 Good afternoon and welcome to Vermont House Judiciary Committee. It is March 30th and we are continuing our deliberation on S7, which is an act relating to expanding access to expungement, ceiling of criminal records. And in terms of our agenda, we will be getting written testimony from James Pepper. And as well as Jeff Nunez. And I'd like to start with Erica Reddick, who is a citizen of Vermont, who is going to tell us her story. My understanding is a very compelling story. She did testify to the Senate. So welcome and thank you. Thank you so much for reaching out and for sharing your story with us because it's always, it's always so, so helpful. So, so go ahead. You know, state your name for the record and then glad to hear your testimony and then please let us know if you would take questions. All right. Thank you very much. Chairwoman grad, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to chat with you all and make sure I'm not muted or anything. My name is Erica Reddick. That's R-E-D-I-C for the record. And I'm happy to take questions after. I am really excited about this bill, obviously, because I would get to benefit from it. Back in 2005, I was struggling with drug addiction. And during that time, I decided that it was a great idea to steal money from my employer to support that habit. And because I am an accountant by trade, I was in a position where, you know, I had bosses that basically didn't pay attention to anything. And I had access to money to checking accounts and to all of those things. And so, you know, in the middle of that insanity, I was in a position to support my habit. I started stealing money to support it. And luckily, gratefully, I was caught within six months of the first time I cut myself a check and was arrested and charged with felony embezzlement. I was convicted in 2006. So I pleaded, you know, not guilty to begin with. So you get to do the plea deal. And I was in 2006, I pleaded guilty because I was, and I wanted to take responsibility for what I did. And so I served time at the Windsor state correctional facility. And was released later that year. And was on probation until my restitution was paid in full. So one of the conditions that the judge ordered, which I think was very reasonable and fair. This is not a complaint was that my probation was indefinite. Until I satisfied all the conditions of my release. And as long as I didn't reoffend and all of those other things. So my sentence was actually two to five years all suspended, but 90 days probation indefinite till I take things off. And again, I will say over and over and over again that I'm grateful that I got arrested. I am grateful to that. I went to jail, which is a crazy thing to say. But it was really a wake up call. And I, my cellmates were in for murder and attempted murder. Like there were five of us in one cell. It was overcrowded. Murder attempted murder. And I just saw. What my life will look like. Would look like if I continued down the same path. And so I got out. I started to put my life back together, you know, getting whatever job I could get. And that was really hard. And it sucked. Just like everybody tells you that it does. Because a felony conviction. It does not matter what you did. A felony means a very specific thing. So it doesn't matter that, you know, what I did was nonviolent. And I'm sorry, just so you know, I'm looking at my camera. So if you're trying to get my attention, just say something out loud. So. It means a very specific thing to people. And it doesn't matter what the circumstances were. It doesn't matter that. Had I been able to advocate for myself or had my family been able to afford an attorney to advocate on my behalf. It could have been a misdemeanor. But the victim wanted the book from me and understandably so. I do not begrudge them that. They wanted justice and they deserved it. I harmed them. And so that carrying around that label. 15 years later. 16 years later. Is. Is still very challenging for my husband and I. So I am very grateful that I was given a second opportunity at my career. An accounting firm in Burlington gave me a second chance. And I went back to college. I finished my degree. I started my own business. I now help other businesses. Be successful. My husband has his business and I support him. We're at landlords in Burlington and we support our community. I mean, I have a police officer who's one of my tenants. Who's awesome. Because we want to make sure that. We are supporting our first business. We're supporting our first business. We're supporting our first business. We're supporting our first business. We're supporting our tenants. Who's awesome because we want to make sure that. We are supporting our first responders. So I'm really have all these opportunities to get back, give back to the community, but. I can't run for office. Like I would like to, because you can't with felony conviction. You can't be supported by parties. We get denied housing. So my husband is a. I have a family. I have a family. I have a family. So we have to maintain a residence in Texas as well. 15 years later, we're still discriminated against in housing. Because I have a felony conviction. And again, it does not matter what's on there. There are job opportunities or. Opportunities to work with different clients that I cannot take because I have a felony conviction. And again, it just doesn't matter. I've applied for a governor's pardon. And I have been told repeatedly, that Vermont governors do not give pardons. So there is this. There is this. Appearance. Of an opportunity for redemption for people like me. That doesn't actually exist. It's, it's not real. It is just that an appearance. Of redemption. And so when I heard, you know, I talked to the governor. And he let me know that there was an opportunity that the Vermont legislature was looking for opportunities to expand and said, you are the exact perfect person. We need to hear from. For why this is important. So I feel like I could just go on and on and on. But I'll stop talking. And I'm happy to take any questions that anyone has at all. I think it's a great opportunity. And I'm happy to take any questions that anyone has at all. I, I, I do not carry. Any. Guilt or shame around this. And I'm always happy when I get the opportunity to use my experience to help other people, whether it's helping other women get sober or helping. The Vermont. House fugitiary committee. Decide whether or not they want to pass as seven. Well, thank you. Thank you so much. And congratulations and all the, and all the progress that you made. And, and I understand why. Why so difficult, you know, having come as far as, as you, as you have. And I will thank Senator Benning. For inviting you in the Senate and for making sure that, that we've heard from you. Have you tried a petition to the court in the interests of judge. Justice is sort of a catch all that. That has been successful at times. I'm not certain what that is. I'm not, I haven't heard that. I did, I was encouraged to apply for an expungement. In 2015, and I'd have to go back and look at my records. I was told to apply for an expungement, even though my crime wasn't eligible, just to see if they would do it or consider it. And it was denied by now attorney general. TJ Diamond, that then district attorney. That was his title or state's attorney. He denied it for, he denied it for some reason, other than why he should have denied it, which was like the time period or something like that. So the petition you're talking about, I'm not. Clear if that's something different. Yeah, well, why don't we can talk off offline. True. Yeah. But in the meantime, let's get working on this bill. Barbara. Thank you so much for Erica for sharing your story. So I'm wondering. You said you're grateful that you got arrested. Do you think if you hadn't been caught? You, I mean, what do you think would have happened and. I'm curious if something different would have had the same impact on you without having that felony. Front and center for you forever until something changes. That's a great question. So do I think anything other than being arrested would have helped me get sober and change my life? I think that's a great question. Right. And. Right. Yes. Okay. And I just want to make sure I'm covering everything. So there's, I have two parts to that. Yes and no. So no, I don't think anything other than getting arrested. And having to take responsibility for what I did. Was an integral part of my recovery. So. Yes, there are other things that were necessary for me to recover. So getting arrested, going to jail and doing all of that stuff. Is, is just a part of the recovery. So one of the ways that when I tell people, especially, you know, I'm a part of a 12 step program. A lot of people that I know that are successful in the recovery are part of a 12 step program. And part of that. Is owning what you've done, taking responsibility and suffering, whatever consequences are necessary with dignity. Right. And that is the way that is one of the ways that I was able to earn my dignity back. And I was able to earn my integrity back. That is a very integral part of the process. I think that if you robbed someone of the opportunity to use that language, but if you robbed someone of that opportunity to really take responsibility and ownership for what they've done, there's a gap in the process of recovery. That was not the only thing that was required. I tell people all of the time. That people have to help people recover. There is no government program. There's no, no, no service you can provide. There's no committee you can create. That will help people get sober. It requires other people taking an interest in that person's life to help them get sober. So one of the main things that helped me get sober. Was Colleen Montgomery of Montgomery. They're now called Montgomery and Grand Eye. I know her. Okay. So she doesn't mind you sharing the, the story. You know, Colleen Montgomery knew me because I was friends with her daughter and she called me and she said, Erica. I want to give you a second chance. And it was that. I just got goosebumps. It was that willingness of another human being to trust me. And to give me a chance. That really put me on the path to getting and staying sober. So until then I had, you know, I struggled. I go a few months and then I drink or I'd go a few months and then I'd get high or whatever. But it was like this person is staking their reputation on me. And I was like, I don't want to live in the ghetto. And I can not screw this up. And so would I, would I. Would it have been easier for me maybe to put the pieces back together without a felony on my record? Absolutely. Would it have been easier to not live in the ghetto and hear gunshots from my porch and have people get stabbed in my apartment building here in Austin. And it was like, that would be better, I would have been never pushed away. But was there a period like that? Yeah, it would have been. But those things also provided me an opportunity. To learn how to be in recovery and to stand on my own two feet. No matter what the circumstances were. And that I believe has made me a better and stronger person. prison and the time that it took to get your case to court. Were you offered treatment at all during that time period? Or support or, okay. Oh, yeah, I mean, I was encouraged to go to 12 step programs. I was then to. Yeah, we had. In prison, there was an NA meeting and a meeting. There was a Bible study. There were a lot of things that were offered in the prison if you wanted to and that was super duper important. If your employer had said, Erica, oh my gosh, we discovered what you're doing. We're not going to press charges, but you're going to lose your job. Like, this is serious. You know, you've hit bottom. I think would have, like, do you think you would have been able to get sort of the initiative to, and that's not an issue. I mean, addiction is hard. Like, I, if it were easy, more people would do it. You know, like, I get it. So. I'm just wondering, yeah. You know, just like what that would have looked like. I mean, losing your job and being caught is one thing. Yeah. I would say that that would not have been a bottom. Okay. If you if you remove the consequences for the behavior, you've now, the way I describe it is you lower the bottom. So that people have to fall even further down before they get to the point where they hit a stopping point and then have to make a different decision. So the more consequences you remove for that kind of behavior, the more you lower the bottom and the worst things have to get for people before they have an impetus to change their behavior and get help. Denial is definitely thick, right? Like it's hard to break through that. And that's the thing is people will ask me, I get asked all the time. Erica, you know, my brother-in-law committed suicide because of his addiction. How did, how did you get it? Or, you know, my uncle is living on the street. Why did you get it? And he didn't. And what I always say to people is, I don't know. Hitting going to prison wasn't my bottom, to be honest with you, but it definitely brought me closer to the bottom. So I had to hit an emotional bottom where I wanted to die, basically. And I like, so going to prison was like eye opener, right? It was like, oh my God, this is not good. I don't want to live my life like this. These people are crazy and this is what I'm in for, right? So it was like, it was like the fog kind of started to clear with that. But then I've never, but with that I didn't deal with why I was using drugs and how I got to that point. I wasn't addressing the hurt on the inside that led me there, right? So there was a process of reaching that bottom, just having to decide that I wanted something different, being offered another choice and then making that choice. But if I had never been to prison, if I had never had to really suffer for what I did, things would have had to get far worse for me before I would have done anything different. Thank you for, for, thank you, Barbara. Tom. Thank you. Thank you, Erica. Would it be, would it be fair to assume that somebody who did lose their job. That may be a bottom for them where they, they make the change and somebody else may have to go to prison to to experience I guess the, I don't know if it'd be the same emotional thing but just to get them to the point where it's time to change. Because it's possible, for sure. Yeah, but that's not really a consequence, because I can just go back out and get another job today. Sure, sure. But yeah, I mean I'm not the person who can say what someone's bottom will be. Right, right. Anyway, we have, we have a pretty long history here and house judiciary is, as far as expungement goes. I think this is a positive thing. The first, the first expungement that I remember came on to this committee seven years ago, and we had a guy named Tony Longinus, who was pretty much a advocating for himself for a period of time and we ended up passing as far as, like I said, my first child. And, you know, that helped him out you know as a 17 year old, fully 17 year old he, you know him and some buddies broke into some camps, you know type thing and you know basically stole trinkets and, and whatever and but he's always buddies got off and he, he was charged with a felony. And at 50, early 50s, you know he came in advocating for himself to have his conviction expunged, and his main reasoning for was he was a carpenter. And he, half the year he worked in Alaska, and he had to fly to Alaska because he had a felony and couldn't go into, go into Canada. So anyway, after everything, everything worked out and we passed a lot he had it expunged. And he got to drive to Canada got the drive to Alaska. And the next year he came back in and sat in the witness chair and cried. Just because that that simple thing is he was able to drive, drive to work but I've, I benefited from expungement as a, as a 21 year old. I got a DUI. And, and again that kind of advocated for myself a few years ago or anybody else in the same situation it seems like if somebody had a DUI in whatever number of years went by for me at the time it was 40 years. And it seems like maybe, you know on some level that could go away because chances are of somebody reoffending after 40 years is probably pretty slim but just, just another situation where we've done something and done some good as far as expungement goes. You know, you know with a licensed thing, it could potentially, you know, stop somebody from getting a job driving or whatever so you know I have high hopes for this bill of course can't make any promises at this point but I certainly look at your crime that you committed to me as something that, that could and should be expunged. I don't think to me, when somebody is convicted of a crime, you know once, once jail sentences are, you know if that's what it is or served fines are are paid restitution is made to me. It doesn't make sense to punish somebody for life, they've gone through their punishment, and it's it's time for the punishments to go away but, but anyway, that's all I got thank you. Thank you. Yes, hi Erica. I'd like to thank you for being here thank you for your testimony. I commend you for taking full responsibility for your actions during this very trying time in your life. But having been someone who has experienced this and has gone through for lack of a better term the embarrassment of going through the court system and being incarcerated and so on so forth. I don't know if you've had the opportunity to look at seven or actually look at the language in the bill but having been someone who has experienced this now. Do you have a personal opinion. Do you think that if they were if this were to happen again not to say that it's going to that's not what I'm playing whatsoever. But do you think that a person or person should be allowed more than one opportunity for expungement. If they haven't learned from their first time. No. Well, okay, let me let me make sure I'm clear what your question is. So if what I heard you ask me. Is if someone continues to demonstrate criminality. Should they be offered expungement. Yes, basically, if you're if you're convicted of a crime, and you've done here I believe it's roughly five years without a similar offense or any other fences. And I believe for certain offenses you're eligible for expungement, which I agree I think everyone deserves a second chance I agreed that wholeheartedly. But after that five years in that first expungement. The question I guess in your own personal opinion is do you think that that person if committing another offense should be of eligible for another expungement charge. I do not. And personally I don't think five years is long enough to demonstrate recovery from whatever behavior it is. In my personal opinion, I think if somebody has if it's 10 years from the date of conviction, and that this was my recommendation when I was testifying before the Senate committee was if you say, you know, five years from discharge, or five years from conviction those are very different things because it took me, you know, 10 years before I was able to get my case discharged because I had to pay my restitution in full. And so, I think 10 years from the date of conviction or the date of arrest or whatever, I think is is reasonable. But if you're continuing to demonstrate criminality, you should not be granted further benefits of the court. One of the benefits to me of an expungement is you have demonstrated that you have been rehabilitated from whatever behavior it was that had you get arrested in the first place. So for me, as an example, if I'm sitting here asking you for an expungement from something I was convicted, arrested in 2005 convicted in 2006 it's now 2021. If I had been if I committed another crime five years, you know, and 2010 and 2015. I haven't really demonstrated that I can be trusted, especially if it's the same crime for goodness sake if I was continuing to commit embezzlement, you absolutely should not expunge my record, because I am a danger to the people that I'm working for and with, and people deserve the right to know what is up with people. That's my personal opinion. Did I answer your question. You did. I want to thank you Eric, I respect your opinion and I wish you and your family well and going forward in the future. Thank you sir. I want to make sure I'm not missing any, any other committee members. Great. Thank you so I should have your email if not I know our committee assistant Evan does and and I'll be in touch. Awesome. Thank you very much. Yeah, thank you committee. Thank you really, really appreciate you spending the time with us. Yeah, take good care. Okay. All right. Pat just and Pat is ready. Good afternoon Pat. Welcome. I host judiciary committee so nice to see you. I know we haven't seen you much. I know long time no see. Good to see you. So we, we do have documents posted to, to support your testimony and are there other folks that are testifying with you. That's all good. Terry Scott is accompanying me and judge person if he could get away was going to be available. And then, and I guess I should say for your record I'm Patricia Gable I'm the Vermont State Court administrator, and I was invited today, regarding s seven. And I assume that the invitation was related to the fiscal impact but I wasn't sure, because as you know I'm not the one who's been following s seven so Terry, our chief of trial court operations is available on the technical issues. Yes, that that would be that would be helpful to your fiscal impact is as well. Shall I say something. Well, we're always, you're always welcome to. Okay. If you prefer to pass to Terry would understand the impact the impact of s seven on the judiciary is is really what we need to understand. All right, so what I provided to you is a copy of the judiciary pandemic response and recovery plan, which I've discussed informally with representative squirrel in the house and Senator Sears in the Senate, but until today, I hadn't put it in final form. So this is a proposal for a request of funds for the way that the judiciary would be able to respond to the pandemic which is currently still ongoing, and still having an impact on the court system, but also to recover from the pandemic. And those of your members who have a chance to look at the plan will see that it's a comprehensive plan. It identifies ways we could deal with the restrictions that we still have. We've always been open in some way, which means that we've continued to have access to justice in the judiciary. However, due to the impacts of the pandemic, there have been times when we've been completely physically closed where we're only doing hearings remotely, for example, either by video or audio, or other times, where even though we're still holding emergency in person hearings. We are still restricted in terms of where personnel are located. And I think you may know from the legislature's experience doing video that video is a, it's a hand, it's a real godsend to be able to continue to do operations. But on the other hand, it means that everything that we do takes longer. It's this very linear path. And so, we really got a whole group together in the judiciary to take a look at what it would take for us to start expanding the way we are conducting our operations and that includes both. We're starting to get courthouses cleared for doing jury trials again, and that's very challenging with ventilation. And we're learning and continuing to try and learn how to use our existing technology to expedite proceedings to find more efficient ways of doing things. And expungements are part of that package because as you know we have already had legislation passed. And so we do have backlogs in our expungement work that the judiciary needs to do. And we also anticipate if S7 becomes law, that that will simply expand the number of expungements. And so as I provide in my plan, we have both an operational plan and a financial plan, which if we do get the ARPA funding to or any funding that ARPA is the one that we hope to receive, that using those additional resources that will not only help us deal with our current backlog and expungements, but it will also help us during the pandemic respond to any new legislation that may be passed. And you'll see when you have an opportunity to look at the plan that we are going to be trying to use the lean process that I think your committee's heard about before to find ways to streamline the way we do expungements. And so I know you've heard testimony before that the with we've got records in on paper, we've got records on microfiche for all I know we've got records carved in stone for they go back in the archives but wherever they are. When we're doing expungements we have to find ways to address those and so right now for those files that are not totally on the new Odyssey system. It's a fairly time consuming laborious process to do expungements. But even when we get through the five year look back period and the files still are, you know, they're on Odyssey. They will streamline fortunately the technology will help improve that. There are still a couple of manual things that and clerk review that still needs to be done for expungements but once we're past that five year look back period and out of the out of the backlog of expungements will will be much better able to provide the services that the legislature would like us to provide to carry out the policies. That's great. Thank you. Thank you and I spoken with Senator Sears as well about if there's possibility to to get some of that that relief money to the judiciary to help with things like expungements and backlog backlogs and and access to justice certainly priorities of our committee. Well, we welcome any questions about any part of that proposal but we know that expungements are an important policy of the state of Vermont and for important policy reasons and if we can get the resources we'd like to, you know, play our part. Thank you now appreciate that Barbara. Hi Pat so nice to see you. I know that I was confused about this new software and what that would do. So, there's no sort of scanning old papers into the system, the system or I mean I guess scanning when entering them it would be the case. But can you give us a sense of how many convictions. There are, and roughly how many there possibly could be that would get expunged. I mean I realized, and by that I realize you don't know what laws are going to pass but I'm assuming. A certain amount of years ago somebody isn't alive anymore or. We've had some of those. Terry's a better witness in that issue I think Terry, if you're on. Absolutely comment on what your anticipation is what your review shows. So, our last legacy case management system went back to 1991. And then prior to that everything was handwritten and all of that information is still held up at public records. Things after that are pre 1945 and back end up over in the archives. I've been working the last. Oh my gosh, like five or more years. Actually, I've been on the records management committee and one of our goals is to get is to update the disposition. And then we have guidelines for records so in 2007, well, I think it happened before then they were they were started microfilming back in the late 80s, early 90s, and, and so all of those cases that are on micro fish now, or microfilm are, you know that those were done by the public records and grounds at that time so having been one who has searched diligently to find old records when we're looking for a case to expand or for other information. They were basically handed, you know, into a pile, and they just would shoot the paper through. So it's done by years, but it's not necessarily done alphabetically or by docket number. So it's really often difficult. They, they tried to have a starting page which people used to handwrite as they box up old files, and some of that has been helpful. And I tell you the Sarah is a wonderful, wonderful agency to work with and they've been a lot of help for us they've even given the Chittenton division one of their film readers, so that we can expedite some of these older cases when we find them. So at that time, all of the, all of the disposition orders say, put it on microfilm destroy the paper file. So those old paper files are gone. The problem I think I've explained in other years with the microfilm is there's no way to get it off. When we, we started doing small numbers of expungement they used to take a little exacto knife and try to scrape case off the file of the film. And that was just not sustainable. And it also sometimes ran into the next file on the film. So it was really a bonus for that person. Yeah, yeah, and difficult for, for, you know, the film to hold up well. So, in 2007 is when they decided to stop. It became too unwieldy. There are some big reels. Sometimes it takes one of the viscera staff hours and hours to get into the middle of one of those going through clip by clip to find the correct files so we've moved on from there starting in 2007, but we've boxed up those files. So we take up, I want to say Tonya Marshall told us like at least 25% of the, of the space up at the record center. So in there, you know, I mean, it's not unusual when you think about, you know, Chittenden County probably does a little over 2000 criminal cases a year. They're our biggest money. I'm sorry, say that again. 1000 communities a year. And so filings that we have to retain those records. So, and then you go on around the state and I don't have the exact number Chittenden. All this stands out for me because it's our biggest court. But even our smaller courts, you know, our app to have over 1000 cases. I was the clerk in Windsor and I think we ran around 12 to 1500 criminal filings a year. So that's that going way back. It was 1000 a year to You know, I think it's, I think it's probably increased over the years as we've added more charge codes, you know, we've built the systems up and more charges, you know, drug trafficking and all of those things that have been added over the years and the we provide us with new charge codes annually. So we're, we're constantly adding, adding those to the criminal division. So, so there's a there's a big backlog and when you expand the case type, like a seven is going to do. So it's the question is, are these all going to be retroactive. So we will go back, you know, just much like the person who testified earlier. We're going to see what a difference this will make in her life. You know, we're going to go back and look at all of those cases, or people can be able to petition. And I'm assuming Vermont isn't like an anomaly that other states have the same issues. And I feel like Pat, you had talked at one point about having contact with the other like our other states finding just other ways of addressing it because there's been so much expungement in our country that I'm just wondering how some of the ceiling cases. Yeah, some are, I think Judge Gerson had spent some time and I thought he might be on but that you know across the country they've been looking at ceiling cases. I'm not sure how they're retaining those. Some have been ahead of us as far as a case management system that can then retain those seal files which is something Odyssey would do. And two years ago when we got the expungement legislation, it was a couple of different steps which makes it a lot more confusing and a lot more tracking for court staff or states attorneys to. So I think we're, I think we've been paring it down. The legislation looks much more simplified, you know, it's after those five year periods. You know, I think they're still looking at whether you know what the state's attorney's discretion is as to whether or not they want to view every single case. And then you know once we've expunged them we have to notify VCIC, which is Jeff Wallin shop and I know that, you know, he has said it takes two sets of eyes in his shop because he's also sending this out nationally so. We have steps that have to be followed but like Pat noted the nice thing about Odyssey now is that we have a we have a functionality in there that will help us to do that. Totally out of yeah out of the system so. So I've got one last question, which my committee mates may or may not like but would it be easier if we said everything from X year back is expunged. In some ways I'm thinking, if somebody hasn't committed another crime since definitely use I was trying to look back at the years that you said let's say 1968 or something. Would that be easier because you were just getting rid of the whole stack of microfiche at that point for those years. Yeah, I mean, but again you got to look and see what's on all those pieces of microfiche. I just wondered if. Yeah, I think the easy thing with the microfiche is that when we get a docket number that we've expunged, you know, instead of trying to scrape it up. The Sarah is working with us to keep a, you know, an index so that if somebody requests a record you would know we would have to how we would respond, you know you would look up that as far as the process goes, just like we're doing with all of our expunged cases now we're keeping those indexes so we're pretty clear that, you know, things, there's no record. And Terry you can correct me if I'm wrong but I think judge Gerson has advocated for coming up with ways to deal with the status of cases that's different from actually physically doing something to that. He did definitely mention that. Yeah, and that so that's one option, which would make it much easier for you know and you know the law would say when we're asked do you have a file about John Doe. Our answer is no we have no file on John Doe because we're told you know that that's the status. That's one opportunity is to continue to look at those kinds of solutions and the other opportunity is in our proposal which is we're going if we get funded as requested, we'll be doing a review of a lot of business processes including this one, and I think that's an opportunity where instead of just an anecdotal review of what other states may be doing it might enable us to do a more. You know deliberate review of the other ways that states are dealing with this particularly regarding files that aren't fully electronic right. There's a couple of different ways I think for us to tackle them. Thank you very much for giving me all that background that's really helpful. Thanks. Thanks. Hi everybody and I so sort of like my tricky being a new member and stepping into these issues that you guys have clearly been working on for a while so I apologize if my questions are done or maybe if there are questions that will be addressed in a different committee but I just have a couple questions about the proposal so. I think I'm hearing and let me know if this is, if this isn't accurate to the part what I think I'm hearing is, you know, once the sort of like new, I think it's called Odyssey system is up and running for a while. After five years or beyond, you know, assuming people within the system have been maybe all of their history isn't calculated within the new system. The notion is that it'll be a much easier process and so I guess my first question is the team that's being proposed is the idea that that sort of group of people that you are currently requesting that that would change or shift after, you know, five to 10 years that this is really like a an interim effort to try to get things moving along or is the notion that this team that's being requested would sort of be an ongoing group. That's a excellent question because one of the things that we had to do when we considered what would it really take for us to really do what we need to do and what I said it to my team and we were putting this together is the ARPA money is one time money. And so, fortunately now it's expanding a number of years because the cares act money which we did spend, but my Lord it was, it's hard to spend a lot of money fast that way and it means that you have to carry out initiatives in a much faster way than we would. So, so you'll see when you have a chance to actually review the report that we actually build in a kind of special vacancy savings component into the different spreadsheets. And we have a ramp up piece, but then we also have a ramp down over a period of 12 months. And so most of the positions that are in there related to expungement we those are limited service positions and it's not our intention. And those there may be a few I think when you look at the ramp down. There's maybe a little over a half a million dollars that might be in there as a legacy for things we need to do but of course that's also four years down the road. We felt that wasn't an unreasonable estimate, if you will, you know recognizing that it's pretty hard now to really anticipate what, you know what'll finally be happening so that the manpower the docket clerks we have a 13 or 14 docket clerks in there. That's really intended to be limited service to deal with this period when we still have a lot of people on paper, you know the files. The anticipation is that we will, you know as we start to come to the end of the spending capacity of that money, then not use those positions anymore, and the way we deal with that is because they're limited service positions even though those positions have benefits and the like, they know that it's a time limited job. Thanks, and just to get a little clarity is, is this this team of folks, like is, is this to address primarily the coven backlog or how much of this is related to, I guess maybe, I'm trying to get a sense of like, if change is in Vermont law or is the notion that upcoming changes potentially in Vermont law will cause some like zoom and expungements or is this specifically related to backlog related to coven or I'm curious sort of how those things relate to one another. So the, and I, and I realized you probably haven't had my report to have much chance to look at it but let me see if I can pull it up right now. So the, you know, obviously, the expungement legislation has, you know, we've been sort of looking that over the last few years, but most recently. There's been a, an increase in the, the pandemic the reason the pandemic is a contributing factor is we were already, you know, quite challenged to manage, you know, the expungements, even under normal timetables. The pandemic hit that suddenly all the things we did a stop and as you know there are certain kinds of emergency cases that were required by statute to put our resources to. And so the, the pandemic has really created a significant backlog that we really need to address so the report that I gave you covers many more things than expungements. That are the causes of the pandemic but the expungements are one of the case types in a particular the, the labor intensive nature of the paper and microfilm records that we hope over time will become less of an impact. I don't know if that answered your question. And I don't know. Yeah, I don't know for you how the pandemic and real life was already challenging but the pandemic is a whole new dimension. Yeah, and I look at the expungement section of your report and I, and it brought up the question for me of like, you know, to what extent are we estimating the staff impact that expungement law will have, you know, like how is that being factored into the work that you all will have to do. I guess the last question I had was, it looks like the last section of this bill is requesting a commission, I'm looking at the process of expungements and making it more efficient and sort of like how to work with it in general. And so, I guess I'm just curious how the request that you presented sort of aligned with that commission like, is it like actually working in concert or. Yes, it's actually very much in alignment because the commission, you know, the commission could look at other states or what have you but really it's in the judiciary, where we have to make sure that, you know, our practices and rules regarding the records and our technologies and changing law. We're even if a commission was given this mandate they would be having to work with us very closely so if we have the resources we've requested and particularly the availability of the lean process, where we're already saying, let's take a look at this then then I think it's where we would be partners in that is the way I would see. Thank you. And I, I think you're referring to the sentencing commission you are you looking at section eight. I mean, well, we do have written testimony from pledge donates that that the timeframe, the November 1 timeframe is workable and and so I think that would be very helpful. Although I do have questions about the effective date of the state and the report. I think the effective date might be on July one and the report isn't doing so November so I need to think about about that. I hope that we get permission to spend resources in a timely way so we can be good partners. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, other. Thank you, members and I, and just Greerson is here and is welcome to. To comment. And also to pass, but. Good afternoon. For the record, Brian Greerson chief superior judge. I would like to present a Rachel since question about other states. The problem is that. As in so many areas of criminal procedure. It's really apples and oranges. I mean, you can't compare. It's difficult to compare one state's process to another. We have a system that calls for obviously sealing and expungement. I mean, we have made some progress in the last few years in the sense that we've done away with the idea that we physically have to destroy records. We clarified that under either procedure, the response is no record exists. And. Whether it's viewed as a big step or a small step, it's a step that certainly lifted a burden from, from the court and any other entity that has these records to find a way to dispose of them. But following up on the comment by representative Donnelly chair, the sentencing commission did meet yesterday. We spoke about this and we've formed a committee that is essentially the same group of individuals who have been working on this subject myself and defender general attorney general's office and certainly the state's attorney's office. We would include Jeff wall and or somebody from VCIC because they're the other prong of this of this project. So we hopefully will, I think everyone in that group recognizes the need to transform this system, some fashion, how we do that, I guess, is what remains to be seen. I think with the introduction of Odyssey, it does give us more options than we had previously. And I think that's where we will begin to explore this, what I what I would hope is that that we could have a system. We can call it ceiling or expungement but the idea would be that once it's in the system, we can try to make more the finality of it, more automatic in the sense that we can look at timeframes how long you want to keep files open. How long are these files going to be accessible, who is going to be able to access them, and how. We can focus on those questions. That that's my hope that we can. I don't think it'll ever be fully automatic. If the committee remembers last week when I was talking about the Judicial Bureau and, and cleaning up those records, I'm still working with the Judicial Bureau and DMV over trying to come up with some language that they both understand than they understand than me. So, I know they've met this week and I know they're going to continue to talk so hopefully we'll have something on that but it still is always going to require staff involvement. I think that the case, even if appropriate from a timeframe is ready to be permanently sealed is, I guess, phrase I like to use or that no one will have access. Are there any intervening steps that have to be taken. Is it a predicate offense. Some of that will come through our Odyssey system. In other words, if there are pending cases for that same individual, we can readily access those. But whether or not the state has the burden of coming forward in objecting to a otherwise a case that's otherwise ready to be expunged that's one of the real issues we have to grapple with. And on the front end, and I know I've testified to this before so I won't belabor the point but we need to work with the Department of Corrections for instance, we're not at this point informed when someone completes their sentence. If they pay a fine to our system. Yes, we have that information but anybody that's on probation or served a incarcerated sentence and maybe on furlough status. When they're discharged when they've completed that process, we are not necessarily involved or notify more importantly, so we don't know when the triggering event for final complete non disclosure begins without adding that step to the process which obviously puts a burden on on doc now that would be that they do not have at this time. There's a lot of work to be done but I would like to think that we can certainly improve the current system and make it less labor intensive but there's always going to be that human element at some level. So, that's really all I have at this point, but I'm glad to answer any questions committee members may have. Thank you that's helpful. Thank you. See Bob I see your hand up. Yes, thank you. Maxine is this the only day we're going to get to ask questions on s seven here with the testimony or we're going to have other days or. Yes, we will have other days is this is complicated. Yeah, and we'll have more versions of the of the bills so. Okay, I won't. We'll eager this my question actually was was going to go back to a pot in reference to a lot of the positions and so on and so forth that we're going to take testimony and I guess we can we can handle it down there. Well no go there. Here and her colleagues are here so I would say, I'd say it's a good time to ask. Okay, thank you. I'm looking at all these positions patterns so on so forth and I see where you are thinking about evening hours and quite costly weekends also for these is it just for expungement cases I take it or. No and I have to be careful. That's something we would look at as a possibility. But as I also mentioned in there that we would only go forward on something like that if all the stakeholders not just external stakeholders but internal stakeholders were on board on that. I think it's important to say because judge Greer some I have talked about that and he looked at me when I said my court and I just want to make that clarification that that is one thing we would consider. If others thought it was a good way to go through. Okay, what we do have on TV that my court on TV but obviously. But I was curious, if in fact, I'm looking at staying away from the it stuff because I'm not even going to get into that stuff. But looking at page page nine retired judges docket clerks, court officers $110,000 for the first year referring simply to the courtroom officers in that particular case. So page nine is the summary of all the different initiatives but yes when you see those. For the bringing retired judges back, for example, and if we did have extended hours. That's meant for to say that we would need that much FTE to cover work we're doing beyond what our normal compliment is right now. And if in fact you get to the point where we do have court in the evening hours on weekends or whatever the court doors going to be open to the public. They would have to be to let the people in. If if we were having hearings right so you could also have a situation where there could be internal judiciary work being done in the building that didn't involve external players and if the building's locked. And there aren't security issues because it's off hours, then you wouldn't necessarily need security officers for people just to be in their workplaces if it's a safe workplace without that. But if you're talking about bringing people into the building at that time then of course you wouldn't need that. Well, well I'm looking I'm looking I can't find and I'm sure you can point pointed out to me as if in fact the facilities open the courtrooms are open, and the front door is open. Where would I find additional screeners. Yeah, so. Hold on a second. And I'm happy to take more security officers. I'd love anyone to advocate get more security positions. I'm just scrolling in my document so. So on page three, you'll see that's where we talk about you know potentially bringing in retired judges. And, and you'll see that includes court to additional court officers with potential for differential pay for staff people as well if they're asked to work extended hours. So your court officers are basically right now state employees who work within courtrooms correct. I'm not necessarily know. They can be the court officer is in the courtroom but it could be someone who's an employee, it could be a sheriff, serving as a court officer. Terry Scott is much more familiar with the security needs Terry can you talk about that a little bit. Sure. Sure. So, when we're holding hearings we always have a security officer courtroom officer, and then anytime our doors are open we have screeners some some of the larger courts have more than one screeners. There's a Chittenden and Washington Windsor, there's some that have state employees that are security officers in the courtroom, otherwise we contract with the sheriff's department for our front door security, we typically in smaller courts maybe have one security person doing the screening on a day where we had a jury draw or a large number of cases we would have to on duty there to keep screening moving forward. Your $110,000 court officers in fiscal year 22 includes your courtroom officer your screener potentially someone assigned to the jury. So what it does and and these are sort of expansion estimates. And so these are the additional resources we think we would need, obviously depending on what was happening that day. And if you did decide to do extended hours. You might do it in a way that people just have a different work day. So, you know, these are kind of estimates what what do we think we would need to make this happen, but we might need more. Okay, thank you. I'm sure as we delve into it further there I'll, I'll have more questions given more opportunity to review your 10 page written testimony here. And I would, you know, love to, you know, sit down at a meeting and any areas where you think that we didn't think it through carefully enough we'd love to know about that so that we can approve it. Thank you. Yeah. Selena. I'm just, I'm still digesting your report, which is really, really helpful just about your recovery plan and knowing that, you know, we have huge backlogs in so many areas of your work so really appreciate the opportunity to take a look at that and I apologize if this is redundant with other folks questions or with anything in the plan I've been kind of like listening along looking at the plan. But I know we we not that on and go funded some additional positions for expungement work. And I believe those are still, we're still funding those right like we didn't. I don't care about that and again I'd have to ask Terry you, we got funding for temporary. Yeah, positions. Yeah. Right, we had five tents for the five geographic regions. And I believe those have all completed their work completed their time, not the work. Okay, so those are those positions are what what did those positions do when expungement stopped during the pandemic. So, those were 10 positions I think most of them are not with us anymore so that we have I think Terry didn't you get, weren't you able to do some expungements during the pandemic. Oh during the pandemic. Yes. Yes, we have continued as you know, legal aid and the AG's office work together to have a couple of expungement clinics. We had those coming in we were also working on the backlog of the and I think Pat this is in the report there was, you know, the diversion cases I think there was around 15,000 of those and I think we're down to like eat. So, so when there was time we have continued to work on those and also ongoing we have folks who aren't deferred sentences so when their sentences up. Part of that deferral is that they then get their case expunged and so we continue to keep up with those. So when those dates come up, you know they're automatically expunged as as the result of the closing of their sentence they've completed their sentence. And then last year with the marijuana convictions, we had started those after I think that bill passed in October so we've been slowly working on those when there's been time and availability for people to do those so. Even though the administrative order kind of put a pause on expungements you've been continuing to do them when you can and use these temporary positions to just I know I've always wondered about that because we we sort of said like we're not going to do expungements anymore but then we were still funding those positions during some of that time and I just wondered. Yeah, so it sounds like some of that work is still continued even. The yeah with the marijuana convictions there are so many of them and we just because it's got the timeline to January of 22. And so I think people were feeling a little angst about getting too far behind that, you know to catch up on those things so. We're asking Greg mostly who's our chief of finance and administration, whether we still had any more capacity there and apparently we don't. In other words, we use that the resource you kindly granted us well. Okay, but we, it's not there anymore. Okay, they were 10s. Okay, so we're sort of starting from we're starting from almost from scratch with assessing the. With this caveat. The positions that are in this proposal of some of them I think 38 of those positions are extensions of the cares act, limited service positions we had. So right now we have a number of limited service positions not related to expungement, but just related to operations generally related to the emergency funding we got and we're looking the positions where requesting in this report are extending the ones we got and then adding some. Then as I mentioned, as we get to the end of the funding, we phase out the use of those positions because we don't want to end up with a cliff, a resource cliff where, you know, we're still relying on them and you know I had a Supreme Court and I had a long discussion about that because I realized that for us to be able to deliver on this report, which is not only ramp up, which is harder than you would think you know to start hiring people and spending all that money, but also to have the discipline to put it down. And that means that it has to be managed like a formal project you need to have formal project management, and you need to have those, you know, timetables fixed. So not only are you dealing, you know, humanely with people who have come to you to work for this limited period, but there's always the opportunity as well as we learn more and more about how we can use our technology. But there may be some things we learned during this period where we would want to make some of those new positions permanent, but at the same time there may be existing positions in the judiciary that are obsolete. And so when you, you don't let people go but what you do is if you get a vacancy and a position that's become obsolete, then that's another way of ramping down. And that's why this program if we're funded for it will, you know, include somebody doing formal project management of it to make sure that even though it's a multi year project that we you know we have timetables and deadlines and we learned that within the judiciary with the case management system project which is like a five, you know when we started with the funding was like seven years ago but you know really a five year project and so we had to practice formal project management and governance. And this would be like that. It's a substantial amount of money to request and it's a big responsibility and a duty to, you know, manage it well be good stewards of that funding and manage the, manage the positions down at the end. Great, thank you. I guess I still I'm still I think maybe maybe I might. If you're afford I might just ask to try. I've always sort of struggle a little bit to understand how the expungement workflows and funding can act. And I don't want to take like all of the committee's time on it but just find some time with you if you're willing just to make sure I really get it. Yeah, we're happy to meet with you and just want me because I'm the person with the least matter expertise but as a team we'd be happy. And as I said earlier. And this proposal we put together but the more we have questions about it and challenges and the like. It can always be revised as we, you know, have more insights that come to us from, you know, people who are asking thoughtful questions. There's a lot happening during the pandemic and this is like one more thing so we're doing our best to come up with a plan but it could certainly benefit for from people taking a good look at it. I mean, to be clear, I'm a I'm a big supporter of expungement and making sure you have the resources you need to do it but I just want to I just want to make sure for myself I can see and understand that more clearly so I can be a good advocate too. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Any, anybody else. I think that should be very helpful. I think if you, if you did meet and then come back to us because because this is an important issue and we do want to move it forward and make sure that the judiciary is supported and that we that we pass go. Okay, I'm not seeing any other hands. We still do need to hear from the Attorney General's office but let's take a break. Let's until three. Does that work for you, David to come back at three. That's no problem. I'll see you again.