 So, first order is the eight-time skill. Do you have any? By the way, there are two instances we can embed. I don't know how I heard about that. What was the second one? I heard the one about the dance, the place where the dance. Yeah, there was another one at the right side. Just pray pen white power, and I don't, you know, on two separate cages. They're dumb enough to leave footprints in the cells. Which draft are we looking at? The first version you looked at was prior to introduction, so the introduction version incorporates the changes we talked about. So, I'm immediately at a disadvantage. Okay, so online. Has read it? So that was submitted by... Oh, it says 3.1. That was submitted by a son of a stakeholders. Okay. So, the as-introduced version should have incorporated much of what we talked about. Thank you. My as-introduced version is on top, I think. I don't know whether this is... This has happened a couple times in this committee, which I'm not familiar with. So, it seems like stakeholders can produce things that look like committees bills. How do they do that? I don't know how they do. You don't have to ask them. I think that they, oftentimes when you're working with stakeholders, will circulate the drafts, and they will submit their own suggested changes, right? I prepare a draft for you, not for them. But, I mean, do you take their suggested changes? Only if the committee directs me. I see. Okay. So, what is this called? Racial vise cases? Yeah, S-132. S-132. And what we did was we went over the bill, because the bill was late getting introduced, we decided to work from the draft version, change the draft version, and the bill was introduced is what we've worked on. And I'm going to ask right now if there are any changes to this, or if you want to bring the work through it, to remind us what was in this bill. I mean, the bill is originally a product that the Attorney General's idea to try to put together in that case that would give us information about it. I might add, I had a number of, over the weekend, a number of calls about S-119. I thought you were taking up government operations. It's S-120. It's not S-119. It's S-120, and no, we are not taking it. I shouldn't say that. What's the name of that one? It is, what it does is it changes. Well, I believe it was S-120, because I've gotten it on both. Remember last year we passed the, create the panel, and then they're going to look at systemic racism in the state, and then they're going to hire a director, I mean, they're going to work with the governor. And what S-120 does is wants us to promote, change the term from an executive director to a commissioner, because they'll have more power, which I don't think it would affect them. I'm talking about a different bill. S-119 is an act relating to law enforcement training and appropriate use of forced de-escalation tactics across the country. Oh, they're mixing them all up. Yeah. Anyway, let's stick with S-120. I couldn't have brought that up. Yeah, S-119. Would it be helpful if I had talked about this draft as the first one you looked at? Right. So, good morning, Bryn Haer, who likes his counsel for the record. So, section one has no changes from the draft version that you looked at. This is the section that gives the attorney general that civil investigative authority to investigate hit crimes. So, there are no changes made to that section. Section two, this is the working group. The creation of that bias incident working group, and there are lots of changes in this section. This is where the committee focused a lot of discussion when it last took up this bill. So, this formative language here says that the working group is created to analyze how to appropriately intake, respond to, and report on bias incidents consistently among all law enforcement agencies. And the goal of the group is to do these three things that are listed on page two. From each point of contact with law enforcement, victims or communities impacted by bias incidents receive appropriate law enforcement response, ensure that standardized data is collected regarding bias incidents, and when appropriate recorded to the attorney general or other appropriate law enforcement, and to ensure that individual rights are protected by the constitutional laws of Vermont and the constitutional laws of the United States are not violated. The membership of the group was changed to add the Vermont State Police, the Vermont Police Association, the Vermont Sheriff's Association, and the Defender General's Office. Didn't the Defender General decline? What's that? What did you say? Didn't the Defender General decline? No, I think they didn't want him, the other people didn't want him on there. That's right. Do we do that as a sheriff's? Anyway, the duties. Okay, so we've got some new language here that tasks the working group with consulting with the Human Rights Commission, the Vermont Coalition for Ethnic Access to Equity in Schools, the Vermont Interfaith Action, and the Vermont branches of NWCP and ACLU, and any other entities or individuals or working group deans appropriate. And in consulting with those groups, the winning group should define bias incidents for law enforcement purposes, identify or develop best practices to law enforcement response to bias incidents, including referrals, and establish a method to standardize the system of reporting to the Attorney General and other appropriate law enforcement, including establishing codes for bias incidents and ensuring the accurate data is collected and tracked. And the last duty on page, last two duties on page four, is to identify or develop law enforcement training on bias incident response, reporting and coding, and then reporting to the General Assembly, specifically the Justice Oversight Committee and the Vermont Criminal Justice Training Council by July of 2020. So we've bulked out that due date for the report. And then lastly, there's some language and subsection D there that none of the recommendations or actions of the working group should interfere with any individual rights protected by the Constitution. And that was language that was specifically requested by the stakeholders. So all we're on is section three. This is the minimum training standard. Before we leave that, I'm just wondering what is that speaking to? Well, since that was language that was requested by them, specifically I might direct your question to them. I think that they are concerned about infringement on personal enterprise so they wanted to make it clear up front that that was not the goal. But I would leave that to them if they can have a better answer. Well, the reason I ask is because none of the recommendations makes one kind of sense, but none of the actions of the bias that's been reported in the group is I'm not sure what actions the group could take that would copy these numbers. You know what I'm saying? But you're directing the question. I would say it gets to the heart of the matter though. If you post something on Facebook that's clearly racist but has no threat to it, does somebody have a better example? Somebody says that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was racist. That's actually a congresswoman who said that the other day. That's, you know, I consider those how it's going to take you. I get that. So she has a right to say that, but if you vandalize and break a window at a theater in Bennington and write white power because you're upset that they're hosting a group from Africa to do some kind of singing as a touring group. Like that? Which are? That's not a question. I think the action is the collection, the actual collection of the nap. But that's a recommendation that they're recommending the collection of data. No, because the goal is to ensure that their standardized data is collected. No, but the reporting working group won't be collecting data. They'll be recommending the collection of data. Okay, well, we can find out from the, what action means there. Yeah, my question is, why doesn't say just the recommendation, what actions could they take that would interfere with somebody's individual rights? Collecting the data, I guess. No, that is their goal. They're going to recommend the definition for it. They're recommending that data be collected. Yeah, but I think they're recommending that that is protected speech, not be collected. I think that's what that is. Right, but if you're going to panel a group, then they're going to make recommendations. But this is additionally saying they can't take any actions. Suppose somebody says you didn't interview me. That contravenes my constitutional rights. Is that included under actions? One of their jobs is to analyze. So I would guess that if they attempted to analyze by interviewing somebody, and they're feared with their constitutional rights, that would be an action, as opposed to a recommendation. I just think this is a really loosey-goosey piece of language myself. I mean, not in that its purpose is clearly to protect people's constitutional rights, but if you're on this working group, there's a piece of language that says your actions may... I thought that's... Yeah, maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I thought that the goal here was to not collect that kind of thing, that you're not being the thought police, but you are looking at racially-motivated incidents, and they're going to help to define that. But when they're defining that, you should keep in mind that there's constitutional protection to free speech. I think Philip Wants doesn't think that this group is going to take any actions. I think they are taking actions by developing the standards and by defining the definition of bias incident. Those are actions. Those aren't just recommendations. Those are, in my opinion, those are actions. Maybe the Attorney General would like to weigh in whose representative is here, but I thought what we were looking for was an incident like the ones that happened in Bennington, which were vandalism, but because they wrote the words white power appeared to be racist incidents. Both were vandalism versus a statement on Facebook, no matter how objectionable that statement might be. Am I missing something here, Mr. Attorney General, David? No, I think what you and Senator Wainer are saying is accurate in terms of what they're trying to protect against. There are actions that are being taken in accordance with Subsection C and as those actions and recommendations are being developed, be mindful that there won't be any constitutional rights or rights established by the state law and that's, I think, all of that is trying to say. There was a statement on Facebook, a legend statement on Facebook, but unfortunately it was white that during the Attorney General's investigation regarding Tia Morris and that statement related to if you don't get her black so forth, out of town, I will. That was a threatening behavior and that could rise to the level. But unfortunately, somebody deleted it and evidently during the Attorney General's investigation they couldn't find that particular statement allegedly was made. So that was considered to be threatening language versus language that says, you know, how can you represent how can a black woman that was by language, but how can a black woman represent white people in a white town? No, and I agree with that. I'm focused on the words or actions which I think brings up two fields of action. It's not your actions. It's the working group itself. It's focusing on their actions and how they're conducting their meeting, how they're interviewing with us. And I feel like that, I can see saying that they're recommendations but it seems like an odd spotlight to put on this group that the statute says they can't contribute some of these rights in their actions as a working group. I understand where you're going and I'd like to ask David a question. David, with subsection C, Human Rights Commission, for instance, is being consulted by this working group. If the Human Rights Commission is a working group to release files that are normally held as confidential, is that the kind of action you're trying to prevent happening here? I think that's a good example of something where it's a state protection established by state law and in making such a recommendation that would be an action that the working group is taking that would contraven a privacy rights established by state law and they therefore wouldn't do that. That's a very good example. Another example might be when it says to develop best practice for law enforcement response advice and it says possibly you can imagine a best practice being developed that does impinge on constitutional rights to free speech and that again would be an action that would contraven constitutional rights and wouldn't be acceptable in accordance with this legislation. We're a seat full of struggling and I understand why you brought up the question, the difference between the recommendation and an action to me at least charged to analyze certain things and then say you're directed to consult with entities might tend to lead some to believe they have a power that they shouldn't be granted to access certain things that would normally contraven constitutional rights. That's where I'm seeing the word action come into play because that's not a recommendation. I find myself thinking could this group be stymied at various points by people saying the way your board is acting contravenes my constitutional rights and they get all tied up? These are things that we assume anyway that they're going to act constitutionally and that the recommendation will pass constitutional muster but I think when we explicitly put it in here and we include actions it's sort of putting it out there as a tool for people to use against the working which I mean from whatever perspective they might want to do that so I don't know it's probably fine it just leaps out at me as maybe productive like unintended constitutional rights. Well then may I ask one more question a different topic I mean but we use anti-biostraining instead of implicit biostraining is that the term that's generally is anti-biostraining? That's existing One of the notes that I wrote down when we were discussing this bill was not turning law enforcement into a thought point that's where I think that's reflected so can we go to number three? Sure So the changes to the minimum training standards language include that if you look at the bottom of page four there's some new language that provides that on or before December 31st this year law enforcement shall proceed hate crime training as required by the subsection and two years later law enforcement have to receive the bias into the training as required by the subsection and then you see that there's some new language in subdivision three that in order to remain certified law enforcement shall either receive a refresher course or demonstrate proficiency in the training standards established by the council on the training required by the subsection I think that was a proposal that you heard discussed at the last meeting and then the last section section four the attorney general's report nothing about that section has changed that requires the attorney general to report to the standing committees on solicits by hate crimes Do you know what these dates were? Are you? They were just formed in section three all those dates worked out so this was a proposal from the stakeholder group that they agreed on so it just provides that honor before this last year law enforcement has to receive anti-biased training which I think they're already receiving and then why do we have that in there? Is that still in there? Honor before 12 2018 they shall receive anti-biased training so it just removes that requirement that they receive a minimum of four hours of that training that's what the change to that is why don't we just leave that whole sentence out because we already did it wrong? Well I think that because it's an ongoing requirement this is an ongoing requirement so you'll see that it's right and so then it just it bumps out the dates that they have to receive hate crime training to the end of this year and then two years later they have to receive the training on bias incidents so that presumably gives the working group time to come up with the training and does that I guess we'll hear from them but it actually gives them the time to do the identify and develop the training because first you have to identify what bias incident is If you're asking a specific person or both of them I'll ask for recommendations from the stakeholder group so I'm assuming that it gives them enough time but I will answer specifically That will fall probably on the academy to come up with it and that's already, we've already got even before you define the bias incident Yeah it works pretty much We've been working on this for over a year Okay I just wanted to make sure that we're not setting up for failure I'm going to just say the report in order to get it read by somebody does it automatically go to the legislative council Do you get it from these reports? We get them through through Justice Oversight We get them Could you add the Justice Oversight Committee Are you talking about the Attorney General's report? Yeah So that the Justice Oversight Committee is receiving the report as well as Yeah we get them through if they come to the standing committee I don't need to put that in We don't need to put that in Sometimes if we get so many reports this was a question Senator White introduced a bill of reports on reports that receive wide acclaim But really reports on reports And you know they automatically sunset after five years now I'm not able to read all the reports that we get but I would like to read them so I Probably shouldn't request it tonight You shouldn't automatically sunset now after five years Yeah but one of the reports that you keep asking about is the Governor's Budget Report and I think we should probably keep having the Governor submit a budget Yeah I don't think that should sunset I don't think that would will But it's always on your list of reports I know because they're always on Any comments from the audience about this bill So thank you Any further discussion about this Can I just ask Joe one question about the B on the top of page 2 Did you have some concerns about that being too far reaching B on the top of page 2 I remember there was some discussion of it about giving powers that might be the camera I didn't write down any notes I do know that ACLU had some they felt it was too broad and authority and I thought you had a couple concerns also I remember we did have some discussion about that We got the ACLU It could take a deposition to go down here See, it gives the the give subpoena power to this and you take a deposition for ponderance of evidence in the civil case, this part is questionable for Joe You may live in the wall If I'm reading there's a letter of February 14 correctly While such broad authority may be reasonable in the arena of unfair commercial act we find a grant of similar authority when it comes to possible private constitutional protection, speech or other aid-motivated discriminatory conduct from problematic So you're correct that they did have a concern about the broad authority And I thought Joe did also This is what I said As far as questions are concerned I always quote But I do think the section we just talked about regarding the constitutional protection That's the reporting The other one is gives the AG authority to That other provision is just the wording That Julio had a comment as well He's here I can tell you what he said What I wrote down I said If a person doesn't want to comply we would need to get it for those people No, she's asking Kerry, are you asking Kerry? I'm sorry, I was asking you No I'm sorry I'm sorry I just want to make sure that Because there was that question about I think the I've got a bunch of comments here It is a kind of interesting transfer of authority from commerce to hate crimes Thank you The same as in the consumer protection And their suggestion was that it may be okay to consumer protection if you're protecting speech here So we need to keep this information obtain confidential unless you go to court order Can we ask for copies 9VSA 246 2460 Yeah, that's the provisions That's the consumer protection And I believe it gives them I'm a little concerned because I'm having a complete blank Do you have the ACLU letter? Yes But According to the statute, this is their letter Whenever the AGO has reason to leave any person with the violation of consumer protection law they may examine or cause to be examined in books, records, papers, memorandums and physical objects bearing only violations While such pro-authority may be reasonable in the arena of unfair commercial acts in terms of grant of similar authority When it comes to possible private constitutive protection of speech or other hate motivated discriminatory conduct And then in a criminal context a warrant would be required But here you're just giving them the authority to get without the warrant I don't need Chloe White I need Chloe O'Tonk I just talked to Dave When's Chloe O'Gon to be better? I believe but hopefully tomorrow at the latest I'm going to hold up to work on this bill until we can hear again from Julio on the why this is a good idea or a bad idea Chloe is on her way but I don't know that I think her letter probably explains everything that she has concerns with but I don't want to hold up the bill but I do remember Julio talking about this analysis always take great notes I can't talk in person if he could send us you know what the issue is speaking of the devil Hi Chloe Hi we just we're going over your memo regarding the broad authority in B on the top of page 2 the attorney general's your letter was pretty we've decided to hold off to I don't know what they have time you haven't gone again for Thursday alright so Thursday to hear from both you and Julio on this specific section of the bill and you've got we've got your letter but I think we'll hold off to hear from both of you at that time and if Julio is still sick he could send us the letter or call me or whatever or he will be ready I don't want to take it I'm happy to speak with the AG's office as well maybe if you and David can work something out on this issue that would be helpful 60 minutes had quite a story about the ACL this week 4 million new members I thought you were on cruise I was back for Sunday night I was back in time to watch 60 minutes it takes them 2 hours to watch it 4 million additional people but the former executive director said they've overstepped their bounds they've overstepped their bounds maybe you have too many members they are promoting political candidates for the first time they say they're not but oh you should go on one 60 minutes story on the ACL no well Rhode Island Rhode Island and some other states bring letters of concern to the national ACL sorry about that Joe alright so we're going to take this stuff Thursday and progress continuing the progress that we're making are you doing are you doing this is Eric available if Eric or Michelle I'll take up either 105 or 117 okay Brent can you see if Eric's available to now if Michelle 117 if she's available yeah she's available alright yeah and it's really the age of this Thursday's tour you know Thursday's tour Thursday's tour is our way therapeutic therapeutic therapeutic use of Maryland well Eric's here for the miscellaneous bill whatever you like we can have all the witnesses for that one you know no we're just we're all set we've done our work we just need to approve the bill this is the miscellaneous not the good time right now he had an issue in there the escape work but I think he's good with the money oh okay by the way there was a bank robbery in Manchester and they can't charge you with bank robbery I think it's terrible someone should do something about that I think the miscellaneous bill should add bank robbery to our stuff do you know anybody that can do something like that do you know somebody who can do a lot I just felt like four members of my committee that I had to do bank robbery I don't try to do bank robbery bills maybe we'll do it after crossover I'm fine adding I've decided because you do go where the money is well the interesting thing working on the roof of the bank took a break from working on the roof, went in and robbed the bank came out went to McDonald's changed his clothes and then got caught because he was carrying McDonald's bag and everybody knew he'd gone to McDonald's this was all within an hour of the robbery the people's bank had been just did you think I know the gentleman and he's not surprised that shocked but not only did he change his clothes at McDonald's but he threw him in the McDonald's container where the police were able to identify the clothes that he'd thrown into the container and then he had a large amount of cash which the bank would not disclose the amount of cash because they don't want to say how much cash they would take at least didn't want to say how much cash but he had a large amount of cash but the fact is he was working on the bank roof that's crazy unbelievable so speaking of banks and cannabis which is about to come our savings and loan in Browbro is all set to take on cannabis which bill do you want to do they're meeting with the FBI to see this week Eric got there first did you make do you want to go first it doesn't matter I would just say that for the some of the people who are part of the discussion for the 17 I can wait finally wait I see there's people here but we can do this quickly should I go away or come back or stay stay right here please 105 what's left that's long to work with there are a couple of things one this is a the issue of the ability of the court to refer a definitive diversion without the consent of the space chair so that's the outstanding issue that the committee heard testimony taking different positions on this you'll see that it's for both juvenile and adult diversion in the bill it's on page 2 juvenile diversion page 4 it's the exact same language with respect to adult court diversion you see it does exactly what I just said that it does right now the consent of the state's attorney is required in order for a case of diversion except for the actually that's that's it so in this case it changes the existing law by allowing the court to refer the case of diversion without the state's attorney's consent if it finds after a hearing so you can see on the line 3 page 2 that has to be hearing if it grows in the interest of justice and the case is otherwise held so it's a policy decision for the committee I don't think there's testimony that the committee heard on both sides on this so it's you can certainly hear more from witnesses about it or what's here from Judge Gerison and if he wants I mean what do you have to add? I don't have anything to add to what I've previously testified to I had one minor amendment to the bill when you get around okay John Campbell or Mr. Pepper either one welcome to give your opinion of the state's attorney's John Campbell Executive Director thank you Mr. Chair for a lot of it thanks for the comments again you were not here when we were here to testify before and as Eric pointed out this is certainly a policy decision but I'm struggling around these days I'm trying to fix the bank robbery statute okay we had a bank robbery in Manchester I know our state's attorney was intelligent enough to find the crime charges but besides we have no law against bank robbery we tried to change it I got a lot of opposition yeah okay anyway why you're in favor of this or against it well it's really the two reasons number one I think it's really the search of a problem that I don't know I have not heard any factual evidence that the problem exists but fundamentally the biggest problem is I really do believe I've done significant research on the separation of powers this is a matter that when you give it a refer something to diversion or even deferred sentences this is prior to the adjudication this is basically a time the state says we're going to offer you something to say time out we're going to give you an opportunity if you complete the program or if you do what you're supposed to do then the charges will not be brought against the individual right now you're having the court in the judiciary branch come in and pretty much a serve pretty much but it will be a serving the obligations and duties of the state's attorneys and I think this is clearly separations of power between not only in the federal but also the state constitution so that's one part one that I think is extremely important but the second is that this is all about the version or about alternative justice I think it's clear what we have done in the last three years based on where this committee and the committee of the body has gone and said you know we want to see more alternative justice and we're in double digits and in fact the records for the data that was released in the report from Willow-Farrell it doesn't even take any consideration those cases that are not eligible for diversion but also there are a lot of our counties have pre-charge programs where that won't even show up in that I think the state's attorneys have done a great job and I feel that there's really no need for the court to now come in and say that they want to be able to overrule the state's decision and again I really have to point out that it's the executive branch's function to go ahead and to bring into prosecute crimes and it's the judiciary's then responsibility after their conviction to determine the sentencing so that's what I'd like to bring again to the the table here I would tend to agree with the state's attorney's position I think as I remember it now last time I I don't see any issues with having the courts be able to do it after a hearing but we just we've seen an uptick in the use of diversion now so I wonder why we would do this right now and let's wait and see if more states' attorneys and if they begin to use it more and more it looks like it's on enough swing and then look at it next year if we need to but I also think if we put some attention into conditions or beliefs I'm awaiting the bail bill from the House and I had some ideas there and I think that's a place where we could actually have more of a impact so I just had a discussion of some states' attorneys not doing it and a judge feeling what they showed up in this case but the fact is just like there are conservative states' attorneys they're conservative judges so I think it should just stay with the state's attorney's office I think I know where the committee is going but I just want to make this observation the state's attorneys have the power to bring a charge and I've always looked at the first sentences in diversion as falling into the category of disposition of a case in this particular language there's a hearing that assumes that you have brought the charge there's disposition now pending and the courts have the power under this language to decide it should be disposed of and I think that falls within their property not the state's attorneys I tend to agree however with what I'm hearing here until we see a glaring problem it may not get to be time to take that step but I think for future purposes I would have to disagree with you on where we're going with that separation of power garden because that is disposition of a case that has been filed especially if there's a hearing that assumes that both sides have been lined up for their respective arguments wise man who once told me I think he was the guy who sits at the end of the table there is that when you've won, shut up when you've lost, shut up so I'm not going to say which one but I there was a person in the front at one time who just told me shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up told you but I would love one day that we'd sit there and discuss it because it is a I think it's the sense of the committee that we take up the two and the other weapons both were B's they got both B's and I can just say on behalf of that we will continue well I think we'll continue again because Aleville is much more at some point we need to have somebody I think it's one of the things that came out of our meeting in New York City was the idea that we're one of the few states that doesn't have anyone supervising people on conditions of release and it's time to look at that because I think they need more comfortable in having people release when there's someone supervising you know like this bank robber I mean think about it working on the roof rather obvious walking in there with clothes working on the roof rob the bank hold that junior you go to McDonald's to have a breakfast I guess I'm unclear who would supervise him in that instance in some states it's probation in other states it could be the Sheriff's Department I think other states have varying the variety but I think it's more common to have probation and parole suit depends on the state we would have to examine the different states and how they do it I think one of the reasons that judges frequently are reluctant to release somebody on bail who's supervising the conditions now there's a danger there in having people reported for violating conditions not drinking or something like that but on the other hand it's called a condition for a person and it's usually somebody who is related to or living with an individual who's responsible to die but I think if you're going to transfer that to probation you might have a corresponding impact on the need for more probation and probably more prison time for people violating if you but that's a very good segue into the next one oh thank you as to which of the sections on page 7 it's all highlighted and I think we're not going to get to the bill on marijuana this morning though I'm sorry to all the people who are here it looks like this escape line which is going to take a little longer maybe it won't you might want to hang in there but it may not get to so there are we've been trying to work on um this guy that robbed the bank is so typically he's on furlough by the bank was he really? you know I know he's hungry I played golf with a guy he's fine I mean it's the sort of thing where if you want to see jail I think so so you got a place to live right now he's 37 years old of course clearly carrying McDonald's food is probable cause to be stopped so I'm curious to know how that well because the guy who was he was working was he went over to McDonald's for what? so he was outside of the bounds of his furlough no he was working on the roof at the bank you've got to read the whole story it sounds interesting if you're carrying a McDonald's bag and you're identified of the furlough that was working on the roof but you've changed your clothes did the bank know they had furlough prisoners on the roof? I don't know I can't answer that that'd be an interesting decision I don't know but since Commissioner Tuchette is not here Eric is going to explain the problem of escape on furlough as you mentioned Senator Sears that's a great segue into the furlough slash escape issue the issue here is that evidently there have been some folks who were on furlough who have been not actually escaping from DOC custody would have been simply failing to return from furlough which is specifically provided for and the status of the difference between escape failing to return from furlough but they've been charged with five year felonies for this and I think this was part of the discussion that the committee had about reducing the number of persons in the incarcerated population and this is a way to go about hopefully accomplishing some of that reduction so I went over this language with the commissioner I think that the state's attorney's got to see it as well although I'll let John testify to that himself but I think that it was circulated and so it's narrowed down substantially from the language that you first looked at so the way it's cracked it now and the newest stuff is really over on the top of page nine and as I mentioned there are separate charges under the escape statute between escaping from a correctional facility and just failing to return from either furlough or a correctional facility while you're on some types of furlough status what this proposed language does it says well it's not going to be a violation of one of those charges it's not a violation of the failure to return from furlough charge if you were on furlough status pursuant to one of these item eyes and you see line five page nine those are the particular types of furlough that it would not be a violation they are reintegration the first one 808a6 is reintegration furlough the second one is medical furlough third one is community reentry furlough fourth one is treatment furlough fifth one is home confinement furlough and the last one is another type of reintegration furlough so if you're on furlough under any one of those statutory furlough provisions then it's not a crime under the escape statute for you to fail to return from furlough that's the effect of that language however they still don't want to be able to bring the person back in right if you don't return and that's the language you see in the new section lines nine through sixteen absconding from furlough it allows the commissioner to issue a warrant for the arrest of the person who's absconded from furlough status and violation of one of the types of furlough that I just mentioned but it's not a new crime correct it's not a new crime they can bring them back in they don't get charged again and they don't have to do it this is a discretionary not your question I thought the person who I thought what we were designing here was a bill to accommodate someone who is at one of the treatment programs like the one in roughness and the one in Wallingford this one sells for example goes off to the reservation they're required to stay within certain bounds I know one guy who went to a car that was parked and they showed up across the street or in the driveway that's all he did he may have been getting drugs doing whatever he might have been doing but he was thrown out and then charged with escape and that was what I thought we were trying to avoid here I thought but on the other hand if a guy is on furlough and takes off and decides to go to North Carolina that would still be an escape and I'm hearing that that would not be any longer that would happen so it gives the commissioner discretion that's only for the person who goes to North Carolina and escapes can still be charged under the existing under 187 1501A they can be charged with escape but it's given him the commissioner the power to decide whether it's an escape no the escape is a totally separate thing that's a totally separate charge that we handled he could charge him with escape but he doesn't he doesn't charge, the SA does but he could refer that to the SA the SA could still charge for escape with a guy that went to North Carolina but the guy that just went off the Dismissal's property would still be able to be charged if you look at line 5 page 9 that I think the situation you describe is probably covered by treatment for 808A the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th one there let's take the guy from New Hampshire the guy that went to New Hampshire and committed a new crime could he now be charged with escape as well yep he would not escape but he was out of treatment for all this only is a this only is a defense to the charge under B1 it's not a defense to escape so the person can still be charged with escape under subsection A so are we decriminalizing failure to return from crime under certain situations yes not all for them because you see there are some degrees of thrill that are left could that lead to people saying there's no downside other than losing my good time so they still have to go back to prison they just don't get a new crime well they don't actually they don't have to go back to where they're gone for 15 days they have to serve the 15 days when they get back that can't count as part of their sentence so I'm reading that but there's no in other words if they just decided they wanted to disappear for a couple of weeks in state they come back there's no real downside because they're just making up the time they let it be up to the commissioner yeah you might want to ask the commissioner about that I would suspect that their internal disciplinary proceedings would allow them to that's I think was the idea was that they didn't want to lose their ability to discipline the person internally but they didn't want the new crime to attach that's right I remember that testimony so are there any comments or anyone judge for the record Brian Rears and Chief Superior judge I haven't had a chance to talk with Mike Touche so what I'm saying here I haven't explored with him but I was curious and looking at focusing on page 9 the section of Sconding for the furlough talks about the commissioner issuing the warrant that's obviously something it's not clear to me in this section what the standard would be is it probable cause the issue of on this it's not an offense if the commissioner issues a warrant a regular standard if you will a rest warrant is now forwarded to a central filing because it's entered into the NCEIC system so the warrant can be issued by anyone it's not clear to me where this warrant would go and who would have the authority if I can respond to that so this is just this is exactly what is an existing statute for failure to return from probation so you might want to it's an existing process the commissioner attracted on that language suggested because it's based on that language so I don't know how that process works but only add that it's not entirely new so it might be something there are two things you can do here we can drop the escape language and put it in the miscellaneous bill that's coming over from the house and get this thing out of here and you all discuss you and and Judge Gerrison and Mike Duchef anybody else who wants to discuss the escape language we can do it in their miscellaneous bill right sure but we got two miscellaneous bills running around or have you got it or is this I was just expert when I looked at this yeah but the authority's current law I mean getting concerned I'm not going to get any bills out this week and I don't want to obviously this is an important bill because it's the technical amendment to start miscellaneous provisions bill and I'm not trying to pull up the bill but just a question if we take that out and we take out B on those two things what's left a lot all the other stuff I don't think one of the effects is freezing punishment for surgery, guardian miswork, mis okay special investigative units retrial risk inspections a whole bunch of stuff this is a good bill maybe the most important bill we do all year my understanding with the schedule for this week is this was coming back later in the week for a vote well yeah I hope so but again this is becoming too with the escape it's becoming too complex I guess it would be a nice issue to solve because this is something that happens to people yeah no no no question about it our goal is to what I just described on the other hand I want to make sure we still got the person that abstains from North Carolina is committed to crime I might be also helpful if Duchenne could let us know how many violations of furlough there are well what's the record if we could get that if you could ask Mike to share with us that information in a year's time how many people are violated on furlough and how many are charged with escape how many are charged with new crimes etc but the only question really here is this about who does the warrant and how that works right well the difference between the warrant that the commissioner issues with violations ultimately there's a new charge therefore there's a review of that when there doesn't appear at this point to be any review of the commissioner's exercise of discretion to issue that warrant and what the effect of that warrant is if my only question so that's the outstanding question that was around the warrant and I'm glad to talk to the commissioner because as I said I didn't have a chance to talk one quick question from the judge I think does the commissioner now have the power to issue a warrant but he does in a probation of violation but that would ultimately lead to a new charge of violation of probation so there's an element that would be and this doesn't appear to have a review element for the commissioner's exercise of discretion something happened in the discourse here that I thought what we were going to do was establish a misdemeanor escape charge for that group that went out of bounds that they could be charged with a new misdemeanor and the person that went to North Carolina could get charged with the felony escape and that's what I thought we were going to do and something happened there between the commissioner and drafting the bill so that's the other alternative you could do that or prove it sure of me just change five-year family misdemeanor crime of that being discretionary as a part of the state's attorney and what to bring and just we don't usually bring these unless the actual DOC had come to us to say hey we want to bring escape charge on this thing that's why I thought originally they were talking about a policy change within the department saying look that's right it's the guy that goes next door for a cigarette or smoke marijuana let the department decide what to do what to do that's what I like can I just follow up on something Philip raised when the violation of probation comes to the court it's a petition does the commissioner already have the power in advance of that petition to issue an arrest warrant yes that's in statute that's what this is based, that language is the basis of this and I believe as John was saying under a furlough the commissioner can pick up somebody if they violated their furlough status whether or not they decide to bring a charge they don't have to go to the state's term with a new escape charge right I always knew that DOC could actually pick up somebody who was on furlough but we had to know that our issue was a warrant and that's what I usually thought a warrant was issued by the court sometimes they make a request to the court I thought the judge had to that's where I'm going with I always thought a warrant was specifically the prerogative of a judge I've never heard of the DOC and maybe that is the language but I've never heard of the DOC actually saying I'm issuing a warrant for the arrest of so-and-so they certainly have the power of a presence because technically they're still under their custody to say go pick up X but the actual issuance of a warrant that just sounds odd are there any other issues in this bill? currently none that's the last one I think it's not in the bill there's one amendment that I I'm proposing and I have copies of it it's to essentially establish a new crime for filing a declaration in other words under our new case it's all based on our new case management system it doesn't lend itself to a notary public loan I don't want any new crimes well if you right now the problem there are a number of statutes and I don't have a page reference to them that talk about a declaration under the penalties of perjury and there is currently there is no provision if someone were to untruthfully swear it's not perjury so this on one hand creates that new crime that if you're no offender under a declaration of pain and penalty of perjury there will be a crime for that it's important to us because as we move forward with our electronic case management system there will not be a a million of notary public documents that require notary public and this would allow us to proceed with electronic filing by declaration we can get all of them if he does call him I'd hate to have him go free because he didn't have a large thank you so we have been swearing people in for instance under but there was no action if there's a notary public that's different if there is that that could be perjury but many of our statutes say that you're declaring something that the pains and penalties of perjury every time you submit your payroll you click on something that you I guess there's no crime if you put ourselves in general that wasn't the idea but it's an example of where you're saying that under the burden you know that you say this is true and so this would make is that an unconscionable clause excuse me I don't know what about when it says you're not going to be able to do it because we still want the police to swear they're out of the car I need to give 10 minutes to Kerry and Virginia to talk about something yeah I think this is probably a good idea we'll get back to it later I'm glad to answer I didn't realize thought we were I know it was the last minutes so we're going to be rolling out our management system this spring that's my understanding it makes sense thank you um yeah we're going to add a little thing on bank robberies should be against the law but just add it to the group the grand varsity bank robberies depending upon the amounts okay you don't want to add anything the way it was I just just have it consistent with the county or I just texted of the county consistent with the grand varsity the grand varsity whatever the county the grand varsity oh so don't make it any different okay okay okay sounds good so good morning so I just wanted to have a couple minutes for you guys to circle back on the issue of testing in the medical marijuana film I spent 17 because we had Terry and Richie here and a few committee discussions ago and Senator Sears was raising the issue around testing at the dispensaries currently and we talked about the fact that there's really no there's nothing in statute or rules requiring testing other than you have the requirements that you properly labeled with regards to the NTHC and certain things that are on the labeling but there's really not anything there that do do their own testing and Senator Sears raised the issues of well I don't like the idea of them doing their own testing what can we do there's language in S117 in regard to expanding the ATLabs authority to be able to be doing testing of not just at but also cannabis and so I've been talking with Terry as well as Virginia, Rencro about capacity for the ATLabs to be able to do that but the issue is that because there's also a few dispensaries and there aren't these independent labs in Vermont that can do that it's not like there's a lot of places where they can go and do third-party testing but according to Terry who hopefully will track down here he says that the Ag Lab does now have the capacity to be doing compliance testing for the dispensaries so I think in talking with him I was like well do we need a new language do we need to tweak things to try to address your concerns he thinks that the language that's in S117 does it and that they can be able to do the testing the compliance testing for the dispensaries so I just wanted to check in with you guys that way if that wasn't satisfactory to you that I could look on some of the internal problems what does it cost to stay Virginia going to enter that question so Virginia Rencro Vermont Cannabis Trade Association now in the S17 there's actually language in here that the Department of Public Safety is responsible for that cost because the dispensaries are repaying $25,000 a year to them and as we've heard for the years there's actually money that they're not using so we they're dealing with the Department of Public Safety the Department of Public Safety has this kind of fund that's set aside so we've always felt that it would be again I think for the dispensaries they've always welcomed the testing and our conversations with the agency of agriculture over the last few weeks has definitely been that they can start testing tomorrow and where all the dispensaries are good with that and so it does have language in here that the Department of Public Safety would be and I think that Cary's here now that he can talk about that there has been an MOU developing that's on the signs yet between the agency and the Department of Public Safety and that's in section 6 if you look at the bill introduced in subsection C page 13 okay everybody's good we shall work with Cary and the language that allows I think they're fine with the language that the bill takes care of I think the language that you have in this bill and Cary's here and he can speak to that but the dispensaries are totally supportive of ag if they want to come tomorrow and start testing we don't think that there needs to be anything else in here that states that but I don't know if you want to hear from Cary sure for the record Cary's here you can see that the language in here mimics what we have for the HAP program well when you're in Randolph this afternoon if you look off to your left when you're pulling in that is our New State Ag Environmental Testing Laboratory we do have on the first floor the entire laboratory carved out for the cannabis quality control program on there will be an economy of scale we're building into the HAP fees that are moving through this body a position to certify third party labs and work on the recording protocol so testing the products from the dispensaries fits right in with what we're going on the methods are the same the instruments are the same um are we almost ready on this I think you guys have taken testimony but you haven't sat down and just gone through and talked about the issues that people raised you've heard from the medical society you've heard from dispensaries and so I think you've probably suppose in one section so does the house but if we didn't put it in the house it would be disappointing they wouldn't have anything to take out I don't think there's a big issue I think it's more just kind of going through the issues I'm talking about the expansion I have questions about the amount of 3 ounces okay so we did have some discussion in a week hopefully we'll finish this bill but we did get so everybody's okay with the testing great thank you for working on that