 Welcome back to Vermont just right committee we just took a short break and it is Thursday, May 13 and we are continuing our discussion on age 317 draft 7.1 for for folks who are watching on YouTube it is on our committee website. And it's like everybody has it here. And Eric actually be good. Just point us to the, the one change so that that way everybody knows what we're looking at please. Sure. So Eric Fitzpatrick with the Office of Legislative Council for the record, looking now at draft 7.1 of the proposed amendment age 317. The new language that the chair was just referring to is on page three lines three to four. The discussion had been whether it might be useful to clarify that the appropriation to the Attorney General's office could be used for other purposes other than contracting with the UVM internship program and that's what that language is intended to say so you say that the appropriation of the 15,000, sorry $50,000 appropriated to the AG, starting online three portions of which may be used to contract with other entities for assistance. That's the new phrase right there, and with the, and then it goes on to that's what you saw before and with the UVMs legislative internship program so just clarifying that the appropriation isn't intended to be restricted to the UVM internship program can be used for other purposes as well. Thank you. Good, good work, Eric. Ken. Thanks. Why are we lemon in that too. Why is just the Attorney General's office making that decision, because they're the, they're the entity that oversees our depth this, this entity that is hosting and organizing and conducting the study is within the Attorney General's office so that's where they're supervised. So nobody, nobody from opposing sides or anything like that would have problems with that, Eric. I don't think so. No, I think they all sort of it's just structural thing. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for Eric. So, can I ask another one I'm sorry. Yeah, absolutely. Basically, all we're doing is we're covering this for right now, and this, if I remember correctly is just going to appropriations and then we're going into a deeper dive when we come back next year. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So just for clarifications. We're not voting whether or not to pass or not pass 317 just voting on those two issues for the miscellaneous judiciary bill and Senate appropriations correct. So do you want me to put the motion out there so we know what we're voting on. Yeah, I mean, so here's, here's what I would have as the motion and it would be, well, I'll move to approve for inclusion in the miscellaneous judiciary bill s 97 the language in version 7.1 of h 317. Is that appropriate motion is that work chair. Yeah, no, I think that's, I think that's very clear. You have a second. I'll second. Thank you. So discussion so. So Bob, does that does that answer your, your question. Motion to the motion. Just yeah the motion clearly helped out so we're not setting up goalposts here and voting on something specific as far as the bill itself is concerned just voting on the addition of the language and $50,000 along with the summer stuff. Right, so we're just voting on this particular language to go into 97 but we are not voting on the entirety of s 97 if I'm, if I'm understanding it correctly. I'm talking about 317 I understand I think I'm good. And I'm not saying I'm for or not in support of 317 I'm just saying there's some some issues in there that I'd like to discuss as come back up to us next year. Okay. Thank you. And the other discussion. Ken. So, I think I heard or I'm under the impression that the administration was was okay with all this right. I mean this is part of their. What they were looking for to correct. Not the correct words but I'm sure Martin and then I'll. And that's kind of why I flagged earlier and maybe missed as far as the members of the of the our depth and our depth unanimously approve this on Tuesday, and they include people from throughout the administration, I could go back over that if you want. Well, I will it's the department somebody from Department of Children's and Families, somebody from the Vermont State Police, the Department of Corrections, and then the director of racial equity has been sitting in on all these meetings as well though she's not a member of our depth yet. So, so I would say that the answer is yes, because those members of our depth, who are part of the administration all voted in favor of this. And I would just like to add that this came out of justice reinvestment to which certainly. Justice reinvestment has been very supportive of justice for investment one and justice for investment to that. Does that answer your question can make computer get us cut out and I missed the whole thing. So was it there. I guess all I need to know was they know about this right there part of it right. Right and what I'm not sure if you missed Martins as well but but what I missed every, I missed everything. Yeah, part of it. I'm good brother. Thanks. Okay, can there's four or five members of the board that were directly for the administration or the governor or whoever that that are on the board and as far as the whole board goes they were unanimous and supported us. Yeah, I thought so thank you. And what I said is that this came out of justice reinvestment to which the administration is very much in support of and involved in. So, not seeing any other hands for discussion so I think we could just do a show of hands for this. So, all those in favor of a time are you voting already or do you have a question. I already voted. All those in favor of Martin's motion. Please, by show of hands, and all of those opposed. I think we have to wait for all hands to go down first. Thank you. Great. Thank you. And I don't think we're missing anybody right. Okay. Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you so thank you so much and thank you, Eric and any of our witnesses that are still here. Maxine miscellaneous judiciary bill will probably take a look at that at the beginning of next week I would say. I don't know if it's going to be tomorrow, but I have to look at it. Yeah, I know it's going to be soon anyway. Yeah, I think I am. I don't have the agenda right in front of me but if it but if not, if not tomorrow. It is okay. Okay, great. I'm not going to turn our attention to S3, which is bill pertaining to competency to stand trial. And if folks remember, there were appropriations in in the in the bill for Department of Mental Health for the forensic working and legal aid, I believe. And, and so I want to welcome representative David from appropriations who has it was representing the appropriations committee to report on the committee's amendment and welcome and thank thank you so much for your consideration. Thank you. Thank you. I'll try to be succinct here. I know that this could come up on the floor today. Not sure if you're aware of that but just wanted to share that with you, even though it's on the notice calendar it may be asked to be moved forward. So, when this bill passed the Senate, the chair of the judiciary committee also serves on the Senate appropriations committee, remove the funding for the bill with the intent of putting the funding into the appropriations bill, age 439. And, and that's what they often do through some oversight, accidentally, the money was not appropriated. So here it is in house, a good bill that needed some, some funding, and that's what we are. I'm going to try to present to you today and of course, I think you all know this a lot better than I do, but we reviewed section two, which concerns court proceedings that existing law requires after a defendant in a criminal proceeding has been found to be either yet insane at the time of the offense or incompetent to stand trial. A psychiatric examination is ordered by the court whenever the question of the defendants and sanitary or competency has been raised. If there is a finding of incompetency or insanity after the evaluation, then the court holds a hearing to determine whether the person is a danger to self or others. If the person is a danger, the person must be committed to either department, the department of mental health for treatment, or the department of aging and independent living. If the person's incompetency or insanity is the result of a developmental delay developmental disability. As I think, as you know, the person's criminal defense counsel continues to represent the person at the hearing. In section two, it now instead provides calls for that the defendant is entitled to have counsel appointed from Vermont legal aid. The defendant who would prefer to be represented by a private attorney can also do that. This is where we move into the appropriations because in part because of that action, the appropriation in the committee's amendment is necessary because section three requires legal aid to take on a new role. This is where we are presenting criminal defendants in these commitment proceedings. As a result, legal aid will need additional attorney capacity to provide the representation. Additionally, because of substantial experience, litigating these type of cases in other contents, context, specifically civil commitments, as opposed to cases involving criminal defendants. That anticipates contesting more issues and challenging more court ordered psychiatric evaluations that is currently the case. This means more funds will be needed to conduct the independent psychiatric examinations that the defendants have a constitutional right to request. The Department of Mental Health will also need more resources to respond as a party in these proceedings. We've recommended appropriations there also. So the appropriations amendment, which will add a new section eight to the bill appropriates the funds for each of these purposes. First section eight appropriates $250,000 to the Department of Mental Health to contract with Vermont legal aid for the purpose of providing the representation in the proceedings. We took testimony from legal aid and the department as to the amount needed in this instance. Secondly, an additional 250,000 is appropriated to the Department of Mental Health to reimburse legal aid for the independent psychiatric evaluations that would be conducted at the defendant's request, and to fund costs to the department, which will incur as they'll appear as party in these additional proceedings. And finally section eight appropriates $30,000 to the Department of Mental Health to do to fund the for instance forensic care working group which is a number of different activities that will be undertaking. And the committee is create created in the department to study these various, excuse me various issues that are related. $50,000 is appropriated to support the task group, which may include staff time that's necessary, and 5000 is appropriated for per diems and other reimbursements that may be necessary. The committee's vote on this was 1100. I hope that's helpful as to why we're doing what we're doing and we request your support. Thank you very, very helpful very thorough presentation, appreciate it. I do see that Tom has a welcome representative act of only. In the section eight, one in two the two $250,000 amounts. Those can only be used in this is a question, not a statement. Those can only be used in competency and insanity hearings are please. In other words, in other words, Department of Mental Health, or I'm sorry legal aid, or, or whoever wouldn't be able to use those funds for anything else, but those types of cases. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions I'm not seeing any hands but any other questions or comments. Martin as a quarter of the bill any anything you would like to add. No, I'm just going to have a representative of only explain the whole bill because that was so clear. I'm going to, you know, well, for me. You're you're you're prone to a little hyperbole. Thanks to Eric for all of his assistants with this and coaching me, and I will be comfortable if I am questioned on the floor on more of the content here. I'll be yielding rather quickly. Happy to be yielded to. So, no, I think thanks. Well, thank you very much. Tom, I don't know if your hand up is your hand up from before. I very much entertain a motion to treat this amendment as favorable. So moved. Second. Second. Okay. And so, can why don't we do this on the, on the record, please. Clerk shell. Commence to call a roll on second. Okay. Christy. Christy. Yes. Cobra. Yes. Donnelly. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. As in wills. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Why do you do that to me. Madam chair. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. So it sounds like. And I'm going to excuse myself. That's okay. Okay. Have a great day folks. Thank you. Thank you for your work. Thank you. Yeah. Okay, so the next thing we had up was each 183 explanation by Michelle. I'll turn to Evan and I suspect that she's still still on the floor with this. Excuse me. Yeah, the Senate. Actually, she just came into the waiting room. Morning, Michelle. So we are going to turn now to each 183, which are was is our bill regarding sexual assault. And even though I understand the Senate is maybe has just voted on it and Michelle can bring us up to speed. I did want to have us at least understand the changes in the version from what the House passed to what the Senate is passing. So I believe on our committee page. There is posted. 183 is posted by the as passed by the House and then as recommended by the by the Senate. So I'll give folks a minute to pull that up. Maxine this is all updated language that we have. I love actually I love Michelle tell us where the, where the process is and in what we have but what I'm looking at is the as past version of 183 and then draft 1.1 dated 429 is that I'll turn to Michelle. Yes, you should have two amendments from the Senate so it just they just did second reading and they just finished it and so both of these amendments were accepted on the floor and passed for so it'll have third reading tomorrow so you should have the Senate Judiciary Committee strike all amendment dated 29 and then you should also have an individual instance of amendment starting with Senator Lyons that addresses the council language so you should have both of those. Okay, thank you and then you will walk us through and help us understand the differences. Sure. Okay. Just bringing up. Many members you have what you want. I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. I'm just making sure that everybody has has what they need has have the documents going to follow. I'm seeing I'm seeing it so welcome Michelle thank you. So I'm going to start off with the, with the Senate Judiciary Amendment. And did you want me to share the screen or do you want to follow separately which reference. Follow separately please. Okay, so, so section one is your definition section. And I think you guys are already aware they did change the definition of consent. So the House proposal has had essentially left the definition as it is currently but added the word, the words knowing. So it would be about knowing and voluntary and the Senate adopted this new language that it means the affirmative and ambiguous and voluntary agreement to engage in a sexual act, which can be revoked at any time. They spent a lot of time discussing the definition of consent in committee and wanted to have more explicit language in this definition. And I think that other states, I think as, as, as you did as well. And they settled on taking some language from Oklahoma, which is in this definition of consent. They did not make any changes to the definition. Actually, Michelle before you, before you continue so when you say some language from Oklahoma. I can, I can pull it up I'd have to take a look at it and look at the differences. I don't have my, but my understanding is correct is you know often will will model something after another state and pretty much use most of it. My understanding is that this is, this is part of Oklahoma's. Back and double check but but yes you know, so you have your definition sections but they all obviously work with the entire scheme of the statutes and the elements and the provisions that are in there and so there may be certain ways that the, that the statutes as a whole operate. So, aren't all necessarily contained in the definition so like an example would be. So, I think, I think your point is that it's, it's sometimes hard to compare as apples to apples. You know, an example would be a lot of our consent detail is contained in 3254. In the definition section. And so, and so I think your point is that you sometimes when you're looking trying to look at them it's not necessarily comparable. So, and I can pull up and I think the, the Oklahoma definition I think was in the document that Rory shared with you. And back when you were taking up this issue and is probably on the website under there and if folks can't find it I can, I can email copies. Okay, thank you. So there were no changes to section two. So that remains the same. With regard to the elements. In section three, there were a couple of changes there so subdivision one in the House proposal was kind of a rephrasing of that language that currently says lack of consent maybe shown without proof you had lack of verbal or physical consent was not constitute consent and that was based on what what there is entitled 10 at the federal level. They just reverted back to the existing law and that particular provision. Then on subdivision to in the House proposal was struck that was an expression of lack of consent through words or conduct means there is no consent. So I essentially left all of the other ones. The same and just move that up so that what you had in subdivision three is now subdivision to sorry I'm trying to toggle back and forth between the two versions. Right, so the rest of that is the same. So this is the new section four in the Senate version, and this is asking the Vermont sentencing commission to look at the issue of the application of the consent language and 3254 to and they were working with that and they were distinguishing well what constitutes lunas of his conduct versus what constitutes prohibited conduct you might remember a few years ago. There was a Vermont Supreme Court case around prohibited acts, which was kind of a catch all offense that was used for sex offenses for minor sex offenses, but it's in the prostitution sub chapter. It was in the sub chapter of chapter 59, and they said it didn't apply to things that didn't involve prostitution and so you create you bifurcated it and retitled have that acts to be prostitution you created prohibited conduct under under the sub chapter and so they're just asking for the sentencing commission to look at how consent plays between those, those two new statutes, or between the new statute and the 2601 L and L section. I just want to make sure committee members are are following or following that. Don't have any questions. So they didn't make any changes to the application to L and L they just want to take a look at it. In section five on data collection. There were no changes to that section. And then they have the, the effective dates still remaining on July 1. So that's the Senate judiciary and then the Lions amendment brings in the, the council language that I can move toward. Is it okay to move over to the Lions amendment. So, so if you look at the Lions amendment, you'll see it this brings the council back in so as it came out judiciary they have taken out the council. This was supported by Senate education unanimously and a recommendation to judiciary judiciary supported it and appropriations supported it as well because of the appropriation there for funding for staffing the council as well as per deans and expenses. And a few changes to this and I have a, I'll just kind of hit the highlights but I do have a kind of a highlighted marked up version that has all the different little things there that I can send to you if you're interested in the small language changes but generally, if you move down they made changes to if you look at page two. And, oh, one thing that they did throughout is it sometimes it's where it said sexual violence, they said sexual harm. Because when you're talking about the scope here harm can, you know, I mean, I think the testimony from the network was that either term would work but it's an education wanted to include the word harm. To ensure that it wasn't just talking about I think what we think about in terms of sexual assault, but that you know when we're talking about title nine it's much more expansive than actually that and so they wanted to make sure that they're looked at taking a wide look at these issues so you'll see the word harm at times that is included. So this is in page two subdivision F you had two college students there, and they added a third student. They didn't change the specificity with regard to the student two students. So you would require that one have lived experience with sexual violence and the another student from representing a campus based racial justice organization so that's the same they just added one more student onto the Council, and you'll see that. So, Next. On the duties. They changed these a little bit so subdivision one C one on top of page three. They wanted to add them to start out by reviewing the recommendations from the task force and to develop prevention solutions to sexual harm based on those recommendations so there were a lot of questions and some education about some of the things of course I recommended and well or you know is there intention to act on those things like that and so they decided basically to have the Council just kind of pick up the ball where the task force left off and work on some solutions to those. If you look at subdivision C for this was just tweaked very minorly and I'd have to compare them both but UVM general Council have requested that instead of best practices that it's read effective practices. So just a little tweaking of the language there everybody, both committees was was fine with that. There's a new subdivision five, or is it fine. Yeah, identifying campus wide activities publications and services that promote a campus culture of respect to support the prevention of sexual harm so that is new language. Subdivision six is actually something that was a specific recommendation from the task force and so even though they're asking the task force to I mean the Council to pick up where the task force left off there was recommendation in there that they wanted the task force to report on earlier rather than later. And so on November by November 1, they wanted them to recommend statutory protections to the General Assembly to ensure that survivors of sexual harm aren't punished for reporting an incident of sexual violence due to alcohol drug use or other minor conduct violations. Kind of similar to what you just did with the good, good Sam law and saying, you know, want to make sure that we're encouraging students to report and that they don't fail to report because of a concern that they might get cited for cannabis or alcohol or something like that. It still continues to be staffed by the network. And the, the date is still the same for the general reporting. And then what you'll see on subsection F subdivision one on the meetings is they've moved that date up I think that the, the Council, I mean, was slated to meet I think by start at least start meeting by September 15. Not in the House proposal, but because of the added requirement of them reporting to you on subdivision six by November 1, you know, because they're only allowed to have four meetings. The concern was that maybe they could only squeeze one meeting in and that'll be kind of the organizational meeting and figuring out what they're going to be working on things like that. And then they had to have the opportunity to have two meetings at least prior to being to reporting to you on November 1. So that's been just changed to July 15. So the next change is top of page five, and, and this is on the repeal so on the, or the sunset. In the House version it was seven years and then the Senate version it is four years. And then on the appropriations the appropriations are the same as those that were in the House proposal. There was a discussion about the fact of adding one more student and should that be changed and they decided not to change that at this point and they thought it was small enough that if they needed to do something they could do something in budget adjustment. So that's one of the dates. It's that the, because the council is going to be taking, taking effect and working on this earlier that they have those going on passage. So they can get to rolling as fast as possible. Thank you, thank you Michelle. And did you call me sorry. No, actually, as client can because I see Ken's hand up and then, and then Kate. Hi Michelle when when colleges are listed. Does that also include universities. I mean it's all the same thing right and that there's no dispute in that with anybody. No, I think everyone is represented so you have been subdivision be a you have the Vermont State colleges represented in a one B, or B one B you have the University of Vermont and then in C, you have the independent colleges so they are all included those three separate groups would then be appointing from their membership a title nine coordinator and a campus based sexual harm prevention education coordinator. Gotcha, thank you. So the independent colleges for example would be Norwich University in Middlebury, Bennington. I'm missing but but. Okay, thank you. Kate and then Barbara. I think. Thanks. So say I actually have a question back on through the original, the bill itself. I was looking at the definition of consent and it added, which can be revoked at any time and I was just, I was just curious to imagine there was some discussion about what that means I was just wondering if you could help me understand that language a little more like what does it mean to be revoked or what does that look like exactly. I think it's, you know just plain language interpretation which is that you can, you can consent to engage in a sexual act. But if any one at any point in time, you withdraw your consent and say, no I don't want to do that, or things like that then consent ends at that point. And just because you initially consent does not mean that there is continued consent, if you express otherwise. Is that, is that okay that help. Thanks yeah and I'm, you know, I, I can look back to the language, the language of the bill more fully to I'm trying to envision because part of this bill like is trying to address some of the real life dynamics that arise where they begin a sexual encounter let's say conscious, and then become unconscious let's say they've, you know, consumed a lot of alcohol and at some point they pass out in the midst of, of an act right. So would, if that person began a sexual encounter conscious and engaged but maybe didn't want to like, would have set certain boundaries but now they've passed out like is there lack of consciousness or revocation of consent and I don't understand sort of like how that would be defined. Well, I think you have the other, you have the other provisions in the act that talk about somebody who's sleeping or unconscious or substantially impaired is incapable of consenting and so, you know, we hadn't really talked with the public about if you have consent and then someone actually rather than affirmatively revoking consent loses, you know, mid engagement loses capacity to consent. We hadn't really talked about but I think I think you're, you're, you're covered by the language that's in 3254. Okay thanks that's what I was wondering about. Thank you. Are there any other questions for Michelle. So, okay, so they will second reading today. They're reading tomorrow. So, they've been having token sessions right on to just try and make it when we might get it. Right, they have to hold it over a day so if they had a token session on Monday that would count as holding and then they would send it over Tuesday. Otherwise, they would send it over Wednesday and sending over and notice what they send it over and then I notice the next day. When it comes over to you. Yeah, when we have to decide whether you know what our next. Yep. So Tuesday or Wednesday is what you're saying. I think I can double check with the with the clerks there I mean I think if it's, if it's, let's say if there is if there is a token session. Then they would send it over to you on Tuesday. And then it would be on notice on Wednesday and up for action on Thursday. If they don't do a token session, then it'll be to you on Wednesday. Okay. That's helpful. Thank you. Okay, so again, I just want to understand what was what were the differences at this point. And we'll take this up next week. Thank you, Michelle. Sure. Okay. Okay, so any before I move on to general discussion expungement any anything else that folks questions about feedback anything. Nope. Okay. I'm not evening. So I did, did want to talk about expungement after the testimony that we that we took yesterday, and I am. I'm very glad that we heard from from legal aid and from the defender general's office and the request from both legal and defender general's office was to go back to it's really virtually the same in both that as passed by the Senate and what we were looking at. But it really moves forward the dnb language the dnb and judicial bureau language and that was the language that judge Greerson worked with dnb on to get it right in the house version. I'm not saying this and didn't get it right but just worked on it a bit more. And, and that my understanding from legal aid and the defender general's office would certainly be a step forward in terms of of expungements and so that was their proposal as well as going back to the Senate's study, which is much more comprehensive and comprehensive than the, than the study that we saw in the, in the last version. I believe the Senate had the study going to the sentencing commission. What I what I am thinking of and working with with bring on is is adopting sections, but in the study, I would like a comprehensive study but some way also have the question of whether or not certain misdemeanors should be excluded. Not an assumption that they should be, but, but a consideration and, and I think we can do both because on the one hand we're, as the Senate said, expanding expungement and my last, the last draft that I put forward was certainly really restricting and pulling it back, but anyway so that's what I'm working with Brent to see if there's some way that that we can that we can do both and sort of get as much, much as possible on the table. So that's, that's what I'm thinking and again because, because the proposal came from special legal aid who has been so so central to expungement and the clinics and moving expungement forward I found that very, very compelling. So, just put that out to for folks thoughts I realize you don't have the language in front of you so I'm not I'm not asking for a vote or anything I'm just asking in concept is that how does that sound to you. Selena. I would, I would definitely support that. I think the last couple of drafts we've looked at why appreciate the attempt to respond to some of these last minute concerns that are coming up. They really were getting to the point where they were, you know, sort of sort of backtracking on what's possible under current law and I feel like the legal aid and the defender generals testimony really brought that. Really made that very clear. Yesterday, not just the question of sort of, you know, eliminating expungement eligibility for a whole host of crimes that are currently eligible but also just eliminating the stipulation factor. They had the opportunity to talk to legal aid a little more even after their testimony and they just made it clear, especially in the larger court dockets, you know, like chitin in court that with that without that ability it could really grind. Expungement access to a halt and so I for those reasons I mean I would very I just want to say on record I am disappointed that we're not moving in the direction of more expungement eligibility. It's a discussion but I understand that powerful concerns have been raised, and I would rather see us move forward, these things without backtracking on what current law allows without a much deeper conversation, then we're going to be able to have in the next week and a half in this committee. I support the direction you're headed here. Thank you and can you talk a little bit more about the docket so the judicial bureau that's what you're referring to in terms of chitin county. I'm trying to remember what section of the bill that is and seven section seven. Yeah, so I can speak. I have to go back another day so I think Ms Riley refer to that a little bit in her testimony yesterday and sorry I'm just getting myself attuned to the actual language of the bill here. So, that is apologize scrolling to get to the right section here. It's 23. Thank you. Yeah, it's section seven in both. Yeah. Yeah, hasn't said it yet. So I think. So I think, but this is the attempts. I am not finding the exact language in the bill quickly enough to, to, but I think the, the idea was that now like states attorneys can essentially do a block of expungements and not have to do like a case by case by case hearing which has been critical to these clinics and just to be able to, to work things through and the feels very important to people on the ground to retain that, that ability. Does that make sense. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah, just wonder if you have any idea when we might look at that new language. So, so bring just sent me something on on the study, which I haven't had a chance to, to look at. So, but I think I'd be able to get you something this afternoon. I think this is the same if we were to work from. So even working on the draft from from yesterday. The. So sections, sections one and two, we didn't propose any changes to the Senate. And then it skips to section five and the only change that we're proposing is judge Gerson's language regarding notify the person by electronic means as opposed to a phone call. And then section seven is the the DMV judicial Bureau language that that I'm understanding is so important to, to legal aid, and that's where we also added the exception for research entities that that Bryn said is really clarifying language but was asked for by always get this wrong. CRG right primary search group Karen cadet and Robin joy. And then the thing that. I think on now is going back to the Senate's language for more expansive study, but then also trying to keep the misdemeanor crimes on the table and and having justice oversight not the sentencing commission review this which I believe the defender general's office testified apartments for that as well. Justice oversight did the first one and this will be a different entity to do it, right. Other way around sentence and commission. So what the Senate past version was a result of the sentencing commission. Okay. And, and you would like to see justice oversight do do it this time. Right. Yeah. Okay. Okay, so the new language is basically sections one, two, five, seven and eight. One, two, right one, two, five, seven, seven and eight. Yeah, and so really the new line, the new language is really going to be the study. Right, right there because everything else we've we've seen really have not really have not changed much at all from the Senate version. So, so what kind of, if any at all input with the administration have in this and looking at a study, or, or maybe recommendations from the study. And the reason I'm saying that is when they were, when they were in, I think it was yesterday, was it yesterday they were. Everything to running together. When I saw them on the agenda originally and I think I sent this to you and a text Maxine. The last time they were in before yesterday they had the way I looked at they, they kind of drew drew a line in the sand for us. And gosh, I think we met every, every one of their wants and needs. I mean I even went to bat with you Maxine on in a telephone call for for the math. You know, and I'm just going by we, we want to do everything we can to prevent that from grabbing hold of our state. And so when I saw there. They were coming back in on the witness list. I thought they were coming back in to at the very least not oppose, and maybe even support what we did because we gave them everything that they wanted. And, and then they, I mean, they move the line. The only way I can say is they move the line and without any real X, any real explanations. You know, Kate asked a question about what rational was. And, you know, a rational plan was and got zero answers. Because there wasn't an answer there wasn't a plan. And, and then the term antiquated system was thrown around without any real remedies to an equated system and, and I was really frustrated with with with what happened yesterday. And again, I feel that we came to a place. You know that there was a lot of compromise. And if it was something they agreed with you know I thought that they would have been compromising, you know, some things too, but that didn't happen. And anyway, I guess. Well, I guess we'll go back to another study, you know, and get some more gets more information and more answers and you know and hopefully next year. That doesn't happen. You know, I don't think it was fair to anybody, the way that it all played out. I really don't. But that's just my two cents on it and certainly look at the new language. Thank you time. I very much appreciate your ear remarks. It was very, very frustrating and disappointing. I thought it was a particularly rough, rough hearing yesterday. Ken. I think. I think a lot of it is just. Maybe I'm naive to, I think it's just trying to clear, get clarity and clarification of what really is going on and I think people really struggled yesterday was trying to get their points across and I just think it was a bad day and it was a bad presentation. However, I think Commissioner Sherling made got some light on that and hopefully going forward. More clarification. Thank you. Appreciate that. Any, anybody else. So when we, when we adjourn now I will work with Bryn on the, on the language and then I think she should be able to send everybody, at least by email a new draft. And then we can. Now we can take a look at it. We'll be posted on our page also. Yes. Okay. Madam chair. Yes, did we do a straw on 317. Yes. If it was a formal vote. Was it a formal or a straw. It was a straw. Okay. I think it was a show of hands right I'm getting confused with that yeah that was a show of hands and three was a formal. Okay. Because I obviously would have voted in favor. Just had a, had to get some things squared away for when Mary gets back that's why I had the mask and stuff and got back a little late there. So, thank you. We were going to start calling you Dr Christie. I thought he was trying to cover up that he might have shaved. She home now coached that that's what went through my mind is she was home so you were wearing the mask. Not yet. Still trying to get things. Situated. Yeah, actually it was a contractor. We've got some potential trip hazards. Yeah, so still plates around and stuff. Because with that mobility piece on the, on the right side. Figured anything that we can do to eliminate potential problems, you know, you need to get it done. And the, the only other thing I realized it wasn't on the agenda, but each 145. I think most of you have heard that the governor sent a letter expressing concern about the justifiable homicide. Section of the bill and question whether or not it was the in our intent to limit or change one's common law. Right to self self defense. And apparently the governor had had heard from a number of folks. There was an alert sent out by BT guns expressing concern specifically pointing to me and calling it calling it my bill. And then a judiciary. Met discussed it. Martin and I were involved. Jennifer Morrison of DPS were involved with with a response, we're talking about a response, because the governor has until midnight today to what to make a decision on 145 and we wrote a letter in response that is posted on our website actually both letters were posted yesterday, letter from the governor and then response letter that was signed by Center of Sears and myself stating that the, that the intent was never to limit. And so one's right to self defense and that the, that the bill 145 defective it does not limit. So, so it was never the intent, and it certainly is not the fact in the lettering includes some case law and bring was also involved in the meetings. So, I'm too. Yeah, I was just wondering on that magazine. There hasn't been a letter from the administration, another one, except the original concern. Or any. Correct that not, not, yeah, not not that I know, not that I know of it in response to our in response to our letter. Right, right. So, say if they didn't accept the letter as being a good enough, I guess you could say, would we then do an amendment or put something in the miscellaneous bill to satisfy their questions. So I don't, I don't know I think it would depend upon what the, what the governor would do is start to sign it to let it go into law or to veto it so that I think we would need to Martin go ahead. I mean, I think it's bad precedent to put in amendments to explain what a bill doesn't do. You know, I mean, it's pretty clear that the right it's not just right to self defense but right to the fence of others was part of the concern and it's just very clear from legislative council that this does not impact what current law already is to actually have to come out and amend something to say yeah well really we didn't change these other things. I just think it's a bad precedent, I really do. You know, so. I don't disagree but if he's, if he, if he says he's going to veto it because the, the explanation isn't good enough. And we had talked about some kind of possibly an amendment before the letter. Maybe it should still be on the table, I guess. Hopefully, I mean I read the letter and, and, I mean, I. You know, it covers it as far as I'm concerned that you know the the intent or what the intent wasn't I guess you could say, but whether they'll accept it or not. Just so maybe something that deserves a tiny bit of thought just in case. Yeah, and I guess just two other quick things on that is. First of all, it take it would take two bodies to get that through and it was pretty clear from the discussion yesterday and Senate that they would have no interest whatsoever in approaching that and chair grad brought that up. Okay, soundly rejected by our sister body or brother body. The other thing is that 145 is primarily to help the administration. Yeah, I mean, all the other things in 145 we put in there, really at the request of DPS and really work hard with them to get to that point so if they want to go down there. Yeah. We need to know this bill, because of that particularly since we haven't changed anything and we've, we've gone an extra step already which we never, I don't think we very seldom do so that that's where I am I just don't want to leave anything out there that suggests that we were going to start having a precedent of explaining what we haven't done whenever we pass the bill so that's that's just where I am. Yeah, thank you so I think it's a matter of wait, wait and see what happens. Ken. So just to be fair here, all parties concerned it wasn't this body that made the change we did everything it was the other body that did this. So, we did what the administration the administration was happy with us it was the other body. Thanks. Thank you. Okay, so we'll put that aside for now unless we're any other questions. The other thing I see an email from Barbara's on. So I did late last night sent sent a an email to to chair Hooper regarding appropriations and I need to send it to Evan to post. So everybody, everybody can see that. And it was, it was late so sorry Barbara that I didn't, I should have copied you and represents squirrel but at that point I wanted to make sure that that appropriations about it. So I will do that. Martin separate issue. I don't need to do anything with 317 with appropriations are you going to take care of making sure that they're aware of what we did this morning and it's ready for their consideration. I would assume it would be more of a chair to chair thing but if you have something for me to do just let me know. Okay, thanks. Thanks so much. Oh yeah, I will send it. I'm going to turn it on.