 Good morning. This is Friday, April 2nd, 2021. Thank God it's Friday. We're taking up H-128, which is an act relating to limiting criminal defenses based on the victim's identity. And we have... We're in here. There's some legislative counsel. And the committee, hopefully to discuss it, Senator Nitko will be joining us soon. I hope. Ren, are there any proposed amendments to the bill? Good morning committee for the record. Ren here from Legislative Council. So when you took up the bill last week, you took a look at some language that I put together while you were hearing testimony. I can put that back up on the screen so you can look at it again to see if that addresses some of the concerns that were raised by committee members and the witnesses. Would you like it if I shared my screen to... Yes, it would refresh my memory. I'm sure the rest of the committee remembers everything. Okay. And Peggy also was to you also to post, because there is some highlighting in this version. So if you remember the way that the bill, as it came over to you from the house looked, there were two subsections. There was subsection A and subsection B. And A dealt with what kind of evidence was prohibited from being introduced in the criminal prosecution. And B provided that you couldn't introduce a certain type of evidence to mitigate the severity of the offense, which you heard testimony was really about the sentencing phase. So, and you also had quite a bit of discussion about that language, about evidence of a non-forcible or nonviolent, romantic or sexual advance by the victim. So I tried to address those three issues in this language. You looked at it a little bit last week. Here it is again. So I combined A and B into one, just one provision here. So, and I've added or sentencing at the beginning. So now it reads in any prosecution or sentencing for a criminal offense, the following types of evidence can't be used as a defense to the defendant's criminal conduct. To establish a finding the defendant suffered diminished capacity. To justify defendants use of force against another person. And then I added, or to otherwise mitigate the severity of the offense. And then I added, or sentencing. And then I added, or sentencing. And then I added, or sentencing. I added, or sentencing. Just quickly you. You read in the first line in any prosecution. In other. Oh, sorry. I like better if it does say in any. But now it says in a. Okay. Yeah. I didn't, if I said any, I meant to say, A. Anyway. I just think any goes better with sentencing. Good. I'll make a note of that. A little nervous about sentencing being added. I'd like to hear from the defender general, but I'm just, I understand why you wouldn't want it in a trial before a jury. But when you get to a sentencing phase. Even if a. Well, there are always aggravating versus mitigating circumstances that are argued. And it's up to a judge to decide. Whether something is appropriate or not appropriate in the circumstances. If we are disarming the ability of a defendant to make an argument in sentencing for whatever reason. That always makes me nervous. And I'm not sure how this would fly with the defense bar. So, Dick, I'd like to hear from somebody. Okay. Unfortunately, unfortunately the defense bar is not here. Trust that we can. Where is the sentencing in the other. It's in, there's no word or sentencing in the, in the version that came over from the house that was in subsection B. You heard some testimony from the witnesses that. That sub subsection B that said that. I think that the evidence of certain evidence shouldn't be introduced to mitigate the severity of the, the offense was referring to the sentencing phase. And can I ask the question. I am looking at my copy and what I have is as introduced. I don't have as past. I do. I mean, as introduced was sent to me, not as past. I don't know. You need to go online and get. Yeah, I will. I was. Yes. If you could Peggy. If they're available. In fact, they're all everything that was sent to me was as introduced. So I guess they're not any good. Well, the defense bar. Rebecca Turner testified. I don't know. I don't know. The defender general. Holds the bill no matter what. And. However, the defense is so I. Against lower sentencing. Resulting no data that this defense is. Used in Vermont. Which is. Sentences naturally have resulted in. Much higher for sentences. You know, we can. Even if we can't get a hold of her, I know what her testimony is. You're. Correct. The fence bar. Poses the use of the word sentencing. They oppose the bill anyway. I really opposed the bill. We were talking then though. My memory is correct. About the trial stage, not the sentencing stage. Right. Well, we should. Okay. Could we continue looking through and if we want to add sentencing or take it out that was suggested by some of the witnesses. I had Alice Nick here. I know exactly which witnesses. Well, David sure did. And Rebecca Turner. Did not. No, she did. She did. Oh, oh, about sentencing. You mean. Yeah. Yeah. As opposed to the, she's opposed. The defender general. Is opposed to the bill. Right. Because there is no problem. Excuse me. What problem is the problem trying to get at. And there's no evidence of a problem in Vermont. That is her. That's my, my. That's what I wrote down from her testimony. Alice has much better notes. That's what I'm talking about. And also they just opposed. Removing any defense. Right. As a matter of principle. We need to decide during markup, which is what we're doing. Should we add sentencing or not. Okay. And you added otherwise mitigate the severity of the offense. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Can you see if David sure is available to. Yep. I did send it to him. I can email again, but Rebecca just joined. Great. Thank you. Can I, can I just throw in a thought here. And I know that. This won't make anybody happy. But I actually don't think I like the bill at all. Just because I think that. You know, I don't think I like the bill at all. Why would you eliminate the ability to use something. As a defense and trust the jury and the judge. To take that into account. Anyway, so I, I'm not sure that I'm happy with the bill at all, whether it's sentencing or. Prosecution. Senator Baruch. Do you want to respond to them? I think the first thing that I was trying to do was. There, there has been historically. You know, an entrenched prejudice. Against certain classes of people. And people in the LGBT community. Are being represented by this. And I think that. People were being ex post facto were being. Given either no sentence. That is no conviction or a lesser conviction. Based on a shared prejudice. With judges and juries. So that they could make an argument that. There was something so horrible about the gayness of the person and the violence of the person. And then, you know, judges and juries here and there were saying, yeah, we can kind of understand that and going along with it. So what this bill is trying to do is take away that possibility. From. Prosecutors and. And. And judges. To agree with a defense that there's something inherently. Of violence about someone's being gay. So, um, you know, I, I support the bill and I support. What Bryn has done in terms of adding sentencing. Because if you don't add sentencing. Or make it explicit that it includes sentencing, then you could have a judge who essentially buys the gay panic. Defense. And. Circumvents what happened in the prosecution phrase phase under this law. So if I can just have a moment to respond to that, I understand that. But I, but it hasn't my, what I thought we heard. From Rebecca was that the, those high profile cases, the three cases that bore gave us art with a high profile ones. And indeed that is what happened. But when you look at the cases in general, that hasn't happened. And that's a small minority of. Of sent reduced sentences because of that defense. So if you look at, if, if we shouldn't be responding to high, necessarily to high profile cases, but to look at the totality of the cases. And, and I, and I do understand that that's true. But so what if, what if I'm this nice white little woman. And I get attacked by. A black man is coming on to me and I say that I, it just made me so nervous that I had to shoot him. I mean, shouldn't we, or a guy from with a motorcycle jacket on. Was coming on to me. So I, I'm so afraid of motorcycle people because I know about the Hell's Angels. So I had to shoot him. I mean, isn't, aren't we going down some kind of a. Slippery path here that. I would like to. I'm sorry. And I'd like to bring this back, but bring. And then I'm going to ask. Rebecca Turner to focus on the word on adding sentencing to the amendment. So the other changes that have been made in the bill were intended to address that concern that was raised at the last Senate, the concern that Senator White was just, um, describing. So in order to address that concern, um, they made some changes to subdivision one. So you remember before there was like a standalone, um, category of evidence that couldn't be introduced. I've combined that into, um, subdivision one here. So now it reads the evidence of defendants, discovery of knowledge about or potential disclosure of the crime victims, actual or personal, sexual orientation or gender identity, including under circumstances in which the victim made a non-forcible, non-criminal romantic or sexual advance towards the defendant. So I did that in order to make it clear that that type of evidence is only in the context of when, um, the defendant is concerned about the potential discovery, um, or knowledge about the victim's sexual orientation or gender identity. Does that, does that make sense to everybody? Okay. As far as I'm concerned, my only, the question that Joe raised about sentencing is what I'd like to hear from Rebecca Turner about whether that should be added or not added and what impact it has by adding prosecution or sentencing. I know that you're, that Rebecca, the defender general is opposed to the bill. Thank you. Thank you, uh, chair and, and, uh, for the record, Rebecca Turner from the defender general's office. And thanks for. Thank you for joining us on short notice. Thank you for looping me in. Um, and I just, and, um, Bryn, that was helpful to see it on the screen. Um, and I don't actually have a copy of that. Let me up on my screen. But I, if I recall, oh, here, thank you. Um, so yes, I think the impact of, of adding that language is to clarify. If there was any doubt that this, uh, categorical ban on consideration or, uh, on admissibility of this, um, situation cannot be, uh, considered at all in a criminal court proceeding, sentencing prosecution. So I think that achieves that purpose in terms of whether or not that changes, um, my, or the defender general's office is a position on this bill. It doesn't as, as was always predicted. And, and again, it's reinforcing, um, the reasons why we oppose it, uh, which is that, and I think some of the, I think it may have been even attorney, uh, sure, share from a general's office or, or the prosecution's office. But at sentencing, um, there is, of course, the long tradition that we want the judge to have the maximum flexibility to consider, um, all possible factors, all past possible, uh, relevant information, um, going into all the myriad of, of factors that that judges way in, in terms of the various purposes of, uh, uh, choosing the right sentence for that particular individual, right? So it's both a maximizing discretion for the judge to consider all. So we, he, she, uh, can fashion the most appropriate sentence for that individual for that to happen, you know, considering rehabilitative, uh, possibilities, um, recidivism issues, deterrent specific counseling needs, you know, risk to the public. Every with the, every factor needs to be considered. And so that is where, um, I think, um, it is in a separate issue in terms of banning it, categorically coming in at the, at the, um, Gilded innocence phase of the case, but at sentencing, I think that this is a detriment overall to our system, to the public. Uh, again, we have a system where we trust, uh, and give the judges wide discretion to, uh, suggest that we, some of the judges, some of the judges, uh, I don't know if the judge is wide discretion to, uh, suggest that we somehow can't continue that trust in this particular area. I think again is sending a message that I don't think, and this was repeated this morning, that there's any reason to be concerned. I know there were some isolated cases cited, although I'm not recalling it for Yang was citing Vermont specific cases because I wasn't. Okay. Thank you. Um, and so I think then that there, there was no reason. Um, I think that the concerns raised this morning to you as to, uh, sort of a slippery slope, um, whenever something is, uh, is horrific and that we want to shun, right? That we don't like these attitudes, uh, these, these actions, these, these opinions coming in. Uh, there is a question of where will we start drawing the line? Right. Um, because this could go into, um, all sorts of realms. So no, for those reasons. Um, you know, particularly the latter part, which is also making clear in this section that it's only regarding, you cannot considering it for mitigating the offense. Um, what that is setting up for is also sort of a skewing of, of, of sort of permitting a judge to an encouraging, in a way implicitly a policy of pushing a judge to, to increase sentences and to imprisonment. Again, why the distortion and policy without, um, when we don't know the specific factors and circumstances in hand. Um, cause I'll stop there. Thank you very much. Uh, questions for Rebecca. I think it makes, um, appreciate your willingness to come here on short notice. David, did you want to comment on the amendment that Brynn has put forward and, uh, the issue of sentencing? Sure, Senator. Thank you. And I apologize. Thanks for the short notice coming on. Appreciate it. No problem. Um, I've only able to review briefly what is in front of you. My initial thought and just thinking about this, you guys already know the AG's offices position on this. We support the bill, uh, and supported as it came out from the house and happy to work with you on, on the mending language here. So looking at it from a technical standpoint, my first thought is just that I'm not entirely sure that it. This amendment addresses Senator Benning's concerns around. Uh, how certain types of conduct like physical conduct as opposed to beliefs, um, might still be a viable defense without, or a defense that should be available. Um, again, we're talking about conduct, not what's in somebody's head, not the hateful beliefs that we don't want to be part of a defense. And I'm not sure if this is addressing that concern. I understand that it's the way in which it's changed, I think, but I'm just not sure if it was, it was responsive center Benning's concern. That would be my only. My only point on this is something for the committee to consider. But of course, if this is the direction that committee wants to go in, we wouldn't oppose that either. Okay. I like the format that she's presented. My only question is where the sentencing should be added or not. Again, we don't, we don't oppose have this version of it. I think it's fine to explicitly include sentencing. It is doing it in a way that, um, if the staff. Put everything together in a way that the prior draft separated out the sentencing phase in a way that I thought might address some of Senator Benning's concerns. Around a certain types of conduct. Not what's in somebody's head. Still being a plausible defense in the trial phase. But I also, I'm coming in quickly here. So if, uh, I will defer. Yeah. Yeah. So I, I maybe, maybe I completely misunderstood. Joe's concern here. I thought that he did not want sentencing in here because sentencing. Is that we want to give the judge. Maximum information during the sentencing process. So I'm confused about why you would think that. Adding this in was. Somehow meeting Joe's. Concerns. Let me make sure you understand my concern, David. First off. There's two phases of a criminal. Prosecution here. First is the trial. Where a jury is going to make a decision. The second is the sentencing phase where a judge is going to make a decision. I was somewhat sympathetic with the idea of laying down. Prohibiting a defense in a criminal. Trial phase. Because I saw some wisdom in society, trying to block that as an excuse. A judge on the other hand. I've been through the judge reviewing process, nominating process five times. You are grilled. We don't pick judges who have biases. We pick judges who are able to understand. Where things should and should not come into play when making a sentencing argument. If I'm a criminal defendant that has grown up in the West borough Baptist church. All of us may agree that in fact, we don't want those kinds of people being produced in society. But the fact of the matter is I'm a defendant in a situation where all of my mindset is the West borough Baptist church. And in a sentencing phase, a judge may have before him or her. Options for how to address. Programming needs. But for me as a defense attorney to be stripped of the ability to say judge. There's room for that. Do we warehouse them or do we provide them programming in a probation situation of some kind? I find it very. Unfortunate that this language has come up at this point. And I'll back up to say, I would like to ask you, if you have any questions, if you have any questions, please feel free to ask them. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them back to me. So that's the way the judges come up at this point. And I'll back up to say, I was all in favor of a judge being given the ability during trial phase. To have a jury instruction that the jury could not consider. Any of these particular elements being addressed here. For the very reason Philip talked about. But when you get to sentencing, that's a whole nother ball game for me and I just can't go along with this. Mr. Chair. Yep. So I understand where Joe's coming from and also Rebecca. And I think that that's, in general, that's not an argument I disagree with but I feel as though we do this a lot where we say, well, people in other parts of the country have problems with violence, prejudice, et cetera, but not here in Vermont. And, you know, so when Joe says that we don't pick judges with bias here, of course we do, you know, I'm not gonna specify particular bias but I think we all understand now that when we talk about systemic bias, we're saying that legislators have bias, judges have bias, juries have bias. And as a society, we're trying to figure out how to manage these things. So if we create a hardcore separation between prosecution and sentencing, and we say we're not gonna allow this defense and prosecution, but then we give a single judge the ability to implicitly or explicitly buy this defense and bring the sentence down accordingly, then I think our work has been defeated in a way that Bryn's draft wouldn't allow. So, you know, I don't think, I think Vermont is a wonderful place. I think we have less violence and bias than in other places, I'll be honest, but we do have our problems too. And this I think seeks to speak to something that people in this community have been worried about for good reason because they've seen trials where Yang mentioned the high profile ones where people's sentences are mitigated because the person says I discovered this person's sexual orientation and it was that disorienting that I had to attack them. So the first draft, and I wanna be clear, so Bryn, correct me if I'm wrong, the first draft did include sentencing, it just didn't make it explicit. So if we went back to the house language, we would still be including sentencing, this draft just makes it explicit, am I right in that? Yeah, so it's my opinion that the house version did include sentencing, it didn't use the word sentencing, but subdivision B provided you can't introduce certain types of evidence to mitigate the severity of the defense of the offense. And it was my testimony, I think it was the testimony of others that that really indicated the sentencing phase. Okay, so in that, if I could just finish Jeanette, so in that case, I think the house decided on including sentencing, and so I think that's a fair question for us to pick up, but if we went back to their language, it would still be there, if it's gonna be there, I would prefer that it be clear and explicit. Do we, I know that there are certain things that aren't allowed in a jury trial like hearsay evidence and stuff like that, there are certain things that are disallowed. Do we disallow anything else to come before the judge? I mean, do we say you can't take into account their poverty level, or you can't take into account their, you can't hear, is there anything else that we tell a judge that you can't listen to when you're about to sentence them? Well, there's the, we have a rape shield statute that prohibits evidence about a victim's sexual history from being introduced. But that's the victim, not the defender, the defense, right? Or would that be used as a defense if it was allowed? Yeah, I get you. Is that the only one you think? You know, I don't wanna say that that's the only one. Rebecca, did you wanna comment on that question? I did, thank you for the opportunity to respond. There is, as I understand the reading of this bill, the judge would not be able to consider this. Where you reference hearsay, the Rape Shield Act, there are pieces which prohibit it, but a judge gets to consider whether, in fact, it falls within the category, right? And it comes in, but not based on the subject, but Rape Shield. And they're talking about the guilt, the trials phase of the case at sentencing, you're right, Senator, way about hearsay, but otherwise it is extraordinarily expansive in terms of what can be considered. Jessica, from the network, did you wanna speak? Sure, thank you so much, chair and committee. Jessica Barquas from the Vermont Network. And I will just say that we wholeheartedly support the language changes that Brynn has made. You know, I hear some of the concerns and I will just reiterate that we feel like it is never okay to say that a victim's identity is to blame for a defendant's violent reaction. And Brynn is very right in saying that this language and this concept is very similar to our Rape Shield laws, which work very well for our system. So thank you. Our committee, we have to make a decision. I like Brynn's changes, I support the changes, but I know with the majority of the committee on whether or not to add sentencing. I mean, if you don't like the bill, you're certainly welcome to vote against it. You know, I do wanna comment that just because it hasn't been used here doesn't mean it won't be. I remind people all the time when they used to say, well, there's never been a shooting in a workplace in Vermont that there was one in Bennington that just happened in 1993 before all the current issues. And also in Essex. In Essex. And so there have been, you know, I love sometimes while it can't happen here, gratitude can happen here. Somebody could try to use this response. However, I hear what Joe is saying about the sentencing phase and we allow all kinds of things to come into the sentencing phase. That doesn't mean that the judge has to take that into account when deciding the sentence or 99% of the cases anyway are plea market. So it's very rare that the judge overrides the plea market. There was a recent case in Bennington County where the judge overrode the plea bargain and gave the guy 18 months because that's what one of his associates got. And he didn't think it was fair that this guy was gonna get, I think, 12 months. So the judge overrode the plea bargain. Obviously not a huge deal, but the fact is that that just take into account a lot of things when it comes to sentencing. I'm fine with keeping the sentencing in. That's one member of the committee. We're Senator White. I would not put sentencing in. And in fact, I would explicitly take it out because I think that if we start prohibiting information that the judge can look at and we're talking here about specific victim identities, but there are all kinds of victim identities that could come in here that we could then tell the judge that you can't consider this. And I fear that one of the things that Rebecca talked about was that having categorical exclusions for information to come to the judges is harmful. And I do understand that Phillips concerned that we do have judges that have bias. That is absolutely true. But I think we have to put some trust in our judges. And I'm okay with not, I would prefer not having it excluded from the jury part of it either, but I'm okay with that. But I'm not okay with prohibiting the judge from having any information that could be presented. So that's where I am. Anyone else who's ready to make a decision? I'm ready to support the bill as drafted in the amendment. Excuse me. I'm ready to support the amendment as drafted by Bryn. I'm, I already want to take out sentencing. I'd like to back up if I could and make clear. I completely agree all of us have biases and I shouldn't have worded it that way. When a nominating committee goes through this decision making process, they strive to find people who can take their biases, recognize their biases and be committed to setting aside those biases before they become a judge. We trust in those judges to do that. And when they don't, they come back before judicial retention. And for that very reason could be prevented from continuing on as a judge. One of the other things that we do in trying to go through a jury voir dire process is get people to recognize that they do indeed have biases, but can they commit themselves to setting those biases aside? And if they can and clearly convince us of that, then we will agree to put them on a jury panel. I am, I was approached several months ago by a constituent who was gay and was concerned about that, this issue. And I had never heard of the cases that we have talked about in this committee testimony. I learned about that. And as a result of that, I agreed that a judge should be given the ability to issue a jury instruction at the time that the evidence is done or during the trial itself for that matter, be able to say this panic defense is not to be considered by the jury. So evidence could be blocked by the judge from coming in or the end or the judge could issue a jury instruction before they go in to deliberate that would prohibit their considering a gay panic defense. I can sympathize with that as a reason why society wants to move in the direction this bill wants to take us. I can't agree to a bill that is going to hamstring the judicial process from imposing a sentence that is appropriate for a given criminal defendant. So I guess I'm opposed and I'll leave it there. Senator Barouf. So just to complicate things by 10, I support the bill as drafted and as amended by Bryn, and I support that strongly. What I couldn't support is taking the bill in a direction that is self-defeating. And I think if we change the house draft so that judges can in effect consider the gay panic defense, we've defeated the whole purpose of what we're doing. So I wouldn't support a version that eliminates the sentencing phase entirely, which is what I feel like we're discussing now. So I guess that's where I am. It doesn't help move us toward a compromise, but... Well, that's where we are. There's five of us. I apologize for being late. I was on another... Didn't think we were going to start till nine. Sorry. You want some time to think about this? I'm rereading all my notes. We've got... I'm not sure what that means, Peggy. We do need to go to the next bill at 9.15 because we have witnesses. Can we come back to this at 11? Bryn, are you available? Yep, that works for me. And Bryn, can you send me the new draft, please? Sure. Why don't we come back to this at 11 a.m.? Anybody who's on the line now would like to join us at 11. Mr. Chair, I have a constituent who's also a representative who was one of the sponsors of this bill. Would it be possible to get testimony from Taylor Small? If we want to, you know, I've got so little time and I'm not sure how that would be helpful. I just don't know. We're a limited time here. We're on a crunch. We've got well-built from the House, not counting the ones that are still coming. I was hoping... If we can't finish today, then yes, it's highly irregular for us to remark up to here. Not what, I mean, I don't know, Senator, I don't know. Let me think about it. Let's see how we go. Okay, thank you. Thank you. All right, we're gonna turn our attention from H-128, which was the simple little bill. The more complex bill, S-99, which is a bill that... I'll be right back. I just have to turn up my thermostat a little bit. It's freezing in my room. Okay. Okay, we're gonna switch to S-99 and take more testimony from the survivors. And today, yesterday, we heard from the survivors of the St. Joseph's Orphanage. Today, we're hearing from three survivors of the current Latin school in Wyndham County. And Kim is here to introduce us to the survivors. And their testimony is on the website. And I wanna, where we start, just compliment, I've read all their testimony. And I wanna just say how impressed I am with their courage and coming forward. Very personal stories about what's happened to them, what happened to them while they were at current Latin and the impact of those events on their lives. And the bravery for using their identifying information. My heart goes out to all three of you and all the other survivors. And I don't know what else I can say. We will try to do what we can to help you all. I think there's a template from the way the city of Burlington is treating the St. Joseph's Orphanage as the, I think of the group that's working with the survivors as well as the attorney general's office. Kim, if you would please introduce us to your clients. Thank you very much, Senator Sears, for your kind words and observations. We really appreciate the opportunity to be here today. And in your right, it is very difficult and challenging for they and doing what they can to help others to ensure that childhood physical abuse in the future is deterred and that there's actionable ways to proceed against those who are culpable. We have three survivors today who went to Kernhatton School for Children and they range in different time frames from when they were there. The first speaker will be William Gorsky. He was formerly known as Davidson. He's gonna share some thoughts with you about what happened while he was there and his observations and the way that it impacted his life. Next, we will have Raymond Upton who will speak regarding what's happened to him and the experiences he had and that he observed and also the impact that it's had on his life. And then finally, we'll end with Carolyn Blake-Bichaud who is one of our survivors from the longest time in the past. We don't wanna age her or anything, but she's been through a lot and she's got a lot of experience that she'd like to share regarding herself and her siblings and the observations that she's had regarding friends there and how this has impacted her life as well. They all support this bill and they really appreciate Vermont for its leadership in eliminating statute of limitations that will help children in the future. So too, Mr. Gorsky. Thank you. Mr. Gorsky, welcome to Senate Judiciary. My name's Dick Sears I'm the state senator from Bennington County. The vice chair will introduce himself and then go around. I'm Senator Phil Baruth from Chittany County. I'm Senator Alice Nidka from Windsor County. I'm Joe Benning from Caledonia County. And I'm Jeanette White from Wyndham County. Thanks. Mr. Gorsky, please. Good morning. Good morning. My name is William Gorsky, formerly Davidson. I attended current Manhattan from 1983 to 1987. And thank you senators for giving me the opportunity to testify today. I support and encourage Vermont legislators to pass Senate Bill 99, to ensure survivors of childhood abuse have a chance for justice and to hold abusers and the institutions that failed them accountable. The physical abuse at current Manhattan that we had to endure was a cruel punishment. We at current Manhattan, we're not A plus students. We were not the best behaved kids. In fact, many of us were the throwaways, the screw ups of society. Current Manhattan was supposed to be a safe place for us to live, learn and grow. My following account of physical abuse at KH contains only four examples out of the many examples of abuse that I have endured. So first I'm going to speak about the broken arm. So in the 80s, while attending current Manhattan, while play fighting, as us boys often did, a staff member, Mark DeVie Davis, told us to stop fighting. When myself and another student did not stop right away, he grabbed my arm and put me into a arm bar type of hold. I tried to get away from him and I called him a bad name. And that's when he snapped my arm towards my chest and broke it like a twig. Davis tried to say that I was fine and that if I told anyone, that he'd spread my body parts in the dead man swamp behind one of the cottages at current Manhattan. I was very afraid and in a lot of pain. When I finally did report this to my parents who took me for X-rays and a cast. When I reported the incident immediately to deputy director then, Mr. Paul Quinney, he said he would take care of it. Davis remained employed at current Manhattan and no report was ever made to the authorities of the abuse. To this day, I have a permanent nonchalant on my arm because it was not treated for two weeks. And because of this medical neglect, it didn't heal correctly. And it's a constant reminder of the abuse that I endured at current Manhattan. So next I'm gonna talk about the pure assault and physical abuse. Because of the lack of supervision, another boy entered a bathroom that I was in and assaulted me and beat me so badly I ended up in the infirmary. My stomach hurt so bad and I couldn't use the bathroom. They kept me there for two days before finally bringing me to the hospital in Bell's Falls where I was found to be impacted. Despite the reporting of the abuse immediately to Mr. Fisher, the student was never recommended or removed from current Manhattan. Mr. Fisher promised me that he would take care of it but no report was ever made to the authorities. So to this day, I don't use public bathrooms because the soap smell, the smell that he used on me just triggers me and causes PTSD. This has also caused me to lose multiple jobs because I did not use public bathrooms. The next incident is the egg incident. My second week at current Manhattan, I was sitting at the main dining table. We were enjoying a nice breakfast of eggs and bacon with all of my brothers. One of my brothers named John Doe did not like the taste of eggs and pushed them away. He was sent to his room by a current Manhattan staff member named Mrs. Kelleher. Mr. Kelleher ran out of the kitchen, ran down the wall and we saw Mr. Kelleher dragging John Doe by his hair. He was then forced to fed the eggs by Mr. Kelleher, which scared us all to death. And he held the hit boys down on the table while he cried. The third example is the lunch room. There are several accounts of physical abuse while doing the lunch and supper duty at the cafeteria. One example is Mr. Searls grabbing a kid by the shirt and throwing him in the utility closets. We heard yelling and crying while we were in there. And when we came out, the boy had red marks all over his face. Obviously he had been severely beaten. And my final account I wanna share today is the account of standing in the corner. When one of us boys would get into trouble, oftentimes the punishment was standing in the corner. There were no bathroom breaks, no breaks for food, no breaks for water. Hour after hour, we'd have to stand in the corner of the room. I've seen boys collapse from exhaustion from this punishment. I've seen boys wet themselves right there in the corner because they stood there too long. Not only did they wet themselves, but they're forced to clean it up and then go back to the corner. I've only had to endure the corner punishment once for myself for four hours for not cleaning the bathroom properly. So I was pretty lucky. These are just a few examples of the type of child abuse that I endured and observed on a daily basis. The abuse has had a lasting impact on my life and trying to cope with it today is very painful. The flashbacks are debilitating and have landed me in the emergency room. Passing Senate Bill 99 will deter abusers and the institutions that heart of them and turn a blind eye to abuse from doing so in the future. They need to know that they can't get away with it anymore. I don't want any other child to have to go through what we went through at current hadn't. So I urge you to pass Senate Bill 99. Thank you for hearing me today. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Gorski? Were you in the custody of Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services or DSW at any point? Or were you just, how were you, why were you sent to current hadn't? I was sent to current hadn't because I was not a very good student and the public school in Springfield recommended that my parents look for a better situation for me. Thank you. Can you? Maybe I could ask him to look back, but are there any records of current hadn't recording the broken arm to authorities? Is anybody aware of any record of that? Nothing has been produced to us and we have sought records. So we haven't seen any report of that to authorities. My understanding- On behalf of the Senate Judiciary Committee, could we request from the commissioner of Department of Children and Families that we want to see any records of reports of abuse? Mr. Gorski, previously, Davidson, did we do that, Eric? With obviously with his permission to seek that. I'd like to know who was responsible for not recording the abuse. So obviously in the 80s, I'm pretty sure we had mandatory reporting. Somebody failed to do their job. I think we can certainly submit the request. I'm not sure. That doesn't mean we'll get it, but I think we need to demand that information. That's one of the places where I'm most concerned is that abuse occurred and it was never to the proper authorities or if it was, the authorities didn't do anything about it. We share your concerns. Is the question whether- I'd like to see the records. I'd like to see the records of the report or the lack of a report in the department. I believe at that time it was, are you talking in 1980s? I believe at that time it was Department of Social Welfare, but I don't know, it's DCF now. I think social services is what it was at that time. SRS at that time. Thanks. So any, I just was wondering if you wanna know about- Any reports of abuse- Right. Of Mr. Borsky. Right. And would there- Not just reports by the school, but I would think you'd wanna know maybe if they'd heard about it from anybody. If they heard about it from anybody and what was done about it. Right. And obviously there are this information that's confidential. We understand that. We wanna know what was, where reports were done. They should be provided to Kim if they're confidential. Yes. And I appreciate the efforts Senator Sears and Mr. Fitzpatrick will coordinate and work collaboratively with you to see if we can somehow unravel and discover these records that haven't been produced to us to date. And I also think you'll need to have the year, the range of years that might have occurred within. I think he- Maybe it's already someplace. I think it's already in his testimony the year that they- In the written- In the written test. Thank you Mr. Borsky. Appreciate your testimony. Thank you. Thank you Eric. Yep. Mr. Upton. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you to all the senators here today for taking testimony on Senate Bill 99. I was at current Hatton for four years from the fall of 1961 to the summer of 1965. I was sent to current Hatton because I had what is now known as extreme dyslexia. That is a learning and communications disability. Much later in my life, I learned as part of my extreme dyslexia. I was also developmentally disabled. By the second year, I was also at current Hatton because of a broken home. I was 11 to 15 years old while I was at the school. And now I'm 71 years old. Today there is no recourse for the physical assault that so many people suffered when they were children like myself and unable to help themselves. Many people never, ever tell anyone about their abuse. But some finally come to terms with it and they process it. As I have been doing during just the past few months to find that there is nothing out there that they or myself can do about physical abuse because of an arbitrary statue of limitations is extremely devastating and only serves to retraumatize the survivors like myself and it protects the abusers and the institutional enablers. But now because of Senate Bill 99, there's an opportunity to help those children like I was to avoid perpetration in the future. With perpetrators and institutions knowing there's an option for civil liability. For harming children, they will wind up treating children better. I've been aware for many years that current Hatton affected my life in a lot of bad ways. I've always shrugged it off and said to myself, well, I'm strong, I'm manually and I just moved on with my life and I focused on my work and I focused on my business. Up to this point, I've been doing just that but maybe I have not done as well as I thought all these years. Maybe this pandemic has allowed others to also address the horrors of what has happened in their past lives. And for those who have not or cannot, maybe I can help in some way to be in a voice. When I was at current Hatton around the spring of 1964, I clearly remember someone saying to me, if you stay here more than three years, it will have a very dramatic effect and be very bad for the rest of your life. Institutional living in your formative years will be very bad for you all through my life. And to this very day, I've had many, many flashbacks of that moment and that statement. I remember right where I was standing at current Hatton when that statement was made to me. As I have gotten older, I learned more about life. I would say a lot of what I personally experienced while living at current Hatton would be unacceptable today but maybe and just maybe it was actually unacceptable even back then. There was no rule book when I was at current Hatton. They just told me what to do and what not to do. But they did not tell me everything. I can only include in this testimony a small portion of the experiences that affected me tremendously while I was at current Hatton. The worst of it, I cannot describe or express right here in this form. In an attempt to kill myself, I have written a very detailed description of all the abuse and activities that I experienced and witnessed while I was at current Hatton, including a very detailed description of how the abuse has severely affected my entire life. Simply put, in summer, throughout the four years I was at current Hatton, I personally experienced with other boys, men and women, the following, forced and violent oral sex. I was a forced naked punching bag with my hands tied, multiple very hard face slappings, hard naked spankings with my hands tied. Naked whippings while tied to trees, forced exhibition showers, forced naked gym activities, and very invasive medical examinations. After some of the abuse, I was threatened with extreme beatings. And I was threatened with being sent to boy prison if I told anyone. Because of my extreme dyslexia, combined with being developmentally disabled, the physical and sexual abuse that I was subject to created a far more devastating effect. This subject is the only thing that gets me emotional. Other than that, I control a lot of stuff and control a lot of people and make a lot of things happen. This issue is the only thing that makes me emotional. I also personally observed other boys being physically and emotionally disabled. I was at current Hatton, other boys being physically and emotionally abused. I also continually was told of naked physical abuse of other boys, constantly told of that. It was also unjustified discipline when I was at current Hatton. Boys had to stand in the corner and sit for hours. They had to sit or stand for hours in the corner with little, even if they did hardly anything, very little excuses in the corner for two hours, standing. There were boys standing and sitting in the corners a lot with no food and no drinks. Sometimes the same boy had to do it for several hours, three or four days in a row. They also made boys stand where their arms stretched out, left and right with books. Then when the books became too heavy, the boys had to stand there with just their arms stretched out for another half hour. The house parents would also keep changing the rules. So boys never knew what was right or what was wrong. They would tell boys one thing, then say, I never told you that. So now a boy had to sit or stand in the corner again, even more times. Now later in life, I learned that in prisons, to control the inmates in prisons, the guards intentionally changed the rules, even daily. They say things like, I told you that, even when they had not said that. So it turns out that it is used as a control method in prisons. But Kern Haddon, Kern Haddon was not a boys' prison. The boys were orphans. At the time that I was there, a good amount of them were orphans. They were from broken homes or just had learning disabilities, like myself. When I was at Kern Haddon, most, if not all of us, in the time that I was there, most of us were pretty good kids for the most part. We all got along kind of well. The out of control discipline by some of the Kern Haddon house parents just never made any sense. I could go on with more details of horrific abuse that I had than others went through. But it's more than likely not appropriate to go into those details in this setting. My four years of abuse at Kern Haddon has come rushing back all over again, like a tidal wave in just the past few months. After reading the Kern Haddon statement on the Kern Haddon website just this last October and then reading about the Kern Haddon abuse online, I have been reliving the subdues every walking, every waking and sleeping moment right to this day. It just doesn't stop. It won't go away. When I go to bed at night, I think about it. At three in the morning, I wake up, I'm thinking about it. Then in the morning, I'm thinking about it. I wish I had never read that statement on that website. I just stumbled into it without the details. I am being re-victimized all over again for four years of abuse, all rolled into just a few months, four years of abuse, all rolled into four months in these last few months. All of our survivors need a structure to be able to process the road to get accountability. The process will deter further abuse. It will deter institutions that currently let them run free and wreak havoc on children's lives and their futures. In my mind, it is inconceivable that people like myself, so severely physically abused, have no access to justice. But I am very encouraged by the Senate Bill 99. It will provide sexual and physical abuse survivors the same rights. A lot of what I went through, that was combined. There was sexual abuse with physical abuse taking a place at the same time. What jury, what judge, who's gonna figure out where that line is? That's the reason this has to happen. Authorative research has shown that most children never experience abuse. I'll say that again, because it's so important. Authorative research has shown that most children never experience abuse and never even know that abuse is going on around them. But the remaining average 30% can be subjected to varying degrees of abuse, from mild to really very extreme. Of those of us that have been abused, many will never speak about it at all. And then there are those who committed suicide because they could not cope with the trauma that was inflicted on them. And yet others, they died because of overdose as a result of self-medicated to deal with the pain. If it weren't for this current virus pandemic that we're all going through right now, my voice, more than likely, would have never been heard. To cope with my abuse of current happening, and like so many others that go through this, I became an extreme 24-7 workaholic. My whole life has been running forward and never looking back. When that happens, you go full. You never want to look back for any reason why it was that tough to be. So when I stumbled into the Kern-Hatton website statement, I was shocked. I was actually heartbroken. There was some good at Kern-Hatton. It was like a home to a degree. I'm one of those conflicted people. I love it, but there was a lot of bad. There was a lot of bad. I found out that Kern-Hatton had become like the curtain. I found out that Kern-Hatton could become like all the Catholic orphanages and boarding schools. I was in shock and I have always thought that I was the only one that had dark secrets of physical and sexual abuse at Kern-Hatton. It turns out that now I'm one of many, many others in the state of Vermont. What a shock. So to testify here today, I testify as a voice for the past kids. There's a lot of kids out there who have gone through what I've gone through. But I also testify here today for the present kids. There are a lot of kids right now in home situations and foster care situations in other institutions and residential care situations. Those kids, what's gonna happen to them in the future when somebody says, sorry, the time has run out? And then I also testify today for the kids in the future. There are future generations of kids who will also go through this. What happens to them when the time runs out? So, I urge you, with all the passion that I have past this bill, 99, so doing will allow survivors of abuse to take the negative experience and then turn it into a positive for the future of children at Kern-Haddon and throughout Vermont. So thank you. Thank you so much for letting me speak here today. No, thank you. I can only imagine how difficult. I appreciate your testimony. I recognize how heartfelt it is. Kim, thank you. I'm curious just to know if there's any support group that's been formed among the survivors. Similar to the one, I don't know if you saw the testimony yesterday, some of the survivors of the Kern-Haddon. I mean, of St. Joseph's Village and got them together and formed a support group. And we just funded that with $25,000 of state money to help with that. I offer if you can put together something similar. Three members of this committee are on the Center for Opinions Committee and now we'd be more than happy to try to provide some funding to provide a support group where these folks can recognize that they're not alone and that there is support. I mean, I ran residential programs for almost 40 years. Small group. And I know they're familiar with some of the things that you're talking about, but this is... Senator Sears, that is very gracious. And I think we would appreciate the opportunity to do that. Mr. Upton and I actually just very recently were talking about this and talking about trying to find an actual expert in what's called boarding school syndrome. So we have started these discussions and have started to look for someone who could actually run an expert who actually could run the support group that has the skill set to help everyone through and process. So this is something that has been very close to us in our hearts and in our minds. I've spoken with other clients about this as well. So we would appreciate anything that the Senate can do to help fund that. That was one of our concerns. We were talking about how do we find someone who will take different types of insurance and different factors that we have to go through to ensure that we could run this correctly. Eric, you've sent a link yesterday, I believe, to myself and others with the St. Joseph orphanage. I'm not recalling that. Who sent me that? I get so many emails that I forget who they came from. Yeah, that one wasn't me. Sorry, Senator Sears. That's all right. Thank you, Eric. Kim, I'll try to send Peggy a copy of the link. That would be incredible, Senator Sears. We have been working with each and every one of the survivors to help them individually and make sure that they have therapists or counselors individually. But I do think and I've spoken with many of them that would like it to be more of a support group of people, their peers that have experienced the same thing. So this has been something, a project that we've just started working on in terms of trying to find an expert. The funding was definitely a concern that we had, but if the Senate is able to do anything, we would really appreciate it. I think it will really help a lot of people heal because the emotional impact that they truly need that. And I think having each other. I just sent a link to Peggy. That's the Vermont. It's the St. Joseph Orphanage Task Force Investigation. Oh yeah, Bryn said that's on the website actually under reports and resources. Bryn sent it to me yesterday. If you could just send it to Kim. Sure. She has a link to it. May or may not be helpful, but if you can get something to us in the next two weeks, I'll be able to. Yeah, absolutely. We really appreciate the support, helping them heal in this way. It will be really helpful. I think, you know, I've always found enough about me. Carolyn Blake-Bashaw is our next witness. Carolyn, welcome to Senate Judiciary. Thank you for coming to call me. Call home. Can you hear me? Yes, can you hear me? Yeah, we can hear you, Carolyn. Okay, all right. Well, my case is somewhat different and somewhat very much alike. I was at Kern-Hatton from 1951 to 1954. And I just turned 81 years old. And I did a wonderful job at burying the bad side of Kern-Hatton. I was so excited about having a bed to sleep on, food to eat, and all those things that children need. I had been walking the streets of Bellas Falls, you know, taking fruit out to trees, going to school with no food. I weighed 62 pounds at 12 years old and I was very anemic. And I had severe nosebleeds quite frequently. And so I don't want to drag this out a long time. I'd like to run over a few facts and go through this with you about my experience there and everything. My mother dropped me off. She had threatened to put my brother and I into Kern-Hatton for quite a long time. So I felt like I was being punished for going there, you know? And my brother Harold, he was a couple years younger than me. She dropped me off there with a little bag of clothes, shoes, and a couple of things. And left me in the front hall standing there. She never came back. I never saw her leave. And I was standing there. And in shock, you might say, not knowing what to do. And I heard the cook speak out. She said, not another Blake. There was seven of us that went to Kern-Hatton. I was number seven out of 15 children. And I was in five different foster homes. I was a state child. My mother had gone to court to get my brother and I on the state of Vermont. And so anyway, I'm standing there. And this woman comes out. She tells me to get things to gather from a bag and stuff and that I am to clean the stairs and do all that. And I don't want to go into a lot of detail. But anyway, it's all in the report that you have. So I got this slap across the face because I asked another little girl where to find things to clean the stairs, which I was told to do. And it wasn't just a slap. It was a hard hit. My head spun around. And I'll tell you, I was in such a state of shock that I started screaming. And this word came out with her adhesive tape, two inches wide, and tore off a piece and put it over my nose of blood because I'd been crying and I could hardly breathe. And I stood there gasping for air. Well, anyway, so what happened was that I'm beginning to feel anxiety right now talking, just talking about this. So what happened was she came out after a while and she ripped that off my face. And it hurt really bad like a bad burn you get, you know? So then anyway, I want to jump over to some other things. I had a severe nose bleed and Mrs. Ford, the one that had slapped me, she took me upstairs and she put my head on the floor and my feet up in the chair. And blood was running down my throat. And she let me choke and gasp. And all of a sudden the blood clot formed and almost poked to death. And I was so petrified, you know? I had, and so she finally let me up. And those, those nose bleeds, by the way, gradually disappeared as I got to where I could eat and have a good diet and everything. They finally went away, you know? And just standing online, I had to stand online one night for eight hours, eight hours. I wasn't allowed to go to the bathroom. I wasn't allowed to do anything. And the other kids were all sleeping while I was standing there. So I do go along with this standing online business. And I stood more than once, you know? And then I was forced to eat foods that I just couldn't stand like grapefruit and turnips and stuff. And I was forced to sit there until I threw up. I would throw up. And of course I was punished by scrubbing huge kitchen walls and different things with my hands using oakite, which burned your hands. And I fell from the swing, cracked collarbone, and severe pain. They didn't take me to the doctor for two days. And no meds, no meds, to access ears, screaming overnight from pain. No meds. And they held off from taking me to the doctors until a puff was coming out of my ears. And I couldn't go on and on and on, you know? But anyway, so I was led to believe as a small child that abuse was a normal thing. This is part of life. I didn't know any different, you know, 12 years old. And I thought that this is the way you're supposed to live. I'd seen abuse before with my mother and dad and different things. And, you know, I wasn't put in a place to change anything, of course. So I just, you know, took it all. And to the point of where even in the foster homes I was abused because I thought this is normal. And there was a lot of abuse in the state of Vermont going on for children at that time because you were to be seen and not heard. You weren't allowed to speak up and say anything or no psychosis to help you. Nothing. And so I just, you know, stood up when I pulled up my bootstrap and I went on, you know? And I married three abusive men who one of them tried to choke me to death, you know? I thought this is the way life was supposed to be. And so I did my very best to do the best I could. I went into the Air Force and I was so proud and everything. And I was in basic and there were certain triggers that I would have these anxiety attacks. And I had these from childhood. I didn't know where they come from. You know, I never connected the two. And finally, I decided I had to get out. And at that time women were allowed to get out because it wasn't wartime or anything. And so I went to the top brass, worked up a cane of command to her and she said my tests were so high they were gonna put me into IBM. And she begged me to stay in but she said she couldn't keep me in there. Finally, she agreed. After I told her I was having nightmares about carrying hat and different stuff, she agreed to let me out. And they gave me an honorable discharge and I'm covered by everything that, you know, service people are covered by, you know, VA and all of that, you know? But so anyway, after I got married and everything, I went back to current Hatton. I was searching for the love that I wanted so desperately as a child. And even today, I'm still searching 81 years old. I want that love, that love that children need to grow, you know? And I think of as a tree has been so grows the tree, you know? And so what I did was 1968, I started getting involved with current Hatton. I supported them financially and I became, you know, vice president to you online and I gave all my time and energy, I could to current Hatton and I did it to help the kids that were there. And I had put this other thing in the background until this last October. So when I heard about this, then it all come flooding back and I started crying. At my age, I started crying. And I said, I stood there and I watched my brothers and sisters, the seven of us had been in there, passed away and one wrote a book, no mom, no punk. And he tried desperately to get current Hatton's attention about the abuse and everything and they shredded it. They got his only copy and they shredded it and they told me that they had destroyed all of the current Hatton records. They were gone. And I wanted my records, I wanted to know, you know, about my past medical stuff and like that. And then later on, I heard the medical records from the Bell's Hall Hospital where we're all destroyed. So I put that away. I said, well, I'll just keep going on. And I started to express a little bit about, I had a TV program about politics and different things. And I started to express a little bit about current Hatton but I never got into it deeply. We backed away from it. And I said to myself, I will go to my grave with this. There's no time limit. There's no time limit because that little girl is still inside of me. The child that we are is still there. And I tried to ignore the fact that I couldn't go into bathrooms and lock the doors in public places, I felt trapped. And also when I feel uncomfortable in a crowd and I had to get out of there and run away and things like that. You know, and there was just things like this but I kept bouncing along. And I kept, and I started to, you know, go to church and that was a staple for me and it kind of helped me along the way. And, but anyway, you know, this is a, I'd like to close it out with this, my final thoughts. There's no healing for the abused when there's no accountability. I now as a widow have time to reflect and process what has happened to me. It takes time to build courage and face whatever abuse you've had. You know, and we all as children handle it in different ways and in different time limits. You know, many taking this abuse to the grave in my family, abuse needs to stop and no case should be dismissed due to timely limits. The shock I felt has never been dealt with. That sixth grade and me and that little girl, 62 pounds didn't need this treatment. You know, and the funny thing was when I was putting anything up about changing anything at current alumni meetings it was all dismissed or they take me out to eat and they put pressure on me to change my mind. And, and I found that like I wanted the alumni to have their own, their own little bank account separately from current Hatton. Oh no, we can't do that. The alumni money's gotta go in with the current Hatton money. And things like that. And I tried to defend the alumni and stuff. And I soon found out that there was an element of people there running it like it was a business. And we were sent out to sing to other people like the Rebecca's and women's clubs and stuff. And then they would receive money. Yeah, that's how they made a lot of their money and everything. And you know, and I started to think about all these things and how current Hatton today is a business. It's a huge, huge business. And it had all these funds. And believe me, I gave a lot of money to that school. And it was hard for me to step forward like this and tell you all these things. But what these other two have said is absolutely true because my brother shared it all with me. And, you know, I just wanna thank you today for letting me open up and expose all of this stuff because, you know, there are other children coming along. And these things have been covered over for so many years. And I thank current Hatton for the food. I thank them for the bedding, the toothbrushes, the shoes. And, you know, there's a little bear fort, little kid that walked the streets of North Water and Dallas Falls and had absolutely nothing to eat. The teachers used to put food in my desk at school because they knew I had a problem. And I thank God that I made it this far. And I just wanna say, please, please think about what you're doing before you make this decision. Please do it for the sake of all those that will be coming down the pike like I did. And you've been so wonderful to me today. Just listen. And I just praise God for you. And that's my story. Thank you very much. Well, thank you very much. Thank all of you for the testimony. Kim, thank you for arranging this. We will be doing markup of S-99, which means we will start to make some decisions about the bill later if we have time later on today. But we'll also be looking at it next Wednesday at around I think 10.45 a.m. So Kim and anyone else who wants to join us at that time. We have one more witness, Emily, who we're gonna hear from shortly after a 10 minute break. And we'll be back at 20 minutes after 10. I'm sorry, were there any questions of Carolyn from the committee? Thank you so much to all of you. Ray, Carolyn, and Bill, or William. Thank you so much, and Kim. Appreciate it, look forward to hearing.