 Good morning and welcome to Vermont House Judiciary Committee. It is Wednesday, March 10th, and we are considering our deliberation on H 87 and act relating to establishing a classification system for criminal offenses. We do have a draft with highlights it's draft 2.1 to show the changes that were discussed yesterday. I am hoping that we can bring this to a vote this morning as planned. So in the absence of council I'm going to ask representative Martin Lalonde to to walk us through the changes. Martin, thank you. Yeah, thank you. The changes are relatively straightforward from yesterday from the conversation yesterday. They can be found on page three of the bill, either with the highlighting or, or the clean bill either way, take a look at that. It is, it is a new subsection, it's subsection C, and it comports with what the discussion was yesterday regarding what the court should consider in determining whether to include a fine as part of a penalty for a criminal offense. It states that when determining the amount of a fine and the method of payment, the court shall consider, and this really is the new language is the next phrase, based on all financial information available to the court, including information provided by the one, the defendants present and future financial ability to pay the fines and two, the nature of the financial burden that payment of the fine will impose on the defendant and any dependence of the defendant so that that would be the language just to ensure that the court is looking at essentially the ability to pay and the language that was added really is to set forth what basis the court should be making this determination on that is the financial information available to the court including that provided by the defendant. So that so it's not just being made up out of, out of the air there's got to be information before the court on which the court would make that determination. And other than that the other changes, you know, Eric went through yesterday. Great, thank you. These, I'm sorry. Yeah, I was just going to say so and Martin some of this language is I think Selena has suggested. Right is that true some of this language to track the was the restitution. Yeah, the idea is that is to track closely with restitution. That's correct. And that language that is you know the based on all financial information available to the court including information provided by the offender that comes right from the restitution law. Okay, thank you. Tom. Yeah. On lines 16 through 20 with the, with the fines. Is this is this new since yesterday those numbers. Is this the on page two on page two I'm sorry. No, this is this is what we went over yesterday. I explained that we were that I had met Kate Donnelly and I had met with Eric the day before break and kind of looked at the various crimes that we have on the books and tried to make the the fines in these classifications closer to what we already have in the books. Now, the one thing I mentioned yesterday is that there are, there are very limited number of crimes that are not categorized in this bill at this point, that are much higher fines, most everything else is in the no more than $50,000 range, but certain drug trafficking crimes, human trafficking, as well as another one have $500,000 million fines. When we get to those crimes down the road as we continue to categorize these. We can make a clear exception in those instances that the fine can be higher and it would make some sense. And we heard yesterday as well from. I believe it was David share talking about DUI crimes are one where one might want to have possibly higher crimes or fines, because of the ability to pay. It crosses the socio economic categories really, but those were not dealing with those those we get to deal with on the road, and we can make those exceptions on those few crimes that really call for a high fine, but but the property crimes we're dealing with here. There was a concern on the, as far as that these fines actually are increasing for some of them and that is true. And I think we largely have taken care of that issue by ensuring that the court take into account. The ability to pay when they are levying a fine if they levy a fine which from what we also understand from testimony they don't do very often so courts don't do very right. So with the discussion yesterday about the amounts and some are going up. So none of the amounts changed since yesterday. Correct. Okay. Great. So, I guess if anybody else has got any questions I'll wait I'll hold on what I want to say. Well, I'm not seeing any hands. So I guess I'm up. So, just with, I'm not going to get into any big detail. Just what was some of the things that happened yesterday. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know how it went away. Some things. Played out. I wasn't happy. And again, I'm not going to go into any detail. I don't think it's necessary. And I, and I was seriously. Up until, you know, it was one of those times where you wake up in the middle of the night and you think about things and I was thinking about this bill. And what it came down to, and I realized, you know, the changes that we made, you know, here in, you know, in the last, you know, in the last hour, 11th hour are, you know, monumental changes. But there was just, there was just something that was, I guess, a term could be sticking in my car. And, and what it came down to is, I want this vote to come out 11 oh, and, and the reason I wanted to come out 11 oh is, is for Maxine. And the reason I wanted, I want to do it for Maxine is because we've been working on this thing for what, two or three years. It's been a long time, probably the most time we spent on any bill that I've ever spent on any bill, I think, and I would hate to see her leadership say anything or just have it an idea of you know, what kind of a vote is this on something you've been working on for for two years. And because it is important work it is good work and I think it needs to just move forward with as as little resistance as possible but I don't know if I articulated very well what I wanted to say but I will be a yes. Thank you I appreciate that time. Thank you. Bob. I have a question it may not be germane to this bill here, probably from Martin. I noticed we in the hate motivated crime bill today there was there was a fine and a sentence behind that. I'm just curious as to when we reorganize all the such as we're doing now. How does that work with bills that we're looking at voting on and potentially passing here Martin. And you make a very good point and and we have tried, I think in the last couple years as we've had this bill, moving along when when we've and we haven't dealt with a lot of new crimes in the last couple years, but we've tried to put whatever the conditions are to comport with what this categorization is for when we actually get to the point of categorizing those particular class of crimes it'll be much more straightforward to do so so we have been paying attention to that. The hate crimes a little bit different animal it's an enhancement, which, which we'll see how the sentencing commission. How does fit that into this cat into this whole scheme it's it's one of the things that they are continuing to work on. But I will say that we do have recommendations from the sentencing commission for the different categories of crime sex crimes the crimes against people or violent crimes. And they're working on a few more. But as we're looking at stuff again we're, I think we've been trying to make sure that whatever we put in as a penalty of the new penalty, you know, because the hate crime is that's, that's already on the books but any new penalty. We've tried to be consistent with where we know that this is heading where the where the train is going so does that answer. Thanks. Yeah, thank you. That's a really, really good and important point. Tom your hand is up. I think it's always. Okay. Anybody else. Any other questions. So I'm not hearing any, anything in terms of what folks need in order to vote. So pause for a minute. I'm ready. Okay. All right. Okay. Great. Well thank you. So, let's see. So we will be voting on draft 2.1 right. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. H 87. Ken, when you were. Ready, please. Oh, actually, I'm sorry. So we didn't have that we. I had it myself. I need a motion and a second. I guess I'll make the motion since nobody else is. I'll approve it. Okay. Great. First and second. Okay. Any discussion. Okay. So now clerk shall commence to call the roll. Thank you. Over. Yes. Donnelly. Yes. Me. I can get back to me, right? Not really. I think. If you're in your seat, you need to. I mean, if we were in the committee room and you. If we were in the committee room and you were in the committee room, you would need to vote. Members in their seat. They need to vote is my understanding. Sure. I'll go through all along with it just to get rid of it. The lawn. Yes. Love flower. Yes. Norris. Yes. Not. Yes. Rachel son. Yes. Christy. Yes. verdict. Yes. Madam chair. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. And can just to respond to your. To your, um, to your vote that. The bill will move. It has enough boats to move. So, um, I. They all do. I know that. Okay. But I'm just responding. I'm not trying to be. I'm not trying to be flipped with you, but. It's best I don't say anything. Um, I'm just responding to your voting. Yes. To get. To get rid of it. That, um, No, my response is all bills are going to move through. We're in a massive crunch to throw everything through. Whether anybody wants to agree with it. I said I wasn't going to say it, but I'm going to say it. We're rushing everything through. And I have a real problem with this. If this is this goes against my basic principle. I don't agree with this. I don't agree with this. I don't agree with the proper legislation. And it's, and that's not a slide on you, uh, Madam chair at all. It's just, I don't agree with this. Uh, way of doing of, of. Of, uh, Of, uh, being a lawmaker in this state. It goes against what I stand for. And I'm not. And I'm not very happy with myself right now. So. Okay. Well, I am giving you the opportunity to change your vote. Not to get rid of something. But as we know, it won't matter. So I'm good. Thank you. Okay. All right. Thank you. Uh, I'll be, uh, Martin, you're going to report it. Correct. Happy to. Okay. All right. Great. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. So we are ahead of schedule and it's a beautiful day. I wouldn't mind taking a, just a few minutes to get folks thoughts about, uh, the testimony this morning. And, um, again, just. Informal discussion regarding the, um, The study and the, uh, The hate motivated crimes. But, um, I think that should be the only time. That folks want to. Way in now. Otherwise we certainly have time later in the week. We'll be discussing it, but Selena. Um, of course there's, in fact, 35 just started flying over how it, but, um, hopefully you'll be able to hear me. I think it stopped. Um, I just met with really briefly with James Pepper and Robin a in section one, but about the neighbors incident reporting. And we came up with some proposed language that would would try to get at the whole universe of offenses that were coded with an offender bias motivation. So both the number of incidents and the types of offenses by category and that Robin Joy said that they had really federal. So Robin Joy from the crime research group said that they had federal requirements around protecting victim identity and because some of these subcategories are so small that that demographic some of that demographic information or even linking like the category of offender bias with the crime itself might really compromise victim confidentiality, which is like a federal requirement around their funding in their work. And so we have are working with some like mirroring some language with going to propose an amendment just to that section that mirrors some language in I think the next draft that we'll see of H 183 that similarly gets at you know that we were asking for this report, but that it needs to to the fullest extent possible protect victim confidentiality. And I don't know I then I would just so that's just a report back to the committee. And hopefully I'll send that language along to brand and you all can see it in the next draft. And I would say some of the bigger questions that came up around how to really get at that demographic data and how to get at the demographic data of all of the players in the system, not just not even just victims and offenders, but prosecutors and police officers who are helping to bring charges and so on. It just it seems to me like there's so much to figure out there that it perhaps best belongs in the I'm hopeful that we are going to see movement this by any of them on the Bureau racial statistics bill and concept and it seems like that might be the place to tackle some of those bigger questions because they're really systemic, you know, and needs probably some resources behind them in terms of solutions. Right. Thank you. And any discussion about taking two out or any or in terms of the concerns about that I'm right now it is just regarding the defendants and whether or not that's weighted unfairly as the Defender General's office spoke about. We didn't talk about that. I'm just pulling I'm just pulling the draft, the existing draft language back up right about to that it's just about the defendants. We didn't talk about that. We were we were really focused on the Niver's question, but we probably should have talked about that. Yeah, I did put that question out to to pepper. I think it's something worth worth considering. Yeah, I can share this language with Robin and pepper right now and so I can try to circle background on that question too. Okay. Great. Okay, well, thank you for thank you for working on that. Bob. Yeah, just a quick question. Bren had brought up the fact about having a prosecutor speak on the addition of or the change that Falco had recommended as far as intentionally. Was that question actually answered? Did I miss it or can someone elaborate on that a little better? David Shearer spoke about it briefly. He also he really didn't have much time to prepare his remarks, but but he did speak in in opposition to to that proposed language. Okay. And also, Bren also spoke about that she didn't think it was was necessary. I think we would need a fair amount of testimony on that section. Or more testimony. What's going through my mind, but I'm gonna hear from others. And that's the only hands. Okay. All right. Well, let's keep thinking about it. And then Selena, let us know what we'll get back. And that is it for this. So, Selena and Barbara, you're ready for this afternoon and have what you have what you need. And Okay. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Well, we're super helpful to me and Bren as well in preparing. Okay. Great. And so I think Eric and Brinn can be around. I'm sorry, Michelle and Brinn can be on Zoom because of that way they don't they avoid the lag that that YouTube has. And then but certainly you can if you have questions can email them and no committee members we could text each each other if you get any help and certainly always can take a break if you if you need to for a quick question. I feel like every time I've seen it happen it's happened a little bit differently. So do you have any sense of what if we did need to take a recess to consult with legislative council? Like sometimes we've seen that move into some kind of weird breakout room and sometimes it's like I just wouldn't, you know, go off to the side and do it as a reporter of the bill. Do you have any sense of how I can ask the clerk to if that would be helpful? But yeah, I mean, I'll have to work at this point. I don't know, but I would I would think you should be able to to meet with council. It's not like there's a point of order where there's a breakout room where we where we go up to the podium or something like that. I think this is Madam chair. Yes. In the rules they did allow for us as committees to confab, especially on floor amendments and questions. So the clerk can constitute a breakout room for us for that purpose. Okay, thank you. And how about for just one member and an attorney? I mean, well, they they would have that same that same option because the speaker did offer for that consultation capability. You know, on other bills, you know, as well. Yeah. I'll email Betsy Ann and Brent just in my case to see what the protocol would be and then I'll share their response with the court committee. Right. But that way, Barbara, you'll have a sense too. You know, and because they've they've done it and it's just a question of request, but, you know, it's just that we haven't had to do it. That often, you know, yet, but I have a feeling this week we will see a lot more of it than we have. Okay. All right. Okay. Great. All right. Well, thank you everybody. Thank you.