Sorry, I had a little problem with my dog. That's okay. So we're live streaming now guys. All right. Thank you, Mark.  I don't have a screen. What? There you go. Okay. Are you ready, Mark? I am. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good morning to you all. Good morning, Peggy. I'm sorry you had to do that struggle. You're great under fire and hello. Ledge console. I think Bryn here was on maybe she dropped off. Oh, there you are. So thank you for, for having me. I am Mark Hughes. I'm a resident of Burlington and I've resided in Vermont for about the past 11 years. I'm a retired army officer and also a lifetime member of the veterans reform. I'm a retired army officer and a member of the, the Will Miller chapter of veterans for peace. I'm the executive director of justice for all. And I'm also the current coordinator for the racial justice alliance. I'm a commissioner of the Burlington police department and additionally, I'm the architect of act 54. 2017 racial disparities in the criminal and juvenile justice system advisory panel is also act nine. I'm the executive director of racial equity and panel. It's a, I think it's a result of justice for all in the racial justice alliance and the commitment of countless of Vermonters and a tireless hours of legislators, legislators that these, that these particular laws exist. So thank you so much for having me today. I came just to share a little bit about it. And I understand we'll be following up in gov ops at the end of the week on impacts of people of color across the state of COVID, COVID virus, COVID-19 rather. I just want to qualify. Do not speak for every, every black and brown person across the state. Obviously we do have a local constituency. We have been reaching out fairly effectively to that local constituency. Our, our steering committee is about maybe 15 or 20 black and brown folks right here in the, in the Burlington area. So a lot of stuff is coming from, from them and also from consensus circles from there. What I'll do in a testimony briefly today, it's looking like I started around a minute or so ago. I tried to just go for 10 minutes. I'll probably just go like full out just for a bit. And then pull back because there's a lot to say. Obviously black and brown people are, are being impacted adversely, exponentially in times like this. I want to go over a few issues in particular that we have identified and that we are working on some of them, all of them you are familiar with. I will hopefully I can probably even share with you some, some visual aids along the way here in this brief conversation. And then I want to leave about four or five minutes on the end. So we can answer some questions during the course of this conversation. I will try to drill down into one or two of these. We've got about 12 minutes Mark. So I beg your pardon. We have 12 minutes. Okay. So just so you know, the work of justice for all, we've always been involved and we continue to be involved with the dismantling of root and the root causes of systemic racism. Also the elimination of poverty and also in addressing the impact of black and brown poor people on a daily basis, systemic racism and poverty. They're at the heart of and the source of COVID-19. And unfortunately, these vulnerable demographics are among the chief benefactors of the most severe impact of this particular pandemic. Today, all of the disparities associated with this, the systemic racism and poverty are being simultaneously exacerbated. So that's what I came to tell you about just a little bit about, I have just some. A couple of numbers I'd like to share with you if that's okay. If you take a look at your screen, you'll see what we have here is, is there are, you know, some pretty compelling numbers just in terms of poverty across the United States and proportionately, I think that's where that conversation starts, but the implications on, on just what it is that we're experiencing here cannot be overstated.  So this, this is a very difficult time obviously in housing and education. Yes. He and appreciate the rest.  Paul clearly on those guys or whatever, what's the name of that organization? Vermont. Oh God. I get stuck. I'll come back to a Stephanie, you step, you and Paul over there. You know what I'm talking about. So just, you know, just laying out, if you will, the case of where, you know, people of color in Vermont are likely to be in poverty and comparing that across different areas. And you can see there was actually an increase from 17 and 18. You know, it goes without saying, and maybe it does it, but just to know that the average median wealth, rather of, of, of, of black folks across the United States is one 13th that of white folks, because that's just an empirical fact. It's that's, those are just the data. And I'll just, you know, conclude, you know, this part of this discussion with just some of the things that, you know, I mentioned to act 54 to top of this conversation. And, and there was a part, you know, called the attorney generals and human rights commissions task force that went in and took a look at housing and education, employment health services, access and economic development. And these are some of the comments that were made and for the benefit of some of you are on the phone. I'll just read a couple of them. One says the need for white people to understand implicit unconscious bias, white privilege, white fragility and how these contribute to the maintenance of an all white systems. We currently have again, these are quotes that came out of the final report from the attorney general and the human rights commission executive director at time. The other one that I'll leave with you is we must undertake a system wide analysis of ways in which state government actively and passively contributes to these disparities, collect data and determine our baseline and set goals for reducing these disparities across all agencies. So yes, what we're dealing with here is, is exacerbated again. You know, as I said by the challenges, I see David sure has joined us. Thank you, David for joining and also thank you for your service on the racial disparities in the criminal juvenile justice system advisory panel. Another apparatus that's been put in place to address what we've already identified as systems of oppression. Some of the things that we're working with right now, justice for all is we're taking a close look at education technology disparities right now. Obviously with all of our children in school across the state, well many of your children, I don't have any children in school across the state, but with all of our children in school across the state, obviously their ability to access the internet, their ability to have those technology platforms to do so and the internet, obviously increasingly important, again exacerbate it, the disparities exacerbated by the COVID-19 issue. Here, some of you may have seen our correspondence from us voting in open meeting equity. Of course, when you take the process, when you propose a process and modify it by ballots, say for example, being no longer requiring rather signatures on ballots and or mailing of balance and changing processes and rules surrounding open meetings, it's incredibly important that these communities, communities of color aware of this and that they're notified in an equitable manner. And I'll go on and talk a little bit more about travel restrictions. I think it's pretty much a no-brainer that with the current disparities in our racial, in our criminal justice system and with what we know to be empirical data supporting the fact that there are racial disparities in that system, particularly on the front line with traffic stops and so forth. And also just historical, historical exceptionism that we have here in the state as saying, no, not us, there is certainly a risk that we have right now with the current situation unfolding the governor's announcements of the restrictions and how we balance that is incredibly important. Not just from what we already know and see in those things that we're balancing currently, but also the implications of the existing systems of oppression that were already in place and the impact of people who are black and brown, who are faced with confrontations with law enforcement officers and usually with poor results. I'll talk a little bit about the eviction moratorium in just a couple of minutes. And I'll also talk a little bit about decarceration. In fact, I want to talk a go here just as a digression, if you will, to just briefly spend a few minutes talking about the whole decarceration. So we're kind of concerned about the decarceration piece mostly for two major reasons. One is transparency and the other one has to do with collaboration. We know and understand and respect the gravity of the situation with the emergency, but at the same time, there are apparatuses in place to facilitate those who've already been appointed by the committee of committees, by the Speaker of the House, by the governor himself, by the HRC and so forth within that. Again, David, the RDAP, and we strongly advise those who are currently doing this kind of work respectfully, judge and also others like, for example, Matt Valerio and others, thank you for joining Matt, that we think it's really important right now that you're engaging that apparatus that's already been put in place. And those five voices are already at the table. This conversation should not be required because those five voices are already at the table. So respectfully, I'm just strongly urging you to engage that apparatus for no other reason than to do so to be able to have these collaborative conversations surrounding changing the justice system with every member that represents the justice system, all eight members that sit at that table, but moreover, providing a transparency for people of color in our communities, those five people that were appointed by the Act 54, 2017. That being said, I would just quickly turn to, once again, what is currently on the table in terms of the, what is pending right now, and I'll just, what I'm looking for is the, the rule, I think I'll just speak to it instead of pulling it up because I'm believing that if I waste too much, oh, I think I know where it is, here it is. So there is. We've got about three minutes left. So I was hoping you'd get to the bills that are in front of us. Okay. Well, time goes fast when you're having fun, I guess. So how about if I just summarize this, with this, you know, our take on the, what's being proposed by, you know, with this bill. What I would say is that, you know, although we're in agreement with, with much of what is being put forward, the recommendations on the changes of title, title 13 and also in, in rule 35, we still strongly believe that there, there could be a more of a collaborative effort. And also the, we also feel that there should be more transparency in this process. Also, we believe that the, the changes in the changes here in this, in this statute as well as the proposal and the rules. I, we really believe that they do indeed speak to the heart of the ability to go back and revisit a sentence, which is really extremely important when we know that there are racial disparities in the justice system. And that it could have been a harsh sentence and it could have, we could have folks who are incarcerated who could be, their cases could be revisited. And we believe that not only are these changes necessary immediately, but these changes are, they, the absence of these changes serve as part of the reason why we have the current situation that we have in the criminal justice system. We currently, we certainly believe that these changes should probably be permanent. Regarding, and I'll conclude with just the, the whole idea of, and I'll just, you know, in the absence of time to be able to go back and talk and speak really to eviction moratorium. We'll just come back to that another time, but we certainly have a position on that, that we wish we had time to talk about. But I think that, you know, what's really important, the only other piece here that's important, that I really want to try to get across here is this whole landlord tenant business and this idea of the moratorium. And then, you know, on all fronts, the legislative, the executive, as well as the judiciary approaches to this book, those approaches in combination still leave the latitude for a discretionary decision for, to be made in terms of eviction. And we believe that should be off the table and whether that involves the removal of, of that as an option with the emergency judiciary procedures, or whether it be a legislative action, we'd like to get some rest at night, not worrying about whether a sheriff knocks on our door, and yes, sheriffs are still knocking on doors because one knocked on my door just a few days ago. So I'd like to, you know, conclude the whole eviction and moratorium conversation. Simply by taking one other, what we believe to be as an oversight is, this is title 12 of 4773. What concerns us is that a defendant in the last, we've already gone 15. So you want to get another two in that, please wrap up. Yes, sir. What concerns us here is that a defendant may not defeat an ejectment action by payment of all rent in arrears, interest or court costs more than one time in 12 months. What this essentially is saying, and I speak from experience because I've experienced this myself and I certainly wouldn't want to experience this at this time. We believe that is probably just an oversight, but I think that addressing language like this is also incredibly important at a time like this because there's no way in the world that we should be in a time where if you can't, if you go into an eviction, your second eviction within 12 months, that there's no way that you can defeat it. So in conclusion, I would, you know, want to thank the committee for the hard work I've been monitoring much of the work that you were doing on your off time. I want to thank the judiciary as well as the state's attorney's offices and attorney general's offices for the hard work that you have been put in. I don't think anybody on the call can be more acknowledged than our ledge console as well as folks like Peggy. So we appreciate the opportunity to come and share with you some of the pain that we're feeling in, but we're doing the work. We appreciate the work you're doing. Transparency is incredibly important. That ability to have that collaboration ongoing. So we're not getting stories from multiple sources is, is another thing that we believe is missing. Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to appear before your committee. And I thank you committee members for the work you're doing. Thank you, Mark. I wanted to make clear that whatever we do here right now, under the rules set for the committees is. That we can only do things that we can only do things that would expire at the end of the emergency. So any changes we make are temporary. Pardon me. I said that's unfortunate considering that some of the things that we're talking about are the edifice of the challenges that we're dealing with. I understand that, but we're constrained by rules too. And just like everybody. And I, I think that at some point, this discussion about sentence reconsideration. Victions are more into the economic development committee, but since judge brought them up, but whatever we do here would be time sensitive to this emergency. And in terms of transparency, believe me, we're doing the best we can to try to be as transparent as possible in what we're doing. But these are certainly unprecedented times. The transparency just for clarification for everybody on the call. The transparency piece that I'm talking about is, is the ability for people of color to be able to see into the criminal justice system and how these decisions are being made because these are not just numbers. These are people's lives. Thank you. My understanding is that the corrections department is our right. And I think that's the right thing to do. My understanding is that the corrections department has already dropped down to 1477 people incarcerated in Vermont. And that's down from, I think, 1620 odd individuals before the, in the beginning of March. So they're making efforts to reduce the population. We just like to see the demographics of those reductions. We'd like to be involved in the process of understanding how those decisions are being made. That's the transparency that I'm talking about. You can reduce the numbers all day. If you know you're dealing with a system that has disparities, then of course you want to, you want to manage that process in the same manner. Well, thank you. Appreciate that Mark. So unfortunately, I don't have an agenda in front of me because I'm working remotely and I'm working with two different computers and getting frustrated here today. So the, the, the real issue right now, and Bryn or Eric, if you could, I guess it's Bryn, who's been drafting this. Yep. I have. We've got draft is posted to the committee webpage. If you want to talk about that next. Okay. I need to go to the committee webpage. Which one are you going to address, Bryn? Your draft 1.2. It's my draft point 1.2. It should be under today's date under my name. Got it. Okay. Hold on just a second while I try to get there myself. I'll wait for a minute so everybody can get it up on their screens. Okay. Yep. I'm, I'm, I'm there and. What I want documents and handouts. Today. March 31st. That's right. Okay. And it's. 114 draft. 1.2, right? That's right. All right. We've got, I got it. Okay. Rent into court expedited hearing. That's right. Okay. Yep. That's section one. So I'll just start by saying that this is. A strike all amendment to S 114, which is that expungement of misdemeanor marijuana possession convictions. All of those sections of the bill are gone. And it just, so this is really just a vehicle for. The legislative changes that the judiciary proposed in their memo. From about a week ago. So I'll go through the, all of, all of these proposals are, you've talked about already with judge Greerson. They come directly from the judiciary and they're based on the. Administrative order 49. That suspends all non-emergent hearings. So there is one additional section that was not in that proposal. And that's the last section of the bill. So. And that's the proposal to suspend statute of limitations for civil proceedings. So I'll just go through the bill section by section. I'll try and do it pretty quickly. I know we've not got a whole lot of time. You've talked about these proposals already. Hopefully it'll all be pretty clear. So section one is that change to rent escrow hearings. This is the change that gives judges the discretion. To order payment of rent. And then we'll go to the next slide. If you recall judge Greerson talked about how these rent escrow hearings are not emergency hearings, so they're not being held right now. So the consequences that more rent may be due when the hearings are held again. So the only change here is to strike the word shall and replace it with may the court may order fuller partial payment into court. And that just, it provides for judicial discretion. And that is a new section of law. And that is the new section of law. And that is the new section of law. Requiring the presence of a defendant. At criminal court proceedings. The, but as a new section of law and page two subsection D. That just says that for purposes of rule 43. The defendant shall be deemed present in court. If they make an on the record waiver of their right to be physically present. And instead they're contemporary. They're contemporaneously present via video or audio conference or audio conference. And that is the new section of law. And that just indicates that the video conference or audio conference. Those definitions match with the definitions in. Rule 43.1. Partition. Participation of testimony by video or audio conference. Okay. Next two sections of the bill, sections three and four are both dealing with the sentence modification issue. So section three makes that amendment to the statute in title three. And then we'll move on to section three. The court that imposed the sentence, the authority to modify that sentence beyond that 90 day timeframe that exists already in statute. As long as it has the stipulation of the parties and the parties mean, and we've specified here that the stipulation has to be between the defendant and the prosecutor's office that prosecuted the case. Okay. Thank you. Karen, just as a question. Can we make that applicable to non big 12 offenses or non listed offenses? You could do that. Certainly. I'm concerned about certain criminal acts that might. But if you had, this is Jeanette, if you had. I would say that the. I would say that the prosecutor wouldn't. Wouldn't agree. But I would guess that every defense attorney would feel they had an obligation to file one of these for every offender that's. Under them. Or that they represent. And I can just imagine. If. If a case of the defendant is charged with a crime, it's a horrific crime that have been committed. In Vermont. And if those people apply for sentence. I, you know, I just think you'd have this. I'll cry in the public. And I, so. I think though, Hey, Dick, if I can chip in there. Is the only defense attorney on the committee. We can't file anything without a stipulation. From the prosecutor attached to it. If I'm reading this correctly and bring correct me if I'm wrong, but you can approach the court. And file something unless and until you've got the prosecutor on board with it. I understand your concern. I've heard from some people as well that. This might be opening up something that might cause problems. Prosecutors, the gatekeeper. I understand that, but. Do you want. Then make this bill separate because I suspect you're going to run into trouble with the governor. You may even run in trouble on the, on the Senate floor and definitely run into trouble in the house. So I would say that if you're going to do this. I mean, I just wouldn't give him some of the things that I've already heard about this proposal and concerns expressed. I'm concerned that we have a provision here. That's not going to be like some of the others that we adopt with voice vote and no debate. And so I'm trying to be mindful of. How we can mess present this so we can get a. Get less problems with it. So I'm fearful that this section will drag down everything else. Be honest. Unless we have adjusted as I just suggested with something like, you know, none big 12 offenses.  So this is similar to a concern that I have, even with this revised language, but coming at it from different perspective. So I raised the issue last time it says otherwise modify. But everybody's talking in our discussions about reducing sentences or vacating sentences. And so I'm wondering why we're holding on to such vague language as otherwise modify. It seems as though we should be more specific rather than less, unless we're okay with in your case, having big 12 offenses reduced. And in my case. Living with the possibility that those other modifications, maybe things that we didn't intend. So when it comes maybe to judge Greerson's testimony, maybe he can explain what, what other than reducing or modifying a sentence. Is contemplated by the language or otherwise modified. Because I would be more comfortable if it was just limited to. Reducing or vacating. An analyst here, I would be more comfortable if it was in another bill. Okay. Okay. Maybe we could hear from judge Greerson and then Matt and then pepper. I see pepper. Campbell's on. He can speak to. And David sure, certainly. So judge. Thank you, Senator. And thanks committee for setting this up. The video. As, as I indicated in my earlier testimony. We, this is obviously purely a policy decision. I would not want this provision to jeopardize this. This bill. This is. So to the extent that this was changed either removed or limited language to reduction of sentence. I think that there are other parts of this bill, at least from, from the judiciary's perspective that are critical to our operations. And by that, I mean the, the video appearances and some of the lines that need to be extended.  That was at least the language was, has Senator Benning indicated subject only to agreement of the parties. This is not the court trying to usurp anyone's authority. But I, I'm concerned if, if this piece would jeopardize other parts of the bill. Okay. Pepper, do you want to join me? Yeah. With respect to just the modification language as opposed to just reduce. You know, I'm working on an appeal right now where I'm trying to get. A fender and incarcerated person. Split sentence. And he wants to change the to serve portion of his split. To a probationary period. So that would be a reduction in a sentence, but it would be a modification so he could be moved out of an incarcerated setting. But his, the total length of his sentence would remain the same. He would just tack that additional to serve portion to his probationary period. So that would be a modification, not a reduction. And I think that, you know, the state's attorney would be more than willing to stipulate to something along those lines, but not a just straight up reduction. And it would be under the idea that, you know, that there's a lot of risk to, you know, if he's got a preexisting condition, that puts them at risk for COVID. So get him out of the kind of jail setting, the prison setting, but don't actually reduce the sentence and that would be a modification that would be permitted under this language. If I could. This is John too. Can you hear me? Yeah. Yes. Oh, okay. I just want to make sure that because we have other, I got other matters with address. I can just speak to pepper's point. Pepper, I take, I take your point. I think the larger problem I'm having with this piece. Is that it's, it's situated within the COVID-19 frame, but it's giving a huge amount of discretion. Post conviction that doesn't otherwise exist. And it's got no real guardrails on it. So I would, you know, if we continue to pursue this language, I would want more specification. So the, the kind of. Swap that you just mentioned. That makes sense to me. And that could be stipulated in the, in the language. But. You know, Just a. On its face, the language now would allow for. Things that I might not agree with or the chair voiced some concerns that it might be used for someone who had committed an egregious offense. In ways that this committee doesn't go along with. So I guess I'm in a roundabout way, echoing Alice's comment. This seems more controversial, more. Thorny, the, the more we talk about it. May, may I respond to. Yep. Please. I just, uh, Our testimony today when we were asked to testify is exactly along the lines of what you just described, that there are a number of issues that this. These two paragraphs in two different sections of the law or the rules. Don't address. And, uh, John will go through those later. So. Okay. Um, so I, I'm hearing. Concern. So, um, Fishing around here to where we are. So, um, it may be that we decide to put, um, This section in another bill. And deal with it separately. Uh, can you keep going through it? Bren through the draft. Sure thing. So I'm going to skip section four, since that's the other, that's just the same change made to the rule and move to section five. So I'm on page four now. This is the heading that's titled administrative order number 49 judicial emergency response. So this provides that, um, During the period of time, the administrative order number 49 is in effect. Um, the statutory time frames for certain hearings. Um, or proceedings are suspended. So if you look at this, the statutory time frames for certain hearings, um, or proceedings are suspended. So if you look down, um, at the bottom of the page here, um, we've got a BNC. So the hearing on application for involuntary treatment, the hearing on application for involuntary medication. And then the preliminary and merits hearings on civil suspension driver's license. Those, um, statutory time frames would be suspended just for the period of time that, um, that AO 49 is in effect. If you turn to page five. Sorry. Did I hear it? I have a question, but I'll wait. Yeah. I'll wait. Go ahead. Go ahead. Well, I just wondered what, what does it mean to, um, to spend the, uh, time frame for involuntary treatment and medication? I don't, what would be the effect of that? The practical effect. So the practical effect is that currently under current law, there's, um, uh, a timeframe that's required to hold those hearings. And I can't remember what that is at the moment. Um, but that that timeframe would not apply just for the duration. So it's a, I think for involuntary treatment, it's a 10 day, it's 10 days. Um, after the application and seven days for involuntary medication. So those, um, required time frames would be waived during the period that AO 49 is in effect. And has the department of mental health weighed in on that one? I don't think so. I'm just curious because, um, that is, that is such a touchy subject already. Um, about when, when those are held and, um, I'm, I would. I would really want to hear from Jack McCulloch on that and the department of mental health. So I'll move on to the, um, if it's all right. Senator Sears, I think you're on mute, Senator. Senator Sears, I think you were on mute there. So shall I keep going? Oh, I'm unmuted now. I'm sorry, Brandon. I was saying hopefully, um, Jack McCulloch and Sarah squirrel can get a copy of this. We're going to be briefly talking with Sarah tomorrow anyway. And if they have a problem with this, let us know. I'll make sure they have a copy. Thank you. Um, so go right ahead. Okay. So I'm at the top of page five now. We're in the same section of law here. Uh, it provides that. During the time that AO 49 is in effect and for 160 days following. Um, the date that it's terminated. Um, all the statutory time frames that exist in the, um, ceiling and expungement chapter. Would be suspended. Okay. And then finally, um, sub sub division three here on page five, this says that for the duration of AO 49, um, courts can't suspend, uh, driver's licenses until and unless the court holds a hearing on that. Um, any comments on any of these sections that bring just went over. Everybody good with them? Except for that mental health part. Except for the mental health part. Um, So later on this morning, we have on the agenda to talk about the statute of limitations. But. If you want to cover it now. Um, And that's section six, right? Yep. That's the last section. Um, I'm sorry. If you do want to cover that now. Um, we're going to hit a testimony on it later from Terry Corsones and, um, I can't think of the man's name, but attorney from Burlington. Sure. If you'd like me to, I'd be glad to talk about that one now. So. Yeah. Okay. It's pretty straightforward language that tolls the statute of limitations for all, um, civil actions. Um, So it also provides line 16 to 19. Any deadlines that are imposed by court order for pending civil cases. Um, Would remain in effect, but could be extended by the court for good cause shown. And that good cause shown could include any cause that's related to the COVID-19 public health emergency. Okay. So to hold means that you would add that amount of time to the status. But I would say that it's also just, it's not necessary the way that. So for example, um, if the statute of limitations would otherwise run out on April 1st. Uh, the duration of this state of emergency would be added. Um, that period of time would be added from April 1st. Thank you. And then, um, lastly, it would take effect on passage and then the title of the bill is just renamed. Um, to an act relating to the emergency judicial response to the COVID-19 public health emergency. And that's it. Dick, can I go back and ask a question? Yep. Okay. Back in section one, we're changing the mandatory shall to may, but it's not connected in any way, shape or form to the current declaration of emergency. And that's right. And I was not aware of the rule. Um, so now that I know that that, that the Senate is only, um, I would think about either adding language that ties it specifically to the state of emergency, or we could also put in a repeal date. Yeah, I don't know about the rest of the committee, but I'm a little nervous about, um, eliminating the shall provision. To extend beyond the current emergency situation, because that opens up another can of worms that I don't think. The rental community has had an opportunity to weigh in on it all. Great. Great with you. Yeah. I do think that, um, the, the Senator Sears, you mentioned this, that the, um, economic development committee is working on some landlord tenant issues outside of. Um, I'm not sure that I'm not sure the extent of the, of the things that they're working on, but I can find out. Um, I can tell you is every time we have a meeting on, um, I'm told that they're dealing with it. And that's from Senator Clarkson, but I don't think they're doing any legislation. They just keep, um, but I don't know. Senator, if I could jump in this, I'm supposed to be in Senator Clarkson's, uh, committee meeting now on, uh, there is a bill. I don't know if it originated. I don't think it originated with their, um, committee, but they are taking up a bill this morning. As I understand it, that would deal with landlord tenant issues and foreclosures. Okay. Right. Well, here's my suggestion, Bryn. Um, and we have as two 17, which is the bill that deals with the human trafficking, um, that we're not going to take up because the house built past a similar bill. And we could do a strike, all of us to 17 with the sections that have to do with the, um, Uh, sentence modification or sentence restructuring or reduction in sentence. So. Okay. I'll put that together. Yeah. Okay. So we take that out of this bill. And, um, are there any other comments on this particular bill? And then we'll do a separate bill on the, um, which would be asked to 17. Uh, Senator, again, this is judge Greerson. I did send some language to Bryn. Uh, I think it was early this morning. So she may not have seen it relating to section six, the statute of limitations. Um, That's the only language that wasn't part of my original proposal. Um, in what I had suggested to Brennan would ask the committee to consider. Uh, we want to make sure that the tolling of the statute, uh, only applies to cases that. The statute hasn't already expired. So. On line beginning online. I don't think the language 16 through 19 is necessary. Um, We do that anyway, and individuals cases of the attorneys can. File motions and we can still address them if they're of an emergency nature. So I don't think the language 16 through 19 is necessary. Um, I conveyed that to David. I think it's a, a little bit more specific to the, um, Mickenburg also this morning, but what we would add is a sentence. That says. This only applies to deadlines that would otherwise expire during the state of emergency. This only applies to deadlines that would otherwise expire during the state of emergency. Asked the committee to consider adding that language and striking. everything after that. Okay. And unless committee members or anyone has any other questions for me, I'm supposed to be there on the committee hearing. Thank you, Judge. Thank you. Actually, if I can weigh in there, Dick, Judge, the classic example shows up if the governor removes the declaration of emergency, but four months down the road reimposes one because there's been a flareback. Would you're, you still would like to have that opportunity in the event of the second declaration. Am I safe in assuming that? Yes. Yes. I don't know how you're going to word that, but that's one of the things we've been struggling with on rules, trying to make sure we give the opportunity for all of this to come back into play immediately upon a further declaration. But it's just something to be cognizant of moving forward that this is one of the potential problems that we may face with this particular pandemic, that we all of a sudden may have to redo everything we're doing right now for the immediate emergency and to somehow craft language that takes care of another triggering of that declaration. Just a thought. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, committee members. Thank you. Okay. And, Bryn, if you need me, just call me. So, could I weigh in briefly? Yes, sure, please. All right. I'm hearing the discussion here and regarding the rule 35 and 13 VSA 7042 amendment. And I would just soon have you strike it from this bill and leave everything alone currently. We, there are some prosecutors who believe there's current authority to do what we need to do to get these people out under the current circumstances based on the existing rule, the existing statute and constitutional grounds and various rits that we have. And I'd rather have you just leave it alone than diddle around with it and potentially limit the options that are available. Okay. Thank you, Matt. All right. So, anybody else would like to speak on that? This John Campbell. Yep. Dick, I would echo in that. So, I think it, you know, again, there are clearing issues that we were, that I would raise on this and that our prosecutors have raised. I just don't think that that there's sufficient time with this bill, which I think has got some extremely important measures in it to accomplish right now. So, I also think that the best move would be to strike it from this bill. And then the matter is, you know, you want to deal with it in another time. And we certainly would be there to express our concerns and recommendation suggestions would have you. You could have a situation like in Massachusetts right now where the groups are going to the Supreme Court asking for emergency relief for certain individuals who are because of age or whatever subject to heightened, can't think of the word. So, that's currently happening just, you know, by the way, around the state. There have been many hearings about Judge Gerson assigned Judge Pax to hear those hearings, which are happening. And he has been ruling favorably for some of the incarcerated on this. Okay. This is David share just real quick on that point. I certainly understand it. Maybe it makes sense. It does make sense to move that piece to a different bill. Certainly no opposition to that. But I would support having it another bill so that I can still be considered our office does support that in some form. And we think it should continue to be discussed. We understand that it makes sense that to be done in a different bill. That's totally fine. All right. So, Bryn will just draft 217 with that one piece in it. Are there any other comments on the other pieces? Can I just weigh in on that piece? Is Matt Valerio saying to put it Matt, are you saying to put it in another bill or get rid of it totally? I'm saying for now, just forget about it. Don't put it in another bill. I mean, I'd like to even at any chance of passing, I'd like to see it another bill, but I'm not here in that right now. And I'm not, you know, this is too important of an issue for it to be for the rights that are currently being exercised with petitions for extraordinary relief and the like to be limited by legislation that's considered on the quick and under odd circumstances like this. I'd rather just go with what we have than have you limit it, frankly. Okay. So, anything else on any of the other sections of this bill, so other than section six, which will take up a little later, are there any other issues with this bill that we could just be ready to vote on? Yeah. Did Matt? Yeah, just one. And I'm using two computer screens here too. So let me just get back to where I was. It's page two of six, line five. And the only thing that I would suggest here is that after the words, I would want to have the defendant have the opportunity to consult with council before they make their on the waiver, on the record waiver of physical presence. And that consultation could be by my phone or video or whatever. But so for purposes of this rule, a defendant shall be deemed to be present in court at the time of the proceeding if after consultation with if after having had the opportunity to consult with council, the defendant makes it on the record waiver. That's that's the suggestion. Any concern about that from anybody? No. Okay. Now, could you add that to the draft, please? Yeah, we'll do. Anything else? Are we ready to take our first vote? Or should we see a redraft tomorrow? We could always. Yes. And I would like to hear about the mental health thing before I vote on it. Okay. Okay. Did we clarify whether we need to ask the rules committee if we can vote remotely? I think we already have that. Joe, am I correct on that? We authorize the rules committee to allow it. I know that on a case by case project. Yeah, my memory, Dick, is that we were granted permission to meet. I'm not recalling that we were granted permission to vote a bill. When I checked on a Friday meeting with Peter, I'll check on that too. Okay. Okay. Thanks, Bill.