 Welcome folks. This is a house corrections and institutions committee meeting. We're here until approximately a little bit before 10 o'clock this morning because we do have to be on the floor at 10. We're going to be spending some time this morning with going over the language that Becky has drafted for us. This is the first walkthrough and the first attempt at the language. My hope is my goal is that we were meeting again this week on Thursday and Friday. So my hope is we can finish this language up by Thursday, hopefully to submit it to the respective committees. We are scheduled this morning as well to hear from VSE a with Steve Howard. So Steve just came on board. And so that's the thinking for this morning I know some committee members have also weighed in with Becky on the language. So what I would like to do when Steve gets situated here. I would like to start with Steve and then after we finish with his testimony will move on to the language that Becky has submitted to us. Okay. So Steve, I know you're still probably settling in a little bit, but we'd like to start with you and welcome so if you could just identify yourself for the record that would be great. Sure. I'm Steve Howard. I'm the executive director of the Vermont State Employees Association. Madam chair, I, first of all, I apologize for a double booking on Friday. But I did make up for it I spent my Labor Day, listening to all of your meetings, both with Heather and with Susan and others so I've done my penance. You have done your penance. You have. But as you know Steve, we're trying to figure out how we can set a motion. Really trying to address social equity, social and racial equity within the full department of corrections. We're looking to micromanage anything and the language that we're looking at is just to start the process in terms of looking at how do see would envision going forward with this come January. Well, I appreciate that and I sort of divided my testimony up into three categories. One is I want to just start by sharing with the committee. Based on the previous testimony you heard, you know what really the members of the VSE a agree with, and then potentially respond to some of the areas where we don't agree or where we might take issue. And then most importantly I want to also and then I want to talk about a little bit about the feedback I received from our members and what our members think can be done, both to promote racial and social equity in the in the criminal justice system and also in the department of mostly in the Department of Corrections. Let me start with where where we agree. I want to say that I listened very carefully to the testimony. And I thought a lot of what Susana said was was on point. First of all, I think we agree and want to make clear our members do make clear to us very often and I want to say you know I've been doing this job now for eight years. It's been a big share of my time, talking with probation and parole officers with CEOs and CSS is and I've sat in every break room, just about in, in all of our facilities and listen to folks as they come through and, and, and talk with their union about what they're experiencing so I have some some ability I think to tap into that. I want to offer these comments. The first thing I would say is when she said, and I thought was right, you know do see does not control who comes into the criminal justice system do you see does not does not arrest people unless you're violating conditions of probation, or parole. You know, and that's rare that they would use those powers they do have those powers but mostly, you know they aren't the folks who decide who comes into the criminal justice system. And they aren't the folks who decide what kind of upstream investments need to be made early to prevent that from happening and I think that is really important. And you won't be surprised to hear me say that we were ecstatic when Susanna called for the end of the out of state contract. We have been for years calling for the end of that contract we think it is an emergency, particularly with coven. We urge the legislature to in this budget. If not in this budget definitely in January when January and the legislature returns to immediately end our relationship with core civic and with our out of state prisoner prisoner population and you know Madame chair and it won't be a surprise to you that VSE opposed the closing of the Windsor facility. And this is one of the reasons why one of the things that really made us happy about her testimony is there's a saying in the labor movement. There's the day after Labor Day that she also used, which is nothing without us, nothing about us without us. And I think, as we look at the Department of Corrections and the way things are being operated now, and our relationship with the legislature and the administration. There is often decisions that are being made that don't include the frontline workers. You miss a lot of important facts and realities but you also don't get buy in and ownership as to the extent that you think you might want you would, you would want for any of these policies to be successful. We agree when she said that, you know, we're saying we need ABC, and you're saying we can do DF. We agree that that's that from our members perspective is not helpful. We're telling you we need ABC, we need ABC. DEF is not helpful. And I think also, I wanted to comment on something that she said and I think also Heather said in their testimony. And we talked about this in January and February around Priya and other issues. There is a culture of silence in the corrections department, and I thought she hit the nail on the head when she said, it's really because people have seen this before. They believe that the Department of Human Resources is automatically going to be on the side of management. And we have some reason to believe that with just the results of our grievance process that we almost never have the Department of Human Resources weigh in on the side of the employee. It's almost a kind of a running joke that we might as well go right to the labor board. So, I think that's a big issue. I also want to point out that the harassment and the issues that she raised around harassment. There are issues between employees, but there are, there is, we have heard at the SCA significant amount of. Well, none of significant is enough as a right word, we've heard a substantial amount or enough so would we notice of instances of harassment from the inmates of the COs. And that is a, that's a serious problem. It's not to diminish the, the issue that she raised of staff to staff harassment and staff to the issues between staff. There are issues between inmates and the staff. I wanted to say, and I hope you'll just give indulge me here for a second and I'm going to, I don't want to mango Mr marquis last name. There are a couple of things that we that he said that we did agree with. One is, he seemed to say and I think our members would agree that there are too many reforms too fast. And that we got to slow the pay I think Heather even indicated Heather Simons from DOC indicated that we got to slow the pace of that, so that people can catch their breath. And if we want these reforms to work. We got to do it right. And we got to take our time and do it right and if you if the reform seems to be coming from all directions all at once too quickly. It's, it's not going to be implemented correctly. I want to say there's a lot in in Heather Simons testimony that we also agree with I mentioned the pace of reforms the fear of retaliation, the need to reform the entire department not just one segment of the department. I do want to point out that representative Shaw I think said two things that were really important. One more than two things of course but two things that I noted. One is that the frontline workers when they see a directive from central office, given the number of directives and given the disconnect that you've heard me testify before between central office and the and the folks in the facilities and out in the field. The directives come out they are seen really they lack the credibility that they deserve, perhaps, because it's just one more initiative that makes our members feel that central office has no idea what they're going through, or what's really happening in the field, or what's really happening in the facilities. And so when representative Shaw said, he's heard from frontline workers that this is just another BS form from central office. This is often how things are perceived, especially when especially when the frontline workers weren't consulted about what would work in the field with these offenders, or what would work in the facility with these offenders. I thought also, when I'll just be quite honest with you and I do this at some risk, as you know, I have a great deal of respect for the role of legislators but when I say the reforms are too fast. I do believe that the legislature has done an awful lot of reform work really quickly without a lot or enough input from people on the front lines, and that maybe we need to take our time and slow that down a bit. Not to say stop it or not do it, but to take our time and make sure that we have buy in from all all the parties. So that's really, really important. Heather said something I thought was really important that the there needs to be greater accountability for the management. And for both for central office in for the superintendents sending an email or is, as I said earlier is not leadership. I thought she was right about that. And that it's not just a training issue that really it's a trust issue. It's between offenders and the frontline staff and trust between the frontline staff and their superintendent and and trust between the frontline staff and central office. Recruitment and retention, and you will know that she said it quite well and I think Susanna said it and, and you've heard me say it, and I'll say it again. I'm currently experiencing a staffing crisis, it is an emergency. It's not being dealt with that way. It hasn't been for a while, and it is destroying the Department of Corrections, it is a huge, huge problem and I do feel a little bit concerned for for Commissioner Baker and our members have asked this question of him directly and I've talked with him about it. He's sort of flying the plane while he's building it. In many cases, because the staffing crisis the amount of overtime is killing people, I mean they're just at their last, they cannot take much more. Right now in our facilities we have CEOs who are wearing modified garbage bags in 100 degree weather, running up and down the stairs every 15 minutes to do checks. They finish their first round of checks they fill out the paperwork they're running up and down the stairs again, and they're just collapsing and saying I can't, I can't keep up with this pace I can't keep doing it. And it's really because of the shortage of staff and the amount of overtime and that that has a major impact on the environment for the inmates and the offenders and also for the folks in the facility and and and also the folks in the field. So there's a lot that we agree on some of the things that we don't agree on. I think, while there is a militaristic feel to the Department of Corrections. And there's there is a fraternity and a sense that often CEOs feel that they're under assault. That's because often they are under assault. And in some way, we're talking about racial and social justice. But we're also talking about a time and I know Madam Chair you've been very diligent about trying to educate legislators in the public about this. The low hanging fruit is gone. The prisons are full of people who have committed very violent crimes, murder, rape, child molesting, beaten their spouses to an inch of their life. This is a difficult, difficult environment. And it's a, it's one in which you want reform and rehabilitation, but it's also one in which you need security. It's not either or it's both. And so it does feel often I think from the CEO's perspective and the probation and parole officer's perspective that they are under assault you've heard from our probation officers, who have asked to carry defensive weapons that they feel more in danger than they've ever felt before because of the serious nature of the offenses of the people in their supervision. To say, I listened to Mr Marquis testimony very carefully I went back and listen to it again because I wanted to be fair. I do have to say, he made some statements that I really have to respond to and and I questioned his qualification and making these statements. He described our CEOs as people who want control who overreact who were bullies in high school who mistreat offenders who do the harm who are basically power hungry individuals. And I can tell you having spent hours and hours with these men and women. Nothing could be further from the truth. And I questioned his, I didn't hear him tell us why or tell you why he was qualified to make those generalized statements and stereotype people in the way he did. It's not my experience. These are men and women who care deeply about the profession they're in. They, they want and do treat the offenders with respect. Are there exceptions to that of course there are in any field. There are going to be exceptions to that and you remember in the early part of the year, when there was an article about a certain facility, the Chittenden facility, and violations of Pria alleged violations of Pria. I started my testimony by saying that there are 17 people in this seven days article. There's an over 800. And the vast majority of those people are hardworking, honest, determined professionals who do treat each other and treat our offenders with respect. And so I have to take some exception with his testimony and I couldn't disagree with it. And that comes from firsthand experience of actually spending time talking to our, our frontline staff, not just about their working conditions but actually talking to them about issues related to race. We have had extension extensive conversations about that. And, you know, frankly, they, the, the, the way in which it's received, when you hear things like that. So somebody who's wearing a trash bag and 100 degree weather working 16 hour shifts, not ever seeing their family is not received well. And management needs to push back on that, not just on that testimony but on the stereotyping of our correctional officers and our probation and parole officers. So what to do. Here's the easy part right. So many things that could be done and I don't think this list of suggestions are is in any way, the end all and be all cure to what needs to happen in corrections. I would say that our leadership in corrections has for some time before Commissioner Baker and during Commissioner Baker's tenure, called for better hiring standards for more elaborate hiring standards. And that we need to professionalize the position of correctional officer and probation and parole officer. We do have a number of folks in our facilities and in the field who do social work. They are CSS is they aren't there that they, they do participate in that element of security but they're not CEOs. I would say beefing up the number of social work type positions you have to work alongside those folks who may come from the military or from law enforcement to provide security and social work. I think that's an important thing. I think we have to treat the overtime and hire the staffing crisis like a crisis. I think the basic thing that my members said to me is you're building a house on a shaky foundation. And the more you add to that house without fixing the foundation, the more likely it is that all of the work is going to crumble. And I think one thing that would be interesting that might help. And I think it's a major issue that needs to be addressed is this mistrust between central office and the facilities and the field. And I think one thing that would be interesting is to require that that the folks in the field in the, in the facilities spend more time in central office, and that there be a requirement that the management in central office spend more time in the field and in the facilities. You know, we had a we kind of thought at one point just to make a point at some point last last session, we were going to introduce a bill that required the commissioner of corrections to spend at least 20 hours a month working in a facility and working in the field. So that people can see on the ground what's really happening, how their directives are being treated how what's the dynamic in those in those facilities. So we're going to report and want to work with the commissioner on improving the work environment, but as I said nothing without us, nothing about us without us. We need more money. And we need more positions and you've heard me say this before, we're not going to get the correction system that the advocates want that the public may want, or the lot of legislators want on the cheap. It's going to cost more money. And the, I think the question for the legislature and the governor and for all of us is to decide. If we want the outcomes we say we want, are we willing to put our money where our mouth is, and to spend more money there I think I'm going to be just remiss but if I don't say this. I'm thinking about good, I think good, some good thinking in justice reinvestment and looking at how we can spend existing resources better and get better outcomes and I think everybody can support that. But we have for at least the last 30 years, not brought in adequate money revenue to fund state government. And we're seeing the price of that corrections is a target because it's almost all general fund dollars. And that is some of the failures and some of the breakdowns in the department, including around race and social equity, come from our lack of resources and state government in general, and a race to the bottom. And that's got to be addressed. Just a couple more things I would suggest a moratorium on directives until, until the department central office can tell you how many directives they have. And what makes sense, let's stop the directives, let's sort through them with the frontline staff and, and really get to a reasonable number that makes sense that are not contradictory that can be followed. Let's, let's, let's do that. Let's include increase and improve training and I thought representative coffee made a very important point. The staffing crisis prevents a lot of training from happening because people are working so much over time. They can't leave their posts. They may run to their car to take a nap between shifts, or they may run home, or since COVID they may run to a motel room in order to protect their family from the spread of the disease. So that's, that's got to be, that's got to be priority number one the staffing crisis has got to be priority number one before any reforms are considered. And then I would just ask respectfully that the legislature take a deep breath, take time and not make major reform efforts until the foundation of the house has been more solidly secured. So those are our suggestions and that's our testimony madam chair and I'm happy to take any questions or advice that the committee may have for us. Thank you, Steve. This has been very, very helpful. I think one of our goals and trying to figure out language is, we don't want to micromanage what we want to do is is have doc and we haven't figured out also who else at this point, but really come back with us in terms of a plan on how to work with some of these issues that you have brought to attention, both those that you've agreed with the previous folks who have testified and also those that you don't agree. We want to be open minded about this and really do our due diligence in putting something forward so that it really lays a good foundation to figure out how we go really forward with this come January. I really appreciate the statement to include frontline workers, frontline staff in these decisions and some of them I really feel that you do get more buy in if they have a voice at the table. And I also think that we have to be careful that we don't go too fast because if you do go too fast. It can be a setup for failure, and we don't want to do that. So I'll open it up to questions from the committee. Thoughts questions. Anyone. Sarah. Good morning, Steve. It's good morning. Good morning. It's great to get your perspective. And I think. I want to give some assurances and because I agree with some of the things that you say out some of the things that you say around being thoughtful and plan full so that we can affect a long term change. And I think what we're looking to do is to ask for the department to come back with a plan that includes. The department would engage with the community, but also it's really important to engage with the staff on this on this. It's to me it's critical because what I've heard the commissioner talk about and, you know, and doing some research of my own it's, you know, creating, creating a positive work environment will benefit everybody, you know, and I think what we're trying to get at is address this, this hiring crisis within the department because the overtime is really an issue. It takes an issue a human toll and also a financial toll on our state. And so, and I think covert is presented a huge challenge with a lot of it. So anyway, I just want to say I appreciate you're bringing those voices into the conversation and I think many of the things that you're saying is are in our thinking and I do think that there is a bit of urgency to some of it though because I think racial reforms, you know reforms like us to address our systems and to address racism and our systems I think it's important for us to keep the pressure up on all of us so that we don't just sweep it under the rug. So that's, that's where I'm coming from but I, so I just it's not a question it's just a comment and, and to share that with with your members. Okay, we have another question to questions butch and then Kurt. Alice, Steve, or how you doing. Good morning. And it's kind of good to see you but not in this, this, this forum this late in the year but we are a couple of things that I picked up on a lot and obviously come January should we all be sitting back in our seats. We'll be looking I'll be looking forward to your to union helping us figure out facilities, how we, how we build a new facility if we build a new facility, and how we finance that so I'll be looking for those suggestions in in January and as you said, we all have a very diverse feel and you feel that corrections doesn't have. I don't know I can't even paraphrase you but doesn't have any control who comes to them. So, you know, and as you know, 219 folks out of state on the 31st of July this year. We all would like to bring them all back. We have a really good solid plan because the population we're serving today that you mentioned and thank you for mentioning that. But my other, that's just my comment but I do have a question in embedded in here somewhere. I talked about one thing that Susanna said and that was actually one of the first notes I took when when she was testifying was that hazing and harassment in amongst employees and doc is a problem. She testified further on that but didn't go too deep in that, but you seem to say CEO to see a whole Rassman is is not that big a deal I took it from your testimony not that big a deal but inmate the staff is a much larger problem can you. Can you talk about that a little bit please. Sure, and I didn't mean to diminish the issues that come up between staff members. That is, I think very serious. I just don't want to leave off the table. The issue that we do hear about frequently. And that is the harassment that our members are facing. And that is something that we can't leave off the table and that's not to say that there isn't a there isn't a problem. Staff to staff, I think we would be, it would be wrong for us to say that there isn't. We do have a couple of things that arise often what VCA does, we've done a couple of things. One is we, we do immediately refer members to the Human Rights Commission. We do that for a particular reason, we can file grievances on their behalf. The grievance process is rather slow so human rights, we try to push the Human Rights Commission's actions first. The field department has created a document that we distribute to all of our members across state government but also in corrections about bullying and the work in the workplace. And that often is from managers to frontline staff. And how to deal with a bully, it's hard because there's not a lot of contractual remedies to bullying and harassment. But we didn't, we have made some suggestions, and we periodically and we will continue to educate our membership on what to do when faced with these issues and how the Human Rights Commission works and, and how you can access the Human Rights Commission. We want to take both the harassment between that occurs between staff members. And between management and staff and frontline staff, as well as that that comes from the offenders very seriously and we don't want to say that one is more important or less important than the other. Harassment in any form, any shape. I think we both agree is not acceptable. I will say it I should maybe start by saying a couple things that occur to me. Our members have in these discussions that we have had I spent, I did a tour of the correctional facilities. And, and at a time when there had been an issue about racial inequality and, and, and some discussion about where the union would stand on these issues. And I spent time listening to CEOs in the break rooms. I would urge you all to try that. It's interesting. Ask the management not to come into the break room. And you will hear a lot of stories, both about the experience that CEOs have, but the pride they take in their work, and they do not want to work with people who are racist. They don't want to work with people who are sexist or homophobic. They want those folks who can't get that under control and, and keep that out of the work site. They want them dealt with. And they have been sometimes critical of the union for not being swift enough or aggressive enough. We haven't been mostly we have we I think we've done everything we possibly can, but our members don't want that culture in their work site and they, they work really hard to make sure that it that's not tolerated. I hope that answers your question I didn't want to suggest that one was more important than the other or one was more prevalent than the other, but just that they're equally a problem. So that kind of does Steve and thank you. But the one good takeaway I have is that I had not considered inmates to staff harassment. And thank you for bringing that up. So we have a conversation becoming forward on that I suppose, please watch us as we get this language where we're trying to think about doing today so that it is inclusive, but not so overburden some and nothing can happen in the next three months. We have a couple more comments questions, Curt and then Carl. I'd like to. I'm concerned about this, the communication issue of frontline staff to administration to us also and can you give me a little more information on the structure of the VSE a within corrections. I mean, do you have a steward or a committee within each facility that reports. What's the reporting going up the chain to you or to us so that in the future we can, if we're thinking about okay how do we want to include the frontline workers perspective. Who can we talk with aside from you. But also stewards from the facilities or are there. Can you just elucidate on that a little bit. Sure. So we have the way the VSE a structured we have leaders who are part of the basic operations of the of the union of the union or on our board of trustees, who come directly from corrections. We have a statewide. We have a bargaining team that is also as an executive committee that is made up of correctional staff both from the field and from the facilities all across the state. We also have local labor management committees, which deal with non contractual issues. You know, 50% management of that facility 50% frontline staff, and we have a statewide labor management committee that meets periodically with the commissioner. And I think we've just had our first one since the outbreak of coven recently and we're going to start having them I believe quarterly with the commissioner. And I'll tell you it's, you know this is a legislator, and commissioners learn this also on the job. Their middle management don't always feel it's in their interest to share the truth. What's happening in the field or in facilities and sometimes the only source of information that the legislature has, or that the commissioner has is from the union, and from the union members and you know I've been on plenty of phone calls with commissioners when I've described things happening in their facilities and they say, what's happening, what assaults what I'm going to have to call you back. And it's because the superintendent didn't report it. Nobody in middle management reported it and the commissioner only found out about what was happening when the union reported it. So that's the structure we have and we can also we can make those folks available I'm sure there'd be more than happy to talk with you. We also have a legislative committee that works very hard on these issues. It's about 30 members from across state government, some of those are from corrections as well. So we would be happy to to connect you with them. Thanks. Thanks Al's good morning Steve. Good morning. Thank you for your testimony this morning I appreciate your continuing to let us know about the staffing situation and the serious problems going on there. One thing I wanted to ask you about and Kurt's questions sort of covered this a little bit, but last week when Donna was testifying she told us that corrections officers make up a higher proportion of people of color and minority employees than any other portion of state government. And I was I was surprised to hear that. That's encouraging for the sort of work that we have to do but I also wanted to hear from you what what if if there was an issue between two employees, and it was an issue around harassment. That was based on race or ethnicity. What what recourse do those employees have with the union, how would they take it up with the union or would they take it right to management. Can you just help me and understand how that might work a little bit better. Certainly it's it's different in every case. But often it's, we would we would encourage them to report it to management, because it is management's responsibility. To ensure that that employees have a safe working environment, free of harassment. We would provide information about the Human Rights Commission. And we would help them through that process, we might provide the bullying documentation that we have but but basically we, we, we tell them that they have to report it to management. That management is responsible for, for enforcing the laws and the rules around this the policies around this. If there's nothing if that doesn't, if that doesn't go well, then we would encourage we aggressively encourage engaging the Human Rights Commission or a private attorney, or even VSE as legal department would be involved. But I just say it's, you know, so that's how it would be resolved and you mentioned staffing at the beginning one thing I didn't, I want to make sure I say to you is it's on these issues on on the harassment issues and on the staffing issues which are sort of underlying there's not a difference between management and labor. We both agree on, I think, what level of tolerance there should be for harassment and for discrimination. And we also agree that there's a staffing crisis. We disagree on remedies and on on sense of urgency but at least on the staffing issue I don't think we disagree on the sense of urgency around equity. Okay, thank you. Welcome. Alice, I've got a query. Go ahead. Good morning. I was wondering, do you have any ideas or thoughts as to the process of recruiting new employees, especially to the corrections system. Um, I, I think that that's a piece that's a little bit kind of gray area is how at this point, would we look to increase the, you know, good recruits for it under what you're saying are present circumstances. So how would you go about it. Thank you representative it's a great question. I would say a couple of things. One is, you have to expand the pool of people who are applying. And one thing I would caution the legislature. Can you explain that though. Sure. So I think you need to find ways to, to enhance the professionalism of this position and I think it's going to mean that we look at a couple of things that come off, come right to the top of my head. You know, one thing our correctional officers will talk about is the retirement system. And I, and you know we have a retirement system for instance for our law enforcement officers. That's that's has a has a mandatory retirement age and a more generous benefit at a higher cost but that allows for mandatory retirement at age 55 if you've worked. If you've worked 20 years at age 50 or 20, I think it's 25 years at age 55 or 30 years at age 55. I get those numbers mixed up in my head at the moment but building a comparable retirement system for correctional officers and probation and parole officers is something that I think the state should look at. And even if that means that the contribution rates are need to be higher than where they are now for those particular classes. I've talked with, you know, we want to diversify the workforce. And, you know, that includes wanting to have more women work in the corrections and wanting to have more younger folks working corrections and I remember having this conversation with Commissioner to shed and I said look, when you're building if you're going to propose building a new prison, as long as it's not a private prison. I don't want to talk with you about it but you one thing corrections should really do is be a leader on constructing in that facility and in its facilities across the state. A component that includes childcare. Because these workers are often ordered over. They are often asked to work 12 and 16 hour shifts. They don't see their families childcare is of anybody who's out there knows is at a premium out there in the marketplace and Vermont could be a leader in constructing on site childcare for state employees but also but starting with, in particular with the department of corrections. And that would cast a wider net, and would potentially attract more people to want to work in these facilities. What I hear from our CEOs often is that I can't do this job anymore, because it's ruining my marriage. I haven't seen my kids, and I am exhausted. I'm afraid I'm going to die. And you know, the national you may not know this but you probably do that the national statistics around life expectancy of a correctional officer, once they retire I think is five years. So, the trauma of this job doesn't leave them. I think we have to look at that employee as a whole unit and, and make sure that they have what they need to be healthy in order to do this job and in order to build the kind of system. You know policies and directives don't build the system people do. So, I think I think represented those are just a couple of ideas that I would look at. Be sure that we don't We don't misunderstand that there's a role for those in the facilities and in the field, who are just doing security work. And there is a role for those who are doing more social work. And we need both. It's not either or, but the roles are different. And so, I would hope that we wouldn't confuse those. I don't want to forget to say this. I also think when we're looking at diversity in our workforce that we might also want to look at how diverse is central office. Who are the people making all the decisions. What is their life experience like. And do we have enough diversity at the top management of the Department of Corrections. I don't know the answer to that but I think it would be worth looking at in the next few months or in January. I appreciate your comments. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Steve. So I'm looking at the time I wanted transfer over here to transition to Becky so that we can start going through the language. And I would ask all of you folks to please stay on. So that we'll be going over the language and we'll be up on the screen. And again for folks if you have questions I can't see the participant lists enough with your blue hands so just raise your hand in the school in the square Hollywood square as the speaker refers to it and I can then see you. So Becky, it's all yours and start walking us through the draft that you submitted to us last Friday. Sure. So Becky Wasserman legislative council. And this is just some draft language that tried to incorporate with the committee discussed about last discussed last week. The language has a finding section intent and then a plan and report and, you know, feel free to bring up any questions as I go along. So in subsection a and the findings the general assembly finds that the state's department of corrections is a department within the agency of human services and it's not a law enforcement agency. I also referred to title one section 28 in the second finding about the purpose of DOC which is to develop and administer rehabilitative correctional program designed in part to render treatment to offenders with the goal of achieving their successful return and participation as citizens of the state and community, as well as to foster their human dignity. In subdivision three, the DOC plays an important role implementing the quality of an individual sentence. And one of the questions I had here so sort of tie that to the purpose of DOC by including language something like an ability for a successful return and participation in the community. Subsection B is an intent section. So, the intent here is stated as the general assembly addressing systemic racism in the state's correctional program and achieving racial equity for both offenders under the custody of commissioner and department employees. DOC is the plan. So, the commissioner of corrections is tasked with developing a plan to address systemic racism in DOC and the state's correctional program with the goal of achieving racial equity. The scope of that plan and subdivision one is to sort of look at both DOC's employment practices as well as the supervision of people that are under the custody of commissioner. And it's looking at both the incarceration setting as well as DOC's field office settings. Subdivision two is what the evaluation would include. So, the commissioner would come up with a plan that would include a timeline and process for evaluating DOC's hiring practices, training and continued education of staff review of DOC's directives with a racial equity lens. And then finally, providing a list of stakeholders who will be included in this process. Subdivision D is the report. So this would be due by January 15 of next year. The commissioner would come back and submit a report about this plan to this committee as well as the Senate Committee on Judiciary. So I'm going to open it up to the committee. I know there's been a few members who have responded back to Becky. So I'll just open it up committee members. I'm going to be quiet here, but you got to unmute. You need to unmute. Got it now. Sometimes my space bar doesn't work. Apparently. Back. I know I got back to you this weekend and, and talk about some other things that we may or may want to look at but in retrospect and after sleeping on it for a day or two. The stuff that that I was talking about is too big a swing for this language and for the intent of what we're looking for. So, I guess I'm pretty fine with what you've done. Thank you very much with the talk about the rest of it later on. This is going to be certainly an ongoing conversation as we move forward. So thanks. Sarah. Becky, thank you for doing this. What considering you weren't in the room with us. I think it's pretty amazing how you and Alice. Trans translated some of our conversation. I sent you a couple of things over the weekend that I'm sure you've got one of the things that I think we heard emphasize this morning, and that we had heard last week was about how the department will engage with various stakeholders. And, and I think I'd like to have a little maybe it's an answer to which section it is just to have a little bit of specificity about that. And that might be in the evaluation section I'm not sure. Just to make sure that we're that the, we heard two things that we want to engage how the department would include engagement with the broader community and with also the employees. So I just want to make sure that that gets in there. And, and I think I sent you a couple of other, a couple of other things that I'm wondering how, if other committee members would agree with some of this is, I think we're talking about like a long term plan, like that it's not just a directive is that, but I know how this interplays with the directives. I think there's a bit of a fear about that, that this could be translated as like, oh, we're just going to add a number of directives when I think what where I'm coming from is it's about lifting, shifting the way that we think about education and professional development of our employees, and how they can advance but also how they can develop core competencies. So, if that's, if that's the direction that the, that my colleagues on the community would like to go and I think that would be nice that be helpful to emphasize some of that. And I mean I sent you a pretty extensive email I don't, I don't want to bulldoze this, but I, there were just some, some kind of wordsmithing things that that could emphasize. I want to, I don't know if it's helpful to put that your comments up on the screen. I wrote it in a way that it would be okay to share with other folks so yeah that'd be okay do you have it or do you want. I, if I'm given screen sharing capabilities I can, I can do that. Or I can just send it to film whatever's easier. You should be able to share now that. I think one thing that we did talk about was expanded to more of them, not just limited to racial equity or we did talk about those marginalized populations that do see works with. I did start out with the racial and social equity but I remember discussing that we should be more inclusive with folks who maybe gender bias. Yeah, I agree with you, Allison marginalized. Both, both who are incarcerated, you know folks who are marginalized both as as offenders, those who are incarcerated and as staff as well. We're showing up for everyone. We're seeing a script only we did we did a minute ago but now we're okay. So Carl you had your hand up try again. I can wait till we go through Sarah's stuff here. Okay. And Alice just to speak to your comment I tried to include a little bit of that language in here too that it was about bias. So if we go down that road we might want to question whether or not to use the word systemic racism, because it's much broader than that. Sorry is this working. I just have it on two screens so it's hard for me to tell what is what is being shown. Yes, it's shown. It's small but it's shown. People can change the size of it by going into zoom and making it bigger. I've been able to do that. I'm not being very clear on the top and if you could click on zoom on the window on the bar across the top it says window and you can you can click on zoom within zoom and you can make it bigger. Yeah, we don't have control the screen. If you need me to scroll down and just let me know. Can you can you make it bigger Rebecca. Becky if you go to view options. And inside zoom or ratio. And go to 150%. You can do that with the video. Video setting. If you're on a laptop. Can't you know. No. Yeah, there was someplace you could do this. I'm doing it right now. Yeah, you got the view options of the share bar. All you're going to do is pinch on it and open it and close it. Yeah, you're on an iPad. Actually at work. Thanks Marsha that works for my iPad. If you just go to view options you can choose 100% or whatever there. Okay, I'm good. Okay. The question is, I think the first part of Sarah's. Language really looks at the findings to be a little bit more clear in terms of how you draw together. What's in statute in terms of what the purpose of DOC is, which Becky laid out number two. Which is to develop and administer rehabilitative correctional services. I don't know. I don't know. It looks like Sarah, you expanded on that. To say that. Well, I. What we would like to see is a system where centers and incarcerated for monitors have access to do process and services that meet their needs and set them up for successful reentry. I don't know that's stated specifically in title ones. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Okay. That again, Alice. Is that current language? If you look, it's. If you look at what. Becky put in front of us, number two. This says the purpose of DOC and it's pursuant to title one, section 20 is to develop and administer a rehabilitative correctional program. Designed in part to render treatment with the goal of achieving treatment. And then. Sarah kind of wordsmith that that is system where sentence and incarcerated for monitors have access to do process and services that meet their needs. It's different wording. Becky, the wording that you used is that wording specifically out of that section 28. Yeah, I was using from. I'm not sure what it is. I'm not sure what it is. What it is. And I think Sarah, you were wordsmithing that to make it more. It came out of some of the justice reinvestment work that we. That we did. This session. So I think there might be a difference here between the, the findings and that sounds more like. Intent language that it's intent that. This is the type of system. Yeah, that I wasn't sure where it would fit best as a kind of. Indicated at the beginning. I'm not sure if it was intent or findings. Or if the committee wanted that it was, it was more responding to the. The text that you highlighted. With a question. So I know Carl had his hand up. So Carl. My, well, my comment was just. And first of all, it's remarkable. I mean, I know Becky had some input from Alice on this, but it's remarkable that. That she came up with this as quickly as she did. It's a real testament to her understanding of where we're at. So thank you, Becky. My, my suggestion was. I'm not sure if that was the right way to put it. But I think what I did. Or thought was just on the evaluation. Peace on the second page under. A is to add. Supervision in there. Because I think that's a, that's. Part of what also it's not just hiring. It's not just training. And it's not just continuing yet. But it's, I think supervision as well. Just to make a comment about the directives, I didn't understand up until last week, number of directives that the department has, and that's got to be a problem amongst directing employees. When you've got that sort of volume of directives, how does anything ever get through? Maybe just want to flag that as something that we, those of us who are back next by any and find some way to work on, but you can go, we can go through there and those can, those directors can be rewritten with a racial equity lens to them, but there's still 500 of them. So how does that, you know, I'm just, I'm struggling to figure out or struggling to think about how we deal with that and make those any sort of directives changes meaningful. That's all. I'm just trying to think how to approach, that's the best way to approach the language. And what Carl just said, it might be best to work from the back end forward, which would be working from what we want in the evaluation first, and then work backwards from that. That might be the best way. So what we're looking for. I have a question to some time point. Okay, hang on. So what we're looking at is for DOC to come back to us with a plan that will include a timeline and a process for evaluating what we lay out. And we've laid out three things. We've laid out the department's hiring practices, training and continued education of the staff and Carl has suggested we add supervision in there. And that the plan would have a timeline and a process for evaluating or figuring out the review of the department's directives. So this is with racial equity lens. Do we want to broaden that to include, you know, and I don't know what the wording would be, but it would include folks who are transgender or sexual identity, gay and lesbian folks, racial, you know, be more inclusive for the marginalized population. And then the plan would include a timeline and a process for the stakeholders who would be involved in this process. So that's what we're looking for in the evaluation. So Kurt, are you focused on this piece or is it something else? It's broader, probably, yes. Well, why don't you say it? And then we'll go from there. I have kind of a basic problem. I think that Terry initially was, you know, pinpointed the basic issues of the review of policy and hiring practices. I think Sarah's rewrite is really good. It looks like it's well thought out. And I can understand that my problem is that I'm questioning whether this is a job for DOC or whether it's a job for us. When I think about this plan, I'm thinking, okay, at what level are, how are they actually going to be? How are they actually going to be? Somebody's actually going to be. Are you? Not me. Not me. Not me. Is it good? Any more? Yeah, it's butch. When I think about what exactly are they going to do in order to come up with this plan, I can see, okay, we're going to have to get a group of people together in DOC, they are. Talk about these things, start working out specifically. It's going to take a lot of time and a lot of effort to actually come up with a plan and then to report it. I'm concerned about the amount of time it's going to take and when I think about the plan, at what level are they going to be looking at this? And if it's a detailed level, then it's going to be a really time consuming thing. If it's at a high level, then it should be something we should be doing. When I think of saying they should review their directives with an equity lens, I say, when is the last time we reviewed Title 28 with an equity lens? Which is at a higher level than something that we should be doing. I would rather see us take on the process of reviewing Title 28 with whatever an equity lens means. I'm not sure how that works. From which we would gain the experience to say, okay, now let's talk to DOC about reviewing their directives because we have a better understanding of what that means. For DOC to review their directives with an equity lens, who's going to do that? That's the stakeholders that are going to come in, I presume, but all this is going to take a great deal of time. When corrections has this corrections feasibility study coming, they have COVID, they have the CRCF investigation, which I guess is no longer an issue. They have Justice Reinvestment II working group, as well as talk of their facilities are in difficulty and we hear today that they're in a hiring emergency. There's just too much going on for them to actually do a good job on this. As my daughter often says, you can have a choice of three things, fast, cheap or well done, choose any two. So if you do it fast and cheap, it's not going to get well done. If you do it cheap and well done, it's not going to get done fast. And on this one, I think we ought to slow down, take a look at it ourselves, see what we learn from it and then talk about getting into the details for DOC. I think there's some very good things in this, in what Terry's done and what Sarah's done, but I'd rather turn it to ourselves and say, what's the work that we can do on this with Title 28 and with a better understanding of what's going on in corrections. I think we need to review the structure of corrections, the way that some of the questions I was asking today so that I have a better understanding of exactly how corrections is set up. I don't understand it enough to be able to judge a plan that comes back in January. So those are my concerns on a very broad level. So that's my difficulty. So I've got two things that's going through my mind. Number one, the intent of this language is not for DOC to do a deep dive by any means. It's just like a 30,000, 50,000 foot looksie in terms of coming back to us to the legislative branch and saying, within these areas that you've picked up on the evaluation piece, this is a process that we might go down. This is a way that we might start achieving looking at different hiring practices or training. It's not getting into the minutiae, how they're gonna do it, but just the broad framework. So that to me is sort of what we're looking at in terms of very high level view. The other, what Kurt, the other piece that you're saying, instead of doing this, that we put in intent language that it's our intent that the General Assembly will do a deep dive into, I don't wanna say the management because we're not dealing with management of DOC. That's not our role, but do a deep dive in terms of looking at Title 28 through the lens of social equity. I'm just putting that out there for people to think. And Sarah, you had your hand up. I'm wondering though, if you say you want them to look at it at a 30,000 foot level, isn't that our job? We're not, they need to weigh in. I don't know, I don't know. Well, we would take testimony, we would listen to them, we would have to do some work. But that's doing a much deeper dive in terms of changing statutes for hiring or changing statutes for training or working within the criminal training council in terms of what their training for correctional officers would entail. That's a whole, we're not even asking DOC to look at it at that level with this language. But for us, it's a fine line between micromanaging and setting up the parameters of how you want a department to carry out statute. Sarah? So I hope my connection remains stable, I'm getting a message. But I think Kurt does raise an important point. I do think, I think we were thinking that this would be like come back to us with an overview plan, not actually doing the work in these next three months. We talked about that. I think I added some suggested language that the department would need to come back to us with the resources needed to do this. Cause I think we've heard for any business or organization to do this work, you would bring in somebody from outside to be a consultant to help you do this work. And for us to think that DOC should be able to do it without that is I think unrealistic. But I think we need them to think about to make a proposal to us in that regard. I do think adding the whole, maybe where we get a little bit into the minutia is this whole thing about reviewing the directives. I think that when I read that, when it was put together here that jumped out as being something that might be more than we need here. That could be a statement about the directives maybe in the findings piece that directives really drive decision making within DOC, both in central office as well as line staff or the operations of a facility or field offices. And maybe just making a statement of that in terms of the finding and not to review of cause review of the directives. I mean, we're not gonna get into that as a legislative branch. That is way, not in our purview, but that is internal work that DOC would be doing that's gonna take a number of, that will take a couple of years. So would it be worth it to move into the findings a statement about the directives, not review of the directives, but our goal of what the directives should encompass? I like that idea. Other folks? I think, Mrs. Carl, I think the directives is just kind of, it's a can of worms. And in the end, there's gonna be a lot of effort in what's gonna come of it because you get 500 plus it just seems like as important as it is from a policy standpoint I just don't know what good it does in the end. So there's gotta be some other way around that for us because it is important to have, we do need to find a way to make our, well, we've got to find a way to make our our priorities clear here, but at the same time not ask DOC to do things that are gonna take an enormous amount of time in the end really result in much. And I'm not saying the directives are not much, but they're so deluded at this point. So if we keep looking at this evaluation section, number two, do we wanna do something like this where DOC would come back to us with a timeline and a process for how they would look at their hiring practices, their training and the continued education of their staff as well as supervision. Kurt. Another question. Yeah, Kurt. When we had the commissioner in and I think we talked about, we asked a little bit about training and what was going to happen with the class that was coming in in October. And it seems to me he said he had a team that was working on this whole issue. Was that not, didn't he say that? He wanted to improve the professionalism. He wants to improve it. Yeah, he's got, I mean, they have, Heather Simons is the director of the new office of professional standards. That's the first direction that they've done and changing their training. Well, maybe we should first ask them what they're already doing and whether they already have a plan. Alice. Yeah. Kurt, sure. So I think listening to everybody's suggestions we need to back into what we need to do using Becky's language, modifying that slightly because our goal when we started this was on line 19 on the first page of her suggested language. And then we got sidetracked along on a lot of different things because trying to keep this a simple process that DOC can do in about 80 days. And Kurt clearly pointed out the volume of work that we've thrown at them in the last six months. And on line 19 says, with the goal of achieving Rachel L'Equado equality. And that's where we started this conversation. And as always, the deeper we dig more questions we've answered to ourselves. But I think if we focus just on that, I think in keeping this a simple statement, I think we can accomplish something. I can't read Sarah's language, I've tried two different devices and I can't read it. So I've kind of discounted that language. So I'm looking at the time. And we're back in committee on Thursday. And what I'd like to do is have three to four people work with Becky and coming up with language to present to us on Thursday. That's what I'd like to do because we're spinning our wheels at this point. And I would like to have Terry be part of that because Terry can give a real perspective of state employees. Butch, I would like you to be part of that. You knew that. Sarah is having trouble with her connection at this point. I know Sarah has submitted this language which I think is really helpful. That can be used as well as what Becky has put together. I don't know if I should be involved with this. I don't know if three people or four people but I would like Terry and Butch at this point. And I'm not sure. I think you should be involved in it. Because I'd like to include some voices that we haven't heard yet. So maybe it should be just people from this committee. Or would it also? Yes, oh yeah, just us. It's what language we're gonna present on Thursday to kind of work on this. So Marcia, would you be willing? New muted. Okay, let's do Terry, Butch, Marcia and me. These are voices that really haven't been heard. We've got Sarah that submitted her language. Kurt has weighed in on his perspective as has Carl. And Felicia's been quiet and Linda Joy is not here and then Mary. Let's do us four. And we can work with Becky. We've got tomorrow that we could do some of this. I don't know what your schedule is, Becky, for tomorrow. I can work with the committee schedule. I think I've unscheduled sort of first thing in the morning, but then I'm free the rest of the day. Okay, let's see if we can get together with Becky sometime tomorrow. We'd have to figure out a Zoom meeting. I don't know if we'd work with Phil on that to do that. Kurt, do you have your hand up? No, no, I don't. Okay, is that something, Phil, that you can help us with to set up a Zoom meeting? Yes, is this a formal public meeting or is this just a group meeting offline? How do folks wanna do it? Normally we'd just go up and sit in the cafeteria and do it. Or sit in the committee room and do it. I would think offline myself. If people are- I agree. I think we should just have a, not online. I mean, not on YouTube. Yeah, or we're working with our lawyer to figure it out. And sometimes we go into the lawyer's office. So let's say we'll do it offline at this point. Cause we're just gonna work up, try to work up language to be presented to us, to the committee on Thursday. That's the only thing we're gonna work on. And I just, some people couldn't read what I wrote. So I just sent it to the committee. Just, I heard Butch. I got kicked off of Zoom for a little while. Okay, that sounds- I got kicked off earlier. In advance of the meeting, do you want me to take a stab at sort of consolidating what representative coffee you did with my draft and try to, and then we could use that to go forward? Right, and keeping your thoughts too, what Kurt was saying about not doing a deep dive. Does that make sense to the committee so we can get off the dime and get this done? Yes. Okay. We gotta go. We gotta go. We gotta get online. Gotta go to the floor. Get yourself a cup of coffee. So for the folks listening on YouTube, thank you. And we will, we have to go on to the floor here. So we're cutting it short. So we will see you next Thursday at 8.30 in the morning. Thank you.