 Luke has joined us and Representative Kalaki is the lead sponsor for H93. And so I would like to start with Representative Kalaki to introduce the bill and then Luke will join us when we're finished with John. Welcome, John. Thank you, Chair. And as the chair said earlier, this bill had passed out of our committee last year, but then with the pandemic, things didn't progress. And so what we did is we introduced it as it was in our committee and Luke worked with us last session and he's working with us again, this session on this bill. And as he reviews it today, as we revisited the bill, we had some good conversations about some, maybe illegal issues, some considerations for the committee to consider as we revisit the issue again. So we'll do that. We spent a lot of time on this bill last session. And as we were watching the implicit bias training and we had the image of the young little girl, the five or six-year-old who stood there well-dressed and everyone took care of her. And when she looked homeless, everyone ignored her or shushed her away. I think that was kind of an interesting image, a friend for this. And the chair mentioned the point in time. And it was one year ago today that the point in time was done. And Ron has linked to our committee webpage that shows at that point, it showed 1,110 people in the state of Vermont who were found to be homeless in the point of time capture. And in our state, of course, we now know that there are 2,126 adults and 386 children living in motels who are homeless. And as I think we were, Lisa, did you want it? I just had a really quick question. Sorry, you said I paid such good attention, but I didn't hear what you said. Is this the bill as passed out of our committee last year? No changes. Thank you. Yeah. And Luke, if I'm wrong about that, you can correct me when you go through it. So we have a lot more people than we thought who are homeless. And of course, just yesterday, we were talking about when this pandemic ends, what do we do with these 1,800 people with the kids living in these hotels now? So we have a big homelessness issue in our state and what the intention of this bill was, was to really prevent discrimination based on housing status or perceived housing status or homelessness. And then in the bill and Luke will walk us through it. There's examples of what the protected rights would be under the bill. And then Luke will walk us through the different statutes and so we would include this population, prohibiting discrimination in public accommodation, unfair housing, and unlawful employment practices. So it's basically taking our homeless and giving them protections against discrimination in all the aspects outlined in the bill. So with that, I'll turn it over to Luke and the bill is on our committee page. And if you haven't seen this point in time, it's really interesting to look at and because it also, you can go by county by county in our state of one year ago, what was captured in that, okay? So Luke, it's over to you. Well, thank you very much and good morning everyone. My name is Luke Marland. I am the director of the office of legislative council and chief council to the general assembly. And as was indicated to you, I'm here today to do a walkthrough of H 93 and act relating to establishing a homeless bill of rights and prohibiting discrimination against people without homes. And as representative Klacki mentioned, this is nearly identical to the bill that was passed out of committee. There's no substantive changes. So the only changes were punctuation in one or two spots. I think a change of one word in a section and updating the underlying law. In other words, when this bill was written, after the bill was written, there were other changes from another bill that became law that hadn't yet been incorporated into the draft that the committee looked at. Those now have been incorporated into the bill that you will look at today. So there were a few changes, but there were not substantive. They do not change the issues that were discussed in this committee last year. Now the bill can really be divided into three main parts. Number one is the finding section, that's in section one. Number two is section two, which is called the homeless bill of rights. And then third are amendments to existing anti-discrimination laws in current Vermont statutes. And what I would like to do is start with the findings, the first section, but then jump to the sections that amend current anti-discrimination laws. Those are sections three through eight. And then last, circle back and look at section two, which is the homeless bill of rights. And so it's dealing with these a little bit out of order, but I think in the end it'll be a little clear, flow a little better. And I think the various threads will come together a little better, hopefully. As I always say, ask me questions. I don't know if the chair wants to recognize questions or Mr. Chair, if you want me to, I'll leave it up to you, but I would encourage folks to ask questions as I walk through the bill. I will not be putting the bill up. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, what were you saying? I would say, I guess to keep yourself in your own groove, if you notice hands up that you want to answer, I'll let you do that. I thank you for asking. It's always a little different, even on a day-to-day basis. So thank you for asking. And if you notice hands coming up, answer them at your convenience. Well, thank you. And I would encourage everyone to wave at me if you put up the symbol and I don't see it. So don't hesitate to jump in one way or another. I'm not gonna put the bill up on the screen. So I hope that you have it on one of your screens or maybe you printed it out. I don't read the bill line by line that puts me to sleep and you to sleep. What I'll do is run through it, try to summarize it. I will stop and read the most important sections. And once again, if anything's unclear, you can quite catch it. Please raise your hand and I can go back over. So before I jump in, are there any questions before I begin? Great. So let's begin with the findings which begins on the bottom of page one and then goes over to page two. And I will paraphrase these for you. Now, as you know, legislative findings really express the intent of the committee, why you're doing this bill, what you think is important. They may be relevant to the interpretation or application of the bill, but it's not codified law. So perhaps, although important, it's not quite as important as the other sections of the bill. The first finding states that at the present time, many persons have been rendered homeless as a result of economic hardship and a shortage of safe and affordable housing. The second finding states that under the Vermont State Constitution, all Vermonters are equally free and independent. And under another provision of our Constitution, all Vermonters are entitled to the same benefits and protections. The third finding states that it is the intent of this act to help mitigate both the discrimination of people without homes or perceived to be without homes may face and the adverse effects these individuals suffer when a person lacks a home. So those are the three legislative findings contained in the bill. Are there any questions or comments about those? Great, well, let's jump now to the provisions of this act or this bill, I should say, that are amending existing anti-discrimination laws. And the first one of those is section three, it's on page five. And what we'll be talking about is amendments to existing anti-discrimination laws in the areas of public accommodation, housing and employment. So we'll begin with section three, which is title nine, which is commerce and trade and it's chapter 139, which is a chapter that deals with discrimination and public accommodation. Now, public accommodations include schools, restaurants and stores. And I want to read for you the definition of a public accommodation. This is in existing law. So this is the existing definition of public accommodation. And it's in nine VSA 4501. And it states, as used in this chapter, place of public accommodation means any school, restaurant, store, establishment or other facility at which services, goods, privileges, advantages, benefits or accommodations are offered to the general public. So this is the current definition of public accommodation. It's not being changed by this bill, but it's important to keep that in mind. So if you look at the bill itself on page five, section three, I just read you, yes, Representative Waltz. My apologies, I'm getting a phone call at the same time from my wife. I'll hold my question. Great. So looking at the actual bill, section three, I just read you the current definition of public accommodation. And you'll see on line seven, eight and nine what this bill does is add a new definition of housing status. And I wanna read this for you and spend some time on it because this definition is repeated again and again in the bill. So it's a very important definition. The new definition will state housing status means the actual or perceived status of being homeless, being a homeless individual or being a homeless person as defined in 42 United States Code section 11302. So that's this cross-referencing a federal definition. And I'll read that for you now. The federal definition states that the terms homeless, homeless individual and homeless person means, one, an individual or family who lacks a fixed, regular or adequate nighttime residence, two, an individual or family with a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place, not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings, including a car, park, abandoned building, bus or train station, airport or camping ground. So really what this is saying is someone is sleeping in a place such as a car, park, station, et cetera. Number three, an individual or family living in a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter. And then there's some more language, but I think that's the gist of that part of the definition. Number four, an individual who resides in a shelter or place not meant for human habitation who is exiting an institution where he or she temporarily resided. And number five, an individual or family who will imminently lose their housing, including housing they own, rent or live in without paying rent or sharing with others. So this is a federal definition of homeless, homeless individual or homeless person. And what the language in the bill does is tie into that federal definition. So if you look again in section three, line seven, eight, nine, the definition of housing status, it states that housing status means the actual or perceived status of being homeless, being a homeless individual or being a homeless person as defined in the federal law that I just summarized for you. And once again, this is important because we'll be using this same definition again and again in different sections of the bill. Now, I know that was a lot of verbiage. Are there any questions? Representative Clacky. Yes, look, as I look at this, what's our iteration of becoming a homeless person or being a homeless person? Doesn't that say the same thing? To some extent it might. So the federal definition you notice has a lot of language in it and someone might check one of those boxes or check two of those boxes or check three of those boxes. So it's intentionally broad and this definition in the bill, the state language is also broad. But is there really a difference between being a homeless individual or being a homeless person? Negative. No, so well, maybe if this is gonna appear throughout the bill, I don't know if this seems it says the same thing twice. Well, you could always change the language. Of course, the committee could always change it, but it says the same language twice for a reason, which is just trying to sweep everybody and all possible scenarios within the definition. Okay, well, if it aligns with federal, that's great. Thank you. Now, Representative Walts, do you have a question and then I'll get to you Representative Parsons. Yes, thank you and I thank you for your forbearance on the interruption there. I've got a question to refresh my memory and also for the folks who are new to the committee, when we discussed the definition of public places last biennium, the question arose, did they extend to a doorstep to the sidewalk in front of the business and so on? Could you remind us? I will, I think that's more relevant to section two, which is the homeless bill of rights. That's where it came up and that's where the language was added. So we will get to that. That is a valid question. Okay, thank you. Sure, Representative Parsons. Thank you. I just had a question with the federal definition. Now it's escaping me. Does our use of hotels and motels, does the way we use them get sticky in that definition at all or no? I don't think so. So you'll notice that the federal definition included someone who's staying in basically a shelter or temporary residence and that's reflected in the federal definition. So no, I don't think that pulls someone out of being a homeless person. Thank you. Sure. Representative Barang. Hey, thank you. So my question is, I was looking at the list of protected classes. Is this the first time that sort of like economic status has been brought into the conversation as a focus? Good question. So I'll give you a tentative answer and it may be something to a look into and maybe other witnesses might have a different point of view. It might be directly there are, when we talk about housing, for example, discrimination in housing, it's actually, I'll take that back. No, it's not because I just flipped the page. When we talk about housing, it says one of the protected categories is because a person is a recipient of public assistance. So that's a direct reference to economic status. I was gonna say there's other criteria that may indirectly tie into economic status. And I think that's so, but that's at least one other criteria that directly refers to economic status. So it's not the first time. All right, thank you. Sure. Are there any other questions? Yes, Representative Hango. Thank you. Not a question, but I just wanna bring the committee's attention to the term perceived in this. We had extensive debate about that last year and I don't wanna debate it at this moment in time, but I do want us to keep looking at this through the lens of actually being homeless or perceived being homeless, because that's a very important part of section two, which is the homeless bill of rights. Thank you. Thank you, and that's a very good point. And I'll just repeat what I said earlier. This is a broad definition. So as a representative just indicated, it's actual and perceived status. And it's also all the various language I read to you, both in the state and the federal definition. So it's intentionally a broad definition. Are there any other questions about this definition? Is it reasonably clear to everybody? Great. Once again, as we work through this bill, I can always repeat and go back if that's helpful. So now let's look at section four. So this is the definition of housing status or being homeless. And what section four does is it emends title nine, section 4502, which concerns public accommodations. And I read you the definition of that, the existing definition a few moments ago. And you'll see that in A as in Adam, on lines 12 through 17, there's a list of current law of the various categories of protected classes that people cannot be discriminated against by an operator of a place of public accommodation because of race, creed, et cetera. And what this does is add the new term or new class of housing status. And this is what we'll do in section after section of this part of the bill. So the prohibitions against discriminating against a person in public accommodations would now include housing status, which is the definition I just read to you. Representative Brown, do you have a question or is that your symbol from before? Nope, I'm sorry, I didn't put my hand down. No worries. So now proceeding to section five. So we've looked at public accommodation and now section five, which is still part of title nine deals with housing. And in particular, it's dealing with unfair housing practices. Now the definition of housing status in section three, it still applies to section five because they're all part of the same chapter. Now I'll read through or summarize for you the language that begins in the bottom of page five and then continues on page six and on page seven. And what you'll see again and again is for various types of illegal housing practices, there is a list of protected categories and what the bill does is add in the new category of housing status. So for example, on page six, number one, once again, this is one of the examples of illegal housing practices. It states that it is legal to refuse to sell or rent or refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental, et cetera, of a dwelling or other real estate to any person because of and then there's a list of protected categories. You'll see on line four, housing status is now added to that list of protected categories. Luke? Yes, sir. I'm sorry, I'm a co-host, so I can't raise my hand, I apologize, but I wanna let the committee know that on line seven of this particular paragraph, our committee in 2019 passed a bill for emanating discrimination against anyone who was a victim of abuse, sexual assault or stalking. And so after we passed that bill, that particular phrase was added into this part of the housing law. So these are living things that Luke is talking about, that these aren't old-time statutes, these are things that evolve and change as the legislature considers other things. Is that correct, Luke? That is correct that that language was added. Yes, in 2019, you are correct. Moving on to line eight, this is two. Once again, this is a list of illegal housing actions. It states that it is illegal to discriminate against or harass any person in the terms, conditions, privileges and protections of the sale or rental of a dwelling or other real estate or the provision of services, et cetera. And once again, then there is a list of protected categories and housing status is added to that. Number three, concerns advertisements or listings or ads for housing and the availability of housing and it prohibits discrimination on the basis of various categories, including under the bill, housing status. And if you flip to page seven, you'll see number four concerns. It concerns it's illegal to represent or tell someone that a unit is not available. For example, an apartment is not available to rent when it really is or a home is not available for sale when it really is based on that person's protected categories such as race, et cetera. And this would add housing status here also. Now I wanna point out that there's three ellipses in the middle of the page or three stars in the middle of the page on line 11. And there is in current law a number six that we are not amending. And that six concerns loans and financial assistance. And that also lists the same protected categories as under current law, but we are not adding housing status to that. And there's a witness who will probably testify in front of the committee why, but it has to do requirements about housing and verify housing for loans and other financial assistance. So of all the types of illegal housing discrimination, that is one that this bill does not change or add housing status to. Is that clear to everybody? Yes. So is that because of the need to like verify a physical address for loan documents, banking purposes like FDIC insurance? I believe so, but I'll let the witness you'll probably hear about that, confirm whether that's accurate and give you some detail. And that was the same witness who appeared last year, I believe or representative of the same body. Representative Hango. Thank you. Maybe it's farther along here, but I seem to remember this in the context of the same conversation. Does this also impact employment forms or did we not come to a conclusion on that? We did discuss that. And if you don't mind, let's put that on hold till we get to the employment law section. But I think there is a discussion of various forms and what kind of address you had to put down and whether it was verified or not. Thank you, sorry. That was the key whether the employer had to verify. And that's something I'm not knowledgeable about. So that might be something you hear from other witnesses, but I believe last year, witnesses indicated that wasn't something that had to be verified. Any other questions? So number seven, we're now on line 12 of page seven. Number seven, this is another example of a legal housing related activity. And it's what we call block busting, which is you're trying to get people to sell based on representations of who's moving in or who just moved in next door. And it basically prohibits doing that or engaging in that practice based on certain protected categories. And once again, housing status would now be added to that list of protected categories. And that's line 16 on page seven. Eight concerns listing services. Once again, housing status would be added to the protected categories. And that's on line five of the next page, page eight. And then finally, number 12, we're now on page eight, line nine, has to do with discrimination in land use decisions or permitting. And once again, it's adding housing status as one of the protected categories that you cannot discriminate against a person on the basis of in land use or permitting decisions. Are there any questions about what I've covered so far? Great. So now we'll move on to section six. We're on page eight, line 16. So now we're jumping from title nine to title 10, which is conservation development. And we're in chapter 25, which concerns the Vermont Housing Finance Agency. And the Vermont Housing Finance Agency is tasked with financing and promoting affordable housing for low and moderate income from honors. And if you flip over to page nine, you'll see that on lines 10 through 12, we're adding the same definition of housing status that we reviewed earlier. So exactly the same definition, exactly the same words. It's being added to these statues and what it basically means is that the Vermont Housing Finance Agency in carrying out its duties cannot discriminate, I'm sorry, cannot discriminate against someone on the basis of housing status. Any questions about that? So let's move on to section seven, page nine, line 13. And now we're moving on to title 21, which concerns employment law. So we've covered public accommodation, we've covered housing, we've covered the Vermont Housing Finance Agency and now we're moving on to employment. And what section seven does is prohibit discrimination against homeless individuals in various employment contexts, but it asks you to actually jump to section eight, which is on page 11, because in section eight, in the definition section, 21 BSA 495D, we're adding in the same definition of housing status. And the only reason why we're doing it in section eight is just how the statute is currently organized. So in this area of law, the definitions are later on instead of being in the beginning, but the impact is exactly the same for this relevant title and chapter, we are adding the same definition of housing status. And then if you go back to section seven, on pages nine and 10, we have the language about unfair employment practices. And in each of these relevant areas of law, we're adding in the term housing status. So 21 BSA 495 Unlawful Employment Practice, A, which starts on line 15, states that it is an unlawful employment practice, except where there's a bonafide occupational qualification concerning a person of a particular race, color, other category, and we're adding in housing status here. And then you'll see on line 20 and continue on to the next page, there is a list of the things you can't do. And number one is for any employer, or agency, or organization to discriminate against an individual based on the various protected categories. And on the top of page 10, line one, continuing on to line two, we've added in the new category of housing status. Number two states that it's illegal for any person seeking employees for an employment agency or labor organization to basically print or disseminate an ad that discriminates, and we're adding housing status to that list of protected categories. Number three concerns classification in a union system and says that it's illegal to discriminate in the classification system based on protected categories, including now housing status. And number four, which is on line 15, concerns labor organizations and says that they cannot discriminate based on protected categories, including housing status. Now, Representative Hango had asked a question about various employment related forms. And as I said earlier, I believe the discussion was that for various forms, yes, you do have to give an address, but I believe the discussion last year was that may not need to be verified or a rudimentary address that's even temporary may be sufficient. But that's something I'm not 100% sure of and that's something you may hear witnesses discuss. Are there any questions about what we've covered so far? Yes, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Luke. So just to be clear and for the committee, when we do laws like this in the discrimination areas and all these practice areas, I believe the language, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the language originally came from the federal government and the federal government has a certain number of protected classes. And this is where Vermont says, yes, we're going to, yes, those federally denominated protected classes exist as do these. And this is where we add more. And in the case of how we look and how we treat federal law versus state law, when the state law is stronger than the federal law, I believe that's what plays out in most of these disputes. Is that still, is that right? Did I get that right? Yes, a good way to think about it is federal law and for that matter, decisions of the federal, the national Supreme Court are the floor and then states can add to that. So that's the minimum and states can go beyond it. So in this context, states can add new categories that aren't covered by federal law. Federal law still applies in Vermont, but the state can go beyond that above that and add additional categories of protected individuals. Any questions about that? So what I want to do now is go back to, yes, Representative Parsons, and then I'll get to you Representative Barang. Thanks, just to expand on, just so I'm gaining some knowledge here, what Chair Steven said, those two federal and state laws, does the state law apply on federal property though, or no? I don't know the answer. I can check on that. I do not know the answer to that. Representative Barang, do you have a question? Yeah, with the employment section. So how would personal hygiene play into that? Good question. So in all of these protected categories, there's a question, well, what is, first of all, is there a bona fide occupational requirement that relates to race or sex or sexual orientation or religion or homeless status? And if there is, and I can't think of one, I'll thaw my head, that might be something that you could treat people differently based on. So don't forget that. But secondly, if that doesn't apply, so you have a employee and personal hygiene or tardiness or whatever is an issue and you believe it is tied to their homeless status, this is the kind of thing that would get into something where it may result in litigation or referral to the Human Rights Commission or consulting HR or attorneys to see how to handle it. I think it would be similar to any other protected category. If someone isn't performing on the job, you could still take action to fix that. But it would be a process to ensure that it's not a pretext for discriminating against someone based on that protected category. So for those of you who were in the committee last year, we talked about this, how does litigation occur? How do courts sort this out? Or how does the Human Rights Commission sort this out? And the way it normally works is if a plaintiff believed, say I was a homeless individual, I was working in the store, my boss contended that I was unkempt and that was a problem with the customers and therefore fired me. And please excuse the phone ringing in the background. I'll just keep going and I hope you can hear me. But if I thought I was actually fired because I was homeless, I would have to go to the Human Rights Commission or the court and establish that I'm part of a protected class being homeless in this case. I was qualified for the job. I was doing the job. I was subjected to an adverse employment action, in this case, termination and that the employer treated someone else differently. So there was a non-homeless person who also was unkempt but was retained, for example. So that'd be the prima facie case that I have to establish. It's the minimum showing. If I can meet those requirements, meet that threshold, then the burden shifts to the employer, the defendant, to articulate a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the action taken. So in this case, it'd be that I was terminated because I was unkempt or had body odor and it was a problem in the store. It drove away clients, for example. And if the employer can really do that, then the burden shifts back to me to show that that wasn't the real reason that I was let go. That that was a pretext and I was really let go because I'm homeless and otherwise I could do the job. So that's the back and forth that would occur if someone is in a protected category and thought they weren't hired or they were fired or they were exposed to another adverse impact of some kind because of that status. And you can see it's a showing and then a counter showing and then another showing. And that's what may occur if you are going to the Human Rights Commission, if you go to court or if it's a discussion, if there's an HR office that you're talking about what happened and why. So I'm sorry, I know that's a long answer but that's how it would play out if someone who's homeless was fired or paid less or some other adverse action. And the question was, was it because of them truly being homeless or some other legitimate thing they did in the job context? So putting the word perceived in the definition though does not open it up to a lot of subjectiveness and ambiguity between viewpoints from the parties involved? Yes, it could. I think that was a point that when your colleagues indicated earlier, yes, it could. If you don't have that, then it means that someone has to show that they're really homeless. So having that in there definitely opens it up. It's a much broader definition. If you take it out, then it only would apply to people who are truly homeless and they would have to demonstrate that to be protected by the law. Okay, now I don't know who raised their hand first, Representative Toriano. Yes, thank you, Luke. The term perceived as somewhat as we discussed it last year and sort of an extension to the employment issue that you just have described, I thought of this when I was preparing the bill for presentation on the floor, that when, for instance, if you had a business on Church Street in Burlington that had access from the street, you saw an individual roll up with a shopping cart full of their belongings and had poor hygiene. If you met them at the door and said, you cannot come in here, then the perception that that person is homeless has generated a prima facie case that the store owner was discriminating against that person because of perceived homelessness. Now, on the other hand, if the store owner let this person into the store and the individuals did start to drive business away either by verbal abuse, panhandling, or some sort of disorderly behavior, then that store owner does have the right to expel that individual from their store and property. So that's what my thoughts were on perceived homelessness, that if you perceive someone to be homeless and you discriminate against them, then there's a, and a prima facie case can be made, then that applies, that is homeless discrimination and it's essence. That was my thoughts when I was preparing to present this on the floor, anticipating some sort of question about this. So that's like the activities related to homelessness or activities related, wasn't there, or associated? Wasn't there- Section two, which we're gonna get to now. Okay, gotcha. And I think that's where a lot of the discussion was. Representative Hango, did you have a question? Anyone else have a question? Cause now I want to turn to section two and go through that. So section two is entitled the homeless bill of rights and there's some introductory comments I wanna make. This is a little different because it's in title one. So everything we've talked about is in title nine, title 10, it's existing anti-discrimination statutes. This is putting a so-called bill of rights in title one, which is one of the, is the first title in the Vermont statutes annotated. So it's sort of a very broad concept that would apply to all other laws and all other titles. Now, in the comments as I go through this language, please understand my role. I don't advocate for this bill or against this bill. I don't advocate for against anyone's point of view. I represent all of you. And that means that it's my job to point out potential issues or problems with language. And that's not negative against a sponsor. It's not negative against one side that's for it or another side that's against it. It's me doing my job to give you all the same information and to try to make sure that you all had the same legal information so you can discuss and make the best decision you possibly can. I'm not aware of any other protected category, race, religion, sexual orientation, et cetera, that has a so-called bill of rights in Vermont law. And I checked with Damien who handles employment law and he's not aware of one either. So the idea of having a bill of rights for one category is unusual. It perhaps could be viewed as giving that category, in this case, homeless individuals, enhanced status or protection, or greater status or protection compared to the other protected categories that are listed in Title IX and Title X and employment law, like we just reviewed. In addition, as I go through the language in section two, I'll point out that some of this language is vague and could be subject to different interpretations. Some of it perhaps could be viewed as even contradicting the language we talked about in Title IX, Title X and employment law. So let's begin and walk through this. Spend a little more time reading the actual language and then discussing it and I would encourage and welcome questions. Yes, Representative Murphy. Thank you, I got my hand up just in the nick of time. I have a question at just looking at this first set of language. And so I know I'm jumping ahead of you reading section A to us, but as I look at it, the thing that keeps jumping to my mind is the definition of a Vermonter and the resident status. And so I guess I'm just curious if this would fit in any other part of law where we define who is a resident. How do you mean? How would that be relevant? Because the law applies to anyone who's a resident or happens to be in Vermont. Okay, I'm sorry. You don't want to be in Vermont is the- Yeah, you're walking down Church Street and you're from Montreal. You're still covered by Vermont anti-discrimination statutes. You can't be discriminated against regardless of whether you're from Vermont or even from another country. Right, absolutely. But this language at the end of the sentence it says as any other resident of the state. Oh, I'm sorry. So I just was curious why we're pulling in residency. I don't have an answer for that question. So let me read you section A and we'll talk about it. And that's a good question I hadn't thought of. So now in section two, it would create a new title one, section 274, the homeless bill of rights and A states as follows. A person's rights privileges or access to public services shall not be denied or abridged solely because of his or her housing status. And by the way, in a few pages we have that same definition of housing status we talked about earlier. Such a person shall be granted the same rights and privileges as any other residents of this state. Now what I would point out about this language is it's quite broad. It appears to cover, in fact it does cover all quote rights and privileges but those are not defined. So that would seem to include everything we've talked about so far in various anti-discrimination laws but perhaps additional things. And then there's, it's almost aspirational in nature in the breadth of the language. And as I said earlier it's not really defined what it covers and doesn't cover. But there's the statement that that no person's rights or privileges shall be denied or abridged solely because of their housing status. So on one hand it's quite broad but then that word solely could be limiting that you would somehow have to establish that it was only because of your housing status. That if it was one of five factors this may not apply. And the reason why I bring that up is there a right of action later on in this section that we'll talk about that you can bring a lawsuit based on this. Are there any questions or comments about subsection A? Representative Murphy is that the new question? I think it still leaves in mind and this is totally off track and it's just something that triggered for me again going back to the resident definition but the way it's worded I would see someone being able to argue a case that isn't necessarily homeless actually. I mean, maybe this particular paragraph taken on its own right, discrimination goes both ways. You can discriminate for and against. And I would argue that putting in the statement about resident would pull into question our tax status for people who pay in-state out-of-state tax on their building. Cause if it's not their home, it's considered second home. I may be going way into the weeds on it but it is one that when you're putting things into law it worries you. I was just gonna say let's time out and remember we're gonna get, I mean, again, Luke can answer questions back and forth. This is a walk-through and we're gonna get the big picture and if last year is any indication we're gonna take questions like that, Barbara, for a lot to try to, this is the kind of bill that we're gonna have a lot of questions like that for because of the implications here. So back to you, Luke or Lisa. Representative Hango, did you have a question? Thank you. Yeah, I just wanted to make a simple suggestion that might clear this up for representative Murphy if the author of the bill might consider just saying as any other person instead of any other resident of the state. I will now move on to B. I don't see any other questions about A. So I wanna paraphrase or read through B and B continues on to page three and then I wanna go back and make some comments about the language and answer questions. So bear with me as I walk through B. B states that a person shall have the right number one to use and move freely in public places including public sidewalks, parks, transportation and buildings in the same manner as any other person and without discrimination on the basis of his or her housing status and public space was something that was mentioned earlier. So this is where that term is used. Going over to page three, number two to equal treatment by all state and municipal agencies without discrimination on the basis of housing status. Number three, not to face discrimination while seeking or maintaining employment due to his or her housing status. Four, to emergency medical care free from discrimination. Five, to vote, register to vote and receive documentation necessary without discrimination. Six, to confidentiality of personal records and information in accordance with all limitations on disclosure established by state and federal law. Then there's some cross references to specific laws without discrimination. Seven, to a reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her personal property without discrimination. Eight, to immediate and continued enrollment of his or her school age children. So let's now go back. This is a list of a person shall have the right of each of these things we've gone through. Now, if you go back to the very first one which was to use and move freely in public places. This is also quite broad and the term move freely is not defined. And the question is what impact of any this might have on a local ordinance or statute or rule. So for example, if a local ordinance prohibits people sleeping in public, would this mean that that could not be applied to a homeless person or could it still be applied to a homeless person because it states to use and move freely in public places in the same manner as any other person without discrimination. And I don't know if anyone will have the answer to that. People can argue back and forth. But my point is that the language would be subject to interpretation. That means subject to interpretation by law enforcement to potentially courts by the Human Rights Commission and other bodies because it's not entirely clear to me what it would cover or not cover. Going to page three, number three, which begins on line three, it says that a person has a right not to face discrimination while seeking or maintaining employment. Now, we already went through in Title 21, the amendments to 21 VSA 495, the employment statute. We already amended those. So what does this do? Is this broader? Does it go beyond? If you have two statutes and one's quite specific which has been interpreted for years and applied for years, which is Title 21, then you have this other broader language in Title I, it could be interpreted as going beyond the mere minimum in Title 21. So once again, the language is broad. It might be somewhat vague. What impact does that have on employment rights and potential employment cases? Representative Hangel, do you have your hand up? Is that a new question? Or does that go back to the prior one? Yes. It's not a question. I just wanted to mention that and I don't believe it's changed since last spring that we did hear from a number of witnesses that this would supersede any local ordinances that are in place. I think that's more to what we're gonna get to later which is food and water in the public area. So the employment discrimination, I'm not sure because I don't know if there's local employment ordinances, there might be but some of the others, I think that's a valid point. Sorry, I had my hand up before the... Oh, I'm sorry. It was on the use to move freely in public places and you were talking about any local ordinances that would be... Gotcha. And we heard pretty loud and clear that this would supersede any local ordinances that were in place for that reason. Any other questions or comments? Number seven, which is on page three, states that a person is entitled to, a homeless person is entitled to, a reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her personal property without discrimination. And I don't know if this was talked about last year but I just wanna make sure everyone understands that the reasonable expectation of privacy is a concept that's well established in various areas of law including search and seizure law but it's sort of a sliding scale. In other words, you have a greater expectation of privacy in your home. People shouldn't be able to come in your home and look what's in your bookcase than you do when you're outside or for a property that you leave on the curb to be picked up for garbage. So it's a sliding scale. It's used in a number of contexts. It's pulling this in to this statute and this context. And the question would be how it would be applied and does it create a heightened or greater expectation of privacy for homeless individuals as compared to other individuals? So these are just a couple of questions I have and I don't know if there's a clear answer to them and different witnesses might have different answers. I'm merely trying to point out that some of this language could be subject to different interpretations. Representative Toriano, did you have a question? Yes, I guess my question would be that if again going to an individual who's got all their belongings in a shopping cart and is sleeping behind the former university, the former May Street Mall in Burlington, whatever they call it, and is kind of roused it out by law enforcement, does that protect their belongings in that shopping cart when they're sleeping next to it on the street? Is that what we're looking at here? Well, I think that might have been the intent to language and some people might say it does. I think that's a good point, but it'd be subject to interpretation. So it says to a reasonable expectation of privacy in hers or her personal belongings. And so it might be up to law enforcement, a court, some other body or individual to determine whether that was reasonable or not. So I don't think the sliding scale goes away. It's still there. The question is, does it change it for homeless individuals? Right, would a law enforcement officer do you think need some sort of reasonable suspicion that there was some sort of contraband in that shopping cart and wanted to look through it? Is that what we're thinking about? I am not up to date on search and seizure law in Vermont. I can answer that. You might be able to, I can't. So I don't know. Thanks, Luke. All right. I want to move on now to page four. Representative Hango, do you have a question or comment? Yeah, my question is on number eight, line 18 on page three regarding the McKinney-Vento Assistance Act. It already exists. So do we need to restate it here? Yes, that federal law already exists. Whether you need to restate it, whether it's add something more, I can't answer. Okay. And I think that maybe other witnesses may have an opinion about that. Thank you. So I see both of you, Representative Hango, you still have your hand up. I assume that's the old hand. All right, came down. Great, anyone else have a question? So I want to move on now to page four. Subsection C, it states that no person shall be subject to civil or criminal sanctions for soliciting, sharing, accepting, or offering food, water, money, or other donations in a public place. And then it says, number two, a place of public accommodation, once again, that's a term we looked at earlier, with the consent of the owner or other person representing the place of public accommodation and in a manner that does not interfere with normal business operations. So let's break this down a little bit. I think the language in C, that no person shall be subject to civil or criminal sanctions for the listed activities would seem to be or would seem to potentially invalidate a local law or ordinance concerning, for example, eating in public, at least as to homeless individuals or individuals perceived as to be homeless. So this is one of your colleagues mentioned earlier that it might have an impact, another other language of invalidating or undermining a local ordinance, I would think as to see it might also. Now, in C two, this language was actually added by this committee after discussion last year, but I think it may have an unintended impact. If you read it carefully, it seems to say that a person cannot be fined or ticketed or subject to any civil or criminal sanction if they're in a place of public accommodation, let's for argument assume that's a restaurant. If they're there with the consent of the owner and in a manner that does not interfere with normal business operations. So that would seem to apply to me that you have to get the consent of the owner before you can hang out in the coffee shop. So it might actually unintentionally present a higher bar for someone who's homeless to be in a place of public accommodation. I don't know if that was the intent, but reading the language, it would seem to indicate that it's okay to be in the coffee shop only if you have the consent of the owner and you're not interfering with normal business operations. And that same language is repeated in D2 also. So I just wanna point that out. Representative Ioannos, is that a new question? Yes, I've gone back to my example before. So if a disheveled individual walks into the coffee shop and the owner does not ask them to leave, does that imply that the consent of the owner to be there? You might be able to make that argument, but that's an argument based on implied consent. So I mean, you might be able to make that argument. Representative Murphy. Thank you. I was just gonna ask with your concerns about the sec number two under the subcategory of C, doesn't the language in the category C really speak to what action has to be occurring though? And if you've just shuffled in bought a coffee and sat down, it's not part of what's described as acting the actions. That's a good point. I mean, if you come in and you accept a coffee from someone or you're sharing with someone, then you would be pulled within that language. But what you said is valid. If you just walk in and you're not soliciting sharing or accepting any of the listed items or any other donation, you are correct. You would not be covered by C. That's a valid point. Thank you. Representative Clacky. You're muted. You're still muted. Thank you, Luke. Doesn't this what we're talking about right now, this section contradicts the public accommodations in sections three to eight of the bill later on? Yes, it could be viewed as that. It seems to be a little more restricted under certain circumstances, yes. Okay. And this is something where a lot of it's gonna be fact specific and you should definitely hear from other witnesses who either, you know, shop owners, advocates for homeless people or people who litigate in this area. And I'm not any of those things. And they might be able to give you, fleshed out for you and give you their point of view. You know, for me, when we finish this section, Luke, I'd like to ask you, like if this section wasn't in, does section three to eight provide all of the anti-discrimination, even the aspirations of what this homeless bill of rights does in section two? If you don't mind, let's get to that in a moment. Okay. Let me get through D, because that's also relevant in the private, the cause of action. And then we can talk about that if that's okay. Yeah. So D, we're still on page four. We're now on line seven. State said, no law shall target a person based on that person's housing status or the harmless activities associated with homelessness or the provision of supports or services to a person without housing or perceived to be without housing in a public place or number two is the same language we just talked about. So this is not just if you're sharing or accepting food, water or another donation, this is more general, but it's the same language about public accommodation. So I have some concerns about the language in D. What is targeting? So it says no law shall target a person based on, et cetera. What does target mean? Is that the intent of the statute? Is that the application of the statute? Is that the words in black and white on the page of the statute or the local ordinance? And then it says based on that person's housing status or the harmless activities associated with homelessness and what is a harmless activity? That's not a defined term. So what does that mean? And that may be subject to different interpretations. The advocate or the homeless person or the passerby may have a different interpretation than the store owner or the police officer. So just be aware of these issues. Now, E as an echo, which is online 14 states that a person aggrieved by a violation of this section. So everything we've talked about in section two so far may bring an action in superior court for appropriate relief, including injunctive relief and actual damages sustained and reasonable attorney's fees. So that means you can go to court and sue if you've been impacted by a violation of any of the terms we've just talked about and you can see an injunction to stop that illegal action, damages that you've suffered, some direct damage you've suffered, such as loss of employment, costs and reasonable attorney fees to bring the action. It does not include punitive damages to be very clear. And then F is a definitional section and it has the same definition of housing status that we've talked about more than once. And on the top of page five, you have the definition of public accommodation that we've talked about more than once. So it's the same definition as we talked about earlier. That concludes my walkthrough and I'll be glad to answer or talk about any issue that the committee wishes. Representative Parsons, then we'll go back to you, Representative Clarke. There we go. I just wanted to kind of, on section D there, we talked about what is a harmless activity, just more of a personal experience of the difference between a harmless activity considered as an adult and the harmless activity considered as a four, five-year-old walking by or miles apart at times for the social and emotional part of growing up. So just the vagueness of that kind of very different scales. Representative Bloomey, did you have a question or comment? And then we'll get to you Representative Clarke with your issue earlier. Well, I was just going to invite you to respond to Representative Clarke. So I just was interested in that particular question that he asked. Thanks. All right, thank you. Representative Clarke, could you rephrase that question, please? Well, I think when you walked us through sections three to eight, it was very clear for us and you talked about the different types of statutes. And in all of those parts of the bill, anyone who feels discriminated against if they're a protected class can make a formal complaint, right? And go to the courts. In most cases, yes. Or in some cases, Human Rights Commission or... Right, okay. And so as you then walk back and you talked about some of the clarifying things we need in the Bill of Rights. And I think you said that some of these seemed aspirational and it was a little big. My question was, if are all the issues in the Bill of Rights section of this bill, section two, are they already covered in sections three and eighth in a clearly defined way? And is there anything in section two that's not covered that if we want it in, we should put that in the same kind of language in sections three and eight? I would say that section two is bigger and broader than what we looked at for housing and employment, et cetera. Some of that is the language is vague, so it's subject to interpretation. But some of it, I think is fairly clear equal treatment without discrimination in all manners to confidentiality of public personal records. That wasn't covered in the other statute we looked at. Reasonable expectation of privacy. That's new, that's different than what we talked about in Title IX. And employment discrimination. So some of it goes beyond what we talked about in the other sections of the Bill. Whether to keep that or not is totally up to you. And my point is merely that some of that language that seems to go beyond also seems vague and might be subject to interpretation. So I would say section two is bigger, is broader than the later sections of the Bill and seems to cover more. Okay, thank you. Are there any other questions or comments? Well, thank you.