 You have a chance? Great. Okay. Welcome. Good afternoon and welcome to Vermont House Judiciary Committee. We are continuing our testimony on H128 and actually relating to limiting criminal defenses based on a victim identity, victim's identity. We do have some proposed language based on the testimony that we heard when we first took up this bill. And so if Attorney Bryn Hare could join us and walk us through, please, the language is posted on our website. So good afternoon. Hi, committee. Bryn Hare from the Legislative Council for the Record here to talk about an amendment to H128. So everybody should have draft 1.1 before them. And let me know if you want me to share my screen or if everybody has it available to them to walk through. I'm assuming that everybody has it available to them. Okay. So this will be pretty quick probably that just a couple of of proposed amendments in yellow. The first is in subsection B. There was I think a little bit of confusion from some of the committee members about what the language in B meant. So the change here is to sort of reorganize it and split it out into subdivisions to make it clear that there's two different types of evidence that are not to be used to mitigate the severity of the offense of the offense. And the first one is evidence of a nonviolent romantic or sexual advance by a crime victim towards the defendant. And because there was a little confusion about what that means, I put in another option that you could use. So the element could be a nonviolent advance or an unwanted non-forcible advance by a crime victim towards the defendant. So something for the committee to consider that different different words there. And the then I'll actually bring excuse me. So in terms of this language, can you can you please tell us where it came from? If it's from another state or model, I'll say you're. Yeah. So unwanted non-forcible comes from a model model legislation that would eliminate these types of defenses. And it was issued by the Williams Institute, which is a part of UCLA School of Law in 2016. So I am I am not sure about other states that may use those words instead of the nonviolent. I would have to check that. But that's where that's where those words came from. All right. Thank you. Selina, I see your hand is up. Yeah, I wonder if this happened to me when I was looking at it before, but I wonder I would like to hear your thoughts on whether the language specifically of unwanted might actually limit what we're trying to do here in comparison to the previous language. So well, it could be wanted in the moment, and then someone changes their mind. And are we sort of precluding that kind of a scenario? Yeah. So I'm not I'm not sure that it would it would limit what you're trying to do. But I do think it's a it's might be a little squishier of a word. And I'm reminding myself that this these are actually the words that are used in the Colorado legislation, unwanted, non forcible romantic or sexual advance. And I believe that there was some conversation. It's sort of when the bill is being introduced about changing that to nonviolent to make it more of a straightforward element, as opposed to when you're getting into unwanted, which which might be a little bit more difficult to interpret. That makes sense to me. Thank you. Appreciate that. Okay, thanks. I heard something else, maybe not. Oh, I was just saying keep going. Okay. Okay, so the next change is on page two, subsection C. And this is the requirement that the ledges that the General Assembly gets from reporting from the prosecutor's office about these types of cases. And you did hear some testimony that there was some problems identified with this language. So I made a few changes here first was to substitute the executive director for the Department of State's attorneys and sheriffs for the Attorney General's office, since it's likely to be the state's attorneys that are prosecuting these cases. And also to change some wording so that it makes it clear that it only applies to convictions. So it would be these the committee standing committees have to get a report on the convictions that were handed down in the prior year for any cases in the criminal division that were motivated by the victim's gender gender identity or expression or sexual orientation. And that that is intended to address the problem of expunging. I think that the state's attorneys may have raised the issue that expungements happen fairly quickly for charges that are dropped or in some way resolved. If the court doesn't make a determination of probable cause or if a case is dismissed prior to trial, those records are eligible for expungement within 60 days of the date that the case is resolved. So this language would make it only apply to convictions as opposed to charges that are brought for these types of crimes. And then lastly, just to include the include of the Superior Court to make it clear that we're talking about what division of the of the Superior Court we're talking about cases being a part of. And so that's those are the those are all the changes in this draft. Great. Thank you. Thank you very much. Committee members and actually representative Small, I'll consider you a committee member for purposes of asking ledge counsel questions. I don't know if I see the other sponsor representative Court is here. But anyway, so any questions for Bryn? Okay. All right. Great. Thank you so much, Bryn. Okay. Representative Small, welcome. Thank you so much for having me back. Clarifying, would you like me to testify on the proposed amendments here today? Yes, if you're able to. Thank you. Looking back at three or sorry, be one when we're looking at unwanted non forcible, as Bryn had highlighted, the use of nonviolent was looking to expand on the piece. And I guess in ensuring a story as to how these defenses are typically used. What this is trying to get at is a situation in which two people, the potential defendant and crime victim are engaging in flirtation out and about or possibly at home. And at point of disclosure or point of the defendant finding out about the person's gender identity or sexual orientation, reacting in that panic in the moment and saying I do not I do not understand my own sexuality to be gay or I did not know that you were trans and you did not disclose that. And therefore my reaction is through an assault or some kind of crime in result. And so the the piece around unwanted and non forcible that that unwanted language is the the concerning one because as a representative Colburn identified, it may not necessarily be unwanted until a later time. So it could get in the weeds a bit. And then for section C, looking at the report piece, excited to see this language maintained in the clarity as to how the report would be done. I am curious kind of in future work around data collection in the piece around charges and knowing that when we're looking at the data for harassment, bias, discrimination, violent acts or harm committed against the LGBTQ community, that information is currently stored within our nonprofit sector and isn't collected by the state. So hoping for better data collection seems to be the theme of the year and making sure that we are including LGBTQ identities in the mix. And that is all great. Thank you. Thank you so much. Appreciate your your testimony. You're being here. So make sure they're okay. Great. That's a question. Yeah. Thank you. Taylor, you talked about those private organizations collecting the information you're concerned with. Thank you for clarifying, Representative Burdett. They are not collecting all of the information. They are collecting the information that is given directly to them from the clients that they're working with, rather than looking at these systems and where these charges are occurring. Oh, yeah. Big difference. Because I was thinking if it was good information. Well, it probably has good information, but I didn't know how much they were collecting. And if they were collecting the bulk that could be collected, would it be just a matter of sharing what they had, but what they have to share doesn't sound like it's adequate. Exactly. And thinking about it would be on the victim's end to come forward to the organization and disclose, rather than having kind of that greater catch of information. Right. Right. Yeah. It sounds like there definitely needs to be an expansion there. So thank you. Great. Anybody else? Okay. Great. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. Bor Yang. Good afternoon. Hi. Thank you for having me back. Bor Yang, Executive Director of the Vermont Human Rights Commission. I think my testimony is going to be really short today, as this is about specific language. And I want to defer to the State's Attorney's Office and the Defender General's Office on language and how attorneys who practice in this area would interpret that language. And as I mentioned, the Human Rights Commission does not enforce or defend criminal defendants in this at all. So having said that, I also know that I owe you all written testimony. I've just been a little busy this week, but I will follow up. And I still do support this bill we do. And we would love for it to see it passed. And I'm happy to answer any questions. I think the language was clear before. I also think that this language seems clear to me as well. And so either or would be okay with us. Okay. Great. Thank you. So if there are any questions. Great. Thank you so much. Okay. Jessica Barquess of the Network. So you're here. Hi, everyone. Jessica Barquess of the Network. Speaking just to these changes in this version, I would say that like Representative Small, we also support the nonviolent language. We think that is clear. And that would just catch up all of the situations in which we're trying to catch with this bill. I do think the other language change there online 18 makes that much clear. So happy to see that. And then we have no issues with any of the language changes in section C. I do think that is going to be an interesting data collection because it will probably include all of our sex crimes because they are in some way motivated by gender. So definitely interested to hear more about that. Great. Thank you. Questions. And again, Representative Small, please if you have any questions for the witnesses considering you, part of the committee today. Thank you, Madam Chair. Sure. Great. Not seeing anybody. Okay. So I understand that Representative Cordes, the other sponsor has joined. So I want to give her an opportunity to weigh in if she'd like or if she needs a little bit of time I can go on. Here you are. Hi. Thank you. A little bit of time would be good. I was embroiled in another issue. So I need to catch up. Absolutely. We are going through the new proposed language, which is on our website. Okay. Great. Then Brenda, Brenda Churchill. Hi. Good afternoon, Committee. Thanks for having me back. Brenda Churchill, State House liaison for the LGBTQIA Alliance of Vermont. Upon reviewing the amendments that were submitted, there is, I have no issue with the language either nonviolent or unwanted, enforceable, and I'm aware of the difference. I think if you guys are talking about that, more expansive definition would be nonviolent. And on the next page, the naming of who is going to get the reports or give the reports, I think was a difference that I noted. And I think those are good changes to actually direct them to and from the right places is good. In all the Alliance and myself would be very gratified if you guys can move this to the floor. No objections at all. Thank you so much. Thank you, Brenda. Again, just want to make sure there aren't any questions for you. Okay. Let's see any. Thank you. Thank you so much. Okay. Representative Kors, you get down? Yeah, that was fairly easy. They look straightforward. It makes sense. And thank you to this committee for your good work. Great. Thank you. Appreciate that. Okay. And Moira Brilliant from the Pride Center here. Good afternoon. Hi. Hi. Thank you. Yeah, my name is Anne. She here pronouns and I'm the interim director of the CCC Anti-Violence Program at the Pride Center of Vermont. And I agree. We support the changes to this. And I think if it were one or the other that I support the language of nonviolent, but we, I like the changes and thanks so much. Okay, great. That's a lot easier than some days. Again, I just want to make sure that committee members and sponsors don't have any questions. Nope. Okay. Great. Then James Pepper. Good afternoon for the record. James Pepper from the Department of State's attorneys and sheriffs. Just wanted to reiterate the department's support for each 128. You know, I think nonviolent. I don't, none of their state's attorneys really had a preference between nonviolent or non forcible. I think it's kind of attorney. It's something that the committee should just pick one or the other and go with that. And I think that towards the defendant is an improvement as well. And I think, you know, thank the network for raising that. I do have some concerns about the reporting section. Essentially, you know, our data management system is actually had in the phase of obsolescence right now. You know, our underlying company that owns it is no longer doing any sort of updates or services to it. So we are in need of kind of transitioning to a new system. That being said, we don't really have the ability to easily track or report hate crimes because it is an enhancement. So it's not an actual underlying charge that we could easily search for in our database. And I know, you know, there's kind of, it's possible that this would also include a number of sexual assault data. I think that would probably be somewhat easier to track just the peer convictions on that aspect. But with respect to hate crimes, even if we could kind of just isolate crimes that have the hate crime enhancement or convictions that have the hate crime enhancement, this actually would require a secondary step because it's not, you know, this the language that you're that this report is looking for doesn't cover the full scope of the hate crime statute. You know, it's not asking about data related to race or religion or national origin or disability, etc. It's merely looking for crimes that were committed, motivated by the gender, the victim's gender, gender identity expression or sexual orientation. So it would require actually looking into the individual affidavits to see what the specific elements of the crime were and what the motivation was and I would just want to note, you know, it calls for demographic data of the defendant and the victim. We currently don't track demographic data consistently across the state. There's certainly a number of state's attorneys that don't want to kind of know the demographic data of the defendant prior to charging or put it in the database because they don't want some, you know, potential implicit biases to creep into any sort of decision making at that early stage. You know, the referral packet from law enforcement oftentimes will have a kind of just a standard data field that includes the defendant's age and race and sex. Nothing necessarily on gender identity or ethnicity. And even when you talk about race and sex, I'm not really confident in, you know, we've been talking on our racial disparities in the juvenile justice juvenile and criminal justice advisory panel, just about some of the inconsistencies that we're seeing across the state and how this data is reported and collected. You know, there's no real consistency, you know, amongst the many law enforcement agencies that we have with respect to whether race or, well, I'll stick with race. Race should be officer observed or it should be self reported by the individual. And there's no real consistency around whether, you know, someone is either bi-racial or multiracial and there's actually really no consistency around race and ethnicity. So, and we also don't track a lot of this data from a victim point of view. So this study committee or this reporting requirement does pose some potential problems for our department. I was on the phone today with Rob and Joy trying to discuss this and I tried to get in touch with some members of the judiciary to see if there would be some way that we could modify this bill that would allow us to provide kind of a more helpful report for this committee or for the general assembly. And we didn't come up with anything kind of off the fly, but I will say that, you know, the racial disparities advisory panel did do a deep dive into all of the kind of discretionary points along the criminal justice pipeline and identified probably all of this data and many more data points, you know, broken out by the demographics of the defendant, the victim, the attorneys, the judges involved, the law enforcement officers involved, that I think would cover a lot of this. I know that that is a proposal that we have submitted in a report, but you know, I think that report highlights some of the difficulties or complexities of the data collection that I'm trying to kind of enumerate here today that makes this report somewhat difficult to do, but that's, so that's my main concern with the reporting section and I don't have a quick easy solution to kind of, you know, change the wording of this section, but I think it's something that, you know, I think portions of this data are accessible currently and I just need to work with some of the stakeholders, you know, the courts and the crime research group to figure out what we could be able to do relatively easily and then knowing that kind of this RDAAP recommendation is kind of being discussed certainly and, you know, would I think cover a lot of what is being requested here. Okay, thank you. That's helpful. Appreciate that. And I see Selina has her hand up. Yeah, I'm wondering for you or perhaps another witness, perhaps David Cher, just what kind of reporting already exists around the hate crime sentencing enhancements? I'm sorry if you, if that was something you already said, but. No, so I don't, so the hate crimes in particular, I don't know if there is any specific reporting that's being done. David, you know, I'll leave it to him, but I know that, you know, Julio's, the civil rights enforcement office does have a database where they can kind of track incidents that have led to some sort of action, but I would defer to him on that piece and, you know, I could try to find, you know, a way if there is a way to pull, I just, so there's not, you know, there's not a huge incidence or number of hate crimes that are being convicted every year. So I could try to find a way to kind of provide that data from the last year, but it would be kind of just a lot of work to just try and track those cases down. And I don't know if there's a way to easily automate that from our case management perspective. I mean, that seems beyond, and I think, as you've said in your testimony, this section of the bill really intersects with a lot of bigger ongoing issues, but yeah, it's actually shocking to me that we don't have, I can't easily account for the hate crimes in the state. So I'd love to hear from David Scherer when he testifies more about that, but I appreciate your observation that this in many ways just does intersect with a much bigger issue that we're trying to tackle. And so there's a puzzle here of what can we pull out readily and easily as it relates to this issue, if anything, and what needs to be really tackled as part of a more holistically and comprehensively. Thank you. Yeah, thank you for just noting that. I do think that this data is important in the fact that it's not being done, you know, the collection isn't being done systematically. I think is a major gap in our criminal justice system, so. Okay, thank you. I see Kate and then Barbara. Thank you, I guess just sort of a reiteration of what is already being said. I guess I'm curious if part of what we're saying is that, you know, tracking this type of data is what's being recommended among the groups that are looking at this kind of work and that it this is the direction we want to be moving in. This is best practice. Why I'd like asking this with genuine curiosity, what would why not keep it in the bill? Like if this is where we're headed, I guess I'm curious to hear why I sort of understand this notion that like what we're doing that piece of work over here. So let's sort of keep it in this realm. But again, if this is sort of the direction that we all want to be headed, I'm curious to hear why we wouldn't include it in this particular bill. Sure. And thank you for the question. I mean, I don't, I'm not necessarily saying don't do it in this bill. I'm just trying to kind of give you a sense of how incomplete or how little value, I mean, that data might actually be if, you know, if we're not seeing any, if we don't have a consistent definition of some of the characteristics that are being required in this, or being asked for in this bill, then I'm not sure how useful it will be. And and I think that we do, we are collecting at least partially some of this data right now. I was talking with, as I mentioned, Robin Joy, and she seemed to have some partial solutions to achieving at least some of what's in this. And I do think that we could come back. I mean, I know that this bill is scheduled for a possible vote today, but come back and try and help craft a section that would would provide at least some of the data that is being required. But it's not, it's just not, I mean, we're not keeping track of the victim data, for instance. So I just, I don't know how we could we could do that easily. And if there are, you know, you know, I just don't know how expansive this request is, whether it is limited just to kind of gender motivated sexual orientation motivated hate crimes, or whether it's all sexual assaults. And I just, I'm just not, I'm just not sure how, how we would go about providing this information. And that's my own, that's my main concern about having this in here is just trying to figure out what it all means at a later date and how to get it to you. Yeah, great. Let's see. Barbara. And I thought I saw saline and salmon. That's down. Okay, go ahead, Barbara. So Kate just asked something that is basically what I was going to ask, and it sounds like pepper, you're about to get a new system. Is there any way, I mean, even a simple, like, search of, I mean, it is really important to have data. And I wonder if there's a simple, less expensive solution to do it rather than us backing off on it. Because so many times I think we don't have the data. I mean, this could be a huge, huge problem. And we just don't know about it. And yeah, I, without, I mean, that data is so important to us in terms of doing our work and being able to, is our things getting better? Are they getting worse? Is it contained to one town? So boy, I don't, I would hope we could figure out a way to get this from somewhere in the system. Because it seems like you're getting, the defendant general's getting, and judiciary just got new. So like, there must be some, not that expensive issue that I mean, tool we could put in place. Because I agree with Kate, I don't want to remove it. I don't want to remove it. Well, I, you know, the benefit of these types of questions and the work that the RDAP is doing right now in the timing of our case management system is it's a lot easier to build on the front end than trying to retrofit kind of something on the back end. And so I think that's a very, it's a benefit to us right now that some of these questions are being asked when we're actively looking at new case management software. And the other piece that I think is also a benefit to the state is that we're looking, you know, at the same companies that are that are providing the judiciary with their case management software and the defender general. So they'll all be able to communicate with one another without having to create these kind of artificial bridges between them. So there are some, there are some silver linings right now to this, but I take your point. Believe me, I do take your point and this is a serious issue and it would be great to have the data right now to kind of highlight how serious of an issue it is. Tom. Thank you. I don't even know who I'm asking. I guess anybody who thinks they may have an answer. I hope somebody has an answer, I guess. But what's going through my mind with the information that that is being collected right now and so, and I don't mean to say it's bad information other than it may be incomplete, I think. And what are the dangers of having that incomplete information and determining an outcome from that? I would hate to see, you know, I guess lack of a better word, ramifications come from having incomplete information in a study. From, you know, from what Pepper is saying, you know, today we, to me, what I hear him saying is today we don't have the ability to get proper information to do what we want to do. You know, it's not always great to to wait on things, I guess, but I'm just fearful of what could come out of this by not doing our due diligence and having the proper study, I guess, if any of that makes sense. Well, we, as a state, you know, don't really even have consistent definitions of things like race, ethnicity, gender. And I'm just worried that, or whether this is based on an officer's observation or whether it's self reported by the defendant or the victim. And, you know, we're seeing very inconsistent coding from one police department or law enforcement agency to the next with respect to things like ethnicity and race or conflating the two. So I just, it would be challenging, it's a challenge currently. And, you know, and, you know, this is kind of just, you know, it's a tough situation is one that we've been struggling with in other contexts for a long time. And I think we finally have gotten to a point where, you know, a lot of the folks on the racial disparities panel, which includes almost everyone in the criminal and juvenile justice system, have gotten to a point where we've all recommended, let's sit down and figure out what we mean by these data points. Which ones do we need to collect? And where can we actually get some consistency and data quality standards in the state that you can make informed decisions so that the legislature can make informed decisions? So I guess from there, I guess what I, the question I guess I would have is it, you know, is it bad slash incomplete information out or in? Does that generate too bad incomplete information coming out? And I think it does. Is that a rhetorical question? Sure. Yeah. Let's hear from Selena. Thank you. Well, I think it might be a little redundant with this, but as I'm listening to this, I mean, it does seem like there's part of this question and this work, but clearly overlaps with like places where we're trying to get more definition about sort of how we are, how we are going to really, you know, define and measure demographic, some of the demographic data that's called for here, for instance. But I am wondering if there's some interim step that we can take where at least, I mean, there is a known universe of hate crime sentencing enhancement charges and convictions that are brought, right? So could we maybe put aside some of the demographic questions aside and put something in motion that does create, and the scan is where I think it would also be really helpful to hear from the Attorney General and maybe from the Human Rights Commission too, if they have more to say on this matter. But is that a kind of known universe of things that we could ask for here and be able to then parse out, you know, which of those were motivated by sexual orientation or gender identity? I think there is a path forward along those lines. I just, I really didn't have quite enough time to connect with all the people I wanted to connect with from the Court Administrator's office and, you know, the crime research group, I was able to talk to Robin and she had some thoughts. I don't want to put her on the spot. I know she's not here today, but I do want to just follow up with her about how we can get just kind of at least that kind of information to you and maybe from the Civil Rights Division as well. Yeah, and it seems like, you know, if we're going to get that, let's get it, let's get it for everything and then be able to see what subset is motivated by gender identity or sexual orientation. But we might as well, I'm assuming we'd have to look at the whole universe of those things anyway to get at that subset. And so it seems like maybe there's a path forward that would look for some reporting around that. Kate. Thanks. I'm just going to see if I can sort of wrap my head around what it is I want to say. I mean, I guess I just feel like in the context of this conversation about data, I feel inclined to want to step back a little bit and just acknowledge that we're talking about this in the context of a bill that addresses harm towards marginalized people. And I think that when we're talking about building in systemic support for marginalized people, what keeps being talked about is, well, in order to really make sustainable change in these areas, we need to know what's happening. And in order to know what's happening, we need to know the data. And so then, you know, so now there's this inclination to want to ask for the data and then the response, and this is by no means directed at you, Pepper, but, you know, then the response that comes back is like, well, we don't have the capacity to track the data. And I think we just find ourselves in these cyclical loops where the sense, I think, among marginalized communities can be, well, then what's the path forward. And so I think that's why I guess I just want to name these things as we're talking about the better to have incomplete data or fully complete data or like, why are we pushing on these things? I just think it's important to name that dynamic and that oftentimes it is these kinds of conversations and legislative intent that then leads to greater data being tracked. So I appreciate us having this conversation, you know, whether or not, you know, it stays in this bill, you know, I think that can stay a part of the conversation. But I just think it's important to put it in that context in terms of why we, you know, from my perspective need to kind of keep pushing for these data points. Yeah, and I agree with you. And, you know, for some folks on our racial disparities panel, I know it's a different issue altogether, they are just as frustrated because honestly, even knowing the data, you know, some of the members lived experiences enough to justify doing something, you know, it's not like they don't need the data to kind of, you know, justify action. But at the same time, you know, if we want to see positive trends, you know, if we want to see what change is happening, I think it is good to have one baseline data into, you know, you know, consistently reported data, you know, annually monthly on all of these things. So, you know, Connecticut, you know, a lot of the recommendations in the RDAF report are based on the model that was developed in Connecticut, SB 880 was the bill. And, you know, it took some time to get everyone to have consistent definitions and to get the systems in place to collect the data. But now they have annual reports and then monthly check-in reports to see if there are the trends that they projected each month are being met and, you know, seeing, you know, if there's any kind of aberrations or things that are going on in the criminal justice system that need to be addressed immediately. So, I mean, it is, it's a part of a larger question, but also, you know, very, very timely, you know, you know. Yeah, thank you. Anybody else for Pepper? Well, thank you, Pepper. Really, I appreciate your thoughtfulness in this and thank you. Thank you. Martin, you have questions? Yeah, I mean, I do have a question and it's, and maybe I missed this, but what is the timing for when you think you're in a better position to get this data? I know that's largely up to us in the bill that we're hopefully going to be seeing very soon that's based on the Rdap's work. But I'm just wondering if we put this through and we just do something with the effective date for the second part. Just throwing that out there, if that's the issue, keep this there, keep the fire burning under you all, but recognize that we're doing some other work on this very issue right now. So, I guess the question is, what's the timing issue for you on when you think you can actually effectively have this data? Well, I don't know the exact timing on the new case management software. I know that our system is essentially obsolete at this point. I know that I think there was a recommendation by the technology committee to prioritize the state's attorney's case management software. And again, like I said, if we can build some of these data reports into the ground level, so that when we're migrating data or trying to establish what we can easily run reports on, it's better to know what we want. And that's why I think the timing of the Rdap report is fortuitous and certainly this reporting requirement could be built into the ground floor. So, there's not any kind of proposal as far as how long out, if we even wanted to go this route, as far as having a different effective date for the second part or for the reporting obligation? I don't know the time, just because I'm not involved in those discussions from our kind of management in our internal department. But our executive director could tell you where things stand on just our case management on that aspect. It has to be approved, of course, by the legislature and the appropriations committees. Thanks. Barbara. Okay, I'm going to sound redundant and grouchy to some extent, but like other parts of things that get funded with government funds, don't have the option of not collecting the data. Having worked in the nonprofit sector, people were counting stuff on paper sometimes, and it was annoying and frustrating until we could build stuff. But same thing with billing for clients. There's a lot of data that you have to put in to get reimbursed. And if we went to the funding source and said we can't have the data, they would defund us. So, I don't want to sound ungrateful, but again, I think the fact that the places we really don't have data are the people that are suffering the most and not getting what we need. And I think it would put the state in a stronger position to be able to apply for funding. Like if I, we're trying to get a federal grant and somebody asked, or even nonprofits that want to work on this problem, how many cases were there last year? If we can't say, it's going to hurt Vermont and hurt the people we're trying to help. So, I feel like we have to be the tough, the tough, like hold the feet to the fire thing and hope our committee doesn't back down. If this is just, if this really is just about hate crime convictions that are motivated by, let me just get the language, that are motivated by the victim's gender, identity or expression or sexual orientation, I think there's probably a way that we could get that data. I just don't know for sure right now how best to go about it. So, and again, I have some phone calls in to see if there's a way that we can kind of put our heads together to get that piece of it. But if it's, it was beyond that, I just, I'm not sure the best way to get that information to you. Okay. Well, that, that was helpful. Just qualified that. Okay. Tom, and then do you want to move on to our other witnesses? Okay, go ahead, Tom. Yeah, just something that can't my mind is, there's obviously questions around the study, you know, whatever they may be. And for the, and I'm thinking of crossover, you know, there's work to be done on the study. And from what I can tell, and, you know, and, you know, from the past and with this that to get all the work done on the study that we need, we're going past crossover. So, so what went through my mind is, I don't know what we have on the wall since we don't have a wall really, you know, that's right in front of, I mean, we have a wall, but it's not right in front of us. And to be honest, I, I haven't looked at it since Mike originally put it up. But, but is there another bill that we have that a study could be attached to that is germane, where, you know, where the first part of this bill, we could, we could get our work done, you know, because it is good work and, you know, and we can push it, you know, move it forward. And if there's another bill that the study could be tied to, we could also get the work done on that and do our due diligence. Yeah, thank you, Tom. I, as I've been listening, I've been sort of processing this, and I do recognize we still have two witnesses that we haven't heard from. However, we were gonna, or we are going to be talking about a committee bill when we move on from this. And so given Pepper what you just said about, if we're, if we're looking at hate-motivated crimes, that that, that seems more workable in terms of getting us the information and that you need more time. And so one possibility would be to move 128 without the reporting, because as Tom, as you said, and I really believe this is, this is a really important bill in and of itself. And that maybe we could, after town meeting week before crossover, get the information back, hopefully regarding reporting and put it onto the committee bill before, before crossover. So just something to kind of think about. So yeah, thank you, Tom, for bringing that up. Okay, my react, my little reactions with applause for sort of button, but okay. So I see, I see Barbara's hand up from, okay, and Tom yours before. Okay. All right. Well, thank you. So, so thank you, Pepper. So David, let's welcome. Thank you, Madam Chair. David share with the Assistant, sorry, Assistant Attorney General with the Attorney General's office for the record as the committee knows the Attorney General's office does support this bill and continues to support the bill on the issue of the language under subsection B in section one. I don't think we have an objection to either either would be acceptable to us. I think I agree with the judgment of some of the other witnesses today with a preference for nonviolent, but certainly we would have no objection to either term. And we also agree that towards the defendant as a helpful clarification. With respect to what has turned out to be the more involved discussion this afternoon on subsection C, I will try to provide a few brief comments in response to some of the questions I've heard in the discussion with Attorney Pepper. As a general matter, I would say that the drafting is clear in terms of, you know, who's going to be doing the reporting. We think that it does make sense for the state's attorneys and chairs to be the lead on that. And we also would, or I should say, I believe that adding the term convictions and of the Superior Court are also both helpful clarifications. Diving into some of the more complex issues here, I think that data about convictions that were enhanced under the hate crime statute, I do think that is something that is ascertainable. It may not be easily ascertainable. It may not be easily findable, as Attorney Pepper noted, but it is certainly something that is possible to find in the record. I think where we run into real complications and run into frankly some thorny considerations and issues that the racial disparities panel has been thinking pretty hard about and the various state government entities and community members in that panel have also been thinking really hard about is these demographic issues. When we start thinking about what it means to learn about or ascertain somebody's race, somebody's ethnicity or somebody's gender, age is really the only term in there that does not carry some serious complications about who's making judgments about race, ethnicity, and gender are those judgments coming from the defendant themselves, the victim themselves, are they coming from observations of law enforcement or court officers or attorneys? Right now some of the data we collect does come from judgments of law enforcement officers and then those judgments about what somebody's race might be get recorded in court documents, but oftentimes, especially when we're talking about victims, there certainly that data is not being collected now as far as I know. And again, there's a real question about how are we going to ascertain that information? How are you going to learn it? Who gets who has the authority to say what somebody is in terms of some of these aspects of their identity? I think there's some agreement in that at least in many cases, it certainly makes sense for the person themselves to be the judge of their own identity, which sounds like a very common sense thing to say when you say it out loud, but the reality is that the ways in which the systems often collected data has not put that at the forefront. So all of that is just to note some of the issues that have already been brought up and some of the challenges and some of the ways in which the system simply doesn't have this data and hasn't made those decisions yet about how to collect it, but on the more narrow issue around hate crimes, enhancements, which I think is sort of what that first part of subsection C encompasses. As Attorney Pepper indicated, that probably is ascertainable even if not easily right now. The other thing I'll just mention is there's references to bias incident reporting and data collection that is something that's being done as the committee has heard about in the past, I believe, under the bias incident reporting system that was implemented a couple of years ago. I do defer to Assistant Attorney General Julio Thompson on that issue. He's the head of our civil rights unit and he really administers that. But the basic concept is that information about bias incidents is supposed to be shared among law enforcement, state's attorneys, the Attorney General, the US Attorney's Office, the Human Rights Commission, all the various entities that might be able to respond to bias incidents even when those incidents do not rise to the level of a criminal act. For a little more context there, let me just pull up a note here. Bias incidents can encompass anything from hate crimes, which is an actual or attempted crime that's maliciously motivated by a victim's actual or perceived identity and there's identity is of course defined and listed. It could also include civil harassment offenses, things that may or may not be a crime, but which violate state or federal civil laws prohibiting harassment or discrimination in daily life. That could include employment, housing, public accommodations and so forth. And of course sometimes bias incidents do encompass biased but protected speech, you know, speech or conduct that might be deeply offensive, but that is constitutionally protected under the Vermont federal constitutions. So that's just a quick summary of what bias incidents are. There is sort of a system in place that attempts to capture as much of that as we can. I couldn't sit here and testify and say we are definitely capturing all those. I'm confident we're not capturing all those, but there has been a really concerted effort to ensure that there is a more centralized collection and not only a centralized collection but a referral out to the various entities that can deal with some of the civil side of civil impacts that might result from these in addition to the criminal impacts. I'm happy of course to answer any questions. Great. Thank you so much. Just looking for hands. Okay. Not seeing anybody. Okay. All right. Well, thank you, David. And then let's see. Rebecca Turner. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. Can you hear me? Okay. Thank you. For the record, Rebecca Turner, head of the Appellate Division of the Office of the Defender General. And I appreciate that this committee is hearing and has heard a lot of witnesses on this bill and that I'm coming in last today on it. I also appreciate, I think, I may be the only witness who has a position of opposing this bill. And so thank you for your patience in hearing, again, the reasons why this bill, the language presented here raises considerable concern from my perspective, again, as an appellate litigator. First and foremost, and I talked about this before, but the first part of this bill, Section A, is limiting by way of banning this evidence from coming in period and from it coming in in terms of being used as defense by a defendant. And I talked about before my concerns that that would violate the fundamental constitutional rights of the defendant. I talked about it in the context of violating the right to present a defense. The right to present a defense in federal constitutional law is set out in the 14th Amendment due process clause, as well as the Sixth Amendment compulsory and confrontation clauses. Together, those fundamental rights combine to ensure that a defendant has a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense. Now, when the state's attorney, I think the state's attorney's office, Pepper came in to speak and respond to my concerns that this language violated and improperly and impermissibly infringed upon this fundamental right. Pepper responded by citation to a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Montana v. Egelhoff. And there was some back and forth questioning. And the takeaway from that was, no, the U.S. Supreme Court, okay, green-lighted a legislature's limitation on the admissibility of a certain type of defense related to diminished capacity, their involuntary intoxication. I think the assertion being that citation to this one case presented a green light for this legislature to go full-forward, full-throttle ahead on this. And I just want to urge this committee to know that the answer to that challenge cannot, is not answered by that single U.S. Supreme Court decision. And in fact, this analysis is much more complicated than suggested by the state's attorney's office. It is not that this one case takes care of it. In fact, to name just three fundamental cases, Rock v. Arkansas, Washington v. Texas, Chambers v. Mississippi, the U.S. Supreme Court is regularly presented with challenges to such laws where the legislatures have banned and prevented a defendant from bringing an otherwise relevant and admissible evidence, and they have been reversed. The question is not so much you can, the state legislatures can pick anything and choose to exclude it for any reason. The analysis looks at what, how critical is that evidence to the defendant's case? Or is it concerning a collateral matter, right? So again, it's looking at it, assess not from the public policy significance of trying to address this hateful or disturbing language or circumstance, right? It's not from that perspective. It is always seen from the perspective of at the heart of the defendants right to make the case. How critical was it? And so what I want to just highlight again, for example, Montana v. Eglehoff was just looking at diminished capacity. Here in 6566A, you've got that addressed in two, but you don't address section one concerns any defenses to a defendant's criminal conduct. Now again, right to present a defense implicates right to confrontation. The way this is written, this limits a defendant's ability to cross examine a complainant on credibility issues. And again, this is far more sweeping and broad than anything that was considered in Montana v. Eglehoff. So I just wanted to put that on this committee's radar in terms of while there may be noble causes behind putting this bill forward, the sweeping nature of it. Pepper also pointed to the rape shield act as an example that this has been done before and is not a problem, suggesting that this bill was somehow comparable to what was done there. Again, I'd like this committee to just note that the rape shield statute was not a categorical ban from the admission of that evidence. Instead, it actually provided for the admission of that evidence under a limited circumstances under a special standards test. And again, the point being that this act is trying to address an issue where I still haven't heard there is a problem in this state where these defenses are coming in, the convictions are being upheld, relying on this evidence, and that it appears arbitrary in terms of even what it is that this is being addressed. A is concerning the motive behind perhaps the circumstances in the alleged act. And yet this allegedly relevant evidence as to motive is being used to prevent a defendant to attack intent. And motive and intent are two different concepts and they're not linked. Again, it seems like an arbitrary connection. All of these are concerns in terms of being able to argue and defend the constitutional nature of this bill. So I just want to make sure that the committee fully appreciates the extent of how problematic this main section is. When I testified here, I did not get to the sentencing enhancement part, which is Part B. And that goes to, again, very sweeping language prohibiting absolutely the use of this certain facts to be considered at sentencing. Now, again, just so the committee is aware, motive is one of the critical considerations that a judge looks at when imposing an appropriate sentence. The more purposefully the conduct usually supports a greater penalty. One of the things that I am immediately concerned with and strikes me by the language of P1 and 2 is that it effectively is focusing on the thoughts of a defendant and prohibiting and punishing a person's thoughts more. And not just thoughts, generally particular thoughts. And whenever we step into that realm, you're entering into First Amendment territory. And I think there are problems with the First Amendment on P1, well, 6566B. And so to the extent that I haven't made a record on that aspect of concerns, I think that's a separate constitutional problem there. I think if there are any questions, I'll pause and take any questions. Let's see in the hands. Well, I'll give committee members a... Nope. Okay, go ahead. Continue. Regarding the data portion, there's been a lot of discussion talked about already. Again, it would be useful to know if there is actually a problem. Again, we have heard testimony, I heard testimony from Pepper that there hasn't been a known use of this defense in this state. And certainly from the ODG perspective, I haven't been able to hear of anyone speaking of an experience involving this. So again, no opposition to that last section on data. And as Pepper and David have talked about already, this is merging with work and suggestions that the RDAP committee has presented here in a separate situation. Thank you, Martin. Martin. Yes, thank you for your testimony. So I do understand that you oppose this bill. You don't want this bill to go through. But would you have any ideas, not that we necessarily would adopt them in one way or another, but I'm just wondering, do you have any ideas of how to make this better, how to address that constitutionality issue while we're still trying to get at this behavior and trying to limit this defense? I mean, I know you want to kill the bill, but if this is going through, how would you make it better? Maybe you don't want to volunteer anything for how to make it better. But it's not so much that I don't want to volunteer. I don't know how to make it better. I see this as problematic, unmultable friends. It certainly is open to litigation on the grounds that I said before. I don't think there is one or the case that Pepper pointed to provides protection from constitutional challenge. I don't see a way to save it. Thank you. Anybody else? Thank you for your testimony. I do say I'm disturbed by saying this doesn't happen here and so we don't need this bill. I think we would need to ask, well, why aren't these defenses being used? I think there's more to this discussion. I just felt I wanted to put that on the record, but I think to dismiss it as saying these cases don't happen here. It felt like it was important to put that on the record. Barbara. Thank you, Chair Groud, for saying that because again, until we have the data, it's going to be easy for people to say these cases don't happen here. So thank you. Okay. So what I am thinking, I know we do have some witnesses here that are actually already here already for the committee bill discussion. I would like to put that on hold because I think that's a quicker, easier one and I would like to, and I'm sorry we haven't taken a break, but I would like to go to discussion about 128 and what we've heard in terms of testimony, in terms of markup changes, what the committee is thinking. Martin. Can I ask a quick question of Bryn and maybe she's gone over this and I just missed it, but I'd like to have it reiterated on where Bryn stands as far as understanding the constitutional risks related to this bill. I know we've heard certainly different opinions about that and if I know, and again, there may be a risk, there always is a risk and I'm fine with that. That's what we do, but if Bryn could just give a couple statements about that. Sure. Thank you. That's a good idea. Sure. So I think I testified about this last week when I pointed out the Montana versus Echelhoff decision and although the, Rebecca is really right that it doesn't, it's not a case that's exactly on point, it doesn't involve the same type of facts that did have to do with involuntary intoxication, but the important language that I was pointing out last week is that it really provides, it governs constitutional analysis on whether state legislation that would eliminate this type, these type of defenses would violate due process. And I, it's my interpretation that it provides that it wouldn't because the case says that states have really broad latitude in defining elements of criminal offenses, especially when determining the extent to which moral culpability should be a prerequisite to a crime. And as you know, you amend this committee works on developing new crimes and amending existing crimes all of the time. And that is what you do. So it's my position that that case provides that it does not interfere with a defendants due process rights. And if it would be helpful to the committee, I can kind of provide a copy of the case with some highlighting that kind of points exactly to where the court provides that states do have the right to limit certain types of evidence. I think that would be helpful, definitely. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Bryn. Will. Thank you. So just a commentary about the bill. So, you know, I think this bill, any bill like it, the goal should be to allow transgender people to live more safely in their proper gender. And saying that I really feel very strongly that the term unwanted should be removed from this bill under 3B. My thought is this, we're not going to, we're not going to, word it right, there are people who will have a violent reaction to potentially violent reaction to a transgender person because they might claim that they were tricked. They might claim that they weren't informed when they should have. And they might claim that, you know, any romantic advance from a transgender person is unwanted. And I just have to say that, you know, we're not going to require a transgender person to identify themselves as such is like their first greeting with someone. We are not going to require a transgender person to wear some sort of identification, making them easily spotable. What this bill needs to do, any bill like this needs to do is allow transgender people to just live their lives, live them safely, live them properly. And that includes the right to disclose the fact that they're transgender when they wish to whom they wish. So I feel that putting unwanted in this really weakens the bill. It gives a defendant the ability to say a bunch of things that justify hate. It gives the defendant ability to say, you know, categorically, this was unwanted and someone should have known that because, and I feel that replacing unwanted in this bill with nonviolent does not alter the protections, does not alter the ability of a transgender person to live their life, but it tightens the bill as far as permissible defenses that could be tried in a court case. I really want to see unwanted taken out of this and replaced. Thank you. Great. Thank you, Will. And looking at my notes, that is where the witnesses did land. So thank you. Barbara, your hand, is it different? No, okay. Yeah, so I would actually put out there that we go with nonviolent, but other members of the committee? Do you want us to jump into? Yeah. I just wasn't sure if other people had questions for Bryn, but I agree with that too. Another vote for nonviolent versus unwanted. Great. Thank you. Kate? Yeah, I would agree with that as well. And I think I made it maybe clear with my enthusiastic thumbs up, but I think I would support, if we're just sort of talking about the bill in general right now, moving section C to the committee bill to allow us a little more mobility with the bill that is right in front of us. Just to name that. Okay, thank you. I'm sorry, I should have said let's just sort of take it kind of line by line or section by section. Let's put the reporting to the side for a minute, but I appreciate that comment, Kate. It's Tom and Selina. I guess if we're giving our opinions on the language, that would certainly be in favor of the nonviolent. Thank you. Selina. Yeah, I was just going to back up a little bit and this is just really a comment. It's something that Bryn didn't change, but just in our first round of testimony on this, we had heard some testimony, I think primarily from the network about section 1A and just questioning whether the language there was clear enough and I had the opportunity to talk with Bryn about that last night and she clarified that that's language that tracks really closely with other jurisdictions and case law and so I just, I felt like after hearing that, felt like we should leave it as is and just wanted to kind of share that with the committee if anybody else was remembering that previous testimony and I could convene that to the network too just to keep them in the loop. Great. Thank you. Anybody else? Okay, before we move on, I just did want to, let's, Suzanne and Davis know, I see you're here and I just wanted to let you know that we are actually not doing the committee bill at this time and I believe that's what you are certainly welcome to stay as we continue our discussion on this, but I just wanted to let you know that we won't be getting to the committee bill, so anyway. Thanks for letting me know, Madam Chair. I'm gonna, I'm gonna sign them, but of course I'm available to you all in the future. Okay, great, thank you. I'm sure you're very busy. Thank you. Thank you. Sure, thank you. Okay, is there, so thank you for all your input. Is there, are there any committee members that do want to see unwanted in there? I'm hearing so far strong support for taking it, for taking it out, but I just want to make sure there isn't anybody that, oh, Martin, there you go. Oh, Fancy Martin. Okay, all right, great. So it sounds like we are going with, with nonviolent. Great, that's clear. Okay, and then the addition of towards the defendant, I didn't hear, I didn't hear any objection other than the Defender General's Office that doesn't want any of it, but in terms of other witnesses, my understanding was that towards the defendant was, was good. Okay, great. All right, so now let's open it up for, for C, and the reporting back. I want to jump in based on the testimony that we heard. Barbara. If I had my druthers, I would leave it in. I understand the other option is waiting. My only concern with that is us in any way enabling people to come and tell us they can't collect data. My snow is falling behind me here, so anyway. Thank you. Others? Selena? I support moving it to the committee bill for two reasons. One reason, well, probably maybe two or three. I think it, I think the underlying policy here is really important and it makes sense for us to move it and not get kind of stuck on these issues. And then I think as we dig into, do you need to do a little more work to dig into kind of what's possible to ask for in the current moment in terms of reporting and where we need to do more work and fold that into some of the larger work around data collection. It seems pretty clear that the data that we can readily get and ask for, even if it does involve some work, to Barbara's point, really is pretty tied pretty closely to the hate crime sentencing charges and convictions. And then after hearing today in testimony that we don't have really have that data readily available for any of that universe, I actually want to expand, you know, the reporting to look at the bigger picture of hate crime charges and convictions and the whole picture and not limit it to those that are motivated by gender identity or sexual orientation. Of course, that data is very, very important, but so I actually think it may, we may be able to do something actually broader and bigger and maybe even a little bolder in the context of the committee bill with what we ask for there while still getting as much data as we possibly can that's relevant to this issue. So I actually think we may be able to do more in some ways in the context of the bill. Okay. Thank you. Alicia, I thought I saw your hand up. Is it so make sure I'm not missing you? It was up, but Celine actually took a lot of the comments I was going to make and I kind of say like I'd love to see reporting say I'd like to expand upon that. I don't want to hold this bill hostage for that because I do think it's important to pass out. But she made those points a lot more eloquently than I just did. Well, it's always it's good. It's helpful to hear from everybody. So great. Thank you. Okay. Sorry. Barbara and then Bob. Sorry. So I totally get Celine's point and maybe it's not in either or maybe it's a keep it in here or somehow talking here about the importance of it. I would hope that this wouldn't hold it hostage. Like why would it hold it? If we have a reason to think it would hold it hostage, I'd like to know that. But I'm curious about that. And yeah, we need to do work on the other part too. But or maybe there's a reference to our concern. I mean, it would be nice to have it mentioned in here in some way without it killing the bell, which I don't want to do. Bob and then Selena. Yeah, I just had a quick question. Be the new guy on the block. In reference to the hate crime bill, is it the same reporting standards for this? And who does that question for for him? So when you say me, the committee, I'm sorry. So I think if I understand your question, right, I think that the idea was that the committee may remove the reporting requirement from each 128 and place it in another bill that may be moving out of your committee a little bit later, which is the the committee bill that you were going to take up this afternoon. But I think you've postponed it until tomorrow. So I think that's what the chair was referring to. Right. The H 120 is the bill we're talking about presently. My question was on the hate motivated crime bill are the same request made as far as reporting and who reports that? No, there isn't a reporting requirement. And that bill is just making some amendments to the hate crime statutes. And it sounds like there may be an idea that you might want to add some more reporting requirements for the for convictions of hate crimes as well. But again, I'm not sure about that. Thank you. Selena. Yeah, I think Barbara, just to your I really appreciate what you're saying conceptually. And I think what might if we if we tried to keep some version of the reporting in this bill, what might end up creating a hostage situation is not is just time the time of us sort of getting it right. Like what's the version of it that we can keep intact here that because I just I don't know like some of the demographic data that it that just doesn't exist. Like I'm understand philosophically why we would ask for that. But I feel like if more time can functionally get us more of the actual data, I guess I'd rather I'd rather do it that way. And actually move us forward versus sort of just taking a position of like, we should have we should have this data readily available. You know what I mean? Like I so I think I don't know that's why I support kind of shifting it into a bigger framework. And then just having a little more time because the deadlines are different. Having a little more time to think about that balance of like what's the data that exists that we can truly ask for in the moment. And then what's the kind of aspirational ask that we want to make. And I think it will take us some time to think about how to get that right and might just hold this bill up from getting to the floor. Felicia. Yeah, I just wanted to apologize for using the word holding a bill hostage. I in no way wanted to say that it was not worth our time to look into or that it would keep something good from going through. It was just purely in relation to the amount of time I would expect to need to spend on the details of the reporting and the data involved. So that was my only intention. I didn't want any negative connotations on that regard. So just my apologies. Thank you. Appreciate that. Okay, so what's going through my mind? So I'm hearing take it out possibly put it in the committee bill. I also Martin earlier maybe push out leave it in but push out the effective date for the reporting portion of it. That gives the Senate time to look at it as well. And again, Representative Small, you're welcome to wait in as lead sponsor. Thank you, Madam Chair. One piece I will add is that I am in support of the report moving to the committee bill that you were planning to work on. As I mentioned in my testimony today, my expectation, my hope from this is really collecting the data information and I'm not tied to having it within this bill as long as there is some movement around LGBTQ crime data that is able to be collected. Thank you. And I wonder if maybe some legislative intent or something. I wonder if we can capture that or if we could show our commitment in this bill and also and that that could respond to Barbara's concern as well. I don't know if folks feel like that would be helpful or if we are building the record as it is through this discussion and showing our commitment. Barbara, I know you're struggling so I just want to give you some options. I keep thinking about the number of police departments that didn't give us the data when we did put it in a bill related to a different the whole license plate reader thing. So it seems in general like a people, right, like I and I understood what Felicia was saying to be like maybe the Senate would hold the bill up not anyone in our committee but I even just us making sure people know like data is important and we are not going to let up on it. And yes, the committee bill could do that. I just think we have to keep getting that message out to everybody because it's amazing how much data we don't have. Right. Thank you. Ken and then. So if I understand what Taylor just said and I could be wrong but she wants to make sure we have everything lined up so this bill will pass. Which I think is important. Not something that for lack of a better word will be rushed through that may not make it. Is that kind of correct? That is correct. And speaking to your point, Madam Chair, about the addition of intention language. I know that the bill from the Bureau of Racial Justice statistics or maybe I'm not getting that one. Oh, yes. The advisory panel. If there is mention of demographic information in there as well. So thinking about just specifying that language or an intention on future work with bills to make sure that we're encapsulating these identities in the mix. But yes, to your point of hoping to pass this bill easily by removing the report but not reducing the intention of collecting this data. Can you're freezing up so. I'm going to move to Tom and then Ken if you did have something to. Oh, okay. I can hear you but your camera's frozen. No, there you go. I just thank Taylor. Thank you. Okay. Tom. Thank you. I guess the big problem is that the information isn't available right now from what I understand Pepper was saying. I mean, we almost have to start from square one to build the system of just collecting collecting the information say nothing or what to do with it after that. So I think this is this is a little bit bigger lift than some studies we've done be done in the past and it is going to take a little more work to do it and do it right. I think so whatever whatever we do with that. I think the studies got to be either either pushed back or or moved to the other bill and I don't know. I just think it we need to slow down on it and and I mean it would be great if we could you know push it through on this bill and and but it just isn't possible right now and we need we really need to do our due diligence on this and and spend the time that it not only needs but spend the time that it it deserves to it deserves to have so how that's done. That's committee decision I guess is better. Okay well thank you so so what I'm going to propose given time and a number of things I think it'd be good to have a clean copy of the bill to vote on so I'm going to ask Bryn if if she can get us a clean copy and I'd like to vote on this tomorrow as opposed to it's opposed to now what I'm hearing would be for the next amendment would be so it'd be eliminating C and going with with nonviolent and keeping in the towards the defendant and so so in terms of whether we have a section one or section two Bryn that would be or whatever that would mean would however it needs to yeah I guess we do because of the effective date. Yep so I have that ready and I can send it to the committee now if you want it posted tonight. Yeah I think it'd be great to post it tonight so we can look at it and then yeah so I think we can do this first thing again I'm proposing but do this first thing tomorrow morning other folks think okay great more you don't have some new icon for us to okay um actually Bob has a question or comment just a quick question Maxine on the effective date what were you recommending so actually I think the effective date would remain the same um I was just sort of thinking out loud whether or not we still needed different sections but we do we do need section one and section two is the effective date but right now this has taken effect on passage which um which I I think is the way it should go yeah uh Barbara need to unmute yourself okay here we go sorry uh I'm getting rusty here um so there's a story out from November maybe it's from last year it's from 19 that hate crimes are on the rise in Vermont and it's due to the state police data so I'm just curious like how are we great anyway there's someone is doing some reporting um just wanted to share that thank you nice thank you I appreciate your frustration yep so my proposal on the table is to look at a clean copy and vote tomorrow yes okay great thank you thank you everybody thank you Bryn okay so we can uh adjourn and go off you too