 A member? Sure. David Hall. Good morning, David Hall, legislative council. This is the S324, an act relating to prohibiting robo-calls. You should have, I hope you have, draft. We got one point one. One point one. I have to copy what you said this morning. Well that's okay. It has 90 days. That's good. Yeah, so for some reason our internal system is no longer updating version numbers, headers and footers, dates. I don't know why. Ever since the IT department became their own little universe, they're less concerned about the functionality of our documents, I guess. Is that on tape as well? I just did it my huge favor, so I'll count it. 19th at 1052, is that correct? At any rate, the version that you have in front of you, one point one over the strike all amendments does have the changes. I believe that you were interested in. Those are primarily in subsection C on page 203 where the criminal penalties are changed to not more than 90 days, and the fine is not more than $1,000 per violation of both, and each telephone call is a separate violation under this subsection. David? Yes? Quick question, so we had testimony that the AG's office isn't necessarily gonna lay on investigators. Sure. So it seems like a federal conviction is where we get the evidence that we would use for this. Is that, does that make sense? That's one viable option, I suppose. So I'm imagining that these robo callers send out waves of hundreds or thousands. So I'm just wondering, is there a record of this happening where under this you'd have evidence that somebody sent out, like 5,000 calls to Vermonters, in which case you could have each one a separate violation, and then it might be, as much as 90 days, times that number? That, the follow-up on that, that was my question too, is each, that you press a button, does that constitute one call, one telephone call, because it's the same thing going to 500 people, or is the 500 people the one call? Yeah, is the activating, activating the wave of calls? One call, or is it? Yeah, each call, each telephone that rings. Yeah, I mean it says telephone call, but it doesn't define, it says each prohibited telephone call. Yeah, I gotta tell you that if an enforcement action is brought, then the AG's office is going to exercise its discretion in how to charge it, and expose, I don't. If you look at the, unfortunately they printed this page which had nothing to do with robo-calls, but if you look at this page with the yellow on this article, and what it shows is that 46% of robo-calls for September of 2019 were scams. Seems to me that the Attorney General might have an interest in scams, and maybe not so much going after payment reminders or telemarketing, but that action scans, which he's been on the road talking about IRS scams and other forms of scams, so it may be true that it would wait for the federal government, but if somebody is scamming people over, claiming to be the IRS, claiming to be the Department of Motor Vehicles, trying to get your personal information, then it does create a criminal offense, and there may be other places in the law that they could go after, but this may be one where usually when the scam occurs, you have some kind of an investigation. Somebody reports that somebody took $3,000 from them, or they realize they had given away their information. I just think that, we shouldn't just look at it as a telemarketers, but almost half of these things are scams. It was funny, my granddaughter, just as she was reading, I posted this story about the local calls on Facebook and as she was reading it, she got a call that her warranty had expired. This was her final odd chance. I don't know if that's a scam or a telemarketer, but I keep getting them and saying, oh my God, thank God it's the final one, you're final notice. I think that's a scam. I don't know. Because they're not calling you and saying, would you like to have, get an extended warranty? They're calling you and telling you. You think we should be more specific here? Well, I think what I hear David saying is the AG's office will decide whether to prosecute, depending on the facts, and the way I read it, they'd be liable for multiple. So through 500 phone calls with one button at 500 violations. Or is it one violation? No, I believe that the way I read it. It's per call. So, I mean, in your scenario, it sounds a little bit creepy, but 5,000 calls is 5,000 calls. So 5,000 people receive this phone call that it's 5,000 violations. Yes. And I'm finding that I wanted to make sure it was that. That's the way it's written. I mean, it sounds like a lot. It's not the description of the... I've actually tried to talk to some of these people on occasion just to get a piece of my mind, but as soon as I say I don't want their product to hang up on it. Really, I don't know what I'd add. They're extremely rude. Who would have expected? Yeah, who would expect these scammers to be rude? Well, I wish I could say otherwise, but my sister in Florida is impaired in a number of ways, and she's four or five times, she's fallen prey to these sorts of things where she sends $4,000. The most recent one was somebody called and said that they... So they found out on Facebook she was a fan of this particular rock star, and they said, and this person needs someone in Florida to help coordinate their... So can you send us your information and then we'll consider you to be this person's Florida representative, Adam Lambert. So she wound up $4,000 or $5,000 just over a count. That's terrible. You do that to the older people. But cold calling people in a certain age group that they think are... Yeah. This isn't part of this bill, but obviously the Department of Motor Vehicles, they should know why it's not just in Vermont selling their information. Yeah. And then having it used is also an issue that, I don't know if the transportation committees are taking that up, but who is, but we should be taking that up. Mr. Chairman, I move S324 favorably. Senator Bruce moved S324 favorably. Is there any further discussion? I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to pay for it. Shout it to the roof though. I'm going to stop hitting my phone bill and then I want to go home. All right. They're finding another way. Yes. All in favor of, please call the roll, Peggy. Senator White. Yes. Senator Barude. Yes. Senator Sears. Yes. Senator Benning votes yes. Well, we can, you can hold it open. You can hold it open. Well, no, he actually told me. Oh, okay. Yes, so, and I, we can hold it open for Senator Medkin. Who wants to report this, Jim? I mean, I would love to do it. I don't mind. I want to do this, because you're going to do the mental health. You always do mental health. Senator Sears. Okay. I do. You are all right. I do. Thank you, David. Is this for editing or sending a clean copy? Oh, David. Sorry. Okay. The two hardest bills I've ever recorded out were the Burn Pit bill. I haven't told them. Cool about this. This issue. Cool about this. This is horrible. Okay, second one. Please keep them all up. Guy was led out of the retreat. And, and he ended up being the janitor. He was the firmest with their guy. And it was very, very hard. Do you know what rescue remedy is? It's a box flower essence. So rescue is supposed to calm you down. It's supposed to calm us before I reported that. Okay. Senator Nica. That's okay. You just missed the vote on the robocalls. I'm assuming that you're against, you're for the bill against robocalls. Missional professional. Senator Nica. Yes. No. There were no change from the last versions which we debated. Okay, great. They're all in their offices. So now we'll take up the bill on, what do you call it? Now that Alice is here, we'll take it out on you, Senator. The mental health, the act relating to comps is in fraud. Oh, yeah, we did the robocalls. All right, are there any other persons who I don't know if I dreamt it or if I actually received suggestions from the Hospital Association of Changes? You must have dreamt it. I must have. It says a lot about me if I'm dreaming about this bill. The one piece about adding a representative on the forensic. Yeah. Oh, okay. So you got the owner. I am. Well, Eric's gonna walk us through the latest draft. I'm gonna press your dreaming about this. I know, exactly. Something how interesting I like this. Morning, everybody. Morning. Are we on 5.1? Yes, exactly, I believe so. So on 5.1? Yep. That's the status at the moment. Okay. Eric is Patrick with the Office of Legislative Council here to walk the committee through, as you were saying, Senator Sears, version 5.1, which is the most- Oh wait, I have Senator Bennet's, I didn't think those notes looked like my writing. Oh, sorry about that. Is that on mine? I'm just looking at them and saying, yes it is, sorry about that. Find it, I'll write those things. Sorry. That's okay. So yes, this is version 5.1 of the committee strike all amendment to S183, an act relating to competency to stand trial and insanity as a defense. We've been through several versions before and the issues I think will be familiar to the committee or recap just a little bit where we are. You see, generally speaking, the bill dealing with the criminal procedures around when a criminal defendant has, the issue has come up as to whether the defendant is competent to stand trial or was sane at the time the offense was committed. And the highlights as usual indicate where the changes are between this draft and the previous one that you looked at. The very first section you see in front of you was just a complete strike of that first section and that was the issue of you may remember being discussed about the commissioner of mental health being a party during these proceedings. And this strike isn't removing the issue completely. You'll just see that it's moved a little bit later in the bill, in a sense it's later in the proceedings as well. When it appears here, this is where it has originally proposed this provided commissioner party status during an earlier stage in proceedings before the court has started to consider whether or not the person actually should be committed to the department or not. So the commissioner, you'll see, will still get party status later on at that stage of proceedings. But I think it was decided among the people involved in the process that made more sense, the timing was. So that provision is struck here. And so then we'll move on to section, what is now section one. And this has to do with the once a person's sanity or competency is placed at issue, the court orders an examination. So there'd be a psychiatric or psychologist examination of the person's mental health status in order to determine whether or not they are in fact competent to stand trial or were it insane at the time of the offense. So there's some proposals here and you see, I'll just sort of refresh your recollection about lines say one through six of page two. There are no changes to that particular subsection. But to remind you what's going on there, you see the existing language, sort of one of the points about it that has been noticed by a lot of people over the years is that the way the language is phrased that these examinations have to have reference to mental competency and sanity. But it's not always the case that both mental competency and sanity are at issue in a given case. They're two different things and maybe one and maybe the other. So the language has changed to make it clear that that's the case, that the examination can be one or both of the following. It may be that both will be at issue, but maybe not. And this allows for the examination to cover both, sorry, either mental competency or sanity. That's important to know because that's related to the new subdivision at the bottom of page two. This has to do with, well, what about those situations where both competency and sanity are at issue? The proposal there is that, well, that's the case. If the psychiatric examination is looking at both the person's competency and sanity, then competency has to be done first. And you'll see in the second line that it's not until after the psychologist is able to form the opinion that the person is competent to stand trial, it's not until after that that an examination of the defendant's sanity take place. Now that is still the same concept in front of you, but I think it was Senator Benning who brought up that the language was a little unclear on that point. That it seemed to imply that that sequence would always be the case. When the intent was only that that sequence would be the case when both competency and sanity were at issue. So the language is clarified that you see in line 18, it's only when the psychiatrist or psychologist has been asked to provide opinions as to both competency and sanity, and then line 20 in such cases. So only in those cases is it the case that competency has to go first and sanity has to go second. Let's try to just walk through and ask right now if there's anybody on the committee or in the audience who has concerns on this or questions about section one. Jack, please identify yourself. Jack McCullough, Director of the Mental Health Law Project of the National Law Aid. I'm looking at the amendment to section one of the bill and I'm wondering if the strikeout of G1 is inadvertent and if the only thing that was really tend to be removed is that subsection seven on line 16 and 17. Do you mean that the result of this is not that G1 would be struck from the law? Okay. Now this is just striking me. Any amendments? Yes, sir. Okay, gotcha. Yes, you bet. Anything else? So I assume that section one and five are the result of section two. Yes, section two is, again, so now we're a little bit further along in the proceedings. So this is after the examination has taken place and there's been a finding by the court that the person was either insane at the time of the offense or incompetent to stand trial. When that happens, the court then has to hold a hearing to decide, well, what should happen to this person? And that really turns on whether the person is dangerous to self or others, whether they're a person in need of treatment. If they find that the person is a danger, then they're committed to the Department of Mental Health. That's the way the law works currently. However, I think the situation now is that when that proceeding is taking place, when there's this determination as to whether or not the person should be committed to the Department of Mental Health, Vermont Legal Aid does not represent the person at that time. It would be if the person has either representation from the Defender General's Office or has private defense counsel, that's the person who represents the defendant at that stage of the proceedings. Also, the Department of Mental Health doesn't necessarily have a right to appear at the proceedings either. So those are the two issues that are addressed in the new language at the top of page four. So you're at that stage of the proceedings where there's being a determination being made as to whether or not the person is dangerous. I think he's gonna be there all day. Right. I think he's gonna be there all day. That last sentence, the Department of Mental Health shall be entitled to be here at the proceeding and be represented by the Office of the Attorney General. I'm just wondering about that last part. Why is Department of Mental Health represented by the AG? I think, and I'll let both agencies speak themselves, but I believe that that's the way functionally it works, that they have an attorney in the attorney, and they have counsel in the Attorney General's Office who represents the MH. Okay. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Yes. If I may. Morning Fox Tiffany, Commissioner of Department of Mental Health, Eric's exactly right. All of our cases for hospitalization hearings and voluntary hospitalizations, medication orders, things of that sort, the department is represented by the attorney, assistant attorney generals that are assigned to the Department of Mental Health. So we're always represented, almost always, but by the individuals to that point of that line, I did want to check in with the committee's intent of the language on that line. It says that DMH would be entitled to appear. And I'm just curious if that intent is to allow us to actually have a party status so we can bring witness, or just that we are entitled to appear, which wouldn't necessarily give us that level of representation in court. That our ask was for party status. I don't know. So that's really a policy question for the committee, right? Exactly. I think this was the compromise language. I believe that Jack McCuller, maybe others, maybe Matt Valerio, Balt, it was a conflict for you to be a party. I wasn't sure what that meant as I was calling. And I think that's what I was understanding of. So maybe Jack. Yes, Jack McCuller again from the Farmer Project. I think the intention by phrasing it as the department shall be entitled to appear, I think that includes the ability to call witnesses. They're not just there and there. So I think they get to appear, they get to provide all witnesses, they get to make argument before the court, but they're not a party the way the state and the defendant are parties to the criminal case. And if the committee wanted to make that clear by saying shall be entitled to appear and call witnesses, that would be consistent with what I'm talking about. That was going to be my exact suggestion. I'll put it here and call it. Go ahead. And the other substantive issue that's going on in that subsection is in lines four to five, it's that a council is being appointed for the defendant from Vermont Legal Aid. So the person we represented by Vermont Legal Aid rather than, and again, both Matt and Jack was no better how this works currently. But my understanding is that currently the person is represented by either the Defender General's Office or private council, or they have private council. Right, they can always get private council. This is something we've talked about for a number of years, that after the finding of incompetence to the trial and the like, once you get to the hospitalization hearing stage, then it might be better for Legal Aid to pick that up as they end up doing that work identically down the road. They find mixed results with, I guess, the way the criminal lawyers attack those situations. Well, would this still give that person a right? And I'm going to say this, I don't mean it to be funny, but would it give them the right to have Alan Dershowitz represent them? They can always choose to not do Legal Aid. It's just that the court would appoint somebody to Legal Aid, and then if the person said, I want Alan Dershowitz and Alan was available and wanted to do it. Yes, over the years we have on... Notice I didn't say Ruby Giuliani. Over the years we've occasionally had one of our clients retain private council to do just the regular committment cases. It's not that common, but they're certainly entitled to what they want to do. I'm assuming that it isn't, but that's still available. Yes, include that for this statement. Okay, okay. Just to follow up on that one point, I don't know, Peggy, did you find any chance to hear back from Stephanie on the fiscal note issue, or? I do not know, I do not know. Probably not been yet. I thought I didn't know last night and I... No worries, so I think Stephanie is working on a fiscal note on that issue, too. I know you would ask for that, Senator Sears, about it. Well, we'll get that on the floor. Right. Wouldn't the bill have to go to appropriations or not? So moving on to the next section, section three. Now, so this is, again, a little bit further down in the chronology of proceedings. So let's narrow out the point where if the court has found that the person was either incompetent to stand trial or insane at the time of defense and that the person was a danger to self or others and they committed the person to the Department of Mental Health, so that's where section three kicks in. And this raises the issue that the committee has been discussing as well if the person has been committed and they're subsequently discharged, there currently isn't any provision in law about victims getting noticed in those situations. So the committee is wanting to add some language around providing victims with notice when the person is gonna be discharged either from, and I'm over on page six now, lines five to six when... So the person's gonna be discharged either from the Secure Mental Health Treatment Facility or from the Care and Custody of the Commissioner. The proposal is that notice of that action be provided to the state's attorney who then provides notice to the victim. Now the difference you see on lines 11 and 12 is the idea is to change it to, originally it was an opt-in provision but now it's gonna be opt-out. So the state attorney will provide notice to any victim who has not opted out of receding notice. That's the only change to the previous version. James Pepper, Department of State's attorney is a sheriff and I think it's been our position from the beginning that this only applies to the big 12 offenses and that victims of domestic abuse and violations of these prevention were just as much of an interest in receiving that notice as others. So it would be our recommendation to extend that to listed crimes and why? It's just that there are a number of listed non-big 12 offenses that are very violent that victims would like to get notice if all of a sudden, Department of Mental Health is then gonna discharge their current custody of that individual. Yeah, but right now they don't get any notice. Nobody gets notice. They get notice within the first 90 days. This would be extended beyond 90 days. Yeah, and I kind of burned up places on the department. It would be minimal from the department to be able to make those notifications. We just, we'll need to make sure we're aware of the different charges that this will fall under and as language safety of the intent and we've talked closely with the space attorney's office that this kind of notification can happen. They're discharging from a secure hospital or facility and still under the custody of the commissioner or if the department is intending to discharge someone from the care and custody of the commissioner or to not even reapply to continue custody if the decision is to not apply. This will all come with those notifications. And the state attorney just has the responsibility to notify the victim. Correct. Can I ask a question? Or maybe I'll let Eric walk through first because this is kind of a general question. Okay. Sorry. So, any other, any objection to that? Making it listed crime? Current. It was current version and the state's official was going to be adding listed crime. You don't have an issue with listed crimes being a kind of expanded list that you have some driving offenses in the air and that kind of thing. So it's only when the victim has to. Isn't it when the victim doesn't hop down? When they haven't hopped out. When they haven't hopped out. I mean, to me this is about particular crimes of violence that people should be concerned about and you know, I mean, if that's the way it goes out, that's the way it goes out, but I think what this was designed to be for was for the crimes of violence, but you would probably know. Since you wrote it. Well, I never intended for listed crimes to become this big, by the way. Why don't we just say, but if you add crimes of violence on somebody who commits a simple assault a viral brawl would be, I don't know how many of them are in court. Right, that's why it was. Oh, those are not uncommon to end up in the mental health system. Simple assaults, misdemeanor domestics disorderly conducts, that kind of thing. Well, so that's, so the department of state attorneys has proposed that we expand beyond the Big 12 to all listed crimes. Discussion about the committee want to move forward with that or not? I mean, is it not only from the department of mental health, but is it possible to do and does the person have to wait until you get their notice out? Mr. Locke just said it was, they didn't have a problem with that. We just need to know which, which crime is there. We just need to know which clients who are supposed to report to the state's attorneys on it. Correct. So does it mean that the patient would have to wait much longer until you notify to all those persons? No? We make one notification to the state's attorney. Oh, you're saying, okay, and then state's attorney might be once. State's attorney is the one responsible to notify the victim, if the victim wants. This is unless the victim hops out. Right. Well, unless the victim has said I don't want to know. Yeah. I'd like to know from the state's attorneys if they can do it. Well, they just said, they propose, oh, you didn't. You wanted it. Sorry, you wanted it. All right. Say they want it. Okay. I guess. This does remind me of a conversation that came up, how many reasons I bring it up, is because once before when you were creating the offense of felon and possession of a firearm and you thought listed crimes was too broad, you said listed crimes except for, and you exempted a few things like the driving offense and a few other things. So let's do that. Because look at that approach. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Just balling it up. We, rather than going through the entire list again, which would take, you certainly could do that. I'd take a little more time. We did it in the firearm. Yeah, yeah. And exempted a few, I think driving, some driving offenses, some other things that were, to deem not to be as violent. Yeah. Yeah, you voted yes, Joe. Thank you. A robot. Thank you. You're a big vote in for your favor, brother. We passed four bills while you were gone. And you voted yes on all of them. None of them mattered because I was testifying on my helmet. We passed that in here. A dictionary on his favor. Here we are, page six. Go ahead and ask for it then we'll give you. Now you have to have a seat test on your bike. If you're smoking marijuana. That's what Andrew was talking about. Getting back to Eric's, so the suggestion is that we revise this to be similar to what we did with firearms and not all listed crimes, but certain listings. I'll take a saver now. Which would be listed crimes late. We need to get new designations. Till there's a classification system. We'll call them level one and level two listed crimes. We need more lists. So we're just doing the level one listed crimes. Sounds good. I can put some language in the next draft. So you can take a look at that. So no changes to section four about the disclosure for the prosecution of mental health examinations for purposes of the defendant's competency. That's still the same issue that was debated last time. You may recall. No changes in language to that. That is bottom of page six, top of page seven. I think you'd probably recall that one would expect that the case will be litigated. Court will weigh in. No changes to section five, corrections, the assessment of mental health services. Over in section six, the forensic care worker. Yeah, this is where I dropped this. Which was in this section. They actually didn't ask you, you didn't read it. This comes to the, somebody from the hospital association. I mean, they had specifics just in the section. Yes, is that the line 14 and 15? Yes, so you added to the forensic care working group two different other parties. The mental health care ombudsman and a representative of the designated hospitals appointed by the association hospitals and healthcare system. Lucy, you missed that, though. This was the section. We're on page eight, this is the section that I... We're streaming it out? Yeah. Maybe that's why I didn't read it. Maybe I didn't read it. Yeah, I haven't read it all about. I haven't read the society and I'm not psychic yet. Thank you. Well, that's a medical society. I know, close enough, though. That's why it's correct. You know, when I went to the hospital, I can't distinguish between a doctor and the hospital association. I thought you were the truth. I just care about who's... You didn't just speak on their behalf. What was their... They liked this. Yeah, we liked it, too. You want to speak on behalf of the medical association? I don't think I have that power, but... I was Lucy Garin, representing the Vermont Medical Association. Yeah. Yes? Can I ask on line seven, Paige A? Glad to know I didn't dream about it. It says that Department of Mental Health showed convenient working group of interested stakeholders, including as appropriate. I don't remember that language before. Who decides who in that list is appropriate? I'm referring to Katie in that one. Could I help with that? Yeah, please. Katie McLean, Office of Legislative Council for the Record. So the responsibilities of the working group are two very kind of different assessments that they're doing. One is more policy and one is more about the physical building. And so when we're putting the list together, for example, included BGS. BGS probably isn't going to weigh in on the policy decisions, but they would be more appropriate to weigh in on the physical facility piece and subdivision two. So I wanted to give some flexibility that the most appropriate parties would be weighing in on the most appropriate question, the question that they'd be most helpful with. I guess, I understand that. I guess it still leaves open the question, what if somebody feels that they're appropriate to the other discussion, but somebody else feels that they're not. Who is the deciding authority in that case? Usually it would be laid out who is on or not on. I guess it's Department of Mental Health the way I read this. Yeah, I would read it to be the Department of Mental Health. Okay, as long as we're clear on... They're convening the working group. Yeah, okay. Online 1617 says that the Department of Mental Health can include any other interested party, as they permit. Both the Commissioner of Buildings and General Services feel slighted and get complained to the Secretary of the Agency of Human Services. I don't know. Okay, yeah, I think it's fine because it's a working group of administration officials mostly. Well, except for the hospital association. And the person who lived the experience. I'm so glad that you got that and found that. I'm gonna go print it out and give it to you. I don't know if you want to. All right. So that's the list of the members of the working group that Katie was alluding to. What comes next in the language is what the working group actually considers studies and reports back on. And you'll see that there's some new language over in the top page now. And this has been moved. Members, the draft originally had proposed legislation required specifically that would be sort of incorporating a Connecticut psychiatric security review board model into Vermont law. However, then there was discussion about, well, that was probably too specific and maybe just have the committee consider that option rather than necessarily require specific legislation. So that's why it's added into this list of issues that the committee considers. And if you turn it over onto page 10, line 73, you see it's struck there. The report had originally required proposed draft legislation adapting that Connecticut psychiatric review board model. That is struck, but there's just sort of some general language where the bottom provides that if the working group does identify any needed changes to statute, that's the proposed legislation that would have to be included in the report. And from Stephanie, I sent you the latest draft. Oh, thank you. And then we need to hear back from her. Thanks. On behalf of them. So, anything else here? Not from no other changes, nothing else on the draft. Well, we do have a couple of slight changes. Yup. So I'm wondering if there was anybody in the audience who has any concerns with the draft that would be amended shortly. What I'm going to suggest there is would a half an hour be enough time? Yup. How don't we get back together for human cases between now and 1130? Have a final draft development? That's good. You don't have to highlight where it's different. Right, it's when we're cleaning. Right. It's just cleaning it up. Yup. So we'll get back together at 1130. Got it. Next on Thursday, we're going to start at 815 and end at 11, at 1025. And that's all about Woodside for anybody who's interested. Senator Ruth, you won't be here. How do we go? And Friday, I mean, because Joe will be going on Friday, so it's just going to be the three of us, so. Is it Thursday at 815 or tomorrow? Thursday at 815 to 1120 or 1025. We've got that. We're going to start with the way out. Boldly finger. Eric, good work. Thank you very much. I don't know if I actually don't have a hard copy in front of me. Thank you. Do you have any other copies? That's okay. Eric, do you have the other one, too, by chance? Oh, do you have the other one, too? I'll go this way. I'll send out if you've done it. It's very helpful to see what it is, what we've done here. Oh, I gave him mine. Oh, okay. I was going to say. No, I'm not. That are not included. I'm sorry, sir. Should we say that one more time? The listed crimes. Yes, the listed crimes statute that I printed out that you see in front of you is the current existing list of all the offenses that are within the definition of a listed crime. So you see, it's a lengthy list of books to be 31 offenses law. So, as opposed to the Big 12, which is obviously, well, well, I'm big. Exactly. So, if you look at, if you now take a look at the proposed amendment over on page five. Now this, again, you remember, there's no highlights or strike through here, so this is a clean copy, but the version that you previously looked at was the Big 12, so that the notification to victims would kick in for a Big 12 offense in the previous draft. Now you look at line 11, that's for a person found not guilty by reason of insanity or incompetent disdain trial for a listed crime as defined in subdivision 53017, which is what you have in your handout. Other than, and that's just word for word out of the valence and possession of a firearm statute in 13 VSA 4,017, or I think it might be 4,016, 4,016 or 17, which is that you went through this process back then in which there was a concern about maybe the listed crimes were too broad to prohibit someone from possessing a firearm, so you went through it and sort of tried to cull out a few that were not as in the view of the committee as violent or as serious as the others. I shouldn't use the word serious, they're all serious, but certain didn't. So this pulls out lewd and lascivious, but leaves in lewd and lascivious for the child. Correct, so this is just identical to that list of listed crimes with half a dozen exceptions, which leaves you with, by my account, 25 offenses that would be covered as opposed to the big 12. The only other change to this draft is over on page three, line 14, it says to do with the department of mental health ability to participate in the proceedings around commitment. And you see that the words and call witnesses are added on line 14. I think it shall be VMH is entitled to appear and call witnesses at the proceeding and be represented by the office of the attorney general. Maybe it's fine, it just seems a little odd that they are appearing and calling witnesses and being represented, is that it? Yeah, I think the representative doesn't, that's just who their counsel is in the proceedings. I think their counsel is an assistant attorney general. All the counsels in all the agencies are in the attorney general's office and are assigned. No, I get that, but it- So that's who their counsel is, is from the attorney general's office. And that was my question on the previous language, which I had answered, but here it adds that DMH can call witnesses and it sounds like they're doing that themselves rather than through their representative of DAG. Or at least that's why I asked the question. Oh. But if it makes sense to everybody else. What page is that on again? Page three, because if they're represented by DAG, then it seems like DAG would have the ability to call witnesses. I think their representation sort of identifies who is their counsel, as opposed to what they can do. Okay, so this makes everything manifest. Correct, okay. You could change it to say the Department of Mental Health Conferences by the Office of the Attorney General's Office shall be entitled to appear and call witnesses. But I think this is fine. Okay. If that's what everybody's understanding. Yeah, yeah. Yes, but then you put a discussion on this bill. There will be a fiscal note and I would like to vote it out, but hold on to it until Senator Lyons' committee, is that a chance to look at it? Okay, so in that case I would move, we amend 183 with draft 6.1. Senator White has moved that we amend S183 with draft 6.1, is there any further discussion? Peggy, all in favor of an amendment? Aye. Aye, opposed? Now I would propose that we approve that we send out the paper for recommendation S183 as amended. Senator White has moved that we report S183 as amended favorably to the full Senate. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, Peggy, would you please close the roll? Senator White, is Senator Baruth? Yes. Senator Benning? Senator Nica? Yes. Senator Sears? Yes. Senator Nica, Senator White, would you like to report this? I will. Thank you. Would you also let Senator Lyons know that we would like to meet, that you'd like to meet with our committee on it? I will. I think you know Senator Lyons, I think. I do know her. They live in the mansion. They live in the same mansion. The mansion on the hill? The mansion on the hill. Very nice house. Thank you all for the work on this. I'm glad that we could come together on this bill and that there is unanimity. I think the one place where there still is an issue is the Center General on page five here about this, or where the debt is about submitting to us. It would be horrible if it went out to the house without something that would argue about it. Okay, thanks. Thanks, Katie and Eric, for working together on this. Thank you very much. Sure. Thank you. I think it may end up being the most important part of the program, just to study and see where we end up. Yeah. All the best. Yes, you need to. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.