 You're alive and welcome folks. I know we're running a little late. This is house corrections and institutions committee. We're picking up. Our discussion on S3, which is a bill that is in house judiciary committee. We're looking at section five and six, which the health care committee has been working on. They've also added a new section, section seven, which we'll get into that's dealing with the justice oversight committee. They are health care committee is looking at this draft right now with their legal counsel and we have representative coffee there on behalf of our committee to committee on these two sections. And we have representative Morrissey who's been working intimately with house judiciary on S3 as a whole as well. So we have representative Morrissey with us today. She's here helping us navigate through these section five and six with the rest of the bill. So we're getting all of our bases covered. I'm going to go over what I'm seeing is changes between the two we really need to have draft 3.1 in front of us as well as the current draft that they're working on upstairs draft 5.1. So quickly going. draft 3 is on our committee page for April 14 that somebody wants to quick reference to it. Yeah. And then this morning draft 5.1 was posted so you really need to have both versions up. Some of it is pretty easy in terms of seeing where the changes are in draft 5.1 what they have done is just highlighted the changes from their previous draft of 3.1. Okay, that's how. So you're not going to see in 3.1 you saw a lot of highlights in the front. So draft 5.1 where it's not highlighted incorporated the highlighted language from 3.1 and new highlights that changes that language. So that's the process of people on track with that or is there confusion. Okay. So draft 5.1 what they really added was when you're looking at the comparisons for the community services, you're looking not just you're looking at what's currently there but they wanted to be very clear currently available. But that's your baseline. That's currently available. That's what they added on the folks comparing mental health services for folks within our correctional facilities between facilities. They also want to incorporate our out of state contract that we have down in Mississippi. The previous language was saying for monitors in our out of state facilities and they changed that to Vermont residents. Don't think that would be a problem with how they're classified in DOC. They're under the custody of the commissioner corrections. I don't know if that would be an issue with DOC or not. On the next page, they have for the forensic working group they did. They took out if you're on draft 3.1 on the working group they took out the word expertise when you're talking about interested stakeholders being part of this working group. They said draft 3.1 said interested stakeholders to provide expertise and recommendations necessary to carry out the provisions within this particular section. They took out the word expertise so that it would read that the recommendations necessary to carry out the provisions and subsection B and C of this section. People have questions now's the time to ask them. Okay. And for the working group. Oops, I got a question Karen. Yeah, so I guess it's going back to the Vermont residents. I'm trying to understand what that because I was originally when we are going over it thinking it was just folks who were in Mississippi. Is this broadening it to like any Vermont. No, no, no, what they're referring to are the deal, the folks who are under DOC custody here in Vermont. That but for lack of beds. They would have been housed in Vermont. We have a contract with course civic to house our Vermont offenders in their Mississippi facility. So these are folks who are under the custody of the Commissioner of Corrections here in Vermont. I guess I just don't understand what the difference is from Vermonters to Vermont residents. Is there a big difference or just a word preference, you know, I don't know. That's, I mean, that's why I brought it up. I don't know. These are. Should we look to bring do see him. You can have people who have come to Vermont and committed a crime, but who aren't originally from here. So I don't know if they would consider that ineligible you know if somebody from Massachusetts come here and commits a crime they might have lived here for three years but it was all when they were incarcerated. So does that make them a Vermonter or a Vermont resident I'm actually not sure the answer to that question, but I do know people from other states who come here and commit crimes serve their time here. The question is, are under the custody of the Commissioner of Corrections. So that may be more the language that should be there that they are serving a sentence and they're under the custody of the Commissioner of Corrections, because that's how they get there. It doesn't matter where they come from. They've been sentenced. And they're under the custody of the Commissioner of Corrections. So Mary suggested to connect with do see. I think we should do that. I guess I would just be curious to know, because this this came from the health committee health care committee of what what prompted the change for them because I think if I was just reading it, I'd be like okay Vermont residents but knowing that it specifically changed I'm like okay what is the reasoning from their perspective. Are they trying to get at something. What's the terminology of the do see work. So that could be it to perfect. Yeah, I think that's the issue. Oh yeah I don't I don't know why they didn't just use say Vermont inmates but there are also are they're not Vermont inmates who are in other out of state facilities besides Mississippi. Can we have some high security people that are or other people that are in other prisons because they can't be in the same prison with a person who they killed or not killed but affected or something like that. Maximum security. Yes, they are we also participate in an interstate compact for interstate swaps of inmates. I think the goal upstairs was for the contract we have of course civic. Because that's where the bulk. I mean the others are dispersed you might have one inmate in one state you'd have another inmate in another state. You might have some federal folks who are Vermont residents, but they're under the federal jurisdiction so they're in a federal bed in another state. Yes, they may facility facilities, they make it plural. So, this is a question I would ask representative Lippert, when he comes in, and we might be able to work Smith this a little bit different. I think they're just not tuned in to doc's world. Okay. I mean, to be honest with you, Kurt I did think about that that we've got one inmate over here we got another inmate. I didn't pick up that that was the intent of health care committee the intent was our contract with the out of state facility. Yeah, I suspect so because they're just comparing mental health services are not comparing individual inmate so yeah, and I think you're right. I will ask that a representative Lippert when he comes down and then see what their intent is, and then we can always reach out to doc as well. Anything else there before we move on. I've done a lot of work on the forensic care working group, they did add the superior judge, which was one of was recommended to us as well. And they did add the Vermont Medical Society, which was also recommended. And on page three, number 14, line 10 through 12 they changed this one a little bit. Their previous draft had two individuals with lived experience of mental illness. So they added, they added three, they added one more so be three individuals with lived experience at least one of whom who has lived experience in the criminal justice system, or the civil commitment system or both. So they've defined that a little more in terms of what they meant by lived experience. Okay. So that's the changes to the working group. And then it sort of reconfigures their old be in some ways. And as the DMH would submit the report to the respective committees and then it addresses their concerns and the more defined ABC and D, and this is about as far as I've got tied up with other issues for this. So they've reconfigured it where a still deals with the gaps. So they included the gaps. So they took part of the one in that draft 3.1, where it says any gaps in the current mental health and criminal justice system structure and opportunities to improve public safety and address the treatment needs of individuals in the criminal justice stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity. So they've taken that's the sentence and reconfigured it in a would look at any gaps in the current system and opportunities to improve public safety and treatment needs. So they picked up that sentence and took this is new consider the importance of victims rights and the forensic care process, looking at. So that was added to looking at the gaps and any opportunities there. And then they carved out the competency restoration models that are used in other states to look at both models that do not rely on involuntary meds to restore competency that is new. And then how cases where competency is not restored how that is addressed. That was in that was also in draft 3.1 but drafted a little differently. And then, indeed, they're looking at models for other states, which an e looks at due process requirements. I wanted to make clear that for defendants held without adjudication of a crime and presumed innocent because you are presumed until you are convicted of a crime. We're presumed innocent. The language stays the same, and then G and H are brand new. So they've really reconfigured be one be one ABC and D they really reconfigured all of that. So that makes sense to folks can you follow that. So be one is now broken down into capital A, capital B, capital C, capital D, capital E, F and G and H. Okay. I added a G, which is models for forensic treatment, other than inpatient facilities including community based treatment. In any additional recommendations to address the gaps in the current mental health and criminal justice systems and opportunities to improve public safety and address the treatment needs for individuals who are incompetent to stand trial or adjudicated by reason of insanity. So they've really worked through be one. And then they've kept to similar to what was in their previous draft except online six. This is recommended there'd be a preliminary report. It would be submitted prior to this and then the department would submit a second preliminary report to justice oversight committee on July 1. Next year 2022 as to whether or not. So they included or not for a forensic treatment facility is needed in Vermont. The next one was to report whether a forensic treatment facility is needed in Vermont they included or not. So make your case one way, if you need it, make your case the other way if you don't need it. Okay. And the rest of the language on that page stays the same. C on a before February of 22. So this is next year. This is they put this their own section here. This was the amendment that occurred on the Senate floor about if someone's in not complying with their non-hospitalization order or alternative treatment is not adequate to meet the individual's needs. It's the section there. And they want the report to clarify the process. And then they also added a new D. So they kept the report on February 21 2022 the same. But they did add a new D. This new D. So I'm just tracking this. So the final report, which is in D. Would include evaluations for a forensic treatment facility pursuant to subdivision B2 of this section. So subdivision B2 is a preliminary report that would be submitted as my understanding. I don't think that tracks for the dates, including evaluations pursuant to subdivision B2 of this section. I don't think that tracks the B2. I don't think it tracks. Am I reading this wrong? Conducting the work required in this section, including evaluations of the forensic model. So it's the evaluations that's done in B2. Yeah, B2 has a report as a report to the joint. But no, B2 B2 has a report that's due on July 1st, 22. On whether or not a forensic treatment facility is needed, but they're having this report come in on February 22nd. Oh, that's what I'm picking up. I see. Okay. Yeah, you may be right. That may get picked up upstairs. Based on recommendations in the preliminary report, which is February 22nd is when the preliminary report is done. I think we got to look at the dates. We got to look at those dates. It's the preliminary. Yeah, the preliminary looks like the preliminary report is done on or before July 1st 22. I don't know. This is let's flag it. The working group needs to ensure for the forensic treatment facility models. I'm assuming it's for just the forensic treatment facility that social and racial equity issues are considered. What is the consistency with the general assembly's policy of working towards a mental health system that does not require coercion, or the use of involuntary meds. So these two sections were added. And then yeah, Karen, I have a question on that. Where is that policy? What is the policy that they're referencing the general some police policy. I don't know if it's for representative Lippert, but it may also be in state statute. Okay. I didn't know if it's online. Oh, should I be knowing this policy? Are there other policies I should know? No, no. That would be to ask Bill. Anything else. And then they're saying that these considerations will be reflected in the final report. Which is submitted B3. In the first 2023. And that the department would access regional and national expertise to present models to the working group for review, including any model recommended by members of the working group. And then they've made clear that members of the working group are entitled to. And then at the top of the last page, there is a dollar. There's a dollar amount of 25,000 that's appropriated to the department from the general fund to complete the work. There's they put in appropriations, which then means the bill goes up to appropriations. So we have some questions to ask representative Lippert. The last section seven is brand new. And this is a concern that I know the chair of health care committee has shared this with me. The justice oversight committee has been established quite a while ago to reflect the different arenas of issues within DOC. The justice oversight committee meets six times usually five, six times off session. And, and their scope has really expanded over time, where it used to be just focused in corrections and now it's also focused in juvenile justice juvenile criminal justice arenas. And so the makeup of the justice oversight committee, there's 10 members five from the house and five from the Senate. And a member from appropriations committees, a member from institutions committee, a member from human services committee, member from judiciary committee, and I believe a member. Who am I missing here. Health and welfare institutions, corrections and human services, but that's in a member at large. I'm thinking education committee that's wrong getting hung up member from a probes member from human services, member from institutions, and a member from judiciary. So you've got those four committees covered in a member at large. So you got five folks. What's the number at large butch. That's a yeah. So, there's concern I know from the chair of health care committee. Mental health used to be under the jurisdiction of human services committee, and a few years ago that got carved out and moved over to health care committee. And there is not a health care committee member. on justice oversight. So their proposal is to get rid of our at large member and put in a member of health care committee. And add an at large for the Senate, because they have health and welfare that takes care of both health care and mental health. So they've gotten rid of the at large member in the house but they kept the at large member in the Senate. So you're still at five and five. I'm suggesting that we keep the current makeup. And we continue keeping an at large member. And we add the health care person. So we have six members in the Senate has to at large. So it's a 12 member, instead of a 10 member. Our side has already been appointed. I'm not sure about the Senate side yet. Just follow me on that. So, the concern is that there isn't anyone representing mental health issues on justice oversight, because our health and welfare committee as it used to be called was changed to human services committee. And after a while, the mental health jurisdiction of human services committee got moved over to health care committee. So I was suggesting to representative Lippert, that we do 12 members, we add in health care committee on the house side, keep in one member at large. And then in the Senate, change them to two members at large because their health and welfare committee, which is equivalent to our human services committee also takes care of mental health. And that may be something we want to propose. That makes sense to folks. Maybe I don't know we have so many committees and so many people I'd have to think about it. Well, I can tell you that sometimes we have a hard time meeting getting a quorum. And quite often, it's harder to have senators meet than House members. And quite often, there may be only a couple senators or three. Sometimes you never get the full. And even on the house side, you'd even on the house side, sometimes you have a hard time getting enough members to meet. So I just put that out there. That's questions on anything. By making the committee larger, you make the quorum number larger to write so. Yeah, you'd need seven. Yeah, instead of six. But there may be more opportunities. Not to struggle so much. So questions on any other part of the draft. So at this point, I think we're in holding pattern. Would someone be willing to reach out to do see and find out about the terminology of Vermont residents. You know, takers on that. I don't see any takers. Whatever your name is. You can call me Carl. Carl. Carl. Can you suggest? Suggestion or who I ask about that. I hate to bother commissioner Baker. Would it be Monica. Monica. Monica, I think you all thought. Why don't you do Al Cormier. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. There you go. I want you to talk to Al. Connect with Al. I think that, you know, I don't want to consume commissioner Baker. If you can. I'm thinking. Should we assume that they wanted that what they're really interested what they're trying to say is Mississippi. Okay. I don't think they're aware. They're not aware of the nuances that we may do in exchange with the public. The public. I don't think there's any security here. So why don't we just. Take a break and. Is there anything else that's coming up to light here on this draft that people. Mary, do you see this in conflict at all with the rest of the bill. a lot of specific languages not to look at outside treatment like within our communities and all of that. And I guess I would have thought that was understood you were looking across the board at everything. So I don't even know why you need this specific language in there, but that's just my humble opinion. If a group is looking, they need to look at this on all angles, all sides of it in order to bring back a report that is that is balanced and understood that you've looked at all angles of it. So I'm not totally sure why they've got this very specific language very specifically for the person in question. And yes, we all want to protect everyone's rights. I get that. But why the special language is there? I'm not getting it. And this is kind of somewhat new from what was in the rest of the bill, but whatever. So, Mary, you're really looking at what they've put in for models for forensic treatment other than inpatient facilities. Right, well, I'm and then models that do not rely on involuntary meds. Is that right? I mean, I mean, technically, you would be looking at all of that, you know, on both sides of the issue, you know, facilities or or your community based initiatives within what what is available there. And I think that was the way it was understood, especially when it came from the Senate, that you would be looking at all aspects. So I don't know why you're technically looking to almost promote one over another. I would think you would keep it kind of balanced, but are be it for me. OK. And that may just be my opinion, but it is highlighted there very specifically. So I want to be clear in where you're referring to. Is that the one for that's highlighted G on page? OK, let me let me get back to the. OK. OK, so that would be OK. OK, models for other other than inpatient and models for forensic treatment. Other than inpatient facilities, including community based. So other than we kind of say, we're not going in the direct. You're already almost setting, or at least in my interpretation, they may not mean that, but it's almost like sounding like we don't want to even look at inpatient facilities. We're looking more to include other things. And again, as I said, originally what was thought in this this committee looking at the different pieces for if there was a need or wasn't a need for a facility that you would be addressing all of that. So I'm remembering Deputy Commissioner of Fox's testimony last Friday that they were concerned health care committee and he acknowledged this as well. The intent wasn't to start from a basis of we're doing a facility a forensic facility is looking at all the options out there and then deciding whether or not to do a facility and report that as well. Right. And that's what I just said. You know, you're looking at all of it. You're you're not by having the having this committee. You're not saying that there's going to be a facility. This is the the work of this committee that should be coming back to us with all the reasons why you shouldn't. And if there are reasons why you should. So to highlight one almost puts it out there like you'll be looking at one more than another. But obviously Deputy Commissioner Squirrel are I mean Fox when you know has gone along with the health care committee and they may have a reason and until we hear from Representative Lipper we're not going to know what their reasoning is. So we can sit here and kind of guess what they were thinking. But I guess we need to hear what they are technically thinking. OK, so we'll ask that of Bill when he comes comes down. Anything else, Scott. Yes, well along the lines of what Mary was just saying. Maybe the language ought to be. Reflect more the idea that forensic treatment might might be a system and it might include in patient facilities, right? It's just that it would be a different a different. A different model, a different model of treatment, right? So when Bill comes down, we can ask him this when it comes through. So Sarah just came in from upstairs. So what's happening upstairs? So it's funny to I came back downstairs to room 33. The committee, the Health Care Committee reviewed the draft language that that was shared with our committee. And I think the chair is prepared to come down at two thirty or whenever you'd like him to. I think they're wrapped up as if Phil can send. Hang on. That's John's phone. If if if Phil can send an invitation and just let him know whenever you want to, Madam Chair. And I think it's pretty. They made a couple of small changes that I think Representative Lippard would walk through with us. There are just some language changes and also with the last section of the bill, there were they accepted. We talked about a recommendation. I never said large. Yeah, I don't has our has our committee been talking about this concurrently. So everybody knows that that last section is the joint. It's not a new committee. It's the Joint Justice Oversight Committee. So they they thought that that was a they appreciated. They wanted to have a health care meant, you know, voiced at the table because of the importance of hearing about mental health sleeping or a member at large and care, and then the Senate would have to. OK, so are they doing another draft? I think they took they took a straw poll vote on this with knowing what a couple of the they were kind of like wordsmith type level changes and they'll they're going to come down to us. And I think they're going to recommend that and make those changes and make that amendment recommend the amendment to host you to share. OK, so what? Let's take a break until two thirty here. And Phil, if you could just send an email to Bill and say that we've sent him the invite already. So just say we're we're back at two thirty if he can meet with us at two thirty. OK, OK, Kurt, did you have your hand up? Yeah, can I squeeze in a quick question on S forty five? Yeah, I think it's a quick one. You know, we it has the crimes in it and they're all it just occurred to me that because of what happened with the good good time that we might anticipate a question from the floor as to whether anybody who committed murder would be available. Are people who committed murder or something like that? Is it possible that they would be on probation? It could be. I think isn't that the testimony we heard? It's probably pretty unlikely, but. Because that's not one of the crimes list. I mean, all the crimes are sexual abuse. And then there's it's not the big twelve and things like that are not in there. I would think if someone is charged with murder, they're going to be held on bail. That would be my assumption, but you know what assume means. So it depends what the court decides to do. I'm just thinking of how Karen's going to answer that question. Right. So maybe maybe also in your email with Al Cormier, you could ask him that and tell him he can respond to that later. A more prevalent one is how do you define for Mount resident? Should it be under the custody of the Commissioner of Corrections? Well, with that with that question, the second question, be better asked of Dale Crook. Yeah, that might be more appropriate for Dale. Yeah. Or maybe Karen should ask it. I don't know. Maybe somebody ask it. And so I would think that for Karen's purposes and for anyone's purposes, if somebody was facing that type of a crime, the state attorney is there to bring their motion. So that would be if the state attorney has no issues, then I think it's risen to the level of OK, so I don't think Karen would have a problem just say the way the vehicle is for the state attorney to bring the motion. And I think we covered with that. Yeah, I mean, if somebody is charged with murder, that's I mean, Linda's right. It's going to be what the prosecution wants, you know. And and I don't ask. So in that case, the person would be say it might have been sentenced to probation. But when it comes to DOC at the midpoint, they would request a discharge because they have to. And then the state's attorneys would say, wait a minute, this guy committed murder. We don't think you should get it. No, no, no, no, no, no. They would need to prove by preponderance of the evidence that the person's no risk to the community or to the victim is gone, but a risk to the public safety of the community. They would also need to show by clear and convincing evidence that the person has violated or is not in compliance with their conditions of probation. So if they can't do that, it's possible that the that the murderer on probation would be granted a discharge at midpoint. If they're complying, and I would think their probation is going to be a little longer than two years, their probation is going to be four to six years. And that ties in to the appeal. Was it that we just did that? House 20 H 20, where we they had the amendment from the Senate that there would be a report in terms of looking at what conditions, looking at your risk assessments that would help the judge for felony patients that would help the judge in setting those conditions. Remember the amendment that came through from the Senate? We know that it was 10 one in our committee. And that is to help, particularly with those cases of murder that you'd really find out. Is there underlying issue, be it substance abuse, be it mental health issues, be it a higher risk for for risk behavior that that really looking at those assessment tools and reporting back to see if we need to change any statutes to really help the judge be more informed when setting conditions for folks who are going to be on probation charges. You remember that, right? Yeah. Yeah, I remember that's tied into your question. If someone's going to get probation for murder, the goal is there's more understanding of what drove the person to commit the crime. But we but it is possible. I mean, we have I mean, the it is possible that a person could be on probation for murder and could get a midpoint would get a midpoint review and could be released at midpoint. So that's a question to ask Dale. OK, one. Number two, if that is the case, what's their usual length of probation, right? Well, OK, I'll let Linda answer. Linda. Yes, thank you. So I was going to say all that, but I think it's really important to understand that the only parties to the criminal prosecution are the state and the defendant. So the state prosecutor is there. For that sole purpose of arguing if there's a reason for this not to happen. So I think that your bases are covered. And I think, you know, the time for someone who's going to get a murder or one of those crimes is really going to be out there with issues. So the state prosecutor will show up if there's something going on. Check it out with Dale and then we'll figure it out once you hear back from Dale. OK, anything else? So let's take a quick five minute break. Did you hear it? You feel you've checked with Bill Wright and said two thirty. I did not send it to him because it looked like you were going to go a bit longer and I didn't know how long you wanted to be on break. I think he's expecting to come at two thirty. OK, so let's take a five minute break and come back at two thirty. Why don't we do that?