Good morning. This is Senate Judiciary Committee, January 29, almost the end of the month of January. It's a cold, cold morning down here in Beddington. I'm sure it's even colder up in the kingdom. But welcome to Senate Judiciary this morning. Bill that we're taking up is S-45, an act relating to earned discharge from probation. And I'm not sure the title is as apt as it could be about what we're really trying to do here. But we're going to first hear from Brynn Hare. I will announce that Senator, many of us had connectivity issues this morning getting on. And that's why we're a couple of minutes late. We'll announce that Senator White is still having connectivity issues. So Brynn, why don't you take us through a kind of a quick walkthrough of the bill since we already actually heard testimony on the genesis of the bill. Sure thing. So good morning committee for the record, Brynn Hare from Legislative Council. And you did get a walkthrough of the draft of this bill before it was assigned a bill number last week. So I know you have a whole bunch of witnesses this morning, so I don't want to be repetitive, but I will do a quick summary of what the, what the bill does. There are a couple of changes from the version that you walked through last week, but nothing, nothing really major, just some reorganization and some tweaks to the wording based on some of the length of testimony that you heard from witnesses. So section one is the duration of probation section of law and this is a directive to the courts. Does everyone have this bill or would you like me to put it up on the screen. Let's put it up on the screen. I didn't print out the new copies. Is it the version that's introduced or a different one. This is as introduced as 45. Thank you. Okay, just give me a minute and I'll pull it up here. So you'll remember section one. This is the directive to the courts that provides the courts that the sentencing court that put places a person on probation can discharge that probation and terminate the remainder. If it's warranted by the conduct of the offender, that's current law. And what is added here is a directive to the court that says, if the commissioner of the department of corrections recommends that a person's approving there's period of probation be terminated and discharged prior to the end of that person's term, or if they recommend a deduction to the remainder of a person's term. If the court and the court has to discharge or follow that recommendation, unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence that discharge isn't in the best interest of the person, or that discharge of the person will result in a risk of danger to the victim or to the community. And it also provides a specific directive that the court has to set forth the reasons for denial of the motion on the record. And then subsection C, this is the language that was former, the version you looked at it was in section two, we've moved it up here to section one because it really is it's a more relevant in section one here as a directive to the courts that probationers aren't deemed ineligible for discharge or a term reduction if they're due to unpaid restitution fees or surcharges. I wanted to, I'm sure the committee remembers to flag that part for you there was some discussion about whether that should apply to restitution or not I think you're going to hear some testimony today about that question there. So section two, the conditions of probation this now is the section of law that really is providing directives to the department of corrections. So the changes here are that we've added some subdivision headings, and I'm going to scroll all the way down to the new language, which is here at the top of page six review and recommendation for discharge. Subdivision D here in existing law provides that the commissioner has to actually may file a motion requesting that the court discharge a person at the midpoint of their probation sentence. And so the changes here make it presumptive. And so what I'm going to do is that the commissioner shall file that motion requesting a dismissal of the remainder of a person's term, if certain criteria are met and those criteria are found here in subdivisions A and B. If the person that has not violated the conditions of their probation and the six months prior to that midpoint review. And I want to flag this for you all to you. There was some discussion about this language participating in the case plan, whether that language was appropriate or not. So I'm sure you'll hear more about that from the witnesses. That's where it used to say actively participating. Correct. And we removed. Actively out. And then subdivision two provides that if that probationer isn't eligible for discharge after the midpoint review. Because they didn't meet those criteria, perhaps it allows that the department may file a motion to request a deduction of a portion of the remainder of the probation term. If the person has conditions completed or goals attained. And so that's where the subdivision three provides that if there is after the midpoint review, no motion was filed. It requires that the commissioner continue to conduct a review each six months following that midpoint review. And again, we have the same language here. If the probationer meets those criteria that were outlined above that they haven't violated in the six months prior to the review. And they're, and they are compliant with their case plan. Then the commissioner shall file a motion to dismiss the remainder of the term. And if they're ineligible for dismissal, the commissioner may file a motion requesting the court deduct a portion of that remaining term. So exact same language, six months later at each six months review following the midpoint review. And that language. Hey Bryn, can I stop your second. The phrase, you have to scroll up about a half a page if you would. Okay, right there. It's completed conditions or attain goals so if there is conditions they have not completed. They can still be eligible because they've attained some goals that aren't defined. Yes. That's how I read that language and I would just point out that there is existing. This is existing language. We've repeated it here. But under current law, the commissioner may file this motion. If they have a history with this and I'm not going to get too picky about it. I'm just wondering if I'm understanding it right. We're talking about previously articulated goals. I think they can't the would be probation or can't say, well, I had a personal goal to do 100 push ups a day. And I completed that we're talking about official goals right. Yes, and I suspect you're going to get some helpful information from the witnesses today about this because I think it sort of dovetails with the question about whether compliance with the case plan is the way to articulate that eligibility criteria. I imagine that these goals and conditions are a part of the case plan if that's the right word to use. Okay. So it may be that we that you want to get more specific about about what that means to attain goals or complete conditions. Yeah, because as it stands, it's, it's pretty loosey goosey. Okay, if we're, I'm going to move on to section three now. And this is the directive to the Department of Corrections to gather some information about how this midpoint review process is working and report back to the justice oversight committee in August of 2022 and 2023. And specifically, this is the data that they're required to collect number of probation discharge or term reductions that are filed by the department. And then the number of probation terms that actually were reduced or terminated, and the amount of time reduced from probation terms as a result of these motions granted by the court. And then it takes effect in July of this year. And that's it. Right. Thank you very much. It's helpful. Receive the request from several witnesses to have. They'll cook. Go first. We were scheduled later this morning. I assume Monica would join Dale. If she's available. I don't see her on the screen. She may not be here yet. He's not here today, sir. Oh, okay. She won't be here. That's fine. I'm sure you can handle it. So we'll start with Dale and then go backwards to the original. Good morning. For the record, my name is Dale crook. I am the director of field services for the Vermont Department of Corrections. Today we're talking about S 45. I'll kind of walk through it. I, I'm not sure if some of the language here is a little clunky and I'm not sure it fits in how things. I'm just going to go back to what the committee or what the justice reinvestment was kind of looking at. I was kind of involved with some of those committees. I'll try to read through it and give you, give you our feedback and, and some suggestions. The first section, section. Section one. We're fine with one thing I will want to talk later about is about the partial reduction to term. In reality, it doesn't really, it doesn't really work that well. When it's implemented, we've, we've kind of have certain language like that now and then it just gets clunky and I'll explain that a little bit later. The rest of this of section one be we have really no other issues with there may be a concern about who about the courts making the determination. If it's in the best interest of the person or the risk of the public, which I am assuming judge person will be able to talk about section C is fine. Certainly don't hold individuals on for failure to make payments. That's kind of current practice. That's with section one. Now there's just some kind of cleanup language and we'll get kind of to the to the meat of the changes, which will be on the top of page six. The first, the first change and number one you need to have determination on is the may to shall and the shall is fine, but the but just to make the committee aware that the way the language is written now sex offenders and domestic violence offenders would be included in this. I'm not saying if that is the intent or not but but the way I would read this is that sex offenders would currently be eligible for this and there could be conflicting language with act one. In 2009, I believe it's when I came out around the department's responsibility with supervising sex offenders. If it's the intent of the committee to exclude sex offenders or any other offense based individuals, I would just add that language in there are not it's really a policy decision to include them or not. So that's with the shall and the may. We have a rule right now with the may and in our rule, we exclude sex offenders and domestic violence offenders and behaviors that are in affidavits that could be constituted as domestic violence or sexual violence. Currently. Moving down to those the.   It depends it depends if there's a term on the probation order. If it would or would not, if it's until further order of the court, they would be on the department would not recommend a discharge for a sex offender. The criteria and act one was unattainable in our opinion, and it's I think it was overwhelming evidence is our criteria and we have been able to determine that. Offenders can petition the court for discharge on their own. It's just that the department will not make that stance, but it really depends on what the probation, what the probation is. I assume some others that follow me can probably better explain. Not all offenses will be given a term there are a lot of serious offenses where they're put on probation can have until further order of the court. They just have to be able to adjust the course just have to justify why they're not going with the term sentence. What I'm just trying to understand what we'll hear from the victims groups trying to understand. If there are certain certain groups not eligible. It would be those that are on probation until further order of the court, because they don't have a specific term, because they don't have a specific term, those that are. This is designed for those who are. A midpoint, a midpoint of say a five years so after two and a half years you would hold this midpoint. I don't know how you do a midpoint until further order of the court. We don't the language currently is is for a specific specified term. So, so the offender has to have a term of probation. I'm just asking just do we need to be clear about that and welcome Senator white. We need to be clear about that. Well, I, as it's written now sex offenders domestic violence all offenders with a term probated case are eligible for this. If that's the intent. That's then that's the intent if it's not I'm just making you aware I'm not I'm not arguing either side I'm just saying that may to shall is is. An important piece. I appreciate that, but I guess what I'm trying to get at is those with a probation until further order of the court would not be eligible. Correct. That does not apply to them. No matter what the offense as the way it's currently written anyone with a term probation. Two years, three years, 10 years, 20 years would be eligible at the midpoint. Correct. So, if somebody's say had a 20 year probate, I don't know, did they get a 20 year probation term. They can be. Yeah. Yeah, after 10 years. If we review them anyway, I mean, under current law, do you have a midpoint review after 10 years. It wouldn't if, if they would have a term, we would and currently unless there are sex offenders, we wouldn't. But they would have to have a term. So, if they don't have a term. This does not apply to them. Okay. Thank you for that. We'll wait for some witnesses to give us more. The next section, the section A about has not been found a violation of conditions that that's fine. Be starts getting into language that's not really applicable for probation. Really with probation, the understanding is that the probation conditions are really kind of drive everything. The case plans don't really drive probation conditions. So, so having a case plan, we could have things in the case plan that aren't connected to the probation conditions. And we have would have no authority to as a department to have the offender complete those requirements in the case plan. I would, I would make a suggestion that be would be changed into instead of participating successfully completing the conditions of probation. That's kind of what the judge said forth to the agreements is here are the conditions of probation that the offender needs to complete in order to satisfy his probation requirements. That's, I think, cleaner in our opinion. And of course, you can hear from others behind me. Dale. Would it be completing the conditions or currently complying. I would recommend completing just complying. They may not be completing with their risk reduction programming. Some programs may take longer than what's at the midpoint. This, you know, someone has a, for example, some of our 600 programs can be two years. If after halfway through their completing, I don't know if it would be in the best interest to discharge them before completing treatment. So maybe it's a semantic thing. I thought that conditions were ongoing while you were on probation. Correct. So at the midpoint you wouldn't have completed them. You would be in current compliance with them. You see my, you see my point. But it's we have the standard conditions to allow for the supervision of the offender, the special conditions. What about satisfied has has satisfied. That's fine as well as far as I'm concerned. Okay, satisfied or completed the conditions because completed makes it sound like they're done and in the past, but actually they're still in force. And I have the hard time was the word successfully. In the eye of the beholder, really, I used to have kids and we questioned, did they successfully complete the program, whatever that means. They attained everything they could get out of that. You what success to me and you might not be successful as somebody else. I think that's a really tough term to put in there requiring successful. I mean, unless you can automatic, you know, unless you can figure.  So, and he worked for the Department of Corrections. So, at any rate, I think we might want to avoid that term as well. I think the idea of. I don't think we would object to that. I think what we're indicating is that case plan is, is it's really should be driven around probation conditions. However, level of satisfying or completing that the committee thinks is appropriate. Case plan is I don't think is is a workable workable component here. Senator Bennett. So they'll why attach the phrase probation conditions or attained goals. I think some of that was old language. So the department's authority is driven through the probation conditions. So, so they can have goals, but the department can't enforce them we can only, we can only do what's on the conditions of probation. Well, that's what I'm thinking but if you have, let's say probation says well we don't like you leave in probation until you've found adequate housing. But adequate housing is not one of the probation conditions. So you've got this internal goal or desire that could be in conflict with what we're trying to accomplish here. Am I correct in saying we probably ought to jettison that phrase or attain goals. Yes, I would agree with that I would, I would focus the language on probation condition because that's really with probation, they are under the authority of the court and the department supervises them. Those conditions is what drives everything with a probationer that drives discharge it drives violation that drives completion dates. And that is driven by the by the conditions of probation goals case plans those are things that are probation officers will work with, but we don't really have, you know, as far as case work and social work and helping individuals be better themselves, but it's something we don't really have the authority to impose upon an offender. Okay, thanks. So if, if one of the conditions of probation is that they work with both rehab. Get a job. Or the department labor. That's a condition of probation not a goal that they have. All right. Now, it doesn't mean that goals can't or conditions can't be kind of geared around goals. It's really what is sit on the probation orders, and we'll have goals to help accomplish. And also goal via become supervision plans, which are really how an offender will accomplish is probation conditions, and it may be your goal is to go get an assessment by the end of the month, and then follow the recommendations that could be a goal internally but it's not. But the condition is what drives that goal, the conditions of getting an assessment on a probation order is what Senator, Senator white is not connected much to ask. I'm not connected to the state house. I have no idea what happened to the internet at that at the house, but nobody didn't say the bill. No, I did exactly what they said to I, she left a note and said, disconnect it and then connected. Anyway, so I just wanted to follow up on Senator Sears question there about finishing if if the if one of the conditions is to work toward high school diploma or a college degree or whatever it is or GED that successfully complete or not successfully but satisfying that means you're continuing to work toward it doesn't mean you've got GED or the high school diploma. Am I right about that, because it doesn't say have one it says work toward. If it's really depends on what the language is written down so if it says to be engaged in educational services. I don't want to engage in educational services at the midpoint. We would. I would interpret that as satisfying that condition or there are there and compliance with that condition at that time. Okay, thanks. I just wondered if the language was more specific must obtain the high school diploma. Then that is, then they would have to obtain the high school diploma to satisfy that condition. The same with working with folk rehab toward getting a job or training or whatever it is. Okay, thanks. Okay, why don't we move right along. Before I have to do this. One of the one of the suggestions reading this is I would recommend removing the partial credit, especially with words that it kind of flows down a little bit further. Because we have the conditions and goals. It's not in section two actually. I'll continue I'm sorry my mistake. I don't know what to do with this. I think it's the next page at the top. Yeah, with the goals and stuff I think we discussed that that is really driven by the conditions of probation. The midpoint and number three. That is fine where I think there would be the partial reduction of terms, especially with how I think where this language is moving toward makes it. It doesn't work well because if an individual, I'll give an example. Someone has a one year probated term, and they have four conditions to satisfy. At the midpoint they have three out of the four done. So we would, we would reduce let's say 25%, which would be three months. If the offender in that three months doesn't complete that fourth condition, we'd have to violate his probation in order to extend the condition. So it's kind of like this, like it could put us in a situation where it wouldn't be very beneficial. It's a lot of paperwork going back and forth between the courts. So that's a six month review. I would actually make a suggestion that after the midpoint review, any time the offender satisfies his conditions of probation, the department shall recommend a discharge. Actually, the CSG suggestion was a short term period and I said six months just to avoid hassle for you all. I think that's something to do it that way. I think that's okay. I, and I talked about this as the bill was getting drafted a lot of simpler for you at a six month period to not have somebody coming in all over the place. No, because we have. So most of these cases are going to be on administrative program going to be on low risk. We have an automated system that actually would work really well with completing this. So once they're on many of them are just not. If you get arrested, give me a call, give us a call. That's the only condition right. On some, there's usually conditions. Very rarely do we have administrative probation where we have, we have a telephone monitoring system that is actually would work really well with this because once things are completed, we can have the system flag it and do it. Otherwise, with the high risk, they're meeting with their probation officer at least once a month, if not more for those goals. I get one other question about this section over the years and working with young people. Sometimes the goals or the conditions set at the beginning are not realistic as you get to know the person better and as you get to realize so using the example senator white gave it. Maybe this person just isn't capable of getting. That that may actually be true. And so you would revise then that you can't revise the condition. How would you deal with that if you went back to court. We could. Depends on how the language is written a lot of the language is written to the satisfaction of the probation officer. So that gives discretion so often a fender is not able to to reach the job or whatever it may be they may be able to do something else that satisfies that condition because the offenders just not capable of doing that is one way around. We can also file a motion and modify conditions with the consent of the offender. So if the offender believes that this condition. Needs to be modified we can do that. You don't have the standard conditions anymore. There are still some standard conditions. So what about the court, the Supreme Court had ruled that we were limited. There are a handful of conditions that allow the department to supervise but all special conditions should be geared toward either risk reduction or the crime itself. He can probably explain it a lot better than I can. Well, I was thinking I was thinking of, you know, you're not shall not consume alcohol.  That was a standard condition. You can't apply that condition. That was my understanding of Supreme Court. Correct. It has to be connected to the crime or to rehabilitation or for supervision. Are there other things nailed to issues? No, just I talked about the partial reduction. The rule section four, I'm not sure depends on how the language plays out. I'm not sure if a rule is necessary with shells and pretty specific language and statute a rule may not be necessary. If there is, if the committee continues and wants the rule, we would have to do emergency rules because we would never be able to get to the rulemaking process by July one. I think without the rule, we'd be able to this is pretty straightforward. It's not really a huge lift for the department as far as it's just some policy work is not implementing, you know, a whole bunch of other components within the department. The report parts is fine. I spoke with Monica yesterday. No issues with the reports in the data in the tracking of the data. Any other questions for me that kind of covers my my thoughts. Beyond if there's other questions if needed. I don't have any. Anybody have any others. Very good. Thank you, Dale. Appreciate it. I'm going to go back to the original order unless there's somebody who would rather have pain. It should be David sure of the Attorney General's office. Good morning committee for the record. Morning. Morning Senator for the record David share with the Vermont Attorney General's office. The Vermont Attorney General's office certainly supports this legislation in concept and we are fine with working with other stakeholders to tweak it a little bit to make sure we get it right. The committee may remember this is sort of stemming from this is the replacement idea for the idea that we grappled with a little bit last session around having probation the underlying time on somebody's sentence run while they were serving probation. And that proved to be complicated and had some concerns from various stakeholders and this is the, I would say the replacement option that has come out of the Council on State Governments. And we think it's a reasonable replacement and support it. I think that there's there's a couple points I wanted to mention and happy to answer questions, although I think other stakeholders will have more, we'll go into some of the stuff and more detail that I will so I'll keep my remarks relatively concise. The committee was already getting at was the in your in your discussion with Mr crook was that.  What does that mean what does that look like. I think as a general matter, the law should be phrased to make it clear that somebody who is actively participating and obeying the conditions should generally speaking be recommended for discharge. There's a big caveat important caveat to that which is that people who are in the middle of a program like the programming that's done for sex offenders, for example, those programs this should be designed in a way that people are required to complete those programs so programs that essentially have a set course a set time conditions in other words that are not conditions that you just have to meet throughout the term of your probation but conditions that that require you to complete a curriculum. I think that those it is reasonable to have those be required to be completed before discharge happens, and this was actually one of the main concerns that I don't want to mischaracterize it and and attorney pepper can correct me where I'm wrong, but I believe that this was actually one of the main concerns that states attorneys had with the prior idea around time running. While somebody is on probation they were concerned that if somebody didn't finish required programming like the programming for sex offenders that there would be no way to force that completion. To want us to run into a similar problem here and I think that that can be accomplished by tweaking the language and I'm not sure if attorney pepper or others have specific suggestions I'm still to be perfectly honest I'm still thinking about how we might achieve both goals that I've articulated which is first make sure that the default is really towards discharge except that where there is a specific curriculum that's been required, the completion of that curriculum is necessary. I'm sure we can do that I just have to think a little bit more about the language and I'm sure others here will have similar or sorry have suggestions on that line. That's my only real substantive comment on this, we support the goals, broadly. And I'm happy to answer any questions on it. I have a question. I was there talking and just having a grand old time. David and I think I'll ask probably ask everybody the question. Should all offenders with probationary sentences be eligible, except those who are sentenced to a term of probation until further order of the court because you can never determine what the midpoint is in further order of the court. And what do we do with those folks. People have been. Obviously you can't be a midpoint review as a matter of logic as you correctly point out that being said I still think that there should be an opportunity for a review that the department does at some point, and I have not thought about what that might look like to be certainly Frank, but I think it would make sense and it would be in the spirit of this legislation for there to be at some point. Some sort of review that the department conducts and I can certainly come back to the committee with and talk with some of the other stakeholders about what that might look like. And I think that it seems to be to me to be in the spirit of the policy change here that everybody gets a chance for a review at some point and and we can think about what the timeline might be for those individuals. That's a good idea. I don't think that the same, I say this with some trepidation but I don't think that the same concerns are going to arise here I'm sure that there will be some, but there's two reasons why I don't think that one is that this is, as I understand it. Let me let me check on that I believe this is a prospective change, but I could be wrong about that it could be misunderstanding the intent so let me let me reserve comment on that let somebody else correct me on that but the other the more important difference is that the very serious concerns that elicited a lot of concern under the good time issue they are very unlikely to be determined by a probationary sentence. And so I don't think that some of the really intense concern and frankly backlash that came from that change is going to be as applicable here. And again, here you're not, you're there's still an element of discretion, the courts can can can choose not to give this this isn't earned good time basically meant that as long as some as you well as this committee well knows. It basically meant that, you know the time was going to accrue as long as somebody didn't accumulate the DRs and, and that didn't necessarily mean that release was inevitable certainly if that's important to remember but I think here. We're really talking about mostly crimes that are not going to fall into the category that raised the most concern around her good time and and again courts retain the ability to make an assessment about what is fair and just in terms of the the actual discharge, it's obviously weighted towards discharge which we think is appropriate, but there is still a check there. And they'll raise that issue. The language is pretty clear, clear and convincing evidence that the discharge is and is not in the best interest of the person or that discharged person or risk of danger to the victim of the offense or to the that's that gives me some comfort in the determination of whether to release them. They court could determine by clear and convincing evidence that it's not. Yeah, that's right and again we think it's fair for it to be weighted in that direction. And again the very serious charges that created a lot of concern are mostly are much more likely to be a car sort of sentences and are that it's going to be less relevant to this policy change. I'm just wondering about the chairs. I want to talk about the difference between a term and until further order of the court, and I'm wondering, I'm not really familiar with that that phrase so much. Is there a generally understood set of cases that receive that until further order of the court, or is that just at the discretion of the sentencing judge. Certainly at the discretion of the sentencing judge and those types of sentences as I understand it are relatively unusual. I will defer. I'm, I'm, I couldn't sit here right now and tell you exactly where that is most likely to happen and so I would defer to to Defender General Valerio and Attorney Pepper on that question. But some cases that end up with long supervision are the multi DUI cases. Those have been in the past often furlough, you know very long furlough type sentences FSE sentences. That's obviously going to change I think with the recent legislation or could change with the recent legislation but that's the type of offense that might see very long supervision or indefinite supervision but I will let Defender General Valerio and Attorney Pepper talk more about what class of cases in my experience those are unusual. And then, just to speak to the issue specifically of sex offenders and how they might fare under this proposed legislation. So when you talked about completing programs curricular programs or, or just programs in general. It makes sense that we wouldn't want to say okay you're, you're actively completing but we're going to let you go halfway through for a sex offender if they're assigned programming. What does that typically look like in terms of time limits is it, is it a relatively short program or is it a program that lasts their entire probation period or how does that generally work. Again, I think there's others here who are well answered that much more precisely than me and I turn it over to them I mean my quick answer is that it's usually in the neighborhood of like a year 18 months in terms of that type of programming that's I was practicing in court but but that's could have changed in the last few years so I'll let maybe Mr crook can answer that I see he's popped on. Do you do you want to answer that. The offender supervision really is driven by the offenders risk and incarceration, the, it starts at six months of programming in the community, it can last indefinitely depends on the behaviors we do risk assessments if they're not able to maintain and manage their risks or their behaviors. They could continue one on search for treatment for an extended period of time. Generally, it's a couple years one to two years depending on the risk and depending on the offense that we have on the offender so it's not it's it's not a clear. It's a one year program and here's the end date it's it's really based on the progress that the sex offender is making and their treatment programming. So we could if we if we were to reword it according to David's suggestion about not just currently successfully satisfying conditions but also completing programming. There, there could be a way of, if somebody was assigned an indefinite program they would not be eligible automatically. Right, because they would, they would not have completed their programming, their sex offender programming. See, that makes sense. Yes, it gets really tricky with the language of the conditions and how they're going to be applied. You know, I can understand where it's coming from I think we want to make it straightforward for everyone and if, and I'm not sure I'm not sure there's a straightforward easy solution for this. It could be something where you have a level of compliance with the conditions of supervision and the completion of a criminogenic needs or risks or risk services or something of that nature so you're really taking care of, of the behaviors or the concerns or the needs that got the offender under supervision in the first place. So it's getting getting complicated. Really the conditions that are set are really important how they're worded for an example. And I've seen this before there could be a probation condition that says not eligible for early discharge as a probation condition and that would kind of circumvent all of this by that probation condition. I don't think like that as to the language and how it's written, and how you want the department to apply. Apply the satisfaction of that condition. I don't really have a fun way to kind of make an administrative decision here. We're planning next Thursday to come back to this bill. I just want to ask that the witnesses and those that practice this and then take a look at how do we deal with people who are ordered to further order what don't have a term for this. Give it some more thought and just trying to kind of work off the top of our heads is always the best way to get there and I think maybe that would be what you know give it almost a week to look at this. Now we want to be that work. Other questions for David. David thanks. We look forward to seeing you next week. Thank you. Take this up again and look at that. But also some thought about if there are certain crimes that we want to exclude. From the list. Thank you. James Pepper is next representing the state's attorneys. There he is coming through but it's rather weak. Okay, let me get a little closer. That's that. Well, just with respect to s 445. The state's attorneys reviewed this bill and I think all of them, without exception, one sense and including probation to be evidence informed I think that CSG has given us a lot of good data that this is a, this has led to a reduction in recidivism. In my terms and conditions tailored to an individual risk.  I think we're having a, I'm having a hard time hearing you I don't know if it's on my end or your end. Okay. He's gone. Maybe trying to get back in the days of zoom. I will say, I think given what we've been talking about with earned time. This one seems to me, although I took David's point that it was a little different. I think the victims groups might wind up seeing them very similarly, but what it's worth. Is this any better. Million times better. Okay, well then let me just start over then if you don't mind I apologize to the other witnesses into the committee for the light. So the state's attorneys just in general want sentencing to be evidence informed they want terms and conditions tailored to an individual's risk. I think what this bill importantly does is creates a bright line incentive, you know, a goal date to motivate people to comply with conditions and to do well on probation. What we have, which you've heard from the other witnesses and certainly all the state's attorneys to to the last one of them agree that rehabilitative programming must be completed prior to release or discharge, which actually can be relatively easily resolved in this draft on page six, just to indicate that rehabilitative programming must be completed or risk reduction programming, or however we want to phrase that. But I'd like to just quickly touch on a point about conditions that are specifically tailored to supervision. One of the most common probated sentences that we see and I'm just going to use Washington County as an example is for high risk DUIs, which would be five to 180 days to serve, all suspended with one year on probation. So the kind of the stick would be that if you screw up while you're on probation there would be a five day minimum and then you'd be released on furlough. Specifically tailored to allow the high risk DUI offender six months to complete the IOP the intensive outpatient programming. And then an additional six months of sort of interlock or supervision to ensure that that individual that the intensive outpatient programming is actually working. And so what this proposal would do is say after the six months after the IOP is completed that the remainder of the term would, if they were successful in completing it would be eliminated or discharged. So that's a that's a concern that was raised with respect to just kind of the some types of supervision that would extend beyond merely the programming. Another concern that we have is respect to some of the no contact provisions, no harassment provisions with victims. And often what we'll see is that a victim will allow something like an abuse prevention order to lapse when someone is on a probated sentence, because there is there are these no contact provisions no harassment provisions. And, you know, I, what we're, we have no, I think the state's attorneys to a T have no interest in, you know, imposing a curfew on someone or housing restrictions or, you know, require frequent check ins or pop ins by probation officers. But we do have some concerns around victim notification and victim harassment that under the language. I'm not sure we're fully going to be addressed by a court having to find by clear and convincing evidence that there's no issue with a victim. So, because the only it's kind of a binary choice for the court at the midpoint, which is either dismiss discharge the person from probation, or not, and it's not. It's not look at the conditions eliminate all the ones that aren't related to the victim. And, and let the and modify the sentence it's just discharge or not discharge. So I think having some flexibility there, or strictly for the victim, victim conditions would be our recommendation and I wouldn't mind if there aren't any. I can answer questions but I would touch on the indeterminate sentence provision as well. And just quickly coming to mind I mean the common sentences that get the common convictions that get the indeterminate sentence, it usually follows a to serve portion to serve term.  I understand the flexibility for the victim, where there is a active victim. What you mean by that, in terms of, would you change the clear and convincing evidence or so. That would offer judges the flexibility and especially if you tied it specifically to this kind of victim issue. You know that that could be a preponderance. What you could also do is instead of just saying that the court shall terminate the period of probation and discharge the person. Say the court shall review the conditions and period of probation, discharge the person, reduce the term, or otherwise modify the conditions. You know offer some flexibility as to what the judge could do at that midpoint review, other than just strictly discharge the person from probation. And again, we are very much, I mean the midpoint reviews are currently happening, and I think that when there are not victim concerns, and you know I would again allow DOC to weigh in. When there are not victim concerns, the state's attorneys have all told me that they regularly stipulate to them. So, I think when it comes down to straight programming, being completed and no victim concerns, probation terms are being discharged at the midpoint. Brent, can you find out what Montana did about this? Can we check with CSG to find out about Montana, this issue with the victims and so forth? I would defer to Brent of course. I did ask this at the last of CSG at the last working group, the Justice Reinvestment Working Group meeting. And they did say that judges in Montana have the ability to modify probation at any time, if I think it's true in Vermont.  Okay, well, you've already got the answer that I was looking for. I just, I think that this language creates a very strong presumption through clear and convincing evidence that it will be discharged. Well, that was the idea. Other questions for Mr. Pepper. Thank you so much. We'll be back. Matt Valeria. Thank you for having me. I'm very, very, very different general. We are happy to see this bill. And seems like it's come quite a long way from the original concept, and in a positive way. Happy to see that the Department of Corrections seems to be embracing the, the concept. I am through the bill. I didn't have very many particular concerns and more of the the comments that I have arise out of the comments that other folks have had along the way. I'm intrigued by the department's suggestion that perhaps it wouldn't be a judicial review but a administrative review. And I actually think that we might end up with better results for the clients with an administrative review than with a judicial review on discharge. If the same criteria are found, of course, if the person who seeks discharge from probation is denied by the department, then the Prisoner's Rights Office would have jurisdiction to challenge that review by Rule 75, review which they do with any kind of administrative action. If it went back to the court, I'm anticipating that Judge Greerson may not want to add more hearings or more anything more to the court's plate. This is one of those times that I will say that no matter which way this goes, whether it's an administrative review within the Department of Corrections or a review by the staff offices, it's clearly going to add work to the Defender General's Office. But this is the type of work that we would welcome even though it is going to be some measure more work than what we have now. I mean, probation is the largest kind of classification of people that we have in the custody of the Commissioner of Corrections and it has been and continues to be one of the feeders of the incarcerated custody portions of folks who are in the custody of the Commissioner of Corrections. But our job is to try to get people onto living an industrious life as Corrections likes to say and part of that is getting them out from the restrictions that probation typically puts on people. I'm interested in how this might come out from an administrative versus judicial review of what goes on. There was some comment on the DOC's failure to pay fines, fees and restitution should not result in a violation. And in fact, I believe that is what they do now because it's unconstitutional to hold somebody to put somebody in jail for failure to pay a debt. So if somebody is on probation and the only thing that they have is a fine fee or restitution, they might be able to violate the probation but they couldn't incarcerate them anyway. The restitution, as you probably know, is a civil judgment that's subject to collection by the restitution unit anyway. And all of these things, fines, fees, restitution, Defender General co-pay are subject to tax and lottery intercept to be satisfied among other collection efforts. The Defender General's office doesn't have wage garnishment and supplementary process, but the restitution unit does have the ability to do that for restitution. So I think that the whole issue of collecting money from these folks is not really one that should be a consideration in whether or not they're discharged from probation. The question that has come up which is interesting and I'm happy to address is this the whole issue of what happens on page six if it remains shall and does this include sex offenders and domestic violence cases and other unsavory type cases that get a lot of publicity and victim input. Usually somebody only ends up on a probation with a further order of the court under a number of different circumstances. One is the person has a long history of criminal activity so they might not be a sex offender or domestic violence or a serious aggravated assault or something like that, but they might have a record that goes back decades or five, 10, 15 years and they keep coming back on the same kind of stuff, property things and they're either generally antisocial or they have a drug problem or mental health problem that prevents them from complying with the law and those are people who will get a probation even on many misdemeanors or minor felonies until further order of the court. Obviously the other thing though this is important I think to know is that there are those cases that are very serious crimes but they have proof issues and those people also end up with no jail sentences at the beginning with indefinite probation so you will see it in sex offenses, you will see it in aggravated assaults and domestics and the like where there is a problem where the state doesn't have a good witness to prove the case and to get that person under some sort under the custody of the commission of corrections there'll be an offer with a low minimum all suspended on probation and it might be a one to 15 all suspended on probation until further order of the court whatever the conditions are and those are ones where basically the state has difficulty proving their case but they make an offer basically that the defendant you know can't refuse from a risk management standpoint now oftentimes those deals end up very bad for the defendant because you know once you're in the system it's pretty difficult to get out of the system with certain types of crimes but all the defendancies is no jail deal I'll take it oftentimes it's better to take a jail deal and not be on probation indefinitely nevertheless that's one of the other reasons why you can end up on a until further order of the court indefinite probation they also occur with people with complex needs people who have mental health issues but they aren't bad enough to be deemed incompetent to stand trial so they get indefinite probation orders and the idea is that the state is going to give them some a lot of wraparound services unfortunately you know that that's one of the big issues we grapple with in the criminal justice system is getting people with mental health issues who while not incompetent to stand trial under the criminal legal standard have severe issues that need addressing and usually our criminal justice system isn't good at dealing with that of course you also do have the the sex offenders who will have the indefinite probation although they don't necessarily have to and the the multiple repeat DUIs and then there are those who for some reason even though even though they're crime is not at the highest level it's not at the lowest level but they somehow present as dangerous or extraordinarily needy in some way such that their likelihood of reoffense is likely so as a result they end up on probation until further order of the court the I think that with all of those situations people who have experience judges prosecutors and the like who have experience with these types of people when the individual comes up for midpoint review those are exactly the people that the statute is designed to pluck out and say you know this person presents a danger to a victim or to the public and they would should not be discharged from probation all of those folks who I described I think probably touched a nerve in anybody on the committee who's listening to it and says yeah well I understand those are the ones that the judge or the department are not and whether it's administrative or judicial are not going to let out under the proposal in rule in s45 one of the other things that I'm I'm always concerned about you know and I it comes up in a lot of different areas that we've been talking about post sentencing is the way our sexual statutes and L and L with the child statutes continues to treat minors who are engaging in sexual activity under the age of 15 with their contemporaries in school and I again repeat my call for us to address that issue so that you don't have 16 year olds who have sexual activity with the 14 year old being subject to the adult criminal system and being labeled sex offenders in the adult system similarly even 17 year olds with 14 year olds and the and the like piece basically people who are going to school together who are engaging this activity and you know this was part of a negotiated resolution of the you know the with the so-called Romeo and Juliet time gap that this occurred during the Douglas administration and I watched that unfold but you know it was very much like you know the you know when you're eligible for deferred sentence over the objection of the state's attorney you know some people wanted unlimited some people wanted an age 21 and came up with an age 23 at some point a very similar kind of thing went on with this and I think we have to recognize at some point that we do have minors engaging in consensual sexual activity and they're not sex offenders because they do it but under our laws you can be labeled a sex offender with a indefinite life probation an indeterminate life sentence with registration requirements going forward and I think you've got to deal with that whenever you talk about these probation early parole release all of these situations that we're talking about now I do think that it's also important to realize that we talk about the midpoint review of individuals you know what what do you do with midpoint review for individuals who have the have a indeterminate life sentence a few suggestions that I have is to perhaps have the review at there whatever their minimum sentence would be if they've been on probation you know say it's a you know five to 15 to also spend it on probation maybe after five years that the the review could be had or 50 percent of whatever the max is so seven and a half years of course the probationer can always move for discharge on their own if they if they want to there's there's always that it exists today but you know if you haven't done what you're supposed to do you're not going to get very far nevertheless the midpoint review for people with indefinite sentences might be one of those types of things the minimum halfway to the max something like that I understand that state attorneys desire to want evidence informed sentences and conditions based upon the individual's risk and while there are things that are out there that provide evidence to inform sentences we have to understand and continue to understand that risk assessments do not provide evidence of individual risk those don't exist what risk assessments do is create a profile of like kind individuals and how like kind individuals within that profile respond in aggregate they do not tell you about the individual risk of any particular individual and that is exactly why these midpoint reviews are important because you can have time on the ground observing what the person does how do they demonstrate amenability to treatment how do they demonstrate an ability to comply with the law and conditions and it is a show me period that where the you start to learn about that individuals likelihood of risk the risk assessments while they are an easy way to take away you know give give some cover for you know judges prosecutors and defenders and the like when fashioning sentences they don't tell you about individual risk and that's something we've got to kind of get away from the concept of and then understand that the way we see individual risk is by what they do I just wanted to make one comment about the current midpoint reviews you know Jim Pepper always comes in says well these happen all the time and when I ask my people about them they say some of them have never heard of them others say yeah we see them and nobody can ever remember them being granted and you know from a defense from the defense perspective they're really a non-factor in getting people out of jail as they currently exist or out of I'm sorry off of probation as they currently exist so we feel that this bill is important and I think it's got a long way to satisfying the need to look at people as individuals and what their risk is at some point during the course of their sentence thank you I hate the mute button but then if I say something I shouldn't have said while I'm not muted I hate that too any questions from Matt Matt thank you very much I think you've been fairly clear um I hope you'll be available next Thursday when we try to mark this bill up and make any changes to it yeah I that's my plan right thank you Judge Beerson oh I'm sorry Senator White has a question of Matt or did you have a comment no I was just going to um actually thank Matt for the uh comment that um many people haven't heard of the mid-term review and I um have had since I've started this have had calls from a number of people in Wyndham County who are on probation who have never heard of it at all and have never been granted a mid-term review well my familiarity with it is in the juvenile system where they are held but I think it's a yearly not necessarily either yearly or every six months six months every six and then on one date is it 12 or 18 that the case has to go to court for the review 18 for court and six for administrative yeah right yeah these are adults these are I understand that but I but I what I was hoping to accomplish here was to make the smidpoint review similar to what the juveniles go through when they have to go to court and DCF has to justify Judge good morning everyone um morning thank you senator I'm thrilled to have more cases come before you well I was in of course my years perked up when Matt said something about the administrative reviews and um I hadn't thought about that as an option but I'm certainly glad to discuss it with him and and other stakeholders relating to this bill um for the record Brian Greerson chief superior judge you know most of the comments from the witnesses today have dealt with the latter section of the bill on page six but I'd like to go back begin my comments going back to the section under 251 the new section B and and I think more than anything else I certainly understand the the policy and the the rationale behind the bill as a whole um but I think um like I think some other witnesses have said it needs some clarification or what I would like to think of it as simplifying the process and what I'm getting at is I think it should be clear under B if the commissioner uh as I read it the commissioner would be applying for discharge um under 252 section D the midpoint and it says unless the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that discharge is not in the best interest of the person and so forth and I'll get into those conditions but I think it should be clear that if the commissioner's office is seeking the uh discharge at the midpoint that it is at that juncture it would be upon the state the state would have the burden of proof of these conditions and I just think that needs some clarification I'm concerned and I've I've been surveying the judges to get a reaction now hopefully I'll have a broader response by next week but the initial concern is that this idea that clear and convincing evidence that discharging the person is not in the best interest of the person I don't know I'm certainly not familiar with that standard it's not defined in the statute but beyond that I don't know I can't imagine why it would not be in the best interest of any individual who's on probation not to be discharged or why they would not want to be discharged and I'm not sure that that that standard as it is is undefined um and I don't I'm not sure what the court or an individual judge would do that when when I talk about clarification or simplification I think if it's clear that the state has the burden of proof I think it would make more sense to tie it to specific reasons why uh the the discharge should not be granted and I'm referring to the latter condition the second condition and that is clear and convincing evidence that the person will present or continue to present a risk of danger to the victim or the community or as many of the witnesses have been talking about this morning the idea that they have not completed a specific programming that would be two criteria that I think if the state can satisfy the court under either of those prongs that would be a reason not to grant the discharge I think the first clause about not being in the best person's best interest is too is too vague in my in my opinion um I think it's interesting um and I'll be glad again to talk with the other stakeholders involved in this process the idea that if you come in for a discharge um and let's assume that the state um meets a burden or the threshold burden of that the person shouldn't be discharged would it be appropriate at that time to consider a modification of the probation conditions not the sentence I think there have been other bills and other discussions about modifying sentences after the at this point statutory 90-day period but it may be worth and I would certainly consider the idea of perhaps if a person is not in time to discharge at that point that perhaps some of the conditions of probation should or could be modified and I would be glad to talk with corrections as well as the other parties involved around that issue it may be an appropriate time not to revisit the underlying sentence necessarily but the conditions that were imposed so I would offer those comments with respect to um that section and if committee would like I can draft some language around around those people yeah that would be helpful but I think we'd all appreciate hearing that next Thursday I'm curious about um changing conditions it's been a long time since I've seen a probation condition um order so I'm sure it's changed some I think some of the they're pretty standard but they are that's what I was going to say that there are two types of conditions one there's the standard conditions that you probably wouldn't want to um modify because that's how the department um supervises individuals but there may be special conditions that they have complied with and no longer have to be uh part of the sentence and and I think as one of the witnesses said once the person is under supervision the the department may in fact uh through their supervision discover other issues that need to be addressed so it isn't necessarily taking away conditions but modifying the conditions to to tailor the the programming for what the individual needs it may be something that they have learned discovered over the course of supervision that was either unknown or not contemplated by the parties questions for Judge Gerson Senator Nick good did you have a question oh no thanks oh I'm sorry these I will I will just add that along with the discussion about folks who are under on a probation till further order the court on sex offenses and as Dale pointed out um those petition those requests for discharge do not come in from the department uh they are generally filed by the individuals without a benefit of counsel because they're not entitled to uh counsel at that time it's rare I'll put it this way it's very rare to have a counsel represent uh an individual and um the department takes the position that they do not take a position on either favor and discharge or uh not and and so they become very difficult uh there's very little real evidence other than the the individual saying I've been on for whatever 15 or 20 years uh and and it becomes uh it becomes difficult for those reasons in other words the most serious some of the most serious cases we have in the department's hands are effectively tied by not being able to take a position um which I think leads to inconsistent decisions by the court or could lead to inconsistent thank you all right thank you um our next witness is Chris Fennell and I um Chris welcome thank you for the record uh Chris Fennell from the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services I want to thank the committee for inviting me to weigh in on this particular bill I have talked to a couple of people um this past week about it and I wanted to start with the easy one because again this uh the idea of restitution came up and that's really not an issue for us that you know whoever said it I don't know if it was um Pepper or Matt that in fact getting off of it currently does not require the the full payment of restitution and that is in fact what the restitution unit is charged with collecting and so they will do that um there might might be a restitution order that that actually um gets negotiated for payment plans or those kinds of things but it's not a it is not a barrier to um getting off of probation and and it was true we do collect uh lottery winnings tax returns those kinds of things for the state uh so looking at the bill itself many of our concerns um and I I appreciate that I think that when people come back next week a lot of these are going to be addressed uh and I would second what Pepper's testimony was and that is that um we have some and many people said this we have concerns that if there is a program they are doing that it must be completed so you know it just makes sense you wouldn't want to because it won't be completed if if somebody is taken off of probation we have concerns and one thing I can do between now and next week is have a conversation with the network and the and and actually put out a a question for how many how much are they seeing that victims of domestic violence are not um continuing their protection orders if they have one because they're not going to be able to be it it's moot because they have conditions on their their probation already and so I am unaware of how big an issue that is but it is an issue if people aren't getting aren't going and getting those renewed and they need to have them so that that is one concern and the other is around notification of victims two victims that uh that this probation is ending because a lot of victims look at what the sentence was they look at what the probation was and they do the math so just wanted to make clear how or what notification was going to happen or even if it does happen about um an offender uh being able to at the midpoint uh get off of probation those are really the um the issues that we had and as I said um I can I'm planning to talk to some more people and maybe the um victim advocates in the state's attorney's office to just get a feel for what they think this might be the impact and I can certainly come back and and talk about that maybe we should actually in for next Thursday invite the victim the the network against domestic violence and sexual assault to testify on the bill but also um to have if pepper if you could um take a look at how how judge gresson's suggestions might work we're up to the state to and also maybe if you want to get whoever would represent your victim's advocates within the state's attorney's office I don't know if there's somebody who represents them or I might speak to that pepper and that is that we out of our office we actually do weekly updates to the advocates so they know what is happening all right so um I would like to invite the network against domestic violence sexual assault just like I'd like to have the network here next week if possible Peggy and also perhaps you could represent at that point the victims advocates and what you hear yes and I can certainly ask them if they have somebody they would like to have testify about this and and get with Peggy I can send her an email if they're they do have somebody they want to have speak other questions for chris thank you very much thank you um brin can we just summarize where we're at before we take a break because I may have lost track of where we're at we've had a lot of good suggestions but some of them might might not be as good as others so it sounds to me like we're the the witnesses are going to get together in the next week before you take this up again next Thursday and come up with um some suggestions for the committee on a few issues I could talk about the ones that I heard yeah if you would please sure so I heard that there was some conversation about the review being an administrative review as opposed to a judicial review um you also heard testimony that perhaps the review should be at the minimum sentence as opposed to the midpoint or perhaps the midpoint of the maximum sentence I thought that was the midpoint um for those ordered till further order of the court but the midpoint of the sentence I think that's right for indeterminate sentences yeah right um but I I I still think people should go before the court whether it's the state presenting in or the any opposition or who determines whether or not um like uh if you continue the clear and convincing standard um and that I don't want to lose the courts the person coming before the court the court saying yes we believe you've completed and thank you very much mr. Jones um hopefully you'll continue you know we're going to release you from probation now and hopefully you'll continue to do well I think there's a certain impact there for the offender and I'd hate to lose that I also think that if the person shouldn't be released it's always nice to have the judge say um based upon the argument from probation and parole we don't I I just always found that my experience with kids was it was pretty effective having the judge tell them even if the judge just agreed with the state that's just my personal okay so I'll keep I'll keep reviewing the suggestions that you've heard um I think that you heard there was sounds like there's some consensus around defaulting to discharge unless there's required um programming or curriculum that needs to be completed and then that needs that rehabilitative or risk reduction programming would need to be completed before the person is discharged I don't think there's some consensus about that no and then you heard that um I think there was a suggestion from the department that rather than having the review take place every six months if a person is ineligible for discharge um have the department review the person anytime the probationer completes the condition of probation yeah we were trying to avoid unless work for the department but if the department's willing to do that I think that's and then then you heard some um we we heard from the department about changing that participating in a case plan to some kind of language about completing the conditions of probation or in some way make that driven by conditions as opposed to a case plan or it sounds like there may some suggestions coming about what appropriate language is there yep and then you heard um from Judge Gerson that the language about best interest the court making a determination about the best interest of the person um that's pretty vague and we may need to get more specific there um and also yeah I think Judge Gerson made a good point and I didn't pick that up discharge is not the best interest of the person I didn't pick it up and of course and then also I believe he offered a suggestion that um that the sentence be modified if the person isn't eligible for a dismissal or a discharge at that six midpoint review I think you said conditions be modified right rather than modifying the sentence modify rather than modifying the sentence right and that that is the I think that's mostly what I what I captured why did you got everything got more than I thought was there Joe I don't know if I don't know if I was the only one concerned and I don't think you spoke about it Brent but the phrase or attain goals as matched up against completing or are satisfying probationary conditions I thought that was bringing some confusion in and I heard Dale Crook say he agreed with that I don't know if uh anybody else had that same concern yeah I think that kind of ties into what we were just talking about Judge Pearson's suggestion because as you know that's an existing law that um either attaining goals or completing certain conditions can lead to a partial reduction or a deduction from the remainder of the person's term so it sounds like there may be an idea to move away from from that changing of the underlying sentence and instead reevaluate the conditions yeah I just don't want to leave it so that probation has it in its authority to pick and choose between those two things and while I agree the judge brought up a good point I want us to be clear about the message we're sending to probation about what their obligations are and I used an example earlier of probation saying well yeah you've met your conditions but we don't like the fact that you're going to be couch surfing to me that's a a goal of probation but it's not a probation condition as ordered by the court so I just I want to see if we can't clean that up somehow others so just so we can probably get a couple of minutes and I'm going to have a little longer break than we intended wanted to make clear what I'm talking about next Friday you're going to see on the agenda an item and many of those that are in the room right now will also be invited to testify or to join in the discussion aggressive behavior of juveniles dangerous staff that that subject may not describe what what what we're really looking for but I am increasingly concerned about the aggressive behavior of some of the juveniles who are in the system we touched on it a little bit this week talking about the covered bridge treatment but I've heard from a number of particularly yesterday talking with Pepper and John Campbell about some of the cases they're seeing and the inability discussed briefly the the case where the child wasn't able to be transported to a program because there weren't no sheriff's transport wasn't available and two case workers ended up supervising the kid in the motel and one of them got assaulted I think that it's important that we talk about this and that we start to look to the department of children and families but also the department of mental health and the department of aging and disabilities as well about this problem before it ends up being some kid who's 18 who's now continuing in the juvenile system and there's no place for that child and no I just want to get ahead of the problem and not be behind it Senator White we've been asked to take that up by VSEA and government operations because we deal with the with state employees but I think that it's more appropriate you mean the case of the assaults or yeah the the assaults and how we're going to deal with that in terms of state employees but I think that it's more appropriate to have the major conversation here and then if there's anything we need to do we'll follow your lead thank you yeah I I don't think I mean the fact that the the reason the two case workers were forced to deal with the child in a motel room was because transport to Bennington wasn't available right so if there were a problem that we should be looking at was also looking at why sheriff's transports aren't available yep the opening was there unfortunately that happens that for those of you who are still here I had invited Marshal Paul but Matt you're welcome instead but I think we need to have this discussion Senator Sears look what I have for you oh my god great thank you thank you if you were able to get into the judiciary committee room yep they're open and if my chair fits in your car could you bring it down sure I can do that that was a joke folks okay um any anything else before we take a break and we're gonna hear from uh doctor 1045 I lost his name here it's um doctor a doctor doctor Sexton regarding s-30 they build the ribbed firearms in Chalker okay thank you we'll get back at uh try to get back here a little before 10.5