 All right, the repeal report Good morning everybody The office of legislative council here to do a couple of walkthroughs this morning Senator Sears was saying you're starting with s 211 Which is an act relating to the department of corrections authority and responsibility for furlough ease and for housing young vendors It's sort of a long title there is because there's actually two different Discrete issues going on in this bill, but they were both DOC related. So they're together at least as far as Introducing the language so I'll talk about each one of them separately. They're fairly straightforward the first one You'll see on page one of scouting from furlough warrant This should remind you of what you looked at last year and where this comes from you remember recall that The issue was and it was part of the whole attempt to reduce People in prison beds and it had to do with the fact that people who were Absconding or going away from furlough for a short period of time were being charged with felony escape and being imprisoned for Sense to much longer sentences when the underlying facts of the situation Suggested that it really wasn't an intentional permanent escape from DOC custody. It was you know not being Available for a day or two. Maybe they're off at a family member's house something like that and I remember the commissioner to shed brought that to the committee's attention and the committee passed language that Made some exemptions for those furlough situations and said in those situations the person will not be charged with Felony escape, but would be subject to internal discipline and at DOC So that was that's not what you have in front of you That was one statute you also passed this one in conjunction with that because the issue then was well if the person's not committing a crime How do we get the person back to the facility? How are we getting back to DOC and what you passed was some language which you see lines 15 through 18 on page one the non-underlined language That's that was passed last year and that gave the Commissioner the authority to issue a warrant to have the person brought back to DOC custody so well this language Was brought to the committee and from DOC when evidently an issue has come up Which is that some law enforcement officers are declining to enforce the warrant and Because that's I think you'd have to find out from DOC exactly what the Circumstances are behind that my understanding of it was that there was some question Leos because they were issued by the commissioner rather than a court And so they weren't sure about the validity of them and this is for people who have really Upsconded not those people Not once you actually have committed a felony escape and have gone away to Oklahoma or something and are planning on that coming back Yes, this is only for The you see line 17 less the particular types of furlough that the supplies so can I ask a question here because this has come up I've Been talking with Vince about this No Well What happens is One of the us and I don't I suppose it's the same a standard condition of furlough or probation or parole Is that you do not leave the state? Believe that's too low you cannot leave right okay, so you're technically still incarcerated right so Where I live and where he lives It's closer to go to across the River to go fishing on the New Hampshire side than to go to Bennington or out of Creek and where he lives There's nothing up there on the Vermont side, so people Regularly go over to New Hampshire to to do what buy their cigarettes or whatever it is and so That it seems to me that that's a ridiculous Condition I think it has to do with there's a compacts and You can't send your prisoner to They're still technically prisoners because they're on furlough and you can't send your prisoners to Massachusetts without Massachusetts permission and Massachusetts can't send their prisoners to Vermont without Vermont's permission. I think that's what the problem is We ran into this on people who needed Medically assisted treatment in Bennington methadone and they are either in Greenfield mass or North Adams Right, and there was no way for the furlough. We used to get to North Adams without a special Transporter something special had to be arranged By the corrections department in order to allow them to go out of state to get that treatment. I Think that and I could be wrong about this and But I think that's what it is. I Don't know, but I just he said we will be yeah, that's a good. I plan to use this for the The things that Mike Smith talked about the other day You know the Sex with inmates. Oh This is available. This would be the vehicle. So we can we'll definitely have corrections in to talk about this If I'm wrong, that's fine But I believe that's why because I know that they basically said no you can't go out of state for the treatment and Medicaid is actually providing the transportation and a special bus. So that's how they got away with I guess Medicaid paying I Yeah Yeah, but if we change the furlough system in justice re-investment That one of the proposals I think is going to be to have very few furloughs and go with that presumptive parole type of System that would end that problem, but it wouldn't for the parolees because that's still a standard Bears no they can't I don't think they can go outside of Parolees can they can't they're not supposed to go outside of state without permission from their I think the compact takes I think they can't go out of the country Okay, I don't know but we were just talking about that about some of the issues in corrections and we're looking at the workforce Oh, no, he wasn't I don't think he was in any capacity And he said they don't really enforce it up there for people going out of state because He is the law right, right And and the chief prosecutor and the chief defense attorney and Yeah, anyway, anyway, just is one of the issues that Richard Sears Okay No, no, that's fine the Proposal doesn't that section as I mentioned The warrant it provides language that just says a law enforcement officer who is provided with a warrant Has to execute it and return the person to DOC. So that's the proposal So, I know it's being in that horse maybe but so we passed legislation saying Commissioner of Corrections can issue a warrant correct and they're saying we don't think that's good enough So now we're going back and saying that they shall do it, but isn't in other words this It's hard for me to interpret what we did last time that's allowing any Ability to say no and I understand that this is now a stronger way But it seems like these people are fine with just ignoring what we did last time So maybe we should hear from law enforcement about why Yes I haven't heard their perspective We should hear from them Yes, somebody who's refused So the department is also department corrections also proposed what you see in section two And section three is related and that's more of a technical piece But but the substance of it is in section two And this has to do with current lie you see in lines seven. Sorry eight through 13 And that basically it has to do with housing young offenders, right? How how young offenders have to be separated from adult offenders and the way the language currently reads It's that you see line 11 there Appropriate separate facilities have to be provided for offenders under age 25. So that's the age cutoff now You're under 25. It has to be a separate facility. Is that currently Separate unit in the could be in the same facility we passed this law they all agreed to it We never you know, we keep delaying and delaying and their problem was that They were unable to establish separate facilities Under 25 so this would allow them to keep them separate Separate but in the same Sight and sound let's go over something separate. Well, the sight and sound is for those under 18 Sight and sound is under 18 because that's I believe federal rape elimination law. Yeah, I think that's right And that's under 18. So if you're under eight and I know Rutland has Rutland correctional facility has a number of beds that are eligible for that population is under 18 Need to be set in a separate by sight and sound Do you know how many they use I know they have one person at 16 right now or you know when I'd say right now Whatever the you know, whatever day I asked the question Yeah, just clarification sight and sound does that mean it's allowed for them To be able to see and hear each other or not no, no Separated by sight and sound from the other population from the old so so they can't be able to see or hear each other They eat separately. Yeah, okay, so you see the proposal here is to change the age threshold for separate facilities to under 18th So if you look at and for the under 25 year old population or that would then become say age 18 to 24 it becomes it's just it's appropriate facility. So sort of a different age range in which the separate facilities have to be maintained We were talking about having different and here we're lowering it to 18 instead of 25 Yeah, yeah, but I thought that we're going in the other direction. We're moving backwards here now go to section Well, we're reducing the number of people that you have to provide some part of the youthful offender laws a few years ago Or the juvenile services act we've been we passed, you know, we changed the age to 19 and 18 and 19 We also required a separate facility for those under 25 That's where the problem came in for the Department of Corrections because we've been talking about their Their turn is so high that for them to provide like Newport is a separate facility for those under 25 Became extremely difficult So I think what they're asking for here and they'll have testimony from them is the ability to separate You know, for example, you may have five units that are people under 25 But this doesn't say that I understand that but that's why we need to have that discussion This was language that came from the department Frankly the departments and somewhat turmoil in terms of, you know, commissioners this language came from So I said, okay, we'll put in your language and let's talk about I had always Talk about I believe strongly that we should be keeping people under 25 separate from those over 25 But you know, if because of facilities or whatever Joe probably is institutions committee knows much about these facilities anyone Practically impossible But that but section three increase in the age Yes, it's sort of it's a technical issue, but a senator saying this is to true this up with the juvenile law Changes that this committee passed a couple years ago, which are being phased in over time So you see section three is amending the same section of laws section to right 20 of USA 1101 But it's it's assuming And in fact, there's there's a typewriter that Well things sessions is probably not necessary because it turned the idea is that as of july 1st of this year actually 2020 18 year olds cases against 18 year olds have to start the family division So it's gone up by one year and then in 2022 19 year olds have to start the family division. That's the change that the legislature has made right, but As I thought about it just this morning actually so the original idea was that to true this up We were gonna as a senator saying raise that 18 year old age period that you is being proposed by the department on page two Raised up to a 19 year old threshold to be consistent with the new juvenile But it turns out this new juvenile law actually goes in the first phase of it The 18 year old phase goes into effect this year. So you don't really need that subsection C in the effective date thing You just really should probably just this is gonna be effective this year change the 18 to 19 in the underlying statute and on page two That would make it consistent Yes And I don't know if you wanted Maybe just cross that bridge when you come to it But since the whole idea here is to make sure that we treat 18 and 19 year olds consistently with the law as it changes right That's that simple that For our purposes, they should be separate once there and then it gets further convoluted by the closure of Woodside right So if you know it's looking down the road, but what you could do then Is have that section three over on page three line seven Change that age 19 to age 20 and make that effective 2022 because that's when the rate the age goes up even one more year Yeah, that's what led me to this I looked out this is act 201 the juvenile one of the effective dates are Right all teenagers effectively will accept those that commit it And the 18 year olds go in joy first 2020 and the 19 year olds join first 2022 Yeah So Well, I want to this has nothing to do with this so I just was Speaking of dates when I just changed this to 2022 and it reminded me are The person that does our security at where I work Sent us all a warning and said, you know how when you're writing a date and if it's 12 13 2019 you write at 12 13 19 If it's going to be this year, you should not write 12 13 20 Because the potential for fraud on that is if it's 20 it could be changed to 2021 You could very simply add 2021 2019. So you make it An agreement with somebody that you're going to pay them $50 a month Starting in January of 2020 and you just write 20 there they change it and put 19 you now owe them For all those so he said you you've got to be really really vigilant of always writing 2020 instead of just writing 20 Which I didn't I wrote two checks One day before he said that I mean they were they were just checks to the grocery store, but What extremely helpful it will be on TV tomorrow PSA PSA I never thought of it. I never think of it either. Yeah, however, you don't think people are constantly on to defraud you but they are Well, you have to assume that yeah So anyway, I'm assuming that yesterday's demonstrator Ran out of things to say they didn't expect to have that much time and that was part of the problem That's why it continued to be the same things over and over so you're saying these things and it's the same thing over and over We go through these bills year every year Can I tell you something about that that protests yesterday with our pages. Yes, so one of the pages was in our room Afterwards and we were looking at the picture of the white sign that was being held up And we were trying to figure out what it meant and we asked her if she knew what it meant and she said she had no idea So we assigned her to find out so she and two other pages Figured out what it meant. They came in testified Committee and gave us a history of where it came from It he was holding it sideways He was supposed to be holding it this way So it's a circle representing the earth and then there's an hourglass in there Time is running out, but he was holding it But then we asked them what they thought of the protest and they were amazing they said The the kids were brave to come and do it their points were well taken what they had to say was right on But their execution was bad and they said what they should have done is they should have gone through it once They should have said thank you for listening to us now. We'll listen to you and sat down. That's our 13-year-old pages Yeah Come and do it You stayed behind the governor and you started shaking hands with everybody the governor was shaking hands with You were doing your job to stay behind the governor Other accompanying the governor we're already And then they had to stand there waiting for the governor to finish Look at the two guys up top Wanted to know about I don't know about Sears Doing your job Well, I got to towards the end and Mazza's So you guys if you were sitting on the other side you didn't see that during protests I got up and walked up to the podium You did not see that What I did was we were having a little conversation here about should we should we just leave and so I just went up and asked the governor Do you want us to leave because I? Thought that it was his call and he said no, I'm going to just call a recess if they don't stop So I went and said back down and he called a recess and all these host members are saying good for you going up I have such power We went around the state Senator Benning remember we went around the state on the marijuana issues David Zuckerman joined us at one of those meetings in Chittenden County and other places Immediately people started saying they didn't want that Corporate we built I felt the same way yesterday Putting the odd position of having the police clear the up Well with that guy yelled at him Who was on the other side from the from the rest of them and he said you're complicit when David said Yeah, well, I mean sometimes he when you're in power through his best interests, right? He ends up because he had introduced the bill before we did our Corporate we built Call for a people's assembly You're here the governor's letting you Have your say in the people's house like What I don't know what what you're envisioning beyond that. Well, you're right. The worker center did the same thing Yeah, now this is about people consuming alcohol Would know The pages are all up in arms about it Rogers and it's in this committee and I have not decided where to take it up or not The senator rise or so Introduce the bill that would ban cell phones to persons under 21 If we're gonna ban guns for them, he says we should ban Well, it also I think the tobacco age He's trying to make He said he said that he wasn't sure if you'd built for the bill anyway, so I spoke to him yesterday told him I was surprised it was in the judiciary committee What do you like me to take it up and he kind of Somebody must have put a lord I've been hearing from mothers in the lake of the woods who think that's a serious Thing because their kids are connected to those mothers by their phones So this is not That's a different bill This committee those of you who get calls about it and say I'm gonna urge the chair to take it up I'm gonna urge the chair to not take it up depending upon your position But we could we could go to now zero five negatively What's the vote on the floor I Refuse This is the annual miscellaneous There's a number of different provisions in here you say center serious This has been done for several years now, right miscellaneous bill a number of other committees do it in the general assembly as well There's an annual miscellaneous education tax motor vehicle to cover some technical some Some substantive but very minor and maybe not necessarily Taking up a whole bill The first one to pass out actually that this one has to deal with minors in possession of alcohol We often call PNB the PNB statute and there are two statutes on the books This is an attempt that's been suggested by glad to see David here proposed by the Attorney General's office to clear up an ambiguity Because there are two statutes in place currently They address this exact issue, so I'm just going to pass these on it's going to be useful to look at this statute and the one That's in the bill simultaneously, so you can see exactly What the ambiguity is that this is trying to address So you'll see that you have in the bill in front of you to look at that for section one you have a provision addressing Minors of possession PNB for persons under 21 years of age, right? That's what it says line 12 and it's a civil violation, right? That's what happens The person will go to diversion if they don't complete the version they get referred they get a civil penalty At the same time if you now look at that's a civil violation as I said if you look at the piece of paper that I just passed around That's another statute that you have on the books. This is for persons under age 16 who are In possession of malt beverages and remember the idea you passed this in 2013 the idea the under 16 is that they Are charged with a delinquency. They're not given a civil violation But if you think about it if someone's 15, they are both under 16 and under 21, right? So which cat who doesn't think well, how does it get charged now? My understanding is a get more testimony from the which is my understanding is there's been some confusion about that and So the idea is to clear that up and made clear that it's the group that 16 to 16 to 20 I guess that would be right under each time on the 16 to 20 year old Exactly Yes, you fall under both categories Yeah So that's what's going on in that first section So that there's no need to make a change to the statute I passed around because that says under 16 That remains the way it is clarify the civil violation that only applies to the older group All right Almost a similar situation Actually before we can look back again at section one because remember the PNB on page one The possession of average statute not only applies to possession You'll see line 17 through 18 there It also applies to basically your fake ID situation, right? Not only the PN normally their possession alcohol or or they falsely represent their aids for the purpose of Procuring our alcohol. Sorry, so you give a fake ID nor to get alcohol However, that person again, this is a civil violation eligible for diversion, right? That same offense you look at section two now could be charged under title 23 the motor vehicle statute under The counterfeit license provision statute if you look at that language lines 9 to 10 a person shall not display or cause to be displayed Having a possession any fictitious or fraudulently altered operators license So if you think about a minor using a fake ID to try and buy alcohol, that would be the same thing It would be possessing a fake license, right? They could be charged under this statute The issue is that under this statute they're not eligible for diversion this is a motor vehicle offense goes down the traffic court and The intent of the legislature. I think which was that those PNB type offenses can go to Diversion Wouldn't wouldn't be available if someone were charged under this motor vehicle statute state So what this does it says that you go to the very bottom of page three This says well look if a person can be charged with both of these things if it could be charged with either using a fake ID to buy alcohol or This fraud you know fraudulent the altered operators license then they have to be charged under the fake ID statute that way It's got to go to diversion Make sense. Oh, however, just so you know, there's one there's one type over there line 21 that Or 18 BSA 42 30 B. Does not need to be there. That's a reference to the Minors of possession marijuana statute But that actually doesn't have a fake ID provision. So Correct I know we might have to put it back in at some point Of the license or Yes, that's right Never I mean I can envision a kid playing around in their computer and they Draft something to save you on where I look like a license Well, how about you have a license that says your Elvis Presley, you know, yeah, there are those ones you can get it, you know places like Versus how she can't all these kind of different race Graceland you buy a lot of Elvis license for yourself How would somebody know you Well, you're showing your friends at school and the principal says what are you doing there? Usually the intent of that is to use it My brother got arrested in New York State. This is a hundred years ago When he was in high school and he's later became an architect, but he's very artistic and he was making New York State fake IDs for all of his friends One of them got was in the traffic stop and he pulled out the fake ID showed it to the police officer Okay, it's fine. You know, you're fine. It doesn't realize it's a fake The kid goes to put a pie in his wallet. The officer sees the other one The real one Police came to the school and said, you know, who could do this because the kid would tell him I made it Catholic school Do not care about license Anyway Yes, we're now moving to section three page four This actually is a you see an incorrect cross-reference that was brought to my attention by judge Tomasi And he sent me an email During the interim he noted that there's a PC online seven to eight there and I know how that happened Probably called this year for our last year rather the big probate rewrite The similar thing happened to the mortgage was back in 2011 a complete rewrite of the mortgage foreclosure statute And it was all recodified. So this cross-reference to the mortgage Foreclosure statute just wasn't caught at that time. So 4531 the statute that's struck online seven has been repealed Doesn't exist anymore. So really I want to have cross-reference to non-existent statute So it's updated to chapter 172, which is now where the mortgage foreclosure provisions are Are you okay with that one? All right, the next one was brought to my page four section four This has to do with the oath that's administered to the attorneys who they take an oath when they're sworn in to practice Well, this was brought to my attention by the Vermont bar Association And they noticed that there's an outdated gender reference You see in line 16 that the oath that a person has to take when they're sworn in refers to they will delay No man and so the idea is to change that person and just update the gender neutrality. So Joe You actually swore only to not delay Make it retroactive, I guess we could try that The bar association convention or something they could do on mass like we do That's that I noticed that too. I'm not sure so help you We don't we don't that's right. Well, it didn't suck. I mean when he took his Oh He changed the wording to Yeah You're in playing around with the miscellaneous stuff It might be worth asking Judge Pearson or something the next time you happen or I can ask him to Do they say that now when they when they mention the oath over there I Moving around a lot of testing for Yes, this is a proposal like a little different Yes, each each section is very different from sort of a branch project some ways But it's This one is proposed by James Pepper and the Department of State's attorneys the current law You see sort of the most important piece of current laws over on page five that first paragraph lines one to six What that basically says is that under under the existing procedure a victim of a sex crime can obtain a court order For to get the offender tested for sexually transmitted diseases after conviction I'm going to get that that's that's the gist of after conviction the victim can get a court order To get the offender tested for STD's the proposal is for HIV in particular that the victim If the evidence of guilt is great that's online eight that's taken from the bail statute can get the order for testing After charging so before conviction after arraignment or after the charge and They'll they'll testify about this in more details I don't want to I don't want to misstate it But I think generally speaking it has to do with some federal grant money availability We work with Peggy to make sure that they're here the next time we take this up. Yes, I mentioned it Peggy yesterday, but he couldn't make it I'm not happy about that provision but if you're going to advance it the word hours needs to be up to 48 Yes, thank you. Yep, nice catch So it says a sexual act is that the entire gamut from you know Kissing Right the answer to that is no Defines sexual act We can look at it if you remember the The sexual assault statute there's a provision that includes a definition that has to do with a very explicit description of Touching none of the penis in the vagina that sort of thing There's a list of several specific and generally involves penetrates Although it can also be oral sex Don't have to do it the federal requirement doesn't even allow us to say if evidence is great Right, so that's actually pushing the new federal rule So we need a discussion in here about whether we want to do it and if we don't do it what will be the penalty and We need to also discuss whether the words evidence is great are going to cause us to lose the grant anyway It's a one of the years ago in the month legislature decided to not Follow federal requirements on the Adam Walsh act, which was the sex offender registry And they wanted people under 16 to be on the registry and we said no We have continual that believe received a 10% reduction in federal burn grant funds over the years Because we refuse to do that It's been our policy, and I know there's some other states that also made that policy But we can choose to not follow federal law If we still choose but that means we will lose federal money And I'm not far into the idea that people who Have been charged with the crime Treaters if they're guilty of the crime, but on the other hand this is what they're The other fact that you will hear from the group though is that there are very few people who actually asked for the test Victim very few victims actually asked for the test Do they not They maybe don't ask for it because they think it's not available. Well, you know, I don't know Alice You need to ask the witnesses that that's all I can tell you by basically my discussions with that So when we put this together, that's why we put in the where the offense is great. We don't even know The son of a crime victim may or the network may end up telling us that that isn't even acceptable to the fence be used In the verse the way the victims advocates might Be thinking or a victim might The perpetrator has hiv The alleged victim demands it If the test comes up negative for the victim I could see a defense attorney trying to argue that it couldn't have happened in the first place because there's no evidence But hiv is a bad example to use because there's a There's a lag time Where it's undetectable And so I think you would you would want to do multiple Tests to be sure So I don't know how that plays in here. Could the court order Require multiple tests Again, it's a policy decision we have to make Whether or not we want to buy by federal requirements Us receive these grants and they're better grants Uh Unfortunately are the bennington window man frank the county to replace the money that was cut by the center for crime victim services Unfortunately I still maintain this day I've done arbitrarily appreciate So it's replacing those grants to our districts Well, no, I mean that's that's where the You should be aware of that No, no, no, I said and retaliatory Yes, that's even a word Well, anyway, that's the reason why this changed So okay understanding what that one proposes then the next you actually go a couple of pages the next Changes until page eight And then it is next to her extremely extremely technical if it will take a moment You see page eight line 17 and 20 just moves the location of an or you had a conjunction there that was in the wrong place Similarly on section seven page nine. There's a missing conjunction on line 17 missing hand So those are listed one dramatically correct that takes us to the last page Which I would think if you take a look the first time you look at it, it might look rather confusing Like how many sections are there? I I found it helpful Now that you lower not be able to have a highlighter or a pen To highlight on line one that that's where section eight is and then on line four Is where section nine begins And then section ten starts on line nine I know it's gonna the way that appears visually all on one page can be a little confusing So there's really there's two different things going on here and then and they had section eight section nine section eight Has to do with and this is another one. I think the attorney general supports as well This says to do with changes that you made to the diversion program back in 2017 that had a sunset Okay, they are scheduled to sunset this year July of 2020 and there were a number of changes made but I think two of them The most important policy changes that were made That stand out. I think the committee will probably remember was one is a requirement that that for certain crimes The prosecutor is required to provide the defendant with the opportunity to participate in diversion Unless they state on the record why doing so would not be in the interest of justice But do you remember that and I always been a discretionary thing before but you took out a list of crimes. I think It was the I don't know if it's the listed crimes or the big 12 actually a qualifying crimes It is the qualifying crime definition from the expungement statute But for a certain group of crimes, uh, that statement has to be made on the record So the question the policy question for the committee is what do you want to do about that? That sunset and the proposal that the bill makes is to repeal the sunset so that those provisions Are the main permit. Sorry. I didn't mention the second main policy provision there that was in that bill in 2017 Which was for adults with substance abuse or mental health treatment needs They can participate in diversion regardless of their prior criminal record because generally speaking Diversion is available for I think first and second misdemeanor offenses and nonviolent felonies But if you have a mental health treatment need or a substance abuse treatment need Then diversion would be available for that group of people and that's been going on I think probably the idea when you passed it in 2017 since they were pretty big changes is Let's see how they work for a couple years I believe so So That's the Decision for the committee to make it's similar actually no not somewhere There is a prior in section nine this has to do with the spousal maintenance guidelines Uh language that we passed last year remember you made some changes actually in the miscellaneous bill last year And added retirement and social security income I think or it's it could be added to a list of factors to consider when making spousal maintenance decisions Prior to that The guidelines had a sunset of 2021 That's been in existence for several years now. It's 2021 sunset on the guidelines, but when the uh Social security Retirement stuff was added The subdivision was renumbered and inadvertently you changed the repeal. I said you probably me really And the repeal was changed to the uh social security stuff rather than the guidelines So this just you see on line seven makes the correct Cross-reference now in the repeal. So now it goes back to what you originally had and intended which was The spousal maintenance guidelines are the ones that are that sunset in 2021 not the social security retirement stuff Right Signs for the rest of How much language Because if they're in the month, that's right Um On the effective date, I think you should make the section one Section one effective on passage Oh, right. I hate to not be able to yeah arrest somebody. We thought we had made an arrangement to be arrested Have a warrant Is this the one about the miners the miners I'm sorry. I'm not the wrong. That's right. Oh, but I think what you were talking about that's even scarier Yeah, it is. Yeah, maybe that I didn't look at the effective date on that. No, I'm not sure You don't You did it. You did it right Thank you There must be a reason why there is a very clear thank you all very much for an exciting week If you work week this session 17