Good morning. We are continuing our discussion on S-254. And Wildo White was visiting us with us before the break.  Yeah, it's just a quick question. Well, nothing earth-shattering. You had mentioned in New Mexico, they had a central repository as far as the losses, whatever. My question was simply, do you know who's responsible for that, rather than to, I don't know, they had been mentioned, have law enforcement individually start keeping track of this stuff. Is there one central repository in New Mexico and who's responsible for that? Or do you know that? Wait, we can't hear you. You don't see it. Wildo White, Representative, I'm going to go back and look at my notes about that law and submit my response in writing, just so I get it right. That's, I don't want to answer off the top of my head, if that's OK. Thank you, I appreciate that. Actually, we may be able to save you some work, because that's a question to cancel. I do have the law in front of me. I could read directly from it. OK, great. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You can do it from there. Thank you. So under section 11 of the New Mexico law, it's records of claimances. Each public body shall maintain the record of all final judgments or settlements paid by the public body for claims made pursuant to the New Mexico Civil Rights Act while attach a copy of the complaint to each record. All judgments, settlements and complaints are subject to disclosure pursuant to the inspection of Public Records Act. So in that, it would be each public body is responsible for maintaining the records of judgments and settlements. So if you should mention a central repository, then that doesn't sound like a central repository. Yeah, that's maybe my memory is faulty. Maybe I'm referring to something else. If that's New Mexico's law, then that's not a central. That's the public body. I'll go back and look at my notes and see if I did see reference to a central repository. OK, thank you. Appreciate it. And I want to clarify one thing. I see that you're testifying on behalf of Matt's freedom. And DPS is as well, because there was reference to you and your training at DPS. So there's one. Yes, it seemed like I was invited here as the invitation I received was directed to Matt's freedom. And so my testimony today was on behalf of Matt's freedom, which was as opposed to the bill. But I also worked as a consultant for DPS and was involved in training of law enforcement officers under the new use of force law and the statewide use of force policy. OK, thank you. Thanks so much. OK, I think great. Thank you, Wilda. And thank you. So let's see. Roger Marcu, Sheriff's Association. Good morning. Welcome. Good morning, Madam Chair. Thank you for the invitation. Roger Marcu, I'm the LaMoyle County Sheriff, and I'm here on behalf of the Vermont Sheriffs. And our position, the Vermont Sheriff's position, was originally opposed to the bill. And we signed on to the position statement that I believe you all have, which I think Wilda White had a lot to do with. So a lot of what I was going to say has been covered. And I know you have a lot of witnesses. So I'll just give you a few things to think about here. One is that, I just wondered right from the beginning, while I was involved in testifying with the Senate, is what is it that we in Vermont here are trying to fix? What injustice has occurred where this type of action has to take place, where our department has been sued. Every law enforcement agency in Vermont, I think, has been sued before. And it seems to me that the mechanisms currently in place do help safeguard people whose rights have been violated and who deserve a remedy. So that's a question that I wanted to put out there, because there's unintended consequences often when we create laws and some things that we may not have thought about come about. In the position statement offered to the committee on page 7, it stated that 8 out of 10 recently reported Supreme Court cases in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York were denied. So it seems to me that means that those officers did not qualify for immunity and the system worked. And on page 8 of the position paper, it talks about the Vermont Spirit Court cases, where there's 12 cases in Vermont that were denied, three of them were denied, and five were allowed qualified community, and four did not reach a conclusion. So again, the risk, what I want to say is that we in law enforcement, as you all may have heard, are in crisis with staffing. And this really is of great concern to all of the groups that are listed on that position paper, where law enforcement officers and people contemplating getting into law enforcement are concerned. What does this mean for my family if I lose this basic right here? And it's made where they can be sued and their houses can be attached, or it really affects their families that way. In January, Vermont Police Academy reported that Vermont was currently down 114 level 2 positions and 311 level 3 positions. That was in January. And the Department of Public Safety had conducted some research in 2020, where they found that we had lost 91 officers just in 2020, and we were only graduating 51. So I think it is a trend that we are losing many more police officers than we are able to replace them with. So and in my department at the beginning of COVID, we have 45 deputies, and we're down to around 25 now. So this is a serious issue. And it's really unsustainable for us. But the end product is what's happening with the victims, particularly of violent crime. How long is it taking us to get to them and everything? And to that point, when we're talking about domestic violence, I just wanted to point out something that I'm not sure what's going to happen here. In Title 13, section 1048 is a section called the Removal of Firearms, which we've been working with domestic violence advocates to try to have police officers remove firearms when it's appropriate in this statute to at least take away that piece of danger from domestic violence victims. And in section D, it says, a law enforcement officer shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability for acts or emissions made in reliance on the provisions of this section. This section shall not be construed to create a legal duty to a victim or any other person. And no action may be filed based upon a claim that a law enforcement officer removed or did not remove a firearm as authorized by this section. I bring this up because domestic violence is about half of our homicides in this state. And we've just really, really struggled with getting police agencies and police officers comfortable with the notion that they should, they may, that statute says they may remove the firearm. So I don't know what's going to happen with this and whatever else is maybe found in this study if that goes through. What other immunity out there that we really, truly need? So I guess I'll end by just saying that we're concerned about the negative impact that this will have on the law enforcement community. And also, again, just to reiterate, I'm not sure what has occurred in this state that is so egregious that has led to this bill. Now, I certainly respect the legislature's ability to look at everything and try to make Vermont a better place for its citizens. So it's not meant to be disparaging, but just to be really blunt about it, that's something I hope the committee considers in their deliberations. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. Go ahead, Selena. I had two questions. So I'll ask the first, which is just general because I heard you say at the start of your testimony that you were opposed to the bill as introduced. I'm wondering if are you opposed to the bill as passed the Senate in its current form? Now that it's essentially... Yeah, I think it's, I agree with the previous witnesses that it's unnecessary. So the answer to that is yes. And then my follow-up, or second question, I mean, I just heard you share a lot of questions about some of the work that we've done in really strong, I think, collaboration with law enforcement and the legislature about removal of firearms and concerns and questions about how some of the exemptions from civil liability and that legislation might interact with the qualified immunity doctrine in any attempt to make statutory changes to that it seems to me that the study that we're commissioning here is well positioned to help us answer exactly some of those questions. I mean, I'm looking specifically at, you know, the provision in subsection three that says that our legislative council will be identifying existing immunities from suit, concerning allocations of Vermont, law enforcement, conduct, existing defenses, sorry, I think I meant subsection four, existing defenses to liability. I mean, it just seems like you just listed a whole bunch of questions and said, I don't know how these things would interface. And I think that's why to me, that was an argument for further study, not a reason not to study further. So could you, I just want to give you the opportunity to respond to that. Sure.  It certainly is your right and, you know, to commission this study and look at everything, you know, to a certain extent, we just feel it's not necessary, but, you know, at the end of the day, knowledge is power and, you know, that's certainly is up to you whether you want to go through with that. Thank you, I appreciate that. Great, thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, Karen Horne, legal citizen of the Netherlands. Good morning, nice to see you. Good morning, and thank you for having us. I'm Karen Horne with the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, and with me today is Phil Woodward, who's general counsel for property and cashly insurance fund in the event that you have particular questions that he might be better qualified to answer. So I did want to let the committee know that we testified in the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the bill as it was introduced. We were one of the signatories that opposed the bill as it was introduced. And we've also testified briefly regarding one of the interim versions that was on the table a couple of days before the bill that passed. So we've also been involved in discussing the future of law enforcement in Vermont and how to grow our community's trust in policing for many years. And I did want to go through some of the legislation that's been passed recently that addresses these issues. In 2017, Act 56 was enacted. It established new provisions for professional regulation of law enforcement officers. In 2020, you passed Act 147 defining prohibited restraints. You passed Act 165 establishing a use of force standard and Act 166, which addressed the collection of roadside stop data and use of body cameras, restructured and expanded the criminal justice council and required law enforcement agencies to report criminal complaints of professional misconduct to the council. Last year, the council established a professional regulation subcommittee to hear those complaints. And to date, my understanding is that they have reviewed 75 complaints of misconduct. And then in 2021, you passed Act 27, which revisited the use of force standard, established an officer's duty to intervene and establish new statewide training requirements. Those are all now the law. And even in the last two years, even as the COVID pandemic struck and already difficult recruitment, which Sheriff Marku referred to and retention problems have been significantly exacerbated. The police departments, the restructured criminal justice council and the newly appointed executive director of the police academy have worked to implement all of those legislative directives. As we understand it, as it was passed by the Senate, S-254 would require leach council to submit a report that identifies the origins of the doctrine of qualified immunity and establishes its context relative to other laws, presumably all those laws that you have passed since 2017. It would direct the leach council to assess the impact of the doctrine of qualified immunity on access to civil justice remedies for people wrongfully blamed by bad faith policing and violations of civil rights. It would also, the bill would also codify as you've heard much discussion this morning, the common law principle for a plaintiff seeking damages for alleged violation of Article 11 of Vermont Constitution as established in Zulu. The important piece here is to understand that the version of the bill that actually passed the Senate was put on the table in the Senate Judiciary Committee the day before or the day that it was actually passed. So particularly with respect to codifying the Zulu decision, it was a measure adopted in haste. And as you've heard this morning, there's a lot more discussion that might be helpful to addressing that whether or not that needs to be in the statute. We would suggest that you, that if you undertake the study of qualified immunity for law enforcement or for officials across the board that you include the Zulu decision and how it might be applied in statute as part of that study. We're really grateful for the Senate stepping back from actually passing legislation addressing qualified immunity with respect to law enforcement officers without having done a substantive analysis of what is the situation today that's offered by a ledge council which is and the people they consult with which will presumably result in an even-handed treatment of the issue. I'm happy to answer questions. Phil is here with me to answer questions as well. Thank you. Thank you, Karen. Slia. I'm trying to let somebody else go first if they want to here. But so thank you so much for your testimony this morning and I appreciate your just that really good summary of all the legislation that's happened in recent years. It does seem to me that a lot of that legislation you described is on a continuum from training to oversight to statute actually governing police conduct in the field and sort of what we're talking about here in this question. Of what role the qualified immunity doctrine should play in Vermont is like what happens when all of that breaks down what kind of remedies are available to people. So I do see it a little bit as apples to oranges. That's more of a statement I guess but I'm happy to have you respond to it. But really what I want to ask is just it sounds like I'm hearing you say in terms of the study that the league is supportive of the study? We think so two responses I would say representative. Firstly, the laws that you've passed since 2017 are in the process of being implemented now. And some of the measures and trainings some of the trainings have not even been put in place yet. Some of the measures around for instance the review by the professional regulation subcommittee are very new. And we would be very concerned about a qualified immunity law standing in the way of the effective implementation of all the measures that you've put in place in the last couple of years. Having said that, if the legislature wants to study the issue, that's certainly an appropriate function of the legislature and the legislative council and use study all kinds of things. So we would certainly not object to the legislature studying this issue as well. I think that's helpful. I won't, I mean, I'm a little confused about how addressing qualified immunity would prevent implementation of those other laws, but since that's not really the question in the bill before us, maybe I'll go get some of your testimony in the Senate to better understand your position on that rather than take our time. Thank you. And if I may, Madam Chair, just ask Phil Woodward if he has anything to add at this point. Absolutely. If I may, just a couple of thoughts, Madam Chair. Initially I've heard a discussion about accountability and it has been a position that Act 56 provides a better mechanism for accountability because that is something which affects the officer individually and directly and in a much more timely manner than a piece of civil litigation that takes years to go through the system. And either ends in a, and if there is a award is for monetary damages ultimately paid by the taxpayer. So as Karen is alluding Act 56 is in our view a better mechanism for accountability. And we'd suggest or request that it be given time to be implemented. This wasn't posed to me. So I won't dive into it unless somebody wants, but I have been listening to the questions about policy and training and whether or not that's part of clearly established law and could comment there if somebody wants. Yes, thank you. That'd be great. As other witnesses have said the clearly established law standard focuses in on constitutional and statutory rights. A lot of policy and training is to teach officers what those limits might be, but there are also policies and training out there that individual municipalities might adopt which go further than those requirements. So to go back to the case that Dr. Jones was talking about more AVE that's a pursuit case. The armed municipalities that have policies and procedures on pursuit which have stricter requirements of limiting the initiation of pursuit or continually a pursuit than the constitutional or statutory standards. So they want to be more careful. If policies and training become part of the quote, law end quote, some of the incentive to adopt those internal policies and procedures that have a safe harbor or more restrictive than the law otherwise requires evaporate. So it might have a unintended consequence there. And it would be one unintended consequence is that the policies may vary from municipality to municipality. So what is the policy? And so throwing it might be different than in, for example, Williston. Thank you. Yeah, I thought, Kate, did you have your? I don't know. Okay. I just want to make sure I understood your testimony on that. So is the idea if a policy could establish or could lead to the clearly established law that would be a disincentive for agencies to adopt policies that are stricter than what may be provided in statute? Is that what you're saying? I just want to make sure that I understood that. Yes, that is correct. That is one of the points. And then another one is that it would seem incongruous for what is clearly established law to vary between from municipality to municipality because the policies and training, they're obviously need to comply with clearly established law, but some of them go further. And, you know, if that gets rolled back into clearly established law, then we're going to have a situation where what's clearly established might be different in South Burlington versus say, Williston on, for example, when pursuits are allowed. I was wondering if you could please comment on the section regarding the record case disposition that maintains each law enforcement agencies shall maintain a record of all final judgments. You're prepared to, I don't want to be prepared to testify to that. Well, I do think that if you again look at the criminal justice council and their professional regulations subcommittee that they are going to be keeping records of complaints that have been brought to them. I don't know, Phil has comments with respect to municipalities keeping records of disposition of cases. As to the individual record keeping practices of each municipality, that's beyond what I could speak to. Municipal settlements, law enforcement cases are generally, I agree with the other witnesses, those are public records. Great, thank you, that's helpful. Any other other questions? Okay, thank you, thank you very much. Appreciate your testimony. Thank you. Yeah, good. Okay, so let's move to the ACLU please. Welcome, Delco. Hi, there you are. Good morning, good to see you. Good morning and thank you so much for having me here today. My name is Falco Schilling and I'm the advocacy director for the ACLU of Vermont. I will try and keep my comments succinct and at a higher level, since I know we have other witnesses we're trying to get to who've taken time out of their busy day, but as always available to the committee for any follow-up testimony as requested. So I just want to start at a high level of what S-254 intended to do as introduced in the very first place. And that was, you know, the intent of the bill was to make sure the victims of police misconduct have access to justice. When their rights are violated, that we eliminate unnecessary procedural barriers that can stop them from recovery even when there was a rights violation. You know, the intent of this bill was not to say that the law enforcement can't be trusted, but ensure that victims of police misconduct have access to justice. And that's what S-254 is introduced did. It created a clear cause of action for people in Vermont when their rights had been violated, either statutory constitutional common law rights had been violated by law enforcement and allowed them to bring those suits forward without having to encounter the barrier to suit, which is qualified immunity. And so qualified immunity, as you have heard, is a court-created doctrine, not something created by a legislative body but created by a court because they felt the need to limit the ability for victims of government misconduct to access justice. And so what this doctrine actually says is immunity to suit. It's not just a defense to suit. So it says that when there's a question about a rights violation, the first line of inquiry is, does this violate clearly established law? And as you've heard, the establishment, a clearly established law can be applied very differently by different courts. And that's one of the main concerns of qualified immunity. In some cases, the case needs to be almost exactly on point. And we can bring in some examples from around the country where we've seen this happen. Cases where someone had dog-sticked on them and the difference was whether they were kneeling or lying down and saying that that was the difference between the suit being able to move forward. Or cases where there was outright theft, but there was not cases on point that that type of theft was not acceptable in violated constitutional rights. So what the S-254 would have done was said that if there was violations of statutory constitutional rights under Vermont law by law enforcement officers that people in Vermont could bring those suits forward and collect damages for those suits. It also had an indemnification provision which said that only in the most egregious cases would anyone be individually liable for these suits. Because as we see in practice, the vast majority of these suits, there's indemnification where the law enforcement employer will actually take on the legal liability and then also take on the defenses and immunities available to the individual being sued. So what the S-254 said is that the law enforcement employer would be responsible for those damages as they are responsible for the training, as we heard earlier, with the exception that in the cases where the law enforcement employer determined that there was no reasonable belief that the officer was acting in good faith with compliance to the law, they could be liable for up to $25,000 or 5% of the judgment, whichever is less. And this is only in cases of bad faith when the officer had no reasonable belief that they were acting in accordance with the law. This is something that was taken from the Colorado law that was recently passed. And as was much of S-254, based on that law which was passed in response to the call for police reform across the country in the wake of the murder of George Floyd, I know this is something that we have, in response, Vermont has done many things. But I think as you've heard today, many of those reforms fall short of trying to create access to justice for victims through the civil court system, and that's what this bill intended to do. So that's a little bit about what S-254 intended to do and why we support that bill as introduced. And we would hope the committee would actually move forward with that bill as introduced. But that said, I also wanna speak to the bill in front of you today, understanding that that has been the bulk of the discussion and where the committee is looking right now. So I think there might be some surprise, but we actually are in agreement with the Department of Public Safety and the witnesses that you heard earlier, and that we would like to see section one of the bill as passed by the Senate struck. We have one from our perspective that the Zillow decision instituted a qualified immunity-like test, which limits the ability to recover damages in cases of Article 11 violations, and also have some concerns about how it's been codified in this section. So in line with the testimony you heard earlier, the ACLU would ask that that section be struck from the bill and not move forward. And I think in relation to the record of disposition of cases, since that relates directly to cases adjudicated under this new section, I don't think it's necessary to include that. But if the committee was interested in creating a centralized repository of these types of decisions, I think there need to be some modifications there for how that would work, but we would support that. If that's something the committee wants to do, we think that there is value and more transparency in how these suits are playing out throughout the state, what damages are being either found through cases, fully just, or through settlements. Actually, I'm sorry, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I just want to make sure that I do understand your testimony, and the numbering is a little, it's kind of confusing, because section one, as you said, does include Zulu and then the record of disposition. I remember the witnesses been talking about section one just as Zulu, so I understand that you want that first piece out, or would agree to having that out. The record of case, the committee said that if we do something like looking at a central repository that you would support exploring that, but we don't go that way, then did I hear you say that this section is not necessary? Yes, so we'd be supportive, cutting section one in its entirety, and that includes the record of case disposition, as folks have already said earlier, these are matters of public record, but I think to try and accomplish the purpose of creating a centralized repository where folks can find that information, there needs to be some modification to the existing language, but also just be finding, cutting section one in its entirety, since as it's written now, it relates directly to cases that would have been adjudicated, or settlements that were, that reached in relation to the previous section of the bill. Okay, thank you. And so moving forward, we do support, if the committee is unwilling to reintroduce the language found in the original version of S254, it actually addresses qualified immunity and eliminates it as a defense, as an immunity from suit. We do see a value in continuing the conversation around this issue. I think we've seen today a number of places where folks have looked for more clarity around how the law is operating in Vermont, and what the legislature's role might be in defining those barriers to suit and making sure that victims of police and government misconduct have access to justice. So we support section two as included in the bill. And also, I know other folks to, I guess get to the question that I've heard from other folks would support expanding that to other government officials since qualified immunity is not only applied to law enforcement officers, if that's where the committee wanted to go, I think it's worthy of having that larger discussion, but also supportive of the language as passed by the Senate in section two. So I think that largely wraps up my testimony. I'd be happy to take some questions. And I think just one of the things I wanted to respond to from earlier, there was a question about, what does this mean to individual officers if S-254 is introduced, it was passed? And the short answer is nothing unless they're acting in bad faith and knowingly violating the law. That's what the provisions of indemnification in the bills introduced were set up to do is to make sure that if officers believe they're acting in good faith, but it actually violated someone's rights, it's a municipality, it's their employer who is taking on that liability because it's their responsibility to provide the adequate training to comply with existing law as enshrined in the constitution of Vermont statute. So I think that's just one of the points I wanted to respond to, but happy to answer any questions that folks might have. Thank you. I'm so sorry. So my question is about section two and the reporting and the question of whether to kind of leave that as is and have it be a really focused report on the doctrine of qualified immunity as it applies to law enforcement, which seems like a very particular body of case law and very particular set of conditions or to expand to this broader study that looks at all government officials who are sort of covered by theoretically, could invoke sovereign immunity. So the, I guess on the pro side, I think like, yeah, like look at it all and on the cons side, I worry do we end up getting a study that then is really more diffuse and doesn't drill, doesn't have just given time and capacity, doesn't drill down as much into some of the questions that are really specific to law enforcement and how the doctrine has been applied there. I'm just curious to hear any further thoughts that you have on sort of like the... How do we weigh that? So I would say that my, our preference would be to maintain the current focus on law enforcement misconduct, but that said, if it was a policy choice by the committee or others that they want to expand that inquiry, I don't think it would change too much in terms of understanding how the doctrine works and applies because it has have similar application for government employees, whether they are law enforcement or other government employees. So I think short answer would be, we support the narrow focus of the bill as it's written now, but also would support expanding that if that's where the committee wanted to go. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Okay. Let's see, Mia Schultz, Rutland NAACP. Good morning. Nice to see you. Hi, how are you? Thank you for being here. Thank you for having me. I will just apologize in advance. I have the flu. My son, you know, the mask mandates were lifted and our whole family got the flu. So I am here and that shows how dedicated I am to speaking on this, on, on this legislation. And I want to thank you all, the chair and the members of this committee for having me here. And again, my name is Mia Schultz. I am the president of the Rutland area NAACP. And the national NAACP has made a commitment to push to the end of qualified immunity. And so therefore that is why I'm here. They have tried to push this also on a national level through the George Floyd Act, which has yet to be passed. But it is the one, is one of the areas of police reform that all the branches that we have across the United States and the national office support. I'll just also say that our organization has been often accused of having an agenda. And I'll just say that we do have an agenda and that is the same agenda that we've had for 113 years, which is to disrupt inequality, dismantle racism and accelerate key change and key areas, including areas like criminal justice. So I'm totally okay with having that agenda. And that's the reason I'm here. America's policing system doesn't work for everyone. And that's not an opinion. It's a fact, it's backed up with data, both qualitative and quantitative data. And we can see that in our disproportionate rates of incarceration in the state. We can see that in our traffic data and beyond. And I can see that with the qualitative data from the many people that come to me with their stories of police abuse of power. So it's imperative to pass meaningful legislation and do it often and do it over and over again because these laws have been enacted over time. And we have to uphold and uplift the commitment that was made in particular in Vermont. We made a commitment. And I know that y'all, I don't have to remember that commitment, we made that commitment in 2020 when we saw, we all witnessed the murder of George Floyd before our eyes. So it is imperative that we continue with that commitment to pass meaningful legislation and pass it often over and over again and make it meaningful. So I'm here to support the original, introduce legislation to end qualified immunity. And I just wanted to like say that number one for this would be only for police. Like I understand that this might be broadened but at this time we are only requesting that this happen for police and not anybody else who has that protection. It also will not lead to an influx of cases because it's not meant to police punish police for simple mistakes or mishaps that is meant to, it's only meant for the most egregious and intentional behavior. I know that Falco, he went in, Falco from ACLU has articulated this very well in this session. So I don't have to go into detail about what qualified immunity ending it looks like in the original introduced legislation and what it really truly means. This is about accountability. And while our opponents and people who do not support this might argue that there's already accountability baked in but to what extent and what numbers and where's the data that reflects that. And what would accountability look like for communities of color, black and brown communities who have like I said, like we know have been disproportionately affected by the abuse of the policing system. So what does that look like for them? If they see that there is accountability baked in to the system, there may be along with many other legislation, other legislative acts, a healing of that repair between our communities and the police. I mean, even with the passage of Act 56, for example, in Bennington, there has not been, I live in Bennington, there's not been a clear pathway for complaint systems. In fact, there is an active lawsuit for that for a couple who made a plea against the police department and they eventually had to leave town because of the way that that complaint was handled in the police department, the town manager and the select board. So that does not ensure safety and accountability in any way. I know that because I live that because we see that. That is all, that is really all we see that. This is not data, these are not numbers, these are human beings. And so when I hear that there's a crisis in law enforcement, I hear that that crisis is more imperative than the crisis that black and brown people have been experiencing for over 400 years. And I hear that their lives are more important than our lives and that we cannot work together unless we place a hierarchy on our lives. And I think that that is not the truth. I think that we are better than that. And I think that we can see all of our lives having value. I also think that why would a righteous police officer be scared of consequences for their actions? Why would they be scared of that? Again, this is not a witch hunt. This is for people who are egregious against other human beings, who violate their civil rights, righteous police officers have nothing to worry about. And we literally hold every professional who holds people's lives in their hands to that same measure. Think about doctors. They have malpractice insurance. They're held accountable as well. So when I hear the impact that it would have on the law enforcement community, it kind of triggers me a little bit. You can see and it chooses, and this is a career that they've chosen. It's a career that they've chosen and those righteous police officers have nothing to worry about. So Vermont has this other opportunity right now to uphold the commitments that they made after the George Floyd and the racial reckoning and meaningful police reform should be a top priority, especially in the state of Vermont where these racial disparities are so incredibly drastic. And this should not be difficult to do. So again, I'm in support of this bill as it was introduced because that had the real accountability in it. And it is now, I just cringe at the unintended consequences piece as these are theories with no basis in reality. And there's never been a pathway to be able to test this, to be able to see that accountability works and repairs our relationship. And it's not anybody's position and to predict the future, but I tell you what is happening right now is not working. And it's not working for black and brown communities. And nobody knows the consequences, but I do know that it will help with the power dynamic to have between black and brown communities and marginalized communities and the police if there's accountability. And I think as a person who hears again from real people every day what has happened, the things that have been in place, they have not been effective. They've not been truly effective yet because we need to keep pushing because this is 400 years of oppression. This is 400 years of abuse from a policing system rooting, rooted and catching slaves. It's gonna take a lot of work.   You're gonna have to honor that commitment to really, really eradicate the abuse of power that happens in our policing system. I appreciate it again, you having me here to speak and I'm welcome to take any questions. Thank you so much, Shani. I do have a question. Thank you so much for your testimony. I'm sorry to hear that you're not feeling well. And my question, I don't, at the risk of, well, your testimony is really powerful in terms of the relationship between law enforcement and black and brown communities in Vermont and I don't wanna move away from that conversation. I think one of the things that comes to mind for me in the context of these conversations just points within the governmental systems where the state government has tremendous power over citizens. And another area that always comes to mind for me is the Department of Children and Families and areas where someone has the power to remove a child from a home. And so when I'm thinking about this question and this sort of like floating these ideas of whether to expand this conversation to other entities besides law enforcement, I guess I'd just be curious if you have thoughts to offer on sort of broadening the umbrella to some degree. I would absolutely appreciate broadening the umbrella. I think that we can start with the entry point which is policing and we can move forward but absolutely would have no objections to broadening the umbrella whatsoever. Yes, you're right. That is an area in which we see a lot of egregious behavior as well. I've had to also do connect in cases regarding with the Department of Children and Families and I know people who have worked within the system and there is a lot of power there. I would love to see that happening. I was really simply here to make sure that the original introduced legislation came back, to be honest, was really disappointing to see all of the cuts but I'm definitely not opposed to broadening it. Thank you. That was really helpful. Thanks, thank you, Dean. Well, thank you so much. I so appreciate you being here and I do hope you and your family feel better. Thank you. All right. Take care of yourself. Thank you all for having me. Yeah, bye-bye. Okay, David Slay. Welcome. David Slay. Thank you. I'm recovering from surgery and my dominant hand is in the sling so I'm using a mouse with my left hand and I always click on the wrong button. So, thanks for being here. Well, we see you and hear you, so welcome. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to address the committee. As you likely know, I testified in support of S-254 as it was originally introduced. Excuse me for the record. I'm sorry, can you please introduce yourself? Sure. My name is David Slay. I'm a lawyer from St. Johnsbury. I've been practicing in Vermont for about 39 years now. I have represented people in 1983 cases against police officers in situations where there were allegations of excessive force and I've defended police officers who've been accused of excessive force. And one of the reasons that I was most sort of spiritedly opposed to the doctrine of qualified immunity is that it is truly an anomaly in our law and it's inimical to the fundamental fact-finding process of our courts. As developed by the United States Supreme Court, the doctrine primary thrust is to free officials not only from liability but from even the scrutiny that the normal civil process allows plaintiffs in every other suit so that if I was sued for malpractice or a doctor was sued for malpractice, if the complaint stated adequate facts to support a notion that there had been a deviation from the standard of care, both parties are then allowed a very free-ranging right to discover facts to support their allegations. And the doctrine of qualified immunity truncates that that it prohibits discovery unless plaintiffs meet an artificially high factual assertion in their initial pleadings. And that really frustrates the ability of plaintiffs who have suffered constitutional wrongs from developing their cases as any other plaintiff would. And I think that's fundamentally wrong and I don't understand why it's thought to be justified in the context of law enforcement officers in particular. So in the current version, in section one, it says something about the court, the legislature's intent is to adopt the holding in Zulu. Zulu went some distance in providing accountability but there's broad language in the opinion that the court was essentially importing the theory of qualified immunity expressed in various United States Supreme Court decisions. One such thing might be what they call the collateral order doctrine, which allows a defendant in a case exaggerated right for interlocutory appeal. It might also be interpreted to do, as I've just said, truncate discovery in all but the most unusual cases. So while Zulu says some things about how qualified immunity would operate under article 11, it certainly doesn't address in particular the more onerous aspects of the doctrine as it's gone forward. So that may sound like inside baseball, but it's really a fundamental deterrent to plaintiffs who have suffered constitutional torts. Secondly, while I've listened to a great deal of testimony both in the Senate and before your committee about officers being afraid for their families and their homes and that if the qualified immunity doctor is abandoned that these officers are gonna find themselves out on the street. That's just not supported by any of the data. There's a recent sort of survey that was published in Yale Law Journal this year about how qualified immunity cases have been working through several federal districts. And in less than 1% of those cases were officers individually held financially responsible. In the original version of S-254, there were indemnification provisions in the statute that would protect officers, even officers who had religiously violated the constitutional rights of Vermont citizens. It effectively shifted the burden to their agencies to provide liability insurance. And as Mr. Woodward and the rest of the insurance community knows, underwriters would then be incentivized to make sure that officers were trained adequately that they conducted themselves lawfully in order to avoid having to pay judgments. But the notion that deleting or abandoning qualified immunity as a doctrine would lead to financial ruin for police officers is just false. Lastly, and I don't have any data about this and I would support the committees going forward with the current proposal of S-254 to do fact-finding. Our local dominoes can't find drivers for their delivery vehicles. My suspicion is none of the proposed candidates for that position asked the dominoes manager, what is the state of liability for me if I crash your car? People who are looking for jobs, jobs that they wanna do particularly and jobs that have the importance of being a police officer, I don't think go to their first interview asking what the applicable standard of liability for misconduct is. So I would certainly invite the committee to delve into the law enforcement community's claim that somehow that if the doctrine of qualified immunity was abandoned that even fewer people would apply to be an officer. One might suggest if someone wanted to be a police officer do the important work that police officers do and decided not to because he realized that he could be held accountable, perhaps that's a candidate that shouldn't get the job in the first instance. So I don't wanna go on and on. The only last thing I wanna say is this. I make my living practicing law. When people come to me with complaints, whether it's about another lawyer, doctor or a police officer and they wanna sue, most of those suits, if people like me take them are taken on a contingency fee basis or in a 1983 case with the prospect of getting fees if you prevail are analyzed very carefully because it's the lawyer who's going to risk whatever money and time he or she is putting in in order to get a judgment. And that's an inherent screening on all civil cases. And certainly it's a screening that has a higher level, a higher bar if you will, if you're gonna sue a police officer. Most jurors like police officers, I like police officers. And in order to get a judgment against the police officer you'd have to show that they did something truly egregious and there will be no flood of litigation if the doctrine of qualified immunity is ended in Vermont. Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony and so, and especially the perspective that you bring as someone who's represented kind of parties on both sides of these 1983 cases. So I think one of the things that I've been thinking about is I read and learn more about the qualified immunity doctrine and how it operates. And then have heard kind of some of the concerns about what would happen if, you know, we had removed it as introduced in the Senate bill or even if we just study the question of how it should apply, how we might wanna address its application in Vermont law is that, you know, it will create somehow uncertainty for law enforcement officers. And yet the more, and I'm not a lawyer, but the more I sort of have delved into the law and the doctrine of qualified immunity it seems to me that to have any predictability now about when it will or won't apply, a law officer needs to know like a whole body of case law and whether there's, you know, a case with similar or nearly identical fact patterns. And I just wonder, I wanna give you the opportunity to comment on, I mean, my perception just as a lay person is like, well, wouldn't sort of removing some of that from the equation and just making it really clear like the, you follow Vermont statute, you follow Article 11, you follow Fourth Amendment and that's kind of your guiding principle, not this question of like, well, is there a case out there where someone was libel or, you know, adjudicated as libel or not libel in kind of these very unique set of fact patterns that law enforcement officers often find themselves in the field and I guess it just, since you're someone who's practiced on both sides, I'd love to hear just your response and thoughts to that. Sure, the clearly established right, the portion of the qualified immunity element has been perhaps the most fuddling and confusing nationwide.  The question should be, was sickening the dog on somebody reasonable use of force under Article 11 or the Fourth Amendment? And that would allow for a much simpler analysis, I think on all sides. Thank you. I can't see any other hands. Thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate you being here and hanging with us and we are actually on time. It's amazing. Thank you to all of our witnesses and we will adjourn and we will be back here. I just got a question before you adjourn, whatever it is. Yeah. I listened to a lot of opinions and many pros and cons obviously on both sides. Can we have somebody for my benefit? Sure, we'll see what's going on here, but for my benefit as to come in and explain the process under the 1983 and the checks and balances that the courts look at for qualified immunity. It seems like they make it sound like, oh, well, if we got qualified immunity, it's never gonna get to that point. Okay. Do we have a list of cases in Vermont? Not Michigan, not Detroit, not whatever, it's in Vermont of people who have been brought before us and have been granted or not granted qualified immunity. Where do we find that? Can someone get that for us? Yeah, so I think that's in CPS's website, yeah. So I hope that whole document actually has ever, yeah, it has a, yeah. Does it have race and so on so forth in all cases also? Not that I know, how do we find that out? So we can certainly have Ben talk to us about that. Yeah, absolutely. And then also, I do think that that document is helpful in terms of the second circuit cases, which is our jurisdiction with applied. Thank you. Hey, great. And so actually, so one more thing, well, we have been keeping 184, just five little homicide. Openly for your vote, we passed the bill as passed the Senate. We didn't make any changes. So would you like to vote or? Yeah, yes, I'm a yes vote on that one. Thank you. Great, thanks. One to 10. I would still vote yes, Representative Burdette. Very funny. Thank you. Okay. And then I don't know if I have any takers for reporting, but people can say that was an advocate want to report it or not, but you can get back to it.


So I already talked a little bit about the difference between predecessor and overprime players. Let's talk about something that's the same across both games.     Like we're going to win the game, just hang on dude.  Maybe next time you'll do great, this time let us do great.


You too. Good evening. Hope everybody had a great day at work today school today Or if you just vibe like me Well, I was at work, but I was still vibing, but anyway YouTube team keep it clean. What's going on is saying Raven here with another video and in this video We are here to talk about the Baltimore Ravens game versus the Pittsburgh Steelers or actually more so The people who won't be playing So everybody that came through already appreciate y'all coming through let me just introduce myself really quick And y'all make sure y'all leave a like on the video It's 20 people in here right now, but it's only five likes y'all make sure y'all pick that thumbs up But but really quick. Let me introduce myself before we get into this thing Me I'm engraving vids and this is my YouTube channel engraving vids and of course you already know that I'm a Ravens fan I'm a Ravens fan But on this YouTube channel we talk about Ravens We talk about Steelers and we talk about each and every other football team that there is So if you're fan of Baltimore, make sure you subscribe if you're fan of Pittsburgh Make sure you subscribe if you're fan of just football period Make sure you subscribe because on here we talk football all day all night We love to we enjoy it. It's it's something that we do on here.  Oh, but anyway anyway Like I was saying we are down Two starters two starting defenders already But the guys that are out are no surprise, but they are unfortunate One of them being our starting defensive tackle. We just paid him over 50 million dollars And he got hurt in the game against the Browns. I believe he got hurt that being Brandon Williams So he's out He's out and of course Another one that's not a surprise is Brent urban He got his list for an injury and he's out to start a defensive in starters. These guys are starters When you lose a starter when you lose a depth guys tough when you lose a starter still tough, too So then being out it hurts Brandon Williams or somebody him especially He's somebody that we miss a lot already. We definitely missed him in Last week's game against the Jaguars and linen for net geez We definitely missed him definitely missed him a lot man These tests keep getting tougher man these tests keep getting tougher the Steelers and Ravens man. Oh boy This is a game man This is a very important game really every game is an important game But this one especially because this is Baltimore and Pittsburgh man This is real deal and us being without Brandon Williams and Brent urban and you saw how they gashed us last week They gashed us last week our past rush. I don't know where it disappeared to Offense it went to never never land But most those focusing on defense for this it was tough man. It was tough The defense did nothing the offense did nothing Special teams did nothing. It was just a bad game all around a really bad game Now we also max Williams Max Williams is somebody that I just have many high hopes why I hate talking about him because it's the same thing on repeat A high hopes form One game he'll look so good then the next game he'll be all banged up. We really feel like the next four Max Williams is always hurt man. His dude is always hurt Benjamin Watson is also hurt right now. They said he got a cat injury, but he said that he'll play.  So, uh, it's tough man. This stealers game. I don't know. It's It's gonna be one. It's gonna be something man. It's gonna be something Because I don't I don't know if any stealers being hurt. I think that's either full go But at the same time, it still ain't no excuses.  Brent urban is out Max williams is out both all williams guys. They both gone. Um It's tough This injury bug that just it just won't go away, man It just won't go away for nothing in the world. We keep getting hit over and over and over and over Been all offseason that injury bug been hitting us All regular season the injury bug been hitting us. We just can't get away from it for nothing We can't get away from it for nothing in the world, man Just guy after guy after guy and it's like it's like a never-ending story, man We always talk about somebody new hurt Every time of course, we lost marshal yonder for the year We see that that's already had a big impact on the team that you saw in the jaguars game last week Um, hopefully that hopefully that'll be it. Hopefully they get that offensive line fixed I know it's no simply there's no replacing marshal yonder But hopefully this the stop gaps can improve and it can minimize Minimize our problems because that's having no marshal yonder. It's tough. I mean, we lost so many guys, man We lost so many guys We lost so many people this year, man It's crazy. It doesn't make any sense, man Something gotta give something gotta give after all these injuries, man This is supposed to be a great year and I mean this could still be a great year, but I mean, I know that saying next man up But we done it like the whole next family up because it ain't just been about the next man It's been about the next minute been a group of men a group of next men up Because everybody keeps getting hurt Everybody keeps getting hurt.  I mean male whatever his name is What other tight, you know, it's it's so crazy how things change so quickly If this would have been a couple of months ago, we would have been like, man, we got so many tight ends What are we gonna do with all these guys? But then it just started dropping dropping dropping dropping This would have been a couple of months ago. We'd have been like, man, we got so much defensive linemen But they just thought dropping dropping dropping dropping dropping But it's tough man The reality is we have a veteran team and we're not going What do you mean? What do you mean, Bryce? This is just it's ugly How can one team? I don't get it. I know we're leading the league on injured reserve right now But how can one team have so many injuries? How was that even possible? How was it possible not even just this year though? Because y'all know Ravens they've been doing this especially these like like these last three years, man Definitely two years ago. Oh gosh. That was just the worst Two years ago. That's everybody just and even this year too lost a lot of people How can one team have so many injuries? I don't understand it one team And these are Yeah, it's tough and I'm not I'm not disrespecting the guys that don't start at all But a lot of these injuries are happening to significant players on the squad Like guys that are starters. Like we say These are starters. These are quality players people getting hurt time after time after time at the time again Probably a bad medical team. I know they just after last year they had hired like a um they hired a uh Straight thing conditioning coach.  Who's it gonna be now? Who's gonna be that person that's out? So That's the unfortunate truth about being a Ravens fan These dudes need band-aids They need band-aids. They need something Um Probably not from taking care of their own body That's a lot of people not taking care of their own body And I know some injuries are like freak accidents and whatever stuff happens. I understand that But for ravens a lot of stuff happens like a lot of stuff happens And this seems to it seems to be a never-ending cycle steal Another year what we got 17 guys on injury reserve. I think Dennis pitta and Zach Or not even on that list of 17 guys on injury reserve Because they not with the team but those guys are not with the team because of injury so That is something but either way whatever still got a game to be played still got a game to watch and shout out to uh Shout out to cbcbs. I just realized I had I did not know until today Oh, no, maybe it was last night. I didn't realize that the dolphins are playing In london this sunday against the saints The dolphins are playing this sunday against the saints So guess what and i'm not trying to rub it in anybody's face But i'm just excited for myself because I don't have to watch the game on the stream this week Now i'm gonna still take care of y'all and put the uh And put the uh put the game on the straight or put the link to the stream But I don't have to watch it on the stream this week because the dolphins are going to be playing the saints at 930 So ain't gonna be no dolphins games on and they've already said on cbs They said it's gonna be ravens and still is on tv. So I look forward to that I can't wait It's gonna be so nice being able to relax and sit on the couch not have to be sitting from a computer But sit on the couch and watch the game the ravens play on tv Hmm that's gonna be nice. I look forward to that a lot But again, like I said for those of y'all who are not down here in miami I will still try to come through with the link And if for some reason you can't find the link or I'm not able to put it out um You can search on twitter engraving vids And in the search in the search put engraving vids and put link for game And it'll come up It'll come up So that's what I had to do the other day when somebody asked me only can you send me the link for the game I say I tweeted that already so I searched for that tweet and I sent it to him But yeah, that's all you got to do. That's it But anyway Appreciate y'all I don't appreciate all these ravens getting hurt and staying hurt and we just don't know when some of them are coming back max williams um Some i'm almost close to saying they got to give up on Because I feel like it's it's starting to turn into a lost cause man The guy shows so much He shows so much Hope he shows so much potential He shows a lot of that stuff But you you can only you can only show so much When you're hurt if you keep on getting hurt over and over and over and over That doesn't do anybody any good So I don't know what the status of his contract is um, I believe you would have probably one more year on it maybe but Like I always say somebody who I thought would be all starting tight in That's somebody who I thought would be all starting tight in um, eventually after Dennis Peter retired or whatever and I was for sure that he was gonna end up taking but He can't Stay he can't stay healthy So again, like you say if you can't stay healthy There's nothing that you can do for the team You can't contribute at all if you can't stay healthy so I don't know. I feel like it's like I said, I feel like it might be a lost cause with him Nick Boyle, I haven't heard from him all season. I don't even know if he still plays for the team um And that that was sarcastic people. I know he's still on the team, but I just yeah Has he a thing he called like one pass maybe two um It's tough though. It's tough for the tight ends to get involved in an offense that's non-existent All offense has not been a strong point But when it is it ever Because it's ain't 2014 But anyway, um I just pulled up to the house So I am home Appreciate y'all Devondra, who's Devondra? Still has benefited from the team Devondra who's Devondra? Still has benefited from Ravens getting max Williams. I guess they did uh, because he He's looked I know. Yeah, they wanted max Williams. I believe too. They wanted max. Um But we got him 19 year old politicians say don't give up on fleckle. I ain't give up on fleckle The thing with fleckle though Um, well, I guess I can I can talk and look at the comments now since I'm home I didn't give up on fleckle at all. But the thing with him is that Uh He's already shown us what he's about it's been 10 years And for anybody that did give up on fleckle I I don't blame him and I'm not mad at them I would never be because it's been 10 years of literally the same exact thing The same exact thing He is extremely inconsistent extremely He One game he could he played a worst game of his life the next game he could play the best Another game he could play in between then you have a bad game then he lacks consistency He lacks consistency Uh, paul want to say fleckle sucks. Let's start with the excuses He's tough.  But then another day He's great Yes, but he came into foxborough and beat us Yes, he did And But in the in the playoffs like I said before like I always say In the playoffs fleckle is great He it doesn't matter what quarterback is on the other side of the field Fleckle will be better than him in that playoff game. He's shown that already Plenty of times he's shown that that's old news old news but In the regular season in order to get to the playoffs you got to be good in the regular season He doesn't do that He doesn't do that consistently. He's so off and on He's so off and on and it's not even close His his he'll be he'll be on for a game. You throw a couple touchdowns. Maybe throw two three touchdowns Maybe one pick didn't have another game three picks Lesson a hundred yards Or like the other day two picks 28 yards 28 yards It still makes almost 28 million a year It's do-do for 28 yards 28 yards Is bending or bending Eli Hall of Famous? I don't know yet I don't know what Paul wants to say Mark Sanchez was good in the playoffs to remember But flackle is great in the playoffs. He's great in the playoffs But regular season is like It's like, what are you doing? um Your darkest fear said his dad was at you. Yeah, he said his His dad said that flackle has no charm Let me see and did he put uh, like you see matt stafford and rogers and matt ryan and tom badre drew breeze the elite qb's They all have this charm to them flackle doesn't well, I mean I don't think that has anything to do with um I don't think it Let me make sure I word this right His personality, uh I don't hold his personality against him Because his personality is his personality. It is what it is. Um, he don't have to be one of those people that's um Let me go in the house. He doesn't have to be one of those people that's uh all super like hyped up or whatever super Super energetic or whatever any of that stuff He doesn't have to do that because that's That's not who he is um, which is not a big deal but Oh got super black um, so yeah, I don't I don't hold his personality against him ever because That will be wrong. That's like You can't you can't force somebody to be something that they're not Especially all right my cowboys family. I done told you about this enough times.  I had to block you. I had to block you so We don't got to go through that anymore because I'll tell you like I feel like I'll tell you like 10 times now This is my channel. But you always promoting yourself in here. We don't do that. Anyway um But yeah, he said can't argue. I remember the I remember he only scored seven against Jacksonville five years ago on a Thursday night football game Well, I think that was Monday night football. But yeah, yeah, man So he's he's been doing this. This is this is not new This is nothing new He's been doing this.  It's a no shock or anything Ravens fans already know about this So even though yet it did catch us off guard how bad he did play Especially I mean, but the whole team just they were just terrible Whole team was terrible. I think I'm about to play me some Madden. I ain't played Madden a long time I'm about to set that up right now. But the whole team was just bad They were bad. What's the predicted score this Sunday, man I don't even know man I don't even know I gotta think about it and then I would do a video on it I gotta think about it then we'll do a video on it They need He said they need to show a madden view They need to show a madden view for camera so we can see what joce down the field that will be a good idea show Oh, you got mad on ps. Oh, I don't got it on ps4, man 10-7 you think it's gonna be Justin. Okay. Oh, Bryce. I did see you say that earlier He said be think big bang on those six touchdowns Well, if we would have played the Steelers last week and Ravens came out like that then he might have thrown seven but I don't know man Yes, it's gonna be something. It's gonna be something man 10-7 Ravens. That's what boy said 10-7 Uh, Emmy soccer say 17-14 Ravens. He did in 2014 Was it against us? No, right? What was it? No, he threw like six touchdowns against us, right? Oh, Justin Boy said he thinks gun is gonna uh, it's gonna catch us by surprising me a low-scoring game Hey, we'll see man. Oh in Pittsburgh. Okay. Yeah So, yeah, I remember but I don't remember it all the way So I say Ravens win or 100,000. What's that a million is zero? That'd be nice Ravens need stars on their defense like from 2000 2013 Flacco will be more confident well I feel like with the the ravens if they if they're paying you If they're willing to to sacrifice so much of their cap room um So much of their cap room to invest it in you That should give you confidence right there That should give you confidence To where it's like Okay, they they are willing to invest all this money in me Um, they were willing to do that. They they're willing to put the team on my back They willing to trust me with this team and then on top of that they even gave them a bonus They gave them like a 44 million dollar bonus a couple years ago So Confidence shouldn't be an issue It shouldn't be an issue and if you You're a quarterback And you're not a new quarterback. You're not a rookie quarterback. You're not a two-year quarterback. You've been doing this thing for 10 years so This is old news how to be a quarterback of a team is old news You should you should be running this show You should be able to put the team on your back since they put all this money in your pocket You should be able to put the team on your back It's like at a job if if you had a job and you get a promotion Sorry, I'm just fixing the mail if you had a job and you you get a promotion There's a reason you get a promotion. There's a reason you get a promotion with that promotion you get paid more You get more responsibility and you get There's just a lot more on your plate, but you realize that because You got the promotion the promotion was earned by you But what are you doing that promotion if you fail in that promotion? Then you're going to be showing the door sooner or later Now with uh with jobs. It's a lot different than salary cap because with jobs They can cut you at any time and they They only got to pay you for a certain amount of time after that But with salary cap, they got to pay you for a certain amount of years after that especially with uh flacco's contract Flacco had a real early prime from 2008 to 2012. I mean he came he came in at 2008 So he and he how much he didn't throw me any touchdowns. He um Regular season has never really been his thing. Like I said, he'll have a couple games where you're like, oh flacco. How you do that? But then he'll have some games where you're like, oh flacco. Why'd you do that? And like I always say the the one that I remember the most was um Against the 49ers. It was against the 49ers a couple years ago when Steve Smith was still on the team uh, when Tori Smith was on the 49ers and when When we played 49ers man When we played 49ers He just threw one of the worst passes I've ever seen him throwing his life. He threw the literally nobody There was nobody in the vicinity where he was throwing to But I mean, it is what it is. Anyway, um, you know what? We're gonna go ahead and end this stream now. Make sure y'all leave a like on the video If you haven't already subscribed to the youtube channel. If you haven't already We are gonna go ahead and do our ravens and stealers prediction video We're gonna do a live stream just like this for the ravens and stealers predictions So if y'all want to pitch in y'all ravens and stealers predictions I mean, I saw y'all doing it already, but we're gonna go ahead and do that uh right now and Let's go man We're gonna do that right now on the stream. So y'all make sure y'all don't go anywhere. We're gonna be streaming right now Um, so I see you all in a couple minutes. Appreciate y'all. Thank you and make sure you tell your notifications on Just hang around the channel because we're gonna be right back in a couple minutes man. I'm out


You can be a general cardiologist and do procedures. You can do things like write heart cats. Some general cardiologists do things like pacemaker replacement. Some people will do things like left heart cat that is basically looking at the major arteries. The heart and looking for blockages, they don't put stents in, but you can do those procedures. You can do other procedures like doing a transasophageal echo. Most ultrasounds of the heart are done from the chest, but if you want more information for whatever reason, a transasophageal gives you a lot extra additional information. It is a procedure that a lot of general cardiologists will essentially have half days of the week where they may be doing procedures in the morning like in the afternoon or a full day of clinic or a full day of procedures or some mixture where they may be doing consults in the hospital and during different parts of the day they may be going to the procedure room to do the patient's procedures and then going back and seeing more consults.


Afternoon, I'm thrilled to be here. I feel like this event has been a long time in the making. And I really want to thank the National Skills Coalition. I want to thank New America for taking this conference on and for doing such an amazing job. I think myself and some of the other foundations that we partnered with in this couldn't be more thrilled to see all of the energy in this room and how much excitement there is around apprenticeship. So I, myself, am excited to have the opportunity to moderate this discussion with apprentices. You know, there's a couple of reasons why talking to apprentices really kind of speaks to the mission of Casey and to my heart. You know, first of all, I think that apprenticeship is a strategy that really gets to the heart of what Casey is about. And that's about creating opportunity and brighter futures for all families in America. And I think we're particularly interested and concerned about families, perhaps, by who have not had as much access to opportunity or to really strong jobs in good fields, maybe by virtue of their proximity to jobs, maybe by virtue of the gender of their primary breadwinner or the race or the ethnicity or a variety of other reasons. And so we really see apprenticeship as a way to create pathways that don't necessarily go directly through a four-year institution. You know, the second reason that this panel is really close to my heart is the thing that Mary Alice left off in my bio was my first job in workforce development was managing construction pre-apprenticeship programs in three places, here in the District of Columbia in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and in Camden, New Jersey. And I did that at a time in my life where I was just coming out of law school. I came out of law school and I had both undergraduate and professional school debt that was larger than my rent. My, you know, every month, the ability to pay both rent and student loans was a close call, right? And I was working in this pre-apprenticeship program as I shared with some of these folks earlier and was seeing people come out of a 13-week training program in which they were making more money than I was making and they weren't carrying all of that debt. And it just, you know, had me thinking like, you know, this is a better way. I wish I would have known about this opportunity four years ago because I might have really made a different choice. And so I think being able to see this as a moment where more people could have access to a different choice seems really important. So what I'd like to kind of do is to introduce you to three people who made the choice to engage with apprenticeship and to share with you, have them share with you a little bit about their stories and then have you all engage with them a little bit about what they share. You know, it's my hope that each of these panelists kind of illustrates the changing face of apprenticeship that, and they break down some of those stereotypes and really illustrate some of the data that Mary Alice shared. You know, apprenticeship isn't really just old white guys in construction anymore. It's about such a range of other things. And I think that, you know, the folks on this panel really, you know, kind of share that.  She's an apprenticing in healthcare. Sylvia also a woman apprenticing in the trades as a plumber and finally Ed, who is apprenticing in the insurance industry, which quite frankly, until I moderated this panel, I didn't even know that that was an option, right? So, you know, with that, I wanna start by asking Grace to, Grace, you completed your apprenticeship in 2015, I believe, is that right? So can you share a little bit with us about your apprenticeship and your experience? Okay, thank you. Being the first to speak is an honor. Especially when you're having lunch. So, I came into America as a political assailee in 2013, February. And I was still pursuing my papers. I had come from a position where I was a news editor with a leading station, a leading television station, and newspaper, newspaper. And then we had chaos and we had an election violence in which 1,500 people were murdered and 40 women and children were sought help in church. Refugee in a church were actually banned to ashes. So as a leading news editor and bureau chief, I was covering this and it went headlines as a news splash. And my president and vice president and some of the political figures were actually charged at the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. So I was approached by the International Court Prosecutor possibly to be a witness because of the events I covered. But on my way to meet the prosecutors, being a journalist, I wasn't really gonna be a witness, but they wanted to find out more details about the stories I had covered. And on my way to meet the prosecutors, the agents of the government tried to abduct me and they were surveilling on my phone and my phone was hacked. So I went into witness protection through the committee to protect journalists that came into America. And I really came to pursue my dream to have freedom and to be able to express myself and help my community as a communicator. But in the course of all that, I needed medical help because I was someone who had lived with the HIV virus for 30 years. Now I've lived with it for 33 years. And I got this when I was attacked by thugs when about 18 years of age. And I got a blood transfusion or 11 pounds of blood that wasn't screened. That was about 1985. So that's how I got the virus. So when I came here, I needed medication. I didn't know where to go. I didn't know anybody. But I Googled and found a place called Philadelphia Fight in Philadelphia, which is a primary care organization that's used in prevention, treatment, education and advocacy for people living with HIV and AIDS. And I got so involved in this organization. So through networking, I was able to volunteer as a community advisory board member, as a board of directors member. I kept doing things around and people started thinking I was a member of staff when I was actually just a client. So when the apprenticeship for the district 1199C training and upgrading fund with the help of Susan Thomas and Sherry Feldman and Temple University brought in the apprenticeship program, the staff there identified me as someone who was passionate about the work and passionate about the clients because they wanted someone who could identify with the clients, someone who had gone through the same thing and could have empathy. But that's how I joined the program. Thank you, Grace. And so that was a community. Thank you, Grace. She's pretty amazing. It's true. So it was a community health care worker apprenticeship. Is that right? Yes. And so as a result of that apprenticeship, you are a care concierge now. Is that right? Yes. I started as a community health worker and it was a very rigorous and highly supervised program. We attended classes at Temple University, Temple University Center for Social Policy and Communication Development 1199C, while at the same time we attended the job where we were being trained to be community health workers and shadowing people, the social workers there. So it was a roller coaster job, but the most motivating thing about it, I may confess, was that we were being paid and being trained at the same time. So it really motivated us. Yeah, but the level of training involved in it was really professional. Yes. Could you tell us just a little bit about what does a care concierge do? Okay, as a care concierge, you might think it's a very easy job, but my job is actually to smile every day from nine to five. I wouldn't make it. Yeah, so we deal with clients who are terminally ill. We deal with clients who have HIV and AIDS. A lot of them have HIV-related illnesses, hypertension, high blood pressure, and a lot of other issues, mental health, recovering drug addiction. And when they come in, they have cracked spirits. They get their medication, but they're really not being treated right by the society. They are being discriminated against. Some of them have been ostracized by their families. So when they come in to see their doctors, and like other officers where when you go in, they say, oh, what can I do for you? We greet them like long-lost friends, like family members, because we want them to feel important. We want them to feel, because they've been dehumanized, we want them to feel human again, and we want them to have that experience such that they can have trust in us and be able to adhere to the care. So I'm a greeter basically, but more focused on adherence program where a lot of clients cannot get their medication out. One, some are afraid, they cannot keep their medication at home because their families will throw the medicine in the dustbin, or some may even try to kill them because they're HIV positive. You know the stigma associated with HIV because people believe it's a sexual disease meant for bad people who are not behaving so well in society. So a lot of the clients also have mental health. They can't remember when they're supposed to take their medication. And a number are homeless, or some are homes, but they really can't afford the meals. So every morning with the pharmacists, we give them medication and hot meals to ensure that they come back for health. And the main reason we do this is we want to avoid clients going to the emergency room every day. My job is to help the government not spend a lot of money on healthcare. Because if these clients can talk to us and establish trust with us and tell us what's going on, we can follow their healthcare and they don't have to go to the emergency room every other day. A lot of them also come from low income communities, so we help them with the paperwork.  They don't want to stay in. So we help them with the paperwork. Finally, also let my other colleagues talk. We are involved in serious clinical trials. We want to find the cure for HIV. I've been involved in a clinical trial for two years on a medication that was not in the market. So I accompanied the clients to the medical trials at Wista Institute and some go through something called the Pharisees where they remove all the blood from the body, pull out the plasma and then return the blood. And the clients are nervous. So my job is to entertain them, keep them awake until the process is over, until we finally find the cure. I love the job. It's so interesting. Yes. We're very passionate about it. Thank you, Grace. So now I'd like to turn to Sylvia.  Well, first of all, I should share with folks that you're a graduate of the Building Pathways pre-apprenticeship program and you're currently an apprentice, right? With Plumbers Local 12 in Boston. Is that... Yes, Sylvia.  How did that happen? Okay, well, first, thank you for letting me be here to tell everybody my story. Funny story.  And my parents, they're immigrants from the Azores. They came here for a better life so their children could have that college education that they weren't able to have. They worked really hard.  I got into property management.  You know how that goes. I just remember one time being in an empty apartment with a real estate agent that was trying to help her client rent an apartment.  And she goes, her eyes opened up and she goes to her Volvo. She says, I'll be right back. She gives me a flyer for building pathways. And she's like, you have to do this. She's like, you know, it's a seven week pre-apprenticeship program to get into the building trades.  So, you know, I had to dust my suit off because I haven't put a suit on in a while, but she told me all about it. And I went into the program and, you know, you tour different unions. You know, you go to the brick layers and this and that. And I'm like, okay, that's cool. I'm gonna be a carpenter though. You know, I was stubborn. And until we went to the plumber's union, of course, big chip on my shoulder at the plumber's union. I'm like, plumbing? Yeah, right, you know, are you kidding me? And that was me in the beginning. And then at the end of the tour, I will never forget that feeling and the cheer I sat in. I was flabbergasted.  I learned about all this cool technology that plumbing has to offer.  There are just so many great options and it was just a really good opportunity. So, instead of just having a career, I'm now protecting the health and safety of the nation. You know, it's now something bigger than myself. You know, in college, I took classes on the labor movement. I'm like, yeah, labor movement. But now I'm an active part. I'm a living, breathing part of the labor movement. And I'm so excited. Thank you. My parents were not very happy when I told them. But they are very, very proud of me right now. And I'm just really excited about the opportunity. Sylvia, tell us a little bit about the life of an apprentice. You know, what is it like on the job? What do you do every day or every week? Well, at my union hall, we used to have night school when I first started. You'd work all day and then go to night classes. And it was kind of tough, you know. In the winter, you're too cold, you're falling asleep.  How do you learn all day, you know? I'm so grateful they changed it to a day school program. And it's a full week.  And for example, last week I was in school, 40 hours.  And we wouldn't have been able to do that with night school. So, you know, my confidence is up with, you know, doing those tasks and, you know, it's really great. And then, yeah, that's about it. Great, thank you. So, tell us just briefly a little bit about what it's like to be a woman in the trades. And is there, you know, how have you experienced that? And what advice would you give to other women? Well, I think attitude is everything. Personality is everything. It's like any other job. You know, I worked in the corporate world. I thought the union was gonna be like, yeah, great. But, you know, it's still working with different personalities.  But you just have to go in there and, you know, think about what you're doing. You're focusing on your career.  And that's what's most important. And you might hear things you don't want to hear. Just don't worry about it.  And I'm not saying that's an excuse, you know. I'm just saying there's a balance and just focus on your job. Treat it like you're an athlete or a soldier.  Take care of your physical body. You know, it's also mentally challenging. You know, study and focus on your work. And be cool.   You get my point, right? Yeah, it's great advice for anybody with a difficult colleague, right? Yeah. Thank you. You're welcome. Ed, I'd like to turn to you now. So folks, Ed is both a student at Harold Washington College and an insurance apprentice at Aon.   You know, what does that mean you do all day long? So tell us. Well, I would consider myself an apprentice, but I learned all day long basically. So I attend Harold Washington for 14 hours a week and then I work at Aon for 26 hours a week. So Monday through Wednesday, I'm at Aon for eight hours and then on two hours on Thursday. And then on Thursday, I attend class six hours a week. I mean six hours and then Friday, eight hours. So like I said, I'm just learning all day, every day. And when I go to the job, I'm very new to it. So I treat it like school also. So I'm a professional student, should I say. That's great, that's great. How did you find out about this program? Well, see, I have went to college before as a junior college student and I dropped out because I didn't understand the value education. I wasn't treating doing school right. So I dropped out after one year and I moved back home to live with my mom. And I started working at daddy and job as a security guard at Caterpillar. And that plant was in the process of being moved to Mexico. So I knew I needed a new opportunity and I wanted to go back to school, but I had bills to pay. So I couldn't quite, I didn't have the time for schooling and things like that. But so I had a job search setup for trainee or apprenticeship because I knew without the degree I would have to find a career that would train me. So those are the job search keywords I had set up. So I would get emails every morning. Every morning with a list of jobs, it would be a lot of skilled trades and enterprise, the management, trainee things like that. And then one day I seen Aion, I seen it for an HR apprentice because we have HR technology and insurance apprentice within Aion. So I seen the HR application and so my mom worked for Aion for 10 years. So when I seen the name Aion, it instantly resonated with me. So I scrolled through and I read the job application and like the world just stopped in that instant. It said, we don't want you to have any prior experience. If this is your first corporate role, it may not be for you. We're gonna pay for you to go to school and do those things. And I felt like it was a lot on ticket when I filled out the application. So I just had to do it. Great. So I wanna turn to audience questions but right before we do that, Ed, will you just tell people a little bit about like what do you do as an apprentice at Aion? I think most of us, maybe we buy insurance but we don't know what happens inside an insurance company. So at Aion, I actually work for Aion Benfield which is our reinsurance intermediary like a subgroup of Aion. And reinsurance is actually when insurance companies spread their risk but also purchasing a form of insurance. So after we broke it, we broker the deals as an intermediary. We bring insurance companies together with reinsurance entities. And after we broker the deals between these two, we help them maintain a business relationship and communication and just answer each questions each side may have because our job is to be the expert about both sides, the insurance and the reinsurance. So my daily job is a claims analyst. And so when insurance companies have that big loss that they need to make a claim to their reinsurance, they process it, they send it in to us and we check over everything, you know the things that the reinsurers would need so we can get it to them as fast as possible and the insurance companies can get their payment as fast as possible. So I just keep the lines of communication open and consult both sides. That's so cool. I never even knew that existed until you helped educate me. So thank you. No problem. So I think we have two folks out in the audience with microphones that if folks have questions for the apprentices that they would like to ask, this is your opportunity. If not, I have more questions. Right, so I wanna ask you all a little bit about what you think the future looks like. So I'm just struck by for all three of you the passion that you're bringing to your careers. I mean, you kind of sound like me when I talk about workforce development, right? And I think I'm pretty lucky because I don't know as many people who love what they do, the way that we all love what we do. So that's amazing and I'm wondering, what does that make you feel that is on the horizon for you?  I'll take that. Me, I would definitely like to continue my education through an MBA, a master's in business administration and as far as Aion, I hope to one day be on the management and strategy side to help push Aion forward, but for now I'm just gonna keep working hard and taking every opportunity like this one presented to me. So that's just where I see myself as working hard and pursuing opportunity. That's great, thank you. Sylvie, how about you? I see myself being a foreman in about probably 10 years down the line and definitely I am very passionate about politics and keeping the middle class alive and the labor movement, definitely keeping that alive. So whether it's just kind of working on campaigns for people who will support those issues or just getting super involved in my union, taking up some leadership there somehow. That's great, more civic engagement, we interact more of that in this country. A lot more, thank you. How about you Grace? What's the future holds for you? I wanna look at it at two levels, the personal and the national level. My personal goal would be to combine my communications and journalism, expertise and my community health work experience to strengthen the health sector and I would love to do this by being engaged, being involved probably in developing a greater curricula for the community health work, which is a new apprenticeship program so that it grows so a lot more community health workers can come in. At the national level, you might be wondering why I'm wearing all this heavy stuff. This is my salutatorian crown that I got for the apprenticeship graduation and this is my graduation degree, this is heavy. So as any woman, as any woman coming to an international conference in DC from Philadelphia and you're wondering what to wear, so I got this blue dress and then I got the earrings and then I kept wondering like what am I gonna wear on my neck, is it gonna be an African beads or is it gonna be a gold chain? And guess what I wore? I wore my badges, my heavy salutatorian, but not to brag, but to, emphasize upon all of us and to reflect on the heavy responsibility we have in the future to ensure that the apprenticeship program grows and that we are fully involved in getting all these long-term unemployed people who dropped out of school for some reason or another. Someone had an accident, someone lost their home, someone was not just able to get enough money to go to school or some people were laid off and a lot of people have skills and these skills are transferable. I have communication skills. I don't need to get another degree to smile that people can make them feel at home. So you can, it is a heavy burden upon us to ensure that we aggressively ensure that this apprenticeship program in whatever sector it is grows and becomes a big force in the country so that everybody can achieve the American dream. Thank you. Great, thank you. So with that, I think I'm gonna just leave it there. I think that says just about everything that we're hoping for with apprenticeships. So thank you all for sharing your experiences with us today. I really appreciate it. Thanks for having me. Thank you. Okay, thank you so much. I'm gonna ask our next panel to go ahead and come up and while they're doing that I think everybody's, if everybody's feeling like I am right now, it's sort of like you almost wanna sort of call it a day. I feel good, I feel hopeful, everything is on track.  But no, everything is great and what an incredibly inspirational group of people. Let's just give them one more round of applause. So that was a group of people that really sort of both defies a lot of our stereotypes about who apprenticeship is for and who's benefiting and then also builds our hope about how apprenticeship also sort of builds its own loyalty, right? And people get excited about it and excited about being part of something larger than themselves.