 Good morning, everybody. It's Thursday, May 6 Senate Judiciary We're in extra innings We officially closed the committee last week, but we have permission from the pro tem To do a couple of meetings this week and a couple of minutes This morning, we're gonna be looking at house amendments to s3 possible house changes and We've got Eric Fitzpatrick To walk us through that morning, Eric Do you want to send a brew? Do you want to share your screen? Yeah, absolutely if Committee is okay with that. I think that would be the most efficient way to see what the Language differences are between the the bill that passed the Senate and the bill that the house is well Actually, it hasn't passed yet that what the house is working on What is their timing look like I Heard again these things always are moving moving targets this time of year, but I heard that They thought it might be on the floor tomorrow. Okay But you know that could always change. Yeah So shall I? Yeah, now does that make sense. Go ahead. Are you a co-host? I think so. Yeah, okay and Senator Sears will be with us. He's monitoring right now. He's taking care of a few things and he'll be with us momentarily Does everybody see this document that highlighted at the top says House changes to sections one to five. Yep. Yes Okie-doke So for the record, it's Eric Fitzpatrick with the Office of Legislative Council here to walk the committee through the Proposed change that the house is making to s3, which is an act relating to competency to stand trial and Insanity as a defense sure the committee recalls having spent a lot of time on this that this bill has many different provisions related to the to the statutory procedures that are mandated when a criminal defendant is Either raising the issue of competency to stand trial or insanity as a defense or Has been found incompetent to stand trial or insane at the time of the offense and the Procedures that follow that finding. So there's a lot of different Provisions within the bill that are related to those procedures. So I think as I walk through them I'll kind of take a moment and remind the committee of What's being talked about in each section so I'll jump right in section one has to do with the Examination of a criminal defendants Competency or Sandy at the time of defense that the court orders whenever the issue is raised whether that's raised by the defendant in the context of raising an Insanity defense or by the court or one of the parties with respect to competency, but when the issue was raised Then the court orders an independent evaluation of the person To to get an independent psychiatric evaluation of the person's mental health status. So What you recall had been happening in section one here as it passed the Senate was that and this sort of turns on the issue of May recall The point that competency to stand trial and sanity at the time of defense are two different things two different Evaluation two different moments in time that are being evaluated and So what section one did was it made sure that because the language the statute on the books was Seemed to suggest that the evaluation always had to evaluate both competency and sanity but that doesn't Doesn't comport with what actually happens or or the reality since Competency and sanity are two different things and sometimes one is raised but not the other so the language is clarified as the Senate passed it to make sure that that the Evaluation can evaluate competency or sanity or both and that's lines one through 15 there But and it is sort of related to that is the fact that and this is something that was added by the house is that as it happens when a person's Sanity or competency Is the result of a mental illness then that person? That person's evaluation is conducted by a psychiatrist However, there it's also provided for in the statute that a person's competency or sanity Can be the result of something other than a mental illness. It could be a developmental disability for example or traumatic brain injury When the person when that's the case we'll see later on a couple of different things flow from that and one is the one that you're looking at right now is that when a person's competency or sanity is the Maybe the result of a developmental disability Then there's a statute a specific statute of treatment that already exists that says that this evaluation Also has to be done by a Psychologist with expertise in developmental disabilities. So in other words, although It's The existing provision is correct that it's only a psychiatrist when it's a person Whose condition is the result of a mental illness? There are a couple of changes are made here to make clear that well, that's true But additionally there has to be a psychologist with expertise in developmental disabilities Participating in the evaluation if if it's a developmental disability that's being raised So that's what you'll see this repeated several times right here. This language you see on lines 20 and 21 about the evaluation It's it's conducted by the examining psychiatrist and here's the highlighted language If applicable so it's going to be either a psychiatrist that's line 20 existing And if if applicable under section 4816 be and that's the statute that I just referenced that says specifically if it's a developmental disability it also has to be a psychologist So this is just roping that in if section 4816 be applies then it's a psychiatrist and the psychologist Eric yes, just The word or is struck there. Yeah, one of the same thing It it shouldn't be struck. Am I correct? I? Believe that's correct. I think it should be Yes, it's funny because there was a lengthy debate about Whether it should be or and in the house, but yeah, I think I think you're right or is what it should be Thank you. Okay Let's keep going yep Let's see. So the you may also recall so the Report that is generated after this evaluation You may recall that one of the provisions that was added in the Senate bill was because there's an existing list I'm on page two now lines two through seven of who gets a copy of the report and the Senate had added line five the commissioner mental health which makes sense right because the Department is very much involved in these proceedings and the and if the defendant Defendant may be committed to the department's custody. So it makes sense that they would get a copy of the report and that's what the Senate added Two more parties were added by the house to get a copy of the report line four is to respond and that's the defendant so the defendant a Him or herself would also get a copy and then line six or seven of the Department of Disabilities aging and independent living now This is connected to the point. I just made about developmental disabilities. That's because the other consequence that could flow Is it if the person's? Lack of competency or sanity is the result of a developmental disability Then the person would not be committed to the department of mental health if they're found dangerous Rather, they are under by statute. They are committed to the custody of Dale so It would make sense that as you see the way it's written and if applicable then Dale gets a copy of the report So in other words, I think as everyone understands that means if it's a developmental disability that's involved Then since Dale would be the person who would potentially get in custody of the person then they would also Get a copy of the report in that instance mm-hmm the the Next provision involves remember the the issue and the committee had discussed this as well that What happens when is it we're talking about? the fact that competency and sanity are two different things and As we looked at in the previous section the evaluation does not have to Does not have to evaluate both of those Both of those Issues but it could and so this provision remember dealt with exactly that instance So what if the court does order? What if the psychiatrist or or psychologist has been asked to provide opinions as to both of those things both competency and Sanity at the time of the offense well the Senate passed language and this is lines eight through 15 Provided that if that's the case then the report has to address both of those issues Separately and they have to be presented in separate reports which again makes sense because as we're talking about they're two different things and It went on to say it's his lines to let sort of yeah, let end of 11 12 to 15 that The examination of the person's sanity would only happen that would only take place if the psychiatrist or again, this is that language I mentioned earlier a psychiatrist or line 13 if applicable the psychiatrist and the psychologist if they're able to form the opinion that the person is competent to stand trial again and that the idea of that is that You know sanity is a defense that the defendant would not be raising would if They're not in the found competent to stand trial in the first place because In order for the proceeding to go forward there has to be a finding of competence so if that never happens if the defendant is never found competent then the Sanity issue would never come into play the defense would never be raised so It makes sense both in terms of logistically and efficiency of resources that you know You wouldn't do this sanity Evaluation if it's never going to be needed. So that's why that language was in there as it as it passed the center to make clear that Sanity Evaluation doesn't happen until competency is established. So what the house added to that? As you see highlighted in line 15 to 21 and the first piece is see that's sort of a clause Line 15 and 16 adding on to that point that I just made about the timing of the evaluations says yes, okay that that the Provides the defendant with the opportunity to request that they occur concurrent So yes generally speaking as as you provided in your language Sanity evaluation doesn't happen Until after competency is established line 15 highlight though and less dependent request that they occur concurrent So provides the defendant would be the option essentially and that's based on they actually actually the ABA the American Bar Association has some model Model language on this. It's very similar to what what you pass in the Senate, but it does add that provision Recommends that the defendant have the option To to request that they occur concurrently and that's what what that is based on the second the last second sentence provides Addresses the point that if you think about The situation in which the sanity evaluation is delayed. So let's say You know, it doesn't happen At the time of the competency evaluation as we've just provided for here You know, you said that the two things are separate and sanity evaluation doesn't happen until competency established So in that instance, if you if you think about it, it could be quite a long time before the person could be going through years of treatment before To establish competency and it might take quite some time and If the if the sanity evaluation doesn't happen until competency is established that could be years years after the offense or quite some time whatever it may be after the offense was actually committed. And so I think the concern discussed In house to just show you was well might there be, you know, loss of evidence during that time might their people's memories not be as as good people tend, you know, forget things over time. It's natural. So they provided for a language here that would require the psychiatrist or psychologist, whoever's making that evaluation that if there if that happens, if you see in line 16 if the evaluation of the defendant sanity That doesn't occur until the defendant is deemed competent. If that's the case, then go skip down to line 19 psychiatrists and psychologists shall make a reasonable effort to collect and preserve any evidence necessary To form an opinion as to sanity if the person regains competent. So the idea is at the time of that competency evaluation, even though they're not doing the sanity evaluation yet. They still make a reasonable effort to preserve any evidence That that would be Helpful and necessary for the sanity evaluation. If that ever needs to be done in the future, Eric. Yes. Oh, go ahead, Alice. Just wondering, can you review just briefly what the how that piece works right now or something relatively similar to this. What happens presently In terms of the Psychiatrists and the psychologist or don't we ever have the psychologist in there. No, I think I think it does happen presently the statute requires that the psychologist be involved if it's developmental disability situation. So they could both be involved. I think presently I think the Some of the witnesses you have today certainly could correct me on this or and have more experience with it. But I think presently the court orders the evaluation to take place When sanity or competency is raised a psychiatrist Is chosen by the department, I believe and conducts the evaluation and I think the as far as whether the The timing of it currently, in other words Because of the way the statute is worded currently it seems to require that both evaluation and competency. I'm sorry that sanity and competency Are always evaluate. I don't know if in practice that happens. I don't know if if in reality they Only evaluate competency if competency is the only issue that's raised. I'm not sure that might be a good question for a witness Okay, okay, thanks. Okay and Eric I have a Question that maybe jumps off of that So we were talking about conservation of resources and that was part of the impetus to separate out the two examinations and only to perform the second if necessary But in this new language, they have to make a reasonable effort to Collect and preserve any evidence So my my question is do they do that now and if they don't do that now To what extent does that involve the resources that we're trying to save if if it's not necessary Does does that make sense it does make sense, but I don't have any answers to those questions Right, right, okay All right. Well, let's Unless there's more questions Let's move on Okay Just pausing for a moment in case anybody wants to jump in that's all right. Well, we can we can ask Alice's and my question of them when we Shift over to witnesses. Okay sounds good. So Moving on to the next section then this has to do with the hearing regarding commitment so We just were talking about the evaluation that has to take place when sanity or competency is raised This is if you think of it sort of further down the timeline of the process the the Court has to if you presume that that a person There has been a finding that the person is either was either insane at the time of the offense or incompetent To stand trial then the court the next thing that has to happen is the court has to hold a hearing To determine whether or not the person is a danger to themselves or others and if the person is a Is found to be a danger to themselves or others then they have to be committed either to the department of mental health Or as you see here line Three and four page four If applicable the Member I mentioned this earlier they would be committed to the Department of Aging Disabilities aging and independent living if it's a Developmental disability situation. So what you had done here was that when it Passed the Senate you provided that the member among lines one and two now top of page four that the person is entitled to have Counsel appointed by Vermont legal aid So they're going to be represented by legal aid if they choose they could also choose to retain their own private attorney if they wanted And then you also provided in the second sentence that DMH would also be entitled to appear and call witnesses So consistent with what I mentioned earlier, which is that potential potentially the case that Dale would be involved here rather than DMH If it's a developmental disability case This provides that DMH and if applicable Dale will be entitled to appear and call witnesses Am I right Eric that we got rid of wasn't there originally a provision that said the AG's office represented DMH Yes, I think I think there was originally. Yeah, and we took that out on purpose correct. Yeah, okay Okay So that's just Truing that up with the other place where we added Dale Exactly exactly and I just asked another question I realize this is not changing but does room and I don't know this about Vermont legal aid But are they I realize we want them to be involved. That's great But I'm wondering under Vermont legal aides own provisions Can they represent very wealthy people who have the ability to represent themselves. Is that an issue for them? I'm sure You know well when we get to them I guess could ask Yes, I think I think The witness will be better better able to answer that question exactly Yeah And I think I think we also added money To Vermont legal aid in the in either budget adjustment or This budget we took the money out and Because of the status of the bill we didn't put it in I don't believe I checked with Stephanie and Jane and I don't believe we put it back in because We weren't sure of the status of the bill and I know that the bill will Assuming it passes out a house Judiciary that's gonna head to appropriations Okay, and we can take care of it there Yeah, they would have to But I think we might have added something to Vermont legal aid For this in other areas, but I'm not sure about that. I know we didn't add anything to DMH Okay, okay Is there more Not in that section, but there's more going forward. Okay, let's keep going. Okay So we're now moving into the section had to do that has to do with victim notification Remember that was also a big issue in this bill was and You'll see the provisions that I'm first mentioning here weren't really changed and this was the idea that That when a after the defendant has been committed to either to the Department of Mental Health the Sometimes the status of the defendant will change right for example the defendant could be Released after treatment has been Completed could be that the defendant would be stepped down in treatment level from inpatient hospital treatment to to Non-hospitalization treatment which would occur in the community that could be that the that the department would Just not not renew not up to renew the commitment order in which case the person would be released to the community so in all those situations What had passed out of this committee and the House Judiciary Committee did not change this was that Notice would have to be provided when the defendant I'm just moving right to the language right there When the defendant status changes in that way you see for example lines Eight through 17 or so that's That's the situations when notice has to be provided by the department to the state's attorney or the attorney general And then the essay or the AG has to in turn provide notice to the crime victim That this change in status of the defendant is happening so that they'll know when the person Is released into the community By any one of these methods that are identified here So so the changes here are really the first two anyway are really technical you see number 10 is just a language change because that's the way that The mental health statutes say at their discharge from the hospital not discharged from commitment in a hospital Second one is line 16. You'll say also that's also just terminology change. It's the same same concept But I guess the mental health statute statutes use the word elopes They don't use the word abscond so that we're just truing that up with The language that's used in that area of the law The last one here you'll see this is about note again the notice to the victim and The way the change is the words that have been added on line 20 This is one of those situations where And I testified to the House District Committee on this point that and this sometimes happens in the legislative process I didn't see any legal need for this language to clarify that that the victim of the offense It's the offense for which the person has been charged, but on the other hand it doesn't hurt anything either so I think for for clarity The house added the language As well as You know just making clear that that It was the victim of this particular offense That's the person who's getting the notice Okay Dick you're muted I know I said in appropriations that'll be on my tube stone that you're muted Would that confuse things if there were multiple victims Different crimes I don't think so because it's the it's the crime. It's the highlighted language is talking about the defendant not the victim That's the You know frequently states that there are Well, you know Lower the crime or drop one offense Because they can get a deal on another offense I don't know if this happens here. I if you don't think it's any if it's hard if you don't think it's harmful I guess I'm okay with it. It just is a little bit of a weird thing Kind of just keep that in the back of the mind and as something that if we were to Concur with further proposal amendment. That's one place where I would say I'll be want to remove that language Sounds good. I'll note it Thank you. Yeah, sure. I'm just just jotting it down here All right, so we had to the elopes we did and we did that piece which we're noting for possible Removal the okay, so now you're coming to This is a section that was removed in the house and it's it is also related to the victim notice, but remember this is a separate Notice and it's not the one that we were just talking about where the defendant status changes Their treatment status changes or treatment is completed one time And then notice is provided this has to do with a separate situation when The defendant is in the community already on an on an O and H in order of non hospitalization So the defendant is being treated in the community and then It becomes clear you see lines nine through eleven That the defense in the community, but they're not come either not complying with that order of non hospitalization Or this alternative treatment whatever they're getting in the community is not adequate to meet the person's treatment Now if either one of those things happen Then this language requires Notice again, so notice is provided to the state's attorney and attorney general doesn't require Victim notice after that, but it does require notice to the state's attorney and the attorney general You remember this this particular piece Had been discussed quite a bit in seven years in this committee and Because there was some debate back and forth about well, what circumstances what does line nine really mean what does line ten through eleven really mean So You know there was discussion about what what circumstances really would trigger the requirement that that the department provide this notice and Second secondly, what would the States attorney or AG do with the notice once they got it. What's the appropriate thing? So You may recall that in addition to putting this language here You also included Language that would study those two issues in the forensic work group So you put it in both places You put it here the requirement that that the notice be given and but recognizing that there was still some issues that had to be fleshed out You also asked the forensic work group that's established later on to Look at those issues as well. So what happened in the house was it kept the The provision that the department look at the issue But got rid of it in the statutory requirement that you're looking at right here. So this piece of notice was removed And they kept it in the essentially in the study concept that they would look at that. Yeah I understand what they did But this is at the heart of the case a case like pronto the one who's accused of Murdering the girl and Martin Luther King day slashing her neck killing her in downtown And And this he was frequently Under dmh Under the local mental health center And one of the things that Eric a message I think spoke about in her testimony repeatedly was that She had no idea that he was failing if this was a Person on probation or a person on conditions of release Courts or the police would notify the state's attorney immediately This guy was on video saying I'm getting away with anything I can do murder if I want And you know, he was terrorizing a neighborhood and they didn't do anything there was nothing to do Because you know, he was on non-hospitalization I think if you go back and think about the testimony that we heard from both Erica Mattage and The mother of Emily That was compelling that this Whether you know what to do with it or not is a good question But at least you're aware that this guy is not you know Participating in any form of treatment and I so I'm disappointed that the house took the selfies like this is a key area Of notice at least the state's attorneys aware Anyway for me, this is a key area may I comment on that sure I actually Agree with this change and the reason is because I I have always thought that this was Way way way too subjective leaving it up to the The therapist or the case worker or whoever is working with the person if they don't show up for one One meeting and the therapist just doesn't like them. They will would could report it I I think studying it is a really good idea But I've always felt that this is too subjective and open to the public I've always felt that this is too subjective and open Just my feeling And I know it's a it was a real issue in that case and I don't know how we do that but I always I hate to Do any kind of legislation or changes based on based on An Incident or an event I've lost a lot of faith in the system Over this and what I've learned we bring it up tomorrow when 225 the but But what I've heard from people in emails and People that I know Sent me emails. I'm losing faith in the system that really not responding We can get into that tomorrow. I highlight. This is an area, but if the committee wants to continue to study it I understand I understand that you know, I don't know what the state's attorney does with this information or the victim does at least they're aware Right I understand your concerns and I mean I've had situations like that if you go back to the guy that wasn't guilty of rape Was in prison because he wouldn't admit he raped the girl and even though he would have been eligible to be released I mean, I don't know if you remember that testimony from the sergeant in the army who was Cused and convicted of raping a girl that he didn't rape He never would admit it so they kept them in there because he was considered non-compliant and they did a I don't know what that a mental health order that he wouldn't admit Well, I may be the only one that that Had concerns about that in the first place. I just think it's so subjective that their caseworker doesn't like the person they're screwed So, so what did they put in to replace this study? We had it in the study already I'd like this section to stay in or something similar We can come back to this if we do a incur with further Assuming that it ever gets out of house If it ever gets out of house appropriation, you know, don't forget we passed this bill a year ago and I don't want to get hung up on this section because there are so many important things in this bill that ought to be dealt with we have a system in crisis and Instead we worry about Okay Okay So I think that's it other than the studies which I'll get to next section for there were no changes to this you remember this is the the language that Permits the prosecution to ask the court for a Mental examination When the defendant Raises competency as an issue the same way that Existing law what you see in lines one to four permits the prosecution to ask for that when sanity is an issue So no changes to that section So now we're getting into the reports. I don't know. I'm just going to check since I don't have my screen up these these sections were dealt with By the house health care committee And Katie worked on these more than I do so I'm just asking if she's here. I know she's here and she could take over but if not I can certainly give Section five looks like it has you know only extended firm The reason we put in November first if you is because the Senate can't introduce legislation After a certain date in December and the house can Katie maybe you want to take over I'd be happy to good morning. That's the only reason I mean that date doesn't bother me except that we can't introduce So Katie McLean office of legislative council, you'll see the version that Eric has has the changes from the the house Highlighted but just to kind of remind you what the section was about the version that passed out of the Senate had An assessment of the mental health surface services that were being provided in correctional facilities In particular the evaluation was to look at how Services and correctional facilities compared to those provided in the community so you'll note on the first line there's the date change of when this work is due But then when we scroll down to subdivision subsection be subdivision be one You'll see that and subdivision be one we're retaining that concept of comparing services and correctional settings to those available in the community And then the house added language that recognizes the comparison to currently available services doesn't establish kind of the best standard of care So just because it's in the community doesn't mean it's the best standard of care when doing this comparison so they added that Kind of acknowledgement and then subdivision to is a new addition to the evaluation that the house added if you could just scroll down that please. Thank you. So this new addition would be comparing The mental health services among different Vermont correctional settings including between and men's and women's facilities and also looking at how the services provided in Vermont correctional settings compares to The services received by those persons who are in the custody of the Department of Corrections were incarcerated outside of the state So kind of looking across the board at how mental the type of mental health services and how they're delivered and their frequency and timeliness of services Next in subdivision three the addition of an assessment as to how the use of a for profit entity Providing these health care services affects the cost and quality of care and correctional settings, as you know, do see contracts within with an entity for health care services so this is a look at how the nature of it being a for profit entity Impacts the services provided and then Can I just DOC uses all kinds of nonprofits to So I I don't understand this this is You know the people that come in for Believe it's Phoenix house they used to use I don't know if they still do but that's a nonprofit That comes into correctional facilities and provides mental health care And group counseling they use Kind of see this as kind of a Which health care services are they talking about mental health or because this this is I believe on the mental health side they use both nonprofits and for profits corrections I believe this is referring to the entity that They contract with that provides the You know the Predominant amount of health care services some of which are mental health services and the the name of the contractor has slipped my mind But I understand that I'm just saying that when an assessment When they use that term That troubles me Okay, they should be examining all right. This is about mental health not about So they should be examining an assessment of how the use of Non-profit and for-profit entities to the Department of Corrections contracts affects the cost and quality of care If they're aiming this at the current one, why don't we just say how the use of the current Entity yeah, that's what they're I Think I would just flag this or something that we would take out if we can grab further Okay, I don't see what good. I don't see what good, you know Well, I think that they I think the thought is that the current contractor is The way they operate it doesn't give good services and it costs more than it should and that's why they want to study it Yeah, we we just got rid of one got another That's because we always get for-profit ones You're missing my I don't know I get it my point is that we we're getting we're contracting the choices are to either contract More services or provide them through state employees That's the issue It's also a question of whether or not the facilities being studied or in a state of flux right now I understand they want a comparison but that comparison is going to be a snapshot in time that may not even be relevant by the time we get back in January Yeah Yeah I just flagged this one if you win Katie and Eric Sure Yep The next subdivision that was added by the house Asks for an assessment as to whether DMH should be providing oversight of the mental health services that are provided by the entity that docy contracts with for health care services So that's an addition and then in subdivision five I think I think you need to entities again we're getting the same argument here Okay, we'll flag that And then in subdivision five the version that the Senate sent over asked for information as to how the MOU that docy and DMH Executed impacts the mental health services provided by the entity that docy contracts with for health care services and the house added and whether it is adequately addressing the needs of those with severe illness or in need of inpatient care So those are the changes to the kind of the contents of what's coming back in this report and then a subsection see was added that You know in the course of doing this work the two departments are to ensure that social and racial equity issues are considered including issues related to transgender and gender nonconforming persons So section six the forensic care working group there were substantial changes there and I have a side by side that might make it easier to kind of look at it so I'm suggesting maybe we skip ahead to section seven and then I'll just switch documents to show you section six So if you could scroll down to seven Eric please Thank you. So this is a new section of the bill that the house sent over this is an amendment to The existing creation of the joint legislative justice oversight committee. This committee currently has 10 members and this proposal would be to add two additional members for a total of 12 members And that would mean that there'd be an additional one additional senator at large for a total of two senators at large and then the house member would be a house from Excuse me a member from the house committee on health care and you'll see that change at the bottom so online for We have Member pointed at large by the house to members at large appointed by the Senate and then at the very bottom of that section line eight we have the member from health care being added. I would oppose this. What you're thinking on this stick I think, you know, The justice oversight committee Works pretty well with 10 members of the house wants to take their one member at large and use that for a Pick somebody from the health care committee they can do that. Wait go back up Katie because I want to see the top here is it six members appointed by the Yeah, now it's 10 members and they want six and six and One member at large So that's one member at large from both chambers There's one at large from both chambers and so they could choose somebody from the health care committee if they want I think extending this committee to 12 members is problematic. I've been on this committee for a long time. May I ask What is the difference between having Members from the house and an at large person from the house I don't get the at large person they're at all at large aren't they No, there's some that are specifically from certain committees. You have one from the appropriations one from health and welfare or house committee on health care one from judiciary one from institutions And we've always had one at large which allows would allow them to Someone Okay, I agree with you dick. I I think In general the house prefers larger committees. Yep And and maybe that has to do with the fact that they work in large committees Over there, but I don't see why you would make this any bigger I guess unwieldy with the more members you have and the Senate we had a member last year who never showed up for a meeting I was Senator McNeil never came to a meeting one not come from one meeting So can I just say add one of the reasons I think they prefer larger committees with more members is because they have 150 and they need to spread the joy around Understood I don't know if I call this Anyway, I think this is something we we should reject Okay, they want to change their out-large member to a member of the health care committee they can do that The speaker has complete charge of that. Okay, let's flag this. Yeah, I noted that one too Did they say why they wanted it so big or just a So I'm not always in the room when it's when a bill is being discussed my recollection though is when we look at section six there is a report that's coming to this committee that involves Forensic treatment facility and there was a discussion that there was no designated expertise from house health care that could weigh in on on viewing that report again I would point out that the speaker wants to she can The fact that she's failed to do so is not my fault Go ahead Katie decision anything Why don't we take down this document and move to section Six, okay, so I think you have to do a stop share Eric Oh, I have the same document Oh, you do okay. I think so is it great. I'll pull it up. You tell is this the one you're thinking of that's when I was thinking of thank you. Yeah So just to give you a little bit of context You when when the bill left the Senate you had created a forensic care working group There are many elements that are the same and there are many additions so I've tried to break this one section into different categories to walk you through some of the different changes are So the first category have has to do with the working group membership And then you'll see In the the column as proposed by the house the house version adds additional members to this working group, including a representative of Dale, the chief superior judge, a representative appointed by the Vermont Medical Society, a representative appointed by the Vermont Developmental Disabilities Council, three crime victim representatives versus the two that were proposed by the Senate. Three individuals with lived experience of mental illness versus the one that was recommended by the Senate, and then the house language specified that this into these individuals with lived experience at least one of whom has lived experience of the criminal justice or civil commitment systems are both appointed by Vermont psychiatric survivors, and then the house version deletes one of the members that was proposed by the Senate and that is a representative from BGS. So those are the changes. This is whether you should build a facility and I don't want to represent BGS does the building. It will not fly well with the commissioner BGS. It doesn't fly well with me. I can accept having, you know, the chief superior judge. But shouldn't it be his, his or her designee. We don't usually tell the judiciary to appoint committee. I don't know if that's in the language or not Katie, but I can't recall either my guess is that I don't think we tell judge. I don't think we tell the judiciary who to appoint to committees. That's really in the purview of the judiciary. So, could be chief superior judge or his, his or her desk or designee. I don't have a huge problem like with adding to the committees. I think it'll be unwieldy and I don't know they'll get where they need. I do, I do think BGS needs to be there to discuss, because you're, you're talking about building a mental health facility. But you're not dealing with a problem that's small, but real in Vermont is we do not have a forensic capability. And if we're going to leave it to the department of corrections, and they deserve their own facility somewhere as a wing to one of their facilities. I just think it's missing. And so I think I agree with Senator Benning that needs to be a member. Okay, so then next category in this chart but in section six, your report looked at kind of the overlap in the mental health and criminal justice systems that's kind of a broad, broad way to describe it. And you had one report coming back November 1 of this year. And so the house restructured this reporting requirement so there will be two preliminary reports. The first preliminary report comes February 1 of 2022. And then there's a second preliminary report that we'll look at in the next row, when we change pages that's specific to the question of whether there should be a forensic treatment facility. And the final report on both of those issues is due January 1 2023. And the idea is that the final report is an opportunity to kind of fine tune the recommendations and work that was done in the preliminary report. So in terms of this is all going to be done by the group of us. Yes. And we'll see that this group is. They're also going to be given in the house version, the ability to have national experts weigh in and provide models to this group so we'll, we'll get to that language. But in terms of exactly what this first preliminary report is looking at. So the Senate language was used but then there were additions and I wanted to show you that so I've put the house additions and italics so you could see where where the Senate language was modified or added to. So first, the first thing that this report is going to be looking at hasn't changed since it left the Senate any gaps in the current mental health and criminal justice system structure. Next is opportunities to improve public safety address treatment needs of individuals in the criminal justice system. The addition in the house was in consideration of victims rights and the friends at care process. The Senate wanted to look at competency restoration models used in other states, and the house added including models that do not rely on involuntary medication and how cases or competency is not restored or addressed. The Senate version looked at models used in other states to assess public safety risks, including guilty but mentally ill verdicts and criminal cases that was not changed. The house added due process requirements for defendants held without adjudication of a crime. The house added processes regarding other mental conditions affecting competence and sanity, such as intellectual disabilities TBI and dementia. The Senate version wanted the report to touch on models for forensic treatment and the house added including inpatient community based or other treatment models, and the house also left it open for any other recommendations. This is part of the first preliminary report and then if we scroll down to the second page. Thank you. You'll see there's another column or another row that has to do with the forensic treatment facility. So this is the second preliminary report. And this comes about six months later, July 1 of 2022. So this is the report that comes in to joint legislative justice oversight committee. And this committee specifies that based on the recommendations already submitted in the first preliminary report, DMH is to submit the second preliminary report as to whether a forensic facility is needed. So that is. And then if the second preliminary report does determine that such a facility is needed. It's in the final report. That where we're going to have a recommendation as to the size scope and fiscal impacts of the facility. So it kind of has a tiered decision making. So in the first preliminary report, we're getting information about the overlap of the mental health and criminal justice systems. And the second preliminary report is a recommendation as to whether a forensic treatment facility is necessary. And if it is necessary, the final report is going to kind of fine tune all of the recommendations in the first two reports. And if that treatment facilities deemed necessary provide recommendations as to what that facility should look like. So, by the time you built the facility, if you wait till 23 and you figure it takes five years from the state to build a facility. And in the meantime, we built a new mental health facility without a forensic capability. This is ridiculous. I muted myself so I wouldn't be caught thinking something on that was not good. Again, you're just repeating this. But, and I realize you wrote it but you're not, you know, you're the legislative council. I'm not blaming you at all Katie but I, I need to know if we're going to, if we're going to take the step that I believe is absolutely necessary and that's building a forensic facility in Vermont. I would like this done sooner rather than later into the thing that this is going to be done sometime in 2023, adding five years is 2028. You know that the Department of Corrections being asked to deal with significant mental health issues that shouldn't have to be dealing with their holding people because of a lack. You know, on detention people with significant mental health issues last longer on detention, it increases those number of people in beds and probably it's not appropriate for them to be there. And here we go on the same old thing. I feel a sense of urgency here. I just don't think I want to wait until 2023 for a second preliminary report. So, I'm not. I don't know what to do with this section. I mean they've got so much stuff in here. Yeah, it can take you to 255 just to figure out what it is they're looking for. May I ask a question, Senator Sears. I'm just, I'm just baffled. When, when we are talking about building a forensic unit. We're not necessarily talking about it as a standalone unit right it mean it could be part of if for example, part of a new mental health facility could be part of current corrections facility it could be part of, you know, the governor had the campus idea for different facilities. Yeah, so we're right now, looking at, for example, building a new women's prison. Why, why wouldn't they even consider, because that's a new building why wouldn't they even be able to consider whether or not there could be a little L off the side of that or something with I mean, we're doing. We're doing going forward with projects now and if we're not even going to make a decision until 2023 that seems, I agree with you. For me there's two problems. One is the victims of the various crimes that are being committed and future victims because we're not dealing with this population. There's a very small, there's a very small population. Luckily, but it can do that population to do a lot of damage. The second problem is we're discussing building various facilities right now, both from mental health perspective, as well as in the corrections. We need to find out which department should be in charge of forensic unit in Massachusetts I believe it's the Department of Corrections. It's the correctional facility in Bridgewater that has a wing for forensic cases. I believe that's it may have changed but this is years ago. And I think, you know, it's that's what I was hoping they would look at I didn't think it was rocket science right. We lack the capacity ever since our hurricane Irene both for, you know, the vast majority of people with mental illness do not commit crimes to actually more likely to have crimes committed against them I understand all that I want to make clear. That's all those folks, but I am concerned about waiting and waiting and waiting. Now, Sarah squirrel who's since resigned was going to, I think was tearing down which side to build a new facility, you know, mental health facility at that location. So, you know, that was the plan. And if they do that, and it would be more appropriate to have a forensic unit there that at the women's new women's prison that I think you're absolutely right center like this just doesn't make I can't live with this part really bothers me. Yeah, I just I don't get why it's so would take so long and it's already wasted a year. They didn't take this up last year. And so now we've got another year we're almost at the end of the session we if all goes well we were about eight days from a business days from adjournment. I suggest we do with this section. That we add the guiding principles, the experts, and the draft language section that are not in that that is in ours, the guiding principles and the experts to ours and get rid of all the rest of theirs. Sounds like a plan. Would you help Katie with that. Yes, I'd be happy to help. Thank you. We can ask a question. Section seven. That group is also considering all of this. The section. Sorry, so the only report that's going to the joint legislative justice oversight is the second preliminary report, which is whether or not there's a need for forensic treatment facility. The other reports are coming in when the General Assembly is in session so it goes to subject matter committees. We're, we're, we're not going to have time for us 97 this morning I don't think. I lost track of. It's already 20 minutes at 10 and we're on the floor at 10. Oh, but this has been helpful. I apologize to those here on. That's 97. I will try to get to that. Next week. That's not our shattering I just want to understand the proposal from Judge Grayson that's been added test 97 or the house is considering adding. I think it's fine I understand that. Thank you. I appreciate it. All right, so there are people here who want anybody want to comment on this draft. That's here. Thank you so much Eric and Katie for the rundown and really appreciate it. You can take the share down now I think. Sounds good. We'll do. Well, an opportunity. still here? I believe he is, Senator Sears. Well, I just want to look at him so I know who he is there, hi there. Nice to see you. Welcome to Senate Judiciary. Well, thank you very much. It's nice to see all of you as well. Yeah. Welcome. So, Evan, why don't you, if we have a second Senator Sears, I would like to comment one thing on S3 because there is that one section that I think is important as far as notification of the non-compliance. One part, and I think it needs to be worked on, and I can understand Senator White's concern, but I think it has to be noted that it really doesn't allow us to really do anything. So, it's the fact we're getting the notification, and I think that the idea was for us to, if we found information that somebody was not compliant and it rose to such a level, then we would be able to try to take some preventative measures or to see what we could do to make sure that the person would become compliant. But however you want to go with that, we're fine, but I think it's necessary for us to at least be advised if somebody is not being compliant and they have serious mental health issues that put them as a danger to themselves or to the others in the community. So, I just would like to say that. And also, just to introduce Evan. Evan, as you know, Pepper has left to take over the chairmanship of the cannabis commission, and we're very fortunate to have Evan have an interest in that in this role, and I'd like to turn it over to him and he can kind of give you some of his background. So, Evan, go ahead. Sure. Thank you very much. Yeah, I'll briefly review where I came from. I graduated from Vermont Law School in 2008 in Hamilton College in Central New York before then. Spent two years in private practice at Paul Frank and Collins up in Burlington. And then after that, I did a five-year stint in the criminal division of the Attorney General's office. I then went to the Office of Planning and Legal Assistance at the Agency of Natural Resources, went back and did another two-year stint in the criminal division of the Attorney General's office. And I just recently left my position of Associate General Counsel for the Natural Resources Board after three years there. And very happy to be on board with the department and to be working with your committee to the degree that I can be helpful in answering any questions. Please don't hesitate to reach out at any point in time. Appreciate that. Are there any comments from either anyone who wants to comment on our comments on S3? Morning Fox and then Jack McCullough. And, Judge, I think we can get to 97 tomorrow morning. I'll work on a revised agenda. Senator, they're pretty technical, I mean minor technical changes that I don't think many have trouble with. I might have one more issue that I'd like to present to you tomorrow and I'll fill you in on that. Thank you very much. Commissioner Fox. For the record, Morning Fox Deputy Commissioner Department of Mental Health. In regards to the language around orders of non-hospitalization and notification, it's been pretty consistent testimony on the House side including crime victim advocates who had concerns about this language remaining in the bill as such and that all supported having this as part of the study to take a look at part of the concerns from the department's end are around the other notification pieces in this bill really provide minimal information from a protected health information type thing but provide enough information to notify the attorneys and victims that a person's being released from a secure setting or from custody of the commissioner. This starts to get into the type of treatment and what a person is engaging in which that really starts to move us into kind of that realm of what's protected health information and what should be provided. Also some of the testimony that I've heard as well as we've put forward is what information does that do? I think if you bring the folks back in from crime victims advocates they were concerned that it can create some unnecessary angst or anxiety in victims that may not equate to anything if a person misses an appointment or person misses a single dose of a medication or something of that that what's done with that information may not be actually very helpful and could actually be potentially retraumatizing for a victim and such. We do think that I want to say that we never had it was never my intent to get information about somebody missing an appointment or missing a dosage my intent was somebody who is completely bombed out not going not participating anymore not doing anything and who is becoming to the attention of of neighbors like the pronto case where you know bizarre behaviors occurring but nobody's doing anything and and nobody knows until you know something serious happened so it was never and maybe we didn't make it clear maybe it needs to be clarified but it was never my intent to know that somebody missed a dosage or missed an appointment or whatever that certainly had nothing to do with it so I just want to assure you that was not our intent our intent was that the person's know you know it's a sort of thing that would result in a revocation of probation or parole or you know where you'd have a hearing in front of a court because they weren't doing anything right similar to actually engaging in the behavior that was harmful to themselves or others no and I appreciate that and I think it's it's similar to the process that one should look at when revoking someone's order of non hospitalization that the revocation generally does not go forward because of a single dose you know of mismedication or something that we did we know all of us should be that if I can say that was my my huge concern with this was because if and I hate to say this but if you have a a therapist or a caseworker who really doesn't like the the person at all they could they could harass them and start if they missed an appointment or if they missed a medication or if they didn't go to a class they that caseworker could wreak havoc in that person's life and and believe me I've seen it happen in the probation system where PO doesn't like the person and harasses them so I've seen it happen as well I'm not not discounting that that happened right the question is at what point is the behavior should be the state's attorney who and the victim who believed the person is actively participating in treatment and are in the community and at what point should they be aware that this person is no longer participating in treatment and is back to behaviors that are so that are destructive to the community and I mean even if it's you could argue if it's self-destructive but when it's a danger to the community and others then that really is is where I was looking for not not that they missed a dose or they missed right even five appointments yeah and I and I think that it's important I think this piece is very important I think that's why you know we we appreciate having it in in the study I think it does need to be looked at and I would even offer to say to look at you know earlier in our process of the reports or whatnot because I think we also need to really be careful about who does that reporting how does that happen one of the basic tenants of treatment when you're talking about mental health treatment is the engagement of the individual with their their treatment provider and the the basis of that engagement is based on trust and so you got about five minutes left of this hearing and I would need to go to Jack if you don't mind if you wanted to any other concerns let us know sure no and just to get to Senator Nick's question around competency and sanity evaluations and preservation of evidence competency sanity evaluations are frequently ordered either competency or sanity or both currently so that that process won't change as far as evidence go generally they're they're collecting information as they go through their evaluation and so I think what this really envisions is that they would then in some way shape or form have to hold on to any of that collateral information that they gathered during this time that could be used in the formulation of an opinion around their sanity thank you Jack you're not we can't hear you still can't hear you there we go no still can't hear you even though you're unmuted on the screen we can't hear you my computer is wonderful fortunately there's email so yeah Senator while he's well he's trying to get on can I just say that we wouldn't we would not object and having this all be determined by a study because I think there are things in there that would be better to to really flesh out well yeah that that's helpful uh John um I think I think for us it's the dates of when the study would be due is more concerning I I understand that I actually had a long conversation with Pepper before he left about that issue um and he expressed to me his concern of what would this state's attorney do with the information even if they got it um so you know that there's some good points there um so I'm I'm okay with with with leaving that to study I'm not okay with not finding out about it but we're there to help push it along as fast as possible no Jack um we can come back we'll be back here next week on this bill I'm sure um and in the meantime if you can get your um if you want to shoot us an email that'd be fine okay and I guess um committees thank you very much I just um I sent you an email that we're gonna meet next Wednesday