SmartTranscript of House Judiciary - 2025-05-01 - 3:30 PM

[Chair Martin LaLonde]: Judiciary Committee this Thursday afternoon, May first. And we are privileged to have, justice Reibert here, this afternoon to weigh in on h one ninety three. And I believe this is the first time that you've been in front of us this biennium, and I I feel bad that it's taken us so long to get so welcome, judge justice. [Chief Justice Reiber]: I know you I know you're busy, and please don't you don't have to say that. That I it's a privilege for me to meet with you. I really have tremendous respect for you, mister chair, and also for the members of your committee. I know you all have a lot on your plate, and it's it's certainly a privilege for me to to have an opportunity to talk to you this afternoon. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Great. Excellent. And and I believe in particular, coach reached out to you and Yes. You've talked to him about the child and parent legal representation task force and certainly wanted to hear your your viewpoint of that. [Chief Justice Reiber]: Well, I you know, to the extent that that let me I wanna be careful about changing my words. I I certainly have had a very native interest in this subject matter for a long time. You know, I I when I came on the court over twenty years ago now, I never had a practice in family court. But after I got my feet wet, so to speak, and began to understand the complexity of the cases, the the difficulties that parties face in these matters. I got religion, so to speak, about this area. It's a these cases are very, very difficult. They are not easily resolved. And one of the things I wanted to say to you about why I think your bill going in this direction is the right step to take is is because frankly the, you know, the processes that we have in our in the law in our state, and I've never done a comparative study with other states, which is something I would very much like to do. But it's it's as I've said to other members of the legislature over the years, it's it's a very thick process. I I have a case I wanna cite to you, and I hope That was it. I hope you all have a chance to to look at it. And in this case involving two children, one mother and two fathers, There were five separate attorneys involved. Believe me, I'm not being critical of people having counsel to the contrary. But the the demands on the system, the system being defined as the courts, the lawyers, the guardian ad litem, the DCF workers, the judges, the staff, the demands to bring this case to a a a a head were enormously difficult. With very good lawyers and very good judges and very good other professionals involved, The case is called it's a two thousand sixteen decision. And by the way, we issued this decision per Curium. And as I've said in public conferences before when I've talked about this, you could count the number of per curiam decisions that our Vermont Supreme Court has issued since I've been there on one hand. It's it's very, very rare. And it it is distinctive. I I think there are probably many different points of view about why a court would issue a per curiam decision, and perhaps I shouldn't go into that myself, but it is a rarity. That that's my point. That it's a two thousand sixteen decision. The citation is two zero two Vermont four one five. The caption of the case is Enri, a s, and k s. Those are the initials of the of the children's name names. Tom Carlson, who is retired now, was the family court judge. Mike Rose, a a very good attorney, was the lawyer for the the children. But at a point, there were five different lawyers that were involved in this case. And one of the things I wanted to read to you from the decision and believe me, I am not a judge who in any measure believes in telling the court the the legislature this is what you should do. And I have argued against that in on many different occasions internally within the system. I don't think it's our place. We we construe the law, but it's not our place to say, here's the decision. You need to do something about it. Having said that, there is language in this decision that talks about the system and the difficulties in the system. And I wanna just read some of this to you if you would indulge me. It says in paragraph eleven of the decision, which you'll see when you when you look at it, it says, unfortunately, due to the dramatic increase in the juvenile docket and shortage of resources including judges, lawyers, guardian ad litem, and courtrooms, timely decisions are sacrificed for the required process that that we follow under the law. The process that was outlined in the law was not followed here. In fact, the it's a it's a case study in in how a a a family with two children did not see its interest brought to a timely resolution in in accord with the law. Now there's a decision out of the Supreme Court as well a while ago. I could give you this site, but it it essentially says that these statutory time limits are advisory, essentially. They're not jurisdictional. In other words, they're not time limits that if they're if we exceed them, if we go beyond them, we lose jurisdiction to decide the case. We we the court has said that it's not jurisdictional. It's it's advisory. Here in this instance, and this is the bottom line point that I wanna make, these two kids were taken out of their mother's care, and it was a year before the trial court was able to get to a marriage decision. A year. So you essentially had two children in some form of foster care with foster parents, I assume, not knowing where they were gonna wind up. You know, what their what their permanency is a big deal is I know all of you, I'm sure, are quite well aware, and it was a year. Now the the law would have had this case resolved sixty days of the removal of the children, I think I think is the is the you I might be wrong about these time limits under the current law, but but you get the point, I think. I'm sure. So anyway, I have, you know, and and going back through this, thinking about it when after coach called last night and today, and digging out this case, which I have such a vivid memory of, I began to ask myself, what what the heck have you been doing for now almost ten years since that decision issued? It's it's nine years. And but I will tell you, you know, when Jane Kitchell was in the senate and chair of appropriations, when Dick Sears was alive and chair of senate judiciary, The two of them, I I there's another vivid memory I have called me over to the to Dick's committee room at at the lunch hour one day, and this is before COVID, of course. And and and they said, you know, the the state and I think it was tobacco money was coming into the state. And I remember Jane saying, we wanna build a fence around, I forget how much it was, a million or two million dollars, and and undertake an evaluation of the child protection system and get it right and get it right. And out of that, Marshall Paul, who I know testified yesterday, would remember because it was Marshall, I believe, and Brian Grierson and Ken Schatz, who was commissioner of DCF back then, got together as a group to propose some reform. And there was reform that came out of that. And I think there was money that was if if if that was the dividing principle, and, of course, it's not. But it it you know, I think there was there were the the reform led to some positive developments. But the system continues to be in a position where it needs attention. And it's not for one of good people trying their hardest to, you know, bring a resolution to folks who've got these problems. There are many, many tremendous people who are giving their heart and soul to this work. But I, you know, I have to tell you one of the one of the major problems is resources. I do think that there may be some structural problems. One of the things, and I don't wanna put the cart before the horse, but one of the things I think we ought to be looking at is some sort of regionalization of the effort that is is made to address these cases in a more timely fashion. It's not only that attorneys are stretched thin and are obligated in multiple counties. That was one of the reasons for the delay in in this AS case. The law they had they had Tom Carlson had blocked out a three hour for a three hour hearing up in Franklin County in Saint Albans. And everybody showed up except one of the lawyers. And it turned out that the lawyer who didn't get it did he they they sat for I don't know what they did for three hours, but they didn't take any evidence. They didn't move the case forward. And it turned out that the lawyer who wasn't there couldn't be there because he was in or she was in a hearing in another county in another juvenile case that had gone over. That that that extended beyond what what they thought it would. This and, you know, the part of the problem is that that that there are other resources that are also stretched thin. And that that is something that I think we it merits a a a hard look to try to figure out how we can if and and if so, how we can better balance the resources that we do have against the demands that are there. And I think that that is that as I read the proposal, it seems to me that that is, you know, it's a very wide open objective. And I think that that is that that is a very fair perspective. And and and and it it I've thought for a long time it needs attention. So anyway, I'm I'm happy to and honored to have you think about me sharing it. I would certainly relish the opportunity. And, again, I do I do think it's it's something that would be very important for the people that stayed in particular for parents and children both. So I'd be happy to answer any questions. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Alright. Thank you very much, for that, chief Reiber. Questions? [Speaker 2 ]: Chief justice, we appreciate that offer. And, you know, as I've shared with a number of my fellow legislators, it clearly states your commitment to the children and families of the state of Vermont. And, you know, and I say that, you know, you know, with all candor and just we don't see that often in our lives. And so it it's just it's a special thing for Vermont. So Okay. Thank you. Your support. [Chief Justice Reiber]: Thank you very much. Thank you. I certainly appreciate that. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Any other questions or comments? Angela, come on. [Member Angela Arsenault]: Thank you so much, chief justice. I just wanted to say thanks for I I really appreciate your framing of of this inquiry or project, and and a little bit and, you know, having some additional backstory that this has been something that that you and and other folks in within the system that you described have been interested in for a number of years. And it it helps us, I think it helps me, given some of the testimony we heard yesterday, to really clarify that this is not about trying to find fault with one or another entity in the system. It's not that at all. That it's really I see this as a necessary inquiry, I think, is probably the the word I I would use, and, that could truly benefit, folks in our state who are are, as has been described, in some of the most difficult moments and days and what becomes years of their lives. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Yeah. [Member Angela Arsenault]: So I appreciate your willingness to to help help with that effort. [Chief Justice Reiber]: Could I I really appreciate your comments. Could I make one other comment in respect to that? You know, this issue of timeliness for children is is a is a big deal. And it's one of the things that I never when I said I got religion, this is an example of of how I got there. I remember, this is probably ten years ago, one of the really terrific GALs in Burlington, a a a gentleman who's who was an engineer before he retired, by [Chair Martin LaLonde]: the way, I forget. [Chief Justice Reiber]: Yes. Yeah. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: This day. Yeah. [Chief Justice Reiber]: Is he still there? [Member Angela Arsenault]: He is at Wake Robin. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: He's not at Guardian ad Litem still. No. [Chief Justice Reiber]: Oh, he's not? Well, a wonderful guy. And he he once told me a story. He said, you know, I've got a I've got a kid who I think was in middle school. He said and this was around February, I think, in the middle of the winter when he when he told me this story. He said, you know, all of his friends he's telling me, all of his friends are talking about where they're gonna go to camp this summer. Yes. But this this guy is in foster care, and he keeps asking me, well, can I go to camp? Can I can we schedule a camp? Well, they didn't know exactly where he was gonna be. They didn't know if he was gonna be back with his parents, didn't know if he was gonna be in a different foster with a different foster family. This is the sort of problem that children face. Now I'm not you know, I'm I'm a believer that kids are resilient. I think that's one of the things that has, you know, that those of us that read some of these cases, that's what we that's what we stick with because it it can be very tough stuff. But I do think that's true. At the same time, this is an example of why I think timeliness for kids and for parents for that matter because, you know, they're hanging on tinderhooks wondering the same thing trying to make plans. So this is a this is an important important aspect of it. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Anything else? Thank you very much, chief Reiver. Really appreciate it. We'll try to get you an earlier next day next year. [Chief Justice Reiber]: No. No. I appreciate you a lot. You know, I'm sort of have a relaxed schedule this week, and I'm grateful you took me on Zoom. I was worried I was gonna get dropped off. I have connectivity problems, but it looks like it's it's it's held together. So that's good. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Well, we can run you through our extradition bill and and our miscellaneous bill. It's only after thirty seven pages. If you if you need a little extra work, we're happy. No. No. No. [Chief Justice Reiber]: That's alright. I I I would say Enjoy the time with you. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Alright. Thank thank you very much. Thanks [Chief Justice Reiber]: a lot. Thank you. Thank you. So long. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Thanks, John. Justin. Iver. No. I I I said a little. Evidence audience. Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, I see. He's Yeah. He's out there. He was there too. Come on because there was the potential for technological difficulties. So I was gonna be the liaison for real time issues about what we're doing. Alright. I appreciate all you do, judge Zoni. Thank you very much. Have a great day. Take care. I don't think we this I think people have version one point two, and I'm I'm I'm gonna get you version one point three, which I can tell you what those changes are. We're gonna have the chief justice of the Blue Mountains Supreme Court or designee be the care. And we are adding relief from abuse petitions, substantiation of abuse or neglect to page three line one and striking the task force not meeting more than six times. I'm only telling you that, you know, I we can wait till we have that in front of us to just do a straw poll of whether we should include this on the in the miscellaneous step. So I don't know if I need a straw poll. Does anybody object to me I don't object to it. Into the miscellaneous. I do not see anybody objecting. So it's version one point three, Eric, when you get to it. Yes. So Yep. [Eric Fitzpatrick]: And flag it. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Okay. So why don't we have you here and Yeah. At the table to go over the so this is scheduled for a vote tomorrow afternoon, and I think we are on target. And and, actually, because this is going to money committees, this is the good news is that I am told that I really need to get it out for calendar math, which means that we're getting close to being able to be out of here. Still, I mean, see yeah. Right. Still end of May end of May does seem long. We're in the month we hope to get down the time. But nevertheless, I'm I'm told that they really kinda wanna have this fully note either tomorrow or Tuesday if at all possible. And I think we should be there. But but my question for folks is do we do we want Eric to walk through the whole thing again so we know or are we tired of hearing about it, and we should just hear about the amendments? It's the Okay. [Eric Fitzpatrick]: Well, I [Chair Martin LaLonde]: just wanna [Eric Fitzpatrick]: I I I hear you. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Come in. But Yeah. Well, no. That's fine. I I I'm fine with just the amendments too, but I wanna make sure one to ten. So So just just the amendments then. Thank you, Eric. After Eric. Good afternoon, everybody. Good afternoon, Eric. [Eric Fitzpatrick]: Eric, it's Patrick with the Office of Legislative Council. Here, as the chair mentioned, to walk through the latest version of the miss annual judiciary of miscellaneous bill, which is s one zero nine. You should have draft six point one. Does that everybody have that? Yes. Yes. Great. Before you go any further, [Chair Martin LaLonde]: we're getting up there in numbers, six point one. Yes. Put on but then you can recollect in your number of years in the building, what is the highest number you've seen on the draft? One of my own? Your own or any or both? [Eric Fitzpatrick]: My own, I'd say it's, like, the mid teens. But I think others have had more than me. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Yeah. So [Eric Fitzpatrick]: We should look into that. Like, what's the record? Like, that's a good point. I don't know. Pool hall. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Put it put it with your notes on sunsets. And then every year, you could [Eric Fitzpatrick]: Right. So I'll ask our our staff meeting on Monday. I know it's gonna be called. The highest number is anyone can be called. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Oh, and that we had in the double digits in in our time here. [Eric Fitzpatrick]: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, cannabis. Probably. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: It could have been it could have been cannabis or it could have been one of the players' bills. [Eric Fitzpatrick]: The one for myself that I remember, it's funny that you had chief justice on because it was a judicial restructuring bill Oh. Two thousand nine, which I think that's the one I'm remembering of the mid teens. That was a couple hundred page bill that that was restructuring the judicial branch in many different ways. It's back and forth with the court on many times. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: We have a short extradition bill that may challenge. Oh, really? There you go. [Eric Fitzpatrick]: Can you both if you hit the double digits well, that one's Michelle. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Right? Yeah. Yeah. [Eric Fitzpatrick]: But there really aren't that many changes to draft six point one. There's really only a few, and and they start on page thirty two, section thirty four, which is just a technical, technical fix. You may recall now, and I think it was representative alone who noticed this, which is that the cross reference was wrong. It was referring to this report that's due back from the court administrator and the association of county judges regarding the issue that the committee talked about, county courthouses, capital budgets, that sort of thing. And it just had referred to the wrong section number, section thirty three, not thirty four eight. That had been left over from the language at house corrections we're looking at. So that's all there is in that, that section. Over on page thirty three, you'll see there's a new section thirty six of repeal. This is the sunset to do with remember the the, this is depreciating section thirty five, which had to do with reducing the number of, or at least reducing the the, minimum number. Of hours of community service that have to be performed in connection with a second DUI. So it can be more than eighty. Under current law, I should say it's two hundred. So you have a minimum of two hundred. Can be more, but two hundred is the minimum. And, again, that could it's an either or can be that or it could be sixty consecutive hours of imprisonment. So the proposal was to reduce that two hundred hour minimum to eighty. But the additional section thirty six on page thirty three is that that sunsets in three years. So and if you if you so the way sunset works is if you do nothing before July first twenty twenty eight, it goes away. It goes back to the two hundred. I guess [Chair Martin LaLonde]: that's a quick question, Eric. Is this would be effective on, I've I've lost your words. Effective on Fax. Yes. Yep. Exactly. [Eric Fitzpatrick]: Thank you. EFat. Yep. Quick question just Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead, Sarah. [Member Angela Arsenault]: Asking question, I think. So if we don't if we want it in twenty twenty, whatever, before twenty eight, we'd have to repeal the repeal? [Eric Fitzpatrick]: In other words, if you want the eighty hours to remain. Yes. Exactly. Another option which sometime, you know, sometimes people extend the sunset. Like, well, we don't really know for sure. Yeah. We wanna have a couple more years of data or whatever. You can always do that too then. You've done that? Yep. Many times. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: And do we have a member of legislative council, as you may know, that keeps an eye on the sunsets? One heck of a job. As as far as we know. As far as we know? Alright. I think I could be comfort comfortable with that. Okay. [Eric Fitzpatrick]: Okay. Any more questions out in the sunset? Alright. So now we're moving on to the sentencing reconsideration working group. You'll see that section thirty seven. The membership in the group is expanded in this draft by two people. That's at the bottom of page thirty three. Executive director of the network against domestic and sexual violence or designate as well as the executive director of racial equity. Those are two new members of the working groups. Additionally, over on page thirty four, there's a consultation element that's added. So we have this in some of the other working groups in the Pennsylvania's bill. So some designating some parties with whom the working group would consult. You have the drop, LWOP, New England. So as we've concluded, that is their proper name. LWOP. What's the acronym LWOP again? Life without parole. So it's the the full if you think of it, what is the name of the entity? DROP, life without parole, blah, New England. So they would be one of the consulted parties. So would the racial disparities in criminal and juvenile justice system advisory panel, ACO of Vermont. And, lastly, the one that was just added, today, actually, impacted survivors and families identified by the Center for Crime Victims. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: And let me flag that for folks. That was by request of Jennifer Coleman. Sent me an email, and then I talked to her at lunch, and she requested that. And it made sense to me. Hopefully, I imagine because we do like to watch out for both of them and survivors. So yeah. Okay. Yeah. Go ahead. Yeah. Sure. [Eric Fitzpatrick]: Line thirteen, you'll see I mentioned that yesterday. That's a judge zone a request. It's it's that Vermont doesn't have sentencing guidelines. More more appropriate to say sentencing practices. The line sixteen through nineteen is a consolidation of what had been two different subdivisions about the powers and duties of the working group. So putting together the fact that one of the things that the working group will consider is the resources and procedures of the judiciary, DOC, defender general, and sheriffs and states attorneys. So if somebody was employed, you can see struck there isn't actually removed from the bill. It's just folded into this, subdivision three. And the new language over on page thirty five, you'll see this had been some language that the committee had been, working back and forth a little bit yesterday. And this is a description of what, the committee is looking at in terms of this reconsideration processes were processed. So the and that language now reads the manner in which a Vermont sentence reconsideration process could operate and how that process could relate with other post conviction remedies currently. Please look at that in a general sense is what the task force would be doing. The assistance for the working group that had been in the previous draft from the Department of States, Attorneys, and Sheriffs is struck. So the idea that the working group themselves will work out how they how they wanna deal with the administrative assistance issue. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Any Oh, yeah. Question. [Member Angela Arsenault]: So I noticed that we call this task force the sentencing reconsideration I'm sorry. The working group the sentencing reconsideration working group, and that term sentencing reconsideration is used in the heading. And and, a, when we wanna just keep it consistent on line two, page thirty five and say, a Vermont sentencing reconsideration process. [Eric Fitzpatrick]: I defer to the chairman. That was his choice of language. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: And what what do you think? [Eric Fitzpatrick]: Yes. I think either way is correct. So if you wanna be consistent, we certainly can. I don't think it changes the subject of the Like like, [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Alright. Sentencing. Yeah. Since since we have to have one more version that adds h one ninety three anyway There you go. Let's let's change it to sentencing reconsideration. [Eric Fitzpatrick]: That's what it's in. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Oh, it [Eric Fitzpatrick]: says oh, sent it to. Okay. Mhmm. I was wrong. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Yep. Yep. That makes sense. Gotcha. [Eric Fitzpatrick]: Got that one. So section thirty eight, this is the family forensic evaluator recommendations that are gonna be made to the legislature from the chief superior judge the director of OPR, and the executive director of Vermont Psychological Association. Remember the chain of chairs that you're striking subsection eight in its entirety. I think the committee concluded that was that was sort of the issue that you wanted the the report to come back on, and you didn't wanna sort of preordain any conclusions. So that struck from here for now. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: So so that gets struck for the version that we're actually gonna vote on, I assume. Correct. We don't see that yet. It's been stuck. [Eric Fitzpatrick]: No. This is the I enjoy it while you see it now because it will be gone in the next twenty eight days. That [Chair Martin LaLonde]: is that [Eric Fitzpatrick]: is Yeah. The I I include the in, you know, the provisions that are gonna be struck because it's a change from the previous version, but then the next time, it'll be gone. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Right. That another change for for blah, but but Correct. It's very Exactly. But yeah. You got it. [Eric Fitzpatrick]: And then the rest is all highlighted only because this entire section was not in the bill last time. There's no changes to what we discussed last time as far as the substantive work of what this particular group is gonna be reporting by November first of twenty twenty five. Lastly, the effective date section, this is, I think I did discuss this. This is the idea that and this has to do with that report from the assistant judges and the court administrator about the county courthouses. Yep. That sorry. Not the report. It's actually the underlying substantive change in the law that requires them to add a number of different things every time they request changes to the courthouse budget. That is a delayed effective date. It doesn't go into effect until July first. Report comes back, July of this January of this coming year. So you have the report first, and then you're free to make any changes to the other piece before it goes into effect if you think it's advisable based on what the report says. And I think that's it. Yep. That is it. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Any questions on anything on this? So a request of you if this is at all possible, Eric. Can you get us a version that includes draft number one point three of h m ninety three and, you know, the version we would be voting on, is that still possible that we can get by the end of, I know, the end of today just so people will have it overnight if they wanna read it through either tonight or tomorrow morning so they're prepared to go for it. Yep. [Eric Fitzpatrick]: Yep. End of today being a little bit later. Yeah. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: It's helpful just in the morning or or this evening, they'll have a chance to read through it. Right. Just what's your hurry to push this through when Well, yeah. We're probably gonna have even more pro more more things. So I've been urged to pass it out by tomorrow or Tuesday because it's going to both ways and means and and to appropriations. And it's just the timing calendar map that we're trying to get this taken. [Eric Fitzpatrick]: Alright. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. So [Eric Fitzpatrick]: Yeah. I think I got a calendar invite from ways and means for next week already on this. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Oh, I guess they're I guess they're [Eric Fitzpatrick]: I think they're I think it was I think it was Thursday. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Yeah. Then will we get it back after the money clears? [Eric Fitzpatrick]: Yeah. If they do anything. Only if they [Chair Martin LaLonde]: do Yeah. Yeah. If they do anything, then we'll get it back. So, like, otherwise, they'll just concur. They'll have a straw poll vote on on it. Yeah. But if they have an amendment, we'll have to vote on the amendment and straw poll, which I'm not anticipating because it's really it should be a quick Don't say it. I wasn't gonna say that, the s word. [Speaker 2 ]: It should just be quick. [Eric Fitzpatrick]: No. Wasn't that? Okay. Alright. I think Ways and Means is only it's the it's the marriage license fee. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Right? It's just the yeah. But Right. And they've and I've presented that the first thing presented to Ways and Means at the beginning of this year. Oh. That's that's that's because there's a build up there. Right. Right. So hitting that. Alright. So yeah. If yeah. I'll let definitely let you go so you could do that just so we all know what we're voting on and have some time to to take a look. Do you want [Eric Fitzpatrick]: a is this gonna be, well, first of all, so the whole thing's gonna have to be proofed and edited. So that's gonna take a little while, but that certainly will be done by, say, before noon tomorrow, if that's what you're thinking. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Yeah. Yeah. I was thinking yeah. What The [Eric Fitzpatrick]: version so the version you look at, in other words, you could conceivably notice a typo here and there because it hasn't gone through the final editing process. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: The content won't change. [Eric Fitzpatrick]: Correct. Exactly. And do you want the highlighting gone in this next one that you look at, you're looking after tonight? Yeah. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: I think so because it's she'll look at every right now. Right. [Eric Fitzpatrick]: So don't highlight the new h one ninety three or how they could change from sentence to sensing? [Chair Martin LaLonde]: No. I think Oh, we're [Eric Fitzpatrick]: not very much talking now. Yeah. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: It's probably different with those things. [Eric Fitzpatrick]: So Okay. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Highlighted version. We were getting off of it. Yeah. Definitely. Alright. [Eric Fitzpatrick]: Sounds good. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Alright. Thank you. [Eric Fitzpatrick]: Yeah. Thanks, Eric. You bet. Take care all. See you soon. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: K. So I should probably double check with make sure on one eighty seven, just get an idea. I I what I was planning on doing is is the version that folks have seen today, three point two, and I'm gonna ask Michelle to send it to editing to vote on that one. [Eric Fitzpatrick]: You mean eighty seven? [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Did I say yeah. Right. S eighty seven. Yes. Thank you. And then s forty four has passed the senate, which so we'll try to line up for you. Anything else? Just real quick. One more last thing. We we wanna figure it. So I'm trying to figure out next week's calendar. And on Tuesday, I think we'll arrive on our notice calendar, h forty one, the Yep. Dead body use of a It's [Eric Fitzpatrick]: a bit hack. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Body. And also the confirmatory adoption. The they both have amendments to yeah. So we'll be on those calendar on Tuesday. I think on Tuesday afternoon, I will I will schedule a testimony so that we can turn that off real quick. Can you just walk me through very briefly, like, how how it works when it comes back? Yeah. So, generally, it comes back. It it's on notice calendar, and we the next day, they're expecting us to tell them what we think, or we can seek a delay, or we can I don't think it's not very often that it actually gets recommitted? It doesn't usually get recommitted unless there's some major Wow. Hardly ever that happens. Yeah. We just will see delay, but I'm gonna try to kinda get a a jump on that. And so I'm watching the calendar. Have you on the senate? I'm looking at the senate to see which things are kinda coming our way and also get an idea if we're gonna need to take some time. And and they did add something to the confirmatory adoption that we're gonna need to take some testimony on. I don't think the the other bill will need that much. The that audio of a person bill Oh, no. That's a good one. Yeah. I mean, yeah. So so we'll just probably need the legislative They forwarded it out five o. Yeah. I think it was voice mail. Yeah. Yeah. I think that's it. Alright. Thank you. Adjourn until so I one last thing to be not adjourned for you. I reached out again to to Rebecca Turner to offer her to I've asked her to let me know, by tomorrow morning, whether she does wanna come in back in and testify further on eighty seventh. So just I'll I'll text everybody if, if in fact she does wanna take us up on that. And so, therefore, we'll adjourn till further further notice. You were at one o'clock? [Member Angela Arsenault]: That would be in tomorrow. That would [Chair Martin LaLonde]: happen before. That would it'd be after the floor. No. We we do it after the floor because I think tomorrow's gonna be a short floor. Come on. I understand.

Play Clip Play Full Video Pause

SmartTranscript of House Judiciary - 2025-05-01 - 3:30 PM

This is useful for seeing what happened at the meeting without wading through the whole transcript: