 Good afternoon and welcome to Vermont House Judiciary Committee. It is Tuesday, May 18th, and we're going to first just do an update on S7 bill regarding to expungement, which is up for action today. And then we will turn to age 183 bill regarding sexual assault and our question there will be whether or not to concur with the Senate proposal of amendment. So in terms of S3. I was surprised when it came up for for action because I had or sought on the actually sought on the action calendar today because my understanding was that it was going to be going to appropriations and there are some back and forth with the clerk and speaker and appropriations, which I'm sorry Maxine to interrupt you but I, you said S3 do you mean a seven. Yep. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate that. And so after some back and forth it. It seemed as you saw what happened best to postpone action at least until this afternoon so could figure out if the bill in fact needed to go to go to appropriations. So just a quick fiscal note for the for S7 it has been posted on our website. I did speak with our liaison representative Trevor squirrel from appropriations during the lunch hour and he informed me that last week. Yeah, they did look at S7 I had sent him both the more expanded bill as well as the bill that we voted out on Friday and will be reporting on the floor, and, and representative squirrel reached out to the state's attorneys into the judiciary, and was told that they don't know what the impact would be. However, their understanding is that given the relief money that that is coming that the Senate proposed that we reviewed as a committee that they think that that that will help. And so they did not request any additional funds at that time, and thought it'd be best to wait and see and perhaps for budget adjustment, you know there was something needed at that time, then they could come back. And that there wasn't anything needed and so appropriations does not need to have have the bill. There is a question about the surcharge piece of the bill that my understanding was that was more like a technical fix and I've been working with Bryn, who's been working with JFO to try to understand that. Regardless of that again, according to house appropriations they do not need the bill. They are not concerned about the fiscal note and any needs at this point, and it can be revisited, if needed, during the budget adjustment so that's, that's where we are. And as reporter, do you want to add anything. No, just, you know, just trying to make sense of some of what came up in the fiscal note kind of in the final hour but I think you summarized really well and it's helpful to I appreciate Maxine all the work you've done this morning just to keep kind of looping back around with the appropriations committee and really do some very serious due diligence to make sure they didn't need to weigh in on the bill and also really appreciate that there will be an opportunity to visit this or revisit it as needed and in budget adjustment if it turns out that there are, you know, significant new costs that can't, then won't be covered through other funding sources in this year's budget. Thank you. Thank you so much and and we did not hear any concerns from testimony in terms of in terms of more, more funding needed, and the fiscal note is interesting that DMV noted that DMV can absorb any costs within their within their current budget and that also was noted by the appropriations committee. So, given that Selena, you can let me know either either now or afterwards whether or not you're, you're ready to take it up later so I can let the speaker know. Yeah, I think we could I think we can I'm definitely ready to report and just wanted, you know, wanted to make sure we had closed all the loops on that but I feel prepared to move forward. If you do, and the committee does. Thank you. Any questions from committee members on s seven before we turn to h 183 Bob. I'm a little confused I thought that we had voted this down is going to the summer summer committee or whatever to go through the, the fences once again. So a few points of clarification we did vote it out there is a section in the bill that does refer to the justice oversight committee and things that we have asked the justice oversight committee to consider. However, there is the remaining part of the bill regarding civil expungements. And then there's a section from DMV and judicial bureau, and that that part did pass and that is what for the most part Selena will be will be reporting on. Okay, thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Don't see anybody else. So, Michelle. Charles. Okay, good afternoon. Thank you. Thank you so much. So, committee members h 183. I don't know if we have formally received it but I think it will be possibly on notice. The House calendar tomorrow there's always the possibility that things we may be asked for real suspension and to take things up off of the notice calendar so I did want us to be prepared to answer the question. I think that we should concur with Senate proposals of amendment we did review it last week Michelle did walk us through it, but I would like her to do it again and we, and we do have witnesses to help us make that decision. I will say from the get go that I'm pleased with the work that the, that the Senate did, and I will be recommending that we concur. So with that, let's first listen to the Michelle and the testimony. So, good Michelle thank you. So, so is it your purpose I'll just walk through the, the Senate proposal amendment and talk to you about the, the kind of big substantive changes maybe not some of the little language changes is that alright and then and I'm sorry I didn't mention that for folks who are watching that both as past the House and as past the Senate are on our committee website. Thank you Michelle. The Senate won't be because we haven't gotten that from the Senate Secretary's office yet because it passed on Friday and then it's held for a day. So we haven't gotten the integrated version and there were more that brought the Council back in but you probably have the various amendments and then we should have those and those should be up for folks, hopefully some tomorrow if we get them from the Secretary's office tomorrow. Yeah, thank you so so last week we looked at draft 1.1, which was from the Senate Judiciary Committee and then Senator Lyons committee that was, I mean amendment that was passed on the floor so. Yeah, so that those are on our website. Thank you for, thank you. Thank you. Sure. So first section is your definition section in chapter 72 with respect to sexual assault and your two definitions being consent and incapable of consenting. The Senate kept your definition of incapable of consenting didn't change anything there. But in the definition of consent as we've already discussed there were some changes so the House had of that it had to be voluntary and knowing and Senate changed it to consent means the affirmative unambiguous and voluntary agreement to engage in a sexual act which can be revoked at any time and I think we've already discussed they did spend a lot of time on this one section they chose to go with some language from Oklahoma statute. We're not aware of any constitutional challenges to that language or any particular concerns that have come up in Oklahoma with respect to that, just a little background. So, I don't know if you wanted to discuss things or if you just want me to walk through them or I think it I think it would be helpful if if you gave us your legal opinion on whether or not the this new language increases the state's burden. Just a little bit more. So in my view it doesn't I mean I think in some ways it's it's provides a little more clarity by saying it has to be affirmative and ambiguous and volunteers you have voluntary already in yours. And if it's not all three of those then there's not consent. So, so let's say if you know if you're missing one of those things I would say maybe if something was ambiguous then there's no consent. So I don't think it, I think did you ask the question about whether or not it increases the burden on prosecution. In my view it does not. Thank you before you move on any questions Bob I'm assuming that your hands is up from before but committee members any questions for Michelle because that that really is pretty much the the only new. There's there's a little bit else you know in terms of what the sentencing commission will look at but that really is the operative section that we understand here. Okay, go ahead Michelle, thank you. Sure. Moving on to section two they didn't make any changes to section two that's kind of the heart of the sexual assault statute with the elements in there and they didn't change anything in section two. In section three this is where it spells out more in depth around what does not constitute consent, and the change here was was minimal. They did eliminate one thing that you had in the house version which is. I mean to toggle back and forth between the two is that you had an additional subdivision in there that said an expression of lack of consent through words or conduct means there is no consent. They removed that. And then they just went back to existing language on subdivision one. And other than that it is the same. They made a little tweak also to the, the reference to the rape shield law but again substantively it's not it's not any different. So next section and the judiciary amendment is the data. I'm sorry. Yeah, can you just because I'm reporting no bill could you just call my attention to the reapshield reference change. Yeah, if you're looking in the Senate version you're looking at 3254 subdivision for. And so, so that's again it's just a cross reference to our rape shield law and I'm happy to talk chat with you about all this offline for for practice you need anything. Okay the version I'm looking at I think it's subdivision three so maybe I'm not looking at the right version, which I'm sorry I might be I might be on the sorry I'm going back and forth, and it's okay I can catch up with you that that's helpful that's I can and I can just compare them so thank you. Sorry that's my fault. Yes, it's three in the Senate version. So the next one is section four, sorry, which is the Vermont sentencing Commission. And this was to address the issue about whether or not the consent language in 3254 should still apply to luminous of his conduct in light of the General Assembly's change and creating kind of the misdemeanor version of L and L with prohibited conduct and so they just want the commission to take a look and see whether or not that all makes sense still section five is the data collection and they did not change anything in that section. And so next I'm going to move to the the amendment for the Council. And with that I'm just going to hit the highlights they made a lot of little small language changes but I would say the primary ones are that they did add an additional student college student to the Council. And so instead of two there'll be three. And then with regard to the duties of the of the Council, they put up front and center kind of having the Council follow up on the work of the task force. So looking at those recommendations of the task force and developing actionable solutions based on those recommendations. And they tweaked a couple of the other duties there they added a new one around identifying campus wide activities publications and services that promote a campus culture of respect to support the prevention of sexual harm. There's one that's very specific and that's in subdivision six. And this relates to one of the recommendations of the task force, which was to look at how to protect through through state statute students who make sure that they're finished for reporting an incident of sexual violence, due to concerns about alcohol or drug use violations that might, you know, be found if they did report that so again kind of similar to your good Sam law there and so that was one of the recommendations of the task force that the Senate wanted the Council to report on soon rather than waiting for their normal reporting period and so they'd be required to come to by November 1 of this year with some recommendations that you could develop into legislation. So the reporting, other than that November 1 reporting deadlines are the same so it's on or before December 1 of next year and then annually thereafter. They would be reporting to you with recommended legislative action ideas. They did change the sunset, and they shortened it by three years so that the house had a seven year sunset and the Senate put in a four year sunset. That's in section seven of individual instance of amendment. They did include the appropriate the full appropriation that the house included for staffing and for per diems and expenses. They did take out the appropriation for the forensic nursing program because they already have it in the budget elsewhere and they confirm that so they didn't think it needed to be in there. Barbara. Thank you. Michelle, can you explain how it works when the Senate has a different sunset than the house I don't know if I've ever encountered that. I thought you were saying, never mind. I thought you were saying the bill was putting that the Senate had a different date. Not that one house did one thing in the other chamber to the other. The house person had a seven year sunset person has a four so they shortened the sunset. I totally. All right. We're all doing a lot of things right now. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. Actually, Bob, I want to make sure do you do have a question your hand has been up. I'm not sure if it was from before or. I do have a question. Okay, great. Thank you. Well, not that it's a big deal, but I just was trying to understand the rationale between adding a third student on there versus two and is that the magic number or the was irrational behind that. So it's tricky trying to speak for the other body but I think so the house language which is preserved in there as designated that the two students are representing certain kind of constituencies so one student has to have lived experience with sexual harm and the other student has to be representing I think a racial justice organization. And so the Senate wanted to add an additional student there without any kind of requirements as to who that student is because they wanted to. I did better on the idea about having some a student being able to represent students who might be accused of sexual harm and their perspectives but they didn't want to necessarily designate that in the legislation, but they did talk about that wanting to have a range of perspectives and so they just thought that adding an additional student would be helpful. Okay, thank you. Okay. Don't see any other hands. Right. Okay, thank you. So I'm not seeing any other hands so I will move on to our, one of our witnesses and this Michelle if you had anything else you wanted to add at this point, but you're good. Yeah. Okay. All right. So, I'd like to stop by 215 because we do need to be on the floor at 230 so when it gets books time to transition. So we could start with the defender generals office please Rebecca. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, thank you Madam chair for the record Rebecca Turner pellet defender from the office the defender generals. Thank you for this committee to talk about this bill of several times before but I'll, I'll confine my testimony this afternoon to connect specifically with the changes that the senate judiciary made and and I can also speak to representative Norris's question about how the number of students change from two to three because I spoke on on that issue before the committee. And so going first I just want to stress yet again my theme throughout test test fine on this bill but certainly after the proposed changes that the senate judiciary made specifically defining consent. And as Michelle child pulling from another state definition of consent into our own states definition exacerbates the substantial concerns that I have made clear with this committee and that is that this is constituting a significant departure from our sexual assault state jurisprudence, as that has developed through the case law through so many decisions, not through of course amendment by this legislature to the statute but as this case law has developed one of the new angles I'm not sure this committee heard, and I'm not sure if David sure is here today but he spoke before the senate judiciary to share as well that the criminal division of the AGO was also similarly concerned with the change proposed language and the statute again, our other side of the aisle, but confirming that the changes were sweeping, and that there may be unintended consequences. And so earlier this afternoon from chair grad as to whether or not this would lower or burden the state's case for proving guilt after charge. I think, you know, again David sure can can speak to what exactly the criminal division attorneys of AGO are concerned about, certainly from my perspective. I think this firms at least this much. This is a significant departure. We are importing these terms from another state. We do not know how this will be interpreted. And so this will open up plenty of litigation. So we navigate we the attorneys on either side of the aisle the judges interpreting these new phrases, how they interact and mean, and how they are inconsistent or consistent with current case law. So I think to the extent that this committee is charging towards reforming this area of the law, just wanted to understand clearly that it is significant change. So again, I just wanted to reiterate our continued opposition to this bill, moving to represent Norris's question about why three to increase of three from two. There it was about addressing on page three of the draft 1.1 page three lines one through two. There was the suggested additional language that that shows up here, which is that the council. It is a directive of Vermont college campuses, and therefore the appointing authority shall consider diversity when making appointments to the council and so my, my point in question to, to the committee that I, I asked what diversity meant, what was the type of diversity being in terms of membership on this council. I pointed out that if diversity was beyond race, gender, age, but specifically going to the perspectives of the students themselves on Vermont campuses, perspectives from both sides, in terms of those who stand to be accused, or those to come from families or friends, organizations that can share and voice those perspectives. I urged the additional voicing of that, and that though the Defender General's office has a spot, or a defense attorney's spot on this council that certainly is a specialized type of expertise and perspective being brought to the council but certainly doesn't stand in for the pre charge student voice themselves again disproportionately that we know anecdotally at least is disproportionately black and brown men and boys being accused. I wanted to keep my statements brief so I'll stop here unless there are further questions. Thank you. Giving folks the chance to put their hands. Not seeing any so. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Thank you for allowing me to join you today. So for the record, State's Attorney Rory Hebo of Washington County. I want to answer a few of the really big questions about the changes in way to give a little context to why the Senate had some different considerations. From the get go, I think the Senate adopted the Oklahoma standard of consent based upon a desire to have consent expressed in a more and more positive terms versus being stated in the negative. So Vermont does have a somewhat unique structure of having a general consent definition followed by the trial procedure section which goes to detail what can sent cannot be or what it cannot be proven by. So to that end the adoption of the Oklahoma standard I think adds that necessary clarity and I would what I would use is it sharpens the definition. The existing consent definition already contains the term voluntary. So adoption of the Oklahoma standard really amounts to an evolution or clarification of that Vermont standard by adding affirmative and unambiguous to it. So in terms of the question of does this raise the states burden at trial. The answer is no, we're focused on proving a lack of consent, not the existence of consent. So as you provide a more refined definition that doesn't necessarily change the burden, but it does in terms of approving a lack of consent. If anything it would tend to require a greater demonstration of acts or words that were either lacking or in the case of whether it was consent that there's something satisfies that new definition. I was asked by my department and some others to take a look at Oklahoma and a few things I wanted to share with you so Oklahoma adopted this definition in 2016. Many of you heard reference to a recent case in the state of Minnesota, where a alcohol involved sexual assault was overturned by the Supreme Court, very similar circumstances prompted the adoption of this standard in Oklahoma. And it follows a pattern that we've seen in many other states around the country of taking the last decade is the opportunity to reevaluate definitions for consent and the sex assault statutes. In terms of constitutionality I did a review as well of case law on the new definition in the state of Oklahoma. To date there has been no challenge on a constitutional basis, and case law surrounding sex assault has not focused on the definition of consent rather other evidence or other circumstances particular to those cases. That said doesn't appear that there are significant constitutional concerns or any viable constitutional claim against that definitions adoption in that state. So having been on the books for now five years would have expected to see at least some of that. I think that Oklahoma has also gone through the same process Vermont will go through which is to have their respective committees in the court process adopt a model jury instructions among other things. I provided some of those two other stakeholders previously and they're available online if anyone wants to take a look. Finally, there are a few differences between Oklahoma statute in Vermont. I think one of the most notable ones is Oklahoma states, whether there's a voluntary agreement to engage in specific sexual activity during a sexual encounter Vermont limits that to a sexual act. And as part of the reason why the Senate elected to have the sentencing that should take a look at the ability to lead in the serious conduct. And just for this committee's benefit there was a broader discussion that was I'd introduced in the discussion that it may be time or next session maybe a good time to reevaluate our entire regimen of how we look at losing the serious conduct. We ultimately in Vermont have adapted what used to be an offense against the public or a common law type of fence. Into what other states are called sexual battery or aggravated sexual contact or other things so that this is the sort of unwanted sexual touching or groping that doesn't result in penetration to meet our definition of a sexual act. It also is the sort of strange construct that we use this offense against public disorder as a basis for what is a personal or victim based crime. The Senate asked Senate Judiciary Committee asked some really great questions about adaptation of this definition to that and then also it seems cloudily the right time then take a look at how those statutes can be modernized as well to reflect that those are personal crimes not just crimes against the public or the community. Michelle also provided testimony on that point and I think could also give context if need be about the applicability of this definition to our existing L and L statutes, which it's effectively integrated there through the trial procedure which covers not just sex assault but L and L. So I hope I get some context to the changes and definitions. I'm more than happy to answer any questions the committee members have. Thank you. I was very helpful. Appreciate that. I'm just looking for hands. Selena. Could you just say one more time because it was really fast and I was writing and just the difference in language between Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Consent of Initiative and what what the Senate sent to us. Sharon I apologize for speaking so fast. It's okay I'm moving a mile a minute with our resumption of jury trials in Washington County on Monday so a lot of unmoving parts here in an exciting time. But that said Oklahoma's definition right now and I'll just read from the part voluntary agreement onward. It states voluntary agreement to engage in a specific sexual activity during a sexual encounter, which may be revoked at any time. The definition that Vermont is proposing to adopt starts with voluntary agreement to engage in a sexual act, which may be revoked at any time. So I think the Oklahoma statute was written with a broader focus in mind covering directly what we would include as L and L, meaning that a sexual activity can be something broader than a sexual act involving penetration. And that that nuance I think is reflective of just how the whole range of sex offenses are categorized under their statute and doesn't contribute to a different interpretation of overall consent. Thank you. That was super helpful. Really appreciate it. Yeah, it really was. Thank you. Anybody else. Thank you so much for working on this for a long time and appreciate it. Thank you. Okay, Sarah Robinson to hear. Good afternoon. Thank you so much for having me for the record Sarah Robinson deputy director at the Vermont network against domestic and sexual violence. Thank you so much for taking testimony on the Senate proposal of amendment this afternoon and I just wanted to note that we're deeply appreciative of the good work of the Senate Judiciary Judiciary and Education committees as well as the work of this committee and the committee on House Committee on Government Operations, as this bill has wound its way through through the process. So as Michelle laid out the most significant changes of note from our perspective are the modifications to the sexual assault definition of sexual assault that are found in section one. And Rory says turn to you both spoke to the language from Oklahoma we do believe we agree that this language seems to offer an improvement to Vermont's current consent definition. And as noted the language adds both affirmative and unambiguous to the voluntary language already present in Vermont's definition, and we especially appreciate that this new definition now highlights that consent can be revoked at any time. And the revocation concept is much more aligned with modern concepts of consent. I certainly hope that this will allow cases with broader fact patterns which really reflect the complexity of sexual violence to be considered when victims choose to report. I did want to note that while we are very supportive of the Senate's amendment. I feel an obligation to note this committee as we did to the Senate Judiciary Committee that any changes to definition come with a certain level of caution. And we feel very heartened by the opinion of the state's attorney legislative counsel and others regarding the changes made by the Senate. We do not know exactly how the language will be interpreted by Vermont courts. And within the context of our case law. So while we fully support the language, we also certainly reserve the right to request that the legislature revisit this definition in the unlikely event that there are unanticipated consequences. And we will be sure to be monitoring that as the statute, if the statute is ultimately passed and signed by the governor then we will certainly be monitoring how this plays out in the courts. The Senate also made some changes that you heard about to the intercollegiate counsel on sexual violence prevention. We're very grateful for those changes we fully support all of them, including the slight modifications to the charge. Certainly the direction to the council to look at what policy changes might be needed to ensure that people who report sexual violence do not face criminal or institutional discipline liabilities. So with that I'll just say, again, we support the Senate's proposal proposal of amendment, and I'd be happy to answer any questions that committee members have. Thank you so much Sarah Barbara. So Sarah, I, I, I guess I'm wondering if I mean, anytime there's a definition change as you pointed out, it could be interpreted differently. But does this rise to like a higher level for you and if so, like, or what are you, can you speak more to what you're worried about and if it's been, you know, if other states had that in the beginning or just how big a worry it is. Yeah, so I can say that we're not overly worried about it. We actually do believe we feel quite confident that this is going to be an improvement that this definition is going to be an improvement in the statute. But what I will say is just as the canon has kind of evolved across the country as consent laws have evolved. We do as attorney Turner and others have noted you know we do have a considerable amount of case law here in Vermont, and certainly any changes to the statute will be considered within that broader context. And so I wouldn't say that we're overly concerned at all, but I just feel an obligation to just note that anytime changes are made that there is some level of risk it is risk that we are very comfortable with. I'm not very good about the language, but I do think it's just important to note. And I don't know if having professional education free, you know, at the beginning of it makes sense both for judges school or also for attorneys. And I don't know if that's been tried but I'm wondering if you have thoughts about if if something like that could at least have an opportunity for greater understanding of. I mean, hopefully the law is clear but just in terms of the changes and again, I don't even know if that's a thing but like, I'm just wondering. Yeah, that's a great suggestion and I would say that that's something that we commonly do when new bills are passed when existing law is changed that we do very much try to reach out to the community of stakeholders whether that is the bar whether it's a new judiciary, whether that's advocates to discuss the changes and potentially work together on any information that may need to be shared about the new changes so we'll certainly be doing that over the summer. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for for Sarah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. So that actually concludes our testimony on on 183 understanding is that the Attorney General's office is unable to testify today. So understanding is that they do not have objections to the to the bill as it as it passed the Senate. So, given that I, I would entertain a motion to concur with the Senate. I think that that the combined house and sentence work on this bill does meet the goals of the bill as it was introduced it certainly modernizes our sexual assault laws, it addresses the concerns of impairment and alcohol, you know the roles of an impairment and certainly puts a spotlight on our college campuses. Certainly, we, we will be following the the law if enacted, especially with the trial practice sections of that, but other pieces as well. So, I would entertain a motion and a second and then we will have discussion. Thank you. I'll move that we concur with the Senate's proposal. All second. Great. Thank you, Felicia. Any discussion. I would just say appreciate the Senate's good work here and I'm really glad that they ultimately did choose to retain the, the Intercollegiate Council I know that was something they, you know went back and forth on and where we're really thinking about for a while and it's certainly very important to my district to student survivors in my district and I think to folks all around the state so I was really grateful to see that count that a version of this come back to us with with a version of the council still intact. Thank you. Any, anybody else in terms of discussion. Ken. I just make a point I think I think we've improved this bill a lot and and hopefully it'll, it'll be a great start to for better protection for people. How I feel about it. Right. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate that Ken. Anybody else. Tom. Thank you. Yeah, I was doing some light reading this weekend on on on this topic. And I don't remember what state it was. They may have covered a few different states but just the the state where the, the number of cases that come rape cases that come forward. You know when they're when there's impairment involved is is negligible. The, the sample that that they use that I don't remember how many potential cases they were talking about but there was only two cases in an incredible number that were ever brought forward. And, and you know there was a lot more that could have been. And, you know, it's all, it was all because of you know in the different states the prosecutors, you know, we're reluctant, you know, to bring charges. And even if they did make it to court, you know, depending judges were, you know, we're reluctant as far as, you know, can, you know, the convicting a people or whatever. And it all had to do with one reason is because there was impairment or alcohol involved. And hopefully, you know, with this new law it's going to, you know, embolden some some victims to, I don't know if the right word is embolden but you know give them enough comfort and add a little courage where they will come forward. You know, and do the right thing to protect themselves. Thanks. Yeah, absolutely. I do appreciate the good Samaritan like language that the that the Senate put in that's that should be very, very helpful. Anybody else Barbara. Sorry, I know I'm like slow doing the buttons here. Well, I, um, it's just so interesting to have different bodies look at it and, you know, it definitely speaks to why diversity is important. I think Representative Coburn made a good point about the Intercollegiate Council, and I think the points that Rebecca Turner made about having someone on the council on the other side, makes sense. I wondered about young people who are not going to hire at when we were talking about diversity, but nonetheless, I think we should concur and will vote for that. And as we monitor how this goes, I think we should be sensitive to Rebecca's points about this proportionate. And just, just what who is getting accused and are there unforeseen consequences that we should address even before the sunset so that we can make sure we're threading that need all well. Um, yeah, so it's great to have like so much thought and then pause and then more thought and, yeah, so I'm happy to vote yes. Thank you, Selena. Yes, just to build on your point Barbara. I think thinking back to the work of the previous sexual harm campus sexual harm test force which is now like this group is much more explicitly charged with really delving into those recommendations. I'm glad that the Senate left that sort of thirds the criteria for that third student pretty open because I think it was challenging to find folks to talk about their experience on the, on the record as being a respondent. It's, it's pretty sensitive and hard to come forward about that we did we did actually have one member of the test first who shared experience both as a respondent and a claimant who'd been on both sides of the issue and that was really illuminating. The other things that the campus sexual harm task force report really talked about was data and the question of how bias might be playing into these adjudications and who, you know is sort of charged for lack of a better word and campus settings and what kind of outcomes are coming and there actually is a very some explicit recommendations in that report around data collection and trying to get around some of the challenges of data collection in such a small state in ways that still yield demographic data info so I think that the new language from the Senate to explicitly pick up on those recommendations will actually be very helpful to that issue I hope. Thank you. Thanks. And with that, can do you have your, are you set to call the roll. Yeah, we are ready to go. Please the clerk shall commence to call the roll. Misty. Over. Yes. Donnelly. Yeah. John. Yes. Fluffler. Yes. Norris. Mr. Norris. About that. Yes. Yes. Rachel son. Yes. Birdie. Yes. Madam chair. Yes. We'll coach be backs and I'll hold it. Please let's hold it. Hopefully he'll hopefully he'll be back and again I'm not sure if it will be on notice tomorrow and call off the notice calendar but thank you. Thank you so much everybody so we are we will be prepared. In terms of the rest of our agenda. Let's pick it up tomorrow at nine. As you see that so far we don't have other committee meetings. Schedule this week, just sort of playing it by by year and see how far we. We go. If anything comes up between. Go back on the floor at I think what four four 30 and we need to address anything. Also an email or make an announcement on the floor when we go back now. But otherwise, we will not meet as a committee until nine o'clock tomorrow morning. So thank you everybody and we can adjourn.