 Good afternoon and welcome to Vermont House Judiciary Committee. It is Tuesday, April 20th, and we are going to be continuing our work on S7, which is a bill relating to expungement and sealing of criminal records. And we have two witnesses today. And I would first like to welcome John Campbell, the state's attorneys and sheriffs. Good to see you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, for the record, John Campbell, Executive Director of the State's Courts and Sheriffs. We had submitted some written testimony again because James Pepper, who has been the legislative liaison, is now, he has a gubernatorial appointment and was unable to testify and he had worked his bill up in the Senate. So I am sort of filling in to, I guess, to answer a few questions that you all might have on one of the sections, I believe Section 4. And then there's just two other issues that I would like to bring up, Madam Chair, if that's just for the committees, you know, where they might want to look into. But I can answer or address those first few issues on Section 4 if you would like. Thank you. It would be very helpful for us to understand your position on Section 4. Thank you. And just want to make sure everybody has a language or knows where we are. I'm just looking for a, I believe it's on page 9 of draft 3.1. Are we looking at the amended version 1.2 or the original version 1.1? Well, I'm looking at the original one. I'm looking at the, let's see. Yeah, not, are you asking about 1.2 that's dated today? Yeah. Yeah. Which one we should be looking at. Okay, thanks. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, John. Well, I have is actually the one from the official as passed out by the Senate. So I don't know if there was any change in that section, Section 4 from that original bill passed out. I don't think so. The first thing I guess it's important to point out is that this section applies really to a very narrow area. And those are those cases where a person will come forward and ask that their record be exposed or sealed prior to what the expiration date is, or that that's prescribed in statute. Generally, it's a five year period. And there's just not, there's not a lot of those. And if they, again, so what would happen is we're asking here in this amendment that if that does happen, if somebody does want to have their record exposed and for us to stipulate to it with the with the defense that it be the prosecution or it be the office that actually prosecuted the case. Now, the reason for this is that the prosecutors or the case themselves, the office, they're the ones that really would have any background knowledge on the individual or the crime. Any specifics generally the person also is still living in the county where the offense occurred and with initial prosecution occurred. So it would be absolutely beneficial as far as a making sure that we that all of the knowledge of the incident and in making sure that it's it is within the interests of justice. You want to make sure that it's the people who are making that decision are the ones that actually, you know, were involved or the office that was involved. Now, there I know there was a question of what was this going to affect the concurrent jurisdiction of the AG. And the answer to that is no, you know, the AG and the state attorney, we still have concurrent jurisdiction. And that would not disturb that other than in a case where again, it was before the five year period, it would be the initial office that would the state attorney's office would be the one to determine whether there should be a stipulation. The other part it does not affect is I believe there was a question of the expungement clinics and that's and that's really a kind of mixed way groups and prior statement is what the attorney general was doing a great job along with legal aid in doing these expungement clinics around the state. It's been great and I think it's worked really well. There have been maybe a few cases where there was some, some local knowledge that we had to share with the AG that they may not have known, which we did and but the expungement still went through. And so, so this one defect is that at all the expungement clinics because they deal with those cases that have already met the eligibility requirements. So, so there really is no issue here. And the, the other, the other part is when you're dealing with, you know, waving the statutory time frames, you're also having an issue, you know, because the victims, which we cannot forget the victims of this because there's always a victim of the crime. You know, they need to be notified. And a lot of times, you know, victims, these are, you know, putting years, many years out from the initial crime. And so we have to track them down. We have to find them. We have to discuss it and explain things to them. And again, it's a lot of the local offices. They're the ones that actually have more of a connection with the victims and know maybe their families or maybe friends. So it is not only important to, I think for justice, but also for victims themselves to feel that, that their case is being, if we're going to stipulate to a waiver, that it's being done by their prosecutor, their county. And this really is not too much different than local control, which used to be a very big thing. And it is still a local control where you're concerned about, you know, the people in your community. So I think it's, it's something that is, is definitely needed. I don't see this at all interfering with the progression of the, of this, the expansion of the expungements. I think that that it's going to be fine. I don't, I don't see there to be any, any issue. That's the first thing you wanted to wait for the questions. And then I can go on to the other two issues. That'd be great. Cause I'm Barbara's had her hand up. Thank you. And thank you, John. Go ahead, Barbara. Thank you. Remember to put my hand down first here. So, so I get that the local. State attorney is going to have the information that the AG's office might not have. And that that's important. How can we though, somehow safeguard against. Geographic enactment of this law. I think that some prosecutors might just. Out of pocket, not want to. Okay, some and others might. Take full advantage of this law the way we pass it. Right. So, so two things, one, first understand that it's, it's before the eligibility period has, has expired, has, has come to be. I mean, that's, that's one, I mean, so it's pretty soon on Apple. I shouldn't say soon, but in general within five years. But what you have to understand also is that there's a kind of a built-in safeguard in that the courts, they can, they can, if we don't stipulate, they can take it and then make, have their hearing, make a determination. Is this within the interests of justice. So I think that, that safeguard is there. And you know, the other thing too, is that. You know, it's interesting when, when the bill first came out, I thought that there would be maybe one or two counties that would be. Relucted or. Some of the. Expungements and I was really surprised and there really hasn't been any raid might have different information that I have, but I see all of our state attorneys being on more as far as they understand the need for expungements. There are some things, which again, a couple of things, I'll tell you right after with this, but where they do have concerns, but generally when you, the initial passing of the expungement laws, the work that you all did in the last couple of years, they were supportive. And, and I think that that it's gone, gone very well. And I, you know, Attorney General Donovan has done an incredible job. He's, he's been up there and, and really making sure that along with legal aid that this, this works. So I don't think there has been any issues. I really don't see it going forward. The, you know, under those narrow circumstances being, being a problem. So, okay. That's helpful because I was going to ask you if it was sort of unanimously supported. So. Attorney General's office would have jurisdiction for doing their clinics. But other than that, it would be the state attorneys. Is that right? Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Martin. Thank you, John. I just, I just want to make sure I understood. Your testimony. So you said there, it's not affecting it concurrent jurisdiction with the AG's office, but that is only when the individuals eligible for expungement is my understanding what you said. So this is a situation where. This is a situation where somebody's coming perhaps in a clinic and they're not eligible yet simply because of the timing issue. And in that narrow circumstance, essentially the AG does not have concurrent jurisdiction. With this language. Yeah, they have concurrent jurisdiction once it's deemed eligible, but in this one situation where there's a question of eligibility or waving that timeframe. And then it really is only the state's attorneys that can, can decide that issue. For the waving of the, of the timeframe. Yes. And the reason again, going back to that, the work our concern is that the, the state's attorney is the one with the office with the most knowledge as to the event. So you're thinking you want to go with the person who has the, the knowledge of the individual and the crime. And what subsequent actions may have happened, you know, between the criminal act of the conviction and the time period that they're talking about. No, I think I understand certainly the rationale. I'm just trying to make sure I understand the situation that without this provision in here, there's nothing to prevent the AG to exercise concurrent jurisdiction to say, well, you haven't quite met that timing, but I'm just going to say that this is fine, but we need to put this in here to, to ensure that it's the state's attorneys that makes that decision. I believe you do. And then there's the other states starting to believe you do except maybe with the exception of maybe one, one count one office. All right. So, so it, I don't mean to beat this, but I just want to make very clear to me that seems like it is in fact though, I'm just speaking away some concurrent jurisdiction from the AG in this limited circumstance. And I'm not saying I'm a post that one way or another. I'm just trying to make sure I understand that right now they have concurrent jurisdiction to make this decision, but this language, they would no longer, and it would have to go to the state's attorneys. So I just want to make sure I understood that. And I just say like it's one, one aspect or one, one portion of the jurisdiction of the question. Is, you know, who can come in and actually be the respondent and, or who could actually put this forward to the, to the, to the court. And, you know, in this case, we're saying that it comes to waiver. We, the individual state's attorneys office should be the one that would make that decision. Thanks. Great. Thanks. Thank you. Anybody else before John moves on, I'm not seeing any other hands to make sure I'm not missing anybody. Committee members. Okay. Go ahead, John. Thank you. Two other issues that I think, and I'm not sure if you all have taken this into consideration and I do apologize if I'm repeating what maybe James may have said, but I think they're really important, especially when you want to have something succeed or a legislation and again, as you know, I know how this will go forward. And if you, if we're going to be successful, if you're going to be successful with your policy decision here, you want to make sure that, that all the T's were cross the nice dotted force. One of the biggest things that have concern that I have that I've seen and I mentioned, you know, into the Senate is number one, the cost involved with this. The manpower is, is just going to be a significant increase. I think. Last year they had the, with the fire, prior when it was like 15 crimes, and there is already a backlog, major backlog with the courts as to just dealing with those. And then this is opening it up to probably, I think over 700 crimes. And I can't be precise about that exact number, but then I apologize because I thought I had the note here. However, the, the point is, is that for us to be able to notify everybody with all the notification, that is going to be extremely time consuming. Even though it only takes, let's say, some people might say it's only going to take 10 or 15 minutes, but when you have to, you know, you're tracking down, you really want to make sure that you actually do make a good faith effort to notify the victims because they really do deserve to be part of, you know, to have the, the information. So that, I think that a fiscal note should be requested on this thing. I just can't imagine it going without a fiscal note. So that's, that's number one. Because I think it's not just us. It's also, I've talked to spoken to other departments. And I know that they're, they're concerned as well. So, but that's not for me to testify to. Excuse me, John, before you move on now, thank you for bringing that up again. And that was addressed in pepper's memo. And we have her testimony to that effect. And I do know that the Senate, as you said, is, is concerned about this and, and I know that the Senate and other members of the house are working with joint fiscal office to look at some of the, the new money coming from the feds to help with the backlog, not only for the state's attorneys, but for the courts. And I know I asked the question, well, should we get a fiscal note? And the testimony was, well, we're already working on it. You know, JFO is, is, it's very aware of it. And really, you know, really do want to make, make your office and other offices. I'm not sure if we can make you fully hold, but surely get on top of that, that backlog. Yeah, I just, I guess I was, it became more important. And with the governor's, you know, release as far as what his letter on the H315, where he was, is pretty adamant in the fact that, you know, the ARPA funds, you know, are going to go to specifically ARPA related effects. So again, but that's not, that's, I'm sure the governor is more than capable of coming over and telling you all that itself or have his purpose. For me, I strongly believe that the back, that the backlog is in part due to, due to COVID. And so, so I think it would be very appropriate to help the state's attorneys, courts and others with, with their backlogs, not only pertaining to expungement, but to, but to the functioning of the, of the courts and the justice partners included. So I will continue to advocate for that. Sure. Understood and understand. The second one is something that really does concern me. Again, when, when we, as legislators, legislators, when you are looking at making wholesale change on things, you, you always worry that are we missing something. And this may be intentional on the, on the part of, in this policy change, but there are certain crimes that, that in my review the other day of this, because again, I didn't pepper head it earlier, that I was concerned and not sure if you knew that you're actually making eligible for expungement. And things like, you know, possession of child pornography, you know, being, you know, not being, that's being eligible for that. And a lot of oftentimes you have cases where, as you know, we've talked about this many times in here, that you have cases that are pled down. There are the charges are more significant, but because of, you know, the problem with the evidence or, or witnesses that are reluctant, especially in violence case, domestic violence or other cases like that. But that is, that's one example of there's others, even embezzlement where, you know, in some cases where, you know, somebody had embezzled a good deal of money. And if that's, you know, then that person can go back into working in, in a bank or whatever. Now, again, I also know that there is times when there's been many cases that I've seen so far that I like, of embezzlement that I think should be expunged, especially when you're dealing with some women who have been victims of domestic violence and that they have no way out. They've unfortunately made a bad decision at taking money from their employer. But there are other others though that where there's really, it's a little bit different set of circumstances. And that was just a quick, I just look for something and thinking about because you have to go through all of them. You know, the crimes to really see are there other ones that should not be eligible. When you just say listed crimes, we know that unfortunately there's not, you know, that's a list that's kind of grown over time. And we're now looking at that in the sentencing commission, looking to see what should be considered a listed crime. But I just wanted you all to know, so if you're making the policy decision, understand that you're making a policy decision to say that a person who had been in possession of child pornography should be eligible for expungement. Again, that's your decision as policy makers, but I just wanted to make sure that you're aware. I see Martin's hand up. So, John, I don't know if you could maybe point us to some of the, some of the sections. I do know that there were sections in the bill that said expunge instead of seal. I'm not sure if those are some of them and I'm looking to, to Bryn, but Martin, maybe you can or Bryn could, could help me out here. Go ahead, Martin. I hope I'm wrong by the way, but I don't, I don't, I've had a couple of the other say surges, make sure that there was two set of eyes on this. Yeah, that's a rise. Yeah. Okay. Martin and then also Bryn, if you're here. Thank you. Yeah, I guess, I mean, I was going to ask a couple of questions just following up on it in fact was one, whether those certain offenses should be sealed instead of expunged and, you know, so, and I don't know the answer to that. But the other question I was going to have is what, what kind of factors would, would you suggest, John, that we look at to decide what might be sealed, what might, what might be expunged and what we don't make sure that we have expungement or sealing available at all? What are the factors that you would suggest that the committee considered making those policy decisions? So that's the question for you. I guess the other question is more for Bryn as far as, you know, if there are certain crimes that really should only be sealed, but. And I think, and it's really is a very valid and a good question. I'm not sure that I can give you any answer other than, you know, really depth of reaction. Let's say with, with , with possession of trial pornography. And again, if like, if I knew that that case had been bled down to that. You know, there are certain crimes that you've, we already have certain crimes that are definitely not eligible. And we, and it's interesting that some of the crimes that are involved like CDL, like if it's, if involves a CDL that's not eligible for expungement or sealing. And we know because there's federal issues there, It's just it would to me when I see something when I when I from a visceral standpoint when I hear okay Well, it's okay. We're not gonna let you expunge a traffic type of offense, but child porn out possession of child pornography, which in my From history of cases that I've seen with possession of child porn This is one of those cases where it actually had going over to ICAC at the attorney general's office I don't think I've seen a lot of things in my life, but Some of the things that they come across and that they see and some of the child porn are big that That really just shatters my my my faith in humanity sometimes. So I don't want to get Hyperbolic here, but uh too much on hyperbole, but I just think that If there's one kind of thing like that, there might be others and I just think we should do a you know We probably should look at it or you guys should look at it a little take a deeper dive But maybe Bryn can answer whether first of all they're incorrect on that Yeah, thank you Bryn. Are you prepared to answer that? Thank you. Sure So for the record Bryn here from legislative council so as the committee knows s7 does make all crimes except for listed crimes and drug trafficking crimes eligible for either sealing or expungement And some of the crimes that are in the sexual exploitation of children chapter including possession of child pornography are not listed crimes. So For example, the possession of child pornography is a felony offense. So it would only be eligible for sealing pursuant to s7 But yes, it would be it would be an eligible crime Okay Thank you, uh tom Thank you Um, john that's some of the stuff I had had on my mind from when we went through this bill earlier um, you know the um Structural crimes around children and and domestic violence In in my in my opinion, uh, uh, neither one of them should be expunged or sealed Um, I guess, you know, if I wanted to prioritize one it would it would definitely be the sexual exploitation things and um, and I Madam chair can maybe it's already made available. But do we have a a list somewhere of all these crimes that that we could look at? I mean, they're they're And I think john alluded to it. There there may be some others in there that um, you know that that may Um warrant a lot closer look as far as whether they should be expunged or sealed um, so I would love to be able to get that list Sure, I'm going to turn to brinn who can tell us if we don't have it how we can get it and also to confirm that um, these are crimes that are not listed, um Not the crimes and that but they are only eligible for sealing So sort of three questions in there right, so the so that particular crime, um, that attorney Campbell raised is the is Would be eligible for sealing only under a seven because it's a felony offense And I don't I don't particularly I don't have a list of of every crime on the books except for the listed crimes and the drug trafficking offenses um, I wonder if there's a witness who may have that in Maybe already made because of the work that this committee and other committees have done on the um criminal code reclassification bill um In the meantime, you may want to look at the 5301 list of crimes definition to see what that includes because for example the domestic assault crimes are our List of crimes so they would not be eligible But that may be a good place for the committee to start to see what is not included So if I could real quick, um, madam chair that the um sentencing commission in a recommendation I think that's the 2019 december made recommendations on Sex crimes and so it would have a ready list there I'll try to get my hands on it and send it to evan for for posting so people will have that available Great. Thank you. Great Thank you Ken All right. Good afternoon. I'm just making sure I heard this right so Right now child porn is in here and it can be sealed That's already there So when you say already there, do you mean under the the bill s7? Yes It is because the bill makes As I've mentioned all crimes eligible for sealing or expungement except for listed crimes And drug trafficking offenses pursuant to the sentencing commission's recommendations in their 2019 report on expungement and sealing So yes, it is that particular offense is not a listed offense So it would be eligible for sealing under um subsection j Which I think is on page 17 So I think I'm with the representative verdict. I think I need to uh To look at that a lot closer because I I I can't believe that that got by me because I I think I would have been Well, I'm only one person but I would have fought that a lot harder I I I I'm I'm confused how I even missed that to begin with because that's uh That's a bad one Thank you Thank you. And it might might be good to have a sentencing commission. Maybe the uh The chair of the sentencing commission um back in to help explain Why in fact um the commission recommended That these cases Be eligible for sealing Um Okay. Yeah, okay, John. I just want to be clear and and uh Bryn, no disrespect whatsoever. I just got an email. So there's one of the other essays evidently there that are watching currently right now and I think Bryn maybe you can correct but um, I believe that there is a misdemeanor since the person who violates section to a 27 by possessing or accessing with the attempt of view of photograph film or visual depiction including direction of store electronically with which constitutes Clearly lewd exhibit of child's gentle bills. I don't need to go into all the specifics, but that's a misdemeanor So that's that's correct. There is a portion of the child pornography statute. That's a misdemeanor. Yeah, okay, so Sorry, just they asked me to make sure that they knew that so So I think what what happens is that the sadistic commission They basically came and they said, well, what do you what do we want to do? And there was a large There's digital folks that that just feel that, you know, all crimes should be eligible and For expungement and I think that's when they they Propose that it's not easy for someone like ledge counsel. They have to you know go through again Look and see which crimes you're going because because again, I believe that's listing to list that it would be a huge piece of work I I would not I do not envy anybody who's having to Determine exactly how many crimes you have because as we know also we've got a lot of crimes in the book that don't even make sense anymore We're always, you know, have you know tripping over some of them and and deciding Why do we even have it on the books and we get rid of them? There's just It's just a beast that has continued to grow Okay thank you and Do you have another another concern or No, and I feel bad because I feel like I might have just created a um More concern and I apologize. My intent was not to do that, but it's it's just I think it's only fair to to you all Um to make you aware because I I could tell you if these things happen they pass And someone's going how'd that happen? um That's when the fingers started getting pointed. So, you know, it's it's what the Doing expungements. I think is a great job. I mean it's important and I just would hate to um to sideline, you know, the good work that that legislature has been doing regarding expungements Because of something like this No, no apologies needed. No, I'm I'm glad that you raised those concerns and Um glad that that you're here. That's why I I mentioned to you that it is important to to hear this testimony in in person And I'd be curious if you have recommendations of how to um to address those concerns that you just raised Okay town Yeah, I just wanted to say no apology Also, I mean if there's if there's two things that in my mind anyway that deserve to be carved out it is uh Something around uh domestic violence and and and definitely, you know around the icac stuff. So Thank you for bringing it up Thank you. Um, and I don't know about the domestic violence. I think Brenda answered that so Okay, uh, not seeing any Maxine just something that came before we Before we get rid of John and and I have to step out. Anyway, um, would this be something worth getting icac? in here just to uh, see what their opinion is on it get a little testimony from them right Let me think let me think about that. I mean, we're familiar with their with their work and certainly their work is one that we've supported I Think it goes more to the sentencing commission how we classify our crimes um, right by our misdemeanors versus our felonies and um And what the sentencing commission was um I don't want to say what were they thinking but what they were, you know, um What analysis went into their to their recommendations because certainly that's a quite a diverse group Who are very familiar with with the laws from various different Whether it's as prosecutors judges defense attorneys, um, so I I think that's where I would go back in and revisit For starters along with um legislative council, but let's keep thinking about it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you Okay, any other questions before before we move on to our next witness um Sure, martin go ahead and Tom did you have something else or Yeah, okay martin so so I wonder if I can uh ask uh john to comment on the proposed uh language amendment on section four that that I had uh asked brim to put together and was was posted Uh, john, I don't know if you had a chance to look at that and the idea generally is The language in in section four that we were talking about earlier Absolutely prohibits the ag from making the decision on eligibility if uh, If the time frame hasn't uh expired And what this language would do and it's not it's been posted. So if folks want to look at it Simply what it would do is it would allow the state's attorney that would have that jurisdiction to essentially allow You know to wave having to make that decision. So if there if there was It'll Right now it really completely bans the ag in in one of these uh Clinics to to make that decision But this would give a little flexibility where The state's attorney couldn't come to some sort of agreement with the ag to say yeah within these confines Yeah, you can go ahead and make that decision Uh, I don't know if you've had a chance to look at that language or if you have any comments on that I have um, I have I mean, I'm sorry. I have not So I'll I'll take a look at that right away and see if I can get back and and maybe come back on While my raid is testifying afterwards, but um, the only thing that would concern me the fact that the the only time this really comes relevant is that when we wouldn't wave The time the eligibility and the only reason they wouldn't wave the eligibility would be You know again, you there's some Knowledge that is saying Some reason that saying that this is not going to be a smart thing for us to to wave Again and because of the time period on I don't know, but I I'll take a look at the language. Let's just say that and then I'll give you a Check with the folks. All right. Thanks. All right Actually, john, I want to go back to something that um make sure I understood you. Um Did you say that in terms of the clinics? Um That those clinics um only pertain to people Who are eligible the time frame is um has expired so that this might not come up it during the clinics And I realized maybe I'm afraid our next witness can Can ask this is Well, first of all, the clinics are are for the ones that um Have where the eligibility requirements have all been met It doesn't surprise me that somebody would come to one of the clinics and And file this and and you know realize that I'm sorry the time has not or they they don't meet all the eligibility requirements But I I would defer to morade because she probably does know how often that's happened Okay, great. Thank you Martin you're Good. No, okay. All right Okay, well, thank you. So there's a great segue into our next Witness marita reilly from vermont legal aid. Welcome and good to see you. Thank you. It's great to be here For the record. I am marita reilly from vermont legal aid Um, just want to start by thanking the committee for your years of work on this issue and Even on this bill As you know for the last several years We have been the organization Primarily responsible for working with petitioners to file for expungement or sealing relief with the court and in conjunction with the state's attorney and attorney general's office Um, our testimony and perspective is informed directly by our work with vermonters who have accessed and are seeking access for this relief um, we've worked with thousands of vermonters and uh Strongly believe that this is going to have a significant impact on the lives and livelihoods and well-being so many low-income vermonters seeking record clearance Um off the top of my head. I can think of dozens of clients who are waiting for this bill to pass so that they can move on with their lives and and obtain more suitable employment And it's our perspective that the legislature is doing the right thing by furthering expungement reform um, I have one substantive comment on the bill um, and a few responses to um different statements made by legislators and witnesses over the last couple of weeks And i'm happy to answer any questions the committee may have um, the first Comment that I have is a minor technical amendment to The third charge provision that's included in s7 um So as you all know s7 includes a technical fix to the surcharge language that was actually passed last year through act 167 um in order to effectuate that legislation there's been some concern across different courts um that have You know struggled with with the language as passed so the the fix in s7 To 13 vsa 72 82 will be very helpful um, I have one minor recommendation, uh, which would be to include um the language that was in act 167 and that language reads um any restitution and surcharge ordered by the court have been paid in full Provided that payment of the surcharge shall not be required if the surcharges have been waived um, the recommendation would be to include that language in a few additional provisions within 13 vsa 7602 And I can give you the lines and the page numbers um on the most recent version of the bill that brinn posted today if that would be helpful um, but just sort of to give you a little bit more explanation of that proposed recommendation So as you know s7 creates several new categories of primes and in 7602 non predicate misdemeanor predicate misdemeanor felony property primes and other felony offenses several of those sections include that surcharge waiver language that was Drafted and and passed through act 167, but several of the sections Do not actually include that waiver provision So for any category of prime that doesn't include the waiver language I think there would be a viable argument to say that waiver of surcharge would not be available for that type of crime I don't think that the legislature and intends to do that. I haven't heard any conversation that certain types of crimes Certain types of convictions should not be eligible for a surcharge waiver And you know, I would also recommend if that were the perspective Of the committee that that we move away from that And I think the fix is easy. It's just to sort of copy paste that same language And one example of where you can find it is page 12 line one in in several different Provisions in the bill and I can sort of give those sites, but it's 7602 subsection a Subsection g subsection h subsection i and subsection j Just to make sure that waiver of surcharge is uniformly accessible for petitions to seal or expunge any type of conviction Um, so I can stop there and see if folks have questions No, um, okay. Thank you. I I I would like to know if it just was if it wasn't a verdant or if it had been discussed in the senate or yeah And just you know for what it's worth. I as this is a provision that's near and dear to legal aid I didn't hear anything. Um, I could have missed something But I I certainly would you know at least acknowledge if I had been part of a conversation and there was a Debate, I think it was just inadvertent, but um others can can speak to that Okay, so the next comment that I had was um related to a different type of legal financial obligation Um At some point over the last couple of weeks, I'm I'm forgetting which day but representative LaLon had inquired um during a committee hearing about whether the committee might consider Fine waivers and and also just wondered allowed whether fines Like surcharges are a barrier to expungement And I I don't know if You know the committee came to a conclusion about whether to act on that Or pursue that any further. Um, but I just wanted to sort of give my two cents. Um So legally does not collected any data about barriers posed by this particular type of legal financial obligation But I can say that anecdotally Um In our casework over the last four plus years Fines have been a barrier uh to expungement for low income for monitors Especially for those who are convicted of lower level quality of life offenses So the ones in particular, um, where I see fines coming up And somewhat substantial fines have been marijuana possession cases Um as well as uh, your you know disorderly conduct type offenses um Surcharges are You know for obvious reasons a more significant barrier because they are assessed in every conviction and The language that's going to be amended in this bill has prevented The waiver of surcharges While fines um are not always assessed and can there's an argument that can be suspended But you know, we have seen this issue and I think just as a rule legal financial obligations are going uh to prevent Low-income for monitors from accessing this remedy. Um, so wherever they're a precondition to expungement Low-income for monitors are going to Come up against that and and uh struggle If the committee wanted to address this in s7, um, you know, I have a recommendation which would just be to sort of include a waiver of fines provision in 13 vsa 71 78 similar to the one Related to surcharges that's going into 78282 But if the committee, you know feels that it's a bit too late in the game to tackle this sort of substantive change I think that the issue um would logically be Considered by the sentencing commission as they look to Work on simplifying and automating the system Because I think you know as as I think this committee grappled with last year with the um automating of marijuana expungements the legal financial obligation piece is is going to have to be considered and um sort of Legislated around so it'll certainly come up if it doesn't You know if it's not something that makes sense to amend now I'll thank you. Thank you. That's appreciated that that's helpful. Yeah We had heard testimony Stating that it wasn't as much of an issue, but I really appreciate your your testimony For sure. Yeah, and suggestions. So I was helpful Uh, that's not seeing any So keep going Um, so I just wanted to briefly comment on the section for proposal by the state's attorney that passed out of the senate Regarding the attorney general's office concurrent jurisdiction when it comes to expungement And you know admittedly I'm I'm not a prosecutor and so I can't speak exactly to Um John Campbell's uh sort of nuance thing of of whether it's still concurrent jurisdiction or not But I will just say that you know from my perspective It is a part of concurrent jurisdiction And it does seem to make good sense for the agio to retain concurrent jurisdiction Overcases at the expungement stage and I I haven't seen this As a problem requiring any sort of legislative fix Because of the way the current law is drafted the agios have the ability to stipulate to the expungement of criminal records during our Clinics with the attorney general's office, and I've always sort of assumed that this might be helpful to the state's attorneys because it Um, I think it takes some work off of their busy dockets um I don't think there's any countervailing risk to maintaining the status quo here Because in my experience the folks at the attorney general's office who have the authority to stipulate They don't do so without getting prior permission again in my experience from the state's attorney's office I do think To that maintaining this status quo, you know allowing for concurrent just jurisdiction for both prosecution and the restoration Through expungement sends the right message about vermont's policy priorities and our commitment to restorative justice So if our state's lead law enforcement officer can You know has the authority to prosecute I think having the full ability to restore people back to the community Is also a power that they should maintain I just in response to John Campbell's comments You know part of the efficiencies of the clinic is Folks come in and sometimes they don't quite meet the eligibility Timeline so for vermont legal aid and the attorney general's office to be able to sit down and that same day sort of assess What's eligible and stipulate? Or stipulate around Some of the timelines while it doesn't happen With incredible frequency. It is a benefit, right? Everyone is in the room on the same day. We can sort of get a stack of of these petitions over to the court And you know most importantly, it's an efficiency for the petitioner who doesn't have to You know go chasing A state's attorney who You know might might be incredibly busy and might just have one day designated For expungements out of a whole month or every two months. So It's an access to justice issue. I think it sends the right message. I really haven't seen You know anything that seems concerning And while this isn't regular practice Technically the AG could stipulate around the timeline If that seemed appropriate and I would trust just you know, knowing who's In the office, I would trust that you know any victim input that could be Assertained by the state's attorney would and could be ascertained by by the attorney general's office as well So that's sort of my perspective on that Thank you Yeah, I I do I did take a peek at our representative LaLonde's Amendment and I you know, I think that's a fair Compromise But again, I I don't I haven't seen this as an issue and I wouldn't think that it's um, you know Something we would Want to as a state sort of take that discretion away from the attorney general only when it comes to restoration I think that sort of moves us In a direction that doesn't seem very helpful Thank you. Sure Um, so I can just speak, um I guess similarly to the Department of Corrections concern about expungements Occurring when individuals are under supervision And just sort of as a preliminary point Vermont legal aids position aligns with that of the agio that Records have a definite predictive value and use of very old records in risk assessments Wouldn't be supported by the data so You know expungement of old records, you know, perhaps shouldn't even be part of a risk assessment and I'm not well versed enough in in the risk assessment that the Vermont Department of Correction uses to know whether they're looking at Very old records. Um, but I would say It would be hard for me to imagine a situation where someone under supervision was getting anything but incredibly old records expunged and I the only other point I want to make on this is that It's important to consider that the only way a person Under supervision would be able to get an expungement as if the state's attorney stipulates And this is our local elected law enforcement officer official And so their stipulation to an expungement Indicates that they believe At the very least public safety would not be harmed by the expungement and at most public safety Might actually benefit from the person getting an expungement You know, they use everything at their disposal in order to make these assessments Including conversations with the victim With the petitioner with the petitioners advocate if they have one As well as you know information from the department of corrections And and their own records from the underlying cases So I would trust that if they're Determining that a person Can have some old records expunged while they're on supervision. They're not making that decision lightly And that they're you know really sort of investigating whether it would be in the best interest And in the the public safety interest of their community And I think just the last comment I had was a Responsive to the department of public safety's testimony About moving to a ceiling only system I think he had concerns about the wisdom of expunging records And stated that you know it could frustrate another policy goal, which is police accountability And you know as um david chair from the attorney general's office mentioned this is Um will be addressed by the sendings commission over the interim And you know legal aid will hopefully you know participate in some way in those conversations despite not being a member But I I'll just say that um, you know in our experience. This has never been an issue for our clients. Um And as a matter of course counsel For expungement petitioners regularly hear about the underlying arrest charge and conviction experience of folks, especially when it's been traumatic And so I have on several occasions Sort of pause the process and refer folks to The aclu and defense attorneys to investigate the merits of a use of force or brutality case Similarly, I imagine that defense counsel in the initial case Would you know similarly hear about um Any brutality that occurred or any sort of misconduct that occurred and You know advise that defendant accordingly before the record is gone. Um You know, I I think this is an issue that'll be taken up next year, but um As a sort of preview for our perspective Um Access to sealed records. Um, you know, if we were to move to a ceiling only regime I think our biggest concern is that access to sealed records Needs to be less expansive and more time limited Especially for law enforcement actors You know if this is to become the the sole remedy available to petitioners, um and you know There would need to be a sort of a clearer delineation of who gets access For how long and then some real accountability codified into law for any wrongful use of sealed records You know in the primary concern there being that We wouldn't want very old sealed records to be used by law enforcement in You know street patrol and decisions to stop and search individuals And and I think that you know, those are discussions that'll happen during the interim And you know, as I said, we hope to participate in them So that's really all I have and I'd be happy to answer questions Again, I just want to thank you all. I know that every session you hear about this and take testimony and You're patient and thoughtful and creative and a lot of people are benefiting. So thank you Thank you Barbara Thank you I'm getting in the how habit of putting my hand down so I I am concerned about the fees too and um If we wait for the sentencing commission to address it I don't know How right I don't know how many people would would um Be affected by this and I don't know if you have like rough percentages of You know from your time doing these And and you were talking about the fines in particular, right? Yeah so No, I mean off the top like obviously 100 of people are impacted by the surcharge issue and you know Anecdotally, I could just guess and I think it would be you know under Under 10% and again, it's it's mostly with those marijuana cases And the lower level disorderly conduct There have been you know, some courts who are willing to suspend the fines because you know, there's a plausible argument to be made that they they can be suspended and But you know, that's sort of It requires a whole other petition And you know really a sort of luck of a draw And it would just be better to be able to get you know a very comprehensive but simple statement that says You know, these can be waived if the person can't pay, you know, just the same way that we have Drafted an s7 for the surcharge Right, so I don't think it would be a huge okay A huge huge problem, but obviously I mean if it if it feels like it's something that could you know Move and wouldn't hold up the bill. I think it It's always going to be helpful to low-income people to take care of the those financial obligations. Yeah And it sounds like you've been watching all the testimony So we were hearing From public safety their Concerns that it would be better for people If their records were sealed and I'm wondering have you ever had a client Who it would have been in their self-interest to have had their records sealed instead of expunged? um At this time no, I mean there are immigration Concerns and when you know, we we do some screening For immigration concerns and so if you know a person was not born in the united states Sort of our first course of action is to have them consult with an immigration attorney down at the south broilton legal clinic to ensure You know, we don't inadvertently or We don't create an additional collateral consequence or to to the expungement process You know, they might need to defend against some allegation in an immigration proceeding And they would need to have certified copies of those records um, so that would be the context in which it comes up and we do our very best to advise You know, I I will say that I I could imagine A situation where if there were no eyewitnesses And there was a you know, uh an instance of police brutality and and body cam footage was deleted that that would be a concern um And as I said, um For better or worse, we hear an awful lot about the underlying Uh arrests charges conviction incarceration So things are, you know, any attorney who's counseling these individuals like light bulbs are going to be going off. Um, and and as I said, um I have on a couple of occasions paused people and just said I I think you should have a conversation with the aclu because it sounds like You know, you might want to work on addressing And and investigating whether you have an actual uh, civil rights claim So we have paused those and I I could imagine, you know, if we were to move to a a system where We're automatically expunging everything after two or three years. I think that would be very concerning, but I don't you know, my sense is that We're not moving in that direction and not Right because the statute of limitations, I think is three years for many of those civil cases Um, which is, you know, a much shorter timeline than even ceiling under s7 So I don't I don't see it as a Particularly big concern. I could fathom a reality in which that would be a concern but again, I think there are just so many actors in the system who are Interfacing with these folks first when they're defendants and then when they're expungement petitioners that these things are These concerns are being addressed in there and You know, these folks are are getting Council for the actual civil rights cases that they may have I I think you might have raised sort of other examples, but that was the one that popped out at me Okay, and um I mean you mentioned law enforcement having access which they would have access, right because It's part of their system. Um But others could subpoena like when they exist in in a sealed file I'm just wondering who else could access them that might that it might Wipe out The intent we have of expungement but doing the ceiling version of it Like a landlord of an employer. No, I I think um, I think ceiling Uh, sort of I think ceiling really Is effective when it comes to Housing and employment It's I really do think it's protective enough that the thing that's Really concerning is You know, if someone stays on law enforcement's radar for too long and those records become sort of a pretext or a justification to keep them engaged in the system That has employment consequences, right? Because every time someone starts to reintegrate and and get their feet under them again, um, they're, you know It's getting caught back up into the system. So our concern would be um, can we Narrow the definition. Can we ensure that? After, you know, a set period of time certain actors in the system, you know Are going to lose access to those records so that in effect even if the case isn't ultimately Uh destroyed In effect, you know, the only person who has access to it is you know, folks who are doing data and the petitioner themselves At some point Right because again, I know commissioner shirling kept talking about predicate crimes, but the idea is wait we if they wouldn't We know that and you know, if we're passing expungement where They're getting a clean slate. So it shouldn't be a predicate But yeah, I mean, I think that the ceiling under like the dui offense, for example Those are still permitted to be a predicate, you know, to be counted as predicate offenses for a certain period of time I would just hope and I you know would trust the committees that um, there would be a You know, uh data-driven Decision about you know, how long those sealed offenses can be used as predicates so that we're not just sort of Yeah, permitting these to be used uh into perpetuity for Um, you know subsequent sentencing Thank you Thank you, uh, martin Yeah, I'm I'm going to ask you to go back to the very first issue that you were discussing with us. All right Uh, the language regarding surcharges. I just want to be sure I understood that So I'm looking at the bill as past the senate in uh the bottom of page 11 Uh, it has that language. I think that you mentioned Any restitution surcharges ordered by the court have been paid in full Provided that payment of surcharges shall not be required if the surcharges have been waived by the court pursuant to section 7 D 2 a 2 of this title So you you just think that that language needs to be also in other places. I just wanted to Yes, yes, that's exactly right and I unfortunately in my notes. I sort of marked out the the bill With your most recent amendments that bren drafted, but I can tell you I can tell you which sections I think it needs to be added in or where it's omitted and I believe inadvertently um, and those sections are um, so the first one is 7602 subsection a which is just kind of the You know the prior version of um, you know permitting the state's attorney and and the petitioner to stipulate around the time frames Um, the second one is 7602 g So 7602 a Has multiple, you know, there's a one a two. Yeah, exactly. So it would just be a number six. I believe because I think we're all the way down to five Which if you could email that and yeah, absolutely. Yeah Yeah, you know rather than trying to get over so so we make absolutely what you're talking about that that was my my big question the other question has to do with what you were just talking about and Is it your is it your view that it's This is this is a prior rhetorical question, but I'll throw it out there anyway That for certain crimes, it's more important that we get to the point of sealing than to the end game of of destroying the records You know that that sealing is is giving us a lot of what we're after Yeah, I I would say um, a qualified yes um, I think if we can ensure that no one um If we can ensure that these records are not being used to um You know as I said informed stops and searches on the street Like that's that's really my biggest concern. Um, so it depends depends on how tight the seal is so to speak Yeah, exactly. And I you know, we've talked I think the language that the attorney general's office has started using is you know a certain level of Confidentiality descends upon the record and so you know for a period of time a seal means You know only the public is is barred from access But you know criminal justice agencies as as they are currently now under the sealing law Permitted access and then you know that winnows down to a certain subset of criminal justice agencies for a certain You know criminal justice offense And it and it keeps narrowing until you know, essentially Sure, the court has it and sure the petitioner can petition for access, but otherwise it's gone Then Yes, thank you. Hi mere mere I got your name right Thanks for being here Maybe uh, this all seems to be a little confusing to me I'm looking at the the the concern for the surcharges and so on and so forth under section 72 82 It reads that the the surcharges imposed by the section shall not be waived by the court Except as part of an expungement of sealing where the petitioner demonstrates his or her inability to pay Maybe maybe you could explain that to me a little bit and through your experience and I have one more quick question but through your experience What are the surcharges cost wise value wise? What have they been? Sorry, I have a question about your very last question. Um, what other surcharges? I just didn't quite hear you The one when we're talking about surcharges, what are we talking about generally speaking? $10 a hundred dollars. Oh, gotcha the amount So the surcharges that are assessed for every conviction are based on statutory schedule and I right now my Recollection is that it's at 147 dollars per conviction. So if you have a multi-count case, let's say two Um, two or three convictions. It's 147 times three. I'm terrible at math, but um Hey, thank you. Yeah, get the idea um So those are the amounts per um for every surcharge and um I'll try to answer your first question um, so I think the amendment included in s7 is going to fix the problem That we've had since act 167 has passed. Um, so act 167 um provided that um, any restitution and surcharges ordered by the court Um, must have been paid in full provided that payment of surcharges shall not be required if the surcharges have been waived by the court pursuant to section 7282 So the problem that courts found since act 167 was passed is that 7282 still said surcharges shall not be waived So this amendment, um, is going to fix that problem But something that I noticed uh, very recently is that um, there are a number of additional provisions um in 13 bsa 7602 that don't include um, the language that was in act 167 and I worry that the provisions that omit that language um will be interpreted by courts as not Allowing for waiver of surcharge for those particular types of crimes. So for example in the felony property crime subsection of the statute That just um The rather than saying surcharges may be waived It just has a requirement that restitution be paid prior to The expungement and I worry that um, you know, if I'm working with the attorney general's office And we're getting a felony property crime. That's 15 years old expunged and it has a surcharge of 147 We ask for a waiver the court's going to look to That section of the law and say but this section of law doesn't allow me to waive surcharges So I just wanted to sort of make sure that all of those provisions for every category of crime was explicit about The ability for courts to waive those surcharges and as I mentioned, I don't I think that was um An accidental omission Does that make sense? Yes, and you also stated that uh, it was 10 or less where it actually became a financial burden for individuals So, um, I was just sort of guessing at um, I was speak. I was responding to representative rachelson's question about fines Which are different from surcharges So surcharges are automatically assessed by the court in every single conviction. Whereas fines are just a part of the Sentence um that are court orders that the judge orders. Um, so not every case has a fine um Representative allon had mentioned earlier in uh testimony over the past couple of weeks. He wondered if a waiver of surchar of He wondered if the committee should tackle Waving fines as well as surcharges, you know, there are different sort of financial barrier And he wondered whether they were You know still posing issue for for monitors and you know, my response is Every time they're assessed to a very low-income person um, they're going to you know, be a barrier to expungement if they're seen as a precondition, but You know, I I don't think that they're not assessed. Uh, they're not Ordered by the court uniformly. So I was sort of guessing Which I shouldn't do on record. So I apologize, but it's a it's a far Smaller group of of people who are contending with the fine barrier as opposed to the surcharge barrier So I'm I'm pleased that the committee is addressing the surcharge issue Um, I think if we had to wait to address the fines until next year, um, that would be okay, but if it's something that's Uh, you know doable now that I think there's an easy fix Okay, and sir, there's no need to apologize. Uh lastly you had made uh The the statement when it referred to the ceiling of records You're speaking to representative Richardson in reference to law enforcement having access to these records and you stated that if they If they remained on law enforcement's radar for whatever reason So so forth, could you through your experiences give me an example of that? What we're referring to here um, so my concern, um Is that if law enforcement, um, had access to sealed records into perpetuity they might be, um they you know They could possibly use an old stale sealed record as um, you know a a justification for You know continued uh involvement with that person. Um, you know, there was a lawsuit out of new york city where law enforcement Had access to sealed records That had been so dismissed records that were sealed In their handheld device and were unlawfully using those sealed records to apprehend To stop and search and apprehend Folks who had prior involvement and my concern is that we wouldn't want to create a system where Into perpetuity those those records would be accessible to law enforcement who are You know investigating for new crimes. Um, we would want there to be you know some limitation to The amount of time for which they can actually use those I I appreciate that and my last Question is through your own personal experience within the state of Vermont. Are you aware of this ever happening? um At this moment. No, I think there there are probably other witnesses who could speak to this more. Um, I would imagine Folks from the defender general's office would be the best witnesses to testify about that Can I saw your hand up and now it's damaged. I want to make sure that your Questions were answered or Yeah, uh, thank you. Um Bob asked the questions and they got uh answered and I'm also thank you Okay, great Thank you Let's see any other hands. Okay Great. Thank you any anything else or That you want to leave us with? No, just uh my gratitude for all of your work on this again. Um, I'm Grateful uh for house judiciary committee and senator judiciary committee and and uh all your interesting work on this issue Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Um, let's see before we take our break I just want to give john cambell an opportunity if if he wants it to come back on but I'll just make it quick and and uh, I did get a chance to read the amendment And I'm not sure it really does anything I would think that if somebody wants to wave if if a state's attorney wants to wave That uh, he would wave the time period themselves But again, I just kind of you know go back to the fact that the the state's attorneys are in the best position to to really know Uh, whether or not a waiver waiver period Should occur again during the brayer during when I was when married was testifying. I talked to rory Tebow, I just asked him and he told me he had had one individual who came And actually it was from one of the clinics and they Was he was trying to get uh the expunge Just very shortly after his um probationary period and But rory and the person didn't know whoever it was from the ag's Office that that the person had been had violated probation a couple of times and and so he he said no We're not going to waive the period this person needs more time So there are Again, it comes down to the fact that that we Do are off our state's attorneys do have that specific knowledge that really is important and essential to make these decisions or And really I guess it comes down to is are these statutory time frames time period waiting periods? Are they important? Are they there for a reason? And if they are then they should be the ones that in order to to waive them the decision should be made by Again the office that that prosecues them So thank you again for letting us testify. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you john. Um see martin's hand is up and uh and ken Yeah, I want to I want to The follow-up question. Maybe the maybe we've used The wrong language in this this amendment. Um, I I mean I'm I'm suggesting you know, I'm not suggesting that The ag have carte blanche to to waive that eligibility requirement Um, only only that it gives the state's attorney if it so wishes To let the ag make that decision Uh, it doesn't have to and I think the language without this, uh sentence and maybe Uh, instead of saying the office that prosecuted the offense may waive this requirement We could instead say the office that prosecuted the offense may delegate The decision on whether to waive the eligibility requirement to the to another prosecutor, but The point is I don't think that you can I don't think that a state's attorney can Uh delegate that authority to the ag under the language that we have in this provision And I think that this language would at least allow a state's attorney to do so if they so desire They'll of course have to And respectfully I disagree because I think again, we're not the concurrent they have the concurrent jurisdiction They have all the authority, uh that that the state's attorney does But what what this amendment is saying is that however, if it's though in those small narrow band of cases Where, um, someone is asking to have the timeframe Waved the eligibility timeframe waived Then it the only person that can make that decision Is the state's attorney or if he wants to just, uh, not object and he won't object or if the state or the ag says Hey, look, we've got this this this case. We're handling. We've been following it Do you have an injection and I'm sure and if he says no, I don't have an objection then it just goes on and You know, I think I think that they can Wave it at that point So so the ag would just have to go to the state's attorney if they are in one of these Clinics and one of these things comes up would have to get the sign off essentially in the state's attorney Yes, that's the way I I see it. Yeah. All right. Thank you Great Thank you. Ken Hi, john. Um, going going back to, um, bob's question and and what I was going to ask the, um The individuals that have been accused of a crime or or have been convicted of a crime um I'm looking for data. Do you have that data to to where they've been? um, I I don't know the correct words to to to put into um that they're being um All I can think of is picked on unnecessarily that that they're being watched too closely that they're being Stopped unnecessarily or harassed or something like that. Is is there records like that in your department? Um, no, I would imagine if there if there was any complaints for are you saying like because Of a person's past records or the fact is our our, you know, law is law enforcement keeping an eye on let's say joe smith Because he's done it. We know he's he's he's done, uh, x burger like 20 burglaries in the area Um, is that what you're talking about or? well Yeah, but I mean I mean if he's if he's got 20 burglaries, uh in the area I mean he's he's obviously gonna be stopped but i'm i'm gonna be saying For for a small um I don't know he was jaywalking or he was uh riding a bicycle and he and he swerved or Uh, and and you know, they think he's a doi or something like that. I mean it do we have a lot of uh I guess another word will be a harassment thing where we're picking on somebody that's that's already been Convected unnecessarily. Well, let me just say this if law enforcement if there's a law enforcement officer that's doing that I think a complaint should absolutely be filed against the law enforcement officer You know, I think that if a person has you know committed a crime, they've served their time. They've done their time Then that's they're back to to square one. They've they've answered their Again served their time and and uh, but if it's if it's and even if it's something where um I don't know I again, I I'm not sure if you're asking post conviction or not I don't want to get into a rabbit hole down a rabbit hole but Let's just say that that those you know If a officer is doing that then I would advise uh, in fact, actually I have advised and Is recently is about uh A year ago of the person who was claiming that he was being harassed by one certain officer I said you need to bring it to the attention of of the chief And the chief has to do under I forget what is what the act is but has to do an internal affairs Complaint on our investigation on that So again, I'm not sure if I'm going if that's answering your question or if we're going into another area totally maybe bob Because I was when when marine was I went I might have missed the initial question because I was on the phone with With our washington county state's attorney asking him a question So I apologize for that No, I You answered my question. I was just following up with bobs I mean if bob couldn't ask you to get better than than what I did, but I think it's been answered So, uh, thank you Thank you Thank you any Anybody else before we Take a break Okay Not seeing any hands. Um, so committee. I'm gonna take a little bit of a longer break than um And we usually do I'd like to come back at 3 15 and a half an hour and then we'll just uh Meet briefly so I can look at the at the week ahead With you and um and talk about some of our bills that we should be watching coming over from from the senate so Let's uh Go off of youtube and come back at um 3 15, please