 I know that folks want to keep talking to lawyers and look at it, but the idea here, and for you to see Senator Benning, um, Senator Lyons, Maury, Senator White. Oh, hello. Just sit here. Hi, Jeanette. You look different today. So Mr. Chair, this is something of a very minor cleanup on a small revision in the bill. The large construct of the big change in the bill about changing liability standards, Senator Lyons, you know, seems fine. For my association for justice was looking at all this to just make sure there wasn't any real limitation of liability from common malpractice law. Because, as we know from years of big work in here, the sorry works legislation, the mediation, medical malpractice issues are at this point generally kind of left to where they are. And so our intention was just to review this and make sure it was kind of a really targeted piece of special language in the torque environment, which this is now with the addition that in good faith the boosters of the bill put together last night, and that's appreciated. The addition of the last clause provided, however, this does not otherwise limit the liability of participating physician. You know, remembering that you hang a lot of consumer protection on this supervision plan and it's a big change to kind of free and give more room for physician assistance. And so the backstory on the intensity around signing that form sounds interesting and something to assuage. And this little addition saying the bill does not otherwise cloud the torque environment on malpractice really sharpens the focus of that special language. It meets the goals of the Health and Malpractice Committee that doesn't interfere with current medical malpractice. That's our sense. We'll look at it. Well, I'm glad to know actually probably the agenda for Eric to draft it. Can you draft it? Lions and Sears. And you'll present it on the floor based on the work. Senator Bank? What is the status of it? It's on the floor. Second reading today. This would be an amendment after the second reading. So, yeah, it would be on the floor at one o'clock today. I jokingly said if I'm there, I've got people coming up from Bennington and I'm supposed to meet them. I'll be up there by 1.15 or so. Okay. Everybody okay? All the parties. Thank you. Anybody else who wants to be on it? So obviously welcome. Senator Bennington. I think I'll just get a follow-up there. He's a defense lawyer. I'll leave it for you because I don't know enough about it. Go around with the right hand. Otherwise, it doesn't mean that you can go at both of them at the same time regardless. Well, you probably could anyway. Well, you can go after anybody you want. Has their malpractice anything to do with it? You know, I had to draft the amendment this morning because I didn't realize that no one had drafted it up. And I just wanted to point out to the committee the only change from the existing bill is adding the term provided, however, this does not otherwise limit the liability of the participating physician. The rest of this, and it isn't clear the way it was drafted. The rest of this is in the bill as it passed the Senate Health Department. That's just the amendment. It's just that last sentence that was added, and that doesn't indicate that. And I apologize for that. I don't know if I get it. Thank you. Eric, are you free sometime this morning? I guess my question, Eric, can I ask him a question? So that phase provided, however, it's not otherwise limit the liability of the participating physician. Does that imply that regardless of the physician assistant did something egregious and it's not, and it was the physician's decision to do it? Does that mean you can still go after the other physician, the participating physician for the same thing? I think that whatever the underlying law is on the ability of the physician to be a defendant in a situation like that is not altered by this. I think that's the intent. If under the underlying law they could not, then they still could. Under the underlying law there might be a theory that they could bring in the physician, then they still could. Underlying law related to physician assistants or underlying law related to liability? The underlying law of medical malpractice. I think if I'm reading it right, the intent is to leave that unchanged. Other than the sort of one little layer on top of that, which is that you cannot bring in the physician as a defendant based on the existence of this practice agreement alone. That one particular fact. So I mean if the physician assistant went outside of the scope of practice indicated in the agreement, you cannot hold the practicing physician liable. I think that's right. Generally speaking, under the doctrine when you can hold an employer liable, if you act outside the scope, that's always the test. Whether it's within the scope or outside the scope of employment. All of the things being equal that there was a phone for somebody to call to the physician. Alright, I'm going to take this. Cool. Thank you. This is a floor amendment for you two. Present on the floor. That's the plan. All in. Sears. Yeah. Nope. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all. Pleasure to have you here. Thank you. An amendment that everybody has in front of them, I believe, that you and the state's attorneys worked on? Yes, sir. We have witnesses scheduled to then comment on that. James is on his way. Huh? Pepper's on his way. Good. Alright. So we have really gutted this bill in terms of any additional holding. You know, which the original is a three-year hold on. Correct. Alright. For the record, Morning Fox, Deputy Commissioner Department of Mental Health, I'd like to start by saying thank you to the committee and to the chair. I want to repeat what I said at the beginning of almost each and every testimony around this bill, which has been to say thank you for introducing this bill. This is a discussion that has been long needed. It's been my pleasure to be a part of this conversation and getting this bill to the point where it is now. As the chair mentioned, we've had conversations with state's attorneys as well as the Legislative Council in trying to provide some further input on the language. I wanted to thank Eric. Your work on this has been tremendous, and thank you for your patience as we've been working around numerous illnesses in our department trying to come up with the language and finally get it to you and get it in front of the committee for today's testimony. Interestingly enough, the language in here I can kind of go over again if that would be helpful for the committee. And so, some of the specific provisions that we had looked for to have included in this bill, just giving me a second as I'm trying to reorient myself to this first time actually looking at it on April. But the basic tenets are of the different things that I testified to last week have all been incorporated into this version, including some of the following. The idea that competency and sanity evaluations are now to be separated, that if there is competency and sanity question that the competency evaluation would take place first and that sanity evaluations would only take place once competency has been established or that the evaluator feels that they can have a finding of confidence to stand trial. And this would help, I believe, with Vermont in becoming more in line with the best practices throughout the nation in regards to that. This language also includes the party status that the department had requested when competency and sanity is requested or that sanity and competency have been raised as an issue, that the Department of Mental Health and the Vermont Legal Aid Mental Health Law Project shall become parties to these cases. Again, as the Attorney General's Office for the Department of Mental Health and the Mental Health Law Project are the folks who really truly understand some of the ins and outs of our mental health system, the needs of individuals and can speak to those needs most appropriately going through in the court cases. I can continue as long as there are questions. Well, currently the department is not a party? Currently the department is not a party in criminal cases. And part of the issue is that at times there may be questions as to once the decision of competency or sanity has been determined, the next step in the process is to go to hospitalization hearing where they determine whether a person should be ordered hospitalized or placed on maybe an order of non-hospitalization. And it happens that at times the department is notified of an order of hospitalization that we were not party to or not aware of. And there are times that, and significant times where we've had some strong disagreements with the court's decision in that and had no ability to express that to those concerns or the clinical concerns that might indicate that a person was actually not appropriate for hospitalization. And especially in light of limited resources and psychiatric inpatient facilities, we're looking to ensure that the folks who are ordered to an inpatient facility truly actually need to be in an inpatient psychiatric facility. Maureen, I'm looking at the bottom of page two. The top of page three. Yes, sir. If I go before a judge and I have a client who we are questioning whether they were sane at the time of the event, but there's nothing about my relationship with that individual that leads me to say, judge, I don't think this person is competent. I would only be asking for a sanity evaluation. This language specifically says that the examination of sanity should only be undertaken if the person is determined to be competent first. If you want to go through the expense at the time of a competency evaluation if that is what hasn't been raised. I don't think it was our intent to have language that one would have to go through a competency evaluation. I think our intent with the language was that the evaluator had no questions about it. There was no question. So they would just continue on with the sanity piece. It's possible we can make some language changes. It's able to form the opinion. It presumes that he's conducting the evaluation of competency. And the way this is designed, that issue would have to be a separate court hearing from the actual target which is the sanity knowledge. It doesn't make a lot of sense to you. It is the way that comes out. That could be a problem. Maybe Karen could... Yes, if I may. Karen Barbara General Counsel for the department. Actually, if you look up at the top of page two, it talks about examinations shall have reference to one or both. So it does talk about how you could only have a sanity or only have a competency if that's the only issue. And then if you look at the section I think you're talking about, it is talking about that this psychologist or psychiatrist has been asked to provide opinions on both. And so I think that's when that would play in and come into effect. But the statute does actually talk about only being able to order one of them if that's what's being requested. So you do think the language covers it, but certainly we can continue to work with that council to get concerns? Yeah. So, I don't understand it right then. Maybe it's weak. There's no address to an entertaining point. Fine 17 page two, if the psychiatrist or psychologist has been asked to provide opinions as to both the person's competency and the person's sanity, and then you could say, at the beginning of the second sentence, line 20 page two, in such cases, the examination of the defendant's sanity shall only be underpaid. Is that right? So that links them up. That way, there wouldn't be the situation that's in our bank. I think. Yeah, that goes for that. Yeah, we'd be good with that as well. But it still makes it too separate. You've heard the term of other person's competence. If there's questions for them. If there's a question about that, and I'm wondering about their understanding. It seems to make sense. We can, we'll hear from other witnesses that it might not. And Pepper, you can, you kind of can't wait to the party. Feel free to jump in here. I know you and Morning Gore. Right. I missed the, sorry, James Pepper, the pharmacist. Sheriff's. I missed the question, but if the question. The bottom of page two, let's start with his light change. And they said, the only good thing is that the psychiatrist is able to formally opinion that the defendant is confident that he's going to stand trial. The issue is, if I have a client who I'm interacting with, and I have no indication that this person is in jail, I wouldn't ask for a competency evaluation. But if there's a question about what their brain was like at the time of the event, I would be asking for a sanity evaluation. I don't understand why you would even leave the impression that a competency evaluation should take place first. A separate course for shading before you can get to the actual target of what the problem is. Oh, and that was our exact concern about that decision as well. It sounds like we would be supportive of the change. Yes. Some of the other language that we had worked on that we had asked to add in is actually later on in the bill, part of the forensic study piece where it talks about that part of the study would look at different models such as the psychiatric security review boards. We also added in language also to study guilty but mentally ill verdicts in criminal cases, as those seem to have kind of risen to the top of some of the discussions around how some of this, from a mental health perspective, can address some of the concerns that this bill originally sought to address. And so we want to make sure and really do, again, this is something that when the Department of Mental Health says we'd like to study, folks should sit up and take notice because we get asked to do a lot of studies and a lot of times and kind of get weary of studies. But we feel that this is an extremely important topic that we want to be judicious about and careful about. And my understanding from talking with other national experts who have worked with other states around this topic that it's all too easy to have unintended consequences in relation to the setup of things like the psychiatric security review board or adding criminal verdicts, so guilty but mentally ill, things of that sort. And so we wish to be able to study that. As part of that study, it was mentioned in my testimony last week that the Department would suggest the addition of having an external expert slash consultant be a part of the study. And the Department would also ask that some funds be attached or requested to be able to do that so that we could have an expert come in to help us, someone who has national standards, a national perspective that's worked with other states in these types of issues so that we're not just having our own internal conversations but that we actually have outside folks who have some expertise in this area that can help guide some of those conversations. It's possible I'd have to look into that. I don't mind putting in appropriations. It's unusual for the administration to support an additional appropriation. It would be difficult for us to have a robust study if we did not include outside experts and fail to see how to do that. Another question, maybe I'm missing it. Where's the victim's piece? There's a notification. It's page five. All right, I just watched and it was done. Thank you. We didn't make any, there was no real substantive changes to that other than what Mr. Pepper from the state's attorneys had suggested last time, which was the addition of the incompetent to stand trial. The victim gets notified by the state's attorney if they so desire. Correct, and then this also put in the attorney generals if they happen to be the one prosecuting in cases that Mr. Shear brought up in last week's testimony as well. Okay. James Pepper again, Department of State's attorneys and sheriffs. You know, we added, we asked specifically for section five, which is on page six, that's the quote unquote, Cheryl fix it allowed that permits this estate retained expert to examine a defendant for competency. Again, this would put these competency examinations on the exact same footing as the insanity evaluations where the state can seek their own expert to evaluate a defendant. We think that this is the most appropriate way to place the, to make the change. We consulted with the attorney general's office and we're in agreement that this just adds a section to the kind of discovery rules that allow where it's a section right after the insanity evaluations, add one for competency evaluations. Other than that, you know, we looked at the, some of the additions from Department of Mental Health about adding party standing. We don't have any serious concerns about it at this time. We got them last night and I just want to just reach out to a few more people. I know that the bill has a possible vote tomorrow, but if somebody's found incompetent to stand trial, what happens? Do they get competent enough to stand trial at some point? That's, presumably. That would be the intended part of the study looks at helping Vermont create a competency restoration program. Because as it stands right now, there is no legislative mandate to restore someone with competency. And so current practice is it's random to, you know, someone's mental health treatment and they no longer may require, say, inpatient level of care. It doesn't necessarily equal that they're now competent. And so, you know, we have that struggle. I'm generally more familiar with the insanity plea than the bill that they lack competence to stand trial. I mean, usually until the state's attorney and chicken county dropped those charges, those cases. I think the competency issue was really raised very often in that area. It's usually been the insanity plea. And in various cases, it can vary. But in those cases in particular, you're correct. So I'm sorry, you're kind of caught off guard here. Did you end wanting to testify together or do you want to have anything to add? You know, this bill, I think is a very good bill. I think that the study committee in particular addresses all of the areas that the original bill was trying to address, but maybe in an insufficient or potentially unconstitutional way. And so we're very much supportive of the kind of forensic study group and we hope that, you know, we can come back with a polished product for this committee to look at or the committee next door. And with respect to the kind of other pieces of this, the victim notification, I mean, that's something that can happen immediately and, you know, in many cases should be happening, you know, by our perspective. And honestly, under the kind of some of the other provisions of the law, it seems like it should have been happening, but then it got interpreted differently by the Supreme Court. So I think that that is an incredibly important piece of this. So I don't have much to add. I think this made that section effective on that. I look to the mental health just because they're the ones who would be notifying us to see if they could do it. Well, in terms of caring for Dr. McCulloch and Matt Lario, he put that out there. So I was just there aware of that. I mean, I'd have to check, but my current thought is I don't see what the barrier to that would be from our perspective. It is limited to the big 12 crimes. No, I know. I mean, not to show the same. Right, of course. That's obviously the... Obviously of any crime that's a serious thing if there's a victim. Any crime that's serious. Any crime that's serious. Crimes where there are victims identified are not much more serious and victims need to be taken into account. Get on TV, say it, some crimes are not serious. We've been taught on the same worst thing. Well, I know, but I'm afraid that, you know, my opponent... We have an opponent among the Senate and Governor. He's running under a Republican ticket. Running for both? That's huge. He's also very outspoken about the amount of huge voter fraud in Bennington or something. Is this the guy with the dog on this thing? He's 20 years. But I have no idea who you're talking about. Mr. Huy, you'll become familiar with him when you have your... I don't know who you're talking about. All right. Great. I thank you all for working on this. Are you insured you have any comments? A few of them are in the technical nature. If the committee wants to hear that now or some other time. Yeah, sure. Sounds good. Thanks, Senator. Can I make comment after, at some point? We can put you in. If we have time. Today, tomorrow, Chris, you would also... Yes, if you have time. Tomorrow, for all of you. What is very short? Well, we're hopeful of that. Come on. I'm not kidding. We know you. We know you. We're happy to hear from you. Morning. I'm David Shearer with the Attorney General's office. Thanks for having me this morning. We tried to do a very rapid review of this bill. I apologize. I didn't have a lot of time. I just wanted to make a final division look at it. And there were just a few things that they were wanting to bring up. Some of them are actually current law issues, but they spotted in here, which, again, in those places where it mentions only state's attorneys, they would appreciate having the Attorney General's office mentioned as well, since the AGO is often a party in some of these... It's often a party in these cases. So, for example, on page 2, line 15, is there. Moving on from that. One question that the criminal division had, and I apologize that I wasn't here for Deputy of the Deputy Commissioner's testimony earlier. On the top of page 4, I understand Attorney McCullis here, too, and may be able to answer this, they were... The criminal division was... Our criminal division was wondering a little bit about the purpose of the Vermont Legal Aid Mental Health Law project, having party status at a hearing where the defendant would presumably be represented by counsel. Understanding, of course, that they do represent folks in civil peer commitment hearings and just wondering what's the policy rationale was there. Our criminal division's view of that was that it makes sense that the Commissioner of Mental Health there, but with somebody who is currently represented by defense counsel and now also with the Commissioner of Mental Health coming in with the clinical side of things, what the sort of policy rationale behind this would seem to be giving defendant a second sort of counsel, this time employed by Legal Aid, and just trying to understand where that was coming from and what policy end that was and again given the context of this being a criminal proceeding with counsel already present and I assume that folks here in the room will be able to help us out with that. The final thing that I'll bring up here was at the... actually near the end in the report section, there is on page... on page 8, that says the working group and this is lines 13 to 17 working group, it instructs the working group to do a sort of large survey, which is entirely appropriate, we are very much in favor of that, but we were also the division, our criminal division was also curious then if you skip ahead to page 9, the bottom of page 9, lines 19 to 21, there's a very specific directive about the Connecticut system and it's not to say we take any position on that, whether Connecticut is good or bad, but we're just it seemed a little bit unclear to have a sort of, let's do a broad survey, entirely appropriate and then a seemingly specific directive to look at Connecticut, it may be that that's where we want to go, there's again no opposition. It was a bit of a test of morning regarding how good Connecticut's model was, so we wanted to make sure that that was reviewed and that's totally fine. We could be put in that frame of reference that, you know, we had some testimony about that last year. I didn't catch that before, but this very specifically says there will be legislation adapting that model. It doesn't say to study it and to look at it, it says there will be legislation, proposed legislation to adopt that model. Yeah, I don't think we need to do that. It should be over here in this study. We'll take this study also. You don't want it there. It shouldn't be there like that. You don't want it to say shall adopt it. Well, it's presuming the outcome of the study before the study is done. Why would you even say anything? If you were going to say something in the main one. If you were going to say something in the main one, I would say that it shall study other states including the Connecticut in the study itself. Yeah, but not presuming that you come to a conclusion. That's right. Also part of that is proposed draft. Just take that sentence out. I would take that whole thing out. Thank you. I didn't catch that. And the only final thing I mentioned is Attorney Pepper already testified to the competency hearing piece. And we are in the community and we are in the community and we are in the community. We are in the community. We are in the community. We are in the community. We are in a hearing piece and we are in agreement there and happy to answer any questions with anything else or that in the bill. Thank you very much. Thank you. Are you ready? Sure. Is that Valerio? Defender general. Took a look at this. Had some Um, I wish I had my glasses as much as anything. Um, I'll tell you what I said. Readers, is that what you need? Yeah. Yeah. Um, I left them in my other coat. Wait, can I have some right back here? Oh, that's okay. Thank you. You're not like those threes or fours. No. Are they right? Okay. Oh, geez. How do you get around? No. Just, I'll figure it out at some point here. Um, you know, the biggest questions that we had about this had to do with bringing in, you use the word parties a lot in this. And you talk about the, we have a criminal matter pending. And probably somebody's already gone through this, or at least looked at this issue. And usually the parties are the state and the defendant. And I just didn't know if, you know, if the commissioner of mental health was also going to be a criminal defendant party or maybe the, maybe legal aid also. What does party, what do you mean by parties in this? Is it, you know, what does party status mean when it, when you're talking about mental health? The commissioner or the state's attorneys to respond to that question. They might be interested parties in some way and have a legal position to put forward. I don't think that they rise to the level of parties in a criminal matter. It confuses me. I just don't know what that, what that means. What rights do you get? Absolutely. So. Well, this, this actually came from the department of mental health. So. So I think the problem with the health concern is that there are times when, when the competence of your sanity are raised with the contemplation of putting someone into the commissioner's custody. And so therefore we do have an interest in, we have before, and several people maybe disagreed with what has happened. You know, they're making decisions to put people in our custody without, without getting our opinion or our clinical opinion on it. And so what the department is really seeking is to be at the table to get the reports to have the opportunity to present to the court our concerns or our recommendations. I think, however, you want to phrase that, I think that's what we're getting at, is that we would like to be at the table and we would like our clinical rationale to be heard by the judge if you consider it in the case when thinking about committing someone into our custody. Is there some other terminology other than party status open to that? To me, they sound like witnesses. Almost. I mean, if they're going to be presenting a clinical opinion, that is contrary to, then they should be subject to cross examination and examination under oath, just like any other witness, if they have a, if they have a position that's based. I'm asked, I've kind of asked the same question. I, I understand what their role is after the criminal case is over, and that doesn't, doesn't bother me. And I actually, we've talked over the years about when we get to the point of the hospitalization or non-hospitalization where we've spoken before about having the legal aid, legal aid pick up the case at that point. They do more work with the Department of Mental Health as far as the therapeutic end than the Defender General's office does, and, you know, they have more expertise in that. I mean, there's individuals within the DG's office who are as good as anybody, but I can't guarantee that, you know, any attorney representing anybody all over the state who might have a mental health defense or case. The Department and Children's Families role in applications, for example, of where you're determining whether to place a child in custody, how does that work? Because there, aren't they a party to that or a non-hospitalization? Well, the state is the party. It's not DCF versus... But DCF is there. Yeah, and they put social workers or people on the stand and you can cross-examine them and ask them questions and test their opinion as to why they're recommending what they're recommending. You know, the state is the party that they are, I don't think they're parties. They're just their witnesses. You know, party status to me raises other issues, and I actually don't know how it would even work. Did this... I have a lot... I have questions about this more than I had various issues. When you were early on the proceeding, the beginning of the bill, does this, on page two, and I had a note on beginning on page three, are you... Is this proposing that in every case where there's a mental health issue that competency and sanity evaluations be done immediately at the same time? Proposing some changes. Okay, because it... You described that. Yeah. It read that way to me and they're really very... So, Senator Benning brought it up and nice to see you both on the same page. And we didn't even talk to each other. I was with Pepper, too. I mean, we were all... Does he agree? The idea here is that it's a sequencing of when the competency and the sanity evaluations will take place, in particular cases, and that was not as clear in the draft. So, the... I don't know if you have a general want to add this, but the way the post changes... So, you're on the bottom of page two, minus 17. Yeah, right. So, it only would apply in situations where... If the psychiatrist or psychologist has been asked to provide opinions as to both, both the person's competency and sanity evaluations, in situations where they've been asked to provide opinions as to both, then the sequencing kicks in. The opinion shall be presented in separate reports and addressed separately. And then to start the second sentence by saying, in such cases, the examination of the sanity is going to be undertaken if the competency formulation is done. So, when they're asked to do both, they're separate and... That's the sequence that they go on. That's the idea. What is the purpose of that? I mean, to ask that. So, there are numbers around separating the competency and sanity evaluations. Is that your question? Right. It sounded like you're almost combining them as opposed to separating them. The language that the place council mentions should be basically saying that when the court orders both competency and sanity, competency evaluations shall take place first before we do an evaluation for sanity. In cases where just competency or just sanity is ordered, we will do just competency or just sanity. And the idea is that if you're having a covenant that you don't do the sanity exam until you've been found competent. Just so that everybody's aware, you can raise... You have a period of time to raise sanity. You don't have to do that immediately at the very beginning of the case. Sanity is a defense that can be raised only with the consent of the defendant assuming that he's competent to stand trial or she. And so, sometimes what it takes is the gathering of information that you don't have at the very beginning of the case. So, just so that you're aware, the timing of this, it's not neat like this. And the way some of the clients address these issues, because you might be competent, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're well. And making a decision about whether or not you want to raise a sanity defense can sometimes come and go. And if you want to tie it with a bow early on in a kind of easy procedure, that's probably not going to work. But I can see, you know, if there are enough ifs, ifs, ifs. If this happens then this happens, if this happens then this. That's fine, but that's not often the way that it happens. I had already talked about before that the notice issue regarding victims and we have no problem with that. And now we see it in a draft and it's worthwhile. I'm running this by our appellate division between last night and this morning. I haven't seen any of them. But if you go to page six and seven, particularly page seven involving treating a sanity examination like a non-testimonial order, it's in that kind of same section, medical inspections, handwriting samples, rule 16.1. I think that there might be constitutional prohibitions against compelling somebody to have a sanity evaluation. I mean, I actually think they have a constitutional right to refuse to be examined if they decide that that's what they want to do. And I know that this may arise out of some cases that have occurred in the last couple of years where the state was seeking evaluations of the defendant in cases where mental health issues were raised, but there was no authority to do that. But I think the reason there is no authority to do that is you probably have Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights that you don't have to participate in those evaluations. So I don't think you can statutorily overcome those. Well, not the part that's not on page seven that's underlined in yellow. Well, it's similar to what's on the bottom of page six. I think the existing amount permits the ordering of a sanity, when the defendant raises a sanity as a defense that can order the examination so the proposal is to allow it for competency as well. Amounts it to what? Confficiency. Hi. These students are from Miami. We're welcome to share. Thanks for being here. I hope you had a great time. And I hope to get a picture with you later. I hope so too. Unfortunately, we have a crowded room here. Welcome. That's all right. I mean, I'm talking about about sanity, please. And people are deemed to be not guilty by reason of sanity or not competent to stand trial and changes that might be made in that particular law. So I see. We got here. I'm going to nap. I hope to go on and don't need these. And guys go to school there. They're all. Same thing happens with my school goes somewhere. All the girls go. I don't know what committee they're in. I'm sorry. So what I'd like to do is get lucky to have you for and buy. You're a teacher. Okay. On this, on this. You're general. So you ever hear. I hope you never need. But if you do, it's all right. I'd like to get back to you on the cost of this constitutional issue. I wanted to run it by, like I said, I just I sent it over to a pallet and, you know, we're going to take it up tomorrow. I think I'll have something for you by then. Okay. The, and I actually, I know the same things regarding sort of the directive language on Connecticut. I don't know what's so special about Connecticut. Yeah, I was here. I saw that. But what I do, what I do know about Connecticut is they're good every five to 10 years. Where they create great systems. You know, we're going to take it up tomorrow. I think I'll have something for you by then. Okay. The, and I actually, I know the same things regarding sort of the legislation. Where they create great systems. And then by year seven, they don't fund them. And then there's a lawsuit. And then they get a whole ton of money. And then it's great again for another three to five years. And then they don't fund it. And then there's another lawsuit. You can be true about them all. You know, we try to get along here. That's what I have. Thank you. Thank you. I think I'll put a glass of Lucy that puts you up next. Lucy Garlin from representing. I did want to say that in the event that legal aid does want to, if somebody is declared incompetent or insane at the time, and we get to the hospitalization hearing if legal aid and we talked about this before, if they want to pick up the representation at that time for purposes of the hospitalization hearing. I've said it before and I'll say it here just so we're clear. I don't know we don't object to that So Lucy Garan DRM, I will be very short On page 8 with the work group. We're hoping to add a representative of the designated hospitals to the work group appointed by boss The hospital association so there are five designated hospitals in the state So we just with like a seat of the table UVM medical center CVMC the retreat Springfield They have the Wyndham Center Oh No, they may be bankrupt they're not a designated hospital I think the morning can tell you Okay Still exist they're still taking Psychiatric patients just voluntary They voluntarily chose as a January one not to seek redesignation while they're going through their kind of full process with Springfield hospital It's possible in the future that may change but right now. They're not currently does name for involuntary psychiatric patients Did you repeat the line? So a representative of designated hospitals appointed by the Mon association of hospitals and health systems Why just so all the youth Thank You senator Sears Chris Venno from the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services the only question I had in pepper may actually have an answer for this is that There I would like the state's attorneys in the AG's office to have a Policy and procedure around notifying victims and I would suggest that rather than opting in that they opt out So that it's incumbent on somebody to try to notify the victims If they have not opted out of notification He And his brother still lives in Shaftesbury and wasn't notified that the guy had scondid and it's like It's a long story for a little failures, but to make a long story short The fact is that they evidently have been confused about signing up for them victim notification so they weren't the Victim's wife was notified but the brother wasn't This kind of confusion about that so it might be I I think that's probably a good idea Will say this for your state attorney she more than willing to help get him signed up Because it happened This morning So that's my only recommendation Because then I think it will give it some importance things just you know years later, and I just think that every attempt should be made to notify victims If they want well, I can see If they don't Conversation, I mean this guy had a number we also talked about expunging his record, so it was more than just And talking with him He said every time this happens And then they would opt out right And we actually we were talking about this in the office and we have two long time employees Who actually victims call them? They they were so sort of paranoid that they didn't even want to sign up for the victim notification automatic one but you know 15 years later, they're still checking in With our staff because they're worried that people are going to get out Okay I Got some extra time I was going to talk to Karen Barber one of the things that might be better Grishan if you're ready, I never thought we'd get to you today Good morning for the record Brian Greerson chief superior judge speaking to revised draft 4.1 183 section one. I'm looking at line Slime 16 commissioners shall be a party when issues of competency or sanity are raised I had a chance to at least get this out to the judges a quick response and in my view And then we've discussed this before and other committees is that I think it's appropriate Not when the issue is raised But once there has been a competency determination if the individual is bound to be Incompetent the next step is the hospitalization or I think you refer to adhere Hearing regarding commitment, so it's a hospitalization or non hospitalization hearing and And there was a study commission. I want to say to maybe two or three sessions ago involving all the folks that have been testifying here and I my recollection was that there was consensus that at that stage at the hospitalization Hearing or non hospitalization hearing that it made sense to then bring in the department of mental health as a party as well as legal aid and the primary thinking at least My recollection was that At the competency stage, it's still clearly a question of public safety And criminal behavior if you determine if the determination is that the individual is incompetent to stand trial Then at least at that point the focus turns to not punishment but Treatment and I think both legal aid and the department of health are better informed at that stage as to what What is necessary? I think the last Forget the bill number. I don't know if you found it Eric, but That provision actually went through in a bill form Through the house and I believe it came here, I don't know that we ever had a hearing in front of Senate judiciary But it may be one way of resolving what I think was a concern by the state's attorneys Was to leave the state's attorney at the table at the hospitalization hearing but still allow the DMH and the Attorney General's office to come in And they could work together at that point, but I think it would be important to bring in Jack McCullough and folks from Israel those are the folks that if it once it's in the civil Forum, they're the ones that are going to be involved anyway So I agree with the concept, but I think it's later at a later stage that would be appropriate Under section two Hearing you're saying that's the appropriate time for them to be party. Yes. Yes One I think you guys have to think about what that what that language might read. I think there was some Concern expressed by the Defender General about what the party's wording means in that context as well Either keep it in that place or tweak it a little bit I'm sorry about this continue to be heard maybe Or something Or strike it just keep it a later piece Most of the most of the issues I'll be glad to talk to DMH rack They clearly should be involved at that hospitalization As to what notice it may be a matter of getting notice of the earlier proceedings and not necessarily party status. So that may be Maybe one way of resolving So section two The current statute Seems to require that the psychiatrist conduct every examination and that an examination by a psychologist be included when the defendant has a developmental disability I think it's a matter really of clarifying Is it just the psychologist or do they intend that a psychiatrist should be involved in every evaluation and then only bring in Psychologists when there's a developmental disability I'm in section two and this is all of course, this is the current law So one of them just raised a question of Does that mean that in every case there is a psychiatrist and only? Bring in a psychologist When there are cases involving developmental disability Or if it is a case identified as developmental disability Psychiatrists still have to be involved and so I think of more matter of clarification And again, I'll be glad to talk with folks from DMH and On section three we have no No comment it makes sense we agree with section four that notice should be required When the person is discharged, we have no objection to that and we have no comments on Section five. I'm sorry again. We have no objection And they have no comments with respect to section six or seven one matter that's not Part of the bill that has occurred at least brought to my attention recently when Individuals are found incompetent and we move to the next phase other than an Extremely serious violent offenses Most of those cases are dismissed without prejudice at that stage and then they go to the civil process We discovered recently that at least in one County and I don't know how widespread it is and I'm looking into it that they have left those cases open Without dismissing them sometimes for ten years or more Which Raises all kinds of questions about the conditions of release that may have been imposed Time ago and so they the thought was that there ought to be some consideration to When the case should be How long does the case stay open and if we're going to be talking about restoration services? You probably wouldn't want to dismiss it but the question is how long should a case remain open? And so we would suggest the committee may want to consider that as a We didn't take this up tomorrow Along with the robot Most people are we have not yet heard History don't want to testify Tuesday We should be ready to mark it up. I hope that everybody will have any suggestions and by then it gives you That's all I think this bill would go to help them out Thank you, that's all I think you And what somebody else wants to test Everybody can be back. Yes Okay Born there grew up in Chastbury graduated from Mount Anthony in high school in the first class to actually go through Four years there, so my old stomping grounds as they say Oh most of her I would just make the comment in the section on Studying forensic needs that the state's mental health care ombudsman ought to be included there And that's the state's protection and advocacy system, which is disability rights for my Thank you Thanks for that advertisement All right, we'll take a break