 Hi, this is the Vermont House of Transportation Committee. Maybe we'll skip introductions today, OK? And I'll skip my own. And so we are here only to take up a section of S114, which is a Senate bill which just got sent to the Judiciary Committee in the House. It's passed the Senate now in the House Judiciary Committee. That committee has been looking at an amendment that would change something in Title 23 on DUI suspensions, license suspensions. And we did talk about this a little bit yesterday when Representative Barbara Murphy questioned the commissioner of EMV about it. And people have been working until late last night on possible language. And maybe I should go right to, again, we have Mike Smith, right? And that means we have the commissioner also, Mike? Yes, it does. OK. Maybe you can identify yourselves. And before you start, what I have just heard is that Judiciary will not be offering the amendment at all. So if you guys know about that, maybe you could report to us on what you know about that. Well, Kurt, before you start, did you get the same text message from Mitzi at 1156 this morning? OK. That they were thinking of striking that section? Yes. And if they do, that would certainly make me happy. And I think Barbara and I think who else said something yesterday, Tim? And I think Brian did, just as we were breaking up. But I believe that that's what's going to happen. So Patty, do you know any more than that? Well, I don't know if you're on this text message or not, but it says, House Judiciary is going to amend the bill by striking the controversial section. Judge Grierson is good with that approach, even though getting his bill will take a smidge longer. DMV should be happy. I'm hoping we can now get back to suspending rules and getting this to the Senate. Yep. Well, did everybody see the communication, the email from Commissioner Manoli and Anthea this morning? Mike. What they would be striking is section 5-3. Is that right? I actually don't know, but it was the section of our concern. Barbara, was there only one section of Title 23? It is the section that was just speaking to 5-3 of this bill. But I didn't receive the text that you and Patty have spoken of. So I'm not completely clear on what you think the current action is, if that's relevant. I actually did not receive it either. Mitzi called me right as we adjourned. But I think she almost regretted that I had made the announcement that we were meeting, thinking that maybe even that wasn't necessary. But I was thinking, I think what I would like to see is our committee to take a position on that, whether it's offered or not, in case it is. And it is section 5-3, Mike. And 5-3 only, Patty? Yes, from S-114. Yep. OK. Barbara's not in agreement? OK. So I don't know if we need to take any testimony other than to. Well, why don't we? Oh, and now I don't have the commissioner, but I have Michelle. Yes, you do. The commissioner is with Mike Smith. Yeah, I don't see Mike Smith, but oh, they're in person. OK. OK. Why don't we take your testimony, please? Continue where you left off yesterday, Commissioner Minowley, if you would. Good afternoon, Commissioner Wanda Minowley, Vermont Department of Motor Vehicle. I did. I think the testimony. So first of all, I want to thank you for the opportunity to discuss, to have had the opportunity yesterday to discuss this section. I did respond. And Thea forwarded to me a possible amendment that was considered in House judiciary. I did respond to and Thea, which I said that the proposed language addressed our testimony regarding DUI threes and fours. I also offered some information regarding DUI ones and that offenders that these offenders have a choice to request a hearing, which holds a suspension in abeyance now, or to begin the suspension and serve their time for the suspended time, which is 90 days. Some individuals prefer not to challenge their DUI will and begin the suspension immediately to get the 90 days over. I offered that the proposed language that the House judiciary was considering would eliminate that option. In addition, some of the individuals with DUI ones choose to participate in the ignition interlock program, even though they're not required to, because that allows them to continue driving during their 90 day suspension and there's no interruption. Regarding DUI number two suspensions, those are effective on the 11th day and it's an 18 month suspension. But we also have individuals that choose not to go to hearing and they immediately enroll in the ignition interlock program and their 18 month suspension when the interlock begins effective on the 11th day and that the proposed language would also eliminate this option. I also did state that we understand this as a legislative policy that you're considering regarding DUIs and that the Department of Motor Vehicle will state that we do not believe this is in the best interest of public safety. And again, I thank you for the opportunity to comment on this language. And I think I can answer any questions that you have. I do have my team available if you wanna get into any specifics of how we process this. And I will stop at that. You're muted, Kurt. Kurt, you're muted. I have to say that I just heard from judiciary and they voted that 803. Did you get my text? I did, thank you. Okay. So did everybody hear what Heidi just said? Judiciary voted I guess eight to three to strike that section that they were. Start work is done. See you at one. Anthea? I was just, so for the record, I'm sorry, I missed the opening, Anthea Dexter Cooper Office of Legislative Council, just echoing what Representative McCoy just said. I was over at House Judiciary. It's much easier to switch committee rooms when it's just opening a new Zoom screen. I can put up the amendment. It's just very straightforward instead of it having all of the language that's currently in section five subdivision three, there would just be the bracketed, deleted. I also, if the committee is, and I apologize for missing at the beginning of Commissioner Manoli's testimony, I think it's probably consistent with what she had put in her email in response to an earlier version. I have what I think would be a simple fix to make it so that individuals who choose to serve their suspension or choose to avail themselves of the Ignition Interlock Program would be able to do that. If at some point the House chooses to move forward language in lieu of what they're deleting now with House Judiciary's proposed amendment. I'm happy to walk through that with the committee if they would like me to do that now or if that's something they want to take up later. I'd like to ask the commissioner if she thinks that is something we should try to do now or can that wait? So I guess I would, what I understood and I could have misheard is that House Judiciary has stricken that section five, three in its entirety. So my concerns regarding DUIs is no longer an issue. Is that correct? Oh, that is correct. They have struck that subdivision. They did not take up whether or not they're going to move forward a committee bill on the same topic at a later date. But I think that is still something that's outstanding. So chair McCormick, I think your question is would I, do I have comments on the potential language that Anthea just said she could work with you on if you wanted an alternative to this language being stricken? Is that correct? Yes. Again, my position is I think in the best interests of public safety, we should leave DUIs as the statute authorizes now. Very good, thank you. You're welcome. Any other questions for the commissioner or for Anthea? And Anthea, your hand is still up. Did you want to say something else? No, I'm sorry. Mr. Chair, I concur with the commissioner's views. Okay, any other questions for the commissioner? Okay, it looks like I've got representative Murphy and then representative McCoy. Thank you. I really appreciate this and I am curious, there was language that went quickly around a few of us as an amendment, which would be a separate bill. I appreciate that it's not going to be submitted after passing language that we don't like, but I just am curious if that bill is still coming out rapidly and if so, whether we will now actually get to see it before it hits prime time. Are you asking me? Either you or maybe Anthea, if she has a clue what judiciary was doing with language that was drafted as an amendment regarding the 21 day. Yep. To let others know what Barbara's referring to, there was language that went around late last night. It was sent to, I believe, Tim Cochran and Barbara and me. Barbara knows a better decent hour, so she didn't come in until early this morning. I commented last night, of course. And we both agreed, well, I guess it was a compromise. Commissioner, I don't know if you saw it, Anthea, I don't know if you were actually the one that drafted it, but I guess the old language said, when I say old language, I mean, as proposed or as considered by the Judiciary Committee, because I think this all starts in the House Judiciary Committee. I believe it would not allow the commissioner to suspend a license for offenses that were, was it two or three or four offenses? And I thought that that might be agreeable if it was one offense, the first offense, that that would, when a suspension might be in order under present law, that that would not be allowed. The commissioner could not do that. Unless there were two or more offenses. That was my opinion looking at it. I know Barbara, when she had a chance to look at it, agree with me, Tim. I didn't hear from you. And that's what Barbara is referring to. So I think I've got Anthea and then Patty. So to answer Representative Murphy's question, the only clue I can provide is that House Judiciary did not take up, and because they are not amending S114, or proposing to amend S114, aside from striking the one subdivision, this would probably need to be included in another bill or introduced as a standalone committee bill. House Judiciary did not take that up while I was in their committee. I don't think they're doing it now. In my absence, the impression I got was that they were just getting through S114 today to provide sort of a summary of the language, which I can certainly share with the committee. It had basically maintaining the status quo, which would be requiring the hearings under the statutory timeframes of 21 and 42 days and having a prohibition, sorry, requiring the hearings in the 21 and 42 days and having the suspensions automatically happen at the 11th day for the third and subsequent DUIs, where that's a change from current statute is for the second DUI, currently there is required to be a suspension at the 11th day and then the hearings at the 21 and 42 day mark as well. So what that language would have done was required the judiciary to hold the hearings and have the suspensions maintained as required under current statute for the third and subsequent, but basically having a moratorium on the statutory timeframe requirements for the hearings for the second DUI and having the commissioner not suspend for the second DUI. One of the things that commissioner Manoli brought up in her written comments on this was that that prevented individuals who might choose to serve their suspension for the second or subsequent DUI or the first or subsequent DUI who choose not to request a hearing, they wouldn't then be able to serve their suspension immediately and they wouldn't be able to serve their suspension and get an ignition interlock device. I have language that no one on this committee nor the commissioner has seen that responds to that secondary issue but would be a deviation from what the commissioner has testified here saying that she doesn't think there should be a change to the civil suspension practice that's in statute. Okay, representative McCoy and then representative Murphy. My question has been answered, thank you. Representative Murphy. Okay, I'm just curious and I don't know if I'm putting anyone on that spot with this but I wondered if commissioner Manoli had given testimony in the Senate when this was drafted. No, I did not give any testimony in the Senate when this was drafted. Thank you. All right, well, I would like to say to the committee that to me, there's been two issues here. There's the whether or not traffic safety where we're going to sacrifice one of our traffic safety tools, if you will. And secondly is this what might be considered a healthy tension of committee jurisdiction. And clearly we have jurisdiction over this issue. And as Barbara points out, you and I would think anything that amends title 23 which this section does. I again, thank Barbara for catching it and because that was the first I had heard of it. And just for your information, like I say, some people may regard it as a healthy tension but I looked in the rules this morning and clearly this issue even if we're not in title 23 is in our jurisdiction. And judiciary, I'm gonna read for you what the judiciary jurisdiction is. Most committees have about two fairly long paragraphs, maybe three. Judiciary has three words, four words. Judicial and legal affairs, that's it. So obviously that could be anything and everything. So it's not that they were wrong and do it but something went wrong that we were not asked about this and asked to consider it. I don't think we should have had the bill because the bill wasn't originally as 114 doesn't even deal with this. But amendments didn't. So I just wanted the committee to know that I'm working on that. And this is not new, this happens all the time when I was on the committee. To me and Barbara, you'll remember issues we had when Pat was chair, everyone natural resources raised the gas tax in a bill. And again, I don't think I would have put it for that but I don't think we were even asked. Somebody picked it up, it's probably you, Barbara. And that's when we learned about it. So these things are all possible and they're not always someone doing the wrong thing but the wrong thing did happen here, I believe. So I just wanted you to know that I'm very aware of that and I'm gonna work on that. Is there a motion? Could there be a motion on how this committee feels about this section should it come up? What kind of motion are you looking for? And just for the record, I did respond to Missy's email. I must have just responded to her but I concurred with the option too, depending on how receptive the Senate was, whether or not they were gonna take up a bill that was compatible test 114. Cause that was, I think that the second option was basically pass the bill as it was presented and then do a follow-up bill to address the issue that we were concerned with, which I was fine with but if the Senate says no, we're not taking it up then I would want what we're doing today. So for the record, I did respond. Yeah, okay, sorry. So is there, there's no motion? Okay, somebody asked me what the motion could be. The motion could, Mike, maybe you've, no? Well, I was just gonna say, would you wanna take a straw poll that assuming, so if we're confident that the Senate's going to take up S114 as amended by a judiciary, the straw poll would be do we concur with the judiciary committee striking section five, number three? I don't think it even has to be that complicated. I think it's just that how we feel about that section that we've seen. Barbara. I think I just was gonna make that offer. So if Patty still has a query, I'd let her supersede me. Okay, Patty. Well, I think we just have to concur with S114 as amended because otherwise it has to come back to us. I mean, we have to at least concur with what they just passed out. I mean, they voted on it. We should concur as amended. And then if you wanna make another statement, go ahead. But we really do have to vote on that. I'm concurring, I would assume because it has part of, what doesn't have transportation in it anymore. Well, that's the point, Patty. And it would be a little bit, Yeah. Not hypocritical, but not consistent. Right. It should come to it, yeah, so. I just need to say that I still don't see anything except what we've said we've heard that says this bill has been changed. So I think any kind of formal response if the committee has one to anything, we have to see that what we're responding to first. But I would put forward that we as committee recommend that section five, three be removed from S-114. That's our committee recommendation. Right. Yeah, I would prefer that because Patty, I don't want a judgment from our committee as a committee on the judicial things. Right. Okay. But that's my motion that we. Thank you. I think I heard a motion. Maybe you could repeat it. And it's just a struggle. I make a motion that we recommend section five dash three of S-114 be removed from the bill. Okay. Okay. Any discussion? I think our show of hands is good enough. Those in favor of that motion. I second the motion. Oh, thank you. Okay. Please raise your hands. Should I be clerking this? No, I'm just going with hands now. Well, the section was already moved anyways, a sort of a mood point, but yeah. Yeah. It's a special of our sentiment about what that says. So we don't believe the committee did the, all right. Right. Okay. Are there any no's? I don't see any no's. Molly, your hands up. I've got some hands up, but that's speak up if you're a no. Okay. Unanimous. All right. Thank you. I had my hand up because I had my hand up as a vote. Yes. I concurred. All right. And then I put my hand up here. Okay. Very good. Anthea is voting. I'm not voting. I don't get to do this. I was just going to say that the amendment is now posted to both house transportation committee page and house judiciaries committee page. I believe there is a small edit. I think I underlined something. I wasn't supposed to underline. So it could look a little different when it ends up going in the counter. All right. Thank you very much.