I think that's how we build the best, the best policy. And, you know, in terms of building coalition and ensuring that questions are answered. And I trust in this process that you're, you're putting forward. I just, I do feel, I do feel like I just want to say that I can't help but feel with an issue like expungement that it's, it's in part resistance isn't in part ideological in nature. And, you know, I think when we were talking about the Bureau of Racial Justice Statistics, one of the things that I was asking Susana Davis about was, you know, my, my, my concern sometimes is that we, we claim to want data and we claim to want answers. And we, and we do all this work to gather that information. And then there's still strong resistance. And I feel like with something like expungement, we're trying to address public safety and equity issues. And I think, you know, in testimony, we were presented with a fair amount of evidence that people who would be seeking expungements in the situations that are laid out in this bill are really, the evidence suggests are not a threat to public safety and that people are disproportionately impacted by these issues. And so, you know, my concern, my concern with this, I support the move we're taking. And I just want to flag that concern that I feel like at some point, it's not about answering the right questions or gathering the right statistics. It's about making an ideological decision about how we're going to approach issues of public safety and equity. Thank you. I appreciate that. And I think of some of the stories that this committee has, has heard people who have, who have had their lives really unhold and set back because of criminal records. And so hopefully we can continue to get those stories out there and help people understand why it is so important. So, all right. Well, thank you. Thank you so much. I appreciate your support as always. So let's take a break. Oh, coach, go ahead. Good morning. Good morning. I just wanted to ditto. Actually, all of the concerns. And what's really cool about our committee is the balance of thought and thoughtfulness in our process. And that's what makes it great. And nothing's perfect, you know, because if it was, you know, we'd all be angels and needless to say we're not. But, but that being said, you know, I really want to send kudos out to the whole team, you know, because this is, you know, why, you know, it's effective. And it's not about us and them. I saw a really cool thing about Ubuntu. And it's the term that talks about we're one and we're all. So what affects one of us affects all of us. So as we start to clarify and create a system that is more reflective and introspective of who we are, the better off we all are. And I think we're getting there. We're working on it. And that's important. And thank you for your leadership. So I just needed to say that. Thank you. Thank you, coach. I appreciate it. And I think you might be an angel. So Barbara, so I really appreciate everything everyone has said. I the other piece I want to mention, and I know we don't have much time left in session, but I check back with chair Stevens about the bills that I have in his committee. And the one bill that he said was more likely to come up is the discrimination against people with criminal records. And that's specifically related to employment and housing, etc. And again, I would love to see that as a companion piece. But I just I don't know if that is I assume it will be not a slam dunk either. But again, we have really good data. And as Martin's prepping for the summer on both what's happened to people who have had their records expunged, and where they've passed these discrimination, anti discrimination laws. So I'm just hoping to Kate's concern that people will be open to looking at valid evidence based studies. So thanks. Yeah, thank you. And certainly we can, we can put that in the in the charge to justice oversight as something to look at. And then I can be writing a note I can check in with with chair Stevens about about that bill. Okay, thank you. So I'm going to skip now to to our joint hearing. So, coach, I'll have you take the lead and do your presentation. Does that does that work for you? Yes. Great. Oh, wow. Yeah. Okay. All right. So, okay, great.