 Good morning, and welcome to Vermont House Judiciary Committee. It is Wednesday, May 12th, and we are going to be continuing our consideration of S7, a bill pertaining to the ceiling and expungement of criminal records. For those who are watching on YouTube, on our committee page, you can find the documents that we will be discussing today in terms of S7. It is draft 2.3. And then after our discussion on S7, we will be moving to budget proposals and then moving back to S7 later in the day. So with that, I would like to welcome Attorney Jay Johnson. Good morning. Good morning, Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you for the invitation to join the committee again. I thank you for the draft I received it yesterday and I was able to review it last night. Yes, I was thinking maybe it would be more helpful if the committee started with questions because I got the feeling last time that maybe not everyone understood or took in what I was saying in my testimony. I think in terms of, well, thank you. I think in terms of moving forward, it would be helpful for us to understand if this current draft addressed your concerns that were in your testimony, as well as your written proposal. And really, I focused more on your written proposal and what you're asking for in there. So my question is, does this address it? Thank you. Thank you for asking me, it does this address it. And I guess what I could say is that I appreciate the fact that you have taken many of my comments. I do, I would like to say that I think what I have learned, especially from the redraft is, I think from listening to testimony from Commissioner Sherling actually regarding the need for a more rational system. Of ceiling and expungement. Sort of, I think this exercise of picking and choosing among misdemeanor offenses demonstrates that. So, I think his point, which I take is that it could be less difficult to decide what crimes, if they can be accessed for certain limited purposes. So I guess that's the first takeaway for me from this process. Excuse me, I'm sorry, just clarification when you say access for limited purposes. So we haven't heard from the Commissioner yet he's going to have on later so can you help me understand what you mean by access for limited purposes. Well, so you're asking what I mean by access for limited purposes and I would say that is in the law now regarding ceiling. I guess I, it would maybe be worth further investigating or exploring the idea of if you were to seek to expunge more crimes. You know, or say for example, even the felony property crimes now, maybe taking testimony from employers, figuring out what is important to employers so that employers feel comfortable hiring Vermonters. Particularly in the world of remote work where more Vermonters may have access to work outside the state, while remaining in Vermont. It just may be something worth exploring is all I'm saying, but but we do have a system of ceiling now in part, and that does provide for limited access for certain purposes. Thank you. Okay, I'm sorry I realized I cut you off so go ahead. Oh no that's fine. Yeah. So I think again, I would like to reiterate that we should be focused on certain principles. And again, I'd like to say that that's length of time needed to reduce risk of reoffense. No intervening crimes and court involvement and discretion. I think that the changes made go part of the way there. But I think what they also do is expand the discretion of states attorneys to delegate their authority to to make that to essentially stipulate to the reduced period for certain crimes. And I do not believe that that is consistent with the original intent, which was to give states attorneys. The leeway that they needed in order to make determinations case by case because they know the people in their communities they understand the record of the offenders. They know the interaction of the offenders with the justice system that was my impression was that this was limited while we don't favor it this was limited to states attorneys. And then this became expanded to I'm assuming well other states attorneys or the AG. And what I understand, and again, I don't know this to be true but from what I understand from others is that in the course of conducting expungement clinics. This that they're the various prosecutors seek to obtain blanket waivers for certain crimes so that numbers of people can be have their records expunged early for certain crimes and I would say that this is an LLC issue that we're discussing right now, and we're delegating that to the state's attorneys and the Attorney General that may be the intent. But I think that that is a decision for the legislature and the executive branch. So I think specifically to reiterate our concerns and again I'm assuming you're getting more testimony from DOC and public safety and possibly states attorneys. The DOC testimony I believe has been to access has been access to affidavits, and that is necessary to determine criminal behaviors. And that is, is part of the theory behind our criminal justice reinvestment work, which is seeking to connect offenders to more appropriate levels of service. And that access in the changes made is is fairly limited. And I think that the whole point was to provide better services, connect our our offender population with appropriate services, and without a record of criminogenic behaviors. And that is less, that is less useful to DOC. And I think that they even maybe proposed a pilot project to see, but I don't believe that that was incorporated. And finally, I'm not, I'm not familiar with the with the pilot with the pilot project so. I'm sorry. Well that's not for me to propose I guess that was something I understood that DOC was willing to consider if you were going to essentially allow them to access offender records. The DOC can speak to that directly, but I so I just would like to reiterate we have consistently expressed that concern and I think that that concern has been addressed to a very limited extent. And I would just question the usefulness of that. Finally, or not finally anyway my understanding was that there would be no stipulation for felony property offenses. I don't recall seeing that in the most recent draft. I believe what gave DFR comfort and DFR may be on the call. I'm not sure is that there was an eight year period required with no intervening crimes before sealing. So, I would, again, I think at least want to say see no stipulation for felony property offenses. I think I think what what we didn't touch on last time was our repeated requests for fiscal note. I don't know that we have some idea I believe what this will cost the judiciary. But I think the AG and its letter to the committee noted that this seemed like a reasonable request. And we don't know what the aggregate costs are that you're going to be looking for funding for for the next fiscal year. I think that actually was in contact with JFO yesterday and they are. They are, they have begun a fiscal note based on this latest draft. Okay. Well thank you. Madam chair that's it for me. Great. Thank you. Seeing any questions from the committee. I apologize if this question is is redundant with any of your testimony I had a little technical difficulties jumping on to zoom this morning but I'm just trying it sounded like in the testimony that I did here. The administration has concerns about the current draft I'm trying to understand what does the administration support the current draft or, or not. Good morning representative. You're asking, do we support the current draft or not. And I express my concerns with the current draft. So is that, is that a no, then. That is we have concerns with the current draft. Okay. Thank you. Kate. And then Bob. Thanks. Good morning. So I guess part of what I'm hearing you say is that there is Understandably attention being paid to what the administrative impact of this kind of policy will have in terms of how challenging it is to roll out expungement and do the administrative labor and I guess I'm just This policy the original bill was actually in my mind much more clear about what was expungible and what wasn't expungible. And the current form and it seems like the direction that we've been heading is sort of creating more and more carve out which to me seems like it creates more complexity administratively and so I guess I'm just curious if you can speak to that a little bit more like if administrative ease is part of your assessment which I guess I'm trying to understand how then the responses to create more carve outs within the expungement. So good morning representative. So I, I understand that you heard me to say my point was administrative ease. And I don't believe that was my point. I was not favoring more cars out carve outs or fewer carve outs. What I said in the beginning was I believe that this kind of process actually makes I think Commissioner shirlings point regarding the need for a more rational system. It would be an easier process if we focused on sealing, rather than, and, and under what circumstances records could be sealed, and I would defer to Commissioner shirling to explain more about what he means by that from, but I was I do not believe I was saying that my focus is administrative ease. Okay, very rational system. Can you, can you describe, like, how are you defining rational, what does that mean exactly. Well, so you're asking me what I mean by rational system, and I am not prepared to answer that question at this time I think that is the kind of thing that the committees and legislature should be considering. You should consider a rational system, but, but you're not prepared to define what a rational system, what like what that means in the context of this legislation. I'm sorry, I'm just I'm genuinely trying to understand what what what like what that actually means, so that it can help inform our process here. So you're asking me what I mean by rational system and again I would have to say that I'm not prepared to answer that question, I believe it's a conversation that needs to be had. I believe that that's part of what's contemplated in the reporting that's required by this particular bill. And I think that from what I have learned, I think from Commissioner Shirley's testimony, that question should be asked first. Before we go picking and choosing a lot of crimes to add or to subtract. Okay, thank you. I think one of the themes that came up the last time we do that you were here and we took testimony was this sort of idea of objective and subjective language I would say that, you know, rational is in my mind a subjective word and it can mean many things and so I appreciate your efforts to define what that means to you. I'm sorry, is that a question. No, that was appreciation. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Bob, Ken and Selena. Madam, Madam chair, if I may, I think Commissioner Shirley sir he might be able to help if we want to jump to him. That Bob is that okay with you. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Ken. Yes, commissioner welcome. Good morning. Good morning. It's nice to see that zoom is working better than teams is this morning. So, I, you and I have been in contact in terms of email so I was wondering if you could elaborate on on your concerns and I think that would help clarify where the attorney Johnson is coming from is as well and next steps forward, perhaps. Certainly. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks again for having me and for the record Mike Shirley commissioner of public safety. I was able to listen to about an hour or so of testimony yesterday afternoon that had to jump off at about 330. I very much appreciate the work that went into the more specific feedback that I provided last week around components of the bill as drafted. And I guess, in listening just to the last few minutes. Attorney Johnson I have not had a chance to talk about this name depth since the, the testimony last week but I do think we're coming at this from generally the same perspective. Since my primary concern when I tried to relay last week was sort of two, two, two areas of concern one is the overall approach, and the potential downsides to making fragmented changes that then cascade into unintended consequences and then the second, which I think you've very adequately addressed in the last few days with edits were examples of potential unintended consequences that were specific to this draft of updates to the expungement statutes. My overarching fear is that annual incremental changes to something this complicated without a comprehensive review, create additional unintended consequences that we can't anticipate easily, until we begin implementing the statute so without sort of stepping back and looking at the comprehensive system and looking at how the, the whole thing works in its entirety together. And almost to guarantee there will be unintended consequences and the example I provided the chair this morning is over the last few weeks we have bumped into a number of fairly substantive things that are now cascading into operations and there are legal implications around juvenile statutes that have been changed in much the same manner where they're done incrementally, without a comprehensive look at the overarching impacts of the systemic changes that are being made. And we've got at least three, what I would term fairly major impacts that are occurring, and we haven't even begun to unpack further so I only put that out as a placeholder and an example, a parallel example, we will get back to you with much more detail about what we're encountering in the systems relative to the juvenile changes that have been made. My fear is that the same things happen with other complex systems like expungement without a comprehensive review of the totality of impact. And the totality of the system itself. So it put to oversimplify it and I don't mean to make this sound pejorative but tinkering with it versus taking a deep dive into it has there are hazards to that. And that's the primary concern. Yeah, thank you I appreciate that and so I think what I'm hearing is something like the study that is in the latest draft but also was was more expansive and prior drafts is is something that ideally I think you would like to see is that is that there. That's true and I think it's important to note for anyone listening who did who wasn't privy to my testimony, not the last time but the, the first time I testified on this bill. I very much agree with the majority of the policy goals with expanding expungement, and I firmly believe there is a better system to achieve those policy goals and looking at comprehensive ceiling that not only achieve the policy goals that were stated here and in some of the other iterative approaches to expungement, but also achieve some additional policy goals that are really areas of concern that have been voiced through these various processes over the years. That could be addressed in a comprehensive look at how to do all of this, rather than the incremental approach that's, that's being contemplated. Thank you. As a heads up I'm going to need to go to another meeting at 930 and representative Burt will take over. Ken is your, do you have a question or is your hand up from before. Yeah, I'll go if I can. Absolutely. And then Selena. So is, is there any possible way to. There's two things that's going on in my mind either we put this on hold for another year. And one of the big reasons why I say that is we're so backed up anyway, are we really going to accomplish anything with the court systems this year. I think we can do something with everything that's associated with this. And if we can do something. Are there some easy ones at the administration and, and the committees will agree to that we could move some forward and then do a lot more next year if that's what everybody wants to do. I think that's directed towards Commissioner Sherwin. I'm not a question that I have specifically contemplated so I'm not sure I have. I have an answer so in other words what what cross sections of what's being contemplated here would make sense. Again, my initial reaction and don't take this as a comprehensive position is, making incremental changes even small ones may have cascading impacts that we can't anticipate without looking at the whole system. I guess my question, and that's partially rhetorical maybe there's an answer is, why not take a hard look at this over the next several months and into the next session is there's something that's going to be accomplished in the next nine months that is so critical that it's going to be done incrementally. Yeah, that's what I heard you just say and that's what I kind of just threw back out there just for clarification in my mind I guess. Okay, I'm good for now thank you. I'm sorry thank you just jump in our letter to the committees originally asked for delay. Thank you. Yeah, I think Bob Selina and Barbara. I want to turn Johnson thanks for being here. I was noticing and reading through the bill there's several different places where the bill takes discretion from presiding judges and then gives it back to the court and other sessions by using the word may shall so and so forth. But on page, if you have the draft in front of you or not. It's 11 more specifically lines 15 through 19. You read through this. Do you, are you familiar with this common language for bills to direct judges as to where it says the court shall grant a petition without a hearing without a hearing is this common language here. Representative. So you're asking me, I would say that this is a question you probably should be asking the courts. This is something that we have noticed that the legislature does direct the courts to to make a certain type of ruling or. But that's yes there is directive language and other statutes with respect to what the courts shall do. And in reading 15 through 19. You didn't you didn't foresee any problems with that. Quite frankly, and and I guess this would be for the judiciary to testify to I do think it's problematic when discretion of the courts is removed. Okay, thank you. Sorry, can Selena and then Barbara and I'll be hopping up soon. Put my hand down I'm all set for now. Thank you. Okay, then Selena and Barbara. Thank you. And I guess I'll say belatedly good morning. And I'm not sure I think commissioner churn, churning or attorney counselor Johnson could answer this or both because it's something that both of you said about just process and wanting to take a comprehensive rather than incremental to create a comprehensive rather than incremental system and the, you know, the more incremental Sort of versions of this that you're seeing, I think, is something that I think is really important. And so I'm, I would love to hear just more process wise about, you know, how, if the ask is to take a comprehensive rather than incremental system and the, you know, the more incremental Sort of versions of this that you're seeing I think are an attempt to respond to the concerns that we've heard from the administration. And so I'm, I would love to hear just more process wise about to take a comprehensive look at this and kind of start over, you know, what process wise. Do you think needs to be done differently from what we've already done here because we we did spend several years I think, and with with and the sentencing commission in particular, taking a comprehensive look at this and this was a proposal forward with a lot of agreement from a lot of different parties and so just process wise about this comprehensive work to define a rational system that's not incremental. Do you have thoughts that you want to share about, you know, what that process should look like that's different from what we've done in the past. Well, not an expert at process equity. Being part of the Sentencing Commission I can tell you it is a, it is a closed group. It's not reflective of all aspects of Vermont and all potential interests in in this kind of a in this component of the justice system. I would open up the discussion to a much broader array of folks for for input, where I think the, as I testified to the very first time where I think the most important things to discuss our the differences between sealing and expungement the the collateral impacts of deleting, you know, detailed records that are in the government's possession, which I think have are fraught with a variety of downside policy implications. At the same time, the other side of that coin is a move as I as I mentioned previously to a system of sealing could actually enable a wider array of things to be sealed, potentially some of them on a more rapid timeline that are even contemplated here in the expungement rule. So, you know, between who's involved in the process and the scope of discussion. I think both of those things could stand. Significant broadening in order to come to a what I think is, I think there's an opportunity here for more balanced public policy approach than building on a system that is antiquated. I believe the expungement system is antiquated for a host of reasons that I have previously articulated in the, you know, starting with in the 21st century, eliminating a government record of something, this is just problematic for a host of reasons. And again, without going into all the ones I mentioned earlier, it's just, it's problematic. I appreciate your answer. And I don't know if I guess I had a follow up question but I want to leave space for attorney Johnson to answer to it if she chooses. I would agree with Commissioner Shirley, I think that a more balanced approach is always better than building on an antiquated system. We are focused on transparency in state government. But we also understand the implications of the need for certain individuals to be free from their past records. So we, I think that I mean I agree with Commissioner Shirley, it's always better. It's never good to build on a system that is either antiquated or broken already. Thank you. My follow up question just, I think, number of the things that Commissioner Shirley you highlighted as, you know, such as the difference between expungement and ceiling and really taking a close look at that I think those are things the And the legislature has looked at pretty closely. But I appreciate very much your comment around getting more people around the table and more input and I'm wondering if you could just be more specific about who you think has been missing from the conversation you talked about equity so I'm assuming maybe you folks who have historically been, you know, left out of the conversation marginalized oppressed but I'm not sure. I'm not sure who else you feel needs to be at the table and I'd love to hear more about that. What you're missing from the table are those who are impacted by the ceiling of records whether that's overly simplistic to say two sides of the same coin those who have records that need to have a compelling need to have them are sealed, and at the same time those who may be victims of crimes where expunging or sealing a record may have an impact on them as well so in its most simplistic form. Those folks are missing from the conversation. Again, not being a full expert on process equity. There are really a, and it actually goes beyond that as I think about it. Vermonters in general have not been. I don't think our privy to these kinds of detailed conversations around what what we're doing with the justice system on a day to day basis, and the alterations we're making until they hear about it after it impacts them. And there are a few examples of folks who have had to come forward to various committees in the last couple of years to say hey, you know, you didn't think about X or you didn't think about why when you did a or B. And so I think doing that, whether it's for underserved, can historically underserved populations are just in general so Vermonters are aware of what the policy options are is something we value on certain topics and then on other topics. It's tangential to our process. Yeah, thanks. Barbara. Thank you. So, I know that and good morning. I know that both of you are not huge fans of expungement and Commissioner Shirley and you've made a case for the importance of ceiling. And one of the things that seems so difficult I am definitely do not like doing these sort of piecemeal meal efforts because you're right like as we're doing them. You sort of feel like, is it worth it like we're making it like it doesn't make sense all the time compromise ends up really tearing apart sort of the underlying philosophy that would make us consistent. And while I wasn't at those groups that represent the Cobra and talked about that have had discussions about it. It's so difficult, as you both know I'm trying to think of an example of us taking an entire dysfunctional, or let's not say dysfunctional an antiquated system and blow it up and start a new one like that's if it were up to me, I would do that with a bunch of things you know I mean school reform, school financing are, I mean there are so many things we could change that would make sense for this day and age. And I know the governor and I have like similar thoughts about schools even but it's so hard in this body to do that, that I think we need to look at how can we incrementally. Unless we can all work to get that that support that you both talk about make these changes, how can we keep the underlying philosophy in place. I. Again, this is not like the GMO bill where we are going to be the first one and oh my gosh, look at all the states that have enacted clean slate legislation. Automatically and by automatically I don't mean for the court personnel, I mean for the people who are affected, and I'm very appreciative. Commissioner of you saying get the people who are affected, because I know we could get employers here, which I think we didn't hear from that many employers I was trying to think about that we could get people who could know how difficult it's been getting a job I have worked with a lot, a lot of folks in that regard. And I know we have worked with the victim folks quite a bit. And was hoping when you meant that you didn't mean sort of like, let's put it to the public because it's a complicated issue when we talked about that last time. So, I'm wondering how we cannot, because, you know, I'll, I'll be honest, it feels like if somebody doesn't want to build a pass, they'll say, let's make it, you know, let's do a full sweep, which there are times that I say that in that, like I'm going to weigh out like, is this incremental better than nothing or not like we did it with election law finance financing a few years ago. So I'm just wondering how you would feel comfortable having an underlying philosophy take some steps because this isn't, I don't feel like this bill is something willy nilly we picked up at the end of the session that didn't have a lot of betting and thought that went into it by a lot of different people and part of me is like, I, we can't go get the witches broom right now. How can we make, how can we make a difference in the lives of some people that really are not going to jeopardize public safety and will make Vermont a better place and fill some of those job vacancies we can't fill. Yeah, it's a great sort of array of questions I think that you've posed and having come from the agency of commerce. I can't overstate the need to find new ways to activate workforce. And this is an impediment for some folks absolutely. This approach, this is going to be slightly oversimplified but the approach that I would take is engage a broader array of stakeholders beyond just the folks that are embedded in the justice system and are, you know, on the sentencing commission, bunch of really smart folks, but our field of view, unless you consciously take a step back the field of view is relatively narrow. So the process that I would envision to try to get to the ideal state here would be to engage a larger array of stakeholders, set out what are our public policy goals. So for example, we want people to be able to get low level convictions in the rearview mirror quickly. We want sort of mid level offenses to hang around a little bit longer but eventually be able to get those in the rearview mirror. For some high level offenses, the public policy is, hey, you're not going to be able to get those completely in the rearview mirror. But if there's a way to make them a little smaller objects and mirror are more distant than they appear, you know, that's great. I think a public policy goal should be, and this is just my thought, the one that I've reiterated a number of times, we should never eradicate a record of government action. I think just taking a report about especially today in the 21st century about something a law enforcement agency and then a prosecutor's office, and then the judiciary did, and getting rid of it seems counterintuitive. So we want to be able to maintain records of government action. And those core tenants and superimpose on it systems that allow those things to happen and maybe that you know that you mentioned clean slate legislation. I would be in favor and I can't speak for anyone else in the executive branch but I would be in favor of automatic ceiling for certain kinds of offenses you reach x date. You don't have a process if you have no other offenses you haven't been charged with any other crimes. It automatically seals. At the same time at the other end of the system regardless of what's been sealed. There is a logical rubric that's been set forth for the judiciary to unseal a record under certain circumstances. And I don't know exactly what they are, but things like a new offense where the fact pattern is relevant to the prosecution or sentencing of a person in the future. And the defendant in that case needs it to be unsealed so they can get a copy to for some reason maybe it's for an employer maybe it's to refute a social media claim about a prior news article claiming they did something more substantial than was actually in the affidavit. So, without going into every potential nuance. Those are some examples of the type of process and the, what an outline of the public policy goals could look like and then what you know one person's version in this case just my version of what execution of those public policy goals could look like if we took a comprehensive view. And cheer bullet bird and I'm just wondering if I could comment as well. So I think first of all, thank you representative, Rachel sin, I would just want to correct I think what a perception that you stated in the beginning which was we aren't big fans of expungement and I think that on its face. And that's what you mean by expungement because obviously there's also expungement and ceiling that we've been talking about. But so I think that that that is not correct. I think we're being asked to do like apple pie or cherry pie. We're not being asked to like pie. And Mike is answering the question. Sure, this is the pie I like. So to be painted into that corner of well they obviously don't like pie is, is not accurate. I think I'd like to say that a good example of how we have worked with the legislature and the judiciary again is the justice reinvestment exercise and how important that has been. It originally appointed out that our furlough system was tremendously broken, and we had added on to it and it made it so complex over the years that it had undermined its own effectiveness and wasn't helping anybody. This year, we took additional steps to address probation. So, so those steps are very important and they don't mean we don't like pie. And I think that there is a way to do this right. And I think that, again, if you focus on principles, I think also like Commissioner Shirley is suggesting. There are certain things we know. And again, that's length of time needed to reduce risk. And on clean slate laws, I looked at Pennsylvania's law in Pennsylvania wipes certain misdemeanors and I think that includes certain violent crimes clean after 10 years of no that seems like a very simple approach again it will boil down to what the crimes are, but after 10 years with no reoffense. That's consistent, I think with what we're trying to do. So again, length of time needed to reduce risk, no intervening crimes and court involvement and discretion because what we mean by discretion is in the interests of justice which is what that law says throughout when the court is given some discretion. So, I do think that there are ways we can work together and we can start with the current system. It's just not adding more onto broken, but, but taking a hard look at the system itself. The results that came out of the of the Sentencing Commission was really a negotiation, which resulted in a more fragmented and again I think less effective system because you built in ways to get around the periods of waiting and granting discretion to some who are not the courts and not the legislature in order to make the policies regarding length of time. And I think that's a mistake. But I think that we have a system, and it's, it's something that can be fixed. Thank you I realize I'm jumping in and I believe representative bird it needs to need to leave for for another commitment. I'm not seeing any hands but is there anybody I'm missing or Barbara was the last hand that was up and I don't know if anybody else has any questions for Jay or Mike or not. If not, be moving on to the next witness. Okay, great. Thank you. Thanks so much. Okay, thank you. Great. Thank you. Thank you very much and sorry that I wasn't able to be here the whole time but with YouTube I can watch it. Okay, so we're, we're going to continue on s seven just for a few more minutes, and then we'll get to the budget. They do see. Let's see legal aid and defender generals office I think it's still here why don't we start with with legal aid please. I'll turn to the budget after our break and hear from office of child support so office of child support support you have some have some time. Thank you. Good morning. Okay, oops, can I come on me. Okay, sorry about that good morning Madam chair committee members, Merida Riley from Vermont legal aid, and thank you for the opportunity to testify on s seven. As I said, a couple weeks ago when I testified I appreciate the work that you've done on this bill. And you're willing us to engage with the concerns coming out of the administration over the last couple of weeks. I appreciate that I have significant concerns that moving forward with the current draft of the bill is going to set us back a number of years and sort of be difficult to come away from and really create the comprehensive change that we need with the management in this state. So, our position at legal aid is that this committee should pass just a few sections of the bill one two five six seven and eight, but eight as pass out of the Senate. I'm likely all anticipate it is painful for legal aid to recommend jettisoning any part of the bill that we have worked so hard for so many years with a diverse array of stakeholders around. But we can in good conscience support a bill that would, you know, appear to move the needle forward but actually erect significant access justice barriers. I think we've had enough time to really consider all of the nuances and contingencies and worry similar to Commissioner Sherling but a bit different worry that there will be some serious unintended consequences. And I think that this last minute conversation has really caused us to lose track of the bigger picture and the context of what this work has been about. And so I just want to spend a minute to talk a little bit about the bigger picture. And this bigger picture is that one in four Americans has a criminal record, not because one in four Americans is a dangerous person or a threat to public safety, but because the American criminal legal system has expanded it's continued to such a drastic extent in such an unprecedented way across the globe, and has continued to create new crimes and expand its jurisdiction into the lives of low income people and people of color. The stakeholder group that we worked with in the Sentencing Commission's Expungement Subcommittee is an incredibly diverse group made up of the judiciary and the Attorney General's Office, the Sheriff's and State's Attorneys, Legal Aid, Defender General, Victims Folks, Vermont Crime Information Center, even the Department of Motor Vehicles. We grappled with that reality that this is what the criminal legal system in the United States has been over the last several decades, and there is a very real and very recent historical wrong that needs to be righted. And there are too many people who have been brought into the system, and who have been saddled with criminal records. So the group decided on a compromise bill. And we also decided what sort of level of specificity and nuance we needed to protect all interests, including access to justice interests. So our biggest concern about what's really been eroded in this current version of the bill is that the state's attorney's ability to stipulate prior to the wait times is essentially no longer there. This is significant because this has been an access to justice lever. It's relieved pressure on the very busy courts and state's attorney's office and allowed them to process the cases that they don't think pose a significant threat to public safety. State's attorneys and courts always have the ability to call for a hearing or state's attorneys can object if they have a concern. But removing the ability for the state's attorneys to allow the smooth and flexible processing of these, of record clearance is, I think a mistake. For those reasons, and I'm happy to answer questions. I think that removing the ability for the state's attorneys to stipulate and and altering the charge in section eight around the study committee should be reversed. So we would just ask that sections three and four not get passed. And that section eight as passed out of the Senate. Go forward. Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony. I want to go back to, in the beginning of your testimony, you said sections one, two, five, six, six, seven, and eight as passed out of the Senate. I passed by the Senate, which is a more comprehensive. Okay. Thank you. And do you still need to leave a 10 or can you. I can hang, I can hang around for a little bit of folks have questions. Okay, great. I appreciate that Selena. Thank you so much. And I, my question, I'm wondering, we heard a number of times in the earlier testimony this morning that the system of expungement is broken. I'm wondering. And we also heard about the importance of making sure all voices that are at the table and since you are an attorney who I think has worked with impacted folks in the form of people who are looking to get records expunged, probably as much or more than anyone else in the state. I'm wondering if you can tell us just from the perspective of your clients and your work and the changes we've made in recent years on expungement is a safe to agree with that assessment that the system of expungement is broken. No, I don't agree with that assessment. I think the system can always be made better and more efficient. But I, I don't see anything or I haven't seen anything but a good faith effort by a very diverse group of folks to come together and help. And especially our low income Vermonters move on with our lives after a period of criminal legal involvement over the last couple of years as we've been deliberating. I think, to the extent that anything is not working very well. I think it's that. On the front end of prosecuting cases there's a very mechanized smooth way of moving these people through the system, but on the back end after they've had this involvement and retain this criminal record that impacts their employment and ability to reintegrate into society. So it's a very, very smooth way to move people through the system, which is why I think we're coming back or the plan was to come back next year and figure out, is there a way to as representative Rachelson said, from the petitioners perspective, automate that process and make it smooth and easy because the reality is legal aid is is the only shop in town that's working with low income people to clear their records and we don't even have a full time staff attorney position to continue to do this work. So these folks are largely going to be pro say individuals or folks who are, you know, able to get into some clinic slot through the Attorney General's office. But we don't have public defenders doing expungement work legal aid has been able to do that work for a period of time but my role has shifted and and we simply don't have the funding to continue this sort of to make this system, more complicated. It's like some sort of getting off in a little bit of a tangent but the only real complaints we have about this is that it's not more automated from the petitioners perspective. Otherwise, you know, we, we think this system, you know, is starting to give, give folks a real opportunity to, to access the relief and the sort of forgiveness that they deserve. Thank you. Messy any messy any other hands so. Thank you. Thank you so much and I'm glad you were able to be here this morning. Appreciate it. Thank you. Okay, so, um, before our break, let's hear from the defender general's office. And then we'll take a break. Good morning, Marshall. Thank you. Good morning. Thank you. So I'll be very brief because our testimony is not that different from not that different from the testimony that we provided last time. And frankly, quite similar to Vermont legal aids testimony. I think last time we testified that we did not see the changes to this bill as having been positive. We did not see them as having made the bill, not a good bill. We continue to think that that's the case to the extent that there is still positive to come from this bill. I think it would be as legal aid said by passing those limited sections. And I have to pull up my cheat sheet, but it's one, two, five, six, seven. And as legal aid said, passing section eight, but section eight as it passed the Senate, not section eight as it is in this bill. And really the reasons for that are exactly what I testified to last time. So I'll skip over everything except for briefly addressing the differences between the section eight that was on the table last time and the one from this time. And that's just to say that really this makes a fundamental change in the direction that I expungement reform takes going forward. The section eight as it passed the Senate, and even section eight last time that we were taking was directing a further look at the expansion of the scope of our expungement system. Section eight as it is in this bill actually doesn't contemplate that at all and instead contemplates for reductions in the scope of our expungement system. That's certainly something that we don't support would be, you know, pursuing, you know, turning this conversation in that direction from the direction of looking at expansion. Because frankly, when you compare us to the states around us, when you look at Massachusetts, when you look at New Hampshire, we have a very, very limited system of expungement. In New Hampshire, in Massachusetts, they can expunge many, many more offenses. They can do so much quicker. And they can do so much easier. And so for us to be talking about limiting expungement and seeking proposals to limit expungement is really moving us in the wrong direction. So that's why at this point we oppose, you know, the new redraft of section eight, we would support it if it continued to reflect a goal of exploring the expansion of the scope of our expungement law. But as it stands now, we can't support it. Thank you. Thank you, Marshall. Any seeing any hands. So. So Selena actually before you. So I'm looking at the as past Senate so section one is regarding the listed crimes. And then I'm saying that we are, we're okay with the bill if it is sections one, two, five, six and seven of the current draft and section eight of the as past the Senate draft. Is that clear? I say that really you did. I was trying to address the most current draft that was on the website this morning. Okay. And like I said, we're okay with sections one, two, five, six, seven, eight of that draft. Okay, and section eight of the as past the Senate draft. Okay. Which I think is different than what I heard from legal aid I think legal aid was referring to the same time and it may not matter but Anyway, I think I've got it. I think legal aid was was talking about the as past in the Senate. But in looking at that one we're talking about the listed crimes the search charge. The effective ceiling ceiling of records. That's the statement of violation records. That's the language with DMB that Judge Greerson worked on and then the sentencing commission report. It's my understanding. Yes. Okay. Okay, thank you. Selena. I just wanted to give you actually asked the same question I asked the previous witness just give you an opportunity to talk to comment on this notion that the expungement system and the changes we've made in recent years are somehow broken system. Sure, I mean, I don't see them as broken but I do see them as having a lot of room for improvement. I mean, I think there's areas where I would certainly agree with the administration around the need for improvement of the system and I think all you need to do is look at the next door for example at New Hampshire to see how, you know, a, how much better a system can work when it really provides a broad remedy and provides, you know, a broad scope, and how much easier that works instead of doing, you know, little carve outs here, little carve outs there, you know, in New Hampshire, almost everything is expungible, their list of non expungible crimes is shorter than our big 12 list, which, you know, was far a field of what we're talking about here. So in New Hampshire, and just as the administration has suggested, in New Hampshire, it's a very much structured around periods of time after conviction. So it's, you know, in New Hampshire, it's to get to the serious felonies like sex assault or aggravated assault or serious violent felonies. That's a 10 year waiting period. It's a very long time that they have to wait. So while I would not characterize the system as broken, I certainly would accept the characterization that there's certainly a lot of room for improvement and a lot of great models that we can look at when we're looking at how to improve. Thank you very much. Any other questions? Not seeing any, any hands. Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much to our, our witnesses, and we will adjourn for a break now until, let me say 1030.