 Good afternoon, everyone. This is the House Health Care Committee, and it is Friday, April 2nd, about 1.30 p.m. So this afternoon's agenda is to have legislative council assist our committee in understanding essentially the health care provisions of S3 and S3 is a, well, I'm going to, I'm going to actually turn it over to the legislative council to introduce us to what S3 is presenting to us, but I understand that the S3 has been had considerable testimony in the House Judiciary Committee over the past several days, or a number of days, and is coming to us clearly from the Senate. So let me, let me first, well, first either, I'm not quite sure how to proceed, and we have two staff assisting us here today. So Katie McGlynn, legislative council, and Eric Fitzpatrick, who I know from many years of working in the judiciary committee, is also legislative council and often spends most of his time in the judiciary committee. So let me, let me first just ask out loud. So what do we have in front of us in terms of S3 and why is this committee, what, what, what makes it appropriate for this committee to understand S3 and take some testimony and maybe I'll just as a, hopefully that's a wide open question that either or both of you could comment on and then I'd like to think about how to have our committee get a sense of the context that S3 addresses and, and the provisions, the specific provisions of S3 that we, that's important for us to understand. So I don't know, Katie, do you and Eric, I'll kind of throw it to the two of you to kind of throw the Frisbee back and forth see who wants to catch it first. Well, I'll start off by saying that Eric has been the lead attorney on this. So I'll let him really kick it off and kind of describe the provisions in the of the bill. But in terms of context, I think it's important to recognize that when we think of the mental health system, and how somebody could be coming into an involuntary level of care. There are two ways to, I call them two doors of, of how somebody could come to the system. And I think most office in this committee, we think of folks coming in through the civil door, somebody who's not been involved in the criminal justice system and there are still court procedures that are in place. But what this bill is looking at is those folks who are coming in through the other door the criminal justice store. And there are some similar court procedures after a certain stage in the proceedings have occurred, but to start off with the procedures are quite different until somebody arrives at a point where they're committed to receive treatment. And so I think one way to think about this bill is, we're kind of shifting our perspective to look at individuals who have some criminal justice involvement prior to coming into the mental health system. And that that criminal justice system is the occasion for them coming into the criminal justice system at this time, not necessarily just in the past, is that fair to say. This is, there is some issue before the court criminal justice system at this time. Yeah. No, actually, I think the word typo I think. Well, let me, I'm not sure if that I guess the distinction I was making is that they, someone might be coming into the mental health system with a criminal justice issue from the past. And what I was saying is, this is a criminal justice issue that is currently before the court. And that's what's that's the occasion for them, as opposed to someone who might be coming through the civil process but had a criminal justice past issue. That was the distinction, I think I was trying. So, so what's the, what, how, how, how can we best get an understanding of these issues at this point. Eric, is it, is it helpful to help us look at specific provisions or Katie, or is it again more helpful to lay out what some of the key issues are, and then look at the, the language of the bill. I'm sorry, I'm kind of catching you off guard, I guess, but I'm. No, no, not at all. That's a common question in this bill in particular because, as Katie was saying, and as you alluded to, it really does cross subject matter areas it really covers the jurisdictions of a couple of committees at least. If you think of the fact that the corrections may be involved in some ways as well. But it's so it's a, it's a very natural question to ask what's the, what's the proposal that's going on an S3 that brings it here and even in the bigger picture of what's going on generally. This Katie was kind of getting at, although the sections are intertwined, it has worked out pretty well in the walkthrough that as it happens, the sections that I tend to work on our first in the bill and the section that she's worked on are later in the bill so it has worked when we do a walkthrough for me to do those first sections and then I turn it over to her for the sections at the end. And I think that having done that a couple of times in Senate judiciary as well as in House judiciary that seems to give people a good grounding in in what's going on in the bill and you know I would talk for a minute or two in the beginning before I pulled the bill up and I was speaking with her emailing with Colleen to say because I haven't been in this committee this year yet committees do it differently and I wanted to make sure it was okay to share the screen and build and bring the bill text up so that you folks can see it. That's that works well. Yeah, I think that works well for us and then occasionally we might ask for the language to go off the screen so we can talk amongst ourselves to see each other but yes no that works fine that we were doing that on a regular basis. Great. So that's probably what we would do I you know I'll just give you a minute or two about the bigger, the big picture, and then dive right into the bill it's not it is interesting it's it's. And I mentioned this to House judiciary as well sometimes you can, you can describe the big picture of what's going on in a bill when you know, in a fairly fairly 16 kind of way. And because it's got maybe got one big picture purpose or one big picture thing going on that's that's less the case with S3, although it does deal with sort of a unifying theme of the mental health status of defendants and the criminal justice system I think you could speak generally and say that as far you know, there are a lot of specific procedures on the books for how, how a defendant in that situation is treated in the in the criminal justice system and then in the in the mental health care system as well. And there isn't sort of one unifying changes being proposed in this bill it's there's a number of different changes it's not a, it's not a, a complete structural redoing for example of the system of the insanity defense or competency to stand trial or how the mental health status of a criminal defendant works, you know, because sometimes the legislature does that and bills whether I remember working on our complete revamp of the guardianship statutes or complete revamp of the, you know, mortgage not that you guys would have seen that but you know sometimes you do that that's not this this does this makes changes within the existing structure. But it's not a complete revamp by any stretch of the imagination. So, it, it, it helps to give a moment or two a big picture and then just actually say here's the particular places that these particular changes are proposed. So, if that makes sense, we could do it that way. Yes, and it may or may not as you move along you may or may not be in a position to comment on why particular changes are being put forward based on testimony that has been given or you can leave that to others as you see fit. Sure. Yeah, sometimes, as you're saying, sometimes we have that that sort of based on, you know, clear testimony that people gave or something like that that we could think we're happy to pass along and other times it's more of a maybe a sponsored decision or something like that that's less of a less of something that that the Wedge Council would talk about as opposed to a witness. Yep. So having said that. Go for it. Thank you. Welcome to house health care. Thank you very much and I know you introduced me already but I have not been in the committee this year yet so this for the record Eric this Patrick legislative council. Nice to see everybody this afternoon. I'm going to talk about Senate bill number three which is an act relating to competency to stand trial and insanity as a defense as I just mentioned. This is bill that that deals in a lot of different ways with criminal defendant in the criminal justice system, and in particular with respect to that defendants mental health status and as you can sort of tell from the title. In particular the title of the villain dealing in particular with the insanity defense and competency to stand trial and that's what I just wanted to mention for a moment before looking at the text of the bill those two concepts in general because although, although they both do deal. Of course with the mental health status of a defendant in a criminal proceeding. They are very different from each other. They're different in terms of the timing that the analysis is made and they're very different in terms of the consequence. And the insanity defense if you think about it is has to do with a defendant mental health status at the time a criminal offense is committed that very specific moment in time. Whereas the what someone's competency to stand trial has to do with someone's mental health status at the time of the trial. Two things are different and defendants or mental health status can be different. But at those two different times a person with respect to the insanity fence defense, for example, that basically is asking the question of whether at the time, a person committed a criminal offense. The person as a result of a mental illness, either cannot understand that that the person's conduct was criminal, or that even if they could understand that their conduct was criminal. Conform their conduct to the requirements of the law. So you've got two possible ways that it could be established either they, they could not understand the criminality of their actions, or even if they could. They were unable to to conform those actions to the requirements of the law. And I see represent Donnie the question, which I might even segue me into what I was going to say next but maybe it is. Yeah, it was something I brought up in judiciary at all you refer to mental illness and insanity being related to the, the mental health status or mental illness of the defendant and insanity as a defenses is a broader term than that. Right. Yeah, okay. I just wanted to mention it. And I was going to thank you for that segue. I I'm hesitating for a moment because I wanted to bring up the statute itself to say show the language that represent Donnie he was just referring to because although I'm using the term. Mental illness. The, the statute uses terminology that I think we recognize is in many ways. Archaic and outdated, which is mental disease or defect is what the statute uses and, and I'm using the term mental illness, which I think is something a term that we would use. Modernly differently than existing law does. And as I also mentioned, this is not a complete the bill is not a complete structural rewrite of the of these laws and if we ever. Whatever to take that step. Likely that terminology would be changed and updated. That hasn't been done at the moment. But as represent Donnie who said that, that, and if you look at the language and maybe I will pull it up for a sec, just so we can take it. It might be helpful to see if that's okay with everybody. Yeah. Let me just pull it up real quick. So it's right. Does everybody see that screen. Not yet. Oh, sorry. Alright, let me go back to. Let me try that again. Okay, okay now. Yes. Okay, so this is what I was just referring to so this is the statutory language around the insanity defense. And it's really in a one as you see there. This is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct that's the point I was making about it's at the time of the offense that is the operative inquiry there as a result of a mental disease or defect. Here she lacks adequate capacity, either to appreciate the criminality of his or her conduct so they can understand that what they are doing as criminal, or they lack the adequate capacity to conform his or her conduct to the requirements of the law. So either one of those effects of the of what's termed in the statute as a mental disease or defect would constitute an insanity defense. You see though that term is defined a little bit further in subdivision to and I think this was the point that represent Donnie who was making in how she shared as well that that when I sort of term it mental illness it actually sweeps broader than that. As you see it says, although they, although the term does not include abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise social anti social conduct. It does include congenital and traumatic mental conditions as well as disease so it's, it sweeps broader than, than the term mental illness but sort of have used it as sort of a, sort of a shortcut terminology I suppose I would say. I don't see from the, from the definition that it in would include other conditions beyond that. So I'm going to come back a second unless anybody wanted to continue to see that it represents a question. Yes. And I'm, I'm sorry, I, I didn't really understand that. So if it's vital to the bill, if it could be viewed if it's not vital to the bill then I can figure it out on my own later. And having trouble understanding the difference between the two terms you're using it to. Yeah, it's just that when we refer to mental illness, developmental disabilities and traumatic brain injury are not mental illnesses. Okay, right. But they are included within the definition of insanity sanity. Yeah. Yes, that's exactly right. Thank you. Okay, and that's helpful in the context of what many of our other conversations make a distinction. That's important. Representative Goldman. Hi, it's a pleasure to meet you Eric. Um, thank you. I'm just trying to understand the definition of insanity is that a legal term. It's not a medical right. I'm just correct. Yeah. So that's a legal definition so I can't think about it in the meta I come from the medical world so I'm trying to make sense of that. Yeah, I know it's it's precisely that it's legal terminology that is has dates from long ago, to be honest, and it's it just it describes a legal status, not a medical term. And a legal defense really. So if you had a chance to rewrite this bill, would you change that word? Well, I'd want to consult with many experts in the field before I did that but I probably would but I before I chose what wording would be better I want to talk to people who. I did and all that but I was just wondering, yes, you would change that that's what I was curious about. Thank you. I see you represent Pearson and maybe Eric, at some point along the way, based on that there may not be that changing one word here would have ramifications for reams of case law and court decisions, etc, so that we don't really quickly or easily change terms that the court has interpreted and reinterpreted in. Yeah, I think that's you've identified. I see you're a hand I'm just wanting to just make sure we understand in this context of healthcare why terms are not necessarily easily. Well, my, my question has very little to do with that I was going to ask. And by the way, hi Eric. I wanted, I wanted, I wanted to ask representative Donna who to repeat that definition. You just say you said something and I didn't catch it. I hope you can remember. Oh, alright, okay. Let me let me just. It's just what Laurie was asking. Yeah. Yeah. It's just that the definition includes developmental disability and traumatic brain injury as well as mental illness under its umbrella. Gotcha. All right, thank you. Yeah. There's a lot of terms here that have a lot of meaning and their terms which, frankly, are not always used in the, not the common words used in the public conversation. Right. And as you were kind of getting at the, what's known as the insanity that defense dates back centuries in the law. And I think that's been part of the resistance, or I shouldn't say resistance. That's been part of the, the understanding that rewriting that language would implicate so many years of case law. As, as made, I think, has caused some, some knowing how big a project that would be is one of the, one of the factors that's been involved in not rewriting this stack this chapter of law completely, as opposed to making sort of changes around the edges, which in some ways what's been done over the years more recently. Not that that wouldn't be an interesting project, but it would be a major one and a time consuming one that, that, you know, given the legislature's time constraints would have to really be thought through. So you've now focused primarily or initially on the issue of sanity and the correct. And the, the, the word that comes with it is the, it's often called the insanity defense, but it's the statute just talks about sanity. Right. Exactly. And we were just talking about sort of what, what it is that constitutes the insanity defense but it also an important thing to remember about it is. And this is because it deals with a defense mental health status at the time of the criminal act that poor consequence of a successful insanity defense. So if a defendant is able to successfully show either either at trial or beforehand through agreement of the parties that they were insane at the time of the offense, they can never be prosecuted for that crime again that that defense it's what's known as a complete defense, because you think about it. It's basically that a defendant a person is unable to form the requisite mental intent, you know, to commit a crime. So, sort of going back years for sort of the policy formulations of the insanity defense it's basically offends notions of fairness to charge someone for the criminal act that they couldn't form the mental status necessary to commit the crime in the first place so it's a complete defense that it lasts permanently. And that's a distinction that's important between the insanity defense and competency to stand trial. So again, we move for a moment into what competency is. That doesn't have anything to do with a person's mental health status at the time of the offense, not an issue anymore. So under competency to stand trial the question is different. It says at the time of the trial does the criminal defendant have the ability to understand the nature of the criminal charges against the person can they can they understand what the charges are essentially, or they able to participate meaningfully in their own defense. So again that's a question that arises only at trial doesn't have anything to do with what happened back at the time the offense was created, can committed. So, a distinction in terms of the effect of that is a defendant's competency to stand trial is not fixed, it's not permanent, right a person could be determined at one point, incompetent to stand trial say at the time the trial is proposed to be happening. And then through treatment through or, or through the passage of time, they can regain competence. So that's different from the criminal from the insanity defense where the person can never be charged again person can be found incompetent to stand trial be treated, and then six months a year or two years down the road be brought back into the criminal justice system and be tried again, not tried again be tried for the offense at that time. Now it could be that they would never regain competency and, and in that case the charges could never be brought, but sometimes they do. And it's also dependent upon, if you think about it and this will come up later in the walk sometimes a prosecutor can make a decision about whether or not to keep the criminal charges in place after a person has been deemed incompetent to stand trial prosecutor can decide that. And this happens more commonly, because it's not unusual for a person to be found incompetent to stand trial. As a result of what we might call a very minor offense, a very minor shoplifting offense, for example, that someone commits, but is determined that they're not competent to face criminal charges it's not necessarily in the interest of justice or resources or time for the prosecutor to bring a criminal case against a person for a minor shoplifting charge if they've found to be incompetent so sometimes the prosecutors will drop those charges, but other times they will not and they will hold they will keep the case open, and while the person undergoes treatment. And then if the person regains competency at some time in the future that at that time they can be charged, as opposed to the insanity defense situation. The person can be never can never be charged. Again, in the future, if they were insane at the time the offense was committed. So, that's kind of a crucial point to understand and I think it's kind of also the, the foundational message that I wanted to get across before looking at the text of the bill itself. So but I can pause there for a moment if anybody wants to ask any other questions before we look at the text. I see representative Burroughs has a question. Do you look at it as a sort of cause and effect that in the insanity insanity insanity itself or mental illness itself is the cause of the crime versus incompetency to stand trial could be the as an effective, or as a result of the crime. Under the right circumstances that could be true. Yeah, I think in some other cases maybe it wasn't and maybe that the that a person acted in a certain way just happens to not have been related to their mental status at the time, but it could well be exactly could well in certain circumstances could well be that the, that the mental illness was exactly what led to the commission of the criminal conduct whatever it was. So I guess I'm, I, what I'm asking is, or what I'd like to know is what the original ages for the, the law being drawn up was, was it to address mental illness. As a portion of the crime or as a portion of the person. And I'm not quite following that question sorry. You mean is it more of a status of the person as opposed to their conduct. Yeah. I think I think the point is to consider the, the, the status of the defendant when making decisions about, you know, how, how much is society going to hold that person responsible for their comment and that that, you know, it's appropriate to consider the mental health status of the person when when making those kind of decisions about whether or not they should have criminal responsibility. Yeah. In that sense, the, the law is kind of merciful in, in taking all, all aspects of a person into account. As a, as a, for my perspective, which council I probably couldn't use an adjective like that, but I would say that that oftentimes when courts look at due process, they sometimes paraphrase due process as fundamental, fundamental fairness. That's a, that's a term that is often used to to kind of help understand what due process means. And I do, and the incident defense that does in part arise from due process of law, which is a notion of fundamental fairness so that's a similar way to put it. Thank you. Okay, represent Pearson and represent Goldman. Yes. When you, when you say that someone who's judged to be insane. They can never be tried again. You mean for that crime, or for any crime they commit from that time forward. Just for that particular crime. Okay, for that particular crime. So they're judged to be insane. But if they commit another crime. You know, they can be judged, they can be tried for that. That has its own separate parameters. Okay. Okay, thank you. Sure. But isn't it the case that they might have to be reevaluated in the context of this additional crime. Oh, sure. They further evaluation as to whether they were insane at the time of that crime. Yep, absolutely. They could raise. Okay, the way I heard it. It sounded like they were never to be tried again for anything and that's why I want to make sure I didn't hear that. So, okay. I may not have been clear on that. So yeah, just for that particular thing. Okay, representative Goldman. I'm just curious again to know as we go through this language, are we going to be making a decision about something about this language, or is it just informational. This, I think, well that's that's for Eric, I think to articulate, but I think at this point we are making this is information. This is, this is basic information for making decisions about other processes along the way. Would that be fair to say Eric. Yes. We're not going to be making decisions I don't believe about whether this is a definition that should be the what it is. These are foundational, foundational concepts that are then used in making procedural distinctions or other decisions which are being proposed in terms of court procedure or examination procedure, etc. So are those the decisions that we're going to be asked to make in this bill I'm not thinking about these specific stuff that you're talking about but in S3. Do we have to weigh in as a committee on something. Yes. Okay. Do we know what that is here we have to go. If we get through there, we'll get to that. It'll be obvious. Okay, thank you. Yeah, I just like to sort of have an idea for. Yeah, yeah, that's good. Well that's where exactly where I was going to go next is what what the some things actually are because the, with that sort of foundational knowledge. I already tell I think from this discussion even that the, the concepts of that are brought up by the insanity offense and the notion of competency to stand trial and the intersection of the criminal justice and the mental healthcare systems are, are very complex and, and there are detailed statutes on the books that that address these things, which is some of which is many of which are proposed to be amended in S3. And the, the, as I mentioned at the very beginning, the proposals are are in some sense, particular proposing changes to particular parts of the process, but that's how they're connected. So, what I would do then is pull up the bill and that way we can sort of identify each time well here's the process that that that is existing in current law with respect to criminal defendants in these situations and here's the proposal that's to change that being made in S3. So if that makes sense, I'll go ahead and pull up the language. And I guess I just want to say that I have to confess after many years of being involved in one way or the other, not deeply as as Eric and some others have been. I find myself grappling at times with keeping, keeping clear or separated the issues of sanity and mental competency and what applies where, and I think I think that is often. I don't think I'm alone in that. And, and so therefore, if we may need from time to time to come back and read ground ourselves in what it is that that term meant and how that how one would distinguish one from the other, etc. Yeah, I just want to say I've been sitting in on some of the judiciary testimony and there were a couple of witnesses who had, you know, slide decks, and a couple of them were. If you want to have it somewhere in writing, explaining those differences and a flow sheet. They're under my name on our website now so that you have something you can look at in a slide deck kind of way on as a refresher or to go back to on those terms. And I trust that those terms as outlined in those flow sheets, etc. are accurate. And from attorneys, they're both just quote the statutes they just quote, they quote the statutes they're not, they're not opinion pieces. Okay, because sometimes people use terms that don't really fit where they belong. Well, they quote the statutes on they must be correct. It can vouch for the high quality of the writing at least. Yeah. You put your initials at the end of each part. Okay, Eric, why don't you take us further into the bill. Okay, we'll do. All right, so does everybody see the screen for S3 as it passed the Senate. Yes. Okay, great. And your hand is up. Is that intended to be up right now. No. Okay, hoping not. Right. Can I take it down or should someone take that down for me. I think that she should be able to address that herself. And she's also on mute. So that's maybe just as well. We don't need to hear. Okay. Right. And I should. I think you mentioned as well, chair leopard, but I'll reiterate it too that since I can't see anybody, please feel free to interrupt me or however it is, you want to handle questions, but. I mean, we have a practice in the committee of trying to raise the electronic hands and then I'll call on people as much as I can, because it's hard to see otherwise. Okay, that sounds great. All right, so moving right into section one. When, when the question of a defendant's sanity or, or competency, either one has been raised in a criminal proceeding that could have been raised by, by the defendant or by the prosecution or by the court, depending on the circumstances. The statute is written and currently, well, generally speaking, when that when the competency or sanity is raised, the court has to order that a psychiatric evaluation take place. So that's what's going to happen next core will order a psychiatric evaluation. Sort of a technical point, but you'll see in section one, the way this statute is written currently the, the, and as I just described and we just spent some time discussing this. Competency and sanity are two different things are two different concepts, but the way the statute is written this initial psychiatric examination has to include both competency and sanity you see in under subdivision a one, there's a struck through it's not the case though that competency and sanity will always be at issue in a given case could be that a person's competency is what's what's going to be contested or litigated because perhaps the parties agree that the person was saying at the time of the offense, but something has happened in the meantime there's been some intervening circumstance whatever that may be. And, and now there's a question about the person's competency to stand trial. So there would be no reason to evaluate the person's sanity at the time of the offense that wasn't an issue at all. So, all this does is clarify the language to make it possible as you see the examination, the new language we have referenced to one or both of the file. So it could be that the examination would look at the person's competency and it, or it could be that the examination look at the person's sanity, or both. Just to expand the options there to reflect the reality that the two concepts are different and they're not always going to be at issue in a given case. So, after the, this psychiatric evaluation takes place. There's a report that has to be generated by, by the psychiatrist or psychologist and there you see an existing law there's the list of people who get the report it's going to be transferred, or sorry transmitted to the court and to the state's attorney and the, and the defendants or to use the word respondents, defendants attorney so they, they all get a copy of the report and what's added here you see that the commissioner of mental health also gets a copy of the report. The idea here being that this is obviously a question of the person's sanity or competency that may result in the person being transferred to the department of mental health custody. So, in some sense for the, for the department to have a copy of the initial psychiatric evaluation that's going on. So moving on to subdivision to here. This language actually addresses it as we were just talking about sometimes the case may involve competency sometimes it may involve sanity sometimes it may be both this subdivision addresses those cases where, where it does involve both the defendant's competency and the defendant's sanity and so this is basically saying here it's sort of a logistical piece that when that's the case when, when the psychiatrist or psychologist is asked to provide an evaluation and opinion of both competency and then the opinions are probably have to be presented in separate reports and addressed separately by the court. And then the second sentence there makes clear, again, sort of a logistical piece that the, that any, the psychiatric examination of the person's sanity is only going to be undertaken that only takes place. If the psychiatrist or psychologist is first able to conclude that the person is competent and think about that that makes sense because as I, as I explained at the beginning, a person who's found incompetent is on trial and that in competency could last forever it might be treated and the person could then regain competency, but that might not be the case so if the person never retains competency, they're never going to be tried for the case and it makes no sense for, for, there would never be an examination of the person's sanity at the time of the offense because they would never be on trial and when you raise the insanity defense as for purposes of your criminal trial. It never happens so it doesn't make sense in the first instance for psychiatrist or psychiatrist psychologist to necessarily if they're going to be asked to evaluate both, I'm sorry if they're in terms of sequence, it doesn't make sense for them to do the examination of the person's sanity at the time of their offense. If they're never going to be competent to stand trial anyway, it would sort of be terms of resources and time. It might never be useful might never be used so this makes clear that it's not going to happen until the person is deemed competent to stand trial. So, moving on to section to this, if this, this addresses the court proceeding that is required under existing law, when a defendant has been found either to be insane at the time of the offense, or incompetent to stand trial. So after that, let's assume they were further down on the, on the timeline now on the continuum with the site, the initial psychiatric evaluation has already taken place. And there have been perhaps competing arguments in the court if the, if there hasn't been a stipulation because sometimes the parties can agree. For example, they could stipulate to the fact that that a defendant was insane at the time of the offense or incompetent to stand trial, or they might disagree and then court might have to make a decision. That's the point, but if you get to the point where the defendant is found by the court, one way or the other to be insane at the time of the offense, or incompetent to stand trial, then the court has to hold a hearing next, and this hearing is based on a concept that I'm sure this committee is very, very familiar with and that's the concept of danger to self or others. That's the, the decision point that needs to be made at that hearing. So, if the defendant is found dangerous to danger to self or others, then the person is committed to the Department of Mental Health for treatment, and that's sort of goes back to the two different doors point that Katie made at the very beginning. This is the way they're coming in through the criminal justice door to Department of Mental Health custody. This isn't a civil proceeding where a person has either voluntarily committed themselves or been involuntarily committed in the civil process. This is a criminal proceeding. This is a different door that a person could end up in the custody of Department of Mental Health and that's after they committed this criminal offense. And have been found either insane at the time they committed that offense or incompetent to stand trial and after that, in the course of this hearing found dangerous to self or others, then they are committed to DMH custody. So under current law, the representation of the defendant at the hearing, in other words, who their counsel is, generally continues to be their defense counsel. But what the proposal here is that, that if the person is found incompetent, or insane at the time of the offense, then there and this is sort of goes to the third line from the bottom of sub subsection B, then they're entitled to have counsel appointed by Vermont legal aid. So this is the body that I'm sure you know is very familiar very experienced with representing persons in these proceedings when when danger to self or others is evaluated and litigated. And as a practical matter, they've been involved in some of these proceedings previously, but their, I think had been agreement between both the defender general and legal aid that it made sense for legal aid to always be available to represent the person at this stage of proceeding because it's no longer criminal per sheet. They're not not adjudicating guilt or innocence of the offense anymore. All they're all the court is looking at is whether they're danger to self or others and it's Vermont legal aid that has the experience in those sorts of representing defendants and those sorts of situations. Because it uses the terminology entitled you see a person is entitled to have counsel appointed. I mean, they can still choose to have their own defense private defense attorney if they want, but if they don't, they could have counsel from legal aid appointed. And the last sense there you see also that, in addition to to having counsel from legal aid. The Department of Mental Health is also entitled to appear and call witnesses at the proceeding. Again, same idea, the question here is whether the person is being committed to the Department of Mental Health. And so there's some logic to having them be a part of the proceeding as well. Representative golden has a question. I do thank you so much chair. I'm just looking to understand what problem this language is trying to solve. So that's what I don't understand the previous context. So I don't know what we're going from to, if that makes it does that question make sense. Do you mean the language right here, this about the representation from legal aid and yeah, you know, subsection B I think is the new language rate so I'm just wondering why this someone obviously thought this is important to add, because it was solving a problem and I'm just trying to understand what problem existed that required this. I think it's that sort of as much as possible kind of paraphrasing the testimony that at least I heard it sent a judiciary, it was that the representation of the person by most criminal defendants, the vast majority of criminal defendants are represented by public defenders by the defender general's office because of their economic status. The expertise though, of representing defendants in these proceedings again this isn't a criminal proceedings not you're not adjudicating guilt or innocence anymore. These types of proceedings, whether or not someone because of their mental health status should be committed to the Department of Mental Health, that expertise really falls with legal aid, because of their experience, rather than with the defender general's up. So I think both of those entities agreed that it made more sense for legal aid to pick up the representation at that stage of the of these cases. So that's why that's why you've got the change. Thanks, that helps. And while remote legal aid has a broad range of things that they do I believe the mental health law project. If I'm correct falls within their area of expertise. That's that's exactly right. Okay, where's that Peterson. Yes, thank you. Could you move that down Eric I'd like to see above be there. Yeah. Okay, so, all right, that that I missed that part of it. So, so we're saying that the person is no longer criminal proceeding because he's incompetent to stand trial, or insane at the time of the events. Right. So now, we're, we're, we're putting him or determining what will happen to him. Okay, that's all I need. Yep. That's exactly right. Yep. Thank you. Well, I think, I think Eric is it, is it fair to say or I mean, is it fair to say that being found incompetent stand trial, or insane at the time of the crime does not result in. Okay, you're done. You just get to walk away. If the court finds that then there must be this hearing. To determine what what now what now what happens. And I think that's what represent Peterson is asking you. Yes, I think that's right. And, and, you know, because the, as you say, the, a next question after assuming the court does find incompetency or insanity. The next question is, you know, what, what should happen next, and should the person really that's the existing that second line down on page three be sort of paraphrase a little bit should the person be committed to the custody of the commissioner mental health. Again, that depends on whether the person is a danger. So if the, if the person is then they would be but obviously the opposite is also true that that turns out that the person was perhaps insane at the time of the or founded competent to stand trial but isn't dangerous to anybody then there's no reason to commit the person to custody. And the person isn't doesn't doesn't have to be so. And, and again, the dangerousness danger to self or others is a difference evaluation a different set of criteria than either the criteria for competency to stand trial, or insanity at the time of the of the offense. Absolutely. Yep. It's, it's, it's a different analysis that must be done. Mm hmm. Sounds like we're okay to move a little bit forward. I think so yes. Yeah. So section three brings us to a large part of the bill actually. So this, again, now we're moving further along be think of this as sort of a timeline kind of where, where on the, on the timeline of the proceedings we are. So this assume for the, for the sake of understanding this section that at this point, you've gone through the hearing that we just talked about so and the hearing found that a person was a danger to self or others so the person was committed to the department of mental health custom. So this section applies, assuming that to be the case so when that happens when the person has been committed to DMH custody, as a result of that finding by the court after the hearing. The section that you're looking at now deals with victim notification. And this is the concept that that the second chairman of the right spot here. Yes. So, under current law, there, there are not specific proceeding to sorry specific provisions for victim notification in these sorts of situations say think about it, you know there was a crime earlier on, prior to the person being deemed either insane or incompetent and committed to the departmental health. So there was a crime and there may have been a victim of the crime depending on what type of crime it was. But there isn't any process in law to provide notification to victims when the, the offenders, the defendant's status changes, while they're in department of mental health custody. And that's what this section deals with. When, in particular, there's different ways in which this, this criminal defendant may return to the community. Right after they've been in the custody of the commissioner they may well return under the into the community in a variety of different procedural possibilities. And what this section does is when that happens when the defendant after being committed returns to the community, it requires notification to the state's attorney to the prosecutor and sometimes to the court and then has to provide it to the victim. And that's sort of the big picture of what's going on in this section. And I'll now talk about some of the specifics okay well when does that when is the notification required and how does it work and who does it go to that you'll see starts here on page five. So, the, the first point that you'll see in subdivision to a there is that, as I just mentioned this victim notification piece applies after a person has been committed to the image custody, after they after they've been found and this is a bit more of a fine point on it, but either not guilty by reason of insanity, or incompetent to stand trial, provided that the person's criminal case has not been dismissed now that may remind you something I mentioned at the very the reason there's that the second limitation on the incompetency piece is because remember we talked about the fact that, you know, someone may be found incompetent to stand trial on the basis of a very minor offense. And the prosecutor may well have decided to dismiss the case completely because it was so minor, it made no sense to keep that case open on the basis of what the person allegedly did. So, in those cases, you see notice is not required in this notice is required only if they've been found either not guilty by reason of insanity, or incompetent to stand trial, if the criminal case hasn't been dismissed so it's only if the prosecution has made a decision to keep the case open while the person is being treated that this notice piece would be required and presumably that's going to be your more serious group of cases, because in the in the less serious ones are the ones that the prosecution will dismiss. So that's one sort of piece that talks about the universe of who to whom this notification piece required so when that's happened when someone who fits into that that group has been committed. The Commissioner Mental Health has to provide notice to the state's attorney, or the Office of the Attorney General if that was the office that prosecuted the case, and you'll see three different circumstances three different ways in which the defendant could be returning to the community that would trigger the commissioners duty to provide notice to the prosecutor. And so here the three are Roman numeral capitals one two and three on the next page but here are the first two. When is this notice duty going to be triggered. Well, the first one is at least 10 days prior to discharging the person from the care and custody of the commissioner or commitment in a hospital or secure residential recovery facility to the community on an order of non hospitalization as this committee knows. So either one of those things that if the person is either discharged from custody completely, that's one double a, or not discharged from complete custody but transferred or discharged from hospital commitment, or from secure residential recovery facility commitment to the community on an own age. So if either one of those two things happen. Then this notice provision is triggered. And so, again, you see that that means that it would apply both when the person is discharged completely from custody, or when the person's treatment status is changed. So completely they're still under the custody of the department, but now they're out in the community on an own age, either one of those two things would trigger the notice requirement. Another subdivision Roman numeral capital to their notification requirement is also triggered at least 10 days prior to the expiration of a commitment order, if the commissioner does not seek continued treatment. I'll be familiar to the committee, because the, the commitment orders, typically the, the extra I think required by law the initial commitment order can only last for 90 days. And if the commissioner on the department decide to seek an order of continued treatment that can last for up to a year. Now usually what would happen is as you get toward the end of that initial 90 day period department makes a decision about whether they're going to whether they're going to seek an order for continued treatment. And if they do they have to make the same show in the person is a danger to sell for others. And the court finds that the person is does satisfy that that that test, then the person could be committed under an order of continued treatment for up to another year. So if you think about that though. The department sometimes and can, when they, when the end of that say one year period is starting to approach, they again have to make a decision about whether or not they're going to seek an order for continued treatment. And they may decide not to, it may decide that the person's treatment is successful or whatever other circumstances, they're taking into consideration, they may decide they're not going to seek that order of continued treatment they're just going to let the commitment order the one year order expire. Now, when that happens, notice is triggered because you see that's that were to happen the person would return to the community. And that this whole section is about victim notice in the event of the defendant returning to the community. And that's different. I moved the language back up again so that we could relook at room number one, because the idea is to capture both folks who are formally discharged and folks who are returning to the community, but they have actually been formally discharged. They just the department has just decided to let the commitment order expire. And that's why you have separate language and Roman Omero to there to cover both those possible situations. And the last one number three is anytime that a person abscones from the custody of the commission. So if they flee, run away, escape, that sort of thing. And that's also the idea here is that when that happens, then the notification, the notification requirement kicks in also. So what happens when, when notification is provided, when there are any one of those three circumstances we just described, it goes to the state's attorney, the attorney general to see in Roman Omero to there and they have to provide notice to any victim of the person who has not opted out of receiving notice. So it's an opt out system victims may decide that, you know, because of retraumatization or any other reason that they don't want to have notice when, when the offenders change in status and they're able to select that option if they prefer. But if not then they would get the notice. And the victim definition as a reference to an existing definition of crime victim and crime victim services statute that's already in existence. Some division C so this is, we've gotten through the notice piece that has to do with notifying based on the change in status of the defendant. This is a separate notification piece subdivision see that you're looking at here. This is a can apply under the circumstance when a person is already in the community on a non hospitalization order on an own age so a person is already out on an own age in the community. But one of two things happens you'll see the Roman normal is one and two below you the person is either not complying with the order not complying with the, the own age, or the alternative treatment that is part of the own age has not been adequate to meet the person's treatment needs. If either one of those two things occurs, then the notice is required again the commissioner of the departmental health has to provide notice to the committing court to the state or to the state's attorney or the attorney general, depending on who, who, which office prosecuted the case. Right here I just want to point the committee to one other just so you can see where this language came from the, the person not complying with the order or their alternative treatment language and then pull up one other statute real quick. And this is the existing on a statute that non hospitalization order statute, and there's there's a similar a different but somewhat similar process in law now. In this case it's the court making the finding but you see that, and this so this is when a person is in the community, or the court can order rather that that a person go into the community on an order of non hospitalization. It finds that a treatment program other than hospitalization is adequate to meet the person's treatment needs. But if you look under subdivision sorry subsection be you'll see language that similar to what you just saw. So if any time during that period, the court comes to the court's attention that the patient is not complying with the order, which is the same language that the person had, or that the alternative treatment has not been adequate to meet the person's treatment needs. Then after hearing the court can consider other alternatives modify the order, or, or direct that the person be returned to the hospital for a recommendation for the remainder of the 90 day period. So that's the existing on a statute I just bring that up to provide a little bit of context as to where that that language that we were just looking at comes from. So, that brings us to the end of that piece that's the victim notification piece. Yep. Yeah, before we go on Eric. There's a couple questions and I, I'm going to ask just a prior question if I may. The reason this language that is here now. This, these notifications do not currently. Well I don't know where they don't have are they forbidden under current law, or do they, can they be done. If there's a choice to if there's the, I guess what's the status in terms of the department making these notifications. Currently, I don't think there's any legal authorization for them to make that notification currently. So, without this statute I don't think the authorization exists. It may be a violation of some other privacy. I would actually say that it would be, and it sort of leads me into what I was going to I can hold off I hear you say that there are questions. Yeah, there's a hip up a hip up point to be made here as well that's related to your question but I can, I can hold off on that. Yeah, okay, represent Peterson says stand up and then represent down here. No question. Okay. Yeah, thank you. Eric, could you go back to the order of non hospitalization slide you had up. Oh sure. So, when I look at at at be in terms of the potential for revoking an order of hospitalization. That's at any time that it comes to the attention of the court that there's non compliance. And then be to one of the things that court can then do is order that the patient be re hospitalized. So would it be correct that under the notice provision. Currently they're not notified, but although it doesn't specify what the court or the state's attorney might do with that information in fact, the state's attorney could bring it to the attention of the court or the court, having been notified, could make a decision then to hold a hearing and order that the patient be re hospitalized. Yeah, I think that I agree with that reading. Yes. And also, I mean I've heard some testimony that says there's no, there's no implications of the notice it's just that they're being informed. In fact, there would be this implication that the person could be ordered to the hospital, even though there might not have ever been a, you know, like an admitting doctor hasn't said this person needs hospitalization. It's just that they're not following their own age and the court determines that the court thinks the person should be re hospitalized. I'm not an expert in this existing statute but that's the way I read this statute, exactly as you said that the court can do that now under the O and H and if they, if they were, if it comes to the court's attention, in the case of, because perhaps the state's attorney or the AG is the one who brought it to their attention because of the notification language in the new bill, then that would be a way that it came to the court's attention and they would have those, those two options that you just mentioned. Another thing I would add is, is that sorry that we'll get to it but we'll see later on to that. The forensic care working group is also tasked with studying what to do in this particular circumstance, but what's the right thing to do with the information when, when the state's attorney and the AG is notified about a person on an O and H. Not, not complying. Yeah, under understood they'll look at the options but under current law, the court has the authority to order hospitalization and if we change the statute, which that changes suggested prior to the study group doing anything, then the court would be informed. Currently they would only be informed if DMH informed them. Right. They're not getting the court is not being informed currently. Oh, you mean on the, on the, with respect to the new language for example, you mean the, yeah, that's right if the new language didn't pass as part of the bill. It would remain that the court would not have a way that it would come to their attention unless DMH filed with the court wanting to have it revoked. Yeah, I think that's probably true I don't certainly that certainly they wouldn't be getting the information via the state's attorney or the attorney general or that notification process because it wouldn't exist I don't, I don't know based on the existing 7618 if there's other ways that it might come to the court's attention under this existing statute, I really don't know but I think you're right probably the most, most common one would be from DMH. Interesting. Okay, let's keep. Yep. So just the last point before we move on to the next section because there was sort of a HIPAA health information privacy point could be made here that you were kind of alluding to that as well chair leopard that is a rule of HIPAA generally is that a person's, you know, protected health information is confidential and can't be disclosed. So there's been some folks that have raised a question of whether or not requiring this disclosure of a person's mental health treatment status or change in their, in their treatment status while they're under DMH custody. There could be a HIPAA violation and our offices looked at that and we think that there's, there's ample legal ground to conclude that it's not and that one of the HIPAA exceptions applies that's not to say that it's, it's a resolved question it may well be litigated at some point, but in a sense that they're being precedent out there to support the, the conclusion that one of the HIPAA exceptions applies. That's there. And that also is related to your question, a representative leopard because without this law, the exception that applies we think interestingly is the required by law exception, so that when someone a law has been passed requiring disclosure, not, not permitting that would not be sufficient but requiring disclosure of certain health information, and that's an exception to the HIPAA statute. But without that law, so in other words this circles back around your question without that law so if this wasn't on the books, then yeah it would likely be illegal of a HIPAA violation for these, these notifications about the defendants treatment status to be transmitted to, you know, the state's attorney, the attorney general of the court or anybody else, it would be confidential and protected under HIPAA. You have your. Anybody else. And just, just, just to say, Eric, in the course of all of this. The person may have been. Again, kind of looking back at the beginning the person may have been brought into court, but they, they may they may have been charged but indeed they have not been convicted. That's correct. Yes. That's right. The person, the person has not been convicted of the crime. They are still alleged to have committed the crime and they've been brought into court to determine that and then subsequent actions. Yep, that's right. Yep, that, that. You know, it's prior to conviction they've been either found incompetent to stand trial or, or they were taken out of the criminal proceeding entirely if they were found insane at the time of the offense. So that's right. They never got to that point. It becomes becomes, it's an important point, but one which is kind of easily to trip over in a way. Okay, so in the interest, both of time and our attention on a Friday afternoon, just keep moving. And I'm just about done with my piece. This is my last little section right here before Katie will take over for the last couple. So this is a has to do with the disclosure that's required under current law right now under the rules of criminal procedure. When, when the defendant provides notice that sanity is going to be an issue in the case and that's actually required by a separate rule of criminal procedure when a defendant is going to raise the insanity defense they have to notify the prosecution and notify who their, their experts are going to be. Right now, the way the rules written. The prosecution is able to have its own psychiatrist or expert conduct a what's known as a reasonable mental examination of the defendants and that's an existing law just above the J there to see that so that that subdivision I covers the existing prosecution to get their own psychiatrist psychiatric examination when sanity is an issue when the defendant notifies the prosecution that sanity is going to be an issue in the case. You see that they can then the prosecution can obtain a reasonable mental examination. So, this is subdivision Jay you see adds that same ability for purposes of competency remember we talked about this. Many times today competency and sanity are different things. So this provides the prosecution with the ability to have its own mental examination exact same language as you see above when competency is an issue, as opposed to sanity. It's in response to a Vermont Supreme Court case actually that said that, you know, because the statutory language allowed for the prosecution to get its own psychiatric report. In a sanity case but not a competency one then, then the prosecution couldn't get one in a competency one because that wasn't provided. So this does so provides explicitly and statute that that's an option for the for the prosecutor and just like it is for the case and I should mention on this one as well. There's some different points of view between the defender general and the attorney general to whether this adding this for competency may create some self incrimination constitutional provisions they they don't agree on that as you might expect would probably be litigated at some point down the road. Our view is that they both have reasonable arguments on it but the Senate at least was satisfied that there was enough of a legal basis to defend it as the attorney general explained that they're comfortable having it in there. So that brings me to the end of my, my portions of S3 and I'm going to pause for any questions and otherwise turn it over to Katie for her sections. Katie, feel free to tell me to move the screen there when you need it. Okay, I'll do. So I just want to reflect on the fact that this is a quick and dive into some somewhat complex language and concepts that are easily confused and not necessarily fully understood by those who are not working within this statute. But I appreciate your helping us try to look at this. Sure, we will. So let's let's take a look at the remaining sections and and then we're not going to try to get into what makes sense what doesn't make sense in these sections at this point but really just understand what's here, what's being put forward. And then we'll have to come back to this. Once we have a census also also what's happening in the judiciary committee as well as hearing from some witnesses, which goes to represent Goldman's question about what are we trying to do are we having to make any decisions and I think we are being asked to weigh in, we will be passed away in on portions of this new statutory language. But we're not the only committee so it's not as even a straightforward as that. So Katie, you want to pick up on section five and take us forward from there. Sure. So we're now transitioning out of looking at some of the court procedures and we're looking in the next two sections at information that the General Assembly is seeking to help future decision making. So in the first section. The General Assembly is asking the departments of corrections and of mental health to jointly submit an inventory and evaluation of mental health services that the Department of Corrections offers to individuals in a correctional setting right now the Department of Corrections has an entity that it contracts with to provide health care services in a correctional setting. So this is asking asking Department of Corrections and Department of Mental Health to work together to put together an inventory of the mental health services provided in the correctional setting by this entity. And this report is coming back on November 1 of this year. You can see that it's coming to several committees including this committee. And if you can scroll down Eric on the first line of the next page we see that this evaluation is comparing the mental health services that are offered in a correctional setting. And we're comparing those to the services that are offered in the community, and looking at how those services may differ in terms of the types of services, frequency of services and timeliness of services. And the evaluation is also addressing how the MOU that's executed between the departments of corrections and of mental health impacts the mental health services that is provided by that and an entity that does the contracting that provides the health care services in correctional facilities. So that's section five and if we scroll down a bit, we'll look at section six. One quick question on that section is this this speaks of an MOU of memorandum of memorandum of understanding between corrections and mental health. That memorandum is an existing memorandum they're referring to is that correct. That's correct. Not not to create one but there is one. That's correct. Yeah, it's already been executed yes. So now turning to a section six which is the forensic care working group. The first bit is introductory language about who is going to participate in this working group, and the next section looks at three specific pieces. And then there are topics that this working group is going to be looking at. And you'll see when you're looking at the introductory language. The working group itself is not terribly specific in terms of which entities are working on which of the specific responsibilities of the working group. And that's because some some persons in this list and subsection a have expertise that will help on one issue, but not necessarily all three of the issues and I'll give you an example of that. We, we see in the language that it's convening a working group of interested, interested stakeholders including as appropriate. The Department of Corrections, the Department of State's attorneys and sheriffs, the Office of the Attorney General the Office of the Defender General, the Director of Healthcare Reform the Department of Building and General Services, a representative appointed by the Vermont Care Partners, a representative appointed by Vermont legal aids mental health project to crime victim representatives appointed by the Vermont crime. Excuse me Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services, the mental health care ombudsman and a representative of the designated hospitals appointed by boss, a person with lived experience and any other interested as the Department of Health deems appropriate. So you can see that the, it's a large group but if we scroll down. You'll see that as we look at each of the three responsibilities that this group has that not all of the stakeholders will necessarily be working on each of these items. So the first item is identifying any gaps in the current mental health and criminal justice system structure and opportunities to improve public safety and the coordination of treatment for individuals who are either incompetent to stand trial, or who are found not guilty by a reason of insanity. And the group is to review competency restoration models that are used in other states that balance the treatment of an individual versus any public safety risks posed by that individual who've been found guilty by not reason of insanity. So, and then specific examples that this group is to look into is psychiatric security review boards, including Connecticut psychiatric security review board, and also a guilty but not mentally ill verdict and criminal cases, guilty but mentally, thank you guilty but mentally ill verdicts thank you. And subdivision to where I see that there's a hand I don't know. Yeah, represent Pearson question. Yes, what is the word forensic mean. Good. Yeah, good question. Um, so this is referring to individuals well this kind of goes back to the common I made at the beginning of individuals who are coming into the mental health system are coming in through two doors a civil door or a criminal justice door. So the concept of indiv of the label forensic refers to individuals who are coming in through the criminal door. Okay. All right, good. Thank you. Thank you for asking me to clarify that in subdivision to this portion of the working groups responsibility is looking at potentially establishing a state funded forensic treatment facility for individuals who are found incompetent to stand trial or educated not guilty by reason of insanity. So this group is to look at evaluating various models. And specifically there's a list of items that this evaluation is to address. So specifically at the work group is to address whether there's a need for forensic treatment facility in Vermont. The entity or entities most appropriate to operate a forensic treatment facility, the feasibility and appropriateness of repurposing an existing facility for the purpose of establishing a forensic treatment facility versus constructing a new facility for this purpose. In subdivision D, the number of beds that's needed and a forensic treatment facility, and what the impact would be of repurposing existing beds for this facility would have on the availability of beds for the rest of the mental health system. And then lastly and subdivision either fiscal impact of constructing or repurposing a forensic treatment facility and estimated annual operation costs, taking into consideration that there are the institutions of mental disease waivers, I am D this is a federal institution that is available through this CMS. We don't get a the state doesn't get a Medicaid match for individuals who are forensic mental health patients in this type of facility so that fiscal implication would would need to be accounted for. So back to the stakeholder list you can see how in this particular circumstance for example somebody from BGS with expert expertise and facilities would be the right, the right type of person to have weighing in on a facilities question whereas probably not in subdivision one when we're looking at policy with regard to treatment in the mental health system. The last item on this list is looking at the notification process that is under consideration in this bill when the commissioner is required to provide notification to the prosecutor upon becoming aware that the person on an H an order of non hospitalization are not complying with the order, or the alternative treatment is not adequate to meet the person's needs this is the language that Eric had pulled up on his screen earlier. And this working group is to make recommendations it deems necessary to clarify that process, including recommendations as to what facts and circumstances should trigger the commissioner's duty to notify the prosecutor. So recommendations as to steps that the prosecutor should take after receiving the notification. So that is the third piece of this evaluation and subsection be, we have language that members of this working group or not state employees are entitled to per diem compensation and reimbursement of expenses for attending this. And then in subsection see, we have the, the date that this is this report is due. So I just wanted to flag for this committee as I did for the Judiciary Committee that this group is being formed on August 1 of this year. And then this report back with these three analyses is due November 1 2021, and the report is to go to the joint legislative justice oversight committee, and it shall include proposed draft legislation addressing any identified statutory changes. And this is the last section is the effective date which is July 1 2021. So, can you have a question in terms of on page 10 of the well on section three, we're talks about consider the note that one of the tasks is to consider the notification process. There's a section in this bill about changing the notification process. There is, yes, and this conflict with each other. In one part of the bill we're going to change the notification process. And then another part of the bill we're going to say we're going to create a study group to study what should be changed in the notification process. This is a decision that was made in the Senate and you're correct it exactly this subdivision three exactly cross references the language that's being proposed in this bill that would take effect July 1 2021. So what this bill and effect does is it makes the change to take effect July 1 2021, and also ask this working group, after that language has taken effect to continue to work on this issue and to come back to the General Assembly with recommendations and propose link language changes if the working group finds that that is necessary. Yeah, I find that a little odd. Well, that's not. So anyway, I just as I or perhaps in the event that the first part of the statute doesn't get adopted. The second part of the statute comes into play. If it gets adopted. I mean there's different ways to make sense of this represent Peterson. Yes. Katie, we talked about this bill addresses whether or not we need a forensic facility. What happens right now when someone's considered insane or they have to go I mean did they get mixed in with everybody or how does that work. I mean, such a person would be committed to may not know you may not know the answer to this I mean it's kind of unfair to ask you maybe. Well, a person would would be treated as somebody coming in through the civil door. So it would be the same standard as if the person is a danger to sell for others. And then that person available hospital bed if the person is ordered for hospitalization would be found. And then if a person is found no longer to need that hospital level care, they either could be discharged there, or they could be released into the community or into a secure residential recovery facility on an order of non hospitalization. But they're not separate from the people that come in the other way. Vermont doesn't currently have a facility or separate unit at this point, separate forensic facility or unit. Yes. Thank you. It's a reasonable question rips and Peterson. One also, I found myself thinking one might also be interested in. What's the inventory of folks who currently are found in these statuses and where we're, we're having they ended up. But yeah, we actually got a chart about that from DMH a few weeks ago when we were asking in reference to people from level one units who might be going to secure residences. And we got a chart which showed what does how many individuals. And how many bed days in that status, right. Thank you for reminding us and maybe you could bring that to our attention again passes in front of us. Yeah, that'd be great. Okay. Okay. Unless there are both screen down. Yeah, sure. So let me let me, we won't spend too much longer I think today, but this is an helpful laying out what's in, you know, what's what's here in S3 what's in front of the Judiciary Committee which actually has possession of the bill. We do not have possession of the bill. And maybe, and I have not had a chance to speak with the although we've texted back and forth we have not had a chance to speak with the chair of the judiciary house judiciary committee. She had expressed representative grad expressed a desire for our committee's involvement in some manner in reviewing particularly the section certain sections of this but as we say it's hard to sort out which are our sections and which are not. Eric, can you or Katie give us any information about what the next steps of the Judiciary Committee appear to be. And if you if you can't that's fine I can I will try to determine that by talking to the chair of the committee. I'm just trying to get a sense of where things are moving and timeframe and etc. As far as I know they're still taking witness testimony and I think that more witnesses coming in next week. That's, that's as much as I haven't heard anything beyond that yet. Okay, representative down here you've been witnessing that committee for. Yes, they have more schedule for Thursday and the chair suggested that would probably not be the end of it. The chair also stated that she was looking forward to hearing from the chair and vice chair of health care to hear from us which sections. We were going to be addressing with them. Okay, well, that's, this is our first step. This is our first step so what our next was aware. Yeah, she was aware we were going to do a walk through this afternoon. I had informed her that we were doing a walk through today and she had expressed her appreciation that we were doing that absent even absent are having any possession of the bill and I don't know that we'll have possession of the bill frankly I don't know that we will. But, so unless there if there's if there's any burning questions I this is a good chance to do it but it's Friday it's three o'clock, and this is, I think we've had a. This is very helpful walk through S3 thank you Katie thank you, Eric, and I'm sure I'm speaking for myself at least I think there will be times when we need to revisit clarifications of terms that have been used. In terms of sanity and competencies competency to stand trial. And, and I would just say, if you, you all may have noticed, there have been some high profile cases in the media, and where these terms get used, and, and I'm not always clear that everyone reading the media accounts has a full understanding of what the implications are of the controversies in the media. So you will have more opportunities to be thinking about that as well. So are there any other questions at this point in time for either Eric or Katie. Okay, thank you, thank you everyone thank you Eric, thank you Katie. Thank you members for your attention this afternoon. And at this point, I think we'll go off YouTube.