 taking up first the emergency bill remote deed recording. And I believe there's also powers of attorney. And this will be part of a package of civil legislation that will be put forth. Excuse me, and I'll turn it over to Eric and then Terry Corson. All right. Thanks, Senator Sears. This is Eric with the Office of Legislative Council talking about some proposed legislation that the committee is considering regarding remote notarization of deeds and powers of attorney. As you mentioned, the deed's language was before the committee. I think it was Tuesday that we met here this week. And in addition, since then, there's been another issue raised having to do with powers of attorney. And the reason that these are here before the committee now, you may recall with respect to the witnessing of wills and notarization of wills language that you passed on Tuesday and that then passed the Senate in S316. The issue was that notarization of some of these official documents requires that the notarization be done in the presence of the notary and sometimes in the presence of witnesses as well. But the physical presence requirement has become very challenging during the pandemic because people either don't want to travel, they're afraid to travel or to be in the same place with a number of other people that execute these documents. So the big picture on that is that essentially the language that you have in front of you, if you had a chance to look at it yet, very, very similar to the language that you already passed with respect to the remote notarization of wills, the concept is the same, which is that if the notarization is done in consistency and in conformity with the emergency remote notarization wills, remember we talked about those earlier in the week as well that the Secretary of State's office is putting out and I have heard now that they were adopted on Wednesday. So the rules have been adopted. If the notarization is done in compliance with those rules, then physical presence is not required. It's the same concept that you had in the wills that now would be essentially the same concept with respect to powers of attorney. So for example, you're executing a power of attorney that allows someone to make decisions on behalf of the principal decisions about selling property, about they can be health care decisions, those requirements that that the document be notarized in the presence of the notary, the physical presence of the notary would be subject to these emergency rules. So and those would allow and I actually put on the on the website if anybody wants to look at it, Secretary of State's office has been working on some guidance. So how this is going to work. And so it's a draft version of it. It's not the final version. I should mention that I think even last night that Terry and members of the Bar Association and others have been going back and forth with the Secretary of State's office to get this language finalized. So this is not the final version, but it is helpful to at least take a look at and see how detailed it is. And I just wanted to just mention one point because you would refer to the Senator Sears, I think when you were reporting as 316, which is that it has to comply these this remote notarization procedure has to comply with this, this setup in the rules. And as the guidance describes, remember Senator Sears, the notion of a secure communication link. So that's how it's how this remote notarization has to happen. And there's some specifics about that in that in the rules and in the guidance, which is very helpful. It says it has to allow for direct real time interaction between the principal, the signer and the notary, such quality, the clear visual observation of the face of each participant and clear visual observation of the identification being provided because the person has to identify themselves. It's interesting the way the rules are written. If the two people know each other and they recognize each other sufficiently, I don't think the identification is required. But if they don't, then you have to put something up like a driver's license or something like that that identifies you as who you assert to be. As you mentioned, there's an audio visual function. So it can't just be audio. It has to be audio visual and it can't be pre-recorded. So you have this lengthy list of rules and guidance that is still being worked on. And I think there, as I say, the language is being worked on literally today. But the bottom line is that if the procedure complies with that remote notarization rule, then the notaries can use this secure communications link rather than having to be in the physical presence of each other. So if you look at those statutes, the language, it's in the two amendments you have before you, both the powers of attorney and the deed witnessing both say physical presence. They were, sorry, acknowledging the presence of the notary. So the rule that video remote secure communication link would be permitted. Eric, just so it's clear to me and anybody who may be listening in, none of this is effective in terms of the deeds, the wills, or the power of attorney until the Secretary of State does his rules and until the governor signs a bill. Am I correct? That's correct, Senator Sears. And also, that's a good point I wanted to add that you were pointing out when we met on Tuesday with respect to the deeds, at least, that the way the deeds language had been written originally, it was not limited to the time period that those emergency rules were in effect. And it also incorporated by reference the potential for some federal permission of remote notarization. So those two pieces have been struck to make it. And so instead, it's very much parallel to the wills fee. So it has to be done while the emergency rules are in effect. And it's only references those Vermont rules rather than anything from anywhere else. Any questions for Eric on the committee? I was just going to add one more sentence, one more piece if I could. You'll see if there's one other piece added to both bills that is basically saying, and I think Terry will be able to talk about this a little bit more, but it came up during their discussions with Chris Winters at the Secretary of State's office that it would be important to include in statute a language that provided that if the document is executed in compliance with these emergency rules, then it will be presumed valid in the future so that litigation came up, if there were challenges around the authenticity or the validity of the document, that you'd have statutory language saying that, well, if the rules were followed, then there's a presumption that they're valid. And that presumption could always be overcome, of course, if there was some evidence to the contrary, but at least there'd be a presumption. Eric, can I ask a question? Yes. You guys, can I interrupt for one second? I apologize. I just got an email from IT. And they said they're listening to the live streaming. There's lots of noise in the background. And they asked that everybody still feels pressure speaking. Everybody do what? Sounds like somebody's doing dishes. Yeah, they want us to do. Well, Senator White, for you to self-mute, you have to press star six. I know, I have a mute button. I can mute myself. OK. They're asking everybody. Yep. And all of you guys that are on Zoom, you just have to go to the corner, the right corner of where your tile is, and press mute, because they said it's really difficult for people to hear. And I know there's a lot of people listening. But should we press mute? Can I ask a question before we do that? Yep. So in the right corner where your tile is, there's like three dots. If you press that, that gives you the option to mute. OK. OK. But you can't press mute if you're talking. No, you have to unmute. But if you're talking, you unmute yourself. But everybody else should mute themselves if they can. Thank you, Peggy. Go ahead, Eric. No, that was my same question that I received. I think Senator, I think Senator Nitka has a question. Or Senator White? I have a question. Nitka does too. I'm just wondering, we're doing all this. It sounds like the Secretary of State has already gone forward with all this. And what you're saying is they can't do this without us. They can't do what they want to do without us doing this. Is that correct? No, I think it's the opposite. They can go ahead and do what they're going to do. But these statutory changes bring the statutes into conformity with their rules. I see. And is it clear that, can I ask another question? Is it clear when the emergency is over that this will no longer be in place? Yes. Yes. OK. And let's see. OK, that's my question. Do that. OK. So just on the first page there online to 2021, who attaches the affirmative statement? I don't quite get how that works. That's the person executing the document. And the affirmative, that's actually a reference to something that's in the rules. That certificate is a requirement of the rules, that a person doing one of these notarial documents remotely has to include a certificate that the procedures of the rules were followed. So what that's saying is, and that's the new sentence that I was referring to earlier, what that's saying is that you have to take that certificate and attach it to it. And if that certificate was just saying all the rules were complied with when this remote notarization process occurred, then it will be presumed valid in the future. OK, thank you. Yep. OK, everybody. So. Terry? I'm not sure. One more question. OK. Me? Is the secretary at stake with us right now? Is the secretary of state on the line? No, the secretary of state is not on the line. OK, because what we heard in GovOps was that they were doing the emergency rules. And I'm just, we don't have to do anything more in there, right, because they're doing the emergency rules, and then we're doing this in here. So we don't have to do anything more in GovOps. No, I wouldn't. OK. No, I think that's correct, Senator White. OK, thank you. Terry, did you want to comment, then Judge Wearson? Yeah, no, I have nothing to add to what Eric said. Although, Eric, it's my understanding that the emergency legislation rules have been issued, that the state has done the steps to have them issued. Yes, I heard that too. I think it was Wednesday. OK, and then we're just working on the guidance with them, which hopefully will be coming out shortly, just to give guidance. But otherwise, you explained it very quickly. Judge Wearson, any comments? You've got to unmute yourself. The judge is still muted. Yes, OK. No, I do not have any comments. Thank you, Senator. Thank you. Eric and Terry, thank you very much, and Judge. What I plan to do is next Tuesday is look at a final draft of these two things, plus the statute of limitations that Bryn's working on. OK. That's what I was wondering, Senator Sears, just should I incorporate these into a separate bill or what your thoughts were on that? I would thought we would do two separate bills, one on the civil side, one on the criminal, that Judge Wearson's emergency order, or we'd do one big bill. I don't care. I think it's probably easier to do one big bill for everybody. And is this going to be a committee bill or? I think it's easier to just take some Senate bill that's still on the wall and pass it. I need to check with Senator Ash how they want to do that. OK. Can I ask? No, it's XXX. Right. Can I ask, what's the statute of limitations bill that Bryn's working on? Well, I believe it's a request from certain attorneys who would like to see a stay of all statute of limitations. I believe that Bryn would be better to speak if she's still with us, but I believe that New York, the governor there, did it by an emergency order. That all statute of limitations were, I don't know how it means. If Bryn's still here, she could probably explain it. Yeah, no, I can follow up with her after. I just. I'll send you an email, Judge. Thank you very much, Bryn. Oh, Bryn, you're there. Good. Yeah. Thank you. OK, thank you all. So is Steve Howard available yet? I wasn't aware that he was coming on. There are two numbers that are unidentified. One ends with 025. Another was 032. If you can tell me who you are, please. That's John Campbell. Yeah. OK, you both talk at once. 90 or 25 is Pepper. OK, I had scheduled Woodside. There might be some confusion. I thought like 120. That's what I told them. Yeah. So I don't know if they're having a hard time getting in or why they aren't. These are challenging times. Well, they are. Hello, Senator. Hello. Is this Steve? That's me. Oh, good. It says Amy. Oh, Amy Kittle, right. All right, Amy, go ahead. I can see you now, Steve. Yeah. I want to explain that this is, it's not really Woodside. I don't know what you call it anymore. As you all know, we moved the, we didn't do it. They moved the kids from Woodside to St. Albans to a house up there or building, I don't know. And we had some testimony from Commissioner Schatz about it the other day. Next week, we'll have a joint hearing with Senate Health and Welfare at one of the days, maybe Wednesday, and hear from DCF and DMH on this move and any others who want to be involved. But I thought I'd give Steve Howard a chance to comment on behalf of the employees who have been, I don't know if they've, have all the employees been moved there or somebody that's still at Woodside or maybe you can help us with that, Steve. Go ahead. I think they haven't moved to Woodside. I just got off the phone with them. And first of all, thank you, Senator, for the opportunity. And I also just want to thank the members of the committee for raising some of the concerns that they heard from our members at Woodside. I did, right after your last hearing, have a very productive conversation with the commissioner about some of their concerns. And some of them have been addressed. They haven't figured out some of the logistical concerns. I think the first thing that our members wanted to stress is that despite the chaos and the sort of abrupt change, I mean, our members at Woodside have been through an awful lot this year and recently that they are 100% committed to making this work and taking care of the youth that they have there at this new facility. And they hope for the resources and the support that they need to do that. Some of the questions that I think are being addressed that are just, I think, percolating out there. One is a security concern. I do understand from the commissioner, I don't think this has happened yet, but the facility is not a, it's a staff secure facility. So the doors don't have alarms on them yet. The windows don't have locks on them yet. And it's not just a concern about the youth leaving the facility, which is a concern, but another concern about people finding out where the facility is and being able to access it from external forces. So people who have a beef with somebody who's there or are mad at the staff over there. So security is an issue. I think the department has addressed the lack of rooms to sleep in and shower space for the staff with hotel rooms down in St. Alvin's. I think one big concern that they have and I think this is a chaotic moment, they understand that. This is a very different program than what they had previously at Woodside. There is a lot of commitment from the leaders there to roll out what the program is supposed to look like. Now it's a little confusing because they have in the last three months they've had three different leaders and they have a new leader now and hopefully somehow they will be able to get some clarity on what the program is there. I think to sum it up, what our members are doing and I think a lot of people are doing this these days is they're basically just winging it until they get some guidance from someone about how this program is supposed to operate. There is a tiny rec yard there. It's shared space with other organizations that are there. They need that that's gonna be a problem. I know that DCF is adding some recreational capacity. They are nervous that this confinement issue and the lack of activities to keep kids busy might result in some problems. I do think we got the food situation resolved but like anything else in state government we are also very concerned about getting protective equipment. Not only to all of the state employees across the state who don't have protective equipment but also to our folks working at Woodside in what is very close quarters compared to what they had at the original facility. So I think those are basically the things that they wanted to stress. I think one of the things they just really wanna say that they're not exactly happy with the abrupt nature of how this happened but they are committed to making it work and that they understand that these kids are their first priority and they will make sure that they remain so. Thank you Steve. Are there questions for Steve? Alice, I have a question. Yes, Alice. How many employees are now involved in the new facility? You know, I don't know that. I would have to get that information from DCF Senator but I will get that for you. Do you mean on each shift or do you mean in total? Total and then do they have enough on each shift? Just total number and. Okay. I will get that information Senator and get that to the committee. It's a good question, Alison. I guess one of my questions and I expressed this to Commissioner Chats and to you earlier and it boggles my mind while we're still having sleeping shifts there. Why that would be, you know, it's a much smaller building and so I don't understand that. Those are that's one question. The second is in terms of the security when we opened 206 Depot sometime in the, I'm gonna say 90s because I don't remember exactly when we bought that building but you know, one of the first and it was pretty easy just put in alarm. So you knew if somebody opened the window or opened the door, the alarm went off and we were staff secure. Questions always ask and I don't know if DCF has an answer or will have for next week but I guess the question is when a kid is going out the window, do you stop him or do you let him or her go? And I think that that's one thing I think at which side it was a little less likely given the security there. And that would be a question that I think needs to be answered for the staff. I don't know the answer to that. Because Senator, I can't say that I don't know if DCF will agree with this but what I was told by our staff is that they if somebody does attempt to leave that their instructions are to call the St. Albans police and describe to the St. Albans police what the kid is wearing and let the St. Albans police apprehend the kid. And we assume bring them back because there's no other place to put them. I mean, one thing that really is important is that the kids that are there and I think there were four or five kids there they were sent to a secure facility. So this is not a secure facility but I do understand from what the commissioner said to me yesterday is that they are adding the alarms on the doors and they will be putting blocks on the windows. There is a lot of concern about the amount of glass. There are glass doors that need to be replaced both not solely from the perspective of concern about the kids getting out but of other people trying to get to those kids being able to get in. Well, Deputy Commissioner Johnson is here and I'm sure that she's taking the comments down as well. We'll have some answers for next week too. But Steve, are any other committee members have questions about this? I understand. I mean, I can't imagine how quickly this whole thing happened and you know, change is always difficult especially when you've got all the other things going on regarding the coronavirus and et cetera and that does create anxiety both for the kids and for the staff, I'm sure. So I have one more question, Alice. Sure, Alice. I'm just wondering, so if there's a need for placements outside there in our communities around the state for the service that Woodside was providing previously will they be able to go into this placement? Senator, respectfully, that may be a question for DCF. Okay. My understanding is that they can but I'll let DCF take that question. Okay, thank you. Christine, if you wanted to answer that question now or if you haven't answered, we can't hear you. Is that better? Can you hear me now? Yeah, thank you. Yes. Okay, good. So Alice, I'm not sure that I understand your question. In other words, someone out in the community now commits an offense that would have maybe allowed them to go to Woodside, will they, and that happens, will they be able to go into the St. Albans facility? You know, if they meet all the criteria and you need a placement? Yes, they will, that's correct. Yes, okay, okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Anything else, Steve? Oh, that's all I've got. Thank you, Senator. Well, I appreciate you taking the time with us and these are difficult times for everyone and I know I'm hearing quite a bit regarding at the veterans home as well and I hope that maybe you and I and Senator Campion could have a call with some people from the VSEA about that. I don't know what we can do. I know they're very concerned about the lack of personal protective equipment down there. Right, we happy to do that, Senator. I would appreciate that. All right, thank you very much. Thank you. All right, the next issue is Judge Grisham. Senator Sears, may I ask a question before Steve leaves? Yeah, Steve, I think he's gone, but... Oh, okay. I was going, it wasn't really a question. I was just going to say that we are tomorrow looking at the VSEA or this afternoon, looking at the VSEA issues. We're just getting a list of them, but we will just leave because we deal with state employees, but we will just leave the whole woodside conversation in judiciary. Okay, but I hope you will. There's a lot of concern, obviously, in any nursing home and since state employees don't work at the VAPRMA veterans home, they're really concerned about the lack of masks and other personal protective equipment. Yeah, we're going to hear some of the issues tomorrow. I mean, today, today. Good, thank you, Jeanette. Judge, we've gone over your proposal a little bit and haven't heard from the other players and officers. I've got to now look up your proposal again. Which one is it? It's the, and maybe... It's on your legislative page. It's under my name and it's a memorandum. You have to go to the Judiciary Committee page. It's his memorandum. I don't know if... Senate judiciary. Yeah. Judge, do you like rules? It's the same... Are we on the D? Is this... Is this... No, this is on the... On the emergency legislative changes. Yep. I believe that we got it on the 23rd, so it might be on the 23rd. So when I click on that, I see this... Judge Grish in emergency. If you go to the 23rd of March. Oh, geez, I'm not going to get there. I'm not on today. And it says... It's also today. I'm on the earlier one. Okay. So I see proposed emergency legislative changes. Is that it? And we went over... Sentence review? Yes, we got... As I remember it, we went over it. And we ended at Landlord Tenant. I think we were right there, Judge. On your Landlord Tenant on page two. Right. If I'm not mistaken. I think you're right. That we didn't discuss that. We did. We did discuss it or we didn't? No, I think we did. It was just simply a change from... Okay. ...Shall to May, which would give the court discretion on how much rent would be accumulating. I guess I would then... Do you have anything to add, Judge, at this time? Not on the Landlord Tenant. What about on the sentence review? Sentence review. As I said the other day, Senator, sentence review right now, we can review a sentence within 90 days of a sentence being imposed. The language that we have proposed here would allow us to review sentences after 90 days, but only with the agreement of the prosecution and the defense. In other words, this isn't the court usurping anyone's authority. And I'll give you an example. There was a case in Barrie just this week where a fellow was due to be... He was serving a sentence. He was due to be released, I want to say mid-April. And both the state and the defense agreed that there was no point in leaving him there under the circumstances. It turns out that that case came within the 90 day threshold. So the attorneys agreed to a resentence that would allow him to be released today or this weekend. So it worked because it came within the 90 days. But if this same fellow who was due to be released in two weeks, if it was beyond 90 days from sentence, we could not change his sentence. So this is just to give, frankly, not the court, but the parties, the attorneys, a more flexibility with some of these folks who were incarcerated who would get out and would allow them to get out. If they agree, if they don't agree, then it would not give us any authority. Can I interrupt for a minute? I thought in our last meeting, we decided against this. Oh, I don't... I don't think so. I think... I had quite a discussion about it. We did, but I think we wanted to hear from all the parties. I think the decision was to not put it in what we were doing this past week, but to defer it to now. Oh, okay. We would hear from the defense, the attorney general, the state attorneys and corrections. This is a permanent change. Am I correct? Well, Senator, this is a policy decision. I think there's a place for it with or without the emergency setting, but if the... Either way, it would be fine. But I think there's some discussion, had been discussion about this even before this pandemic came on us. So... I wouldn't think we'd want it in a bill that we want to pass. You mean as a permanent thing? Yeah, where are we doing that now? Or how about during this pandemic? Alice, before we decide, it might be helpful to hear from the other witnesses. Okay, okay. And Senator, do you wish to hear from the other witnesses on each piece or do you want me to go through the whole bill? No, I think we've been through the whole bill. So the next piece is the rule 43 changes allow us to continue to use video. And I do have some suggested language. If the committee supports this, I will get that language to Eric or Bryn who's ever working on this. Okay, okay. It essentially says that the presence of the defendant will be being to... Somehow we've got somebody on speakerphone. So you're getting an echo. But anyway, if the committee's interested, I can provide that language to Eric or Bryn. Yes. The other one's bail review is, we're supposed to have bail review hearings in 48 hours, review conditions of release in five days. We're just finding that in this environment, we can't meet those deadlines. And I would think if they were extended to seven and 14 days respectively, we could fit into those time frames. On mental health, again, it's, I don't know why we're getting feedback, but I'll continue to talk. Again, it's difficult to meet those time frames in today's environment. I will tell you that we're working very closely with the Department of Mental Health and the Attorney General's Office to try to do as many of these proceedings by video as we can, which may allow us to speed up the process. But again, I'm suggesting we go to 14 days as a temporary measure to get those scheduled. The civil suspensions, again, is a matter of, cases aren't being heard. Suggests suggesting moving the deadlines. Expungement and sealing, I won't spend much time on that except, it's clearly not a priority. During this time, we would ask that any guy, any time frames be suspended while this emergency is in place. All right, that is the whole bill. It is. Any questions for Judge Greerson? I do have a question. I do have a question. Bill? Judge Greerson, I'm just wondering, is this limited exclusively to reducing sentences? Well, you're talking about the first piece. Yes. So it's driven by what we have been seeing in the courts and reading newspapers and reports, Department of Corrections, prosecutors, defense attorneys, there are certain individuals who are under sentence that could be released. Everyone agrees it could be released except the Senate structure itself is preventing them from being released. In other words, these are people that are not getting programming. They're essentially doing dead time and they're going to be released, some of them in a relatively short time but there's no way to restructure a sentence. They're not eligible for furlough. I do understand that what I meant was, does it exclude the possibility that somebody's sentence could be made harsher? Harsher? Yes, longer. The short answer is no because no one's going to agree to that. Well, I would like, personally, I would like the legislation to be written to eliminate that as a possibility that everybody could agree that the sentence be lengthened. Because- The sentence what? If I understand what this says, it says with agreement of the parties, it could be, the sentence could be modified. Could be modified to release the person? Only to release that. That would be the only reason the parties would agree to modify the sentence, I would think. But- Yeah, I suppose I, it's in a range of concerns that I would situate Alice's to you. In other words, wanting to limit this and to make sure it's very focused in terms of time, but also in what it allows in terms of modification. I understand the concern, Senator. And that's why if you look at the language, this, again, this is not, this is more of a reaction to what I'm seeing with the judges courts are seeing in this period of an emergency. And it's only designed to work if the real parties in place, the state's attorney and the defense agree on this. Otherwise, the person's sentence will remain as it is. As is. Yeah, I was just reacting because it said reduce or otherwise mouth, which seemed a little broad. Well, certainly the language, if other folks, I'm not sure how other parties feel about it. If we can't agree on language, then obviously it's not going to go through. I'm amenable to any changes. I'm just trying to make this work from what I've seen or what the concerns are with some of the people that are incarcerated that probably are going to be coming, they're going to be coming into the community. And so this is a process to short. I could think of you hear from the other parties. Yeah, I'm happy to hear from the other parties, but I want to make expressly clear that if somebody's coming out, they need to make sure, they're coming out in very difficult times and jobs may not be available, housing may not be available, all of those other things. And I really am concerned about that. We just, if we're just trying to unload people out of the correction facilities, it's one thing if somebody's on bail and we change the bail conditions or whatever, but it's quite another thing they've been sentenced been in for a year or two years and now they're coming out at this particular time. I can't think of any time worse to come out, but particularly if you're a person without a structure. If Matt, if you could unmute yourself. Judge, before Matt comes on, I just want to make sure I know your position. This current proposal is being presented at a time when there's a declaration of emergency. Are you of the opinion this should be limited to the time where there is a declared emergency or is this a permanent rule you wish to have placed into concrete? You know, Senator, that's I guess a difficult question for me to answer for this reason. I have heard in practice that when beyond the 90 day period currently there are some situations that are brought to the court's attention and parties agree that a sentence can be restructured for one reason or another, essentially a re-sentence. And what I'm hearing, and I guess I've probably experienced it, some judges say no because it's beyond the 90 days, others because the parties agree, sometimes agree to a change in a sentence structure. So I think to some extent, not a great extent, but to some extent it happens. So I think under some circumstances there is a place for this language even beyond the emergency, but I'm not here with this proposal advocating for this other than this is what I'm hearing under these circumstances that there's a place for this. If the committee decides not to take it up, we're gonna continue to operate within the parameters that we have. Okay, I just, I'm gonna ask this of the other two witnesses Matt and looks like David is on, but I just wanna make sure that I understand your position and from what I'm hearing is this would be a tool that in the long-term would be beneficial as well as just now during this emergency. That's my sense. Okay. And I think I've heard that from other judges as well. If you think about it, and I'll stop talking, there's been talk in some of the committees about the so-called second look, you know, look at a sentence long after it's imposed if it still makes sense. This might be a vehicle. Thank you. Okay, okay, okay. I'm sorry, Alice, did you have a question? I just wanted to, so yeah, okay. We're having another witness, right? I'm assuming. We have four more schedules. Okay. Matt Valerio, David Shearer, John Campbell Dale Crook. Crook. Okay. Okay, Matt. Yeah, I'm fine. You hear me? We can hear you. Yeah. I'm glad it worked out. So thank you for having me. We're actually, we'll surprise that the sentence review consideration is the thing that's drawing all of the attention compared to the other things in the list. And I've spoken with you guys about it.