Well good morning and welcome everybody to Vermont House Judiciary Committee and we're continuing our updates on the impact of COVID-19 and our witnesses are not given much time today so I'm going to stop here so I can welcome Mark Hughes and we'll ask witnesses just as if we were at the state house to please identify yourselves for the record and welcome Mark thank you good to see you. Thank you good morning Madam Chair good morning committee and thank you so much Mike for setting things up and holding it down. Shout out to Falco over there as well. I wanted to just take the brief moment to just just check in Madam Chair I really appreciate being offered the opportunity to do so we've been over to Senate GovOps just at the end of last week to do something similar I'm just coming off a call with corrections and institutions just a little bit ago and we're kind of bopping around trying to update folks and tell you what's going on you probably noticed on the news today and you're probably going to hear increasingly and we're going to be releasing some some stuff as well is that even though the data is not in completely what we're seeing is increasing it's becoming increasingly clear that African Americans are certainly dying at higher just and much highly higher disproportionate rates of COVID-19 and that we're getting reports in from the walkie Michigan Illinois North Carolina New Orleans we're seeing this this is not you know too much of a surprise I think a lot of folks have forgotten that the before the pandemic that we're already operating in a health system that delivers disparate outcomes for Black folks also African Americans are much more likely to suffer from underlying conditions like heart disease hypertension asthma high blood blood pressure HIV descent to name some of them and also with median wealth disparities already at 13 to 1 white to black it shouldn't be hard to understand why blacks are are underinsured underemployed and also more likely to work in service industries essential workers as well and also likely not to be able to work from home did I say hi my name is mark Hughes and I am for the record did I say that William I'm senator no I don't know so hi representative no my name is mark Hughes I am with justice for all sorry okay so um so yeah so we're we're bouncing around and and you know given um 10 minutes to have a conversation on the impact that this is having uh you know judiciary or otherwise and also you know more poignantly uh being focused to just narrow this narrow conversation about judiciary uh is as you could imagine uh representative Christie is probably a little bit um challenging uh what senator uh white offered to us was an opportunity to come back with some of the other impacted uh groups like uh migrant justice and and others and I think we have two hours on the calendar later in the week to come back and really have uh representative birded a real conversation about you know what are all of the impacts uh what I'll do is is just today uh in the interested time and hopefully with the expectation that um madam chair that that could possibly happen in the future with us here is is just to kind of spare you uh all of these details and just assure you uh that we are um working from multiple angles as the um as justice for all as well as the racial justice alliance and I will just share a couple but before I do so I'll share with you just some high level principles and tenants that we're trying to operate from that is one of transparency and one is also of access now from our perspective these are you know challenges that are also pre-existing it's an interesting conversation because in the medical system we use these terms pre-existing condition there are numerous pre-existing conditions that communities of color face as we come into this COVID-19 crisis that are being uh exacerbated on all fronts and I can assure you that there are many things that keep us up at night um one one thing I want to talk about this is a little bit about public safety uh mostly because I'm I am where I am right now in judiciary uh there are there are numerous implications of um you know you know again we are coming from a place pre-COVID where we were already asking asking the question um who's safety when you say public safety who are you really trying to make sure is safe uh so we we bring that into the conversation when you start talking about the implications of um you know balancing public safety with public health as well as over overarching um and overarching equity uh kind of uh component of that you know at our borders in our communities um you know nobody's talking about um SPAC or the Burlington Police Commission here where is the oversight I am a commissioner I've you know I I have an email into our mayor here because we'd like to find out you know when are we going to meet again so there are a lot of implications uh racial um there are a lot of civil liberty implications you know there are additional citations that are being um being levied there's a disconnect obviously with communications where some of our youth are still out there uh you have an already poor community that are being cited for for violations so there are a number of implications uh that that need to be discussed surrounding so-called public safety uh that you know that also that that tie into uh travel restrictions um point two uh we we spent a quite a bit of time with our partners at the ACLU uh working to uh to get folks out of the criminal justice system I just told you I came off a call just recently um over this last hour with institutions with corrections and institutions because they're taking a look um Madam Chair as you know at um S-338 um so you know there are again a lot of implications when we have folks who we know who are already disproportionately incarcerated and we know that um from um looking around the nation that we have um petri dish dishes just waiting to explode uh and we you know so there are and plus we also understand that you know again African Americans will die more frequently uh when exposed to this disease so we've got some concerns uh in our prisons um and and I think I'll leave you with this last one and then I'll just mention just from a very high level some of the other things that we're looking at and why it might be a good reason for us to come back and have some conversations with you um and this one is really our voting we know and understand as if you're watching the news right now you can see a pretty good circus act going on in Wisconsin right now um if you haven't seen it you'll see it before the end of the day uh and you know the implications surrounding uh what is going on in Wisconsin surrounding voting today on this day of private primaries uh as it pertains to us communities of color uh cannot be overstated so uh we're very concerned about um you know not just that aspect of it but also just the communications aspect of it and that is to say if you're changing the laws that relate to voting or for that matter public meetings or anything else it is critically important that that information reaches everyone um I think and this is only because it looks like you know I actually have two and a half minutes left which is kind of a surprise um I'll just briefly mention um just racial disparities uh just the racial disparities around technology and education because we know that all of our children are out for the year and we also realize and understand that they're going to be reliant up on uh technology that means not just the platform itself not just the internet connection but also you know having that skill set or and or their parents having those skill sets as well so again deeply concerned with those disparities that exist uh in uh technology and education briefly from a very high level um rent and mortgage moratoriums looks like we're headed in the right direction on that but why it is we had to fight this hard in this long to get there is be funneling but we'll continue to fight um a little bit about domestic violence uh very very concerned about uh where where we're going uh you know with a you know a disconnected uh society folks who are um um at home more as families uh and some of the things that can come out of that and particularly uh as it relates to those uh of us uh who are you know who do have the ability to be at home um i want to just go back and say um about one minute mark this whole thing about um this whole thing about this these uh thank you so much uh representative birdie um this whole thing about where we are right now has everything to do with economics everything to do with economics you know at um you know with the median wealth of of the average white family being about uh 13 times that of a black family all of these other issues are exacerbated pre-covid 19 so as we go as we move into this COVID crisis you know in addition to our health being on the line there are many many other factors that are being exacerbated so as this 1.5 or 2 million dollars or 3 million dollars or whatever it is is coming down to this state uh as it's coming here um you know if there's if there's 4.5 percent of people of color in this state then you know it would be expected that somehow or another that there'd be 4.5 percent of that money being allocated to those folks or maybe even uh higher proportionately some of some of this needs to be worked out in ways to where economically those conversations are being had and that in addition to all of the things that i've mentioned that they don't that we're not standing at the back of the line when it comes to uh economic dissemination as well so i thank you uh for your time today i hope uh that in the future we would have more than 10 minutes to come back and tell you the the big give you the big picture and tell you the whole story um it's unfortunate but understandable uh that i would have to come here and would be limited to a 10-minute period to tell you as much as i that you you actually really need to hear about this very very serious uh situation that's impacting communities of color here in the state but i am definitely appreciative of the time that you've given us um i'm open to any questions that you might have uh and i again thank you committee for your time and thank you for your work i've been watching you i thank you so much for the hard work that you guys are doing in these trying times um thank you mark and and this is just the beginning of the conversation with with you and many others and uh we do look forward to definitely having you coming back and and hearing from you um any questions we can take a minute or so for questions looking for hands uh selena selena yeah you're on mute all right hi mark you're just five representative komer i'm not extra like poignant to see someone who you know is really physically close to you these days um so i'm curious if you have any more information about some of the civil ticketing that's happening i know that you know the mayor and burlington announced that they were going to do civil ticketing i'm not sure if that's being mirrored in other parts of the state that you're aware of and and whether um you're you have already started to hear about interaction interactions of concern with local police but that that is definitely an area of concern for me and so if you have any more information to share about that now or or if you want to follow up with me too i'd definitely like to hear anything you have to share well well every every issue that we that we will be bringing to you and that you that you are hearing about you know with the exception of folks dying at disproportionate rates from this particular uh virus are all pre-existing conditions so we we we went into this crisis you know already with concerns about disproportionate civil ticketing uh because it is a fact here in burlington and it is a fact across the uh the state i've indicated previously that you know this is an economic issue when you start talking about 400 years of systemic racism that's what we're talking about here okay that's what that 13 to 1 disparity is really all about so i just want to emphasize more than anything the impact uh that you know civil ticketing has on an already exacerbated situation uh so no we haven't really heard about you know these issues you know prevalent uh across the state only because you know we're also shut down and disconnected we don't have the transparency and access that we need right now in order to do so because of the so-called uh public safety so um so this is the challenge you know it's the same challenge that we face uh with the uh the safety the health commissioners uh not collecting race data on deaths because we don't know the issue you can't make data driven decisions because we don't have the data uh i don't know that probably didn't help you very much but we'll continue to look and i i'll close the loop with you out of band okay and i uh barbara do you have your hand up yes okay all right we'll take um barbara's question and then and then we do need to move on thank you hi mark hi representative rachelson how are you and well thank you it's really good to see you good to see you too it's been a long time so i'm wondering when you come back if you also would be willing to make um recommendations as to actions that you think we can take um especially on a short-term basis in order to address some of the issues you're mentioning in particular i i think in your short period of time you pointed out a lot of actors about under um and some of them are out of our jurisdiction but i'm just thinking about people having to go to work um not having time off um etc so again i don't know if they'll be sharing that with other committees but uh your thoughts about where we can make the biggest sort of difference right now would be really helpful to hear yeah i'll be glad to do that i think at this point it's just really important for us not to embrace that natural desire to to to go to antidote and antistotal assertions uh and and and just jump make a leap of logic that we're really just talking about a class issue we are talking about a class issue but when you've got people dying at disproportionate rates we're not just talking about a class issue anymore uh we've known that systemic racism has and continues to adversely impact african-americans across all sectors and we see them dying of COVID-19 at highly disproportionate rates okay so yes i am going to come back with some specific recommendations and the first one we've already done we've asked the health commissioner to provide the data that we need so you can make informed decisions about what you're doing until then i would just advise you to look across the nation because it's happening right around us again i thank you for your time madam chair i thank you for the questions and i'll just stop for here and look forward for the invite to come back great thank you so much mark thank you oh sorry welcome all right welcome yeah thank you thank you and thank you for the opportunity so with my time today i thought i'd probably best out i was going to go through some of the principles we're using as the oh i will start off by actually introducing myself so i'm falco shilling i'm the advocacy director for the aclu of vermont and for my testimony today i was hoping to quickly go through the principles we've been using as we are trying to address this crisis some of the work that we've been doing uh what we've been hearing um what we've been concerned about and watching and um changes that we think might be necessary so i'm going to try my best to get that in under 10 minutes um and i appreciate you keeping the clock got me so i keep moving so in terms of our principles in addressing the crisis the first one is that any measures taken should be grounded in science and proportional to the threat and no more no more intrusive on civil liberties than absolutely necessary and this is something that we believe we've seen throughout the response from the state of vermont and is something that we are going to continue to be watching as this moves forward we believe public officials should be trusted messengers of vital public health information and they should be presenting accurate and timely information this is once again something we are very pleased to be seeing our state officials doing and these are these are principles that the aclu is applying across the nation as we watch different states try and address this unprecedented crisis and then finally it's the responsibility of government to ensure that those who are most vulnerable especially those under its care are protected um and so in light of especially looking at the third principle um much of our work over the last couple weeks though it seems like much longer than that um has been trying to focus on the department of corrections and the judiciary as a whole and looking at ways that we can try and reduce the number of people who are incarcerated by the state of vermont um at this time understanding that the number of people who are incarcerated in these facilities makes it more likely that the virus could spread um more widely put people who are at risk at even greater health risk and then also serve as vectors that not only infect people within the facilities people who work in the facilities and the larger communities that those people return to so it was a way to try and help protect vermont as a whole so we've sent um sent a letter on march 11th to the department of corrections outlining preparedness steps and planning steps that we hope that they would adopt um we sent a letter to the governor on march 18th um that really focused on three primary asks one was the prompt release of as many people in custody as possible to prevent infection and the spread of COVID-19 two was strict limits on any new prison admissions and adequate screening to determine the health status of people being incarcerated and the third was evidence-based humane and rights-affirming measures to protect the health and safety of the individuals who remain incarcerated under the state's supervision so um through this we've started a dialogue with the department of corrections um and i will note that if you go to their website at this point in time they do have a population tracker which shows that uh the current number of people incarcerated on a daily basis as of yesterday it was 1450 uh earlier in this session that number was above 1700 so there have been some pretty incredible steps taken um to limit the number of people who are who are in the care of the department of corrections in those facilities we do think that there's more that can be done and i'll try and address that quickly one of the major mechanisms that you have all heard about uh through your testimony from the AG's office uh from the state's attorneys as well as the defender general's office is the efforts made within the court system to limit new admissions we think that's had a significant impact we also think the department of corrections policy to limit read read missions or furlough interrupts uh from community supervision has also had a pretty significant impact since we know that accounts for 80 percent of the admission rates from the senate's population so that has been a large focus of our work but that has not been all of it we have been trying to monitor what the legislature has been doing um around changes to voting public meetings we've been monitoring the very good work that's been been done by our friends at at legal aid around the rent moratorium um but and we've been hearing a lot from folks who have loved ones in facilities so that in terms of what we're hearing from people we're working with there's a lot of people who are concerned especially about loved ones who are older and are incarcerated and what this might mean for them if the virus gets into these facilities um and as we heard just one of the facilities is on lockdown um because of staff members testing positive who had had contact with inmates so um this work is is immediate there's a need to try and get as many people as possible into community-based settings as quickly as possible uh but we have also seen a lot of cooperation a lot of good work happening across the system and don't want to downplay um the level of seriousness that is this work is being approached with across the system um we also have been just started hearing some concerns around possible enforcement of the executive order um as was alluded to in the previous comment we have not as far as I know I don't know if we have any direct concerns raised about enforcement in the city of Burlington though that is something that we are definitely watching very closely and our staff attorneys are are concerned about um as of now we know that the approach being taken is an education first approach and that is what we believe should be taken in these times um that anything that would lead to either to more interactions with the criminal justice system unnecessarily um is something we want to avoid at all costs um as we're trying to help practice effective social distancing um especially if those interactions are not necessary to protect public safety at that time so we appreciate the education first approach and how that's being addressed um so I'm looking at my time how am I doing five minutes all right um so we've been trying to reach out to partners across um the the the spectrum of issues to find out a number of concerns and trying to help lift up some of their good work um I know that there have been some concerns raised um around equal access to care if we're into trios situation so that's another place that we have been monitoring um concerns about voting is another one that we are watching as well um but as I've said before most of our work has been focused on trying to find ways to reduce the prison population um in light of this virus and move people to community-based settings um so in terms of changes we might uh would think would be helpful within this emergency situation um one would be looking at the use of medical furlough the department of corrections recently released a memo outlining their ability to use medical furlough and noted that it is pretty limited under current statute to only those who have a a chronic illness that has already been identified and leaves them physically incapable of presenting danger to the community um this is something that we're going to be calling on the governor and hope the legislature will consider uh an emergency order to allow for medical furlough for people who are at high risk of infecting the virus or at high risk of more complications so people who would be at high risk finding ways to allow those people to be medically furloughed um which does not mean that they are they would still be within the care of the department of corrections they would still have the ability to do a risk assessment before those people are released um but as the department of corrections notes that's one of their limitations on their ability to um get people who are at high risk out of the facility that's something that we think would be appropriate um in these times and I also know that you all will be looking at some of the emergency judicial orders um and some of the language that I believe was presented to the senate judiciary um we supported the language uh we do support the language as originally presented from um Judge Greerson in terms of allowing for the stipulation for reduced sentences when there's agreements between the defense attorneys and the prosecuting attorneys and the judges um the the defender general's office raised some concerns about limiting that um and they said they about two minutes Falco all right well I'm just about to wrap up so thank you very much we know the defender general's office raised some concerns about tinkering with that language too much but I believe they're also supported of that language as introduced so those are two changes that we think would be positive um and I and I will also echo Mark's um sentiments that better data collection as we go through this crisis is an essential part of the response so we understand how this is impacting for monitors and that's something we're going to be continuing to call on all the entities involved to provide more data especially as it relates to to race so um I think that is about my time and I'll reserve the last minute or two for questions great thank you so much I am looking for hands if I I'm not seeing any and I'm I'm missing anybody Selena um I just wanted to make sure I I um might have missed a little bit up the last um so your three recommendations that I heard um just at the end of your testimony were about clear policies for medical furlough and then expanding expanding eligibility for medical furlough at least through the duration of the crisis right and then um revisiting for lack of a lack of a better word revisiting but sentencing second look yeah I think that is something that um I believe you're going to be hearing about later but we supported the language that was presented by judge gerson um to the the senate judiciary committee I know they've gone back and forth on that but we're we're supportive of that and then also just better data collection and reporting as we move through this crisis especially as it relates to racial disparities so learning more about what's happening within our correction system and then also a grave concern about as you know enforcement moves forward if there is greater enforcement of the executive orders how are they being enforced who is being um who is who is um the interacting with law enforcement how are those uh interactions going so those are things that we want to see going forward and um you mentioned a couple of documents that I would love to read more closely if if um you're willing to share them with us I didn't see uh anything on the our website today but the guiding principles and yes open letters you wrote to and anything else you think is relevant if you've written materials to um share with us I'd love to have those on hand as a reference point I'd be happy to share that um with the committee you can also I mean in terms of our our principles and communication that can be found at aclubt.org right on the front under our COVID um response should be right at the top but I will happily send along all those documents um to your committee assistant after I'm off of this call as well as the the DOC policy memo about their priorities for release of sentence individuals great thank you so much very cool and um have you had an opportunity to speak with the corrections the house corrections committee corrections I had an opportunity to speak with them last week uh specifically on the justice reinvestment bill so uh spoke to you know s 338 as it came over from the senate uh so that is that's been the the primary means of communication I've had with them so far because I think that's major focus okay okay great thank you okay um great all right well thank you very much and we'll look forward to uh speaking with you again great take care all right thank you very much and thank you so much for the time yeah you bet oh great sure okay uh Eric yes can you hear me welcome yes okay so um I don't have anywhere near 10 minutes I I'm not sure exactly what the committee wants to hear I have a few remarks and then I'm happy to answer questions great and if you can state your name for the record absolutely thank you my name is Eric Avelton I'm the executive director of Vermont legal aid legal aid and our partner legal services Vermont like many others in Vermont have been working hard to continue to play an important role in helping low-income and vulnerable Vermonters get to help they need with their critical legal problems we have virtually all of our staff working from home and have cobbled together the technology necessary to operate our two hotlines from about 15 different locations as well as supporting more than 80 staff members working from home we've seen a dramatic 50 increase in calls to our general hotline in the last month we average more than 80 calls a day about 40 percent of which involve the caller's concern about their housing at the same time the calls to our hotlines have been skyrocketing the traffic on our website dedicated to providing legal information and links to court forms and other resources is off the charts it's more than doubled in the past month and there were 10 000 different in-state users visiting the site in the last two weeks many of the calls to the hotline concerned new and uncertain problems due to the pandemic most common calls involve precarious housing and family law situations such as callers with pending court dates those that think they have upcoming court dates those trying to figure out whether if they need to go to leave home and go to court anyone will be there other callers have had significant habitability or utility problems but their landlords are unresponsive and they don't know what can be done as with any stressful time we are seeing an increase in family law disputes with parents trying to understand whether children need to be returned to the other parent or seeking our help to either prevent the child's transfer or to force the transfer to better protect a child's safety a perhaps greater concern of the situations that we're a victim of domestic violence is forced to shelter at home with an abuser and is not able to get the necessary privacy to seek our help as you might expect there's been a sharp rise in calls about unemployment compensation with 44 calls in the last two weeks compared with just five calls during the same period last year and we believe the call the volume of these calls will continue to grow substantially we recognize that the demands on our unemployment compensation system are extreme however we are concerned that the process of actually getting cash out to Vermonters is not going as smoothly as we hoped most of our clients desperately need those benefits and they need them now how quickly those benefits will get out will have a big impact on the court system for without the unemployment compensation benefits many people will not be able to pay their rent and once the courts reopen for evictions the courts are likely to be inundated with eviction filings at the same time how well programs for landlords and businesses work will also impact court filings as landlords might be less disposed to file an eviction if they can quickly access loans and the other supports they've been promised other parts of legal aid also face significant challenges the office of healthcare advocates fielding more than 50 calls a week and our mental health law project continues to represent people in commitment cases finally our long-term care ombudsmen are inundated with calls from terrified residents and family members of those in vermont's nursing and residential care facilities on friday one of my colleagues will be addressing your committee with comment with our comments on s114 and she will address the changes we have seen in our housing practice and what we can expect in the future i wanted to briefly address our family and domestic violence docket as is true in the housing area we believe it is essential that there is consistency statewide regarding access to the court's personal safety and public health we have serious concerns with the court's continued scheduling of rfa orders rfa hearings for in-court appearances in some counties we believe that this puts our staff court staff in the litigants at significant risk during those hearings many of which could be held by phone or delayed with an extended temporary order other states have simply extended all rfa orders statewide rather than schedule hearings we have parents concerned about parent child contact orders seeking our help to help them avoid exposure to the other household as well as from foster parents concerned with visitation with the parents we believe most existing orders could be extended perhaps with court ordered phone or video quote visitation if a hearing is required it should be carried out over the phone we are not sure yet the full extent of the impact of the pandemic on the judiciary but we believe the pressures on the courts and on low income litigants will actually be worse when the stay at home order is lifted than it is now we urge you to begin to plan for what will happen when the state emergency ends and the courts begin to hearing the quote non-emergency matters while vermont's legal assistance providers will be there to try and help solve these problems we will not have the capacity to meet the coming surge of housing family unemployment and health cases early in the session the state's access to justice coalition proposed a set of initiatives aimed at renewing vermont's commitment to access to justice for low income litigants many of those initiatives could be readily adapted to focus on covid related legal problems as the pandemic winds down thank you for hard work and i'm happy to answer any questions the committee may have great thank you very much in terms of other states who are extending the relief from abuse orders or some of the family law orders if you could i don't know if you have that available but if you could send that to us that'd be very helpful i will talk with one of my colleagues or a couple of them who have been particularly practicing in the domestic violence rfa area and i'll i'll get them to be in contact with you with some materials okay great thank you i am looking for hands question so um to be able to extend uh the temporary relief from abuse order uh i assume that we might need a legislative change during this period of time because right now uh for an emergency order specifically they have to schedule a hearing within 14 days after the order has been issued do you agree that that's something that would be necessary or is there a way that courts are getting around that requirement right now i believe the statutory change may be necessary but again i i will also be sure to have the the staff attorneys practicing in that area specifically get back to you with their with recommended language uh uh and the confirmation that in fact it cannot be done at least formally we would need a statutory change i believe the courts have been being flexible shall we say and accomplishing some things with the letter of the law may not in fact uh support right which uh understandable in this situation and if there are other suggestions that would ease that process uh during this period of time certainly that would be helpful to hear from your folks i will get that am i anybody else okay not missing anybody nope okay great thank you very much okay well i'm happy to uh you know reach out to other staff members of Vermont legal aid if particular areas come up we have been working closely with the courts the legislature and the administration are around a whole variety of different legal problems and if there's issues that your committee uh comes upon i'm happy to respond thank you for everything you've been doing great thank you so much okay great thank you okay um so we're now going to move to professor carter welcome great thanks for having me appreciate yeah yeah thank you so much okay great would you would you like me to sort of just jump in or what how would you like to proceed absolutely i um i know um and uh good morning or i guess this afternoon um eric then i know that eric is um if it's patrick our legislative council has been in touch with you about the uh some of the issues that we wanted to hear about so um welcome you and we jump in and and um sure we'll have questions great no i'm happy to be there i appreciate it um uh on behalf of vermont law school and i like to think of us as vermont's law school as well as vermont law school uh it's a real privilege to be able to be here and and share my thoughts with you at this obviously very difficult time and i would just like to enter into the official legislative record that uh to uh intrepid vermont law school students andres newberry and uh adam middermeyer assisted with with some really terrific research on this important topic um and i'd begin just by recognizing from a constitutional perspective that uh the legislative branch is obviously a co-equal branch and i think even in these difficult times in these times of crisis it's certainly heartening to me as a vermont resident and as a constitutional law professor that the judiciary committee is is taking a look at these difficult issues because as a co-equal branch in a constitutional order the legislature does have important oversight roles to play and one of the wonderful things about the constitution in my mind is that it really is a non-partisan document or should be a non-partisan document uh and and um i'll do my best to keep my opening remarks to 10 to 12 minutes as eric asked but it's always hard for a law professor to stop and we're talking about something like the constitution it's even harder so i i apologize if i get going feel free to to jump in um i'll focus my opening comments on a couple of areas here this morning consistent with what eric and i had talked about number one i want to talk a little bit about the constitutional implications of governor scott's uh executive order and i'll primarily focus on uh addendum seven in paragraph five that deals with the travel issues um as that that seemed to be of interest to the committee but certainly i'm happy to try to answer questions related to other components of it as well i'll talk a little bit about that i'll talk a bit about the statutory authorities and then perhaps um some things that the legislature could look at if it's so desired uh i do this all from a position of humility uh in in these trying times i don't think there are concrete uh perhaps unfortunately answers to these constitutional questions we've certainly never faced anything like this um in in our generation and probably in the history of the country uh when it comes to um a pandemic so i don't represent that i have the answers i'll do my best to give you my thoughts based on the case law the statutes and the constitutional provisions at play so first of all constitutional implications at first blush it's important to recognize that the executive of each state does have broad authority in times of public health emergency and traditionally the u.s supreme court and the circuit courts have said that that is the purview of the states under our federalist system of government um now that can cut both ways of course on the one hand allowing states to try different approaches allows us to learn from each other what worked what didn't in new york how can we apply that in vermont on the other hand a virus doesn't know boundaries and so a patchwork can also be a drawback but nonetheless the authority that the supreme court has seen in the context of a public health emergency um is broad with the state executives so what are the constitutional implications of governor scott's um uh order and again focusing primarily on on the travel components here uh i think there's really three areas of constitutional law that would be the most relevant um and at least raise questions that i think an oversight committee such as yourselves uh might be interested in taking a look at uh the first is this issue of the commerce clause um now as a general principle it's the federal government who has the authority under the constitution to regulate interstate commerce commerce and travel between the states admittedly we're not in a normal situation um so to a certain extent i think take all of these with that grain of salt all of these comments with that grain of salt but traditionally it's the federal government that regulates interstate commerce that means and the u.s supreme court has said this that when states unduly burden interstate commerce and interstate travel that those laws may be held invalid the supreme court has tended to focus that on instances where the state seems to be exercising some sort of economic protectionism for its own residents rather than a more general application but nonetheless interstate commerce is generally the purview of the federal government that doesn't mean the states cannot regulate it um and certainly in an emergency situation those abilities are perhaps heightened particularly when the federal government is not acting in an in a universally applicable manner now but the legal test that courts would look at first of all is does the law burden interstate commerce uh and i think uh in this instance the answer is certainly paragraph five of the of the addendum seven to the executive order does have a burden on interstate travel interstate commerce that doesn't again necessarily mean that it's constitutionally infirm but states are likely to face higher scrutiny in general terms when uh there is a distinction made between residents and non-residents as is the case here states going to have to probably meet a higher stricter standard of scrutiny and courts will look at whether the benefits outweigh the burdens and whether there is an adequate alternative that's less burdensome uh to interstate commerce here i don't think there's any evidence of economic favoritism obviously um and in terms of adequate alternatives at least based on my knowledge uh i think um there's no widespread mechanism of identifying who is a carrier of COVID-19 and who is not and so it doesn't seem to be an adequate alternative to say have testing of everybody at the border or some process like that those tests just don't exist so there probably is no adequate alternative in light of the realities that we're operating within so i don't think that governor scott's order under the commerce clause or the dormant commerce clause is likely unconstitutional i think it would stand up to constitutional scrutiny if there was constitutional scrutiny second area that i'd highlight just briefly is the privileges and immunities clause of the federal constitution that's article four section two for all those that are following along in their constitutional pocket handbooks it essentially says citizens of each state are entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states and the underlying principle behind that at the founding and the adoption was we don't want states discriminating against residents of other states or they'll turn on each other and so some classic examples are things like your driver's license from Vermont works in Florida or works in California marriage certificate in Vermont isn't is valid in Colorado judicial orders are valid across state lines that's based on this principle of privileges and immunities so how does that fit here with governor scott's order and the the language around visitors being instructed not to travel to Vermont from particular hot spots i think always important what's the constitutional test at play first first factor that a court would look at is is the non-resident is discriminated against in their ability to conduct fundamental activities that's number one and by fundamental activities we're really talking about constitutionally protected interests is a non-resident discriminated against number two the courts would look at does the state have a substantial reason to discriminate based on residency and then number three are there no less discriminatory alternatives now and the idea is as the courts have held since the 1800s it's to protect the free ingress of the citizens of one state into into into other states that fundamental right to interstate travel that is enshrined in the constitution under your u.s supreme court jurisprudence um again i think looking walking through each of those factors here governor scott's order clearly does i think on its face distinguished between residents and non-residents if you look at paragraph five of of addendum seven it does say visitors are instructed not to travel to vermont a visitor presumably is a non-resident and it applies to folks that are coming from these hot spots as well new york connecticut louisiana etc so i think it only applies to non-residents and the order does appear to implicate protected interests right fundamental activities namely that right to interstate travel and the ability of free ingress into vermont if you are a visitor and coming from one of those hot spots or coming from one of those hot spots rather um moving through that analysis remember we look at does the state have a substantial reason and i think here battling obviously a pandemic the likes of which we've never seen um covid-19 uh is a substantial reason uh for the state's actions but and this is where i think um uh it's perhaps a bit more constitutional murky a bit more murky in terms of the constitution um but i think uh what courts generally require is some justification for the the distinction between residents and non-residents um some support that the non-residents the visitors in this case are a particular source of the problem and i think a closer examination of the of the the order at least calls that into question in other words um uh if if it's a visitor coming from a hot spot is likely to be a health risk in the same way that a vermont resident coming from that hot spot would be a health risk um and so i think if you think of an example right a um a vermont resident coming back from new york city they would be able to enjoy that right of interstate travel whereas a new york city resident uh coming up to vermont with the same potential health risk they've both been in a hot spot would not be able to enjoy that constitutional right and that's i think what tends to concern courts to the extent there's anything in here that concerns them and then that question are there potentially less burdensome approaches again i don't have the answers to that question uh but i do think um a different word other than visitors um might achieve the state's interests while not discriminating based on one's residency which is critical to privileges and immunities analysis um so i think that's perhaps something to look at the final constitutional uh issue that i'd cover is due process and the idea of due process is that um you know as as i'm sure many of you know when you have a fundamental right at stake that the government needs to have some sort of process in place procedural due process uh to make sure that that right isn't being burdened in a in a in a manner that lacks process lacks protections um and the legal test there um in the context of of this i think is is likely to be um that a restriction on the right to travel must be necessary to a compelling state interest again i think the state has a compelling state interest obviously um and so the question becomes is it necessary and i don't have an answer to that um nobody has an answer to that until a court decides uh what the answer to that is but certainly i think from a purely um liability issue one could argue um that it isn't necessary to uh discriminate against visitors versus residents um in other words if a 14 day self-isolation is enough for a vermonter why isn't that enough for a visitor why do we have to have that added layer of if you're a visitor you can't come at all in other words that piece i think arguably um or an argument could be made that that isn't isn't a necessary um component of of furthering the state's obviously compelling interest um we don't have data on that you know we don't i don't think i haven't seen data on whether visitors are more like a more more likely to be a health risk or how these particular provisions of the order are being enforced but i certainly think that's something that um from a constitutional oversight perspective that even in a crisis the legislature could look at um that data because ultimately with many of these things in determining whether something is necessary or not that's a that's a common test in a constitutional context uh courts are going to look at well is it necessary to further that compelling government interest and what we're really looking at there is what does the data show um and so understanding how these particular provisions are being enforced and what the data of enforcement indicates could go a long way to making these actions constitutionally uh valid again i'm not saying at this point that they are not but if the legislature is looking for ways to engage in that oversight role certainly enforcement data would be one place that um that that you could look i think the last thing i would just touch on and again this gets to the constitutional delegation of authority issues that are so critical in both peacetime and crisis is what is the statutory authority for these sorts of orders whether it's vermont or anywhere else in the country and in vermont uh the governor is cited to the emergency uh acts the emergency management acts 20 vsa and i think sections eight nine and eleven and there are broad catchall provisions in those statutes that seem to grant the executive broad authority in the context of an of a of a declared emergency for example 20 vsa section 11 paragraph six says that the governor has authority quote to perform and exercise such powers as may be deemed necessary to promote and secure the safety and protection of the civilian population that's a very broad grant of authority on the other hand it doesn't explicitly say um that the any administration can uh put up barriers to travel uh or or you know categorized visitors versus non-visitors residents versus non-residents so i think certainly the legislature in its role constitutional role performing oversight could look at what the delegated authority is and decide have we given the governor too little authority does he have too much authority is it just right those are certainly roles that i could see the legislative branch looking at in addition to that enforcement data and enforcement oversight um i think in the end just having these sorts of hearings is very very important uh and i don't say that just as a citizen and a resident of vermont but from a constitutional perspective as a co-equal branch of government uh in the end government of course needs to be able to rise to the challenges that it faces and respond to a crisis no question about it but as a constitutional lawyer i don't think we can lose sight of the fundamental underpinnings of our constitutional order and that is ultimately a constitutional oversight role as a co-equal branch of government even in a crisis uh and so just the fact that this committee is taking testimony on these sorts of issues i think sends a message that vermonters are paying attention and that when we get through this horrible crisis it will be important that we go back to the fundamental constitutional order and constitutional rights that have made vermont and i think the united states a special place and i think these checks and balances are very important both in a crisis which we obviously face and in peacetime and so i appreciate you taking the time to hear this testimony i'm more than happy to do my best as i said to answer any questions that any members of the committee have but that's that's essentially the end of my commentary great well well thank you very much and we did give you um extra time because i knew that the committee would have a number of questions i do before i take questions could you just please state your your name um for the record sure jared uh carter great great from vermont law school okay great well school yeah uh questions comments see martin who else okay let's start with martin and then i'll executive order uh the paragraph five that you mentioned yeah uh with respect to um travel the the fact that it states in this uh in that paragraph that residents of new york new jersey and connecticut should stay in their home states in strict compliance with cdc travel guidance issued saturday march 28th 2020 does that citation uh to the to that federal guidelines somehow help with respect to for instance the commerce clause issue i mean if the cdc guidance is saying new yorkers stay home uh are we violating anything by yeah stay home don't travel to vermont yeah i think that's a good question um and and certainly when you're talking about the commerce clause to the extent that the federal government has acted that does provide i think some cover for states to act consistent with that uh and so um if this is if that's part of the basis for the governor's order here and they cite to that and and it's consistent with those things and i then i would certainly would certainly posit that yes um uh from a purely commerce cause perspective that does seem to um reinforce the authority of the state to do this right i haven't looked at the guidance of the cdc so i don't really know what exactly it says but just assuming that that's what you said but yeah and i think the other thing uh you know the cdc travel guidance is guidance um it's not something that's you know being actively enforced by law enforcement so far as i know um but i do think that that does from a commerce clause perspective at least send the message that um we're not running a foul of what the federal government is doing now and i think that calls in into question uh or not calls into question but um raises issues around preemption so federal law can preempt state law as we know um and so to the extent that we're acting consistent with federal guidance um reinforces the idea that we aren't preempted from doing what we're doing thanks tom thank you maxine uh thank you uh professor carter uh i found it real interesting but um but one of the things uh the way i understood it with with the constitutional issues that we could be in is did i hear you right being in unprecedented times that new rulings may may have to be made on some of these issues yeah i mean i think what i'm i'm getting at is that um well first of all in in instances of public health emergencies the courts have consistently deferred to um the authorities the executives unless a unless a a law rule regulation is arbitrary oppressive unreasonable then they aren't going to meddle uh and i think that's particularly heightened when you're facing like health emergency um i think the point i'm trying to make is that yes um courts do tend to they operate in our society um they are products of our society and so certainly um things can change depending on the necessity of uh of a particular regulation so in a and that's why you see instances where in emergencies authority is broader courts are much more likely to defer to the executive branch um and we haven't had a pandemic an epidemic uh of this nature ever that's certainly not since 1918 with the spanish flu and so we don't have much case law there's a smattering of cases uh where the courts have looked at this and they have tended to favor executive authority there's a case from 1902 that the u.s supreme court where a ship uh with folks from europe was denied by the the port of new orleans the ability to disembark and the u.s supreme court said under the commerce clause and due process principles uh that was okay for the state to prohibit those folks from disembarking where courts have been much more likely to uh be more circumspect our instances where there is discrimination based on race or if it's forced isolation in other words someone is being forcibly isolated uh and that is being enforced now whereas here we have self isolation and it isn't clear that there's any specific enforcement mechanism okay and and one other thing uh what i think i it may not be your exact words but what i think i heard you say is you talked about when we come out of this and um did you say that maybe some of some of these things should be looked at well i i think the point i'm trying to make is that when this is over you know when we get past this however long that takes hopefully not vary uh but when this is over it'll be very important for us to remember what the the the base layer what the constitutional norms are because it's not normal uh for folks to be uh self required to self isolate it's not normal to say people from new york can't come into vermont and i just think certainly the role of of of um the legislature and the administration and vermonters to remember that so that when this is over we haven't ceded fundamental rights that's always the concern in an emergency and i think that's the point i was trying to make okay no that's great that's great and i know at this point there's a lot of people who i already think those rights are being violated and and one thing that i've talked about with people is uh um government the authorities holding on too long and and that's all gonna be relative i mean as i said there's some people that already think that and um and where's the tipping point i guess as far as the population goes but again i i want to say thank you i really appreciate your testimony today that some of the most compelling i've i've heard uh for me anyway uh in the 10 years that i've been in the legislature so thank you well thank you i wish just wish my students would say something like that to me um selena i see your hand uh yes i'm gonna lower my hands now okay so i'm wondering if you uh thank you i want to echo what others have said this has been really um helpful and i particularly appreciate um how you're under you underscoring like okay what do we need to do to um ensure that our fundamental rights are you know kind of we're reset to constitutional norms i'm wondering if you want to um comment at all on some of the civil ticketing that's been announced in burlington um yeah just at all if you want to comment on that yeah yeah i mean i i think uh my my hope uh and i'm not entirely familiar again i think the data has got to drive the the decisions but certainly my hope is that um we're not rushing to ticketing um and that the the the data doesn't bear out and this is where i think oh enforcement oversight is really really important who are the people that are getting tickets um certainly if you're a homeless person or a person that doesn't have a place to go and those are the folks that are getting the tickets i think there's that would be incredibly troubling from a constitutional perspective but until we know till we see that data it's it's it's it's speculative and again i think that's certainly from a constitutional co-equal branches of government whether it's at the city level and city council taking an oversight role in in determining who is this being enforced against um or it's the state legislature taking that oversight role it's just so so so critical because certainly uh if we're if we're enforcing this against people based on their economic status their status as as somebody who doesn't have a place to shelter uh race gender sexual orientation any of those protected classes would be hugely problematic and so until we know what's happening it's impossible i think to make informed decisions so really really important to get to the bottom of that sort of data and i think that can happen even when we're in a crisis and should happen because that's how in the end i think we get back to the constitutional norms that we've got to get back to once this crisis is over coach uh professor thank you very very much uh like tom i found that you know riveting uh it's interesting your point about data and you did state that a number of different times during your presentation and i think that supports um well our other two speakers as well both the aclu uh and uh mark hughes um i just got a uh a post a message post from a family member who is a sergeant uh on the east hartford police department uh giving an example of a stop that was made by one of the officers uh because of a black customer at walmart uh wearing a mask and they felt that uh he was uh uh going to you know exhibit some odd behavior uh so now we have this whole thing of uh shopping while black uh and you know until we hear more instances of that uh like you said with the data um it's it's fascinating because that goes to the point of the systemic uh environment that we're living in but your thoughts yeah no i wrote a similar similar article uh i think actually this morning and i don't know that it was from from hartford um but with any grant of broad authority uh and certainly the courts and i would say under the emergency powers act that the legislature passed years ago uh the governor does have broad authority with any grant of broad authority there needs to be a commensurate opportunity to do that fundamental oversight and that is again this idea of the co-equal branch of government yes it is easy for the executive whether it's a mayor or a governor um to act you know more efficiently than say a legislature and i know i'm i'm probably saying the wrong thing to the wrong group of folks but obviously moving through the legislative process if every single decision that had to be made in an emergency had to pass both houses of the legislature uh uh et cetera it would be very difficult to do and so we do need a vibrant executive on the other hand because of exactly the things that uh that you've highlighted uh it's very important to have that data to have that oversight that is the check and that's what protects protects us in the long run from these things um these broad grants of authorities to becoming uh systemic uh and the horrible implications for our society when when these sorts of decisions are being made at the local level based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation all of these protected classes thank you thank you great other questions you did touch on this but i also wanted if you if you could please speak a little bit more about traffic stops and uh what authority uh law enforcement does have to to stop a car i've heard from a number of constituents concerned about uh students coming home from college and being stopped uh both uh inside and outside of vermont yeah i think a fair question i'm not sure the last the the latest i've heard i think from uh it was commissioner surling although it might have been somebody else that what they're doing at the borders at this point is essentially collecting data watching to see who's coming in and and who's going out i haven't heard uh specifically of of individuals being pulled over based on you know say their license plate um and again i think that's why this this this oversight this data will be very very important to get from the the administration even in this crisis it seems as though um it's it's certainly constitutionally relevant to get to that question of is this particular activity necessary is this particularly particular rule necessary well we can't decide that unless we see what the data shows if the data shows that visitors have a higher likelihood of um being carriers of of COVID-19 then perhaps the the the enforcement of of it is is necessary if it if they don't then there's a question um so i think that data is very very important um uh and i think in terms of the delegated authority under the under the statutes how far does the legislature how far does the legislature want that to extend i think that that language that i read a few moments ago about uh activities necessary powers necessary to protect the the the civilian population um what does that mean and certainly the legislature would have a role in in determining that does it mean you can pull someone over because they have a new jersey license plate when they're coming home from college or or you know any of these circumstances that your constituents are talking about um i think certainly that is that is a debate that could that the legislative branch could have thank you any anybody else including Eric i don't know Eric if you have any questions or comments no i'm all set thanks maxine sure you bet okay i'm not seeing any hands but i want to make sure i haven't missed anybody no okay great thank you so much it's really been interesting and helpful and really really appreciate your time yeah absolutely i'm happy to be here i wish you all the best of luck and be safe and and stay well great thank you great thank you professor thank you okay all right so committee we are ahead of the schedule let me just look um okay so before i open up to general discussion anybody have anything they want to ask or start with or so yeah um the issues that we just talked about with the professor as far as next steps it seems one of the one of the overriding issues is understanding the the necessity for the particular action of banning or discouraging the travel and whether there's a less discriminatory or intrusive method but it seems to me that at least the question of the necessity is beyond the this committee's expertise i mean that would seem to be a something that human services or the health committee would have to weigh in on that this is necessary and there aren't any other better ways to do this and then we apply uh the constitutional analysis from the judiciary's perspective on whether we agree or how big of a threat this is etc as far as uh being struck down because it's unconstitutional so i i mean i don't know if if this is something that the other committees are taking up and i don't i guess i'd ask eric if this is and you vaccine if if my understanding of that is correct or not i haven't i haven't heard that these are concerns of other committees uh but eric can can uh can chime in if if he knows um certainly the uh in enforcement like some of the questions we heard earlier about burlington and some of those measures um i've heard those concerns and uh we'll have david share at one point talk to us about about their guidance guidance and uh how they got there eric do you have you heard of any other committees being concerned no nothing uh nothing beyond what uh you folks have sort of done to solicit some input from a law school professor but i think sort of general thoughts about um you know making sure that the actions are consistent with constitutional values i think committees have expressed that general perspective that that the committee had as well i know that um senate judiciary i think is going to be talking awesome we lost eric yeah uh personnel taking notes about which people are which the license plates of cars that are crossing the border that sort of actually excuse me eric so we lost you um when he said senate judiciary is and then we we lost you oh sorry yeah i've had a poor connection today uh the uh issue that they're looking into a little bit and i say looking into they're just hearing some testimony from the agency of transportation about is the um there's been some suggestion that there have been some uh recording of which license plates from which states have been crossing the border into vermont and different places so that issue is one that's sort of connected to what's been talked about today i think they're going to talk a little bit about that on thursday that's the only specific thing i've heard about other than the sort of general concern that that the committee uh registered today tom i see your hand is up thank you maxine maryton yeah this was uh pretty much came along because i i had asked for it um just some concerns that i had uh with uh just people talking you know the the chatter that you hear you know in the times we're in and i and i thought that was a great idea you had that it may have to go to human services or help uh the health committee first be if this was pursued before it came to us and and uh from what eric's saying other committees are touching on it a little bit and uh just for myself i certainly hope that it is uh it is looked at in hindsight uh i don't think uh right now i i i don't think it would be uh proper to uh step in on anything um just because we're in such unprecedented territory right now i mean it's you know it's what's what's right and what's wrong at this point you know as far as what's happening and and i think uh a lot of that is going to get uh sifted out uh for the future because of this so again i i do hope we can uh look at this uh in in hindsight uh and hopefully uh improve the system i guess uh going forward but so i i mean i just just a comment on that is um i mean i could see that a scenario where uh this continues longer than we hope that that they're locked down and and the whole situation continues longer and uh there's a next progression uh for law enforcement where they in fact are starting to stop people at the border maybe that's the time we take it up a little bit more because if that happens i could also see uh a lawsuit against that component of the executive order and uh and the professor is right that we could if we the legislature looks into it and says yeah this is why this is necessary because that is a little weak as far as what is in that executive order it's somewhat justified but if the legislature as a co-equal branch has examined it and said this is a necessary step there's not a better way to do this that would make it a stronger uh action as far as if it does get challenged in court and maybe it's something we just kind of monitor if it looks like this is going to be lasting for a while longer then maybe we should urge the other committees with that expertise on the health impact issue to take this up now i agree with that um you know it's especially you touching on so if there's any escalation as far as uh law enforcement goes and that type of thing so maxine yes go ahead uh one of the interesting things and i noticed this uh because the the way to uh the uh pharmacy uh you know because we have that big clover leaf here in white river uh to go over to new hampshire which opens up a whole another ball game in this discussion about inter versus intra state jurisdictions we don't have a hospital here in the white river area we have one of the biggest in new england and two point five miles away from my home so the vermoners on the border in the upper valley have to go or or you would think would have to go to uh dartmouth hitchcock but we haven't really gotten uh let's say guidance or information about how that's really going to work uh because one state says one thing and the other state says the other thing and even though your your doctors might be over there i mean uh there's been some relaxing of the rules as far as uh the whole medical uh discussion between the two states uh but but that travel piece and then the uh this recording of the data there have been state trucks parked at the u-turn between the the two states uh and i mean uh one of my constituents sent me a picture at 609 was the time time stand so uh to get to martin and to uh tom's uh uh discussion they're counting or doing something but when you see three state trucks and a supervisor vehicle in the picture you ask yourself well they're not doing maintenance at six o'clock at night you know so uh it it raises some questions about what are we doing and how we're doing it but and those were um dmv and and v-trans trucks is that correct uh they were they were uh v-trans okay all right so we certainly if if folks are interested we certainly can ask uh v-trans to come in and um as well as dps and ask them what type of data they're collecting that we are seeing trucks and see thumbs up um so that's making a list so that's certainly something that that we can do um i i've heard concerns about sheriffs um so we can certainly bring folks in okay um and and just uh a quick uh geeky thing you know you notice things sometimes and so going going back you know like in you know like into the center town on on saturday i had to you know go over to you know the pharmacy again and uh so on my way back there were a disproportionate number of out-of-state plates versus the vermont plates that i saw and it wasn't like i was doing a statistical analysis it was just an observation i saw more uh of one particular state than and that's not the vermont new hampshire thing on the on the valley this these were from one of our neighbor states and you just went why are there so many and and there's no events going on so i mean you know other than possible uh second homeowners you know that might be the other you know the other piece but can do you have a question or comment yeah i just uh just a couple of comments first of all i think if we back this up a lot even before or during the governor when he first came out i believe senator lehi was telling asking people very nicely to stay out of vermont and limit your travel i think uh and i'm having serious computer problems today by the way but um i think the other thing um that we really need to keep in mind is i'm sure there's some sort of policing that that's going on out there uh with stuff there has to be but i don't i have not heard of anything that we're overdoing anything or anything like that if anything what i've heard more is we've got more speeders out there on the highways and and more stuff like that but i mean let's face it we know this is prime time for uh the the drug runners and some of this other stuff that we deal with all the time and i sure um everybody wants data they want this and they want that and we hear every day that data is lacking or data is changing changing from day to day whether you're listening to komo or you're listening to the president or you're even listening to our governor so i'm not really i'm not really sure of what we're going to get to at this point because it's all so new and it's so overwhelming and i don't know about the rest of you but i'm getting bombarded primarily with people looking for uh for money and how to do other different things um do you guys see your hand up yeah just real quick you would mention the sheriffs or somebody coming in possibly and i guess what i'd like to hear from them is uh if anybody at all is getting pulled over i mean you hear the rumors uh um you know if if one if it's one person if it's 20 people or if it's none i would just like to know definitively if they have pulled over like somebody from out of state or uh uh in that type of thing for being pulled over for uh non uh COVID-19 reasons but that being used as excuse you know just i'm gonna say i i really doubt it but um it would just be good to hear it put then those rumors can be put to rest great thank you so anything else on law enforcement and this before i move on to some other topics selina yeah i just would like to oh oh phew sorry now i apologize for being unmuted though because i have background noise um i would just like to understand if there are other jurisdictions that are um have explicitly created you know civil infractions if it's just burlington or there's other municipalities who are going a similar route great okay anybody else on this um madam chair yes it might be uh uh interesting for all of us to take a look uh it just came out a couple of minutes ago uh uh the governor has requested a federal disaster um order uh and i just scanned it but you know there's some implications there to around some of the questions that we've already uh asked so it'd be interesting to uh take at least a few minutes at some point and take a look at at the implications with that because a lot of it overlaps with some of the discussions we've just had thank you okay i have um a few notes that i wanted to address um first thing is um friday we're scheduled in the afternoon and that's good friday and i just wanted to um see if that was i'm sorry that i didn't pick up on that before and if that's an issue for anybody because we certainly can can cancel so okay i'm hearing that people are okay being being present okay great thank you um so some of the in terms of our earlier witnesses some of the things that were mentioned uh the um the medical furlough um i'm hoping i'll check in with um with uh chairwoman emin so i'm hoping that that corrections that's really something within their jurisdiction i'm hoping that they will hear about that uh but certainly that is is something of um of interest and let's see um the other thing is um justice reinvestment to my understanding i think we heard from mark is that corrections are starting to take some testimony and they've taken some testimony on the uh racial disparities piece which is certainly something within our jurisdiction uh so i'll also check in and see what what that committee's plans are with that um that's certainly a very important piece of legislation that that i was uh my dog saying hi um that uh i was concerned my that we might lose um with all of this so i'm glad to see that there is testimony being um being taken and uh and i know that's of interest to to folks um let's see what else other things that um from we heard today or other things that you're hearing from constituents within our jurisdiction that folks want to take testimony on next week lexine barbara um so two things one is the medical furlough it's great if institutions take that up i remember marshal the other day saying that he was worried that um they've been able to find some ways to do some things creatively and it just seems like it might be good for us to sort of keep an eye on if institutions makes changes if it's something that will interfere with what the um public defenders and the state attorneys have been able to do um so that was one thing and then gosh let me see what the other one was okay oh i wrote a note so i wouldn't forget as we are starting to look at appropriations for next year and as mark mentioned money coming to the state um and also coach talking about federal um disaster money it would be great if approach is looking to hear from our committee about what our priorities are or things that we would love them to not forget about taking into consideration thank you uh salina i think it's on our agenda for friday that we're going to hear from the network again but i think really looking at the question of how we get clear and consistent practice around rfa across the state um is really critical and yeah so that that would be for sure a high priority and i actually think some of the work that we did you know about really troubleshooting that process um in 610 that has nothing to do with firearm relinquishment could be a good basis for digging into that but um because we did a lot we took a lot of testimony about just that process and the challenges of the remote process and how to try to make it work better and more consistently um but that that seems like a really critical need so i hope we'll prioritize okay thank you okay i'm looking for hands um okay uh tom and then barber thank you um going back to uh to mark hughes um he it sounds like he's going to get a couple hours uh along with other witnesses uh with senate judiciary and uh it sounds like he uh he may get uh more time with us also going forward possibly this this remembering what was said in in the head shakes and that type of thing um so would it work instead of him uh going to senate judiciary for two hours and then coming with with everybody and and testifying with us for two hours could we uh put together a joint meeting and and possibly uh i know uh corrections has brought up been brought up if uh if that would be uh uh the right way to go at that point too it would uh again just getting everything done at once and and then uh all the witnesses don't have to spread their time so thin and just to say the same thing so right now that's that's a great and i will so there's a chairs meeting today so i can certainly reach out to other chairs and see if that's being done and um also speak to senator sears uh i'm not sure the scheduling is a little wonky in terms you know so but uh but yeah no i think it is i think it is a good point and uh if we do take up and i do hope we can take up uh justice reinvestment too that would be a um a great time to hear from mark and others and coach and i spoke earlier about um about putting together a witness list um as well so um eric are you um i don't know if you have any information in terms of what the senate is is is doing if they're planning for next week yet or i haven't heard any planning for next week they did um this morning the senate judiciary voted out uh the sort of court's relief package the COVID-19 related issues that has the uh the power of attorney and the um the deeds language in it as well as the other requests that the court has made as far as uh ways to you know adapt the court process to to the crisis that's going on right now so i think that the the thought there was again i'm not sure that they they know when that will come out on the floor of the full senate but they did vote that out of senate judiciary this morning so i know i think it's on your agenda for thursday if i remember correctly um so uh i know brin's been working on the finalization of that document so once it's proved and edited you guys will be able to have that and that's what we can work off when we walk you through it on thursday um but as far as next week goes i haven't heard anything yet right okay great thank you and do you know if they kept the um involuntary commitment the extension of time for those hearings do they keep that in they did not that that piece got taken out okay great all right thank you i think so eric is is your impression and i think this goes also to the um the sezon scene reconsiderations your impression that um only bills where there's true consensus um no opposition that that's really what the the senate is is focusing on and that things are coming out to either be done later or elsewhere but but not included yes i think that's exactly right the reason the reason pieces like that one specifically they discuss it in committee the reason that it came out is because there was an anticipation that could potentially be divisive on the floor and they don't want anything at this point obviously not saying never but at this point they don't want um things coming out on the floor that there isn't already general consensus about so they if they're notice things that it looks like that's not the case then they're setting them elsewhere and that's um the same i think that they did with the you know the 90-day reduction in the people being able to the parties being able to agree about someone being released or sorry a reconsideration of sentence set those aside they might well and are still talking about taking them up in other bills and other legislation but not as part of the ones that are trying to move more quickly uh consensus based items right now thank you that's it that's helpful sure hey anybody else i um i do see that we have gene murray on friday for um vermont legal aid and i think she she might have been speaking about uh about the involuntary uh commitment hearings but we could also ask her about uh some of the family law questions and domestic violence questions that we heard we heard today and i know not or you had also um heard from a constituent regarding visitation so i think i think we are hearing about those things that legal aid has been hearing about so um try to reach out to her and have her be prepared for that so sounds good okay anybody else i have one thing is if we're done um absolutely i mean we're still on the record but yep go ahead well on the record that's fine that's fine that's fine i'm sorry that not everybody can sing along with this because of the way it works but happy birthday to you happy bird wait i'm way off we try again happy birthday to you happy bird happy birthday to you we can join in happy birthday to you that was terrible you would have done better patrick that was good that was good nice job well thanks a lot martin thank you all yeah well i'm sorry we're not with you in person but i'm glad we're here with you today and collectively wish you a happy birthday well thanks great okay um tom i see your hand up but i don't know if it's because i didn't lower before i uh you're good yeah that's from before okay all right okay well we're we're ahead of time but that's that's okay just anybody anybody else have anything and certainly if you think of anything afterwards just let me know but um yeah i just had a question for mike and uh where i can find this on youtube or what i would have to search for on youtube to uh repost this it's on the committee webpage if you just click the live stream link all the videos are right there okay great thank you cool yep okay all right anybody else ready to go off the record i just um i just want to say thank you to everybody uh for for your feedback and your support i'm really winging this uh and i think as we do it more it'll get easier and uh i what i find challenging is the um is the timing and making sure we we give folks enough time uh and also respect the fact that people are being pulled in a number of different directions um and there are many many folks that that want their time as well so just please uh keep your feedback coming and issues that you're interested in and as much as i can keep you updated about scheduling i think we'll see the speaker's office continue to schedule for um for us but i'll get updated on that today at the chairs meeting uh and i think that we're still focusing on quote unquote emergency legislative responses which i know can be defined differently um to different legislators uh but we'll we'll keep keep working as much as we can so may else no maxine just to double check it so we're on it's 11 o'clock on thursday is that right when we'll take up the that's still the plan to take up uh the the other COVID-19 related judiciary legislation right exactly so you'll quickly just um yeah talk about the probate yeah right and uh and that the the language from the deed bill is not in the just go over that that that that language is not in there sure that that um and i think we'll hear from terry also and then we'll hear from we're in so yes that's that's what i have great thanks that's and uh we'll see you tomorrow everybody and uh i guess that's it all right um let's go off the record thank you mike thank you everybody thank you yeah see you thursday yeah thank you have a good day have a good day bye bye take care everybody bye