All right. You are joining us this afternoon with the House Judiciary and Government Operations Committees. We are meeting on S219. Earlier today, the Senate Judiciary Committee took a look at the version of S219 that has now passed second reading in the House and they developed from that some proposed, excuse me, instances of amendment. Maxine, do you want us to go right to Bryn and have her walk us through the content of those seven or so amendments? Yes, that would be great. Thank you. Thank you, Bryn. For folks following along at home, the amendments should be able to be accessed on the committee pages for Judiciary and Govup. So take it away, Bryn. Okay. Good afternoon, committees. For the record, Bryn Hare from Legislative Council. So to set the stage here, the bill is not officially passed the House since it hasn't passed third reading yet. But I talked to the Judiciary Committee this morning and walked them through what the House version of the bill did. And they came up with concurrence with further instances of amendment, which is what you see. You should have that posted to your committee page. I believe it's draft 2.1 from 152 this afternoon. And there's also a side by side comparison of the three versions of S219. So I will just describe those changes. And if there are questions, it may make sense to go through the side by side to look more specifically at what the amendments do. So the first three instances of amendment are all in the legislative intent section. And they make three specific changes. The first is to remove that qualifier of within the next five years. That language comes from the legislative intent portion that's talking about what legislative committees of jurisdiction are doing now, continue to study law enforcement policies, training standards, and discipline. And if you remember that the House version included that phrase, including accreditation through the commission on accreditation for law enforcement agencies within the next five years. So it was sort of a statement about the ongoing work that's being done now. So the Senate just removed that qualifier of within the next five years. So the next two changes are probably more substantive. The first is that they removed subdivision C1. So that is in the list of work that the General Assembly commits to working on. If you recall, one of those, it was, I'm sorry, it's not C1 at C2 in that list, which is resituating the criminal justice training council to the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Safety. So they removed that subdivision entirely. And they also removed the subdivision, I believe it's five, yes, it's five, which was that the General Assembly commits to working on reviewing those model policies governing the use of body cameras for law enforcement, specifically the ACLU model policy and the law enforcement advisory board policy, reviewing those in conjunction with stakeholders and developing a statewide policy for adoption prior to the effective date of the section of the bill that would require all Vermont State Police to be outfitted with body cameras. So they also removed that section. Excuse me, Brynne. So I'm actually I'm not quite following. Were you just talking, you were just talking about C5. Did they, did they also take out C3 mental health? No, they did not take out C3. Okay, so that's in. Yep, that's in. The instances of amendment is a little tricky to read because everything has to be renumbered. So it may it may help to look at the side by side. Okay. And then you can I've highlighted the sections. If everyone has a side by side in front of them, the middle column is the house version. Right. And I've highlighted the subsections that the Senate removed. Where is the side by side? Brynne emailed it to us. It's posted to your committee page too for today. So it may it may be helpful to just say at the outset that the Senate kept all of the changes that the House made to the to the legislative intent section, except for those three, except for those three things I just described. The first was that qualifier that of five years for accreditation for law enforcement. And then the maybe more substantive changes that they made were to remove those two items that the General Assembly committed to working on in the future. The first was the resituating the criminal justice training council. And the second was committing to review those model policies on on body cameras and developing a statewide policy. And and the reason for that second removal is because the other significant change that was made by the Senate is that they reverted to the original Senate language in section seven and eight, which are the body camera sections. So if you recall, the changes that you made were to push back the enforced the effective date for when BSP has to be outfitted with body cameras to October. And they reverted back to the original Senate version, which which made those provisions take effect on August 1st to make that requirement that the DPS outfit, its law enforcement officers with body cameras. That's August 1st requirement in the Senate version. Lena has a question. Yeah. Yeah, I watched as much as I could of this their one o'clock judiciary committee meeting, and maybe they had subsequent discussion in a more formal vote. Then, but I thought I had heard them say in sober and I'm just asking if you I'm not I'm not doubting your work in any way. I'm just asking if you can fill me in on what I what their conversation was that I may have missed because I heard them say they felt like it was really important to move the date of implementation for the body camera up, but they were actually fine with the intent language that tasks a group to keep looking at the policy piece. But it was their instruction to me that I remove that legislative intent section. Yeah, my understanding is that they want the body cameras to be used. It was when we took out the the word deployment, they want them used. And that in S 124, they're committed to reviewing the policy. Is that what is that what you're asking? Or saying that you are? Yeah, I just said I had understood them to say like, yes, yes, which fine, these groups can review the policy. We just don't want the implementation date to be continued on that in the way that we've we had sort of started it. I think that the Senate was comfortable with the way that they they made that sort of a similar requirement and S 124, which was that the interested stakeholders were to review the policy and return to the legislature in January. And the legislature could revisit that policy in January. But in the meantime, that the body cameras should be purchased and deployed. It was there was the Senate testimony. Okay, thank you. That's very clarifying. Has a question? Yes. With changing the implementation date, I know we had some discussion around the timing or does DPS have enough time to get all the equipment and set everything up. And I don't remember the exact, you know, exactly what was said on that. So I guess it's kind of a question for anybody. But I mean, August 1st, only a month away. And I don't know if they can order order what they need and have it by then. Nice. I don't really don't have an issue with, you know, if they do get implementation before the policy, because they are being used on some level, and they are following a policy. And from what I remember, the policy that they're following, somewhat mirrors the ACLU anyway. But again, my big question is, can they can they get the equipment? Nader, were you raising your hand because you had thoughts on that? Yes. From what I remember, from what I remember of Commissioner's testimony is one of his concerns was us basically fiddling around with something that they are already in the process of doing and worrying that worrying that any statutes we pass may interrupt the contracts that they're trying to develop with vendors. That's that's what I recall regarding this implementation. Is that a you good Tom? Well, I was I was gonna have a follow up for Nader. And so do you remember dates on implementation? It was is that why we went with the August or the August, the October date to allow them to get things set up? No, no, it was so that we could have a policy in place. Tire of my recollection of Commissioner Sherling's testimony is that he was like the August implementation date was one of the that as it came over from the Senate was one of the things he was buying anyway. Oh, okay, okay. Martin. So it would seem that the question for me would be on this particular one with respect to the body cam cameras. And maybe this is a question that Nader can actually answer. Is is there already a policy that that the state police are following? Are they following the liab policy right now? Because I I would be comfortable with at least there's a lot of the other changes I'm not comfortable with but I'd certainly be comfortable with this one because my main issue for the October 1st was the opportunity to make sure there was an appropriate policy in place. I'm a little less concerned if there's a policy being followed by the state police currently. So yes, during my time there, there was a policy regarding when we record. I remember that distinctly because I know when I was brand new, there was a person who didn't record in a very controversial, controversial scenario, I guess, and they ended up getting fired. So so there there must be policies. Yes. I mean, there are policies. Yeah. So let's just make sure we understand what they're doing. You know, reflect our memories regarding the testimony in terms of what we can live with or not. Let's let's hold that. But I but it is helpful to these questions regarding is there a policy? Are they following it? Where are the body cameras? Because that's what's important, my understanding to the Senate that they be able to use the body cameras. Bob Hooper has a question. Well, I'm confused, I think. Nodder is saying that he wore a camera. We're talking about buying cameras. And I thought that when Colonel was in last year, he told us that they were ready to pull the trigger on buying it, that only the data was the issue that they were holding back on. Was that a whole bunch of nonsense? I'd like to clarify. I apologize. I did not have a body camera. I had a cruiser camera. We're in your face and camera that also had a microphone that was attached to my uniform. And there was a policy for that video recording. OK, thanks. Yeah. Right back to Bryn. OK, so are those changes clear for Section six or section seven and eight about the body cameras? Essentially, the Senate just reverted to their original language, which you can see in the side by side. So the last the last change that's made in the Senate for their proposal is that they removed the repeal of the new crime, the justice, I'm sorry, the law enforcement use of prohibited restraint. The House version had repealed that on July 1st of twenty twenty one and the Senate removed that repeal. But they did leave in the delayed effective date if you recall, the House pushed back the effective date of that crime to October 1st. That as is, I know for me that I'm sorry. Go ahead, Tom. OK, I was checking to see if any bit of their hand. I know for me that was that was really important. That that's a real big reason that I ended up supporting the new crime is to guarantee not guarantee because there are no guarantees, but to to push the legislature into making sure that this is looked at and I just feel that without the the sunset that it's not as as much of a sure thing, I guess, that it doesn't have to be a sure thing that that this is going to be looked at. And I think with the sunset, it it is a sure thing. Other questions from committee members, Rob, do you have your hand up? You're you're muted there. Can you hear me now? Yes, I'm not sure if this is an appropriate time to ask this question, but I've had several law enforcement reach out for me on. I think it's this section seven here. On the on hold on on the law enforcement use of prohibitive restraint. And I guess it would be it would be section seven. There seems to be mass confusion out there is whether law enforcement could use this or not when lethal force is justified. They're they're feeling that. They could never use this particular hold or maneuver. Did I miss something here somewhere? And I guess Commissioner Schirling and maybe. Michael Neil, was there some reference to having this section taken out earlier? Anybody want to answer that? John Gannon, you haven't answered that. Yeah, they wanted to carve out for lethal force. They didn't want the section eliminated. They just wanted to carve out. Those are to write. So we've heard we've heard from the defender general and in and this was covered during the Senate testimony as well, that they still have common law in Brink and we in this as well, if I'm saying this wrong, these law enforcement still has the common law defense of well, in defense of themselves, you know, they can still use that hold. And also, there's the justifiable justifiable homicide defense, which we're not talking about messing with the part of that current statutory defense related to self defense and the defense of others who are facing imminent harm. It's a separate provision that we're talking about repealing that is inconsistent, but it's pretty clear that the self defense, either common law or through the statutory justifiable homicide that that is available to law enforcement if they have used that hold in that kind of situation. Although, Bryn, if you have something to add to that or. No, I think that that's a that was a great explanation. I would just I guess one thing I would add is that the justifiable homicide statute not only has a provision for self defense, but it also has a provision that if a person kills or wounds another in the suppression of a person attempting to commit murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, burglary or robbery, then that person shall be guiltless. So it's the justifiable homicide statute goes beyond self defense. OK, thank you. Jim Harrison has a question. Yeah, I am totally confused. Are we talking about the sunset of. In that on the effective date area of the well, it used to be section five, but now it's section six. So no one of the this committee pushed back the effective date on two things. Yeah, no, I understand that body cam is one thing and they want to do it August one. The other thing was the extra penalty we put in there. In the in the unprofessional conduct chapter. Yes. Yeah. So that implementation date was also extended to September 1st and the Senate did not. They accepted that change. They can talk about the sunset of that. You didn't put a sunset on that. You put a sunset on the crime, which is the law enforcement use of private restraint, and that sunset, they did remove. OK, I agree with Tom. I think that was an important part of our conversation and trying to get to a happy place with the bill. I would encourage us to, you know, the other changes they've made in the intent and and what not in the start of the body cams. You know, I'm I'm fine with. But I think I think in fairness to us, it doesn't mean it's going to sunset next year. It means it's going to give us time to come back and make sure that we consider it carefully with the state's attorneys and others. So I would argue that we should keep our language on the sunset back in. So I I'm going to jump in. I can't raise I can't raise my hand because I because I guess I'm a co-host. So I'm going to jump in. So so again, so I'm hearing that what's important is that the justifiable homicide as well as the new crime be looked at with the state's attorneys. We know that the state's attorneys are developing another another approach to this and and that there's potentially conflict with the justifiable homicide and the new crime. And and the sunset provided that opportunity to to come back and revisit it. But that's what I'm hearing, correct? Yeah, OK. Yes, sorry, I don't know if you can see my head. Yeah, yeah, sorry. I'm freezing that, but I got that you were trying it on. OK, go ahead. Thank you. You know, in regards to the sunset policy, as was mentioned earlier, it doesn't necessarily mean that the appeal is going to sunset or that the bill is that section is going to sunset. It means that we're going to revisit something that needs to be looked at more in depth. And I understand that it can be seen as a weak part of the bill for the proponents of it. But in my opinion, I think it's the opposite because it's not us just rubber stamping something and saying, yeah, we did it. And let's move on. Instead, I think that we're indicating that this is something that needs to be looked at methodically and over a long time, because there are a lot of things that we need to look at for this. That's that's a great explanation. And I want to thank Jim and Natter. So if this is looked at by the October first date that I think it's October first that we have on the bill, then at that point, if it's looked at, we get everybody together, we're going to possibly be mending the law anyway. And the sunset can be eliminated that's the plan. Barbara Richardson has a hand up. So I'm wondering if the sunset is a deal breaker for them. And I don't know how time wise, how many times we have to go back and forth without this bill not making it. We can change. I mean, we can make a commitment that we are going to be having extensive hearings of how it's going on sunset or no sunset. It's not like we can't make a change if we have to give up the sunset. In a way, that feels like I'd rather give in on that than on some other deal breakers, like I don't know, I shouldn't say deal breakers, but things that might not be acceptable in the short run. Warren, you'll want to unmute yourself. OK, sorry about that. I thought I'd take no off. I I have a strong tendency to agree with both Jim and Tom on this one. I think holding to the sunset does make it. Necessary for us to look at without it. It might be important to look at it, but not quite so necessary. But I also had the same concern that Barbara just expressed. How many times can we bet this ping-pong ball across the back and forth across the table? If we really want to get done tonight, we maybe should think about sending yet another proposal of amendment over to the set and when they would deal with it or not. But I don't know, it's not it's not a deal breaker to me. I just think Tom originally had a good idea. And I thought, yeah, keep it there, do that, do it that way. Not a deal breaker for me. And I don't know if it's a deal breaker for Tom or Jim, but I don't think it should be. I don't hesitate to throw a deal breaker out there. It I would rather say it's it's important to me. And again, for a couple of reasons, it's the reason that I supported this this piece of legislation. I wouldn't have supported a new crime without this in there. And with the guarantee that that it's going to be looked at. And I don't see it as being that necessary to take it out. Because again, what I just said is that if it's if this is revisited before the October 1st date, it's gone anyway. Right. So I have a couple other people with hands up, Martin and then Selena and then Jim. So I just emailed everybody the policy that the Vermont State Police is using. So that gives me some comfort that that we could move to the August date, because I really felt that it was the policy issue as much as anything. And and just a very quick review of the policy. I mean, it's not egregious. I mean, it probably needs some work because we need some other input from other stakeholders. But the fact is that they from what I understand, they do have body cameras already, they're following this policy already. And if we can get those body cameras out there more quickly and most importantly, if this is something that we can that we can even amend on our side and hopefully that will end this, I think the fifth, the sixth and the seventh all kind of go together as far as not not seventh. I'm sorry. The fifth, the sixth and changing to August 1st, all kind of go to that same issue. And I don't have a problem with that. I do have a big problem with changing the sunset for those two other provisions. And I think that we shouldn't concede on the intent language just because there'd be an awful big explanation that we would have to make in a very short time and it shouldn't make a big deal. And I think we have a very good explanation for why we can agree to those other three things related to the body cameras. Again, I'm not sure why that didn't come out from testimony as far as what they were doing right now, but it didn't. But now we do know. That's where I am. Thanks, Martin. Selena. Oh, I saw Maxine waving. Oh, Maxine. Sorry. Yep. Well, let me hear Selena go ahead and then I may have a follow up. Go ahead. Yeah. OK. Yep. Two things. One, I would agree with Martin on the policy, although I think it's really, really critical that we come back in really short order to look at the policy. And if you all look at the testimony, I'm not sure if it was post. This was posted to both pages, but for sure, GovOps on Wednesday. If you look at James Lyle from the ACLU's testimony, he has a memo that they submitted where they actually flagged the issues that they had with the policy. I believe the policy that Martin is referencing the LEAB policy. So it's at least for some stakeholders, not without issue, that policy, but I would feel comfortable and understand the reason for wanting to move the body cam implementation, make sure that that's happening sooner. And I think then there would be opportunity for us to ensure in August that we're digging right into the potential improvements to the policy. So I agree with that. And I I agree with Barbara about the sunset. I felt like for me, the sunset was kind of a double insurance. Felt like by delaying the effective date, we were giving ourselves a lot of time to continue to work on this, to get it right, to make in any necessary changes to really involve stakeholders. And I think, you know, from from there, maybe there's an opportunity to reopen the sunset discussion as need as needed. But that that one definitely I got the sense from the conversations I heard in the Senate that that was a pretty hard and fast one for them. And I'm just like, if you're taking a straw poll, it's not for me because especially because we pushed out the effective date already for that section. So I just wanted you all to know that I texted Commissioner Scherling to ask him if he wants to join and give some clarity to their thoughts on August 1st versus October 1st. Since the majority of the work we've been doing has been aimed at listening to testimony. Maxine. Right. That's what I would like some clarification because we took out deployment. Right. And so I would like some clarification on do they have the cameras? You know, are they using them? I feel like we're hearing some different things. So. So that would be good. The other thing is in terms of. You know, ACLU for the various different policies.  I think we'll hear different opinions on. On all the policies, including ACLU. So. So and. And the sunset was one way to make sure that that new crime is. Revisited. And I'll just start out there that there, there may be another way to. To have that assurance. But I understand. We want to make sure that we. Better than later. And I think, you know, I think the attorneys are working on something.  A number of stakeholders will be, we'll be working on, on the new crime and. Justifiable homicide and. In other ways to. To look at this. Yeah, I don't want to. Beat this up, but I think. It was one version of the bill yesterday that took out this section. In the sunset was part of a compromise to put it back in and force us to deal with. Perhaps legitimate concerns from state's attorneys. And others on. Making this work correctly. And I think. You know, I think that's an important part of the bill. We just had 147 to zero. Vote on this bill. We all work together. We all work together. We all work together. We just had 147 to zero. Vote on this bill. We all work very hard over three days to. Reach consensus and. I'm sure there are. Excuse me. Peace is in here. We can all nitpick and pick apart. I think that's important. You know, if it makes people meal for more comfortable, you know, extend the sunset out to.  And I think that's important. I think that's important. And I think that's important. The reality is. We want to do it before October. We can take away the sunset at that time. And if we can't, we have next session. But if you don't put a sunset in there. The. The tendency is to let it go. So I think it forces us to address the issue. Sunsets routinely. Get. Extended or eliminated. I think that's important. I think that's important. I think that's important. I think that's important. I think that's important. I think that's just going away. Thank you. Thanks, Jim. We'll go to Martin and then commissioner. Sherling is with us to talk about body cams. Go ahead, Martin. Just one quick other thing about the sunset is that it's, it's just as critical that we're repealing. The justifiable homicide. I mean, I think that's one of the biggest issues. And those should be dealt with together because they, they work together. So. That's what I think is critical. Very critical part. What we put together. Oh, the spirit of try partisan. Isn't it lovely? Okay. So commissioner. If you are able to join us for a moment. We have. We have a different suggestion of an implementation date. For body cams and Bryn will correct me if I don't have the. Bill in front of me. But we had an October 1st date by which. DPS should have body cams. And the Senate is proposing an amendment that would. Return to the August 1st date. Is that correct, Bryn? That's correct. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Good afternoon. So we are at the final stages of a vendor selection. The vendors have been selected, but there is a legislative mandate for an independent review of the project because of the size and cost. That independent review typically takes six weeks or so could be four, could be eight. And that would be beginning sometime in mid July. So August 1st is impossible. You'd have competing. Statutes, it would say. Deploy, but actually, I'm not sure what the ask is. I guess I should ask is it. We're supposed to have them all in the field by the 1st of August, if that's the case that is not. Either physically possible nor contractually possible. If that's the case. Given the constructs that we work with it in purchasing. I guess I should pause and ask if, if that is. If that is what is being contemplated here. What is it that's supposed to be accomplished by a given date? Who's got an answer to that? Cause I don't have the. The Senate. Original bill or ours in front of me. Yeah. So they talked about deployment. They wanted the word, we took out the words deployment and they wanted the words deployment. They want body cameras ASAP. But isn't part of deployment getting it reviewed? I mean, this is all the process. It's not like. Mission or showing saying it's sitting on his desk. The process is moving forward. If you were to word it that the purchase and deployment is underway by the 1st of August. I think that's going to cut it a little tight on independent review. So, you know, you could split the difference and say 1st of September. And I think we can meet that everything will be signed and in motion by that point. That's, that's. Go ahead, Maxine. I'm mute. Sorry. Yeah. Thank you. I believe that's where the confusion is. I think that.  And so that the removal of the word deployment actually slows. Things down. And that's, that's where I think clarification would be helpful. Can I, can I just point out that the actual language. Requires DPS to initiate the acquisition and deployment. So, you know, you know, it's a pet takes effect on passage. With that language, there is no issue with it being effective on, on passage. So that gets rid of the August 1st date also. No, no, that the August 1st date goes to a section seven, which says the department shall ensure that every department law enforcement officer who exercises law enforcement powers is responsible for the removal of the word deployment. And so that's what I think is, that's what I think is, that's what I think is, or her person. That's what the. First is relates to. Yeah. I guess. Something the commissioner said. September 1st date came up. And the, the concern I have about the September day is. He said, I think we can.  Given people dates. And I remember the number of years ago in human services, that I brought it up to somebody. I said, are you sure you can do it by that date? And they said yes. And they were back in the next year, of course. We're asking him why the heck didn't you get it done? But so I'm. I would rather be a little more cautious with the date and date that is in, uh, in legislation. But I mean, Selena. Yes. Commissioner Shirley, I was just going to ask if you had shared, um, any of those concerns about that timeline with the Senate around the, the, um, the conflicting statutory requirements. For example, I'm just trying to understand what they have understood. I do not believe I testified on this, uh, on dates with the Senate. I'm not, I don't recall that that was, that may not have even been in the draft that I testified to. Got it. Thank you. Um, so Martin, I need to ask you to repeat the last thing that you said that is in reference to the August 1st date that that's section seven. And that is states that the department shall ensure that every department law enforcement officer who exercises law enforcement powers is equipped with a body camera or other video recording device on his or her person. So you immediately initiate upon passage and then you have until October 1st to equip all your law enforcement officers. And that seems like even that is a short timeframe. Yeah, I don't believe we're gonna be able to, we've got to roll it out to 11 locations. There's technology that has to go to all 11 locations. Um, it also strikes me that as there's been a little bit of rewarding there, um, technically the colonel and the command staff are law enforcement officers, but they don't carry body cameras. They're not in the field. Um, so it's a little, we haven't been budgeted to give people that don't actually go out and do work, um, body cameras. So there's an incongruity there in the way it will be operationalized to what's been written. Um, thank you. Jim Harrison question for the commissioner. It's a question more for Bryn on this section. Um, if we add the words like the Senate suggestion and deployment. Does that mean they have to be used by August 1st? If it does, that won't work. No, the word deployment doesn't appear in section seven. It appears in the following section, which takes effect on passage. And it's the session law that requires the DPS initiate the acquisition and deployment. Okay. Right. And I just want to point out that this language hasn't changed much since, um, it was the first iteration of the bill that the commissioner did testify on. I just want to make that clear. Okay. Thank you, Maxine. You will have a clarification, right? Well, I, I think we're mixing up, you know, six and seven is passed by Senate seven and eight. And you know, whatever, I think we're mixing up this because, um, you know, for instance, from the R section seven, that talks about law enforcement, um, officer exercises, powers equipped with a body cam. That's where we, we took out, um, the, you know, when it should be recording. That's that's what that was about. And so I think if we want to talk about deployment and media acquisition, all of that, we need to be talking about our section eight and the Senate's section seven and looking, you know, maybe starting with the Senate, how section seven, um, you know, how that, how that reads, how when it goes into effect and, and having the commissioner, testify to that language as to whether or not it's, it's doable or is being done, whatever. I guess I want to make sure that we understand which one we're talking about for the August versus October, because I'm a little that's not how I understood it. Uh, Maxine. So, Brynn, sure thing. So if we're looking at the side by side, is that what everybody's looking at? I want to be referring to something that is that people are looking at, or are you looking at the House version of, of the bill? I'm on the side by side. Okay. So I'm seeing some nods there. So I'm just going to go ahead with the side by side. So I'm on page, um, starting with section seven. This is on page 17. So if you look at the second column from the left, this is the House version language. And, um, Representative Lalon is right. The change that you made was to remove when those devices are supposed to be recording. Other than that, you didn't make any changes to this section. This is the section that goes into effect in the House version on October 1st. In the Senate version, it was set to go into effect on August 1st. So this is the statutory requirement that the Vermont State Police be outfitted with cameras. And what the Senate did was that they said, we don't agree with the October 1st start date. It's got to be an August 1st start date. So this requirement in the Senate version would go into effect on August 1st. The following section, section eight, is that session law that really is talking about costs. So it's directing the department to immediately begin, initiate the acquisition and deployment of body cameras. And then if there's ongoing costs that they can't cover within their budget, it directs them to make that a part of their proposal when they come back in August with their budget proposal. So my understanding from the commissioner's testimony is that the real concern is in section seven, that statutory requirement that Vermont State Police be outfitted with these body cameras effective on August 1st. So it makes sense to me that that's where you focus your questions. I'm hearing that August 1st is impossible. Commissioner correct. August 1st is impossible. October 1st is is highly unlikely. It's just it's going to take longer than that. It's this is a very large IT project. Other questions for the commissioner before I jump back into folks who were in the queue. Um, well, while we have him, could I just inquire about section five? You can. I'm not positive that the commissioner has his has the bill in front of him. So you might describe what you're asking about. Thank you. I do have I do have the side by side up at this stage, Madam Chair. Thank you. So it's the law enforcement use of prohibited restraint. I've received some feedback from law enforcement. There seems to be some confusion out there about this as to whether an officer could even use this when lethal force lethal force is justified. And what wasn't it you that had looks for a carve out around this or something? Yes. I stand by my original testimony, which is that I have grave concerns in creating a parallel statute that is for law enforcement only when this exists on the books already as an aggravated assault or a variety of different manslaughter or murder charges that would be brought under these circumstances. And it also is missing the carve out. I think trying to fall back on the current justifiable homicide statute is and actually I think that language might now be missing. It is this is going to create problems if folks are in again, these are very rare instances. But in my career, I have been in fights with people much, much larger. I think you've all met me. I am not particularly big. And it's really anything you can get ahold of to try to contain someone. And you could end up with an inadvertent arm around the neck, which is technically subject to a 20 year felony here with no carve out for in defense of yourself. No one's making an argument that we should be using these things as a course of business or as a taught technique or in the overwhelming majority of circumstances. But it is I just can't stress enough that the types of things that unfold on the street from time to time are sometimes impossible to control without just resorting to whatever, whatever you can do to defend yourself. And that said, if there's the other component, which I testified to previously, which is there may be a circumstances where you could use a firearm or someone use the example of a rock or a flashlight or something to hit someone in the head, but you're not allowed to use any kind of restraint around the neck at the same time. It is just it's incongruous with you know, with those those very unique circumstances and very rare circumstances, but very difficult circumstances that do sometimes occur. So I again, not suggesting that in any way that neck restraint should be a normal course of business or that the ones we've seen publicized and other places in the country should be allowed. Or that we even have recent examples of them being used in Vermont. But I know historically that from time to time you end up in a tussle where you have someone's neck wrapped around your arm is wrapped around their neck, your leg is wrapped around their neck. It's it's some of these events are indescribable.  Thank you, Commissioner. So I do want in the interest of time to help us get back to the instances of amendment that the Senate is proposing to us. So so I do I've had Ken with his hand up for a while. So go ahead, Ken. Thank you. If the body cams are purchased and they're hooked up and everything like that, don't you still need to train the officers properly, which is going to take even more time or we're opening ourselves up for huge lawsuits? That is correct. There are I can just walk you through very, very briefly. You know, we've got to we have to finalize the contract where you have to do the the independent review. We've then got to deploy to 11 locations. We have to set up the gear we have to we actually have to change the internet connectivity because these are cloud hosted. So there's internet connectivity that has to be changed to a number of sites. There's training that has to happen. And we have to get all the accounts set up on the back end of the cloud hosting. This is not a simple point and shoot, you know, video camera that you buy. You're talking this is the December if we're lucky. Commissioner, you have become muted. I'm not sure how. I don't know what's happening. There's a weird icon on my phone. Okay. The you know, we're going to roll them out as fast as possible. I'm not sure I can even give you a specific timeline. Because we've got to we have to negotiate with with internet providers as well to be able to provide the backhaul to upload the video, which is that is work that's already in progress. But it's not easy, as you know, in Vermont. Commissioner, I understand fully what you're saying. And I've said right from day one that that where this is trying to be implemented too fast. And from the from the board of selection and in in Northfield, this stuff just doesn't happen overnight. And you're talking about the whole state of Vermont. We're talking about only the state police with that. It's a whole state of Vermont. It's too hard in two communities across 10 barracks plus headquarters. So it's it's a it's a lot. It's the state but I just want to make very clear, Ken, it's just the state police. And I know that. Okay, all right. Fair enough. Okay, Barbara Rachel Sen. So we have an issue that isn't really our issue. It's a misunderstanding the Senate has. Is it appropriate for chairs to talk to their co chairs and just say it's not like they're sitting in the barracks with these boxes of equipment ready to go? Because it's sort of a factual issue as opposed to a difference of opinion. So we knew that we had a very tight timeline to consider the aspects of this bill that that were sent over to us from the Senate. And we were given a directive from the speaker to do as much as we could to listen to the testimony to hear from the various interested parties and stakeholder groups and to come up with our best work. And so I don't think that we need to to to do something that flies counter to what we feel we've heard in testimony. Oh, all I'm saying is if the Senate realized that the it's going to take a while for it's not they are confused about these body cameras. And we could change it all we want, but that's not going to make any difference. Right. So I just didn't know if there was a way to just make sure they knew that if this is not political bargaining, it's just an oversight on their part. Well, if just tell them they're confused. Well, I think when we go back with with, I guess, our proposal, it would be in there to explain that it's impossible for it to happen. So let's be clear that we haven't even passed our initial work on this bill yet. So let's let's keep that in mind for a moment. Martin Lalonde has been patient. So just to get to circle back to what Rob was talking about what he's heard from other folks in the concern, a couple real quick points. One is that the defenses again of self defense are available. All those things are available. But I understand that there was confusion and concern from Commissioner Shirley and from the state's attorneys. And that's precisely why we need the effective date and the sunset. That's what we put in there to deal with that issue to give us the time to do it and to force us to do it. So, so that's another reason why I think that we need to keep those two components in there. So I agree with you. All right, I don't see any other hands up. And so before we before we left the commissioner go, is there anything else committees that you wanted to ask? And I would hope that we could concentrate on the instances of amendment that the Senate is asking us to review as opposed to reopening parts of the bill that we just barely dried our ink on last night. Martin, I would like to confirm with the commissioner that if we add to the provision about initiating acquisition, if we add initiate the acquisition and deployment, if that causes any problem, I just want to confirm whether that does or does not cause a problem. I think that would work because that the reality is that's already in progress. So you could put any date you want on that language. So let me just make sure I understood you correctly. You are already initiating the acquisition and deployment of body cams. Correct. Okay. And I do have some additional information on the prohibited restraint from our legal counsel who just emailed me if the committee is willing to hear it. I think the next two months when we're reconsidering we're coming back to this in August, I believe is the plan. Jim Harrison. So commissioner, would it help if we just took out the section that says you will have them in place and used by October 1st in our bill? And then obviously we'll talk to you in August or September, get an update. And if you're moving too slow in our collective wisdom, we will tell you and put a date in that. That sounds fine to me, sir. And I nominate Rob to go tell the Senate that they're obviously uninformed. Okay, so we need to we need to remember that that we have a limited amount of time and that we are in the middle of floor session as well. So let's see if we can drive towards a conclusion of this conversation. Let's see how persuasive our chairs really are here. Are we still all connected? We are. I was waiting for the leaders to lead here. Sorry. I was looking at you, Tom. Well, I think we're I'm muted. Sounds like sounds like everybody's questions have been answered and everybody understands the instances of amendment. Is that correct? I believe so. I think so. Yeah. Yeah. Well, then why don't we? I guess we're done with this portion. And the purpose of this. This meeting just tell them it's awful. Are we trying to find come to a consensus or a vote on a counter and proposal or whether or not to concur with some or all of their instances of amendment in this meeting or where our next step is simply to pass 219 at third reading and what's the what are the mechanics? Maxine and Sarah that you think needs to happen at this stage given given where things are at timing wise. Oh, I couldn't I can't hear you Maxine. Did you say go ahead, Sarah and then I apologize. So I guess my inclination is to is to use this opportunity as a gut check to say, did you know, are there solid reasons that we heard testimony about for why we landed where we did on these instances of amendment that the Senate is proposing to us? And if we find that the Senate makes a good point on any of these instances of amendment and and we feel we should move move forward to change this bill before third reading so that so that they because they've made a good point and and and we support then we might move to do that. And you know, I guess the purpose of gathering all of us here together and even hearing more testimony from the commissioner was really to say, did do we feel like we got the policy right or do we want to make an amendment? And does that help Selena? Maxine, you can feel free to characterize what we're driving at if differently if you feel differently from the perspective of of the Judiciary Committee, right? My initial intent was to make sure we understood what the Senate did. And so that we that's we have done. You have two more hands up. I'm going to have to say and then wondering if we should go back to the Senate to the instances of amendment and go go through them again because we got sidetracked on things. Okay, that sounds like a good plan. So Jim and then Mike and then we'll go back to look at each instance. So if we just pass third reading as it's on the floor right now, the Senate's going to tack on this amendment unless we tell them change it by X, Y and Z and it's going to come back to us. So I think it would make sense to take the pieces of their amendment that we can live with, adopt them as as an amendment before third reading so that we can send it back to them and hopefully they'll say, okay, they met us part way and be done with it. Otherwise, we've got to play ping pong. And I don't know about you, but you know, it's been a long zoom day already. Do we want to be here at 2am? So I think that would make the most sense. And I think we can get there. I think we can get there. I some of the stuff they're asking for is is worth smithing. Some of it's more substantive and we can we've already talked about those and it sounds like we have to fix one of the pieces on our own bill as it is with the actual use of bodycams. Thank you. Mike Broicki and then Martin. Thank you. I'm going to take a little bit of a different tact and I'm going to suggest we pass the bill that we have and see what they do. Martin? So my concern with the idea that Jim raised is that if they continue with these we've just given away some of our chips for the bargaining table if that's going to be the next move. I'd rather if I was going to do an amendment before third reading I'd want some sort of a commitment at least from the chair of senate judiciary that he will endorse that and push that as opposed to just making our bargaining position weaker if we need to end up bargaining this. Any other committee discussion on the general? Go ahead, Tom. Yeah I guess I would hesitate to amend the bill like like Martin was saying. I don't think it's a bad idea but I think leaving our chips on the table is a better idea and you know as we go through this again I mean we you know we need to I think we need to just each section we need to say do we accept it or reject it and and use that from there I mean it's going to be a little give and take everywhere I think I think we know some of the things we can live with as far as what we've heard with this discussion and some of the things that we're a little more dug in on and I really don't think there's going to be that much back and forth and give and take at this point of the session. Seems we're running out of time. Warren. I'll make it short. I would stand with Martin from any negotiating standpoint we should stand strong. I remember back in the days when I was chair of commerce sitting across the table from Vincent Luzzi which was not a real pleasure but we should hold firm at this at this moment. I hate to give up on on the one where I agree with Tom and Jim and I know that there are others that we can give in on but any type. Ken. How can we do this when we can't meet that the date for the body camps? The October 1st date is that what you mean? Correct. Well presumably we'll be back in session in mid-August and I guess if the commissioner thought at that point that it was unworkable we could make a change then. So he's already told us it's unworkable. How can we go out on the floor and do that? I mean I want this to happen but I want it to be done right. Did I lose that everybody or did I kill people or what happened? There's lots of blue hands that are raising right now so Nader did you want to jump in next in answer to Ken? Not in specific answer to Ken. I mean I can make fun of them later maybe but no I just wanted to echo what has been said already which is I think that we should stand fast. Warren did you have your hand up again? You're going to want to unmute. I'm sorry I think that was a mistake Madam Chair. Okay Jim. Yeah as I think about it let's stand firm and the implementation date for October we can change. We have to go back and visit the policing issues anyhow. We can change it then if that's not realistic so let's let's hold firm and again and I'm sure that that was a good one but you are starting to garble so I'm going to consider that to be in the jelly doughnut category and call on Martin Lalonde. Sorry. There you go. I was just going to say to Ken that that yeah I think we fix it in August, September because I don't like the I want to hold firm but holding firm and then saying to the Senate well I see your August 1st instead of October 1st and we we come back with December 31st that that's kind of will up poke the bear a little bit more than I think we need to right at this point especially since I think we all agree that we're going to have to deal with this and when we come back. Well let me get other effective dates I think we need to take a look at as well. Selena. Wondering if process wise we could just go through each instance of amendment and figure out where the where you know whether it's a straw pull on each like where we we want to hold firm with our proposal where we could accept their proposal of amendment or where we have some alternative to both to offer that gets somewhere in the middle because it seems it seems clear to me like there's there is not a unless I'm just not counting well if I don't think we're on a path to concur with their proposal of amendment here unless I have two more hands up and then and then maybe we can go through each of the seven eight instances. Does that sound good? Yes please. Seven. Martin. I'm in trouble with this button today. I would I would disinclined to go through and show our hand even in that manner by saying yeah we agree with this one we disagree with that one. I'm not sure what that gets us except to show the Senate that where what our position is going into negotiation I think that that undermines the if we end up having a committee of conference it undermines their ability to to negotiate so I really don't think we should go through in that manner. I think probably if Maxine or Sarah are going to talk to Dick Sears they probably have a enough of a feel for what is a no-go and what we may have some ability to move on but I'd rather not have that more formalized with the straw vote. And I wouldn't want to play poker with Martin. Lauren Kitzmiller. Okay I found that I did have something. Are you hearing me? Okay. I think the concern about the October 1st date is just when a one section seven takes effect and it's meaningless. It says the department shall insure and that takes effect on October 1st. It doesn't say that they shall ensure that they all have them by October 1st. They'll say we're doing it we're ensuring it we're we're in the process there's no particular that date is only a date that this takes if the chapter takes effect. It doesn't mean that it has to be completed by them. In fact it's a pretty toothless section of that because there's no date by which it has to be accomplished. So I think Ken's concern which I understand but I just don't think it really matters in this case because all of this is a date that it takes effect. That's all I got. Mike Marwicky. I'm gonna just reiterate the idea that we hold fast. I don't think we start going over the bill now and I think if we want we can we can suggest if the Senate wants to hold this bill up the way they did in Senate judiciary then we're just gonna sit tight and make sure we do it right. Okay so why don't we adjourn? It's so nice to be back together with you all again. Let's not do this again too soon. I agree. Okay and Jim you do want to play poker against me. I always lose. Yeah he's got his tells Jim once you get to know him. We can go off live and I will see you all back on the floor.