 Good afternoon and welcome to Vermont House Judiciary Committee. It is Tuesday, May 4th, and we are going to be considering seven, which is a bill relating to expungement of criminal records. We have been working on this bill and but then we had gotten some testimony in opposition to the bill, specifically from the bankers. And then also from the state's attorneys, even though the state's attorneys had supported the bill, and based on that, I decided to take a pause on the bill. And then I received a letter from the governor's council, as well as a memo signed by three commissioners. So stating oppositions and concerns with the with S7 as it was drafted as it passed the Senate. So I've been working with our council with Brent here, and with Senator Sears and with the Attorney General's office to try to to address those concerns because this is very important work. And to see this work continue, this committee has been working on expansions for a while and know that it is important criminal justice means it's important for workforce development. And so I would hope that that this draft which is about to walk us through will address the needs, the concerns that have been expressed you'll find on our committee page. There are various memos correspondence relating to this, as well as the latest draft, which is 1.4 of S7. So with that, if I could turn it over to Attorney Brent here for a walkthrough of this latest draft. Thank you. Good afternoon committee for the record bring here from legislative council here to talk about draft 1.4 of the House judiciary amendment to S7. So, I believe that the committee has that posted to its web page so just let me know if you want me to share my screen or if I should just proceed without just letting everybody see it on their own device. Yeah, I want to proceed without. Okay. So, the first change in this draft you can find on page five, and this is in section three, the definition section. So the first major change that that this draft makes to the Senate past version is to amend the definition of qualifying crime so it changes what crimes are eligible for ceiling or expungement under the bill. And if you recall the version that passed the Senate made nearly all crimes eligible for ceiling or expungement except for a list of crimes and drug trafficking offenses. So this draft narrows that down quite significantly so instead the draft makes all misdemeanors except for those that are listed crimes offenses involving sexual exploitation of children, or a second or subsequent voyeurism conviction. All other misdemeanor offenses would be eligible for ceiling or expungement pursuant to the criteria outlined in the statute. And then, if you scroll down to page six. This is when we start listing the felonies that are eligible. So, pursuant to current law, you see on top of page six, what will be subdivision be is certain types of burglary offenses. And that's existing law. I've added some language there. You'll see it highlighted in yellow that cross references a 1D of 7602. And that's because a 1D sets out some criteria for what, what types of burglary convictions are eligible based on the age of the person, and so whether or not they're carrying a carrying a weapon. So that's just a little technical amendment there. And then if you scroll down to page seven the remaining felonies that are eligible for ceiling or expungement are listed. And then you'll see a few offenses relating to possession of regulated substances offenses relating to the sale dispensation or transport of regulated drugs and qualifying felony property offenses as was defined in the Senate past version of the bill. And that definition just a little lower down on the page and subdivision five. And that's going to look familiar except for the addition of one crime which is listed in yellow highlight online 18 and 19 that 18 vsa 4223. And that is a prescription fraud, and that's an existing law. In fact, I think you'll, it's, it's struck through, I believe on page six. Because it under existing law that is currently eligible for ceiling or expungement. So I just dropped it into the definition of qualifying felony property offense as that term was defined in the Senate bill. And then that comes so those are all of the felony crimes that are eligible under this draft of seven so it limits limits the felony offenses, pretty significantly. And then I see if there are questions before I move on. I have a question, Brent. Good. Yeah. I don't want to jump ahead of the folks who raised their hands here. No, it's okay. No, no, no. And then Tom and and slia. So on, on page seven CD and E. That are highlighted. You're saying these are now eligible for expungement. Yes. So these, these are crimes that would be eligible for ceiling or expungement as outlined in the next section of the bill. So selling dispensing and transportation of drugs is still eligible for an expungement. It is not currently it would be under a seven. Okay, thank you. And excuse me for in these were in the other draft. Well, they're just there, they're outlined here and highlight because now rather than providing for eligibility for all offenses except for those, those few that were that were exempted in the Senate version. Now we are specifying specifically what felony offenses are eligible so I've outlined them here. So there's, there's quite a bit of narrowing of eligible felonies. Yeah, absolutely for the Senate past version provided for eligibility for ceiling or expungement for all felony offenses except for those drug trafficking offenses and listed offenses. And this version sort of flips it and says felonies are the only felonies that are eligible for ceiling or expungement are listed in the bill. Okay. And again, as seven is passed by the Senate was recommended by the Sentencing Commission. And so that's where much of this came from. Yes, the seven originally and, and last year I can't remember the bill title but also passed the Senate last year was a bill that was drafted modeled after the recommendations of the sentence and commission. Thank you. So, Bob, does that answer your question. Yes, thank you. Great. Tom, I don't see Selena's hand anymore, and but I do see Ken so Selena jump in a few. So one of my questions was answered said, I couldn't remember. On page seven CD and E if they were in the other bill or not but. But with the offenses relating to selling dispensing and transporting. Is that no matter how much is sold dispensed or transported. Is it say a few grams of cocaine compared to a few pounds. Right. It's any amount except for those amounts that would kick it into a trafficking offense. So anything that would qualify for trafficking is not eligible. Okay, good, good. And going back to page five. So changing of the qualifying crimes. For small to I guess or double I whatever you want to call it. That's involving. What is that called the two small eyes. I think it's just to Roman numeral lowercase Roman numeral to yep. Okay. Yes, but so an offense involving sexual exploitation of children. So is there any, any crimes involving any kind of, I don't want to say exploitation, but I guess any sexual crimes involving children that are expungible, or does this exploitation, you think cover everything. Carves out those offenses that are entitled in that chapter, the sexual exploitation of children chapter. Are you asking if there are any felony offenses that would still be eligible. No, I don't think there's any felony offenses. I didn't know if there's just just something I may be being over cautious. But better over and under I guess. So it carves out any offense that is involved sexual exploitation of children under that chapter. So that so those those offenses would not be eligible. I was just thinking maybe some lower level stuff but I guess exploitation is a pretty broad. Okay, good. Thank you. Sure. Hi, Brian. Just going just going back to what Tom started on about the and about the amounts and then you said trafficking. I think it would help everybody a lot if we knew or maybe everybody that has a lot more experience than I do already knows this, but what amounts are there and stuff like stuff like that because if it's intent to sell and all that stuff that's, that's pretty serious in my mind. Yeah, because you know what, you know what I mean, you want to know the amounts that are that are prohibited like that. Like, like, I guess now is this new are these is this new expungement bill basically set up with these. Well, well, right now with this session with the with the drugs that whatever is legal now is now expungible. Is that how that goes if I kind of remember language. So, so under existing law there's possession of regulated substances is an expungible sense. Is that what you mean. Like, well, I mean that's a question but now we're we're dispensing and transporting, which to me I mean that could be a dealer or a provider or somebody that's that's got a huge amount. Or did have a huge amount now all of a sudden they're going to they're going to get off. Um, well they don't know they have to they have to remember they have to complete their satisfied the judgment for their conviction. This this expungement is is separate from the from the penalty that a person has to complete in accordance with the criminal statute is that right. Yeah, yeah, we're good. No, we're good. Okay. I'm good for now. Thanks. So, yeah. Um, Tom. Okay, thank you. Along the same lines when I asked that certainly satisfied me when it. When it came to the high level. You know, Trent not transporting what's what's the word trafficking. Yeah, yeah, that's that's a whole different, a whole different game and the trafficking and in one thing that came to mind. What when my son was a patrolman, and if he found somebody, you know, on the street or arrested somebody or was going to for whatever reason. If they had three grams or less of heroin on them they didn't even arrest them. You know, in here it's kind of considered a huge crime, but the people that they found out there with three grams or less chances are it wasn't even theirs. You know, it that they knew on the street that with three grams or less people weren't getting arrested and they were actually transporting. You know, it was a very small amount they could safely transport without being arrested again. And so that that's, that's my idea of what transporting is. More than, you know, the large amounts and that and along with the with the selling and dispensing to it's going to be the, you know, smaller amounts that you know, and that's all relative I guess depending on, you know, what the amounts are but anyway, that's all. Thank you time sleep. Yeah, so I'm just trying to make sure I understand what is being proposed here. It looks like, in addition to retaining the possession in terms of the felony offenses that would qualify in this draft. If I'm reading things correctly, it looks like we are retaining the possession, expungement eligibility for the felony possession of regulated substances. Adding sales dispensing or transporting of regulated substances but as you know not trafficking, and then expanding some of the property offenses that would be eligible. Yep, that's correct. And when you say adding are you referring adding from the prior draft or adding from the. I mean from existing law, I'm trying to understand because the prior draft like pre created more of a framework for most felonies except with some exceptions and this we're just, it feels like we're, we're building a little bit on the felony. The felony. You know which felonies under current line it is mostly like direct possession and some property related property crime potentially related property crimes so it seems like I understand characterize this draft kind of builds on that the framework and existing law. Essentially just adds a little to those categories. I think that's a good way to characterize it. It kind of builds on the existing framework of what is eligible in terms of felony offenses. Right and trying to be very clear as to which felonies are are eligible because that was a concern that that there could be a number of felonies that. Yeah, it's just unknown, what would be eligible. Okay, great. I just wanted to make sure I was my, my understanding was the correct one. Thank you. Okay, so I'm going to keep going. So I'm down in section four now. And this is the expungement section so if you scroll down to page 10 subdivision to you'll see some new yellow highlighted language, and this subsection subdivision to here is the language about the, that limits the prosecutor who can stipulate to an early petition to seal or expunge to the, to the prosecutorial office that prosecuted the offense. And there are two changes here. And the first to see on lines, nine and 10, this is really just a technical change so it your, so the language is a little bit more clear that for those offenses that are eligible for an early petition to seal or expunge because not all offenses are. If that person petitions to a seal or expunge prior to the date that the statute sets forth as the eligibility date, only the office that prosecuted the offense can stipulate to the petition. There's also some additional new language here on lines 14 through 16 that the office that prosecuted the offense can waive that requirement and allow for another prosecutorial office to stipulate to a petition that's filed prior to the date that the offense is eligible according to the statute. Right in that language I think we talked about before but that that was to address if there are clinics and so that that. So that the Attorney General's, you know, office or others could work with the clinics and not be as restrictive as the language that passed the Senate. Tom. Yeah, what we're just discussing is that is that saying that only the office that prosecuted the offense may stipulate to that petition does that mean they're the only office that can okay and early seal or correct. Okay, I just wanted to make sure. Thanks. So I'm going to keep going now and scroll down to page 11. Oh, Yeah. I'm sorry. I just need very if you could once again for me. What about sealing versus expungement and so on if we're moving to expunge records under what criteria would we seal records and why would we seal records to begin with versus expunging. So this the statute sets out all different parameters for for you deal with different crimes differently in terms of sealing or expungement sealed records are records that aren't destroyed they are placed under seal and they have only a limited number of entities are that are able to access them and expunge records as you know where are ultimately destroyed except for a special index that retains some limited amount of information about the conviction. So I think that you've heard from witnesses that there there's a there's a really broad array of different opinions about sealing versus expungement and different stakeholders have different reasons for feeling the way they feel about whether records should be sealed or expunged. So I would hate to speak for them you have many witnesses on you could, you could ask that question to but I'd be glad to answer specifically something a question you have about the difference. Well, my question is sealing of records, we do we do that because they're not eligible for expungement. So some so as seven sets out some crimes are only eligible for for sealing and not expungement, and also some crimes are eligible first for sealing and then later eligible for expungement. I think that those are typically the types of offenses that maybe predicate offenses, for example, our first eligible for sealing and then if a person doesn't commit an additional crime for some period of time, then they're eligible for expungement later on. And again this was these are all these are all recommendations that were taken from the Sentencing Commission's report from 2019. I think that that group of that group of stakeholders did some thinking about the policy of when a certain crime should be eligible for sealing and when it should when and if it should be eligible for expungement. Thank you. Thank you very good. Sure. So I'm going to scroll down to page 11, and you'll see some language the subdivision five, the language here is is both underlined and struck through and that's just to indicate that this was new language from the Senate, that you would be removing from here. And you remember that this is the provision about a person who has served a term of probation. That restitution is kind of linked to their probation term. And so it provided that these individuals who are under these types of probation could petition the court to request that basically an adjustment of the waiting period before they could seek an adjustment of or a sealing of their conviction. And so we we've removed that language in this draft. You did have, I think you did hear quite a bit of testimony about that about that particular provision so I'm not going to spend too much time on it let me know if you need a reminder of what of what that language is. There's a new language to replace it here on lines 15 through 17. And this is just sort of a straightforward provision that criminal conviction record of a person who's under the supervision of the Department of Corrections is not eligible for sealing or expungement. And you heard some testimony from the Department of Corrections a couple of weeks ago about their concern about having people who are under their supervision of applying for a ceiling or expungement of a record. So then they may not be able to look back to that record. So this language here is intended to address that concern. Okay. I'm just going to keep going here. Before I change you can see on page 18 I believe yep bottom of page 18. So before I talk about that little change I'm just going to note that I'm in subsection I. And this is the subsection that deals with qualifying felony property offenses and the sale dispensation or transport of regulated drugs. So if you look at page 18 subdivision three online 10. I've highlighted the words honor after and that is to note that in the senate version. These types of offenses were eligible for an early petition to seal or expunge with the stipulation of the prosecutor. And we've removed that so now these types of offenses are not eligible for an early petition to seal or expunge. They can only be sealed or expunged on or after the date that the offense is eligible pursuant to the statute so that would be an eight year waiting period. From the date the person satisfied the judgment, or if they committed a subsequent offense, then eight years after they completed the sentence for that subsequent offense. So that's clear. Subsection J so I'm now I'm back on page 18 subsection J. You'll see this is the qualifying felonies subsection this was sort of the catch all provision for all other felonies that weren't listed listed felonies or drug trafficking felonies that weren't articulated earlier in the section. We've just struck all of that language because now we're specifically identifying all of the felonies that are eligible. So we've removed that subsection from the bill. Now I'm going to keep going if you scroll down to page 22. And this is the section about the judicial bureau records. And this language is in yellow highlight you heard from Judge Greerson about this language this was the language that the judge proposed. And that he worked with the DMB on these proposals to change. Basically the mechanism for how these judicial bureau records would be expunged. And the Senate, the Senate version of this language was really modeled after the criminal expungement, the chapter. The procedural how these expungements would happen and it didn't make a lot of sense for for for the judicial bureau so the judge Greerson came forward with some sort of procedural language for how this will happen. And so that I've replaced the Senate version with that language. And that's on the bottom of page 22. And the bottom of page 23 and top of page 24. And lastly the last changes on page 24 and this is section eight the section that directed the sentencing commission to do further study of ceiling and expungement and come back to the legislature with recommendations for how to simplify and automate the process. And the changes here are just that we've, you've removed the sentencing commission from that work and it replaced it with the justice oversight committee. And so the task justice oversight is tasked with proposing legislation on any recommendations it makes with respect to a policy for making all criminal history records, except for the big 12 offenses, eligible for ceiling or expungement. We also have access to sealed records, and whether the state should continue to employ this two track process of ceiling and expungement or if it should instead shift to a one track system that provides for either ceiling or expungement. And then lastly, on recommendations on how to implement an automated process or a petition less process to seal or expunge. Thank you. Thank you very much for any questions committee members. Not seeing any right now but well it's clear. It's not exactly a question but I do think I mean I guess I could try to do it for myself but other members might have the same like it would be helpful to really look at current law what the Senate proposed in this with this proposed and understand how crimes, you know, had particularly in the Senate version and then this proposal, which, which additional crimes would be eligible in each version. I know it's in the Senate proposal, it's more of a framework and less of an inventory of all the crimes at points but I guess I'm just trying to understand how much of an expansion this proposal really is on current law. And it's hard to do it without going kind of crime by crime. So maybe the in a way that's the comparison I'm really looking for. In the current law, you're looking for a comparison of current law with this proposal. Yeah, just to understand how much of an expansion. It really is which I can, I can do and could just kind of figure that out for myself and, you know, potentially ask you some questions brand but I don't know if others are in the same place as me. Yeah, so I'm happy to put together a list of the felony offenses that are currently eligible, compared to the felony offenses that would be eligible here. And in addition I can put together sort of the opposite list for the misdemeanors what was not eligible what is not eligible under current law for misdemeanors, and what is not eligible under seven that's helpful. I would find that so helpful. Yeah, thank you. I would find that helpful also thank you. Yeah, and would it be helpful if bring did a walk through the bill instead of instead of just highlighting highlighted sections in 1.4. So I wonder if it would be helpful if bring did a, you know, did a high level walk through and could perhaps point out some of the differences from from current law. Because we didn't do that. So, but let's take Ken's question first. So, the, the other thing that I struggle with remembering is a felony is less of a crime than a misdemeanor is that I got it backwards. Misdemeanors are subject to a lesser penalty than felonies. How many levels, how many levels of crimes are there. There's misdemeanors, and there's felonies, and there's also civil, there's also civil offenses which are not crimes, and usually subject to a lesser penalty. Gotcha. Thank you. So if you could go back and just do a section by section of the bill and and how it changes current law, that would be helpful after we hear from Tom. Next thing you're suggesting to do a high level walk through. Was that instead of the list that. Okay. No, I think I think the list will still be very helpful. Yeah, I think maybe. Yeah, I think also if Brin does a walk through of 1.4. As it stands that some of those questions some of those questions may be answered as well. I think it's a great idea. Thank you. Okay. Can I assume your handle is, is that from before. Okay. Great. Okay. Thank you. Okay, so am I, am I hearing that you want a walk through of the, of the whole bill again. Please. Okay. Okay, so starting with section one. The definition of listed crime. And the changes that are made to section one, the listed crime definition are some technical revisions to the list of crimes to change to account for some change cross references and updated terminology. So, these are essentially technical corrections that were recommended by the Sentencing Commission and their 2019 report. Section two of the bill. This is the surcharge language. This, this section essentially implements a provision from a bill that passed last year that allows surcharges to be waived for judges or waived by judges for expungement or ceiling proceedings if the petitioner demonstrates an inability to pay. So that was a policy that was passed last year and this is kind of a technical change to the statute to implement that policy change. Section three, these are the definitions in the expungement chapter. So, I, I really went through the qualifying crime changes here in the, in, in my discussion that we just went through so I'm not sure I need to focus on that but I will just just draw your attention to the actual definition it will help to read the definition if you're talking about the difference between current law and what a seven proposes reading list definition of qualifying crime including the struck through language language will will help and I will also provide a list to make it easy for reference. But the change here me changes the definition of qualifying crime to any misdemeanor that isn't so essentially it's saying all misdemeanors except for those that are listed crimes. This is involving sexual exploitation of a child's second or subsequent conviction for voyeurism, not none of those misdemeanors are eligible for ceiling or expungement. The remaining misdemeanors are eligible for expungement. So you can see in the struck through language that they're existing. For example, under existing law predicate misdemeanors are not eligible for expungement, but they would be under as seven. And then, if you scroll down to page six, we've got the, the felony, the list, the felonies that are eligible for ceiling or expungements we've got the burglary that specific circumstance burglary is eligible and that's true under existing law. And then you've got all of those offenses that related to that are related to possession sale transport or dispensation of regulated drugs. And then that, that whole list of qualifying felony property offenses. Some of the crimes in that list of qualifying felony property offenses are eligible for expungement under existing law for. For example, uttering a forced or counterfeited instrument is currently eligible for expungement. But obviously this list expands upon that and provides for many other felony property offenses that are eligible for expungement. Top of page nine, we've defined subsequent offense. That's a phrase that you use throughout the bill. So that means the conviction of a crime that's committed by the person that arose out of a new incident or occurrence after the person was convicted of the original crime that they're seeking expungement or ceiling of. And then section four, this is the actual section of law that deals with how ceiling and expungement sort of shakes out for the different types of offenses that are eligible. So if you scroll to or like a session, we already talked about the language on page 10 for for stipulations, I won't go through that again. And page 11 the removal of that that section about people who are on probation with a payment of restitution as a condition I won't go through that again. So bottom of page 11 subsection be so this is how the bill treats qualifying non predicate misdemeanors and convictions of possession of a controlled substance. So these types of offenses are eligible for expungement, five years after the person completed their sentence for the crime, or five years after completing the sentence for a subsequent offense if they committed a subsequent offense, whichever one is later. And it also provides that if the state stipulates to a petition to seal or expunge the court can grant that petition before that date that the offense is eligible for ceiling or expungement. So I'm going to scroll down to subsection see now which is on page 13. So these are qualifying predicate misdemeanor offenses so these are treated a little bit differently than non predicate misdemeanors. So, subsection see provides that qualifying predicate misdemeanors are eligible for ceiling, five years after the sentence completion date, or after the completion date of the sentence for a subsequent offense, whichever is later so five years from the original date of sentence completion, or five years after the completion of a sentence for a subsequent offense. And then that sealed record then becomes expungement eligible, five years after the ceiling order, if the person doesn't commit a subsequent offense. And again, we've got that language that provides that if the state stipulates to a petition to seal or expunge at any time the court can grant that petition without a hearing. So then I'm scrolling down we've just added a subdivision to the DUI offenses section. That's subdivision subsection G. The division added to subsection each for the burglary offenses those are also treated a little bit differently. And then subsection I is the qualifying felony property offenses and the sale dispensation or transport of regulated drug offenses. And those are treated a little bit differently so those are eligible for ceiling eight years after the completion of the sentence or eight years after the completion of the sentence for a subsequent offense, whichever one is later. And once the offenses sealed its expungement eligible eight years after the ceiling order, if there is no subsequent offense. If there is a subsequent offense, then it becomes expungement eligible eight years after the completion of the sentence for the subsequent offense. Again, this subsection also provides that a court can grant a petition to seal these offenses at any time if the state stipulates to that ceiling. And I'm going to amend what I just said which is that it's actually only on or after and not prior to the date the offense is eligible. That's one of the changes that this amendment makes to the Senate version. So these types of offenses, the qualifying felony property offenses, sale dispensation or transport of regulated drug offenses are only eligible for ceiling or expungement on or after the date that it's eligible. They're not eligible for an early ceiling or expungement, even with a stipulation. That takes us through section four, which is the big section about how the bill actually deals with the expungement or ceiling of different types of crimes. And section five, this is the effective ceiling statute. And the change here just makes it clear that courts have to make a reasonable effort to notify individuals with a sealed record that they may be eligible to have their field record expunged. And that finds that reasonable effort is attempting to contact the person by first class mail and by telephone. Section six. So now I'm on page 20. This is the ceiling of records for people 21 and younger statute. So under current law person under 21 she'll have their juvenile records sealed two years after their final discharge if they weren't convicted of a list of crime. So the court is satisfied with their rehabilitation. And the change here raises that age to 24 and provides that as long as the person wasn't convicted of a list of crime within the 10 years prior to the application to seal, then they are, and then the other criteria are met then they are eligible for ceiling. So now I'm going to move on to section seven. This is the expungement of the violation records, the judicial bureau records. So this section makes seven civil offenses eligible for this petition list expungement process two years after they satisfy the judgment for their offense. And the offenses are operating on registered vehicle failing to possess registration, failing to possess a license operating after a suspension operating without a license operating without insurance and operating an unexpected vehicle. And it sets out a process for how that those records are expunged. And then lastly section eight is that report that I just went through, which is now really recommended legislation by the justice oversight committee based on their work to understand the policy and to, and to, and to improve the policy for stealing an expungement in the state of Vermont. And then the effective date is July 1 of this year. Thank you for an I appreciate you be doing that. Hopefully that help people and then I think a chart or side by side will also be very helpful. So again, any questions before I move to our next witness. You know just just something I want to flag and I guess it shows how old I really am but us mail and telephones, unless they're so cell phones are so far outdated that how how how is due diligence going to be done with that. I mean, I would think if anything else the word certified mail maybe be in there but I guess I'm also questioning. Why, you know, an email. I guess I could be changed certified mail cell phone. I don't know that's just something that caught my eye that maybe we'll be talked about at some point. Thanks. Thank you. I just now invite David DeMora, who is the senior policy advisor for the Council of State governments, and the reason why I've asked Mr. DeMora to join us is one of the concerns that was expressed by the governor's council is that the expungements as specifically as seven undermines the work of justice reinvestment to and is very, very, very important work. I don't agree that it does, but that certainly Mr. DeMora is very familiar with justice reinvestment to has been advising the state for justice reinvestment one and and now to quite a while to give his thoughts. Thank you. Good afternoon everybody. I suspect that at some point there may have been some type of unintentional miscommunication around that issue. I wasn't involved in those meetings, but, but it would not be our perspective that expungement will negatively impact justice reinvestment. I think the specific concern, as I understand it, had to do with potential impact on the use of risk and needs assessment and whether or not it would disallow accurate risk and needs assessment. I'm going to try to give a middle answer. I'm going to try to not just give a simple answer, but I'm going to try to not get really complicated about it either and take up a lot of your time. There are a couple of different things. The first one is that that is only one small piece of most risk assessments. And so while you will lose a point, for lack of a better way of putting it, there are other factors that will kick in that will still give you information about that individual. The factors and risk assessments are correlated with one another. So just because that disappears, all the factors we know that are correlated with it don't go away. And so you're still going to, you know, you might be off by a point in many of the assessments, the range in each bin is so wide, it will not even move you, you'll be you'll still be in the same bin. The second issue which is when time passes historical information on a risk assessment becomes less relevant. For example, if somebody for most crimes if they are offense free in the community for a period of five years, they are approaching the same level of risk of recidivism as the citizen who has never previously been arrested. There are certain types of offenses such as sexual offenses and domestic violence offenses, which I'm not even sure are considered in your bill but just as a point of information. There you're looking at approximately a 10 to 12 year period before they actually also reach the same level of risk as someone who has never before been convicted of an offense. For me to do a an evaluation on somebody, seven years down the road eight years down the road and be if you will be worried that because that expungement happened. I'm not going to be able to accurately know what to do with this individual is not accurate. The first thing is that these are risk and need assessments so you're measuring needs, what you respond to and supervision and what you respond to and programming are the needs of the individual the needs that relate to. You have a lot of needs, that's what creates the risk. Alright, risk is just a static factor that is rolled up from these other things. Criminal history is a static factor, and so you can't do anything about that. But what you are looking at are those other needs or those needs that are in the assessment to make the determination of how you should supervise what you should be providing in terms of programming. So, parenthetically, in the new, many of the new risk tools, they're limiting criminal history to a five year period, because they lose such that validity after that period of time. Again, that's what the exception of sex offender risk tools just to be clear and domestic violence risk tools. But not least the other reason, even in those tools that are keeping them, they're changing the waiting, particularly when you look at things like age at first arrest or history because to be frank, that that reflects as much the systemic bias in a particular place as it does the individual who is being assessed. So, as tools are being developed as we're getting more data, we're actually making some significant changes in how we think about things like criminal history, and the degree to the degree of weight that we give. If in fact, you were, and I'm just going to be silly here. If in fact you were expunging everybody's records one year after. Yes, you would have a problem. If you're talking about five years, seven years, 10 years, then you're okay and it's not going to mess up justice reinvestment to it's not going to mess up with the needs assessment. I did a very quick scan of states. There are 24 states with expungement statutes 16 states have automatic expungements all of them have different rules of course. And looking even at the years, Massachusetts has five years for misdemeanors 10 years for felony main has seven for felony, three for misdemeanor Colorado is one three and five and on and on and on. I mentioned this only because all these states utilize risk and needs assessment. So they've also looked at this issue in terms of wanting to understand what the impact was, and making sure that they weren't doing something that was impacting community So I'll stop there because I could go down a rabbit hole really easily in these kinds of discussions about risk and needs assessment. And if there's any questions I'll try to answer, otherwise, let you move on. Thank you that wasn't incredibly helpful. I really, really do appreciate you making time to be here today and to clarify that questions, comments, Barbara. So, I'm wondering if, when you look at our list in this latest draft. Would you characterize it as, how would you characterize it, let me not. So, I've not examined your draft all I've I heard Brynn as she was talking. And what I can say is from what I heard the connection of the different periods of years to the types of offenses. That's pretty closely to what the research tells us. But I would ask you not to take that to the bank because I have not laid eyes on the document. And so I, I'm only responding to what I heard Brynn saying, we've got, but we have multiple studies out of National Institute of Justice that shows four years actually even lower four years for lots of things like most burglaries and non intimate violence. And then we have other studies for five and six years for other types of burglary and then again as I said when we start getting into interpersonal or intimate partner violence, sexual or otherwise, then that that extends significantly. Right. And how about, I know they don't call them predicate crimes everywhere but the, the use of us ceiling documents as opposed to expunging. Have you seen that in other states as well because, again, I, you know, wonder, especially with predicate crimes where it can sort of, it's not even a true seal in the beginning. Well, I mean the short answer is yes there are some states that do that seal crimes, as opposed to expunge there are some states that do both. And in fact you can go not not to do an advertisement or anything but you can go to our website I can send the link. I love your website. It goes through all 50 states and it looks at all the expungement rules and all 50 states and all the ceiling rules, and all the states that might, there's eight states that do neither. But 42 states do one the other or both, and their differences between all the states, but we want to know another of our team members, or one of our other teams I should say, has spent a tremendous amount of time gathering all that information and putting it in a place where you can easily get it. And as I said I will send the link to, or actually I'll put the link in the chat after I'm done, so that you can all access that and that will tell you a lot of information. I have other questions. Do we know specifically for the states that have been expunging for a while. What, what factors, it made a difference with like, how did people whose records got expunged. Do you track any of those outcomes in particular in terms of earnings or mean is it just committed another crime or not, or is there more that's tracked. So the short answer is it depends on the state. And I know that there are studies out there that show for example increases in employment increases in relevant or wrong word in, in good employment for lack of a better way of putting it and decreases in housing problems, etc. I don't know of a national study about that there are individual studies. And again we have some team members who spend way more time on those particular areas than I have ever done, who would be able to give you additional information about that. And so my last question is, are you aware of states that made expungement laws and made the decision to ratchet them back because they had some bad outcomes. I am not that that's not to say that it doesn't exist. I can't swear to that, but but I don't I know that there are multiple states that end up tweaking things every year. It's in our blood right yeah. Sometimes stepping backwards a little sometimes adding another component because the first ones have worked, but I don't know of a particular situation where where I've seen more problems frankly is at the front end, not the back end. When you start looking at bail issues when you start looking at pre sentence. I've seen way more problems there than I've seen at the back end. Okay, because the only thing I've seen is either crime staying the same or dropping where there's been expungement but I hadn't seen one where crime was increasing I just wondered if you have not seen one either. Okay, thank you. Thank you Barbara. Any other questions. Members. Again, David, thank you. Thank you so much. Yeah, appreciate it. Okay. Judge person. Move you up because I know you have other commitments. Thank you very much. And good afternoon to the committee. The record Brian Greerson chief superior judge offering testimony on as seven. I think my comments can be relatively brief. Obviously the, the change from the Senate version, the addition or subtraction if you will have offenses eligible for ceiling and expungement is really a policy decision for the legislature not one that we would weigh in on. I believe, I don't know if this committee but certainly the legislature is for testimony from Pat Gable a court administrator on the impact of expungement on the on the court system so I won't dwell on that either, except to remind you. I have a couple of comments. And interestingly, on top of page 20. Talking about the reasonable efforts to pick up on representative Gosling's comment. I. I don't remember the testimony around that piece. I understand the reason for it. I think he makes a good point. As the committee knows we have gone to an electronic case management system and electronic filing electronic filing doesn't necessarily apply to self represented lit against many of which would be involved in ceiling and expungement. I certainly would not have offered any testimony or any support for the idea that we would telephone someone. I had no idea where that came from. And if I missed it to either the Senate or the House before I apologize but there was just. There would be no way that we would have court personnel contact someone. There's no record of that. There would be no record it would be a couple of things one. The information we would have on on telephone or mailing address would be dated anyway. My recollection was, and what I would recommend my recollection was the time someone is having a record sealed the court would ultimately have to issue an order. I'm not saying the ceiling. But in doing so, I recall my testimony being that we would then that would be the appropriate time as we're sending out the notice of ceiling to them to remind them that there would be may be eligible for expungement at some point down the line. My recommendation would be on line to on page 20 is to say, attempting to notify, as opposed to contact notify the person by electronic means, or first class mail at the person's last known address and strike the contact by telephone. Telephone numbers are not something that we would normally have in our system, or if we did have it, it would be extremely dated. And I would not want to put a staff member in the position of making a phone call and relaying information for which there's no record. So I would ask the committee to consider making that change. That I did request, and I don't think I've had a chance to testify in this committee is under section seven, which is on page 22. And that relates strictly to the judicial bureau and the records they maintain. And the reason for the recommended language is to reflect the different system and record keeping in that division, as opposed to the other divisions. Keep in mind, these are not criminal offenses. So we're not involved with VC IC, the only entity that we communicate with with respect to a person's vehicle record a record of driving is the Department of Motor Vehicles. That's why you'll see a reference in that language to a data transfer between the judicial bureau and Department of Motor Vehicles, which is a regular communication that takes place between those entities. And that's why the language calls for that exchange of information from the judicial bureau to the department of motor vehicles. With the sufficient identifying information. And you'll notice that the two years. The reason for the changes the original language talked about orders issued by the judicial bureau and the judge here then assumes or that a judge will intervene in this and the idea behind this change. I know the term in the original bill is introduced use the term automatic and as I know the committee has heard me testify before. I'm not dramatic about this process, but this language will at least help to streamline the process that has to be done still requires staff involvement. But the entry of expunged essentially will be the record. It doesn't require a judge's involvement so at that, when the ticket if you will is is paid, and we would be notified of that that's when the two years would start, and we can trigger our system. But at the end of two years, we would then be able to make that entry of expunged notify the more department of motor vehicles and that would be the end of the process. So that's what this language speaks to. And that really is our recommendation I think when I testified earlier, I reminded the committee or requested the committee to consider amending what was act 167 if you remember the marijuana, the expungement of marijuana. In other words, was supposed to be completed by the believe January of 2022, which is six months away I guess now. But having in mind the reduced workforce reduced work hours. Since the pandemic has had an impact on the on the judicial operations and the fact that we're still operating under the governor's emergency order in a o 49, which has a suspension period in play. For the process of expungements, and I believe my earlier testimony was although we have been processing them it's not uniform throughout the courts and would ask the committee to consider extending that by a year. That's the deadline that's in act 167 to January of 2023. And I believe that's all I have I am looking forward to the study committee whether it's in sense and commission or judicial oversight to take a look at this process of both the questions raised by representative Rachel sin. And other we've represented Norris raised the question about ceiling and expungement it's really something that I believe with our case management system. It's a good time to look at this process. And if not make it automatic I think there are ways that we can stream streamline the process and the term that we sometimes use under ceiling and expungement is who has the permission to view a record. And that's really what's key to this whole process for how long and how do the access. That's all I have, Madam chair but certainly any questions that anyone has, and I would ask you to consider those changes. Well, thank you thank you very much I appreciate your changes, especially regarding telephoning and contacting and also working with with DMV to to get to yes. I will look at that. The time expansion. I'm not sure if we would do it in here or miscellaneous judiciary, but I'll work with and consider it consider it somewhere. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Bob. Yes, thank you. Good afternoon your honor. Good afternoon representative Norris. I have a question I don't want to hold you up and I have places to be but in reference to there's been a lot of talk and discussion as to how do you unseal a record and so on so forth it's been a lot of concern around law enforcement having to be able to do just this. My question is along those lines is the courts are the, the only entity that can approve the unsealing of records. Yes, what once they're sealed. I mean that order goes out to any entity involved in the ceiling process meaning the court seals its record notify the state's attorney law enforcement agency involved as well as VCI see that the order is in effect, but obviously, we can only control our own records in that respect but they're they are notified. If the if the the individual accused of the crime and who has applied and their orders are expunged and or sealed. Is there a process that you're aware of what the courts would entertain as far as them signing off to allow for the unsealing of these records for say employment purposes. I haven't looked at the the statute recently to, but it's very restrictive as to under what circumstances, you can request, you have to request to the court to unseal a record. And if I look back at it, the representative North only very specific and somewhat narrow reasons to look at a sealed record, sponge record of course means no one sees it. It's even under our case management system now, no one would have permission to look and expunge records so the ceiling records, but the unsealing of record requires request to to the court and to explain the purpose of it and I don't off the top of my head, I don't think employment is the reason for that. I can check. Let's just, let's just say we're doing a background check your honor. And some applying for employment say in law enforcement. And I know the expungement if took place, it's never happened, but the seal record still exists and everyone is mandated obviously to take a polygraph test in the state of Vermont. The polygraph starts jumping up and down and reading all over the place here and it turns out that there may or may not be something in this person's criminal history, and here she is willing to come forth for it and allow a process to verify for for their benefit I might add that that's not here for their for the benefit. For a prospective employer to really answer the question. I need to review the ceiling statute to determine under what circumstances they could access that record. I'm just trying to look at it very quickly. Give me a second. You know the general rule is even with a sealed record it's the same as an expunge record. The person making an inquiry regarding a seal record the response from the court is no record exists. And we just one other place. Let me get back to you on that question. I'd be great I appreciate it. No I will take a look at it because it's a it's a question that obviously is important I haven't just reviewed that statute. Thank you for today, but I will get back to you representative Norse. Thank you. Just looking for any other hands members. Not seeing anybody. Thank you so much your honor. Thank you. Take care. Thanks for taking me out of line. Thank you. Okay. Joe record, the Department of Financial Regulation. I'm still record. I'm the director of policy with the Department of Financial Regulation. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on S seven. I want to first just apologize to the committee that our department did not become aware of S seven and a more timely fashion. But once we did become aware of the bill. We worked quickly to review it. We were able to identify any potential issues that were related to financial services regulation and ultimately to get comfortable with it. In short, DFR has no objections to the bill at this point. The department supports the intent of the bill to give people second chances once they've paid their debts to society. First of all, we want to make sure that the bill is in the bill is two fold. The first is that we're ultimately a consumer protection organization involvement in financial services involves access to sensitive financial and other personal personal information of Vermonters. And we wanted to examine and weigh any potential risk of harm to Vermont consumers from DFR is credentialing of companies and individuals to participate in financial services. This includes insurance agents bank licensees securities broker dealers, as well as officers and directors of licensed organizations. Second the nature of financial services regulation is that they're both federal and state regulatory regimes and licensee licensees as well as their employees and control persons must often abide by both. We're potentially concerned that the bill might stand in conflict with certain federal rules or guidance, or the policies and practices of financial institutions regarding the hiring of employees. Banks credit unions insurance companies and other organizations take seriously the responsibility to adequately screen potential employees for risk as does DFR when we're determining to grant credentials to individuals. To the extent that we're able to do so. In the April 22nd letter DFR stated that it requested additional time to study the bill to ensure Vermonters personal finances remain well protected. We have now completed our analysis and we're satisfied that there are no serious legal conflicts between the bill and any state or federal financial services laws. Like all expungement laws, however, seven would marginally increase the possibility that a person with a prior conviction for a crime involving dishonesty or breach of trust. Could later become licensed by DFR or work in the financial services industry in Vermont and subsequently reoffend. However, as I said, we're satisfied that the risk of harm to consumers in our state is minimal and that the bill strikes a fair balance. Thank you. Thank you very much. I do appreciate your testimony I do appreciate you taking the time to review your, your concerns and let us know that that they no longer exists so I really do appreciate and appreciate you recognizing that that important balance. So, thank you. Barbara. Hi. You're new to our committee so I'm just curious about DFR's interest, in particular, if it is related to thinking it's going to cost the state money or you. So, if you could share like how DFR. In particular, gets involved that or when that would be super helpful. Sure. So, there are, we of course issue licenses to certain individuals who participate in financial services, for example, securities broker dealers, insurance producers. Like that we also have to approve like control officers and directors and other control persons of for example captive insurance companies. So, in circumstances like that. There are certain federal rules and regulations that those persons have to abide by and we wanted to make sure that we are able to license those individuals without running a foul of the corresponding federal rules. And that makes sense because I know there are like sometimes we have Vermont rules like a hairdresser can't have a felony and those are independent on a federal rule so we could rethink our rules but you have some that are out of our control it sounds like. That's right the nature of financial services particularly banking is that there are, there's a federal regime and there's a state regime and this is also insecurities and insurance as well although less so in insurance but often individuals who work in those industries have both regimes and we sort of have to work to make sure that when we're licensing someone they're also in compliance with federal rules. So I'm wondering if, as our committee works on these issues, if it would make sense for us to put in language that says, in certain cases, there's federal restrictions that Vermont doesn't want to violate and if somebody is expunged they can apply to be a captive broker or something like so that we're not just saying no to somebody who might never choose to go into that field. And yet that would keep us from breaking, you know, the federal guidelines. I don't think that suggestion, but I think at this point we've reviewed all of the relevant financial rules and regulations and we don't think there's ultimately a conflict between this bill and those. Right, I was just thinking, as we move forward with expungements in the future that might be a good thing to think about. But thank you. Thank you. Anybody else. Thank you. Yeah, nice to see you take care. Thank you. I'll stay on in case there are questions that come up. Okay. Okay. Great. So let's turn to Dale crook from the Department of Corrections and then we'll take after that we'll take a quick break. So, welcome. Thank you for the opportunity to testify for the record my name is, and I am muted sorry about that. Thank you for the opportunity to repeat myself. My name is Dale crook I am the director of field services for the Department of Corrections. I'm very engaged to the updated language around not allowing individuals under the supervision of the Department of Corrections to be eligible for expungements. We are in support of that and I we requested that language we appreciate that that being changed. You know, expungements is a very difficult topic. A lot of different opinions and objectives involved with it and while we did hear David DeMora speak we do on some levels disagree with with some of his assertions. For example, we use multiple risk assessments to help determine how we evaluate risk. While I am not a academic like he is with the language and the research. What we use is that we use for example the or ask which is your Ohio risk assessment tool and in the community supervision tool. There are multiple questions that expungements would basically negate from the assessment. Those questions would be the most serious arrest under the age of 18. The number of prior felony adult convictions prior sentencing as an adult to a jail or secure correctional facility. Received official misconduct while incarcerated as an adult prior sentencing to community supervision as an adult and community supervision has ever been revoked or technically violated as an adult. That would be kind of indicated in my previous testimony last time. That is a concern for the department. While we can still operate without that. It may have an impact on how we evaluate risk when someone is reassent and comes back into our systems. We do agree that that expungements do offer a lot of benefits. We do offer a lot of benefits for offenders that have been through the system and now out of our system and had a long period of successful community or reintegration so to speak. But there is a concern. And a lot of our concerns are really around domestic violence and sexual violence we have additional risk assessments, the static 99 and the domestic violence screening instrument revised, which also rely on prior. criminal history as part of its evaluation. These are just the concerns that we're bringing forward to the committee. As a concern. While we do appreciate the language changing around individuals under supervision. We're still concerned and to add to that a lot of our sentencing and convictions. And our state are done through plea agreements. And on occasion, and quite often sometimes your original charge is much different from the charge that ends up coming to the department of corrections. And through plea agreements or through other reasons, behaviors that we may find more concerning are charged as one crime and end up being sentenced and under supervision for another, for example, domestic violence. And many situations that original domestic violence charge, and many situations are pled down to a simple assault. And I do believe that would be eligible for expungements. Again, these are just concerns that we're bringing forward to the committee. These are very difficult decisions and I do not envy the committee and having to kind of wade through all the information coming forward and making the making the decisions that you have to make. Other than that, if there's any questions. But that would be the end of my testimony, unless there's questions. Thank you. Committee members any questions or bring I don't know if you have anything to to add or clarify. So I don't I don't have anything to add. I might know my understanding is that the department seems to be expressing some continued concerns about this draft, even with the changes. I don't have anything to add to their testimony. Right. And so just to make sure I follow was domestic violence and what were the other crimes that you were concerned about. The most concerned with our in relation to sex offending crimes and domestic violence, not the ones are going to be expunged, but in future behaviors are risk assessments that we use for sex offense and violent domestic violence offenses rely on criminal behavior. These are just concerns we're bringing forward. This is not a showstopper so to speak, but it is a concern that we would have that we would be dealing with individuals, and we, and we, and we could possibly be under evaluating their risk to the community. I understand you heard conflicting information from David DeMora, so that probably doesn't make this easier to move forward with. Okay, thank you. Barbara Martin and Kate. So, Dale, is it possible that we are using the wrong assessments. And do you know for using different assessments and other states, because it sounds like you're what you're what I'm hearing is you don't think for sex offenders, the assessment shows if there's risk. No, no, I think the the risk assessment tools we're using are validated risk assessments. The, the or so higher risk assessment system is used throughout the country multiple multiple jurisdictions use that it was created by the University of Cincinnati. It's been validated and done meta analysis and all those things. I do believe it was. Recently, I believe before the Senate judiciary. I can't remember who it was but a professor out of low mass. I talked about the biases of our risk assessment and that it wasn't. And it was a pretty good system. So the or us was a pretty good risk assessment system validated. Other ones the static 99 that is also widely used around assessing sex offender risk. The static 99 focuses a lot on static factors that don't change over time a dynamic factor some some that changes. I'm unemployed one day I'm employed the next. A static is like, I have a history of something I've been to jail before so the things that can't change. And I said 99 relies a lot on static behaviors. So, I don't understand your worry about the assessments. So, I'll do a straightforward system. We're not as concerned with the old old behaviors for a bad check or something like that but when someone gets arrested and I know there was language I believe the Attorney General wrote that someone has been, you know, crime free for a long time. The risk to reoffend is lower than the general population, where the risk assessment kind of comes into place. If they do get re arrested. So two individuals will have different would have different assessed risks, based one has a criminal history and one does not. And if you expunge that you lose that that information. Now I can't really tell you how much that risk increases. I just did just read off for the or ask the six I think there were six questions that were related to the community supervision tool which is the or us has multiple different tools one is a community supervision field supervision. And there's 35 factors used in six were related to past criminal behaviors that the expungements could have impacts on. So you're worried if somebody reoffends and their record has been expunged do see won't know if they'd be a candidate for probation or community service. So what it would do could have an impact on how we would look at that case the department is trying to be evidence based. And we use the information that we grab from our assessment tools to determine how we address individuals in our system. Do we do programming or not do we recommend probation first person incarcerated sentences to our courts. I do believe that some of the screen tools that are used upfront rely on criminal behavior as well so with with that impact someone ask criminal behavior, correct. No matter how far back childhood whatever. And this is where where where David expertise chimed in David DeMora expertise and I'm not a criminologist with you know I don't study these as my, my job. But the tools that we use there's no indication where after a certain period of time we don't use them as factors and determining someone's breath. Okay, and do you think Vermont does more plea bargaining than elsewhere or do you think that certain types of plea bargaining should be changed so that a domestic violence can't be No that's, I think I don't I can't tell you how other systems work I assume plea bargains are pretty standard through the criminal justice system. You know you can't have every crime go through a trial because the courts would put shut down. And I, I'm not sure if the judges to lobby he may be able to explain, but but plea agreements is part of our criminal justice system it can make agreements where behaviors that we may find concerning could be convictions that we'd find concerning could could change. For example, the department supervises sex offenders and domestic violence offenders based on the behaviors in the after David, as much as a conviction. So, I mean we're tied, we're tied on some levels to the conviction for from Act one from from 10 years ago. But as far as how we look at the case if there's sex offending behavior or intimate partner violence and the after David. We would address that offender as either a domestic violence offender or a sex offender, regardless of what the after David conviction was we look at the behaviors in the after David. Okay, thank you. Martin your hand is dead to you. I, well I thought, I thought I thought Bartlett covered issues but just, you know just. I guess a couple things I'm a little concerned that that for purpose of the risk assessment this is a whole new issue here I mean that may we have to dig into risk assessment sometime and we talked about this but it concerns me that that rather than it has been actually pled to or convicted of that they look at the underlying affidavit and they make their own call whether it's domestic violence or sexual violence and that significantly concerns me actually, but that's not the issue before us at this time. But I guess the, the, there's a question that I guess it's as much baby for David D'Amara as as for Dale is if there, if there are any studies anything out there that we can be provided that talks about how behavior that has happened 10 years before or some period of time in the past. What that would reflect on an individual's risks, if there is some document we definitely have David D'Amara's testimony and that's great but there's anything else that we could latch on to that would be helpful as well. I would be happy to send you some of that material. There are studies out there. I've also talked with the co creators of the oras as well as the static 99 which is the risk assessment tool. So there's a volume of information out there. I'll, I can't pull it together just this moment but I will send it to Representative grad or to Evan and forward that to you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. I guess first, and I apologize if you've already said that I guess I'm curious if you can explain again. What the risk assessments are exactly used for for folks who are on parole or probation. The department uses risk assessments to help determine what we how we address the case moving forward. So for example, our case plans that we have for inmates and for people under supervision. Our case plans use the risk assessments and within the risk assessments there are domains, substance abuse is a domain within a risk assessment. And if those, and if those domains score moderate or high. We would look at addressing those domains those needs and our case plan if you have a high need and substance abuse and our case plans we would address it by getting an assessment and going through treatment. For example, we also use it to determine if we're going to program someone in our correctional facility or not. If there are other criteria or met if they're an illicit offender and they score a moderate or high on our risk assessments, we would put them in our risk reduction programming, if they score low we may we may not. And again it also would impact if we're doing precedence investigations for the court. And if those assessments could impact do we look to recommend a probated sentence, or an incarcerated sentence or a furlough sentence. So the risk to reoffend trying to be an evidence based organization. The higher the risk the individual is the more resources the department puts into that case to manage that case to address those behaviors I hopefully hopefully that answered your question, you understood that. I understand it I guess I, I guess I feel complicated about this idea. I mean, we've heard testimony that these risk assessments have some flaws. Just period. So that's a little bit concerning to me that sort of one of the foundational arguments for this portion of the bill is to better. To shore up our risk assessments which I feel like this committee has talked about wanting to move away from in certain ways so that that feels a little bit problematic. But in addition just like if we're talking about using risk assessments. And the argument is, we can allow people on probation to have to access expungement for past offenses because we need their risk assessments to be more, I don't know if accurate is the word that is being used but like, it's part of the testimony we're hearing is that like, after a certain period of time for past offenses risk of reoffence. And as it pertains to that past offenses is really low it's like it feels like it feels like there's a risk of overly inflating someone's risk, if that makes sense, he sees risk many times in one sentence but I don't know if you get what I'm going for. I understand and it is it is complicated and it's not an easy answer. I don't, you know, we're just giving our concern as a department that we, we do believe that that there could be concerns. I think you kind of hit it right that that we could lose some of our accuracy on our risk assessments for for past behaviors. And then the department's bringing up risk assessments are standard tools used in all correctional systems, I mean they should be, I mean that's what, you know, all the evidence indicates that you should be doing valid using validated risk assessment risk assessments, and the information from those risk assessments should kind of drive how you apply resources to a case. Yeah, I guess I would be concerned about inflating the resources that are being used. I guess my other question is my sense of my looking at the bill on page. Section 11 sections five through 14 have been stricken out and replaced with this new section we're talking about which would prevent someone who's under Department of Corrections from being eligible for scaling or expungent my understanding is that section five through 14. What I was trying to address was this phenomenon of people being sort of caught up in probation for prolonged periods of time and it was trying to create a mechanism whereby once that person satisfied that probation, or even as they were serving it. And I guess just feeling your expungement without having to then wait for the additional five to eight to 10 years after their probation is is complete and I guess and I don't know if this is a question for you or for Bryn but I guess my concern is that this new language. In addition to other concerns I have about it. To me, I don't feel like it adequately sort of addresses that like, there's no, I don't see any other, I don't see any mechanism within here that would then. If the person satisfies their probation, it, do they then have to wait that length of time under this new language is there any mechanism for shortening that window. So I think some of that would would fall to brand to explain as far as a policy, the request that the department made was that while individuals are still under the care and custody of the commissioner, the Department of Corrections are supervised by corrections that they're eligible at that time for expungements. What we have are situations where we supervise, excuse me, we supervise individuals, not by charges we supervise the individual, so we can't split out individual cases individual charges. So we'll have our risk assessments, and all of our, you know, work products so to speak is based on the individual and everything that came to us at the time. And when expungements happen while they're under supervision, it gets really difficult for us to to parse that out. Recently, we've had a couple of situations where serious offenders had had offenses that were expunged that we're very concerned about because we'd have to look at all of our work product is no longer validated all of our case draftings, all of our decisions to program all of our precedence investigations, all of our risk assessments are now, in some ways invalid because we had information that is now included from expunged cases. And an expungement means like the offense never happened and kind of all history has never happened. And this was after someone has already been currently on supervision. So that was a request from the department and the updated language here addresses our concern around that area. Great. Thank you. Brenda, do you want to add anything. So, if, if you could restate your question that would be helpful to me. Your question that I can answer that would be helpful. I'll see if I can do it in fewer words, but So, I'm looking at page 11 section lines five through 14 that were stricken out. I was saying that my understanding of that language originally being included was in some ways to address the fact that people can get caught up in probation and that it was sort of trying to create a process whereby people could sort of expedite their expungement or stealing process who were in one of those situations. And I was, I was reflecting on the new language and it seems like in the new version there's sort of like no mechanism for that and I guess I was just trying to confirm if that is my assumption is true or if there's any mechanism or buy someone on probation could expedite their expungement. Right, so if a person isn't, if a person is currently under the supervision they wouldn't be eligible to have an early petition for an early ceiling or expungement. But as, as you know from from going through the bill a few times there are eligible or otherwise maybe eligible for an early ceiling or expungement depending on the depending on the offense. So they couldn't apply while they were under supervision, but they as soon as they were not you're saying they could potentially apply for for an earlier. Depending on depending on the type of offense that they're seeking to have a expunge. Thank you, thank you, Bryn. Any other questions for Dale crook. So, let's take a 10 minute break and after a break, we will hear from john Campbell.