 And we are a lot. Oh, and by the way, I will not be at the hearing at 10 a.m., but I would urge, given that we've got to have the house institutions and house judiciary, as well as somebody from house appropriation to does corrections for the house appropriation. We really, you really do need to hear the entire report. And so if people start breaking in other than clarification, it's going to be a long morning. And again, I won't be there. I'm going to, I think it's better to fill up our committee. And it is our committee running the show. They're all invited guests. OK. So we're going to you feel free to call them whatever you like. So we already heard a piece of the report, but we'll hear we've gone over the probation piece. They have not. But I think there are other sections of it, particularly the behavioral health that are going to need legislation. And hopefully, Brent is there to keep and already is aware of that. But a number of the provisions of the rest of the report deal with behavioral health and issues of behavioral health with corrections and particularly in the corrections field as people leave and they're not getting the treatment they need either for substance abuse or mental health. Sound familiar, Commissioner Brown? Yes, yes. I don't think there's any difference in terms of that issue between the juvenile and the adults. And we're we're woefully inadequate. Yeah, we're looking forward to our conversation around table conversation on on Friday morning with with your committee in the House Human Services Committee as well. Yeah, they. But this morning, we're talking about firearms and it dawned on me and I think of the members of the committee that this bill would prohibit firearms and child care facilities and we had heard from people diametrically opposed on the on the core on the office buildings on hospitals, et cetera. We heard people all in favor of the hospital. We had heard a peep out of the child care. So I thought it'd be a good idea to hear from you and your thoughts on this bill. And if it would complicate your job any or make it easier. I know licensing for foster parents, you can't have a gun in the hole. And I just I've been through that. I don't know if you have those rules on the child. Yes, thank you, Senator, for the record, Sean Brown, Commissioner for the Department for Children and Families. And with me today, I have our general counsel, Jennifer Micah, as well. And hopefully we can walk you through our regulated child care system. One of our divisions in the Department for Children and Families is the child development division in a part of their function is to is to oversee and regulate the child care system. That includes center based care programs, as well as registered in family care homes. And as part of that work regulating that, you know, one of the primary concerns is the health and safety of the children in those programs. And as a part of that, we have promulgated regulations that touch on a wide variety of safety issues for the providers to make sure that we're providing a safe and learning environment for our children, whether that that's lay playground equipment, fencing, you know, how the program inside is laid out and hazards there. And also a piece of that, our regulations do touch on weapons. And so and they break into two components. And we provided those to the committee this morning by email, the subsections of our regulations that touch on weapons and child and center based programs and registered in family child care homes as well. And so our regulations have gone through the APA process and they're in effect and, you know, in our teams, work with providers across the state to make sure they're complied with and provide technical assistance and education across the board would help providers implement. And then sometimes we have funding available to help them implement those regulations as well, given many of our child programs operate on a very thin margin. And as a part of that, so our rules break out into two sections. There's the center based programs and I'll just read for you the regulation for center based programs. The licensees shall ensure no firearms and other weapons, including hunting knives, archery equipment and weapon accessories such as ammunition are present at the center based child care program. And so that regulation touches on our center based programs or larger programs and then our registered and family child care home regulations say that the registered and family child care home provider shall ensure all firearms and other weapons, including but not limited to hunting knives, archery equipment and weapons such as ammunition are locked in the facility and that ammunition is locked and stored in a separate area. And so, you know, those are the regulations that are currently in place. We've not had any issues to our teams. You know, we've inquired to see if there's been any concerns or issues and to our team's memory. We've not had any issues or concerns in general with these rules or issues with firearms or other weapons at either center based programs or registered and family care programs. One of our areas that we've identified where it might conflict with S 30 and our regulations are, as you can see, our regulations are a bit more broad in scope than S 30. In terms of that, we, you know, touch on other weapons as well like hunting knives, archery equipment and reference ammunition. S 30 is pretty general and just touches on firearms. And these regulations were promulgated in an environment where there was no statutory guidance or laws on the books that would implicate our regulations. And if S 30 passed in its current form, it could implicate our rules and possibly require us to go back through the rulemaking because now there would be a statute in place. And then it could also restrict our ability to regulate in the way we have here, particularly around the other weapons and ammunition, just given this bill doesn't touch on that. And so it could really complicate our ability to continue to regulate in the way we have in the relationships we've established with our providers who are used to these rules and working within these rules. Mr. Chair, Senator Bruce, thank you, Commissioner. I'm wondering as I didn't have it in front of me, but I thought what you read said that the center shall ensure that there are no weapons on the premises. How is that envisioned? How do they ensure that there are not weapons? So they're center-based, so they're not homes. And so we have teams of licensors that go out and do inspections when licenses are due and when changes are made and they walk through and just make sure that they have policies in place that address this and that they're following those policies. As I indicated before, we've not had any issues with the implementation of these regs or the enforcement of these regs up until this point. Well, I understand that. I'm imagining a scenario where somebody comes in with a firearm on them. Those rules don't empower the center to remove the person as I see it. They just require that the center ensure that the weapon not be there. So if a parent or someone else stood on their purported constitutional right to carry their weapon openly, we are an open carry state. How would that what authority would that center stand on? So that center could take preventative measures in terms of signage and educating parents about not bringing firearms into the center. If a parent chose to continue that practice, you know, that they have a constitutional right to bear arms, but they don't have a constitutional right to access that center. And ultimately, the center could ask that family to move to a new provider or seek alternate child care arrangements if they're not willing to comply with our regulations in terms of no weapons in the facility. OK, thank you. Oh, sorry. No, as a follow up on you and I think this is true of my hospital as well. And it may be true of the courts. You're not allowed to bring any weapons. Doesn't matter whether it's firearms or because I know that in the court houses, they've collected an amazing amount of weapons from knives to brass knuckles to all kinds. And it was an amazing I went over in one day saw what they had collected in a two or three month period at the various courthouses in the room at the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice, you know, I was I was just surprised. Well, very little of it was firearms. So you're saying basically no weapons in child care. That's done. So you're similar to most hospitals, the sign says no fire, no weapons. Firearms or other weapons. Statehouse, I believe, just says no. I know firearms, correct. We we we are rules are a little bit more broad than just firearms. We touch on that's how S 30. If we left S 30 the way it is in the past, if I can see how it would cause a complication career. Correct. That's one of our concerns. And I think the other concern touching on Senator Bruce, a question just expanding on that while we've never had an issue with that. You know, our parents are dropping and picking up kids pretty regularly from, you know, center-based programs and other programs. And, you know, just the way you live your Ramoners live their lives. We would be concerned that under S 30 that many of our parents, you know, who might hunt or or carry firearms for other purposes. Could be in violation of S 30 just dropping off and picking up with no intent other than just delivering their child to or picking their child up from a provider. By the way, the regulations are posted on our website. And if I might go ahead. I broke into you. That's all right. We we had been discussing removing the property or the grounds from the bill. So it would just be the building. But I wanted to ask you on a different tack. You're you're an interesting witness from two avenues on this bill because the bill also covers government buildings. And DCF was the workplace of Laura Sobel who was killed by an irate and deranged person. So I'm wondering my sense is that the leadership in the administration of the agencies is of one mind on this bill. I'm wondering, I know there have been movements among state employees, especially following Laura Sobel's death to provide greater safety and security. Do you have a sense of where they would be on this bill? Yeah, I think, you know, we have worked very closely with our staff and continue to do. Say a culture of safety is is crucial, particularly in certain areas of our work. You know, where we interact regularly with the public, particularly for our staff who might be out meeting in the community with different members. And so, you know, we have developed protocols to keep us staff safe. And so it is a complicated mix because we have staff that are working in the community regularly, which, you know, a bill like S 30 really wouldn't address that. And then in many of our other staff work in facilities where we have full time security and screening in place. And, you know, and we ask people to keep their bags in the lobby if there's like, you know, weapons or whatnot. And it's a very complicated mix of, you know, of how we address that. You know, in some of our programs, we serve homeless for monitors who carry their possessions with them wherever they go. And some of them can't regularly depending on the time of the year. And many of them, you know, have, you know, you know, like axes or machetes that they use to help create campsites. And sometimes for self protection. And so, you know, we try to be careful and balance the, you know, the interest in making sure people have access to our our services, but also make sure our staff are safe. And so, you know, it's complicated. I appreciate the answer. I don't think it necessarily responded to my question. Do you have a sense of how DCF workers might feel about a state law prohibiting guns in their own? I've not specifically pulled our workers on that question, Senator. I think, you know, we have a broader safety culture conversation in terms of, you know, how do we protect staff in terms of when they go out into the community, when we go into homes regarding a situation, you know, where we might be removing a child, we only do it with law enforcement present. So we do take a lot of steps and precautions. But specifically to your question, we've not pulled our staff regarding S 30. OK, Mr. Chair, in that case, I might suggest when we, after our small hiatus on the bill, maybe we could hear from the SEA, because I know they have expressed opinions on the subject in the past. Peggy would, I think, would be a good idea to keep a list of witnesses. I think we're going to take a two week hiatus from counting this week, which isn't it, which is only half. And not deal with S 30 next week, giving people a chance to gather some of their thoughts and then come back to it. I don't have a calendar for a week or whatever. So we won't deal with it next week, but we probably should have the VSEA and other groups. And but I other people who may be listening who are interested, please contact Peggy Delaney. Peggy Delaney at leg.state.vt.us. And we will try to accommodate folks planning to have four different groups present themselves in a two hour period in order to give more like a public hearing and also some other individuals. Anyhow, commissioner. Are there other questions for the commissioner? I think it's pretty clear where the where the. You're concerned about how that conflict you're on and regulations now. It's true of foster care, too, right? Right. Yes. Yeah. You know, obviously, in your foster home, you have knives and not hunting knives or that sort of thing. Um, are there other questions of Commissioner Brown? And Commissioner, we look forward to talking to you on Friday. Peggy has posted a will be posted. And what she could do now is something that was provided by Commissioner Brown, regarding aggressive teams. And so I think it was a pretty good study. Was it not you? I get the right. Yes. So we commissioned the report using some of the federal funds for the family's first Prevention Services Act implementation to kind of do an assessment of our residential system of care and the youth that it's serving. And so that's the report here referencing that was just issued within the last month, I believe. So if folks have a chance to read that report before Friday morning, you might find it helpful. There's an executive summary that's fairly easy to read looking at some of the recommendations. And they're not unlike the recommendations you're going to hear in justice for the investment, too, in terms of having a robust behavioral health system in the community. Right. Thank you very much, Commissioner. Thank you for your time this morning. Appreciate you joining us. Yeah, we'll see you on Friday, Senator. OK, we'll see you this afternoon, Sean. Yes, see you this afternoon, Senator Benning, looking forward to it. Oh, where are you building for them? You know, we were before you on the policy aspects of the. Oh, yeah, secure residential treatment. And now institutions is looking at it, I think, from the point of view of the facilities and the investment in the lease that we're making in that on that property in Newbury. OK, good. Sounds good. Eric, could you join us for a moment while we have a we have a few minutes to discuss where we're at with S 30. We're in the midst of testimony, so it's hard to talk about where people are at. But I got an email from Karen Horn at BLCT and they're very interested in having it cover. Um, town buildings. That's from Monteliga City Towns. Those are very familiar with it. But when we do that, our definition is really shaky, I think, of government buildings. And if we were to go forward with the bill, I think we need to have it better to find what a government building is, maybe using the federal definition. But further, if we do, we do include more than just the campus here at here on the bank, the campus at Monteliga of state office buildings. I think we almost have to allow towns to decide what facilities they would want to cover and there needs to be proper signage. Does that make sense? Are you asking me or the committee members? I'm asking the committee because the town may not want the salt shed to be an essential building for whatever term we use. Well, if I can weigh in, Dick, I. At this point, having listened to the committee, having heard the testimony, I think only a very stripped down definition is potentially going to get the votes to get out of committee. So I think eliminating property parking lots and then in terms of government buildings, I think if we try to, I appreciate very much that the League of Cities and Towns were unanimous in their support when they voted. But it would, I think it would behoove us to cut it down to just something like city halls or town centers, wherever the government operations for the town are located and the capital complex. Because if we try to get out into decentralized offices or government buildings, I think we'll just endlessly run into problems. I think you're probably right. But it depends on there being support on the committee for government buildings in any form. Senator White. Perhaps a solution to the issue for the towns is to actually give them more flexibility in determining their own rules that instead of having to have Montpelier decide for them every single time they wanna do something. That's just a plug for the, huh? I was gonna say we did pass your pilot project. It never made it through the house. And there was opposition. There were eight people that voted against it. I do remember that, but we're gonna try again this year. Yeah, but that's, I don't think I wanna do that in S30. No, no, no, no, no. No, I'm just saying in general. I would suggest in giving the towns the ability to find opt in or opt out. I don't care which term you use in terms of their government buildings. I think again we'll wind up, it's a level of complexity that I think will sink, that will sink that piece. Honestly, in terms of government buildings, like the state house, the capital complex, and then as much as I appreciate the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, maybe it's too much to try to cover all of their city halls. I'm just trying to gauge the will of the committee. I'm willing of course to go for that, but I don't know what others are. Well, we don't need to, I don't wanna take a vote today. I am concerned about however what we heard from the commissioner about child care centers. If it's gonna create more of a problem for them than solve a problem that they may not have, Senator Necton. Well, I was just thinking the commissioner of BGS testified that all the state buildings are covered already in terms of you not being able to bring a firearm. I know, but what happens when you do? There is no, the basic issue is, is it 3507, have I got the? 37005? 37005, well I got the right numbers in the wrong order. That's where the concern lies for many of the advocates for the bill. It's the current law, you can say that you can't bring weapons in, but you can't enforce it, that's what we argued. You can tell somebody to leave and go put their weapons somewhere else, but if they insist, then you'd have to charge under that for illegal trespassers. Right, are we gonna have this conversation now? Well, we are. Well, okay, I mean I, then I just, I thought that we were going to put off the committee discussion. Well, we are, but I was trying to get a sense for Eric, so he isn't bored for the next two weeks or nothing. Oh, poor Eric, I bet he won't be bored. No worries, thanks. Senator Benning, that Senate would like. So, the more I think about this, the more I don't like this bill. And let me say that, Dick, with respect to your last statement, if an individual walks into a building with a gun and S30 is passed as law, there will still have to be a confrontation of sorts between the individual and anyone attempting to remove them, which is precisely what's happening now with a sign out front that says no entry with a weapon. So, we have heard from buildings and general services, capital police, the hospitals, and now the childcare centers. Every one of which has said, A, we have not had a problem. B, if there was a problem, we have the means to take care of that problem. So, embarking on what is essentially an encroachment on a constitutional right that leaves more confusion, to me is very problematic. The bill is not unnecessary. So, it violates my normal thought process when dealing with anything, because we don't have evidence that there's been a problem. We know that all these institutions have the ability to say, you can't come in here, leave. And if they refuse to do that, they run a foul of unlawful trespass. And I am also concerned that with respect to childcare centers, now you're injecting another potential problem for them to have to deal with. I'll leave it at that. Yes, go ahead. Actually, I said Senator White could go next, so I... I do want to respond to what Joe said. Yeah, no, I know you'll, yeah. So, I have to say, I am not looking at this as necessarily a constitutional issue about the right to bear arms, but I am looking at it as we're creating a new crime here. My, I thought our goal with justice reinvestment and everything else was to limit the number of crimes we create and the number of criminal records we create. And I've heard from people that if we leave it the way it is, it has to be a two-step process and it's very complicated and hard to do. It would have to be a two-step process no matter what because there has to be, as Joe said, if somebody comes in with a gun, somebody has to confront that person. Somebody has to go and say, take that gun away and then they're immediately charged, they're immediately a foul of the law. They have no ability to then leave or anything. And so a state's attorney could, could charge them. They could, so I actually don't see a need for this, this new crime or this bill at all. The more testimony I hear, the more I say, and I've been running it by a bunch of people in my area who are what you would call Wyndham County liberals. And when we talk about it, I mean, I'm serious. As opposed to Northeast Kingdom conservatives? Yeah, yeah. Well, well known, there's no conservatives in Wyndham County. I opposed a bill once and people said, she's a female from Wyndham County. How could she oppose that bill? Anyway, that's what I'm saying. And I've been running it by people here and to get their opinion on it. And when they understand that there is already a process for dealing with this, they're saying, why would we create a new crime? So that's- I think Phillip would like to- So it's long past time for Eric to put the text of 3705 up on the screen because there's a piece of it that we've been ignoring that I really would like to talk about. So is there a way, Peggy or Eric, for you to put the text up so that we can all look at it? Eric, do you have it? Yeah. Okay. Do you want to share it? Make me a co-host, Peggy, so I got it, yeah. As Eric is doing that, let me just set the stage. So what 3705 says is that if you go on to somebody else's property without permission or legal authority, then you run foul of the law. That phrase legal authority, I'm relatively sure that gun rights advocates would say that they have legal authority for at least concealed carry, if not open carry. So when you see that, keep this in mind. Okay, a person shall be imprisoned for not more than three months or find out when $500 are both, if without legal authority or the consent of the person in lawful possession, he enters or remains. Now, if somebody comes in with a concealed gun and says under the Sportsman's Bill of Rights and the Vermont Constitution and the US Constitution, I have three forms of legal authority for concealed carry. Now, I don't believe that the gun rights groups are going to agree that this obviates or takes away their right to concealed carry. And if you think they are, we should have them all in again and have them answer that question because they will say, I'm sure that they have a right to concealed carry anywhere unless there's a state law against it like courthouses and schools. And Joe, you feel, I don't wanna speak to it. I'm just, I need to comment on something that Joe said and I wanna make clear. I think we heard plenty regarding hospitals and that there is a problem. And I did, I may agree with you on some of the other areas, Joe, that you mentioned, but I thought the testimony from Dr. Slayton, was it? And from the hospital association and the doc, the medical society were pretty clear that they feel threatened right now that they are concerned. So I don't think it would be a stretch to say that there is concern. Senator Bennett. Dick, I have no quarrel with the concept that they feel threatened. What I meant by saying there's no evidence of a problem is that I have not heard anybody using a gun in a hospital setting other than the one incident at Dartmouth and that individual was clearly intending to commit murder, which just takes that incident out of all discussion here for relevance purposes as far as I'm concerned. And I understand there may be others who disagree, but Eric, the words without legal authority. If I walk past a sign going into a grocery store that says, have to have shoes on. If you don't have shoes on, you're not allowed. If somebody confronts me at the door who owns the store and says you cannot come in here and they go in anyway, am I correct in assuming that they have lost their legal authority to walk in because they are now officially unnoticed against trespass? That's a complex question and I wouldn't be able to give an answer to that off the top of my head. I do agree that the requirement of the notice communication by the owner that you mentioned is necessary for a trespass prosecution though. But it's good. So I'm going to extend the same thing now to Matt Romiai when somebody has walked past a sign that says, no weapons allowed and they are obviously carrying and Matt says, you cannot come in here. It seems to me that the Capitol Police have the ability to present that notice against trespass. And if the individual says, I can go in here because I've got my constitutional rights, it seems that all legal authority for them to do so has been stripped once the owner or the person in charge of the building has given them instructions that they are entering in violation of the rules. So I can understand Phillip that they might try to make that argument but the bottom line is the police have authority, the Sergeant at Arms has authority to eject the person from the building. As in the case of NVRH, Sheriff Bobby Clark can boot somebody from the building who's violating the sign there. So I understand they might try to make the argument but I think they're going to lose that argument. Okay, your analogy isn't good though. You don't have a constitutional right to go into a restaurant without shoes. You do have a constitutional right to bear arms and you have been a defender of that right. So hang on. So what I'm saying is that this phrase without legal authority in almost every case would make for a simple confrontation. It's not a simple confrontation as we've seen time and time again in the last few years. We have a very radicalized open carry movement nationwide and what often people are trying to do is make a point and prove a test case about their ability under the constitution and the state constitution to carry a firearm. So I'm saying that when Vermont traditions and other groups come in and point to this particular statute as though it were cut and dried that any place could put up a sign and trespass people off their property with firearms. I don't believe it's that easy at all. But Mr. Chair, if I might, I had Eric draft a piece of language. It's just one sentence. Would I have your permission to have him show us that? We're gonna go for four more minutes. So we need to break a quarter of it. Eric, do you have that piece of language? I don't have that up now. I have it, if you can share my screen. You would have to. Can we do that? I can make you the co-host and you would have to share your screen. I couldn't share it. Okay. I can't share your screen. I will try my best. Now we'll see how technically proficient Senator Barouf is. Okay. Eric, you probably need to stop sharing your screen. Okay. Do I do that from here? Okay. Can you guys see that? Yep. Oh yeah. Good job, Senator Barouf. I'm impressed. Okay. So you'll see number three has been added. So this is making manifest what Joe and the Vermont traditions and other groups have been saying that this statute does anyway. It shall be a trespass in violation of this subsection if a person enters or remains on any land or in any place while carrying a firearm and signs or placards prohibiting the possession of firearms so designed and situated to give reasonable notice are posted on the land or in the place. Now, all that does is make explicit what others have been saying is implicit in this statute. I would be all for adding this to the trespass statute. And I think that would deal with a lot of our problem. That's helpful to know that would this be an amendment to the bill or would it be the bill? Well, I mean, it's the will of the committee. So I would hope that we could save some piece of S30 but I would join it to this because it seems like there's a consensus on the gun right side that the trespass statute is the preferable mode. This would just clarify what they've been saying it already does. So I will email this to the committee and people can take a closer look at it. But I think it does nothing other than, oh, the one other thing it does that Eric made sure of is there would be no need here to confront the person with the weapon as long as the placards or signs were situated as to give reasonable notice. So you wouldn't have to have an employee at the hospital go up to an armed person. The security guard or the police could immediately ask them to take the firearm out. But you're creating a strict liability criminal offense. That's basically what this does. Well, you're saying that it's already there. I need to, yeah. I think we need to move on because we're gonna take a break now and you're back at 10 o'clock or the public's whether you're hearing with the other two committees and I think you have to re-zoom in. Is that correct Peggy? Yes. Yes, can you stop sharing your screen, Senator Berthley? Absolutely. Thank you. Yes, you guys can, I'm gonna end the live stream. I'm gonna start a new one, but you guys can just all.