 Welcome folks. This is House Corrections and Institutions Committee. We are back working on S3. We do not again physically have the bill. We're doing a drive by and it's on section five and section six. And this morning we're really focusing on section six, which deals with the working group for forensic care. We have deputy commissioner of mental health with us. Morning Fox as well as the commissioner. I'm just going to say BGS. It's not BGS corrections. BGS might be easier. I don't need that title. No. Jim Baker. And then of course we have the legal counsel for DMH Karen Barber here. We like to start with deputy commissioner of Fox. And I know that deputy commissioner of Fox was upstairs. And house healthcare yesterday. So I'm just going to jump in on that. And I know that quite a bit of testimony was given yesterday. On section six. And I, I know we've only got an hour. So I'm just going to sort of jumpstart it. In terms of some of the testimony we received yesterday. Was really saying we should be looking at competency. And the issue of. And how is that best achieved? And is that best achieved in the natural building. Of a forensic facility. Or there are other ways of approaching this. And that was part of the conversation that occurred upstairs. In healthcare committee. The language. That's an S3 really seems like there's already been a pre-determined decision made to go ahead with the facility. And I think that piece really needs to be cleared up. And that was the concern and healthcare committee. And the deputy commissioner yesterday. Mental health really clarified that. So we could start at that point. Morning. That would be terrific. So. If you could just identify yourself for the record. For the record. Morning Fox deputy commissioner department of mental health. I'd like to thank the committee and thank you, madam chair. For setting the table for today's testimony. I did spend quite a bit of time with health healthcare yesterday and discussing this section of the bill. And there are some concerns around. Some of the language in the study. For the forensic work group in section six. That. Could lead one to. I'd like to thank the committee and thank you madam chair for. Setting the table for today's testimony. And I think that. That could lead one to think that there's, there's either. Some predetermination. Of. Of findings. And we want to make sure because this work is extremely important. That we want, we want it to be really clear that. We're looking at. We're looking at some of the pieces in this and that we're not. Having a predetermined. Decision on whether or not. We need to look at a certain facility. Or a certain type of competency restoration program. Or something of that sort. And so we discussed some of that type of language. In section one of the. Work group. And then we looked at some of the other. And then we looked at some of the other. It. In visions. Taking a look at. Other post adjudication. Type findings like guilty, but mentally ill. And then also it then gets into. Looking at. Different. Models that other states use. And it gives an example of the psychiatric security review board. Including Connecticut's psychiatric security review board. And we discussed removing that language. Which we're fine with at the department. That will probably be one of the pieces that we do look at. And really the, the genesis of how that. Came into the bill originally. Was during testimony in the Senate side. In talking about different types of models. And it was just discussed in Senate in part of testimony that. One of the types of models we would look at was. This one example. And so somehow that basically was then put into the language as, you know, you'll look at things like that. But by naming it as such that could lend credence to its, its credibility or its usefulness in Vermont. More than just by looking at any and every model in general. And so we're completely fine with removing that, that language. The other piece similar to that is in section two. Where section two envisions that we would evaluate various models for the establishment of a state forensic treatment facility for individuals found incompetent, and that it is not a state-of-the-art, a state-of-the-art, or a state-of-the-art trial or adjudicated, not guilty very reason, Sandy. And it shall address the need for a forensic treatment facility. In Vermont. And by having written that way with that language. It again seems to. One could interpret that as being indicative of saying. We should have one. And so take a look at what that looks like. It needs to be looked at in a fashion that's more whether or not, you know, whether we need this. And then if so, BCD and E of section two would then come into play. Part of the testimony from both myself and Dr. Raven from the Vermont medical society yesterday. And then I spoke about various competency restoration models, and that for a number of individuals. Competency restoration happens in the community. And so. When we start talking about. Competency restoration and happening in the community. It does bring up the question of, you know, how much and the impacts of the need for. You know, a facility of this sort. And so that's kind of the genesis of. Becoming concerned around how that language looks and we're in support of amending that language. I believe house healthcare was working on an amendment. To craft that language. But that would basically say whether there is a need for a, you know, that, you know, that would be the study is that whether there's a need. And then if so. That's when we start to look at the entity or entities. That would operate it to feasibility, appropriateness of repurposing facilities, et cetera, et cetera. Number of beds, physical impact, et cetera. Okay. This might be a good stopping point for questions for folks. Any questions. I can't believe the committee's so quiet. They're not awake yet. I was going to say. Should I have brought coffee? Well. My internet connections unstable. I don't know. I don't know. Folks here. Okay. So we have a couple of questions. Curt and Sarah. I'm would like to get straightened out a little bit on the, the sequence of events that we heard. Some testimony yesterday as to how this actually goes through the court system. And so I'm trying to figure out. A person is going to be. Is going to stand trial. And they find there's a preliminary screening. And if that preliminary screening or. Question finds out that the person is says that this person. Maybe, or do they actually determine at that point. That the person is incompetent. To stand trial and needs to have his competency restored. And then there is another, at which point. Somewhere along the line, they decide whether that can be done. In an institution or whether in the hospital, or whether it can go into the community. Depending on what needs to be done, I guess. So. I just like a refresher on exactly the steps that take as to where. That comp. Competency restoration is done. And whether it can be done. In a community setting or whether it has to be in a hospital. Sure. Does that. Great, great question representative Taylor. And. This is. I hope to be able to lay this out fairly succinctly for you. So generally someone presents to court and really at any time that someone comes into court. A request could be made. If there's a question of, of an individual's competency. And so the usual. If there's a question of whether or not they can work effectively with their attorney. In other words, they, they start to question whether or not the person is competent. To, to engage in their own defense. And so the request comes from the court. To our designated agencies. To have a qualified mental health professional come in and screen the individual. That's screening what they, what they do. They're screening to determine. To make, to, to give an opinion to the court. As to whether or not they're recommending. If the, if the individual should have. A inpatient evaluation. An outpatient evaluation. Or that they're not seeing an indication right now for any. If they're not seeing an indication. And so there's no determination at that time around the individual's competence to stand trial. The screener is really just making the opinion to the court and the recommendation to the court as to whether or not. That evaluation that they're, that they're considering. If it should occur outpatient, which could be in the community or in department of corrections. Or that they're not seeing an indication right now for any evaluation. And so there's no determination at that time around the individual's competence to stand trial. Or that they're not seeing an indication right now for any corrections. Or inpatient, which would be in a psychiatric setting. If the court does then order an inpatient evaluation. The next step in that process is that they're assessed by a psychiatrist. At the, through the department of mental health. That through our contract with our psychiatrists that work at the same time. That they have a further assessment of that individual. And they will assess whether or not that individual at this time meets hospital level of care criteria. In other words, from a psychiatric perspective, does that individual meet criteria for needing. Inpatient hospitalization to treat their psychiatric illness. If the psychiatrist concurs and says, yes, this person meets that level of care. And then the admission process will begin from there to a, to a psychiatric unit and their evaluation will occur as an inpatient. At a psychiatric facility. If the psychiatrist determines at that time that the person does not need to be in the hospital. And does not meet hospital level of care criteria. Then that order will convert to an outpatient evaluation. And then not to get too into the weeds, but basically if that individual does not have bail set, they will be released into the community based on their conditions of release from the court, because the court will set conditions of release. At the end of that, that arraignment. And so the person would then be distraught, you know, would be allowed into the community based on those conditions of release and would have their evaluation done on an outpatient basis meeting with an evaluator in the community. If there's bail that is set for the individual, then depending on their ability to pay for bail, that individual would either have their outpatient evaluation completed in the community or at a department of corrections facility. The way that you've just described that I believe sounds like about three different evaluations. The first one done by, at the court level, by the designated agency. The second one done if the person might go to a, the psych hospital to be evaluated. And then you said at that point that he's, the person is evaluated for whether they go into the community or they go into the hospital. So there's, there's really, I don't want to get into too many things, but assessments and evaluations. So you have the, the screener who assesses, I believe that this individual's evaluation that the court is requesting should happen in a hospital. And then to confirm whether or not that evaluation should happen in the hospital, the psychiatrist will see them. The psychiatrist. Okay. No, generally they'll be seen in, in either at court or in an emergency room through telemedicine. Okay. So it is also possible that they could go to a, a straight from court to corrections. If there's no bed available and there's bail, they would go to corrections where we'd still have the, the state or our psychiatrist see them to determine should they come into a hospital for the actual competency evaluation. I see. So there's really just, there's really, there are three, but one is the first one is, you have to go to an emergency exam when you involuntarily hospitalized someone civilly, you know, without the criminal court, you have the screener and the doctor. You know, you have to have multiple parties agree that someone needs to be kind of involuntarily hospitalized. Similar in this sense, you have to have the screener and the psychiatrist agree that this person's evaluation that their needs are at such a level that they require hospitalization for it. You said that they go, they would then let's say that the, the psych evaluator says this person needs to be in a hospital to be evaluated. They still haven't determined that that person is incompetent. No, no, no. Okay. So then it goes, then it goes to the hospital at the hospital. Is it still yet to be determined whether that person's competency to be, is to be restored in the hospital or in the community. So a couple of things. If the psychiatrist agrees, yes, this person needs to be in the hospital. They'll be admitted to the hospital where the forensic evaluator outside of the department will come in and evaluate the individual to actually do the competency evaluation. So they'll be admitted to the hospital and then it will be days later until the forensic evaluator comes in to actually do the competency evaluation as to whether or not the person is competent to stand trial or incompetent. And just to be clear, Vermont does not have a competency restoration program. Okay. And so, you know, we rely on the natural course of psychiatric treatment that may influence an individual's ability to be, to become competent. Many, many, many states actually have formalized competency restoration programs and depending on the programs that you look at between 60 and 80% of individuals who go through a formalized competency restoration program are able to regain competence. It's a much lower number in Vermont. It's much less frequent in Vermont where an individual is found incompetent to stand trial that they then regain competence and continue on in the criminal justice system. So it sounds to me like what we need is for that psych evaluator in the hospital to determine this person is, if that person determines that this person is incompetent to stand trial. At that point, we should be able to say this person needs to go to either, and I realize these programs don't exist as you just said, but this person needs his competency restored and it can be done in a hospital or it can be done in a community. And because of the severity of the mental health issues, we think it can be done in the, I think it can be done in the community, send them to a community one. If the mental health issues are so bad that there's the incompetency, but there's also some mental health problems, then it would be restored in the hospital. That's basically correct. Yes. Okay. Good. Very, very well. Thank you. And you did very well. It is not an easy system. I've tried to describe this to people who work in our system and it's very complex and there's a lot of ifs and maybes. I wish I had a diagram with arrows is all that. Okay. I might actually have one that we put together a couple years ago. I'll see if I can find that for you. That would be very helpful, especially if it's brought up to date. And if it is, if it's out of, thank you, that would be good. So that whole issue is where we're in limbo. The folks are in limbo right now because if they've been deemed incompetent to stand trial, then we don't have a restoration program. So they're dealt with maybe to stabilize. And then do they stay at the state hospital or if there's veil set, do they then stay at a DOC facility? Or are they released into the community without the appropriate support systems? So that's the crux of the issue that needs to be dealt with before you say we're going to do a forensic unit. Doing a forensic unit kind of has the cart before the horse. So you really need to look at where the gaps are in our current system. Figure out what those gaps are. And then figure out how to establish a program or a process to restore competency and fill in those gaps. And then you figure out, do you really need a forensic unit or not? Right. Part of the conversation in health care was also one representative brought up. They felt concerned that an individual who's been found incompetent to stand trial has mental health issues going on is restored to competency and then maybe found guilty and going into corrections that they felt concerned that an individual like that should be in corrections. And that led to a conversation of another piece of this that we need to study, which is a part of the forensic study work group, which is that there are other potential adjudications that about 25% roughly of states, I haven't checked in a couple of years, but that other states have a finding of guilty but mentally ill. Currently, Vermont has incompetent to stand trial and not guilty by reason of insanity. And many states have what's called guilty but mentally ill. And the basic difference between guilty but mentally ill and not guilty by reason of insanity is that in the not guilty by reason of insanity, the basic premise is that as a result of your mental illness or as statute actually reads mental disease or defect, which could also include people with intellectual disabilities, traumatic brain injuries, et cetera. But just sticking on the mental health end for a minute is that because of their mental illness, they were not able to appreciate that what they were doing is a crime or they were not able to kind of modify their behavior such as that they wouldn't commit a crime. And that it was because of their mental illness that they were not able to do those things. Whereas guilty but mentally ill would acknowledge that an individual had a mental illness, but that it did not have such a severe impact on their reasoning as to not know that what they were doing was a crime or that they could have modified their behavior. And the way states have enacted that is that individuals who are found guilty but mentally ill are served in either a forensic facility or in corrections and depending on the state, but they would have special dispensations and special kind of status within corrections because of their mental health needs and such like that. And so, again, that's something that we need to look at as part of our study. Is that something that would be useful? Is that something that fits in for Vermont and the philosophies of Vermont and how we operate here as a state? So we have a couple more questions. Karen, Sarah, I saw your hand. Okay. And then Michelle, I saw your hand was up and it went down. So you still, okay. Don't know yet. So we'll start with Karen. Yes. Thank you for that. This is very helpful to see how the scope of the work group is being further refined. And it just is very complex with the mental health system, criminal justice, having these things intersect, like they're just, just complicated. And so with that, I was wondering if there was any discussion yesterday too about the timeline for the work group. It seems like it's a lot to get there. Okay. If there is discussion on there. Can I ask that question now or no? It's fine. I just want to make sure everyone else has had the opportunity to ask a question before we get into the next section. Because the timeline does change drastically. Michelle. Yeah. So I just wanted to follow up a little bit with the, the comment morning, Fox just made about what was said in healthcare where, you know, does it make sense if you have somebody who's got a mental health issue that they end up getting restored to competency in order to serve a long sentence in corrections? Like, is that, is that the most appropriate setting for somebody? And it makes me wonder in terms of this study group. It also brings back something that was said yesterday by the defender general where he was talking about a man who was judged competent. And yet he clearly was in psychosis and having really dramatic mental health challenges while he was in the courtroom. And so what does it mean if comp, if the love, if the bar for competency is so low that you can be having active psychosis and you're still judged as ready to stand trial. Because you know that you're in a courtroom. It feels like maybe we're not really serving individuals that well, or the community for that matter, because. Having a mental health diagnosis shouldn't, shouldn't equal as soon as you're well enough, we send you to prison. So I guess I just, my thought would be in relation to this particular piece of legislation where looking at, I hope that the working group is able to look at many areas related to people who are having mental health challenges who end up. Intertwined with the criminal justice system. And how could we best serve those individuals. As well as our community. Yeah. And I, and I, I appreciate those comments. And I, I, I do believe that that's, that is a part of that. And I do believe that that's, that is a part of that. And I appreciate those comments. And I, I, I do believe that that's, that is a part of the function of this work group. You know, we look at talking about, you know, the potential of a, let's say a forensic facility. You know, that's what, what, what type of individuals would go there. You know, could people who have been found competent, but are still struggling be there as opposed to awaiting corrections, you know, all those types of pieces need to look at. And, you know, the other piece with competency is that it ebbs and flows. You know, I've worked in the field of forensics for about six or seven years in another state running maximum security units of a forensic facility. And, you know, I've seen individuals who are found incompetent, who are restored to competency, then become incompetent again, then are restored to competency, then becoming comp, you know, and it can really ebb and flow with the course of someone's illness, with their, the course of their treatment, you know, things of that sort. And so I would truly hope in, in my world, I would truly hope that if someone is presenting as kind of as described by, you know, what you're describing from the defender general, then someone would have hit the pause button to say, I don't, I don't think they're competent anymore. And to request a new evaluation, because that can happen on an ongoing basis and such. And then there's different conversations that happen too for individuals who have been found incompetent to stand trial and have been restored to competency, how to work with them, whether at a hospital and deciding, should we keep them at a hospital so that we can help them to regain their competence versus, you know, them going back to maybe corrections where they may start to refuse medication and the stress of being in a correctional facility, you know, can have an impact on their mental health and wellbeing. And I think all those types of things need to be considered when we look at, do we need a forensic facility? And if so, what type of individuals would be, would be housed there? You know, I personally see restoration of competence as a civil rights issue. You know, these are people who have been charged with a crime, but not proven to have done it. And so I think it's a civil rights issue that they have a right to face their accuser and to put on their own defense. And that we shouldn't make the assumption that when they've become competent, that's solely so we, so that an individual can serve a sentence in corrections. I look at it as individuals should, should be restored to competence as best as we can help them to do that so that they can have their day in court. They have the right to have a defense and to be potentially found guilty, be found not guilty, to put on a sanity defense. That is up to them, but it's a civil rights issue. And I think the victims also of crimes would want to ensure that the person, the person who actually perpetrated the, the, the, the offense is the one that's held responsible. And just because a person is up to have alleged to have done something doesn't mean they actually did it. And so I see it as a civil rights issue because if we have someone who's alleged to have done it and they're found incompetent to stand trial. No, no disrespect to, you know, the, the other, that my brothers and sisters in public safety, but if someone's been charged with, with an offense, no one's looking for another person that may have committed that crime. People believe they have someone they've charged someone and they're being held as incompetent to stand trial. And so I think it's incumbent upon us to really try and help people be restored to competence so that they do have the ability to face their accusers and put on a defense, whether it's again, whether they're found guilty, not guilty, put on a sanity defense is up to them. But I think it's incumbent upon us to try and allow them to have that say. Okay. So morning, let's transition to the next part, which is the timeframe and the recommendations that were given there. So this may answer some of Karen's questions here, because I know a lot of that has started to change as well. Sure. So. Just because of kind of the, the large number of individuals who have interest and or a stake in these various conversations. It's, it's a fairly large and fairly unwieldy group to try and accomplish things. And so some of the discussion that we had in house healthcare was to look at staggering some of this and not having it as one large work group. And basically trying to stagger how we report out on the various pieces and allowing the department to have some flexibility as to the members of the work. But basically what we, what we put forward was that we would report out on section one, which is around identifying the gaps in the current mental health and criminal justice system structure, improve public safety, coordination of treatment of individuals, review competency, restoration models. That we would report out to the legislature on that by February of 2022. We would report out on section two, but primarily section to a, which is whether or not there is a need for a forensic treatment facility by July of 2022. And then we would then present a complete and full report to the legislature that encompasses all three sections by January one of 2023. So that, okay, I'm just trying to get the timeline here. So the first one would be in February of next year, which then if you want to put a program or process in place, right? That would be the report that this is, these are the gaps in the current system. Right. And really kind of what kind of competency restoration programs are we looking at will help inform the next question of whether or not there's a need for a forensic facility. And that would come during the summer, which is an election year. So no, I'm just thinking it through in terms of a legislative process. So next year, next January, we find out where the gaps are and maybe put some initiatives in place to, to plug those gaps in a very simple terms is what I'm thinking. And then in the summer of next year would be the report on how you carry that out if you needed a certain type of facility or unit. So the legislature wouldn't be doing any work on that. So it would just would be, this is the way of the land at this point. And then on January 1st, the beginning of a brand new biennium with brand new people and brand new committee makeups would be the final report that kind of coordinates all of that. Right. And so it would have the recommendations around competency programs, the, the description and commentary around the gaps in our system, whether or not we need a facility, if that answer happened to be, yes, the, the, the work group felt that there was a need, then it would go into what that would look like, how it's operated, who operates it, you know, things of that sort. And it would also include the order of non hospitalization notification piece as to whether or not that should be placed in legislation. And if so, how it would be operationalized. So this is what you discussed upstairs. In healthcare. And this is the path that we're headed down. Is that what you're. Okay. That's my hope. Yeah. So. Yeah. Okay. So Karen, does that answer your question? Would you. Is there more. I guess that I, and I don't know if this is necessary or not, but I'm curious, because this is a big shift from where it was in the Senate. And I know it's because there's been more conversation and thought on it, like, how is it going to be received by the Senate? Is it switching from the goals? And I know there's also a lot of history with this bill. And I'm the new person. So I'm just curious, you know, what's the significance of this. Is there going to be pushback on this or is this. Is there going to be pushback on this? We're all in a good place. Morning. I don't know if you can answer that one. That's part of the legislative process. So that would be the next step. I'm sure there's a lot of conversations happening. I think in the end, though, I would say that the actual goals and what we're doing with the forensic work group, that hasn't really substantively changed. I mean, we're moving the specificity of, you know, the Connecticut psychiatric review board, for example, that doesn't change really the content and nature of what we're going to be reviewing. And, you know, what was originally proposed, an August to November timeline. You know, I said this to health care. I don't know if I said this here, but it's like, basically, if we're going to do this for having a report, then we can do that in that kind of a timeline. But if we really want something that's going to be substantive and really make strong recommendations. And even, you know, it even posits, you know, what type of statutory language might be needed. And those types of recommendations, if we really want to have something that's going to have. A positive impact on our overall systems, because these are two large systems, the criminal justice system. You're talking, you're talking the judiciary, you're talking Department of Corrections and you're talking mental health system. So these are actually three very large systems that are very interwoven at this. And it really is incumbent upon us to do this work well. And it just can't be done in a short time. And as I said, many of these things I really see as, as civil rights issues for individuals. And, you know, I fear that as many civil rights issues are, are being, having light shed upon them in this day and age. Anyone who knows me knows I've talked about these types of civil rights issues for most of my adult life. And I fear that the civil rights issues of people with mental illnesses is not, not having that light shed upon it. And I think it's really important and incumbent upon this work group to be able to do that and do it right. There are other questions. So all, all of everything that was discussed here with morning. Is going to be my understanding incorporated in the new language that house healthcare is working on. Any other questions of morning Fox deputy commissioner Fox before we shift to commissioner Baker, if he has anything he wants to weigh in on any further questions. If not commissioner Baker, I don't know how it's up to you. You're paying in. Good morning. Thank you. Thank you. Madam chair for the record. I'm Jim Baker, the interim commissioner of corrections. You know, the only thing I want to add madam chair is that, you know, we fully at correction support. The leadership role that deputy commissioner Fox has taken on this. And the work that was done. You know, just a general comment. I think the people that are, are ill. It's exciting to see that this is getting the kind of recognition of needs inside the justice system. I agree 100% with the deputy commissioner. These are civil rights issues. And you all know this because we've talked about this. We end up in situations with people that are in the custody of the commissioner corrections. We've talked about this. We've talked about this. We've talked about this. We've talked about this. We've talked about this. We've talked about this. We've talked about this. That have not had the ability to get. Necessarily. The kind of support they need because of the complications of their illness. And we do our level best to provide that. And I think we do a great job at it. But what, what causes me. To be supportive of this process. Is I think we're going to learn a lot. About. Mental health care. Folks that suffer from that illness. And it's a long time away. The system. Is reshaped in the future to be able to support that population. That end up in the justice system. So for me, corrections is all in. We have a role in this, but certainly mental health has the lead on it. And I think the way it was laid out in health committee yesterday. Around the timeframe makes a lot of sense. and it's going to have no impact. I think if we're serious about this, and we're serious about taking care of putting together a product that will have an impact, the only way to do it is move through the steps that the deputy commissioner described because it gives you the next. All right, which road do you go down next? I think that that's an important piece for us to get a process in place in the state that advances our ability to deal with folks that are afflicted with the illness. That's that's what that's we're on board and we'll support whatever we need to support. OK, questions of the commissioner. So the other thing, too, that came up, the representative Lippert also mentioned because this is such an in depth study and work group that they're really we should be aware that they may need some resources. Either financial resources, staff support. So those conversations are happening between representative Lippert and representative grad that will then be reaching out to Representative Cooper and appropriations. Because this, if we want it done right, the feeling in health care is you need to give them the proper resources to work with the department for that. Questions from the committee about the direction that we seem to be headed. Is there general support for that direction? I know the language hasn't been out there yet. I know that they're working on it. Is there a general consensus about that direction? Sort of seeing some nods. Yes, I think I would say I think so. But without seeing the language, it's hard to say for sure. But I'm really the aha that I had yesterday from the testimony we received about it was not just about a facility, but thinking more broadly about an approach. I was in and I'm encouraged this morning to hear from the deputy commissioner about, you know, that this is a model and we're looking at a systemic approach to this. So I'm supportive of this direction. I think it's improved for sure and look forward to seeing that language. Right. We may there may be some language today. I'm not. I'm just not sure. I know Katie MacLinn is doing the drafting and she is out straight with a lot of work and so we're just waiting and that may not due to her schedule, which is no fault of her own. She's just in all different directions because she's also staffing human services committees. So there's a lot of pressure on her to do some new drafts. So anything else before we finish up on this? And then I'd like to take a break and come back at nine o'clock so we can shift gears to corrections. We're going to be hearing Commissioner Baker from Kathy Fox with the UBM Studies and talking about Pryn and the Urban Institute and all of the connections there. Were you aware of that? I think you were, weren't you? Yeah, yeah, I'm aware of it. But I believe that I believe that Chief Alcorm here is going to represent us and the project manager and Pryn will be coming in. So I may I may get in as a spectator. I do have another commitment. You can do your other commitment. You've got Al to cover, but I just wanted to make sure you knew. And we're trying to the goal of this is to really try to coordinate all of these moving pieces in DOC policy wise, program wise initiatives, justice, reinvestment, the Pew Urban Institute, what UVM is doing with their prison research. So it all kind of coordinates and comes together to really lay the foundation for us to figure out how we move forward in our facilities and our new facilities going forward. It's all interconnected. So anything else on the mental health issue, competency issue. OK, thank you, Commissioner DOC. Thank you, Deputy Commissioner of Mental Health and Karen Barber as well. They're legal counsel. So we're going to be taking a 10 minute break. We'll be coming back at 10 o'clock.