With respect, I believe that is not a proper interpretation of what the officials just said. The difference is that by including it in this section, it specifically mandates the choice: should the victim choose, they must be allowed to do it. It's discretionary at the present time for the board. I think there is a difference between the two, from what I heard from the official.
Second, the piece he's talking about is their statement, and what we're talking about is that we heard from the victims that they wish to observe the whole process. It makes it both mandatory and also broadens their ability to participate in that hearing. I believe that's what we heard.
I don't believe it contradicts in any way the intentions of Mr. Sweet and this bill. I think it adds an important element that we had from the testimony of witnesses.
I stand to be corrected, if I'm wrong in that.