Good afternoon and welcome to Vermont House Judiciary Committee. It is Friday, April 23rd, and we are going to be looking at S99, which is an act relating to repealing the statute of limitations for civil actions based on childhood physical abuse. This has passed the Senate and it was just referred to our committee today. And I'm very grateful for our witnesses who are here today to help us understand their stories and why this bill is so important. Before we hear from our witnesses, though, I am going to start with our legislative counsel, Attorney Eric Fitzpatrick, to walk us through the bill. For folks who are watching it on YouTube, either now or later, we are looking at draft number 1.1 of S99 on our committee page. It is listed under Eric Fitzpatrick's name, even though it has passed the Senate, the version that would say as passed the Senate has not been posted. However, there are not any differences in what we will be doing a walkthrough on today and the one, the version that passed the Senate. So with that, welcome, Eric. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, everybody. This is Eric Fitzpatrick with the Office of Legislative Counsel here to walk the committee through the bill as passed by the Senate. Senate bill number 99, which is an act relating to repealing the statute of limitations for civil actions based on childhood physical abuse. As the chairman mentioned, the bill just barely passed the Senate, and it always takes a couple of days for the staff behind the scenes to put that document into a final as passed by one body or the other document and then post it on the website. So that hasn't quite been completed yet, but the version of S99 that you're looking at is exactly the same version that did pass the Senate as it came out of the Senate Judiciary Committee a couple of weeks ago. So in terms of language, what I'll walk you through is exactly the same as what you'll see once you get an as passed by Senate version of the document. So as you can tell from the from the title of the bill. This deals with the statute of limitations for actions based on childhood physical abuse a statute of limitations as this committee knows from the work that it's done over the years. It is really a law a statute that establishes a time period, during which a lawsuit may be brought or a criminal prosecution may be brought. It's an express period of time within which this court action can be brought. And if the action is not brought within that period of time assuming there hasn't been some kind of fraud or some failure to discover the action or some other extending circumstance. If the action isn't brought within that period of time, then it's lost then a person cannot bring the action and these statutes of limitations have been around for centuries they essentially are based on policies as this committee knows it's something you've been talking about recently in another context of it not being generally viewed as fair to any of the parties to a lawsuit or witnesses or anybody else. So as time passes memory spade people pass away. Evidence is lost so it's just generally viewed as unfair to everybody in the court process in general, after a certain period of time to be able to force people to come back in the court. And try and recollect these things that perhaps they don't anymore so that's why sort of the policy on which statute of limitations exist. I think they should also good thing for this committee in particular to remember is that they are generally set by the legislation statute of limitations are legislative policy choices. And that's always been the case as well, subject to constitutional limitations of course there may be some constitutional boundaries on that but generally speaking, it's a legislative policy choices to what you want a limitations period to be for various kinds of civil or I know the committee is well aware that over the past two years, you've made some changes to various statute of limitations. And in particular one that's relevant to you today is that just two years ago, because in general, right now in general, the statute of limitations for for a civil action. That's an action, not a criminal action but a civil action based on injury to the person or injury to somebody's property. Someone wants to bring a lawsuit for money damages based on that the limitations period is three years. That's the general statute of limitations period for personal injury actions. I'm sure you recall, two years ago, this committee looked at the issue of civil actions for damages based on the actions that grow out of childhood sexual abuse. You spent a lot of time working on that particular issue that was age 330 from two years ago, which passed I think it was act 37 when the governor signed it. And that bill that piece of legislation repealed the statute of limitations entirely for civil actions based on childhood sexual abuse. Right.  And this bill, very, very similar. In fact, just amends that exact same statute you'll see because the statute that we that you passed two years ago, entitled 12 which repealed that statute of limitations for child actions based on childhood sexual abuse specifically applied to those types of actions only. And what what S 99 does is it expands that to include actions based on childhood physical abuse. In terms of drafting. I love drafting bills like that because they're pretty straightforward. You just if you look at the language you just ask the word where it says childhood sexual abuse that put or physical, you know, a number of different times and other than that. It's virtually identical to the statute that you have on the books that you passed two years ago with respect to actions based on childhood sexual abuse. Now the result of that, that means, because it applies retroactively, as well as prospectively. And by that I mean, ordinarily when the legislature passes a lot, it applies perspective, and we've talked about that applies to actions and events going forward after the date of passage of the act. However, the legislature certainly has the authority to, to make laws apply retroactively again subject to constitutional limitations but you have the authority to do that, you just have to say so explicitly, which this bill does. And you say that the same way that the language provided for in the existing statute on actions based on childhood sexual abuse. That's the proposal on S 99 as well, the language explicitly says this ability to bring an action based on childhood physical sexual abuse case applies, no matter when the abuse occurred doesn't have to have occurred, say, after July 1 2021. Let's assume that was the effective day of the act but just sort of hypothetically, you know, without having said so would apply going forward. The same way with the actions based on childhood sexual abuse, it applies retroactively. So for example, let's say someone had been physically abused in 1970, just to pick the date out of the air. Remember, I said that right now currently the existing statute of limitations for an action based on physical abuse is three years, right. One thing to keep in mind though is that statute of limitations are told that means they don't run, while someone is a minor. So, let's say that the person was 10 years old when it happened in 1970. The statute of limitations would not begin running until that person turned 18 years old. So that would be 1978. But remember the limitations period is only three years. So as of 1981, that limitations period would expire. That person could not bring a lawsuit after 1981. The only proposal in S 99 does is it says retroactively, a person can bring a lawsuit whenever at any time after the abuse occurred. So, the 1988 in the example I gave the 1981 limitation wouldn't apply anymore that the abuse occurred in 1970. The person could bring the action six months from now, or a year after the bill passed. They would be able to bring it at any time that they chose to bring. And it's the exact same process that was set up for actions based on childhood sexual abuse, the proposal to set it up for actions based on childhood physical abuse. There are two other last points to make. One is that, again, exactly the same as in the sexual abuse situation. They're the general standard of proof. And personal injury case is a negligent standard lack of reasonable care, right. The, the, you may recall folks who sat on the committee or considered the issue two years ago. There was a lot of discussion about institutional defendants, right. So, not just the, the individual person who committed the abuse, but an institutional defendant, a defendant that could be held liable, because they employed that defend. You know, it may have been a claim based on reckless supervision, maybe they didn't supervise the person well enough, or maybe just to claim just growing out of the very fact that the person was acting in the course of their employment and therefore the employer could be held liable. So the way the, the legislature came down in that case is the same way that it's proposed in S 99, which is to say that if the action is against an institutional defendant, not an individual, but an institutional defendant, then the standard is gross gross. So, in other words, the burden of proof or the standard of proof, I should say, when a claim is brought against say an employer or some other institutional defendant, then there has to be a finding of gross negligence on the part of the entity. In other words, not just lack of reasonable care, but a complete failure to exercise any care, which is what gross negligence is. And that's the, the place that the, I think the legislature came down as a compromise and the child sexual abuse situation and that's the same proposal that you have an S 99 as well. The last thing I want to mention is that, you know, it's also an important point to understand is that well what do we mean by, by abuse. And that term, the term is defined in the bill. If you look at page two of the bill lines nine through 13. And again, this, this tracks the same approach that was made in the childhood sexual abuse situation obviously uses different statute but if you look above it the existing two through eight childhood sexual abuse was defined to mean any act committed against a minor essentially that would have constituted and it lists several crimes. So, any act that would have constituted a violation of one of those criminal offenses is how the term childhood sexual abuse is defined for purposes of this repeal of the limitations period. Same approach for childhood physical abuse you sit you it's defined as any act, other than an attempt I'll get to that moment that would have constituted aggravated assault when the act was committed. So, I sent the aggravated assault statute to Evan he's posted it so you can look at that. I can pull that up for a second or I can just read the language to the committee with whichever you prefer. I know sometimes your committee hasn't been preferring doing screen sharing so whichever way you want to do it is fine it's pretty sure I can read it if that's preferable. I, you know, I think to screen share just for that briefly might be helpful so we all can see the words and then, and then you can take it down. Thank you. Okay. Yeah, sure. So I'll pull that up real quick it is very short so I take a moment. The existing statute on aggravated assault is what's referenced here. And that's how abuse is defined so that's the reason for a cross reference. Here's the statute itself we're just looking at that so you see the proposed language in S99 will actually skip down for a moment. Childhood physical abuse and the reason for that is because, as you see, as I mentioned, what this basically the bill does lines 10 and 11 is what I'm looking on right here. Sets out the principle that I just described that the civil action for recovery of damages suffered as a result of childhood sexual or physical abuse maybe commenced at any time. And that's the that's the broad statement of what I've just described at any time after the alleged act to have caused the injured condition so it doesn't have to be within three years six years 40 years. It doesn't matter any time afterward, and it applies retroactively as I said, but obviously crucial question is, well what is physical abuse. And that's defined as as I just mentioned any act that would have constituted aggravated assault when it was committed and aggravated assault really focusing on subdivision a one of the definition here that's the one that's applicable. It's any attempt to cause serious bodily injury to another, or, or any act that causes such injury purposefully knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life so it's a pretty high description of what aggravated assault is. You'll see that the first clause attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another, that was accepted by accepted I mean, not ACC accepted but EXCEPT accepted. And that was I just mentioned that in the, in the language you'll see, you'll see that on line nine. It says means any act other than an attempt. And that that was an intentional exception. And I think that the Senate made after hearing testimony that proving an attempt, you know, 1020 3040 years later, it just really wasn't going to be possible or fair to anybody involved the perpetrator or the victim just would have been almost impossible to do so they wouldn't have done it as any act other than intent. So if it's not an attempt, but it still constitutes an act in which a person is purposefully knowingly or recklessly causing, or under circumstance, you know causing injury to another under circumstances of manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, that would constitute and then you have the advantage of this being well known to the courts, right this is a standard that's been on the books for a long time. Yes, it's in the criminal law but litigants and the court are very familiar with the language so it's an established principle, and I think it provides some guidance as to what sort of acts would constitute aggravated assault within of this new statute of limitations provision. And that's the cross records. Great, thank you Eric I'm going to interrupt here because I do see Tom's hand up. Yeah, I think Eric just answered my question I think I was going to ask about. If the, you know the definitions of physical abuse and in any other statutes but I think you just said there, and I kind of knew that they were probably defined but it is in those going kind of fast for me maybe not for other but so it, the definition of childhood physical abuse, is that the same definition as physical abuse except for the under 18 and that type of thing. No, no, it's okay. I don't the term I haven't seen defined elsewhere specifically in this sort of way it was defined in broader terms in some of the title 33 provisions related to mandatory reporters and things like that but it really wasn't as amenable to being specified in this sort of way, if this terminology seemed a little vague it seemed even vaguer and the other ones and to establish, you know set out a standard for what type of claim could be brought and what couldn't be. Really, this was the one that made the most sense. Okay, so again, the chat this this definition childhood physical abuses brand new that. Yes. Okay, great. Thank you. Yep. I pull the document down now or. Sure. Thank you. Yep. I think that's probably what I have for the walk. I think I've covered, covered the points and I know you have a lot of witnesses so I wanted to go quickly, but I think, in terms of language it's not lengthy there's some obvious, obviously some important policy concepts there but in terms of language it's not particularly complex. That's about it. Thank you I do see. I have a question ahead. Eric, so are we just we just looking at under childhood physical abuse, aggravated assault. Pardon me. I'm just looking at aggravated assault. Yes, that's exactly right. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. I'm hearing some feedback. I was better now. Okay, great. Thank you. Any committee members any other questions for Eric because it is is important for us to understand the language. So make sure especially for the new members who were not here when we did the other statute of limitations but it's important to understand the language. Okay. So not seeing any any hands. We'll move to our witnesses and I'd like to invite Mark Wemberg. Welcome and thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, chair grad. Yes, my name is Mark Wemberg. And I want to begin by thanking you all for both considering this legislation. Thank you. Before turning to their testimonies. I want to briefly share some information about the inquiry. The St. Joseph's rest orphanage restorative inquiry was launched in 2019. As an initiative of the Burlington community justice center. The inquiry is guided by an advisory team comprised of community stakeholders and restorative inquiry participants. And the initiative has received continuous support from the Vermont community. And I am the facilitator of the restorative inquiry. The restorative inquiry's mission is to listen to understand and document the events of the orphanage through the voices, experiences and stories of those most impacted. The former children. And then facilitate inclusive processes of accountability, amends making learning and change. The inquiry is guided by a set of restorative principles and values that inform all of our work, including our primary obligation, which is to facilitate to the best of our abilities, the individual and collective goals of the former residents of the orphanage. Changing the statute of limitations on physical and emotional abuse is one of the goals, the group's core goals. I would like to thank chair grad and the house judiciary. I would like to thank all of you along with the Vermont state senate and many others for opening your hearts to the harm suffered by the former children of st. Joseph's orphanage. Acknowledging our collective responsibility as a community and state. And responding with this legislation as a first step in making amends. With your and others actions, you are demonstrating accountability and showing a restorative path forward. I would like to thank all of you for providing an example to other institutions that are still reluctant to fully engage with the participants and support their healing. Before closing, I wanted to let you know that the st. Joseph's orphanage writers group. Of whom a couple of members are here today to testify. Which is another project of the initiative. We'll be hosting a reading event for legislators on Monday, May 17th. At 1pm. And I will be sending out an invitation. We'll be hosting a reading event this coming week. So you should look for that. And then I also want to personally acknowledge what a privilege it is for me to work with the participants of the restorative inquiry. Who are a constant source of admiration and inspiration. I will now turn it over to Brenda, Hannah and Gene Clark and Michael Ryan, the spokespeople for the voices and st. Joseph's orphanage. Thank you again. And Brenda. My name is Brenda. And I was at st. Joseph's orphanage from 1959. To August of 1968. So that's the perspective I come to you. Sorry, we, we can't hear you.  Listen to us and support our goal. And I will now turn it over to you. Thank you. Thank you. Of changing the statue of limitations for physical abuse suffered at institutions. This bill will be so much to all of us. And will help in our healing process. To know this statue can no longer be used to hide abuse. Of any kind. By the passage of this bill. We leave behind a legacy. To protect children from abuse. To protect children from abuse. I'm sure we can all agree to the fact. It should be far more important to protect children from abuse. Then it is to protect those who abused them. The adverse childhood experiences that children go through last a lifetime. We, the voices of st. Joseph's are living testimony as to the damage. Excuse me. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We can't hear you. We can't hear you. And a. Children. I'm sorry to interrupt you. I am. We haven't been able to, to hear you and. So would you mind going back a little bit? I do want to make sure we, we hear your testimony. Madam chair. Madam chair. I wonder if she shuts, maybe shuts her video off. Sometimes that helps with the audio. I'm sorry to interrupt you. Sure. I can do that. Thank you. Can you hear me now? Yes. Yes. And I'm, I'm so sorry about this. So I really want to make sure you want me to start chair grad. Actually, well, if you don't mind starting from the beginning, because we did, because it did. We lost you a little bit after you. I think you said you're the years that you were there. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry about that. That the volume went out. So if it's, if that's okay with you. Sorry. I'm sorry to make you redo it. No, it's no problem. I will do whatever needs to be done to get this bill passed. Thank you. The voices of St. Joseph's or financial appreciates you giving your time to listen to us. And support our goal of changing the statute of limitations for our institutions. This bill will mean so much to all of us. And will help in our healing process to know this statute can no longer be used. To hide abuse of any kind. By the passing of this bill, we leave behind a legacy to know all our abuse and suffering will have accomplished some good. should be far more important to protect children from abuse than it is to protect those who abuse them. The adverse childhood experiences that children go through last a lifetime. We the voices of St. Joseph's are living testimony to the damage that ACEs does to the young developing mind. It has affected most of our lives in many negative ways.  We were innocent children. Because of circumstances beyond our control born from unwed mothers, divorced parents, financial family hardships, alcohol abuse of parents we were considered evil and worthless and no one wanted or cared about us. That was reinforced to us daily along with sadistic forms of torture and abuse sexually, physically and emotionally. Even those children who were lucky enough to have a parent who paid for them to be there and had visits from those parents did not escape this abuse. They along with the rest of us were put in closets sometimes for days closed in trunks in the attic made to kneel for hours and then abused further by hitting, punching and kicking us across the floor if we soiled ourselves. The children were conditioned not to tell what was done. Take your time. If a child did not, did say something it was ignored not believed or they were told only in the minds of a child you will be hard pressed to find evidence of physical abuse because records of events were very lax. We also were not taking to medical care or medical care so no documents exist of physical trauma that was endured. The UVM Medical Center has some scant records on some of us but only back to 1964. In my medical record there is a statement for treatment but no record of what it is for. I am guessing it was for treatment around 1962 or 1963 on my visit to the Dickosbury and ER.     I know he did not believe those injuries came from me hurting myself but he did not contradict the nun. I was not allowed to say anything. This is only one minuscule example of what occurred to the children there. Multiply that by hundreds of children over 800 years. When you schedule a meeting with our group you will hear individual, physical and emotional traumas done to them. Frankly, it takes courage to confront the terrors of the past. In casting light on deeply buried trauma a victim must once again relive the horror of it all over again. More disturbing is having such testimony dismissed time and again. Those abusers and those who let that occur should be held accountable. We know those abusers are no longer alive but the institutions are still here. Again, thank you for listening to us and believing in us. Hearing and seeing us makes us feel we are worthy and we have value and are making a contribution to so many children today and in the future. Thank you very much. Okay, so I guess I go next, right, Mark? What did you know? All right, welcome everyone this afternoon. My name is Gene Clark. I was in St. Joseph's Orphanage from 1964 to 1965. Those of us that come before you today will have our own approach as to how and what we want to present to you on this day. I've decided to approach the subject of S99 bill from a more personal perspective, which is all the years of therapy some of us have gone through as a result of our time in St. Joseph's Orphanage. Most of us mostly on our own dime. The entities involved in the operation of the Orphanage had a chance to do the right thing back in the 1990s but decided to call all of us liars and swept it all under the rug leaving us damaged and desperate for help. The fact that the entities were protected by the statute of limitations for so many years prevented us from seeking that help. The passage of the S99 bill will hopefully open some doors for us. If the S99 passes, it will be our legacy to the abused children in our state. Maybe just maybe the rest of the country will follow our lead. If so, never again will the abusers of innocent children be able to hide behind the statute of limitations. This will be our legacy. Here's an example of the physical abuse that they got away with for over 50 years. My therapist knew I was a singer songwriter so she said that I might find it therapeutic to write my stories in a song form. This happened to me every Friday night. I couldn't leave the cafeteria until I ate all the blood sausage or it was bedtime, whichever came first. I'd be there for three or four hours. I would repeat this line. I don't wanna do this. I don't wanna do this. I would have repeat this line hundreds if not thousands of times every Friday night driving it deep into my subconscious mind. This is to this very day, I live in a constant state of dread. This is one of my songs of abuse. It's called, I don't wanna do this. It happened a long time ago but it still bothers him so. It happened every Friday night and the food was a frightening sight. I don't wanna do this. I don't wanna do this. He cried, oh, so many times. For surely, surely this must be a crime. Please, please don't make me do this. Blood sausage is what they called it. The very smell of it would make him sick. It was dark red and full of blood. Clean off your plate, she said. You don't need taste buds. I don't wanna do this. I don't wanna do this. He cried, oh, so many times. When he couldn't eat it, he got a paddle to the head. He faced Friday nights with so much dread. He choked it down and it came right back up.  I don't wanna do this. I don't wanna do this. He cried, oh, so many times. For surely, surely this must be a crime. Please, please don't make me do this. Please, please don't make me do this. I'd like to close out my testimony today with a quote that I got from Governor Madeline Cunan over 25 years ago.  Bill S. 99 will be a huge stride toward justice for the last surviving generation of the children of St. Joseph's. I wanna thank you for your time and your attention to this matter and the speed in which you have worked on this bill is absolutely amazing. We have finally, yes, finally been heard. Thank you. Hello, and thank you for hearing my story. My name is Michael Ryan. I was in St. Joseph's orphanage for seven years. I remember when my brother, my sister, and I were turned over to their custody. I spent much of my time there in a constant state of fear. Punishments were very quick to be meted out for any reason, particularly for anything regarded as being willful or difficult, such as not finishing all the food on your plate, not learning prayers in a timely fashion, any disrespect or even not sleeping exactly in the position as told. I was struck repeatedly with a yard stick until it broke. I was made to hold my heavy book in each hand and raise my arms out to the sides and I could no longer hold them. And then I was beaten for dropping the books. I witnessed many other types of tortures and that is what they were, tortures. I am very happy that the Catholic diocese and those who operated the orphanage and are responsible for the criminal behavior that went on there will, but the passage of this bill now be held accountable. I would like to thank all of those whose dedication and perseverance have made the passing of this bill possible.  If you would care to hear more testimony, there are more survivors who are willing to testify. And I would now like to open it up to any questions you may have. Thank you for all your time and support. Thank you. And before we turn to any questions, I just wanna say I wanna thank you for bringing your stories to us. I'm so sorry for your courage. You are worthy. I believe your stories. And I do hope that we can bring you justice and healing. So thank you. Committee members, I've been up to you. Questions or comments? Tom and then Barbara. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I too wanna thank all our witnesses. I don't know if I'd have the same courage as what you folks have. But so I'm gonna ask a question and if it sounds a little disrespectful, it's not what I mean at all. It's more a curiosity, I guess.  I don't know when you first started speaking out about this because I have no experience in it. And you hear stories about people that have gone through traumatic experiences. And a lot of times it's quite a period of time in between from when it happened until people do speak out. And I don't know if it's courage. I don't know if it's recollection. And I guess I'm just kind of interested in your own stories. And again, for my own understanding have you been speaking out? Is it something that you lived with silently for a number of years in that type of thing? And whoever wants to jump in or not jump in, that's fine too. Sure, go ahead, Michael. And then Brenda, I also saw Brenda's hand. Oh, I'm sorry. No, no, no, fine, that's fine.   I just was brainwashed and did not speaking of it to an extent. And if we would happen to speak of it, we certainly wouldn't need to believe and that's what they would tell us or that we would go to hell or any number of situations. But to make a long story short, no, I remember it as clear today as when it was done, but no, I didn't speak of it for a long time. Thank you. Brenda, thank you, Brenda. Okay. Yeah, we were suppressed from trying to bring things forward. We had no backing behind us. We had no support behind us. It was very hard to get support against the Catholic institutions, to listen. I'm sorry, Brenda, you froze. It might be better for you to, if you, there you go, maybe to turn your screen off or. You want me, okay, can you hear me? Yeah, yeah. And again, I'm sorry, thank you. Okay, in the 1990s, I could not come forward. I wasn't ready. I went into extreme, I had extreme panic attacks. When a lot of this was coming out, I couldn't even open up my door to come out of my house. But with 2018 and all of this coming out, I finally felt strong enough to come forward. And this is where I started speaking. And this is where a lot of the memories started coming out. So I hope that answers your question, sir. Yes, yes, thank you, I appreciate it. Thank you, sure, go ahead. Okay, now for me, we tried to bring this back out in the 90s and there was hundreds of people who tried to bring this back out in the 90s. For me personally, I kind of kept quiet about it because of the embarrassing details of it, the sexual abuse that I was passed from a nun to a priest.  And when I tried to talk about it, I tried to talk to my mother about it once and she basically called me a liar. She said that priests and nuns would never do anything like that, that they were precious and cherished people, that they would never do anything.  And the nuns at the orphanage, they threatened you. If you went and told anybody, they threatened you.  And they've literally threatened you to take you away from your family. I mean, if you say anything, we can have you yanked away from your family, you'll have to stay here permanently. So there was a lot of threats involved as far as keeping our mouths shut and stuff. But I kept kind of quiet for a long time. I've seen the therapist for years and years. I've seen a hypnotherapist where she's brought me right back to some of these incidences. And it's hard to talk about to begin with because of the details of some of these abuses. But see, you kind of keep quiet about it. Then when all of this started coming out and stuff and then once the report of the state report that they had for the investigation of the orphanage, once that started coming out and then all the details of that were coming out, then I felt much more upfront. And I've actually recorded a video of, I've recorded three songs, not in lyrics, that I recorded a video of all the different incidences. So I was able to finally get all my information out. But it took a while because it's pretty embarrassing to talk about a nun going down on you and a priest doing some of the things. It's just the details were very embarrassing. So it was hard to come out with it. Thank you all very much. I gotta believe in some level that you folks are heroes to the people who went through the same things that you did but aren't in the same place as you are and able to speak of it. And again, I have to imagine that there's gonna be, they're gonna get a lot of satisfaction, not if, in my eyes, when this bill goes forward because you folks were courageous enough and brave enough to come here and share your stories with us. So thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Tom and our witnesses, Barbara. Thank you. So I am on the Burlington Parallel Justice Commission and got a chance to hear some of you back in, I don't remember what month that was, Mark, but it was a while ago. And for some folks, I believe it was one of the early times telling the story to a group and the pain, it has, I don't wanna say haunted me, that's not the right word, but it has stayed with me since then. And I've been excited that Senator Pierson has been able to deliver this bill to us, with others here. So I just wanna thank you because I know that not only have you, every time you go through telling this, it must not be easy. And this will make a huge difference when one of you said maybe it'll help nationally. I know one of the participants that day talked about this should never happen again in Vermont. And like a few weeks later, another organization that is a residential program for children closed because children were being abused. And again, I just think back at how powerful your advocacy and words have been. And having worked in social work for so many years and watching kids not get believed when they've been abused, it's so wrong. And I too, I'm sorry for that feeling that you must have gotten every time you told your story and got disbelieved. So thank you. And I'm hoping we can get this swiftly passed into a law. So thank you for putting yourselves out. Thank you Barbara, Kate. Yeah, thanks. I just wanna echo what others have said first, just thanking you for your incredible bravery and willingness to come forward in my life outside of the legislature. I work as a therapist and I specialize in trauma resolution. And I work with many, many people who are working through severe childhood trauma. And just to name something you probably already know but the work that you're doing right now extends beyond those who shared your experience. I think it really does an incredible service to all those experienced trauma as children and normalizing the fact that recovery is a very long, unique and winding road and normalizing our ability to return to and seek our own healing in whatever way we need and whatever time we need. And to me, I think that's one of the really powerful things about the legislation in front of us and about the stories you're willing to tell is that it opens up a pathway for people to seek their healing in the way that's right for them. Thanks. Thank you, Kate. Felicia. Might be for Eric, but it just popped into my mind listening to the witness's stories. Under this bill, would it be specifically institutions, individuals, or is it a little bit more broad than that? I didn't see if that was delineated out. No, it's not. So it can be brought against any defendant. The only delineation was the fact that if it's brought against and it's tuition on defendant, there's a higher standard of proof, but there's no limitation on who the defendant could be. Okay. All right. Would that include, and I know it's specifically to childhood physical abuse, and my assumption there is it would be by an adult, but does it need to be by an adult or would this also cover childhood physical abuse by somebody else who is also a minor at the time of the abuse? I think the way that it's based on anything that could happen to a minor, but that the age of the actor isn't specified. So. Okay, that's very helpful. Thank you. Sure. Yeah. Thank you Felicia. Good questions. Good clarifying questions. Anybody else before we go to our next witness? Again, thank you, everybody, and you're welcome to stay or leave if you need to, whatever is best for you. If you do stay, do welcome you to add further comments afterwards if you would like to. Okay. Kim Daugherty, I'm saying your name correctly. Leave us here. Yes. Yes, thank you very much, Chair Grady. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. Thank you to the entire committee and especially to the survivors today who have come forward so courageously to share their stories and know that what they went through is not gonna be forgotten and that there will be positive change that comes out of this. I understand that there's a very brief bit of time, only 15 minutes left. So I did provide written testimony that hopefully the committee has. Yeah, sorry. I'm sorry to interrupt you, but we can go later. So I don't need to feel rushed. Okay. Well, I'll keep it brief. There's written testimony that you all can take a look at. I am the co-founder of Justice Law Collaborative. I was a social worker prior to becoming a lawyer back over 20 years ago and worked within the Manhattan Family Court Systems and saw some terrible things that had happened throughout children's lives in that scenario and went on to become a lawyer and currently represents in the state of Vermont nearly 40 survivors of abuse that occurred at the residential group home that was referenced by Representative Rachelson. This bill is very encouraging to all of those survivors.  And to have it not be actionable is very set. So we appreciate and are encouraged by this bill. I would just like to highlight a few things before turning it over to Mr. Upton. There are some statistics that we have cited in our materials. This is not a thing of the past. Childhood physical abuse continues to be an issue in the United States with over 6 million children being affected annually. And Vermont is not spared by that. There were over 20,000 reports of abuse to the Vermont DCF in 2019. And it has actually been up on the rise since 2018. There are a lot of environmental issues and factors that will be considered the opioid crisis being one. And also now with COVID-19, all the children not being able to go to school or other places where they could be safe and being stuck within their homes or within other institutions. These are gonna be long lasting effects. And the problem with a statute of limitation which is a completely arbitrary technical rule is that it has no bearing over the severity or the impact that is had on people. And 33% of survivors never disclose that they were abused. The science supports that the average age of a survivor disclosing is 52 years old. So to have a statute of limitation in place of three years only serves to protect perpetrators of violence and those who turn a blind eye to it.  The survivors can tell you that and to be able to have some form of justice and a way to hold people accountable and institutions accountable will make it all for naught. So I thank you very much and I appreciate and encouraged by you and I thank very much the survivors who were brave enough to tell their stories today. You are making a difference in people's lives. So thank you for doing that. And I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Ray Upton to go next unless there are questions of me, I can wait for those to be at the end as well. So however, however chair grab would like to handle it. If we could go to Mr. Upton. If it, yeah, let's wait, please. Thank you. Okay, thank you very, very much to all the House representatives that are here today. And thank you for taking my testimony on Senate Bill 99. I was at Kern-Hatton for four years from the fall of 1961 to the summer of 1965. I was sent to Kern-Hatton because I was, I was sent to Kern-Hatton because I had what is now known as extreme dyslexia. That is a learning disability and a communications disability. Now much later in life, I also learned that part of my extreme dyslexia was also developmentally disabled. So I was also a developmentally disabled individual when I was at Kern-Hatton. By the second year, I was also at Kern-Hatton because I was from a broken home. I was 11 and two, I was there from 11 to 15 years old and I am now 71 years old. Today, there is no recourse for the physical assault and abuse that so many people suffered when they were children, when they were children like myself and unable to help themselves. Many people never, ever tell anyone about their abuse, ever. But some finally come to terms with it and they process it as I have been doing during just the last few months to find that there is nothing that they or myself can do about the physical abuse because of an arbitrary statue of limitations is extremely devastating and it only serves to traumatize the survivors like myself and to protect the abusers and the institutional enablers. But now because of Senate Bill 99, there is an opportunity to help those children like I was and to avoid perpetration in the future. The perpetrators and with perpetrators and institutions knowing there is an option for civil liability for harming children, they will treat children a lot better. Now, I've been aware for many years that Kern-Hatton has affected my life in bad ways. I've always just shrugged it off. I said to myself, well, I'm handling, I can handle it. And I just moved on with my life. And I focused on my work and I focused on my business. Up to this point, I have been doing just that. But as you may tell, I may be able to tell I haven't been doing as well as I thought for all these years. Now, maybe this pandemic has allowed others to address the horrors of their abuse, of their abusive childhood. And for those who have not come forward, maybe I can help in some way to be their voice right here and now today. When I was at Kern-Hatton around the spring of 1964, I clearly remember someone saying to me, if you stay here more than three years, it will have a dramatic and a very negative effect on your entire life.  And to this very day, I have had many, many flashbacks of that moment and that statement. I remember right where I was standing at Kern-Hatton when that was said to me, as I have grown older, I have learned more about life. I would say a lot of what I personally experienced while living at Kern-Hatton would be totally and completely unacceptable today, but also maybe it was even unacceptable to them. There was no rulebook. Kern-Hatton didn't have a guidebook. They just told me what to do. And they told me what not to do, but they did not tell me everything. I can only include here today in this testimony a small portion of the experiences that adversely affected me tremendously while I was at Kern-Hatton. The worst of it I cannot describe or express in this form in an attempt to heal myself. I have written a very, very detailed description of all the physical, psychological, and sexual abuse that I experienced and witnessed while I was at Kern-Hatton.  Put simply and in summary, throughout the four years that I was at Kern-Hatton, I personally experienced with other boys, men, and women the following, violently forced oral sex.  With my hands tied, very hard naked spankings that was all done for entertainment for adults that was not for discipline. Naked whippings well tied to trees, forced exhibition showers, forced naked gym wrestling, and other naked gym activities and invasive medical examinations. After some of the abuse, I was threatened with extreme beatings and even being sent to boy prison if I told anyone.  I also personally observed other boys being physically and emotionally abused. I was also continually told of naked physical abuse of other boys. There was also unjustified discipline when I was at Kernhattan. Boys had to stand in the corner, sit in the corner for hours. If they did even the littlest thing, sometimes would look at each other and say, why did they do that? That didn't make any sense. There were boys standing and sitting in the corners a lot with no food and no water for hours. Sometimes the same boy had to do it several hours for three or four days in a row. They also made boys stand with their hands stretch out, left and right with books in them. And then when the books became too heavy, the boys had to stand there again, even for more time, another half hour or so. The house parents would also keep changing the rules. So boys never knew what was right or what was wrong. They would tell boys one thing and then say, I never told you that. So now a boy had to sit and stand in the corner even more without even really understanding what he was doing that for. But later in life, I learned that that's what they do in prisons to control inmates. The guards intentionally changed the rules even daily. They say things like, I told you that even when they have not said that. So it turns out it's used as a control method in prisons. But Kern-Hatton was not a boys prison. The boys were orphans. They came from broken homes or just had learning disabilities like myself. When I was at Kern-Hatton, when I was at Kern-Hatton, for the time that I was at Kern-Hatton, most, if not all of us, were actually pretty good kids. We got along for the most part, the out of control discipline by some of the Kern-Hatton house parents. It just never made any sense to any of us. Now I could go on with more details of horrific abuse that I and others went through. But it's more than likely not appropriate in this setting right here today. My four years of abuse at Kern-Hatton has come rushing back into my life all over again. Like a tidal wave in just the last few months I was just doing some memory, nostalgia, looking, and I happened to go to the Kern-Hatton website. And I read on the Kern-Hatton website their Kern-Hatton statement. I did that around October. And after reading the statement, I went online. I put in Kern-Hatton child abuse. I read all kinds of stuff. I had no idea there was that much child abuse going on at Kern-Hatton. I have been reliving my abuse every waking and every sleeping moment right to this day. It just doesn't stop. It won't go away. It's like I'm being re-victimized all over again. Four years of abuse right in the last four months. When I go to bed at night, I'm going to sleep, I'm thinking about it. Three in the morning I wake up, I'm thinking about it. And then in the morning, I'm still thinking about it. I wish I had never gone to that Kern-Hatton website and seen that statement that they had about abuse. And then got on and looked at all the other stuff. All the survivors, we need a structure to be able to process the road to accountability. A process that will deter future child abusers and institutions that currently let them run free and wreak havoc on children's lives and on children's futures. In my mind, it is unconceivable that people like myself, so severely physically abused have no access to justice, but I am. I am very encouraged by Senate Bill 99 that will provide sexual and physical abuse survivors. The same rights. Authorative research has shown that most children never experience abuse and never even know the abuse is going on around them, but the remaining like myself can be subject to varying degrees of abuse from mild all the way to really extreme abuse. Of those of us that have been abused while we were children, many, many will never speak about it. I have the same reasons that the other gentleman talked about. It's embarrassing. You don't talk about it. There's all kinds of issues, whether it's family, friends or coworkers, you do not talk about this, especially for men. And then there were those who committed suicide because they couldn't cope with the trauma. It was inflicted on them. And yet others, they died because of an overdose as a result of self-medicating to deal with the pain of abuse. If it weren't for the current virus pandemic that we're all going through right now, my voice more than likely would never been heard. To escape my child abuse at current Manhattan, I became an extreme 24-7 workaholic. My whole life has been about running forward and never looking back at what was done to me when I was at current Manhattan. Through my entire life, many people have asked me, Ray, what are you running from? What are you running from? You work 15-hour days, seven days a week. You don't take vacations. What are you running from? So when I stumbled into that current Manhattan website statement, I was shocked and I was also heartbroken. I found out for the first time that current Manhattan had become like all the Catholic orphanages and the Catholic boarding schools. And always thought that I was the only one that had deep, dark secrets of physical and sexual abuse at current Manhattan. Paul, these years, I thought I was the only one that turns out that I'm only one, one of many, many others in the state of Vermont. So I testify here today as a voice for the past. There's a lot of us out there, but I also testify here today as a voice for the present right now today. There are kids living at home right now. There are kids in foster care right now. And there are kids in campuses all over Vermont right now. What happens to them when somebody says, sorry, the time has run out and for the future children? What happens to them when somebody says, sorry, the time has run out? After physical abuse, the time never runs out on the damage. The time never runs out on the pain. And the time never runs out on the suffering for an entire lifetime. So passing Bill 99 will allow survivors of physical abuse to take a negative experience and turn it into a positive for the future of children at current Manhattan and throughout Vermont. So I urge you, do not let the time, do not let the time run out with all my passion, please. And for all the kids, pass Senate Bill 99. Thank you so much for having me here today. I'll take any questions that you want, any and all. Thank you. Well, thank you. And certainly you are the voice of many survivors who have not been able to come forward or we haven't heard today, but are certainly working on this bill for them. And you're not alone. And you are making a difference in this process. And I hope that this bill will give some structure to the structure and the healing that you referred to. So thank you. Thank you so much, Barbara. So thank you very much for your testimony. I'm curious. I know back, well, I don't know, but in the times of the orphanage, I'm not sure that there was residential licensing but having run two residential programs in two different states, there are licensors that come out and there are licensing regulations. So current Hatton was licensed until recently, I just saw they gave up their license. And maybe there wasn't residential licensing, Ray, when you were there, but I keep thinking in addition to this bill, how do we get a handle on if this is happening?  But I'm a guest that I've got to say up until probably last year, current Hatton would show up at every legislative session with children singing in the opening and look how happy the children are. So it's really important to me and I realized that this is probably the jurisdiction of a couple of other committees, but I think it's important for us to look at how can we not only do what we can for justice in terms of the statute of limitations, but to make sure that children in custody and the state's care are not having these experiences. And I'm sorry as a legislator that we're failing to have those checks and balances in place. Great. Thank you. Yes, go ahead. Can I just say that thank you for what you've just said, that is so accurate what you've just said. I was one of the kids who went up to the legislature, we weren't singing, but we were playing in the band. I remember that. And there's one thing that one of the senators said at the time, which is funny, I've repeated for years throughout my life because it was so funny. But on the serious note, I have done a tremendous amount of research on this subject now. And until October, when I saw the current hat and statement that indicated clearly that there's child abuse and they're somehow trying to deal with it. Since that time, October, because of furlough, I'm one of the millions of people that's on furlough. I'm still in the live events industry. I couldn't work. So I've had the time to do a lot of research. And because I am a 24 seven workaholic, I have been reading and reading and reading on the subject. I've seen all those Senate hearings already, the joint hearing that you guys had. I've read all the documents that Kim Doherty wrote to you people. And I've done a lot of research on just the subject. And I have written an extensive document to address it. And so I'm looking at one of the biggest issues. Why did it happen? Because very often people talk about, well, this happened, this happened, this happened. But why did it happen? What was there taking place that allowed it to take place? I've addressed that in detail in a document. And then I've even addressed what needs to happen as a result. And so if I recall, in the joint session, I think it was a campion where Lyons said, I'm sorry, I don't know their first names and proper titles. But what they said was, well, let's look at lessons learned and let's review what existing legislation we have that can be modified. And let's look at the legislation that we need to potentially generate a new legislation so that it gives the agencies, because there's three agencies as I understand it that are involved here. With those three agencies, even they were saying, well, we weren't sure. And we didn't know if we could do this and we didn't know how to pass information between. There were calls coming in from the 800 number. There were parents calling the agencies directly. The state police picked up kids and they did reports but the agencies didn't do anything. And so there were issues that were taking place. So through the committees, they're digging to the bottom and I think it was Senator Lyons. I think that's the title, I'm not sure. But she said, we're just looking at the tip of the iceberg here. So as you drill down into it and you look at lessons learned, which is the best term to use here, lessons learned, what took place, what didn't take place, why didn't it take place? How can we have the agencies work together seamlessly, smoothly and respond to when parents call, when kids call and then you have the issue of the legislation which gives them the authority, first the guidelines, then the authority to be able to go down to any campus, not only current Manhattan, but any campus and say, we wanna know what's going on here and find out and be able to have the authority to interview all the kids, all the employees to see what's going on on those campuses. Then the authority to basically say, and this needs to happen now, to say, we're pulling all the kids out of here until we're satisfied. We're not gonna allow kids to be on this campus until you have implemented the systems that are required to guarantee the safety of these kids. So I have that all written in a document. Thank you. We did actually, I'm thinking that a bill that we just signed, the Office of Child Advocate might be another piece to help some of what you, what you have described. Tom. Thank you. Mr. Upton, I apologize if you said it, but why aren't places like current Manhattan monitored, I guess by the state, because you take a place like, the retreat down in Brattaburro is fairly heavily scrutinized or maybe scrutinized isn't the right word, but watched after by the state. So why, I mean, if you are the person to answer it, why isn't current Manhattan or similar places watched as closely? From what I understand from just listening to the hearings that I listened to and knowing what I know about Oregon and Salt Lake City, Nevada, where there are other residential therapeutic care programs, their legislatures are currently doing what you're doing here. They're taking, doing hearings, they're listening to witnesses and they're reviewing the issue of modifying and creating new legislation that gives them the authority to indeed be on those campuses. Those other states have serious problems with serious abuse going on. And right now Paris Hilton, you may have seen that, has put a lot of light on it with her attention on it and all other celebrities have jumped on it and they've been having these hearings. Vermont is the same thing. And I actually wrote that in this document. I said, what's happening here at current Manhattan is similar to the horror stories of these other three states. The legislation needs to be language in such a way that it gives the agency's clear direction. You will and shall supply individuals that will indeed be able to go on to those campuses at any time, day or night, unannounced and interview any and all employees and students there to determine, is there any issues? Where they also will have the ability to look at all the records and documents. And so they need that legislative direction and authority to do that. And from what I can gather from just watching the hearings and I've watched a bunch of the hearings with you all and a few others, it's clear that it's not there. And there was one attorney, and I'm gonna be, unfortunately I'm not gonna be accurate on the name part of the dyslexic issue, Simmons or Simon's, it's a woman, she's born and she's an attorney that I think works for one of the agencies. And she said, we've been trying to address this but unfortunately she said there's been an issue of back and forth trying to get the authority that we need here. And she says, it looks like now we have the light on this and we're gonna be able to work through it. So it looks like there are people, which is exciting, that are within the state, elected, appointed and within the agencies that do understand what needs to happen here. And if everybody just works together and listens. And again, I think that's what the great statement that I think it's Senator, if I'm wrong, please correct me Senator Lyons, is that right? I think what she said was good. She said, we're just looking at the tip of the iceberg on that original, remember the joint first hearing. And when she said the tip of the iceberg, what I'm hoping for is the drill down to say what's going on with our agencies. Why aren't they going on to these campuses? Why don't they have the authority to do that? They have to have the authority. We need to modify the legislation, create new legislation if required. It gives them the authority to do what we need to do. I think I'm hoping that answers the question too. Sure, I'm not sure, but I think Mr. Wendberg may have something to add on this. I don't need to put you on the spot if I am. I know that's okay. I was just putting some things in the chat that- And Mark, before you continue, have you testified before our committee before for anything? I haven't, no. Okay. To my knowledge anyways, which isn't, my recollection isn't always like that, but I don't think, I think I would remember this, but thank you. Right. Yeah, I was just saying that the group has been working with some leadership from the Department of Children and Families, initially sharing some of the testimony that you heard today, sharing their stories with the leadership. And then they've begun a dialogue around how, what they experienced when they were children, they can, they want to work that this never happens again to any present or future child who's in state care. And how can what they experienced be applied to how the department currently supervises and cares for children who are not in their homes. And so the group has had a series of meetings and is continuing to meet with them again. They'll have another meeting next month. And so that's part of their overarching goals as they've laid them out, which is that no child ever experienced what they experienced ever again. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you very much. And just this discussion today is also helpful and also will help us bring these issues to our colleagues. I will get to you, Mr. Rutten in a second. Thank you for the post, the link to hopes and aspirations for children. Our committee assistant, Evan O'Connor, will put that on our committee page because after we leave Zoom, the chat goes away and it's not part of the public domain, as you might say. So I wanna make sure that we do have that so that we and others can look to that. So thank you. Mr. Rutten, go ahead. What Mark was just referring to kind of is something I also addressed in the document that I've written as to next steps, what should take place. There's a whole issue around this country and even Europe about junior boarding schools. It's known that these places are havens for abuse between the kids and adults and kids. And so in Europe, they're closing a lot of them. In the here in the United States, as you mentioned, there's one that just got closed in Vermont and there's others that are closing out of the places. However, there's still a need for junior boarding schools for specialty issues, learning disabilities, other issues. And so there's another component that needs to be applied here and that could easily be a legislative thing. And what I wrote is there needs to be a third party child advocate organization that is certified. That entity must be on campus 24 seven. And that entity has direct access to the agencies. So what would happen is you have a normal school that's got everything else that they have. Well, now they need to have this other entity because this is an ongoing problem that never stops. So if you have this other entity that's on campus that has 24 seven access to every single room on that campus, then if they see or become aware of anything and all you gotta do is ask the right questions, the right people, you can start picking up on things.  But then the agencies need to come down and pay a visit. But there needs to be that onsite not employed by the facility because if they're employed directly by the facility, it's not the watchdog that you need. So that's just something. Thank you. Coach. Hi, I'd like to thank, with all due respect, all of our witnesses and fellow Vermonters that testified today, bringing light to the inadequacies of our system because these are systemic problems as Ray has referred to. When we created what you hear termed as silos as far as one agency saying, this is my jurisdiction. Another one saying, this is my jurisdiction. And nobody actually having or taking responsibility for the kids directly. And that's our job. That's what we were sent to Mount Payer to do. And I thank you for sharing your experience because as a result of that, those of us that are committed to this work will be able to help find a way. Just within the last two days, we passed a bill for the child advocate. And that's an independent office. It has subpoena power. So it can do what you were saying, Ray. It can and will get to the bottom of the questions. It's sad that it's taken this long to get to that point. But I do thank you, Mike and Ray and Brenda and Jean and all of our witnesses today because we have to do this work. The kids are our future and if we don't take care of them, all is lost. So I do appreciate your experience, strength and hope and we'll build on that. So thank you very much. Thank you, coach. Okay, I know earlier, Martin, you had a question. I don't know if you still do. And then Selena has her hand up and then we do have one more witness. I'm good. Thank you. Selena. I can actually wait for the other witness. Okay. So Sarah Robinson from the network, are you available? Yes, good afternoon for the record, Sarah Robinson. I'm the deputy director at the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. And I just wanted to, first of all, add into the course of thanks for the witnesses that have come before. I've been honored to share spaces with the group from St. Joe's before. And I also just wanted to note what an extraordinary thing it is to witness this committee process and the time that you all have offered to the witnesses that have come before. So thank you so much for that. And I think that they have said much more powerfully than anything I could say. So I'll just keep my remarks very brief and just say that the network is very supportive of S99.  And that those reforms have been immensely helpful to victims in extending these reforms to victims of child physical abuse. We'll make a major difference to individuals who experienced child abuse by individuals or institutions that were entrusted to their care. And I just wanna note two brief things. One is compared with the criminal process, civil actions such as those that are contemplated in the bill really have the potential to provide even more meaningful and material justice to victims often. And that while the criminal processes are designed to focus on individual culpability related to specific acts, civil actions can provide a mechanism for broader accountability and reform and prevention of future acts, which you've heard about today. And importantly, they also provide an opportunity to seek damages not only from individuals, but from institutions. And in doing so, this can really encourage institutional reforms to prevent the perpetration of child abuse in the future. So the S99 that you're looking at today will provide these options to victims of child abuse whose lives have been irrevocably altered by their experience of abuse. And it includes child victims of institutional violence as you've heard today, but also child victims of severe household domestic violence and other physical violence that may happen in a household or by an individual. And as you have heard from the witnesses, the current timeline that's set forth in the statute of limitations really has no relationship to the way that victims heal and make sense of their experiences. So it obviously can take years, decades to really navigate the complicated process of taking action to even understand what your options might be. And so lifting the limit will really expand these options for victims. And I just wanted to highlight one other issue that's not addressed in this bill, but that's come up in previous testimony and just to flag this as a potential area of work for the legislature in the future. And that is access to records. And in many of these cases, it has been very difficult for victims to access records related to abuse, related to medical appointments that they may have had and related to any kind of institutional records that allow them to make sense of their experience. And so while we're certainly not advocating any changes to the bill that you're looking at today, I would like to just flag that as an item for potential future consideration for the committee to look at what could be done to expand victims' ability to access records to help them really make sense of their experience. So with that, I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you, Sarah. And if you do have language in terms of victims access, when you send it along then it might be some other place that we could look at that. Okay, any, oops, sorry. Committee members, any questions? Not seeing, Selena, there you go. I don't have a question for Sarah, but just wanted to, first of all, apologize to anyone who might have briefly seen me moving through my house and any appearance that I wasn't listening to you. I've been listening quite intensely but the intersection of working and parenting from home meant that I had to retrieve something from my daughter. So really, my deepest apologies. If it appeared I wasn't listening, I've been listening quite intently and so moved by your courage and stories and just wanted to note, I was felt very honored to be with a group of St. Joseph's folks earlier that I think really led to the introduction of this bill and I'm so grateful and happy that it's gotten to this point in the process where we have it in front of us and I'm so just inspired by your work. And I think just wanted to, I don't know if it's a question or a statement, but one of the things, I just, it seems to, I don't know what your experience has been but it seems like the voices of St. Joseph's work and the restorative work that's been able to happen around that. I mean, as we've already heard in this committee, this bill is just one small piece of the thoughtful system changes. You all are bringing forward to try to make things better for others and the work that I know there's also been just some really important work for your own healing that's happened there with writing and all kinds of things. And I guess it's my hope that Manhattan survivors could have access to a similar process and really that lots more survivors could have access to that restorative, that deep and important and thoughtful restorative work that's really centered on what you need to heal. And I don't know if anyone wants to reflect on that or not, that's totally fine but it's my hope that as legislators we can find the resources to support more of that kind of work for more survivors. All right, well, thank you, Selena, thank you. Thank you so much. I think that's excellent closing and summary of what's ahead of us. But I do see Mr. Atten's hand.  There is a project underway for a survivor's support group for Manhattan. And when we were testifying for the Senate subcommittee if that's the proper term, Senator, oh dear. And I'm gonna, the head of the committee, I'm sorry, you guys probably know the gentleman's name but they were talking about funding that. And so Kim is working on the right person to head that and then it's a survivors group that would also have Zoom meetings like this. It is important, just writing all the stuff that I've written has really helped me a lot although I was amazed at how emotional I got during this. I had no intentions or thought that I would get this emotional, but it's amazing. But it still has helped me to do a lot of writing but to have a support group, that's part of a Facebook group and then also a weekly, every other week kind of thing with a Zoom meeting like this with all the survivors of current Manhattan. It would be amazing to combine that with the St. Joseph's people. I actually got three that I got so emotional was just listening to them, just listening to the St. Joseph's people.  And I think that's what triggered me to get so emotional because of what those kids went through. I just couldn't believe it. And I couldn't believe what I heard on the other, there was nine of them on the other one that I got to listen to. Nine of the St. Joseph's survivors were on that other one. I was just horrified at the sum of the stuff that they told and I could see it being real because of what I know and what I experienced. I would sit here in tears just today listening to their stories. That's what really triggered me. I would have been able to get through this a lot easier had I not heard that story guys. But anyway, so yes, there is an effort moving forward to have a survivor's group session for the current Manhattan people if that's what you were referring to. And Kim Daugherty is reading that up to my knowledge. She said she was. And I've talked with her about it actually as well. That is really great to hear. And if there's anything we are, I can do to support that effort. And I'm sure we will. Yes, thank you all very much. That would be excellent if the house could also support Senator Sears' efforts with the appropriation committee. When that either goes to vote or is suggested we would appreciate any support the house reps can also provide. Really, that's what we need here is an opportunity and space for them to heal. And it seems from our observations of how it's worked out for St. Joseph's that it has provided that for them. And that's really an important piece of this process. So we appreciate anything that you all are able to do to further those efforts. Thank you. Absolutely. Tom. Yeah, my last question and maybe for Kimberly and it may have been said earlier, what's the estimated number of survivors we're talking about say just between the two facilities? Well, I can speak to the people we represent. We're up to about 38 now that range in age from 81 years old to 11 years old and span every single decade. And I know there's another group of about 12 others at least from current patterns. So we're talking about at least 15 that have come forward formally. And I know that there are a lot of others who informally participate as Ray had said in some Facebook efforts but have not formally come forward. So in St. Joseph's orphanage, I'm sure someone else could probably better answer that question. Right, but potentially, I mean, we're talking hundreds if not thousands of people potentially through the decades. Yeah, unfortunately, it's been going on for 80 years that we're aware of. Right, right. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, and yeah, you're very welcome. And I'm happy to provide and I will get it over to Evan, the analysis that we did of the DCF records and the Agency of Education records. There is an investigation currently going on by the Agency of Education and the report should be due out at the end of the month. So that will probably provide further information regarding what has transpired, at least over the past six or so years that investigation is underway. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. I'm not, that's seeing in the other committee's hands. I wanna again thank all of them, our witnesses, our survivors. Those of you who are working to support them for being here today. I've heard from you to please move this quickly. Sometimes we're told that we move too quickly and there's always that balance, but your stories have been incredibly helpful. Certainly have painted the, for me, very, very compelling story. And so I do hope that we can move this, move this soon. And seeing no other hands, thank you.


This paper proposes a novel deep learning algorithm for automatic modulation classification, AMC. The algorithm is based on residual learning and a squeeze and excite network, which are both inspired by the success of deep learning in other fields. The algorithm is able to achieve high accuracy while having significantly fewer parameters than existing convolutional neural networks. This makes it more efficient and suitable for real-time applications. The proposed model was tested on two benchmark datasets and compared with existing methods. The results showed that the proposed model outperformed existing methods in terms of accuracy and had up to 72.5% fewer parameters. This article was authored by Malik Sohaib Nisar, Muhammad Sohail Ibrahim, Muhammad Usman, and others.


we don't respond to emergencies that's the state police or in our big towns middlebury, bristol, virgins it would be the locals we only come as backup if they call us do they ever call you no they never call to me this really beg the question why do we have a sheriff for courthouse security you've already heard half the time that's done by private contractors for prison or transport the department of corrections could do that you give them 150 million dollars a year it's a core part of the corrections for traffic patrol that is the majority of what sheriff's departments do but let's be honest in reality that's just fancy talk for setting speed traps and if we're really being honest it's this part of the job that fundamentally drives the disparities we see in policing where black and brown vermonters are pulled over at four times the rate of white vermonters they're searched at three times the rate the white vermonters who are pulled over are searched and that leads to black vermonters being incarcerated at a rate 11 times that of white vermonters that is one of the worst racial disparities in prisons in the country it's a shame on all of us we can do better than this we have to do better than this traffic safety the majority of what they do can be a function of the agency of transportation you can have you can accomplish that through a combination of unarmed civilian patrols speed cameras and safer road designs and if you think it's too dangerous for unarmed civilian traffic agents out there because of all the guns well you can do something about that too so I certainly don't want to discourage you for making incremental reforms like disqualifying sheriffs who've lost lost their certification due to misconduct on the job or clarifying that in fact a sheriff who embezzles half a million dollars but does it through payroll has in fact embezzled and broken the law or ensuring that a sheriff who violently kicks a handcuffed civilian in his custody can no longer perform that job those are all good things to do but I'm really here to encourage you to do something more fundamental bolder if you really want to make a difference a ball of sheriffs we don't need them anyhow I'm glad they take any questions Representative Hooper Mr. Sheldon, how do you just simply abolish it? It would require technically speaking legally speaking would require a constitutional amendment without a constitutional amendment you can you do have wide authority to define the roles and powers of the sheriff for example the high bailiff has no constitutional definition of what the role is it just says a constitution just says you have to elect the high bailiff every two years you've decided the legislature has decided that the high bailiff's duties and powers are to arrest the sheriff and be acting sheriff you could do the same right here right now without a constitutional amendment for the sheriff you could say the sheriff's only power and authority is to arrest the high bailiff we could go around arresting each other all day long you could you can set district boundaries you could decide that there is one sheriff for the entire state and you could give that sheriff whatever authority it is that you felt was actually necessary for a sheriff but you see the creep you have not the creep of scope you you haven't set limits on what sheriffs do and so you know while I appreciate sheriff marco he is definitely a good apple there is no need for us to be creating homeless shelters associated with sheriff's departments we can do that out of human services we should that's where it belongs representative morgan let's try to say I guess I'll just say it how convenient we disagree with you for instance the majority of the district I represent would not have would have very little to no police and we're not the sheriffs so I don't think we're in a position where in Vermont we want to severely dismiss sheriffs as an entity that's this representative's opinion but um concerning to me greatly I appreciate that and I will say that in my county we have 23 towns three of them have their own police forces that leaves 20 without many of them 14 contract with the sheriff but what is it that the sheriff provides them it's speed traps that's it when even in those 14 towns a contract with the sheriff when there was an actual law enforcement emergency the state police is the one dispatched and so what I what I put to you is that what we think sheriffs do and what sheriffs actually do there is a wide gulf I don't want to get a protracted debate with you but again disagree understand what you're saying but presidents also has some bearing they're understand what you're saying they do to some level speed trap sure but there's obviously a difference of opinion and that's fine but I'm welcoming your input there you have some valid points in my opinion but I think they do have and the old and you said it yourself it's you know the old 1090 rule of 10% can ruin the whole mix for the other 90% that do it right like the two gentlemen we had on earlier I think do their department's justice and do it right but my two cents thank you this won't be our last conversation about the structure of sheriffs and the amount of service and level of service and the different kinds of services they provide and the virtue of all of those things so we'll have opportunities to to dig into that I believe over the next few months represent Hango thank you I just want to speak for my rural communities that the nearest law enforcement without a sheriff is at a minimum 45 minutes away um and it could be much longer than that because not only do the Vermont State Police patrol for and serve Franklin County they also serve Grand Isle County so they could be at the other end of the islands and someone in Richford in one of my towns needs them desperately currently Richford does contract with the Sheriff's Office the Franklin County Sheriff's Office and depends on that contract to actually go on calls emergency calls and they do respond when they are on contract when it's contracted time without them we have nothing although we are very fortunate to have the Border Patrol who graciously come to graciously come to back them up when when they are available and we are very fortunate to have them I will say that you're very fortunate in your area to have municipal police departments that can help out in those types of situations but I recently heard from an EMT in my town of Richford and they are seriously concerned because they're being called to go to homes where violence is happening guns are being used and they have no police backup so without the Sheriff being there it's pretty tough for them to go in and actually help somebody who's having a medical emergency when there's also domestic violence happening so I while I appreciate your perspective I will say it's not a one size fits all for the state of Vermont so I appreciate the comments I want to make sure that while we have witnesses that we're that we'll have time for committee discussion I promise that we're asking them questions specific to their experience and why they're here today so Representative Chase and then I want to go over to our folks in Judiciary and we have just a couple more minutes before we all have to go to the caucus a whole on the budget adjustment are you envisioning allocating those resources among perhaps state police to address this concerns of distance in the rural area or I think that the conversation around policing and resources has frequently sort of stopped at the sort of defund stage and people kind of like scream about that and stop the conversation but you have to reallocate the resources we do have serious public safety issues that are that the current system is failing to address and so yes I absolutely would like to see the resources that are currently being misallocated and used in a way that is not working be used in more effective ways thank you Representative Lalonde anybody in the House Judiciary room have any questions for Mr. Silverman it does not look like it thank you very much well I think that rats it up for today we will be continuing for this testimony I'm hoping for tomorrow afternoon with State Auditor Doug Hoffer to learn a little bit about some of the information that he sent us there are a number of documents about some of the financial concerns he brought up and that we've touched on today but thank you very much Dave I really appreciate everyone who stayed this was a morning where we probably have more questions than answers and I really appreciate this committee and House Judiciary the respectful tone and the questions it's clear that there's an awful lot of work on these issues ahead of us for today we're going to break so thank you very much House Judiciary we're going to sign on thank you thank you so committee we will be back here if we can say that too I wanted to let you all know that I will be along with Chair Marca and Chair Durfee over an approach at 130 to talk about the rural infrastructure assistance grants I think I got the right name there amendment that the chairs will be offering for the budget adjustment and I'm gonna go upstairs and talk about that right now so we'll go off live thank you all


Welcome to All Hands Update. Here's what's happening around your Navy. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus named two fleet replenishment oilers at a ceremony held at the Boston Public Library. USNS Lucy Stone and USNS Sojourner Truth are named in honor of U.S. civil and human rights heroes. Both ships will be operated by military seal of command and provide underway replenishment of fuel and stores to U.S. Navy ships at sea. The October 31st deadline is approaching for the wear of the alternate combination cover. The combination covers available for purchase at all Navy exchange uniforms stores and online. Sailors and Marines from 11 nations gather in Panama City, Panama to kick off UNITOS 2016. The 10-day exercise is hosted by the Panamanian Navy and will include operations in the South Com area of operations. This is the 57th iteration of the exercise, focusing on promoting tactical cooperation amongst partners and building friendship through joint operations. You can read more about what's happening around your Navy at Navy.


Alrighty, just got back from Wonderland and I have some exciting news as you're seeing on the screen. There are markings that are appearing in a completely different area from the potential Harmony Hall that's going to be built on Vortex Hill. This is Whitewater Canyon, an action theater area and there are survey markings all over the place and we definitely didn't find them all. We could have spent all day looking because these things are hidden really well and in fact so well that we didn't notice them on day one, we found them on day two but here are markings they have even numbers on them which is a really good sign. Now we can't say for sure, obviously no one can ever say for sure that this could mean coaster or that these could be column numbers, they could be survey marking numbers like where a survey company has to come in but it is a really good potential sign that Canada's Wonderland is due for something exponentially large like a roller coaster sometime in 2023. So using the math that Cedar Fair usually does in terms of construction for a new roller coaster I would expect that seeing signs like this pop up could mean that we are getting a coaster in 2023 and to be honest that 100% makes sense to me because of what's gone on at Canada's Wonderland. If anyone remembers when the pandemic first hit Canada's Cedar Fair said that they were going to operate similar to how Canada's Wonderland did coming out of SARS and we know that Canada's Wonderland needed a roller coaster coming out of that pandemic to draw people back in and based off of what we're seeing on social media and the reservation system it hasn't necessarily gone as busy or as a rush of people coming back to the park as I would have expected. I do expect that to auto correct itself and maybe they don't necessarily need a roller coaster but Cedar Fair could be looking to put another wow bomb of a coaster at the park to draw people back in but as you can see there are survey markings literally littering Whitewater Canyon the action theater area and the path going up to flying canoes so definitely a lot of really good signs as it spans a large plot of land and a plot of land that a building wouldn't go so that's a key emphasis a building would not span that large of an area and would not take up an entire pathway as it is shown so super exciting news and one of the main things I think our this could end up being is a mocked up a launch or a wing coaster and I'm going to show you guys one of our creations made by Ryan Roller Coaster on YouTube go check him out he has crazy planet coaster creations of Canada's Wonderland but here it is a wing coaster for Canada's Wonderland thanks for watching the update have a good one bye