 All right, we're gonna pick up on JRH 7 and there's two things that are, I think what we're gonna finish with testimony today. After yesterday's testimony, we have a request from Kay Stambler to come and speak. So that we would like to be able to offer that time. And then we're gonna have Michael to join us. We had some language that was proposed, a phrase that was proposed by Rich Holshew. Richard, you remember Rich from last year and it's what he testified numerous times in our committee in Virginia's People's Day. And he had given written testimony yesterday and so I had Michael add some of that language to some extra language that he had proposed last week to the bill. So that's what we're doing with JRH 7. We do have Representative Gonzalez is out today her baby was in the hospital last night, but they're home. And she just had a cold that got worse. So, but they're home and sleeping hopefully on development. Yes. And so with that, Kay, would you please join us? Thank you. We'll go around the room and introduce ourselves. I am Representative Thomas Stevens from Waterbury, Representative Matt Byron, Greg Hedges. Representative Lisa Hengel, representing Berkshire Franklin, Richard Hikey. Representative Mary-Anne Dimash, I live in Swanson, I live in Swanson, and Shelley. John Colacchi's out for a Tony Walts from Mary City. Mary Howard from Rutland City. Chip Triano from Standard. So welcome. You expressed a desire to testify on JRH 7. I did. Thank you very much for making some time for me. I'm a parent of a child who was born with lots of disabilities, and she lived an incredible life. And I just want, I brought her picture when she was about eight, maybe 10, I'm not sure. But I'm also here as the representative of the Reminded Developmental Disabilities Council. And they're going to get you an electronic copy of what I'm going to say. I realize that we can't undo what was done with eugenics, sterilization movement in Vermont. But I have a history of being a parent, a public guardian, and a friend of many adults who are developmentally disabled, and were and still are impacted by the past exceptions of eugenics in Vermont and in our country. I also, when mentioned, been coming to the state house for almost 50 years, so I'm concerned about the issues that come before you. I want to share with you two situations that I experienced as a result of the prejudice that was generated by the eugenics movement and other ways of devaluing people who don't have the same ability as some other people and call it the ableism. The first situation happened when Fred, for whom I was a public guardian, was quite sick. And I brought him to the hospital. It turned out that one of his kidneys was not working properly. And after a number of tests, the neurologist came to me and said, well, he's a definite candidate for dialysis, but we don't do that for this kind of people. We'll talk later when I started. And then I said, wait a minute, first, you put him on dialysis, and then we'll talk. And Doc said, oh yes, of course, I'll do that. And that's what happened. He put on the dialysis treatment. And Fred was a person who was known about town, was liked. He had a tremendous passion for life. And because he got the medical care that he needed, I'm delighted to say that he was supported and lived out his full life and had good time and people around him enjoyed it. The second incident happened was an incident experienced to Brasila, who was a teenager and her nickname was Silla, and I was her public guardian. She'd been placed at Brandon Training School right after birth. She was a baby. She spent her childhood there. She moved to a group home in the community when she was about 14. She went to public school. When I first met Silla, she looked at me and she said, Mom, and then I learned that every time she met a woman, she would say, Mom, she was looking for a mother. She never met. I heard of Silla's drowning accident when a doctor called and said that she was brain dead and they wanted her body parts. So they gave me my permission to remove them. I replied, get Silla to the hospital and then we'll talk. So the doctor said, well, I'll ride in the ambulance with her to be sure her body's alive when she gets there. At the medical center, I surprised the people around me by saying, I would like a neurologist to assure them that Silla was really brain dead. After testing and during that time, the medical folks saw me before I agreed to doing this useless. But afterwards, the neurologist said she was not brain dead. It took a month for her to recover someone and for us to find her a home which she could be cared for because she had acquired some additional health needs. And during that time, the medical professional around me said, it's really a waste of your time, a waste of our time to keep her alive. She never regained all of her abilities. She was able to go home to a real home where there was a mother and a father. And for the first time in her life, when she said, mom, somebody answered. When I was visiting, I had just enjoyed watching when Silla would say, mom, and the mother in the homes would come to her and Silla would look at me and she would smile from ear to ear. Your committee is now on the precipice of taking a step like passing H7 to say that all who feel the results of the eugenics movement, that it should not happen, that we can look to the future as valued human beings, whatever our ability is. And I want to thank you for having the understanding to do so. I've included the story about my daughter. But I'm not gonna read it to you because I know your time is valuable. You got time for your story. Oh, okay. The third story is about my daughter, Marni. When Marni was born, she was diagnosed with something called arthrogryposis. It's a disease where her joints, knees, and arms were frozen. Her arms, legs, and feet were put in casts which were changed every two weeks to gradually straighten them out. And also every two weeks when the casts were taken off, Marni heard the noise of the saw going through the casts and she went into spells, sort of like the seizures where everything in her stomach came up and tightened, she just couldn't eat for time. Over time, Marni grew weak. And finally, when she was three months old, her pediatrician, his name was Dr. Singer, put her in the hospital. He told my husband and myself, quote, we have to let nature take its course. We were very fortunate that on that weekend, the very weekend after Marni went into the hospital, Dr. Singer went and was away. And his odd-call pediatrician partner, Dr. Mace Goldbart came in. Dr. Goldbart asked if we had been told about Marni's head growth and her disability and we said no. He told us that her head was growing and a slower rate than usual. And she most probably was going to have a lower IQ. I said, what can we do to help her live? The pediatric surgeon was called in. Marni was so weak at that time that the doctors didn't know if she would survive surgery, but it was the only hope. It turned out that Marni's intestines were tied in and not. And tightened each time she heard the noise of the saw going through the cast. Her intestines were fine. The surgeon untied the knot. Marni lived. We switched pediatricians. And when we went back to the office, Dr. Singer's name was no longer on the door. I have a letter that I wrote to Dr. Goldbart when Marni was 14 years old that I'm going to also include without all the things that she did. She walked at four years old. She was in a typical daycare center without special educators. And at 14, she'd been totally integrated in school. In sixth grade, she was taking courses in social studies, language arts, math, science, music, PE. She was on the school newspaper and helped coach the basketball team. And she got a lot of help from teachers and aides and all her fellow students. She had her day. Thank you very much for listening and letting me come. I wish you all the best in getting this through the legislature as soon as possible. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry for the loss. She lived 44 years longer than that pediatrician would have had her. She died from cancer. Never smoked. Thank you very much. Thank you. Good morning. I'm Michael Cherner, staff attorney from legislative council who has been working with UNJRH7 over the recent weeks. I had communications, let me first say that as of the moment, the base resolution document is the same as you've seen previously. There were no, in the last week, I've made no changes to that document. It simply is sat in the drawer and on the digital file. However, I had communications with your chair about two, three or so yesterday afternoon and he gave me a copy of testimony that you have heard and he asked if I would extend what for the moment is the additional result clause that I have not incorporated in the basic text yet because I know the committee has not so voted but I was simply told to create a document to be in effect. And what I was asked to do was to extend document B which is now up on your video screen and it would now, it originally read that the general assembly recognizes that further legislative action should be taken to address the continuing impact of state sanction, eugenics policies and then it read practices, period and that was the original end. But now it's going to read slightly differently at the end based upon your prior testimony. State sanction, eugenics and policies up through the air, there aren't any changes but the new language and related practices of disenfranchement and ethnic side leading to genocide. And that's the only change that I made with the editors is that we agreed the gentleman had a comma before leading and we agreed downstairs and it didn't need the comma. Other than that is exactly what he asked for. Who's? I think we talked early on about including the words genocide or ethnic side and weren't really convinced that that's where we needed to go. So just based on testimony from witnesses we've heard from, I'm not entirely comfortable using that terminology in the resolution. Perhaps in a later bill where we call a truth in reconciliation committee but not in any overarching resolution. I agree with you, sir. I agree too. I think this, when we talk about genocide we have to think about the Nazis, we have to think about what happened in Serbia and this is different. We said we just dropped the genocide. What do you think, drop the genocide and just leave the ethos like that? No, leave it raw. If we go back to the, you were saying that the resolution as it currently stands. Or? Yes, and I'm trying to find. As it currently stands, this language isn't in the document. I have it up on the screen. Yeah, I need to look. It's in our document. So the way it read the representatives state sanction eugenics policies and practices is the way it read. I'm okay with the related practices but I think it's kind of redundant. So are you referring to your original? My original additional, remember this is an appendix and effect to the resolution as you've seen. But I'll read it one more time. The way I had it last week, it read that the General Assembly recognizes that further legislative action should be taken to address the continuing impact of state sanction eugenics policies and practices, period. And you provided that to us. You have seen that previously, right? Email, I was just trying to find it written on. Last week it would have been sometime. And can we hear the proposed change again? And just to be clear, we have the whole series of the resolution, the whole series of where as is. And Michael had drafted before this change, Michael had drafted this extra language because our resolve doesn't, while it stops at the apology, it didn't address the notion that there should be a next step. So this resolved is addressing the next step. So it's, and we've talked about how the truth in rec, so it's about the truth in reconciliation commission. So that's, I'm only differentiating a little bit right there in terms of what we're saying in the whereas versus what we're resolving with this language. Mr. Chair, if you'd like, I could reach through again what the first resolve in the resolution reads right now that you have seen from me, not in a couple of times. This is already in the resolution. It's not the appendix result. That the general assembly sincerely apologizes and with humility expresses its sorrow and regret to all individual Vermonters and their families who were harmed as a result of state sanctioned and eugenics policies and practices. Actually, it's supposed to be state sanctioned. I'm sorry, I'm looking at the early version. State sanctioned eugenics policies and practices. And humility was taken out of that. Humility, humility, maybe I am not looking at the early version. Is this the draft? I have 2.2 up. I'm looking at 1.2. That's why my apologies, everyone. 2.2. In two. It's in our documents on the committee page. Hold on. Here, you just roll it. Roll it down, okay. It doesn't work. Oh, okay. Yeah, I'm more fashionable with little fun in here. All right. My apologies. I was indeed looking at 1.2 and not 2.1 here. This is the way Representative Kalaki is correct. This is the way the face resolved now reads based upon the meetings that you've had over the last couple of weeks. That the general assembly sincerely apologizes and expresses its sorrow and regret to all individual Vermonters and their families who were harmed as a result of state sanctioned and eugenics policies and practices. And yes, it does take out the humility and took out that extraneous conjunction that I had in the earlier. That's your base result as it stands at the moment. I do like to resolve for further legislative action. And I like keeping it open. I think it doesn't have to specify that it be truth and reconciliation commission. It could be something else we might think of. But I do think genocide is not appropriate. Can we read that again? Could you read that paragraph? The new paragraph as I changed it yesterday, that the general assembly recognizes that further legislative action should be taken to address the continuing impact of state sanction, eugenics policies and related practices of disenfranchisement and ethnicity leading to genocide. So your previous additional resolve was everything you just read except for the clause that says of disenfranchisement and ethnicity. There are two channels. There's one other change represented. If through the word policies, it was the same. Okay. And then it went and practices, no related. So the word related is new and then everything beyond of disenfranchement and ethnicity leading to genocide is also new as of yesterday. Thank you. Ron, no. Ron, can you have a picture? I don't see it. I don't see it. I'm sorry. The boy's under the table. Put my apps. Yeah. That's not good. Oh my God. Don't hurry yourself. Good to see you again, buddy. My suggestion would be to put a period at the practices. And remove related. No, I related, I think it's okay. Well, what are related practices? We are talking about institutionalization. We're talking about sanctioned eugenics policies. Yeah. All right, so we're talking about segregation, institutionalization, and sterilization. Yeah. We have it earlier. We have it. We go through that list about in the, in the whereabouts of this, yes. All right. Is there any harm in repeating it in a resolve? Seeing all those things again? Yes. I wouldn't object to that. Typically, if I may, the resolve clause is not of a resolution, is not intended to be a complete reader. I'm speaking about a policy and a concurrent resolution. Typically, a resolve clause is not a total reiteration of the where-as's. The where-as's are telling your story, what you're trying to achieve. The resolve is supposed to be your climax, your literary climax, shall we say. It's giving you, requesting something to be done, directing something to be done. It's making a conclusionary statement of where you're leading up to, as opposed to reiterating absolutely everything that you're sending the where-as is leading up to the action of the resolve. So are you arguing that there should be stronger language there, that this resolution should be, this is where we say we're sorry? I'm not arguing what, that's for you to decide. I'm just speaking in a generic term that a resolve, and I'm only speaking generically here, that your resolve typically is your culmination, what we want to do, what we want to say, not repeating an entire story over. But again, that's your call from pleading. I'm just saying generically, that's all I usually write. And is there, there's no rule about that. Do we imply, do we imply at all in here, that, and I'm not sure there's a good way to say it, because I, again, apologies under these circumstances to me are very, I mean, I think we've taken the stat that apologies never enough. Number one, we know that. Number two, the idea of saying, we're really sorry that this happened, and we promise it will never happen again. I don't think we say that here. I don't know that there's room for that here, or because is that idea that we're never gonna do this again, is that the actions that we take, is that do our actions express that feeling? I mean, I'm not, I don't know that there's a good way of saying, and we promise this will never happen again. I think that's a statement that a person of import, a governor, a speaker, a pro tem, or whoever's making these apologies would say, but what is it we want to put in the record? How do we get that across? And if the record is words, or if the record is the actions that we're taking, which will be the next step will be, presumably, a committee to have a commission, it could be the place signs, it could be, I mean, those are the smaller things, but the bigger things are the next step is the truth and reconciliation, at least that's what we've been working with. I think that goes far enough, I think that's, but so having legislation that fall, if we add a resolve that says we're gonna take the next step, is that the equivalent? I'm just. Chair, what if we just said, and further let it slay that action is needed? Well, can you put the current draft of the additional items? I know we're not. That you have right now. No, I know. John, if you can put that, I haven't the short resolve that Michael sent us. Oh yes, yes, yes, yes. The new one? Yeah, I mean, the new one, we'll just look at it right now if we don't have this last phrase. That's not it. That's not it, that's the base of it. The option of the old, the option of the language. There it is. Yeah, that's the way the language that I wrote the whole day afternoon at the chair's direction. A lot of, I haven't heard a lot of feedback that would suggest don't let it happen again. People are thinking that. Right, but not letting it happen again comes, we can argue that it really comes from actions. Not just. I don't disagree with that. Not just like the words are the words too shallow. We do say that we recognize that further legislative action should be taken. And then we go on to say to address the continuing impact to me that says enough, but you could change addressing the continuing impact to something of your liking that better explains what you're trying to say. But we definitely are saying further legislative action should be taken. Just a reminder if I may again generically that you can make it as strong as you like that's your policy decision to make. But always to remember this is a sentiment of the General Assembly. It's has obviously political suasion, but it's not something that's legally binding. This is a reminder that we want to have formal decisions and I thought that was worth mentioning is that conceived with discussion is heavy. Well, nothing we do it's legally binding. We can always change it. Good I said. So this is a difficulty, right? If we state our intent, if we make an apology, if we mean the apology, it's obviously up to not us but following and we're not minding future legislators to do the work that we're setting up to do except that which we may say, okay, you're gonna receive a report in January of next year about what a Truth and Reconciliation Commission may look like, then it's up to the next legislature to vote for that Truth and Reconciliation Commission and pick up the baton if you will and move this along, right? That's the inherent difficulty of this apology is that we can only make what we can do in the moment and mean it. But the promises that we're making with legislation are, you know, is that sufficient for what we're trying? I mean, it's two different things going on. Doesn't, whether we do a further bill is on us, but for the apology, I guess we should just, you know, focus in on is what's in this document. If we add this extra resolve, it sounds like the committee's not comfortable with disenfranchisement and ethnicity leading to genocide at this time. And so if we cut it to practices, is that sufficient for this committee? With the information, again, knowing full well that we will present this on the floor and it will undergo the same scrutiny that any other bill goes through. There may be amendments that come down. They're made, when it goes to the Senate, there's going to be a conversation about this language as well. So I guess we're, I mean, I'm at the point where, I mean, not so we're gonna have a vote in the next five minutes, but I'm just, I'm at the voter, are we done with the language? If we add this resolve with the sentence ending at related practices. So am I understanding that the word related would stay in this revised version? That's what I just put on the table. I think that's the first to stop it. Well, but I think what he's talking about is in the other one that just says and practice. Policies and practices. Do you want the, what I'm asking is because if you sort of, It's whatever all of you want, obviously, but if you were telling me you wanted to go back to the earlier version, the word related was not that. What I'm hearing now is that you might want to keep the word related in and whatever you want. Just don't use it. It says, let's just say that this is, eugenics, policies and practices is sufficient. I think that's. I just wanted to make sure that I brought you what you want. I do have, Michael, a question for you earlier on. On the first page here, you were going to see on page 11 the defect of delinquent and depraved. Oh, that's not quoted language. I did check through the act. It's not quoted language. Thank you for raising it. And then we're going to add so-called because we're not saying these words. We're saying people use these words. Let's see, which clause. Oh, don't be, it's line of page 17. Oh, line 10 and 11. You said you were going to find out if that was quoted. It's not quoted. I went back through the act and it's definitely not quoted. So I think you, Tom, you had suggested so-called. I think that's good. You say 10 and 11. Here, here. It's used in two different places. Yeah, it's on page 11 and 16 and 17. Oh, okay, on page one. But it was page one for me. I know if you're looking digits, pages are irrelevant. It's still page 11. Defective delinquent. Depraved. What about so-called in front of those? I don't like that term. How about alleged or is it polegid? Oh, I don't care. Or supposed. No, I just was thinking about so-called. Sounds very polegical. I just think alleged can work. Alleged is a catch-all phrase for saying something without, you know, I mean, we use it for the alleged crimes, right? So we can't say that I committed, you can't say that I committed a crime without having been convicted. You have to say I committed and I allegedly committed a crime. So if these state people were alleging that individuals were defective delinquent of the prey, then alleged might be the correct word. Just the word so-called, if I may, the term so-called just doesn't sound appropriate. But those are the phrases they use. I mean, that's the reason, you know. Right, I'm trying to think of a word other than so-called, alleged might. To pose it alleged, either of those sounds better than so-called. I'm fine with alleged. Is that word for people? Or for me? Or recordably. I prefer alleged. Yeah, I prefer alleged alleged. I mean, again, I can understand somebody. I can rat on my uncle Tommy and say that he's the prey, but I, you know. So to measure evidence of, I'm just thinking maybe you'd be the advert of allegedly- That's what I'm saying. I have heard for some reason what they have for you. I'm like using a phrase like dropping a dime on my uncle Tony. Looks like it hurts. Put one. I can't hear you on my time, man. Mr. Chair, may I reread that clause? That's how it works for allegedly just so that everybody hears. Yes, please. Okay. And whereas, in 1925, you, the emzoology professor, and we have proteins, established the now discredited eugenics survey of Vermont to measure evidence of allegedly defective, delinquent, and depraved behavior. And this survey targeted members of Apanaki Bands, for modules of mixed racial or French-Canadian heritage, the poor and persons with disabilities. I think the adverts would be. Yes. Yeah. And lines 17. And down a dime of 16 and 17. Same thing. Toored. Allegedly. Okay. I see where you are. Made notes here. Okay. So the committee, are we done with the word smithing? Randall, did you have any comments on anything that we've been discussing? I don't want to get logged down weird something, but the now discredited part, gives it the weird ring to me of that it was somehow legitimate at the time, but it's now discredited. And I don't know. I mean, it's a minor thing, but it just, that there was some way to describe it as, you know, having an inherent, where it's just the now discredited eugenics survey. He's in the first place. It gives it a kind of moral veneer of its era that I just, I mean, it's, I'm not arguing strongly for this. I'm just saying that's how I read this to me, is that it gives it like, oh, well it was at one point not discredited, but there were critics at the time. They were critics. The same thing was when people tried to justify slavery, when they say, well now looking back, we know that slavery was wrong, but there were people at the time that knew slavery was wrong in the same instance. Yeah, but I think that gives it the, it's just the connotation that it was like an accepted practice, like, I mean, it wasn't a practice. And if it was. It was accepted. It was like 20 something states. Accepted it wasn't enough to pass legislation that supports this horrible practice, so, and we're not saying that it was definitive in its, That's interesting that you suggest that because in my earlier version, the word now wasn't there. Yeah, I don't think we're taking out now. Discredited. As long as we're making small changes, please take it out. Yeah. What do you guys say? Thank you, Phil, better? I'm walking on air. I think that's. So we're aiming at the same time. We're aiming at the same time. That data, the aim. This point, Mr. Chiriken, from my clarification, is that I'm changing the end of the resolution to make it, and it be further, and to include the second resolution as you have just told me to revise it. Back to the original language as you had it previously. Must be. But to include it, correct? Well, just to be clear, we are talking about further legislative action. Right, I'll read it through again. So there's absolutely no, and it would read, you have your existing, the existing resolve clause, primary resolve clause, and the further resolve that the General Assembly recognizes that further legislative action should be taken to address the continuing impact of state sanctioned eugenics policies and practices. So, talking about voting this out, I mean, if we have Emily join us, we have 10 representative Gonzalez is not here. We've sent her an email asking about whether or not it's okay to vote it out without her. I mean, I know she'd vote for it. Tomorrow we have an absence. Mariana, you're absent tomorrow. And as, I mean, we're all, I think, I don't know if all of us are technically sponsors, but we all own this bill from this committee. And the question is, can I make an assumption that you would like to be able to have your vote recorded on this? So, while Michael is making the final revisions on this, In terms of Mr. Chair, in terms of the sponsors, there are about 40 or 50 original sponsors. Yes, it's over 50, right? And it goes well beyond this committee. And again, I think when we have to revise this, like we don't, again, there are a couple of names might included that are on the electronic sponsorship that are not on the printed. We know we have to reprint this. We'll have to work with the clerk's office to make sure everybody knows. When it comes out, as it comes out now as a committee amendment, as a strike all, it will be from the committee, not from any individual. If you want, again, if you're concerned about that original document that's going to go in the bill books, on the archives that your name is there, you don't need to speak to Bill. This says that the front on line seven and eight is starting out all after the sponsor list. We did that, we had a discussion about how to handle that generically. So well, right, we don't need to know this right now just because this has to go to the floor, it has to go to the Senate before it's finally printed. There won't be another sponsor list. And we just said it came from the committee because the resolution will now be the committee amendment as further as it may or may not be further amendment to the floor of the house or in the Senate. This effect is a substitute for that in its entirety. Okay, what we're doing is if you want to speak to Bill that the historic document that goes to the archives, that's something to talk to Bill. Okay, but that's not for today. That's just, I just, so I guess what I would like to do is send Michael off to do his work and to have a clean copy ready to vote. Do you have a timeframe that you might be able to have this ready this morning? Would 10.45 work for you? If it's that early, yes. I mean, sometimes, I mean, I can't promise any time after lunch because of the floor schedule, but in the meantime, we will have reached out to Representative Gonzales. You know, if we have to wait until next, until we come back after break to have 11 people in the room, if Representative Gonzales gives her a blessing that she's okay not voting for it today, I'm perfectly happy with a 10-0-1 vote to move this so that we deal with it when we get back from break rather than dealing with it. In the question. Cross over week. And so, I mean, this would be on Tuesday and Wednesday of crossover week, which is better than Thursday and Friday of crossover week. I can be back. Why don't we say that I can come back at 11 o'clock? Yes. It's thinking about our editors. 11 o'clock is sufficient. We will find out in the meantime as best we can from Representative Gonzales and then we'll have a decision, but we'll have a clean copy ready to go. So I am going to leave and you will see me at 11 o'clock with, before that I will send you a digital copy and I'll have a couple of paper copies with you. And I made a vote count assumption. I'm sorry if I made, I mean, I made an assumption. I don't, I know that we haven't voted on it yet. So just, but I'm happy with one absence if that moves the bill, but let's get the clean copy back and we'll make this decision at 11 o'clock. I will be back at 11 o'clock regardless. Thank you, Michael. Thanks, Michael. And you'll see digital from me a little bit further. All right, committee, thank you for your work on this. It's been, it's gone on in the proper time. It should have gone on. I mean, being able to listen to the stories that we were able to listen to this week and the comments that have been made from the witnesses and our guests have been really poignant and dead on. So I appreciate having taken a little bit more time with this than expected. So let's, but thank you for your work on this so far. And we'll hopefully pick it up by the end of this morning. And, or we'll have a decision on when we can, when we can vote on it either today or it'll either be today or Tuesday when we get back. May I ask a question about the voting? Since this is the first time that I've heard of waiting to check with somebody who's absent, would you extend that same type of courtesy to us in the future if we have a committee bill that we're all working on and one of us happens to be absent for an emergency? I would, yeah, we usually do. Okay. That's kind of perform, especially on something that's a, I mean, if it's a committee bill on alcohol regulation, probably not all that worried about it unless there's some, but on something that's this, that's oriented to this poignancy. Yes, I mean, yes, the answer is yes. That's a normal course of business for me. I mean, there are some bills that you just have to vote out at the right time and if people are absent, you deal with it, but on something like this? Absolutely. All right, let's take 10. We'll be back at 10 a.m. H-492, homeless bill of rights. We haven't talked about this for a little while. There were a couple more folks who wanted to testify. So I just wanted to make sure that they had an opportunity before we heard from Luke. Luke had made some final, had made some adjustments that we needed to look at to some of the language and we needed to look at them and discuss it before, but we're close to wrapping up this, the language on this bill as well. So Aaron Segros, please join us. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Thank you all for giving me a last-ditch effort to talk with you. I don't remember the reason for my inability to participate a couple weeks ago, but my apologies. Thank you for the opportunity. For the record, I am Aaron Segros, the president of Vermont Retail and Grocers Association. We represent over 750 members across the state that's about 1,400 retail outlets. We represent general retailers from the clothing store on Main Street to grocery stores, convenience stores, food distributors, food manufacturers, and business service providers. Weighing in today on age 412, the homeless bill of rights, we weighed in last year on, I'm sorry, we weighed in last year on 412. We're weighing in 499 today. We certainly believe that homelessness should not be discriminated against and should be provided equal opportunity regardless of their housing status, but we do have concerns with this bill. Any person soliciting or ordering in or around a business places employees and customers on alert. And in these situations, business owners or managers are most often required to make a judgment for the safety of employees or their customers. We have concerns that expanding this class based on housing status, not something that I can look at you and say, you're homeless, we understand that there's some help that you may need or some assistance that we could probably provide. We're concerned that it would increase the potential for discriminatory lawsuits. And that's not the case at all if you're wondering when we want to be able to ask you to leave or approach you without the potential impact of a discrimination lawsuit. Additionally, we have concerns that this committee has not heard from employment attorneys. Employers are required to obtain two forms of identification when they hire somebody. Those are federal regulations, paperwork that we need to provide to our payroll companies. And I actually printed a couple of them off. They ask for specific addresses. And if you leave those blank, employers will certainly have to ask a question of where's the address, where's the identification with the permanent address. And again, concern arises surrounding discrimination. Additionally, I don't believe the committee has heard from law enforcement. I think the committee heard last year that last year's bill would have essentially sent the message to law enforcement that if someone were to call, excuse me, and say someone is in my building, they would not be able to remove them. So I would want assurance that if someone is within a store or a business and police or any type of law enforcement are called, they can address the situation. We'd absolutely be amenable to sharing information about organizations and downtown groups that have been providing various efforts. I believe there was a witness which testified recently from the Montpelier Homelessness Task Force. And they're talking about providing outreach positions in downtowns. I think that Montpelier is probably one of the many towns that are providing these opportunities or this assistance, this type of assistance. And we would be certainly willing to share as much information with our members on who they can call if a situation arises. But we're just concerned about increased lawsuits or placing employees or customers in danger. I was hoping to have a member from Church Street on Church Street in Burlington speak with us today, but he's unavailable. He has received several reports from his employees who walk to work that they are uncomfortable walking to work because of this population. And they have actually started outreach within the marketplace to provide assistance to these people without causing any discrimination or without discrimination and without getting police involved. So I was hoping to have him, maybe we can have him submit some testimony, but there are efforts being made. And I think that we should be reviewing those efforts and certainly pushing that information out to other business owners before imposing regulations. Happy to take questions. Have the employees expressed exactly why they're feeling uncomfortable or what form? Yeah, so I don't want to speak for the member, but from what, from the conversation that I had had with them, they were, you know, there were people approaching them. There were cat calls, you know, just general interactions that made them definitely uncomfortable. And they were from homeless people or people perceived to be homeless? Perceived to be homeless, but again, we can't make that assumption, right? So, and if we're going to make that assumption, then... That you can make the assumption which opens up the discrimination. No, you wouldn't be able to engage in discriminatory behavior based on that presumption. In normal course, I think we've, it's been pretty clear and we have some other language that we discussed this morning, but I think we've gone over and over this idea that asking someone to leave in the normal course of business discriminatory, unless it's made so. Does that make sense? I mean, I've done, there's nothing, there's nothing here that should say that a store owner who feels like there are other customers are at risk or that their business is at risk that they can be asked, they can ask people to leave. It also provides an opportunity for them to claim discrimination based on illness or based on the steps. If that action, which then goes, it's petitioned to the Human Rights Commission, it's just dealt with through a system that exists. I mean, the Human Rights Commission doesn't, listens to the facts put before them and says yes or no, kind of, it's moving forward. But at any rate, it's, I think there is some real, I think the worries, I hear that the worries are real, but I think we've talked about this again and again that there is a line between protecting your businesses and acting in a discriminatory way. Lisa and then Tommy. I am glad that this is brought up because as a former proprietor of a business, I do feel that employee safety is really a concern and also the safety or health of other customers. This is still concerning to me, even with the language that we have. I still remain concerned with the notion of perceived anything, perceived disability, perceived anything. So that to me is very difficult to define and it's difficult to defend. So I'm really glad that I wish that the business owner, your member was here, but I'm really glad that you brought that up. Thank you. And I think there's perceived on the business owner's side and perceived on the person who was asked to be, to leave, you know, there's perception on both sides and I don't think that we get to discount one or the other. And if I, as a business owner, were to ask somebody to leave and they are homeless, they can say you're asking me to leave because I'm homeless, even if I don't know that status. There's, you know, I understand where you're coming from, Representative, but there is perception on both sides and it does open up for discrimination laws or discriminatory accusations when it's certainly not the case. There will always be bad people, right? So we can't legislate that out of existence, unfortunately. Representative Balls and Clark. Two points, first of all, is your perception is really hard to get away from that because certainly you can't walk the person and determine. Right. You know, but you're homeless status, I mean, no. And I think we've covered the issue of being able to remove people from the place of business on page three, 14 through 16, where any such activity requires that the sentence owner, and it does not interfere with your business operation. So if there's something that interferes with business operations, your homeless status is relevant. You're going to ask me to leave the business. So I'm sorry, is that a new version or the? Well, I don't, it's the version we have. So page three, lines 14 through 16. Unfortunately, I don't have that drafted. It was just me. Okay. Page three, lines 14 through 12. It's page three. Page three, lines 14 through 16. So you have, if anybody's interfering with your business operations, you have the right to ask them to leave regardless of the homeless status. I do want to point out that I think her testimony just stated that it was discomfort of an employee walking and going into a business. So it may not have even been in the place of business. But that's how they're in a public space like a sidewalk, and that's a completely different issue because in business there's no. You do have the right not to be verbally accosted in any way or physically approached in any way. And so that can seem threatening to some people who are the recipients of that kind of behavior. And so when you're addressing that kind of behavior, if the person who is creating the situation perceives that you think that they are homeless, that has ramifications. It certainly does. That's why I don't like the word perceived. Okay. I think it's a loaded term. We had this issue in Barry. We had a courthouse in Barry. And people have said, I don't want to be doing this kind of thing and I'm fricking complaints. But to see that has nothing to do with the business. That's a completely different space. Somebody's on their way to work. I understand that. Everybody has nothing to do with the business. Well, aren't these two VCU areas are defined differently in the bill, right? We have like the public spaces, parks, sidewalks, et cetera. And we have other public accommodations, which are the places of, you know, engagement between citizens and... Right. And I don't understand a very loud swearing catcalls, that kind of thing, that kind of behavior. But that's a different issue from what's happening. But that's what has involved in our bill. Well, we talk about public spaces. We don't get into bad behavior such as swearing. But the word perceived is operative in this bill. I think it's your level that if somebody's behaving badly, then how do you deal with that? So if it's not criminal, what is bad? If you are made to feel uncomfortable, because of what this person, how they're looking at you, if whether or not they've approached you, we all know what that feels like. In whatever circumstance it is. But if you have, in the bill, the word perceived, that can be used against somebody, when it's not what the reality is, that it has nothing to do with them. We're not experiencing bad behavior in this bill. So I'm certainly not, I'm not testifying on the bad behavior piece. I'm testifying on someone who may come into a business and solicit others for money or food or just assistance or someone who's walking into a business and loitering. They're just, they're milling around for several hours, minutes, and they make someone uncomfortable. So 14, line 14 to 16 doesn't move you? It doesn't answer that question. So do we have a, look behind the, well, yeah, you can see it on the iPad. Do we have a place of public accommodation defined? I know a public space was defined. Public accommodation is defined throughout statute as, it's a common, and again, when we have the, when we have Ruth Marklin testifying, you can testify once again to that definition that's been re-discussed at numerous times. But it's a, it's a definition that appears throughout statute. But it's, this is why this language is in here. You know, so that if you can send the owner of the person representing the place of public accommodation that it does not interfere with your own course of business. I mean, I see that language as addressing the concerns that you have by, you know, Randall, I'm sorry, John, and then Randall. You know, Aaron, I think it would be helpful if your person on the church street would send in something written. So I lived on Church Street and I ran the Flynn, which is the end of Church Street. And you know, at six o'clock in the morning, the shelters closed. And so people that are staying there have to move somewhere. And so people often moved onto Church Street and into the library and other places that was bound to the YMCA. And the Church Street marketplace, I think, developed an interesting and compassionate response to people that the Howard Center was involved, Spectrum was involved. There were street workers involved in handling some of this. And I think you said Mount Tullier has something that's similar. So I just think if that's the person, are you talking to someone at the marketplace about this work or? No, I spoke with a business on the marketplace. Okay. But I guess that's also part of my point is if communities are already making these efforts, can't we expand those efforts without legislation? These aren't, this isn't talking about the efforts of any, everybody is entitled to make efforts like this to enhance their communities. This isn't preventing people from doing this. This is trying to, this is trying to take away a stigma that exists that others people and that others, in this particular case, people who are suffering from homelessness. Rightfully so. But I will also argue that there are other protected classes where that stigma has not been legislated out of existence. So just because it's in law doesn't mean that people are going to stop discriminating. So. Right. So that putting it in law isn't going to fix it is my point. I think we need to be spending more time making efforts to help the people that need the help instead of sitting here debating words on a page is where I'm at. Oh, Randall, I'm at that. There's a whole bunch of stuff trying to keep track of in my head. But the solicitation thing is as I understand it and I have been steadfast in trying to protect the right of a restaurant owner or whoever, store owner, whoever being able to have some semblance of control over the space to operate their business. So what I think that this is enumerating is if you allow religious solicitation, for instance, if you say, oh, I'm going to allow someone to hand out religious pamphlets in my building, but if a homeless person comes in and wants to ask for food, if you allow those two things, that's when you come into conflict in the law because in the wrong hand you're saying the homeless person's not allowed in here what the religious person is. But if you have a thing that says I don't want people soliciting in my business, as far as I understand it, the way that we've constructed this says, that's absolutely your right and many of your members' rights to say no one's going to come into this space and solicit anyone without my permission. That's my understanding of how we constructed the bill. We're just saying you can't pick and choose who can solicit. You can't say, well, we're not going to allow African-Americans to solicit in here, but we'll allow Hispanics. We're not going to allow homeless people to allow religious solicitation. You allow solicitation in your business. You don't think it disturbs your business. This doesn't change that, as far as I understand it. And in terms of your discriminatory, you're worried about discriminatory lawsuits, that can happen in any protected class, right? If you have someone in your building that you don't recognize and they're an African-American, they could easily claim, you only did that because I'm black, right? They can make that claim. And the same thing, if this person's homeless, you have no clue where they're homeless, but you don't recognize them, they can do that. That's the inherent risk always within any protected class. There's not any special elevated risk here with homeless people than there is within the other already protected class. Your concern is we're just adding to the list of potential exposure in lawsuits, right? But it's not so much the mechanics. It's just now we've added one more person that you or whoever remembers me have to worry about, right? Yeah, but that just- When I can't look at you, you know, you with a nice shirt and tie on could walk into a business. I don't know- I'm a pretty shady person, so I wouldn't agree with that. But I, you know, I can't look at you, and I think that's too- Yeah, but right, but that's always the risk. The reason we have the perceived language in there also is precisely to cover the scenario where you're a person, where we get in this weird space because we had an example provided to us for the Human Rights Commission, right? Where somebody, you discriminate on someone because you think they're Muslim, right? You perceive that they're Muslim. But it turns out that they're not, they're Sikh, right? So we can't construct a law in such a way that allows for that kind of like, oh, you got away with it because you had a mistaken perception of their religious and you're allowed to discriminate against them. That's why the perception language in there has nothing to do with the homeless person's perception of anything. It has to do with the person taking the discriminatory action. That their perception is what matters. It doesn't matter what the other person's perception is. It only matters why you're making the decision that you're making. And as we've heard voluminous evidence of, those cases are incredibly hard. It doesn't take away from your legal fees, but they're incredibly hard to prove. Yeah. So my question is to the protected classes that exist and adding this, it seems like, as I looked over it and over it, is this the first time that we are attempting to put a social demographic, like an economic class? So what are other examples of an economic class that's a protected class? John scroll to the pages that talk about protected classes and they're right there. Then further down the road in the bill. It's in the section that sits in the last third of the bill. Last? No. Keep going, keep going, right here. Not economic. Oh, it's on page five? Yeah, exactly. It's sexual orientation, gender, marital status. Yeah. It's under public accommodation. There's definition, or there's not a definition, but it's where you can't be discriminated against. So this is, so keep going, go to the housing one. Go to the housing one. Unfair housing practices, keep going, keep going. Right there, so race, sex, sexual orientation, blah, blah, blah, a person tends to be dwelling with one or more minor children, social construct. Person who's a recipient of public assistance. Which is, that would be one of your... Okay, so I, yeah, yeah. So, also victims of domestic and sexual violence there in some of their, yeah. Yeah. So, yes, that's... Okay, so we do have... A precedent of putting... Yeah. Social constructs in... Yep. Not just... Racism is a social construct, but not to get too... Yeah, we, that's... Well, that's genetic. We've made, so that's... We've made it so that you can't discriminate against, you know, housing, essentially against housing projects that are meant for people who are, who fit into these classes. So, where are we? Chip, and I do want to, I want to apologize for being a little salty, but it is late in this discussion on this bill, and this bill has been on the wall, it's been in conversation for the whole session. So, it's been eight weeks. So... It was on the schedule once. I requested to testify. That time has moved. I was unable to make it. I certainly apologize at the beginning of my... I was going to also apologize for that as well. I mean, I'm not putting this, laying this all on people who are testifying today, but I just, I'm just trying to say, if I'm a little salty, it's because we're at the end of this, and some of this information has been public testimony, and, you know, and so getting through it is a little, it's a little frustrating for me as it is for you, and I just wanted to lay that out there. Chip. Well, I just wanted to address the term of perceived. So, walking down the streets of Burlington, there are a number of people that might be sitting on the side of the sidewalk, or on the sidewalk, and they might have a little sign out, says, homeless, please help. So unless we have that sign, there are, we all know that there are people that you look at walking down the street, in various places, that you very well perceive, or could perceive them as homeless. So unless they have a sign in front of them that says, help me, I'm homeless, we can't say for sure whether they are. So the perception of someone who may be homeless, I think is important to have that, because as Randall said, it's the perception of the person who's making the judgment as to whether this person is or it is not homeless. So, I think it's an important term to keep in the bill for that reason. I mean, you don't know unless someone has a sign that says I'm homeless. And so that, I mean, that's my thoughts on the term of perceived. But it's actions that trigger something. It's action that, well, yes, yeah. You can incorrectly perceive someone to be homeless, but unless you do something negative towards that person in some way. Well, that was Randall's point. For that expressed purpose, if they're homeless and you recognize them as homeless and you perceive them to be homeless, but you choose to be angry at them for any other reason that may not fit that discriminatory list, you're not gonna say I'm mad at you because you're homeless. You're going to say I'm mad at you because you're in my face. And you're yelling at me. And then it's, yeah, but if you've got, you have a person who is homeless that you don't know is homeless. That's it. But you perceive that they're homeless. Right, they got a shopping cart parked outside, there's a bunch of plastic bags with their whole season. And then they try. Hey, you haven't seen that? You've never seen that? We have all seen that. Okay, thank you. But any one of us looking the way we do today, sitting in this room, could be homeless. We, that's right, we're not making an assumption looking at a person. It's not an assumption, it's a perception. There's a difference. Yes, but we can't perceive anybody's housing status. Anyone in this room, we can't perceive any of their housing statuses right now. Okay. But if that person interacts with me in a way that pushes me away, cause in a way that they have to cross. Yeah, sure, except in all of us, yeah, yeah. And I try to leave that arena. That person could very easily turn around and accuse me of being, perceiving that they were homeless. And therefore I am, or if I respond to them. But as a private citizen, you're not part of that. As a citizen who walks away from someone who you may personally just. If I try to walk away, if I get any, if I get engaged verbally. Yeah. Which can happen. Sure. The person who is being the aggressor turn around and use the perceived against me. And I would have to prove that this is nothing to do with them. You have no liability there, Marianne. There's no, there's nothing in this bill that suggests. I'm sorry, I apologize for having to hear it. I'm sorry, I apologize for having to hear it. I need to get Charles, I need to get Charles, always in a figurative conversation with you. Thank you. Don't apologize. Strongly suggest just hearing from an employment lawyer because of the required information that employers are supposed to provide when they take a job. If there are federal, there's federal paperwork that require perfect addresses. It's a very uncomfortable conversation to say where's your address, and I would strongly encourage you to hear from an attorney. That, again, my apologies for opening. Thank you. Thank you. Is that time of year? Yes. True. Are you sure you want me to testify to Charles? Actually, I was responding to February 20th's version and I think some of my concerns that may be answered depending on what Luke says here in a few moments. For the record, Charles Martin from my chamber of commerce. So absolutely the intent of the bill is great. I mean, we have no qualms with that. I think I would point out that sort of an elephant potentially in the room that one of the reasons you may not have heard from a ton of business owners is not too many people want to be perceived to be on the opposite side of something called the homeless school rights. That's kind of why we have a job, I guess. That's right. And I wouldn't say that I'm on the opposite side of the intent of the bill either. But so my main concern was the shopping mall inclusions in the previous draft that would have effectively kind of set up certain states where you're providing a private establishment that someone else can use for their own monetary gain. It seems like the permission aspect that's added to this latest version would mitigate that concern to a degree. But I would still raise for the committee just briefly the one thing that kind of stands out as solicitation on sidewalks in front of a business establishment would effectively take money that might be spent in that business, out of that business. And I realize it sounds somewhat coldhearted because the needs of the homeless person are definitely greater than the needs of the person inside that business establishment. Who owns it? Just on that little hierarchy of needs if you want to go there. But it would effectively lessen the chances of spending inside their establishment. I just would like to raise that as something for the committee to think about as they move forward. Tim, I guess that has me wondering whether or not the public accommodation, Luke might be able to answer this at some point, but whether the definition of public accommodation takes us just outside the storefront onto some sort of property that would come under their control as well that would have that interaction, have that mitigated by that sort of thing. And the interaction that might happen between customers and solicitors. That might be a municipality by municipality. Yeah, it might be. In D.C., for instance, I was obligated to shovel the sidewalk in front of my thing. Yeah, that's a good example. And it was kind of like my territory, but it was also the city's territory. So there's these weird gray areas where public private shared ownership. Which does not extend to parking spaces in any city. Yeah, it's a little new. We don't want to go there, right? No, that's really where our main concern lies is to rob potential spending capacity of customers going into a building. And I'll admit this may be a problem in my own character, but if I'm walking down a sidewalk and I'm visiting my sister in Brooklyn or something like that, and there's several people that I don't know sitting there and I know I'm going to be asked for money by everyone there. And there's a pizza shop on that side. There's a pizza shop on the other side of the street. Generally speaking, as a guy who doesn't know the area well and may not know those folks, because I don't talk to them in the morning commute, I'll probably try to avoid them. And that's sort of the loss of benefit too. And I just want to bring that up for the committee because it is a reality that most consumers are going to ponder when they're making choices a little bit where they're going to spend money. So I'm happy to answer any questions, but let's... I like to challenge you on that, Charles, because working on Church Street for 10 years, the folks at Money Waters and the folks at Stone Street actually bring coffee in and coffee's out to people. Yeah. No one's not buying a coffee at Money Waters because they gave someone a dollar. So no one who's coming into Flynn comes to pay $50 to Flynn and taking a dollar on the way in or out to someone is not going to go to Flynn. So I think this broad thing of fear, the business practices of people on Church Street that in fact have daily encounter with people, I would say it's coming to my opinion. So again, though, some people know the folks who are hanging out near their buildings and they've established probably friendly relationships and rapport with them, but I'm thinking more along the lines of a tourist, for instance. And I will say, definitionally, if you give money to someone outside the business, you do have less money to spend it inside the business you're about to walk into. I recognize that you can't definitively prove that, that you're rocking someone of potential value when they go in that business, but there is a transaction that occurs prior to entering the business and there is slightly less spending capacity when you enter the business. I don't think so. I don't think so. I totally agree with you on that. Lisa and Matt, Matt, on some of that, what? I think we've heard a lot about your street. We've heard a lot about Burlington. We've heard about Barrie, Montpelier. We have heard nothing about how this is gonna affect rural businesses. We have little towns that have one or two stores. We certainly have homeless populations in rural areas in Vermont. We all know that. We have something like 700 children in rural Vermont who are deemed homeless by the educational system. So potentially their families are homeless as well. So we're going to encounter these people in rural areas. And there may only be one restaurant, one bank, one grocery store, maybe if you're lucky, a hardware store in that town. And those are the only places that people can go to buy something or spend their money. And my concern with this type of situation is who's gonna enforce all this? How is this really going to be played out on our rural streets? Last week I alluded to this whole section two and beyond. It's not being necessary in my mind. And today I am going to be quite clear that I don't believe that this is necessary. And I think it's gonna cause more problems for our rural areas and not help the people who need to be helped, which are the people who have no home. Okay, Matt, then Chip, and then I do wanna make sure we reserve time for the attorney to come down and talk about the most recent changes. So, Matt. Just making a scene on more of a conversational, conversations I've had with people who to your point on the territory, how not saying direct impact on commerce. I've certainly spoken with plenty of people from the Outer Towns, Chattano County, Southern Franklin, Northern Addison, who have said to me four years that they had started avoiding downtown Burlington because of engagements from people who may be perceived as homeless. This is not a personal opinion of mine. I'm just making a statement that I have certain conversations with people. And I work on Church Street or just off Church Street like yourself for six or seven years. So I've had plenty of exposure to that area. And there is certainly a sentiment out there of avoidance. There's a sentiment of people and consumers. So, Ian, I'm sorry, go ahead, Chip. Okay, I just wanted to, I worked in St. John'sbury for 40 years and I never, ever, not one time, encountered a panhandler or someone who was soliciting on the street as a result of being homeless or any other reason. So I don't perceive it to be a problem in rural towns. I just don't think- Is it Churchbury as a rural town? Oh, come on, give me a break. No, seriously, it is. It's in the Northeast Kingdom. Not Franklin. Yeah, it's not Church Street either. Well, I would debate that to some degree. Sorry, so, Charles, thank you. I just want to, I do want to get to Luke. I appreciate your time. My testimony that's up there is responding to February 20th version. And to that last point, I will say, I lived in DC for a little while, a long while. And I had people I walked to work to that I spoke with every morning that were likely homeless because they were at Union Station every day. And I had no problem because I knew those folks. But there were certainly tourists who avoided entire sectors of Union Station to not have to go and interact with those folks. And once in a while, it's an extremely negative interaction. Usually it's absolutely fine and it's just human beings being pleasant to one another. But I just want to bring that up that not everyone is comfortable in this territory and that might be their problem, but it is an existential problem. Well, I think, you know, I think what's troubling to me a little bit with this morning's conversation, and it happens all the time when we talk about these bills and when we started this conversation not long after Homelessness Awareness Day. And we had testimony from humans who were sitting in the same seat sharing their life experiences, either working with homeless folks or being homeless. And, you know, at this point, you know, what I'm hearing a larger conversation about today is not about what causes homelessness. The homeless people or the society around them. I mean, whether or not somebody congregates in a train station and makes other people who have homes uncomfortable, is that a homeless person's fault? Is that a homeless person's problem? Or is that a larger societal problem that we are trying to solve by doing things like increasing minimum wage or trying to find jobs or trying to, you know, I mean, we're working on all these things. So I'm just, you know, this is not a unique conversation. I just want to point out that the thrust of this bill is more towards a social justice aimed at people who receive none as a rule. And so, which does not mean that the concerns that have arisen are not, that they are appreciated and they have worth as well. But I'm just sensing we're reducing the people that we're trying to help here to a one or two dimensions just because of the nature of this conversation. And I mean, I hear where you guys, and I know that we all don't think about people in a one and a half-dimensional, two-dimensional way. Yeah. No, and I apologize for it. It's just that's the cold-hearted sort of economic portion of this argument. I recognize that that can sometimes discount larger human questions, but I'm here on behalf of the law. And that's for all of us. I mean, that's not just for the witnesses today. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm actually, I wasn't scheduled as a witness, but I did reach out to, sorry, Terry Corson from our bar association. I had reached out to Steve Ellis, who's chair of the Climate Law Section of the EPA. We were awaiting the most recent version which we got this morning from Luke. So he wasn't here not knowing whether or not you would have comments, but he did have comments. You see, he's happy to phone in and he also had a response to the question she had regarding the ID. So I didn't know if that was something you would like us to connect them by phone or not. Sure. Yeah. Oh, great. I got his number. 555-229. 226-555. 226-558. 226-558. 239. Oh, I'm not going to call him down. He had a comment regarding bona fide occupational complications and just wanted to make sure that an employee would be able to potentially terminate someone for reasons such as lack of important tire regulations or reliability, even though that could be indirectly related to a homeless status. That was kind of one concern he had. Just, and he thought some qualifying language would make that clear, and he said he'd be happy to provide it today. And then I asked him about the ID question and he said he could also comment on that. So I'm sorry for the lateness of it, but I did forward it to him this morning and this is what he was fighting. Thank you. Hi, we're calling for Steve Ellis, please. May I have your calling? This is House Committee at the State House? Okay. It's a House Committee at the State House and I'll clear. Perfect, thank you. Terri. Stay. Stay. Stay. Stay. Stay. Stay. Stay. No, it's not my choice. This was my generalist. I got a little bit. It's a busy plane. Good morning. Good morning. This is Steve Ellis? It is. Hi, Steve Ellis. Representative Tom Stevens chair of the general housing and military affairs committee and we understand that you've been utilizing modern technology to communicate with Terry Corson's and you have some thoughts about age 492 specifically about some of the employment provisions there's a employment language in this bill. I do. Please share. Well I appreciate you my concern. But Mr. Alice, what language in this particular version of the bill are you looking at when you're talking about this because I there's I think we're talking about we may be talking about two different things. You're the way that the way that I interpret what you're saying is that it can be interpreted that homelessness would be like a disability like me being in a wheelchair where the employer is required to have some kind of accommodation. But then you take it a step further by saying my job performance is maybe affected like that I mean if I need if I need a wheelchair ramp in order to do the job that's an accommodation that an employer should make. But if I go to work and I'm a terrible cashier or if I'm a terrible employee and I don't fulfill the responsibilities of my job above and beyond me being in a wheelchair that why why would this protect anybody from from from those situations. Well depending on what you mean by discriminating. But under the under the concepts that exist in law I think in this in this law which we've made clear perhaps when it comes to commercial places public spaces or public accommodations where we talk about the normal course of business you know doing the normal course of business you know again if I'm if I'm a terrible employee why can't I and we live in an at-will state where you can fire me for any reasons as long as it's not discriminatory. That's my concern is that if I'm an employee the way this this statute reads right now qualification or is it the employee a couple of weeks are we gonna require are we gonna say it's these are issues that are just not resolved in the statute and addressing them in the statute. Representative Byron. I think I would just had something that was like a little anecdotal but I think it was covered in his statement after the fact. Representative Walsh. I have a question along the lines that you bring up. So if the workday is defined as say for day 30 to 430 and the employee is expected to be there during that time and a person of particular religion or religion says well you know I have to be at my place of worship in the morning and I can't come in until 9 or I need to take a break every afternoon to pray for an hour. Just how does that fit into current statutory practice? It's still what you have a duty to make reasonable accommodations for religious garb and religious practice. So the question becomes is it your... Well my question really is so the employee is not available for that entire defined workday and this is that a sufficient reason not to hire a person. That gets resolved on a case by case basis whether or not that is you know for example there are the the grinder project and they lost that. The courts held this for discriminating against that particular religious practice. And the same is with you know observance of the Sabbath. There are even cases on a case basis depending on the particular job, their particular employer whether or not be accommodated. There is no heart and more into that into things like race, you know age, you know things that really aren't aren't going to affect. It might be where you know housing status be a bonafide occupational qualification but the consequences of housing occupational qualification if you're if you're housing impossible appropriately groomed those maybe it becomes do we want to require them. I'm gonna stop right now I need to I need to get one more witness in before we're done for the day thank you for your time this was again very very active conversation and I appreciate your time Stephen and well if we need to call you back for further clarification on some of your testimony we will do that early next week or I'm sorry not next week the week after we're on break next week well thanks very much for listening to me and take my thoughts into consideration. I was going to say attorney Alice offered the qualifying language that he thought could clarify if he can send it to Ron. Great and I guess they have the question about the ID which I don't know if you have time for the answer. I don't I need to I need to hear from our attorney and then we need to get to the next thing so thank you. Yeah 11-15. That's right. And louder please they can be louder if they need to. Please. Borrowing on the yes. Yes just a comment we need to find out about the federal requirements regarding. Yeah I believe we've taken testimony in the past we may not have been at this time but yes it's on the checklist so. Good morning thank you for your patience. No problem. So I guess first of all you have some updated some updated language that you have provided to us and then I don't know if let's go with that and then if there's times I don't know if you've heard anything that jumped out that you needed you felt like you could comment on but let's just go with the language that you that we had asked you to provide when we lasted this. So all of you should have the latest draft of the post triple amendment says in the upper left hand corner draft number three. And this incorporated your decisions and changes from the last time we talked about. And the highlighted highlighted some new language in the last draft that took that out. The most important change in this draft would be in page three C as in Charlie line 11 and you already saw that on the screen. So this was trying to put in statutory language your decisions that for example see a person shall not be subject to the civil or criminal sanctions and that language was in the prior bill. In a public place you had changed that from public space or to the place of public accommodation of course that is a defined term with the consent of the owner or other person representing the place of public accommodation and in a manner that doesn't interfere with normal business operation. So that's all new language was meant to codify your decisions and your desires. In the very end of this same section of page four there have been a definition of public space that was removed. The housing status is the same as the prior version. Two on line 12 is the cross-reference with definition of public accommodation. And similar changes were made on page three D's and delta. Same structure. So I think you already saw those on the screen where we actually discussed them. Those are the two substantive changes that you mentioned in the paragraph. That accommodates your suggestions, correct? Right. Okay. So I don't know if you're in a position to answer this please let me know. So in the course of the conversation that we've had this morning was there anything at least that the committee has said that misrepresented what's in the bill or misinterpreted the law as presented? Perception is the perception of the person accused of discrimination. So it's not something the college ground pointed out. So it's not for a case under the law. It's not really a two-way street. It's the perception of the person discriminated. But that requires action. Do you have a case? I mean how to discriminate against them? Take some action that discriminates. To demonstrate discrimination. We have to prove you're right. But you can prove it based on something you said or did or interest thereof. So it could be a lot of things. That's a matter of direction. By the judge or jury? Yes, yes. You're correct. If it goes that far. I mean these are cases that don't go that far. That's true. That's one of the dangers of our digging down is that we think that this is all going to go to the Supreme Court. And unless there's evidence trail, it's a very difficult case to prove in either way. John? Let me indicate one other thing based on the testimony today. From Mr. Ellis, most of what he said I know to be screaming with. Some of it says opinion and discussion. But one thing I'm going to point out is anything in this draft that would indicate that homostat is the new protective category you're creating would be treated like disability. There's nothing indicating that you would have to make an accommodation as you would for disability. I think he is accurate that often it's other protective categories, gender, religion. In essence you accommodate also by changing schedules. But it's not the same legal structure. We have the same obligation as you do in context of disability. There's nothing in this bill that says that homostats would be treated like disability. Instead I think it's written as it would be treated like these other categories of gender-raised religion. What about to his point though that he's that that the one's housing status if one is in this case is unhoused somehow I mean it makes an impact on their ability on the quality of their work. Whether it means showing up to work on time, shaved, hairbrushed in a uniform if that's what it takes. You're meeting your goals if you have a you know if you're cooking in a restaurant you need to be sanitary and provide things. He seemed to be thinking that one's job performance, the measure by which an employer would naturally be expected to judge whether they have a good employee or not, can be that the use of housing status could overtake that or color that work so that he couldn't fire that person. So two things, number one there may be I don't know this great word but co-occurring attributes or issues tied to homeless status that could impact your job performance so you may have a mental health disorder and you're homeless and if this bill becomes law and some actions taken against you that would be the issue is the action illegal because based on housing status or the disability or something else the courts would sort that out. So I think he's right that there could be a whole group of issues or factors that go into the employment decision I think the courts would have to sort those out and separate them and reach an interpretation about whether the action was legal or illegal and that's what they do and or the human rights commission that's what they do in discrimination context all the time. So as I testified earlier I think as other witnesses have said it's almost always fact specific in case dependent and these are the kind of issues that courts or the human rights commission rest with. The other thing I point out is under existing law in 495 which is the labor provision that you modify in this bill it says in B that employer can discharge that nothing in the existing would take away the right or ability of employer to discharge for good cause shown quote unquote. So that's only talking about discharge it's not talking about another employment action but you certainly could even if someone falls within a technical category you could still discharge them for basically they're not doing a job that would be good cause shown as an existing right. You could certainly if you want I think he's going to send in some language you could add to that or add other qualifying language if you want. What was the phrase that he was using qualified a qualified qualification and I think he was reading from the very if you look on page 9 in 495 which was a section I'm just looking at it says it's unlawful except we're a bond of five occupational qualification requires person of particular race for gender to discriminate on those bases that's what he's referring to he was I think discussing that also in the context of if you have a job doing a job day what would be a legitimate qualification I mean no other comments on the testimony today. Any questions? Questions? Yeah on page 5 I just I'm sure I'm sorry I was rolling around I was watching this roll around here. In other parts disability is included and in this from 3 to 7 it's like disability is not inevitable. So I was looking at the unfair housing practices. Public accommodation. I have to look at the whole statute I mean I don't see it in A you're correct but I have to look at the whole statute. I think if a building is after build after 1990 there has to be. But anyway I don't have any answer to that I can try to check on it. Sure. Alright committee I am going to cut us off this morning on this on this bill so that we can get to the next. I am feeling like we are packing a lot in in the mornings because these the afternoons are kind of taken away from us this week. So I appreciate everybody's time and for coming in and we will be picking this up next week. It's still next week just like two days or Monday. I'll be here next week. I'm going to pass it myself.