 Welcome folks. This is House Corrections and Institutions Committee. And as I write down the date, it is the first part of April. It seems like we just sort of started the legislative session just a few weeks ago. And now we're on the more the tail end of the session. It's kind of hard to believe and we're still doing it in the Zoom world than the YouTube world. This morning we're going to continue our work on S18. And we have with us Falco Schilling from the ACLU just to weigh in on the legislation. And I know we're running a little bit late this morning, but we had some committee. We had some committee April Fool's time to enjoy. So we did that before we went live today. So, so with that being said, I'm going to turn it over to Falco and Falco if you could just identify yourself for the record. And then before you start your testimony, then go from there. Thank you. Thank you and thank you and thank you all for having me here this morning. My name is Falco Schilling and I'm the advocacy director for the ACLU of Vermont and I'm here before you talk about S18. So in short, S18 is not a bill that the ACLU of Vermont supports. What we think is we think that this committee and the legislature got it right when they passed Act 148 last year. It was a decision that was reached after much deliberation. It was not one that just came up quickly or people were surprised by this committee in particular been discussing good time for multiple years. I remember last year I think it was actually my first day testifying in front of this committee. I did a report from a group of stakeholders, including the AG's office, DOC, crime and victim services, the state's attorneys, defender generals, and they delivered the Act 63 report, which unanimously recommended that that all people currently incarcerated in the Department of Corrections be eligible to earn time off their sentences. So, so this is a report that is cited in the written testimony that we submitted to you, but the main justifications for wanting to ensure that everyone who is incarcerated was eligible where they would help promote better facility management by promoting better behavior. And then also by making sure that everyone who was incarcerated was included in the program, you would reduce the administrative burdens, which was one of the things that led to the repeal of good time earlier that if things got too complicated you had too many car about some people and some people are out that led to a lot of difficulties for the sense computation staff. And that's why these stakeholders came together and made this recommendation that that good to be available to everyone who is incarcerated in the facilities and I very much remember that day because I was the one dissenting voice. I argued that we thought it should be retroactive that people should be able to earn time for time they spent in the facilities without a disciplinary violation, even before the wind law went to enact and that was too far for the committee and too far for the consensus of the group so before what what I would say is I think that black 148 got the balance right and it's not always easy, but in looking at all the factors it makes the most sense to make sure that everyone who is incarcerated has the ability to earn time off their sentences, because this is not in any way a get out of jail free car this doesn't guarantee anyone that they'll be released one day earlier, it allows them to go in front of a parole board and make their case that they have changed their behavior that they would no longer be in danger to society. And so we think it makes sense to allow that to everyone who's incarcerated, especially the people who are convicted of some of the most, some of the most heinous crimes, these are the people who we want to incentivize their behavior the most, and they have some of the longest sentences. And so giving them more incentives to keep up their behavior to improve themselves before they prepare to reenter the community is something that we support. So on that the other things that you have heard in testimony and I do have the benefit of kind of going at the tail end so I can respond to a number of the different things that have been brought up. There is the loss of savings that would come from implementing this program so you heard from the Council of State governments that this could be a loss of about $1.2 million in savings that could be reinvested into community based programs and you know that that that's real $1.2 million is real money, you know people. And when you look at the large state budget that might not always feel like that. But when you think about these programs and what it takes to run some of these community based programs that $1.2 million could have a real impact on the ground. Beyond that we also know that if this law, if this bill passes, the state is going to be open up to litigation. And that was all that said that, I mean, I think has said at this point that if this law passes. This is something that they would be litigating and taking to court so that uses further state resources to try and defend this law, which we think is unnecessary because this proper balance was struck in Act 148. And then finally, beyond that there's just the, you know, the administrative burden that be created by having to go through a third rulemaking within one year on this program so when Act 148 was passed it was imperative that we get this program up and running by January, which is the law of corrections to engage in an emergency rulemaking. And they did that and they've now engaged in a regular rulemaking. And if this change is made that would then require them to engage in a third rulemaking within one year on this the same rule so that is something that comes with with cost anytime the state engages in rulemaking that is staff time, and that is, you know, that is notice costs and so that's another way that we think that this is unnecessary use of state resources. And then finally wrapping up, and in kind of getting to my original point, we think that as we're moving forward with criminal justice reform, it's important that we give people opportunity just to rehabilitate themselves and to become better members of the community because we know almost every single person who is incarcerated by the state of Vermont will be returning to their communities at one point or another, and we want to give all them the ability and the incentive to improve themselves and become better members of the community so with the protections of the pro board and the fact that no one is going to be granted, and you know release one day earlier they victims will have the ability to have their voice heard in the pro process. We respectfully ask that this committee not move forward with this bill and let act 148 as past last year stand so that is my testimony and I'd be happy to take any questions. Thank you, Velco. Yeah, I'm just going to open it up to questions. Any questions from the committee. I think we're having a hard time getting going today. It's not you felt go I think we're a great day. I know assist. Kurt. Are you muted. Right. Am I there now. You're there. Okay. Well, I'd only quibble with one point you made, which is that they won't get out any earlier because it does come off their maximum as well. And if they do make it to the maximum and they would get off a little earlier. That's a fair point. There's a fair point though often as we've seen in our system, most people are not serving up to their maximum but yes that that is, I think that is technically correct that if they serve up to their max, then that time could be reduced off the end of the max. Just a small quibble. Thanks. Karen. Yeah, thank you for coming in speaking today. So it sounds like you have been listening to testimony and you know what we've been hearing. You probably hear that we're kind of, for me at least struggling a little bit with this because I agree with what you're saying about the criminal justice reform piece and the opportunity for folks to demonstrate the behavior and change. And I guess the piece that's sticking for me is I hear you said that there's there was balance in the process of how we got here in the piece that I'm hearing over over is that victims don't. They don't feel like there was balance in the process of how we landed on this, and that this is s 18 is an opportunity to, you know, kind of take their input into play and come up with some kind of compromise. I'm curious to hear your thoughts on that of how the victim voice was balanced in the process of getting to the original original. Yeah, and I'm happy to I mean I can only speak to the amount of process that I was involved in and that I saw around this. But as I was saying this was not something that, you know, came up out of the blue, there was a working group to look at this very question that included representatives from crime victim services. This bill moved its way pretty slowly through the legislative process, you know, starting in well when we had a month and months of justice reinvestment working group. So that started in September of 2019. And so that looked at that in that process and then starting in January, legislature continued to work on this they brought in the voices of advocates for the victims community and I don't really know what else this committee could have done other than reach those advocates and ask them to share their thoughts on this. There was unanimous opinion about how this should move forward. And so I guess I would say I don't I know the question that you've asked multiple times to other witnesses is like what could this committee do better to try and bring in those voices and I don't think there was a whole lot this committee could have done. And so this was not something that came out of the blue this was deliberated for quite a long time, and it was deliberated the year before that as well there's also a good time report from 2018, which brought up the very question that then required another report from 2019 so there's been a lot of process that went into these decisions. I understand that with the notification that caused some problems and how that was rolled out. I think people pretty upset. But I all I can speak to is the legislative process, I can't speak to how the victims advocates worked with their communities, or how they were, you know, getting input or bringing voice in but I do think that this committee made a, you know, a whole hearted attempt to try and make sure those voices were all heard in the process throughout. We have another question Scott. Thank you. Of course what we're hearing from some victims and becomes families. That plea agreement process they participated in did not include anything about earned time or good time. And of course, most most cases are resolved through a plea agreement so that's, you know, I'm of two minds about this and that and that's the side that argues in favor of including something like this. You know, this change that would that would remove those most heinous crimes that for people who were already sentenced from from this good time. So anyway, what do you what do you what do you say to that to those folks is a question in my mind. Well, one thing is as you heard from judge Greerson, I believe yesterday, 95. Well, according to the Kansas State government's 99% of all the criminal cases within our system are disposed of it with a plea deal. So that and there's victims for many more of those crimes other than just the crimes that are being disqualified under the statute. And I think that's something that this committee looked at and thought about and understood that there would be victims of all these crimes. So moving forward, there's victims of other crimes that are not excluded. We say we're fine. And I think rightfully so saying that, you know, we can allow these people to earn time and then people have the ability to make their case when someone comes up for parole about whether or not they should be let out early. So it's, I understand that argument, but this is the mechanism that we use to apply to the entire system. You know, everyone before that had had some sort of plea deal and we're moving forward with good time, which we've strongly, strongly support. That's just something you have to deal with because so much of our, our system is decided through plea deals at this point in time. Yeah. Okay. Well, thanks. I'm just trying to sort it out in my own mind. Thank you. So we have a couple more questions. Michael and Marsha. You. You cook in the wrong buttons there, Michael, because you took off your video and we can't hear you. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. Email came in and it masked my all my buttons. So. Oh, okay. I couldn't, I couldn't get to them. And then it did something else funky. But anyway. Probably more of a statement than a question, but you alluded to 1.2 million potential and savings. Got it. But I put it the same category as the woman that spoke yesterday whose husband was incarcerated for murder. Sounds like he's going to do about 17 years. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, if this was allowed to, or he was allowed to accrue earn time. He get out even sooner than or could potentially get out sooner than the, the 17 years. So I guess. I'm a fan of saving money and government if we can, but in these situations, what are those lives worth those people that Marsha brought that up yesterday? What's the, what's that life worth? You know, they're not going to get it from them and their, their, their life gone. And then their families pain. And I look at, you know, some of those other heinous crimes. I brought this up yesterday. Children have been sexually molested at a young age. I don't know if anybody else in this crew knows. Somebody that's had to happen. I know family that's happened to their damage for life. For life. And if you don't think that changes somebody's life, you're gravely mistaken. If I were to have it my way, I'd love to see us amend this to say that these crimes never get considered. For a good time or earn time. Thank you. Marsha. And I'm going to echo what representative Morgan just said, being one of those victims of having a family member murdered. And you, I've got a question for you though. You said there's victims of other crimes, which are horrendous that are not on this list. Would you care to elaborate with those? All I was saying is that most, most crimes have a victim of some sort and that there are crimes that are not enumerated in this list. There are people who are victims of those crimes as well. That's all I was saying. So. So my question would be, what would you say to our attorney general. How would you say to him that he would say a, would you say to him that he would say a, a donovan who testified yesterday and said, we got this wrong. Well how, what would you respond to him? I would disagree. I think he got it right in the first place when his office came in and testified in support of this bill. And wrote a report saying that this is the right way to move forward. I think I think his office got it right in the first place. So that's what I would say. So you're not a person or part of a group that would relook at something to say, maybe we could have done this better. I'm not saying that I'm never someone who would ever look back at something and try and fix it if I thought something was wrong, but I do think that the right choice was made and this in the first place. Well, it's hard to look at the victims too if we're not in their shoes. It's very hard to look at that things can't be changed or tweaks can't be made to make it right, but you're welcome to your opinion. So we have a couple more questions here. Linda and then Michelle. Thank you, Palco. I'll do your, I can never find the location. So it's my understanding and I'm looking for your input as well that the majority of the defendants in these categories would probably go to plea bargain and then they could plea to lower offenses and then they would be entitled to earn time going forward based on the way S18 is written. Is that your understanding? Are you asking about the people who are currently incarcerated or people who might be sentenced? Going forward. So people who are sentenced in the future it's my understanding that people who are convicted of these crimes in the future would have the ability to earn time as the Senate passed S18, which is a change that we appreciated. Even though we did not support S18 as it came out of the Senate, we did appreciate the changes that they made to not make this moving, to limit this disqualification to people who are currently incarcerated and to limit the crimes that were disqualified. So those are changes that we thought were positive in the Senate that we did not support the bill as it passed. And then my next question is the group of people currently right now who are not allowed to go have jury trials who are being detained right now because we don't have jury trials. I understand that that gap is an issue. But if they in fact, once jury trials begin they would fall into the later category. So if they were able to plea bargain they would also be entitled to the earn time going forward. So it's my understanding that anyone who would be sentenced after this bill becomes captive would have the ability to earn time going forward. So that's my understanding as well. Thank you. And the reasoning for that is that during that discussion of a plea agreement and everyone would be aware of what the lay of the land is. So when there is an agreement and the victims have agreed to that plea bargain that plea agreement, they understand that there's the possibility of the person earning their own time. So it's not breaking an agreement with that plea agreement as what is being testified to S18 with a carve out. Does that make sense to the members because earn time wasn't in place when they agreed to the sentence for these offenses. But going forward, it will be a level playing field where everyone will have the same information, okay? You okay with that, Linda? You're back on? Okay, Michelle? Yeah, thank you, Valco. I just wanted to say I'm a social studies teacher and one of the things that I've talked about and studied about with my students over a period of many years is examples in history where truth and reconciliation committees or commissions have come forward to tackle really difficult times in history. So for example, in South Africa, they had this very intensive process of truth and reconciliation. Looking at many, many very heinous crimes and giving an opportunity for the people who committed the crimes to make peace with their community through being confronted by the people that had worked with them and to develop healing because the understanding was eventually the people that had committed the crimes were going to be returning to the community and they wanted the community not just to be filled with people who had been emptied of the prisons and not dealt with the complicated situations but that some of those things had been resolved and that there was a possibility for change. And so I guess I would just like to say that there are examples in history where very, very difficult things have happened and people have been able to change and move forward in a constructive way. And I actually know individuals where that has been the case, both for family members who are victims of crime who have been able to come to peace with their situation and have been able to see change in the people who perpetrated crimes against their loved ones and I have also seen it from the perspective of people who had committed those crimes, had remorse and after a period of time are able to successfully reenter the community. So I just hope that we can hold open that possibility that change is possible and I hope that we can believe our parole system is going to work as it's supposed to and people that are not supposed to be out because they're a danger are not gonna be getting out any more early but people who potentially are ready to reenter in a constructive way it might be that we're doing them and society a favor by giving that opportunity. Okay, anything else? One of the goals of DOC over the past 20 plus years, it started back in the late 90s with former commissioner Gorchak, John Gorchak of DOC was very, very clear that we really need to look at repairing the harm, repairing the harm that was done to the community by these offenses and these charges and these convictions. And that is when we started enhancing court diversion that's when the community justice centers were starting to come into play and it was all at the initiative of commissioner Gorchak who was the department of corrections commissioner. He said, we can't build our way out of this. It is very, very expensive and we'll never succeed. And he was quite clear in his work with the legislature at the time and within his own department of corrections that folks who have violated their community there needs to be an opportunity for them to repair the harm to that community. And the community also needs to be engaged in that process. And that's the path that department of corrections with the legislature and also later on with the council of state governments has been on since the late 90s that the offender, the inmate needs to take responsibility for what occurred and own what occurred and apologize or some way make restitution to the community, the victim and to repair the harm that they cost. And that has been the policy and direction of the department of corrections and we continue on that path. It's a long path, it changes over time. And I just want to put that out there. Then what Michelle was talking about is nothing new for the state of Vermont or department of corrections. This started back in the mid to late 90s. And I just want to put that out there for folks. Any other questions? That's Sarah. I just wanted to thank you Falco for coming in. At the end of a bit of testimony that we've had, you know, I had some similar, all the things that you stated were challenges that I had since I'd been here the last couple of years. But I have to say like, so it's really, this is a really challenging issue and finding the balance and finding the where we can correct some of the harm that may have been caused. But I think moving forward, I think there's a lot of agreement that restorative justice practices and a system where people can take responsibility and earn some time is something that I think there is a lot of consensus around. And I think we'll continue the justice, the working group is really an important piece of this work. And I just really appreciate how thoughtful you've been and engaging with us in that work. So thanks for coming in today. Thank you. And I also just want to say thank you for accommodating my schedule. I had to be in Senate judiciary yesterday morning when you all were taking the ceremony. So thanks for letting this bleed over into one more day. So I appreciate that and you all giving me the time. That's fine, Falco. Everyone else was juggling S3 in House judiciary as well. So we have one more question here, Marcia. I mean, I don't deny anybody getting out and going back into the community and everything and trying to make things right. But I think they should be serve their time. And if they did one of those eight crimes, I agree with Michael, sticking the word never get earned time should, they shouldn't get earned time because they should serve their sentence. And then by then they should be perfect to go out and into society and make amends. Okay. Anything else before we finish up with Falco? Okay. Thank you, Falco. Thank you. And you can stay on or zoom off. We're going to hear from DOC because we had some questions on the calculations piece. And then I know that they wanted to bring us up to speed on the rulemaking and some possible issues there. So we're going to shift gears to DOC and we have Monica, we were with us. And thank you, Monica. And as I said yesterday, I know it's probably been difficult for you just to be listening in and spending time away from your other work, just to be sitting on the sidelines in our committee. But I did want you to be in our zoom room in case questions came up as we went along. So welcome back and it's all yours. So thank you. Thank you and good morning, everyone. Again, I'm Monica Wieber. I'm the administrative services director for the department of corrections. And I have been silently sort of watching you all during this week. And I want to start by thanking all of you for spending this much time on this topic. I've been watching and really hearing and listening about the questions that you've been asking, the thoughtfulness you've been putting into this. It is a difficult decision, a policy decision that you all have to make. So I just, I appreciate that. I too have been part of this topic. I think maybe since 2016, I was trying to think back when the first bill was introduced. But I believe that's when it was. So I've been in your committee room and in the Senate judiciary committee room many, many times listening to the conversations and discussion on this topic. I'm not sure if that's been helpful or not, but at least I have some history with it. So at this point, I can certainly answer questions and let you know that, of course, the program is in effect right now and we have been awarding good time to people since January 1st. We have been, of course, as with any new program, uncovering little pieces of things that come up that we weren't aware of at the time when we were putting the program in place that we're working through. So I would tell you that overall, it's going well as we start to work through all of the issues that come up. For instance, the interrupted sentence question that came up afterwards and we asked the Senate judiciary to put some language back in S18 so we could address that and they have done that. So that's one example. I wasn't sure how much into implementation you wanted me to go and so I'm certainly happy to answer any questions you have around that. I also wanted to lay out a little bit and Falco brought this up around the rule making and I want to give you this more as information, not in any way to try and persuade you one way or another but I think it's important for you to understand what could happen. So the when it comes up, it doesn't seem like it's a surprise to you. So as I said, right now, the emergency rule is in effect. It started January 1st. It expires in 180 days after its effective date. So that's June 29th. The permanent rule was also filed at the same time as the emergency rule and the permanent rule making process takes longer. The permanent rule process is where we ended up having those public hearings. You've heard a lot about those public hearings. We need to file our final proposed rule with Elkar by April 18th and that filing can only include what is currently in law, right? So we wouldn't be able to include anything around disqualifying crimes in that filing if S18 is not passed by that time, which means we'll probably need to file another permanent rule or somehow amend that rule. And whenever S18 is passed, also file another emergency rule in order to have that in effect. Because my understanding is that you will want this bill to be effective upon passage versus effective like a lot of other bills that start on July 1st. So there will be more rulemaking that will need to happen as a result of this. We will be able to implement the disqualifying crime section. So you don't need to worry about that. We'll be able to identify those cases and basically screen them out of the program so that they would not receive that award if the bill passes moving forward. So let me stop there and see if there's any questions. Even though the rule may not be in place in terms of how to carry out the intent of the law, the way that it's drafted indicates that the statute says upon passage, and once the governor signs it, that for those folks who are currently sentenced for these offenses would no longer be able to receive earned time. The statute is very clear on that, which allows you to implement it even though the rules may be based on a previous legislation that passed. Is that correct? Well, that's what we need to figure out, right? Because the statute right now says that we have to implement the program by rule and that we're operating off the emergency rule. And the emergency rule does not include disqualifying crimes. And then you're filing the permanent rules without car. On April, what was the date again? The deadline that we have is April 18th. That's a Sunday, so we're gonna do it earlier than that. And then the emergency rules are in place until June 30th or June 29th. I'm just thinking about the Elkhart process. Yeah, it's something we need to think about. And you may not, I'm not sure if there's anything you can do in this bill to address any of that, or if we need to do something outside of the process. So that's why I'm bringing it up. Well, I'm just thinking what we did in the past with inmate files, if you remember. I do remember. That whole debacle of inmate files. I was around for that too. Yes. And for the committee, what happens when there are rules to be promulgated? What the process is when it reaches Elkhart. Elkhart is a legislative committee, administrative legislative committee on, no, it's a legislative committee on administrative rules. And there's four members from the House and four members from the Senate that are appointed to the Rules Committee. And it's done by the speaker in the House and it's done by committees and committees in the Senate. And probably within the first two weeks of the session, three weeks of the session, the speaker did appoint members to the Rules Committee on the House set. I don't know if any of you folks remember that. But that's the process. The Rules Committee meets every other week to look through the rules that have been promulgated by the individual departments or agencies. Part of that legislative Rules Committee process is when the rule is filed with Ledge Council, that is the staff to the legislative committee on administrative rules. The rule is sent to the respective chairs of the committee that has jurisdiction over those issues. And the chair of the committee, both on the House and Senate side review the rules and then they have to sign off if it is basically carrying out the intent of the legislation is capricious or goes beyond the intent of the legislation. And then that gets submitted to Elkar and then Elkar reviews that and takes that into consideration when they're going through approving or disapproving of a rule. And when we did inmate files, there was some issues that came up in the rules that were being promulgated. And the chairs raised some concerns and we also indicated to the Administrative Rules Committee to hold off on implementing that rule and give us some time as a legislative committee to work through some of the issues. So I'm just putting that out there. That may confuse this issue with good time, but I'm just thinking through of the process that permanent rules are filed on April 18th, 19th, what could be submitted to Elkar to indicate the rules may be changing down the road to correspond with the legislation that just passed. I'm just processing that in my brain. And if it helps, the rule would be filed and then it would be effective on June 2nd. There's a 45-day window there. June or June, okay, but June 2nd. Right, but it doesn't have to go into effect until July because the emergency rules are in place until June 29th. Correct? That is correct, but we were trying to have that wiggle room there. So that was what the master plan was, but now we're... But that wiggle room may help. Yes, exactly. We do have some extra time there. Except the emergency rule is also would not be in compliance with the law that you passed. So it wouldn't also comport with S18. So let me do some thinking on that. Okay. I appreciate you bringing this up. And I think if we're well aware of it, we can work through the outcar process and the rules committee. Yeah, I really, given our past history with some other rules, I wanted to be very clear with you about what would need to happen so that we could work through it together versus having it be a surprise to you. Right, because we can work, we can work with the rules committee on this. So we've got some questions, Michael, then Kurt. Yes, Monica, I realized that and we're looking at S18. A major component of it is those carved out crimes. I know the parent bill Act 148 is giving from forward those that are tried. All individuals earn time. And I've heard other committee members say that, yes, people can change. Certainly I agree with that sentiment that people can change. But I've seen in a multitude of locations now and a couple of people I believe have testified that recidivism rate in this category sits in the 40 plus percent range. Are you seeing that in our population here? Because if that's the number, that's deeply troubling to me. Is that, and I'm just some of its anecdotal and so I just wanted to hear factoid-wise if you folks have those statistics compiled. Okay, so I heard, I believe the attorney general provided some information about the recidivism rate in Vermont, it's correct. And that the number that he quoted was 44%, right? So that is the number, but that is the rate. The way recidivism is calculated is actually defined in statute as well, right? So it takes everyone who's been released in a certain year, a cohort of people. And then those people are followed for three years to see if they either commit a new crime or if they are returned to incarceration on a technical violation. That was where their return was longer than 90 days. I apologize for the detail on this, but it is a details. It is a details. No, it's good to know, it's good to know. It is a detailed calculation, right? So we look at everyone who's released, we follow them and then we calculate the recidivism rate for that entire cohort of people who are released. So if you heard that it was 44 for that disqualifying group of people, I don't have the information that says that. I have it for the entire cohort of the state, of people who are released. And that's okay. And because I guess I would just kind of for, unless you somebody did a deeper dive, you'd almost have to kind of peanut butter spread that across everybody until you knew better or more. Like I said, in a deeper dive, but I'm just trying to revalidate is I'm just struggling with the parent piece of this, which I know we're looking at it as a game but the parent visa that we look at doing something little more radical in this and go and note these crimes don't yet earn time. I'm just having trouble getting my brain earned that. So I'm just asking a lot of questions in that vein. Thank you. Of course, yep. So one thing too, I think I'd be careful getting wrapped around the recidivism rate. There's many calculations to go into it. And it is really a rolling three year average because it's by statute, you define recidivism as either a new crime or technical violation. And it's over three years of that person being out in the community. If you look at the council state governments, the bulk of folks who are coming back into our correctional facilities are for technical violations on furlough. It is not new crimes. So I think we have to be very, very clear when we talk about recidivism rate, we immediately go to the conclusion, oh my God, they created a new crime. They did something. And the bulk of it is technical violation where they were someplace they weren't supposed to be. They didn't notify the field office about their change of address. And or maybe they got kicked out of a housing situation that they were in. So there are a layer to this. It's not as we think, oh my God, they murdered somebody again. Yeah. There's nuances to that that we have to look into. And I think that's what DOC was indicating. And I think we also look at the council state governments for the work that they've been doing over the last two years. And particularly for folks who are on furlough, it was very, very clear. It was technical violations. And some of that was because the community support systems are not there in terms of substance abuse, mental health issues, housing issues. And that's why there was money in the appropriations bill of 900,000 to start beefing up our community systems for folks who are re-entering. And that's a way of starting to address a recidivism rate. So I just want to put that out there. That there's a lot of thinking on all of this. And there's, you know, you just have to deep, do a deeper dive into these numbers. That's why I keep asking just to get the varying opinions and varying components of it. Well, some of this is not opinions. Some of this is fact, because you look at the data. And the data leads to decisions. It's not opinions that lead to decisions. It's looking at the data and what it indicates. And we may not agree with the data in our personal life, but as legislators, you have to really look at those data points and facts and then base your decisions on that. I don't disagree, but I read the emails we got from the fountains and the winter bottoms and they speak to just what I said. They don't feel that these folks should get her time and I empathize with that and understand that. And I think those people count. Those people count hugely to me. And that's their opinion, but I think their opinion sure as hell counts. I really do. No one is disagreeing with anyone's testimony or invalidating or not supporting them in their situations. Nobody is doing that. No, I know that. So we're gonna move on. Because we have other questions. Kurt? Two questions, Ms. Weber. One, just a quick one on calculation for recidivism. When you're doing that, that cohort that you select to follow, does that include people that are on furlough? Are they considered released? Yes, anyone's who's released from incarceration. It depends on, you can still be under community supervision. You could have maxed out your sentence, have no supervision, you could be on parole. So it's anyone who's been, I forgot to add the other technicality on the recidivism definition, which is you have to have had a sentence that includes at least a year of incarceration. Whether or not you've served that year of incarceration is not necessarily important, but you have to have had an incarcerated sentence. Okay, thank you. Another question then regarding those, there's seven crimes that are qualifying crimes. You gave us a number for people who were, who have committed those crimes and are currently getting good time. Correct. Can you tell me whether any of those people, that was 200 or so, were not sentenced to any of these seven crimes? In other words, we could take it off the list and it wouldn't make any difference. If we took off, had evaded sexual assault for violation, nobody's been sentenced for that. They haven't got any good time. We could take that off the list, if that's true. Yeah, I can't tell you off the top of my head. I would have to go back and look at the data that I have and get that information to you. I can bring up a spreadsheet and look at it, but I'm not sure you want me to do that right at this moment. No, no, but if it's easy enough to do, I think that would be something to throw in the mix because maybe we don't need all those crimes because there might not have been anybody convicted of them. So the question, I just wanna make sure I understand your question is, look at the disqualifying crimes and check to see if there are crimes that are just missing at all within our currently incarcerated population. No, there was like 200 people that are receiving good time who committed these crimes, correct? Something like that. Well, it's very possible that none of those 200 people committed aggravated assault against a child. They might have committed one of the other seven, but they didn't commit that one. So we don't need to have that crime on the list. That's what I'm wondering is whether we can take any of these crimes off the list simply because nobody's sentenced to them. Yeah, okay. So they're really not important. It's moved for them. If that's easy to get, it might be helpful as we're trying to figure out what to do with this. I should be able to do that with the data that I already have. I just have to go through and look at it. Okay, good. Thank you. That's it. Alice, you're muted. And there was a lot of work done in the Senate judiciary on the list of offenses. And I would be a little hesitant to work through that. I know that they did a lot of a deeper dive on this. I think there were also other offenses that had initially been listed that are not part of S18. So I would say they did a deeper dive and have more of an understanding of how many folks are currently serving a sentence for these offenses. And I would think if no one is serving a sentence currently for any of these offenses, it wouldn't be listed. Because I think that's what you're getting at, Kurt. Is there people serving sentences that have been convicted of these offenses? Exactly. If Ms. Weber has provided that information to the Senate, if they asked and she provided that information, then that's fine too, as long as... I was not asked that question by the judiciary. They didn't have that conversation in my following of their deliberations. Okay. If we start moving around some of these crimes, it might be a real dicey situation when it gets back to the Senate. Because I know they did quite a bit of work on this. I'm just putting that out there. Oh, Scott, did you have your hand up? Well, my regular hand, my physical hand. Just in response to Kurt, what would be the practical difference if there were crimes listed that had nobody sentenced to them? Wouldn't make any difference, would it? It wouldn't make any difference. Well, it's my... I think it would make a difference if we found out that nobody was convicted of murder, then people wouldn't object to taking it off the list. There are people convicted of murder who are... Okay, well, if nobody was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, then people might be willing to take it off the list and say, Jesus, if you take that off the list, then I can support the bill. As opposed to if you left it on, I wouldn't. I would have a hunch that there's folks who are serving currently having a sentence for these offenses. It may be small in some places, it may be large in other cases, but that's where you balance the... That's where you balance the situation of the victims within that. And it may not seem like a large crime on our viewpoint, but for a victim, there's a lot of fear and concerns there. So even if it may be a small number of folks who may be serving out a sentence for one of these offenses that we may think isn't an egregious offense compared to others, say kidnapping versus a sexual assault, we may feel there's a difference there, but the victims may not. So that's the balance here. And for what Scott said, if no one is serving a sentence for one of these offenses, it doesn't matter if it's carved out or not because no one is there serving that particular sentence for that offense. I'm just thinking that this bill has the potential to changing as we're processing the next couple of days and knowing that fact, which apparently is easy enough to provide, might influence how we work the bill. I don't want to work on hunches. I want to work on real data. Okay. I think the committee is pretty worn out with the bill. I think the committee is really almost ready to take a vote on it because we've had a lot of testimony. That's what I was feeling yesterday from members. So just putting that out there, but that's what I was picking up from committee members yesterday. Linda and then Sarah. Yeah, thank you. As far as changing the carve out, I have an issue with doing that. I think that the carve out as designed also is going to have a dynamic on how people plea. So I think that if you start shifting that around without taking extensive testimony on each area again, that there could be some major issues and some legal issues. So I would leave that exactly as it is. Sarah? So I have a question for Monica. I think one of the things that you're bringing to our attention is about the rulemaking process. And I want to make sure that I really understand because I know we spent a lot of time. We spent a lot of time on this process. So can you just summarize again just so that I am really clear about when we pass this, the impact that it's going to have and if there are any recommendations that we need to put into this bill. I'm not suggesting that we make changes, but I just want to make sure that I'm going into it with my eyes wide open. Right. And understanding that there may be some things that I'm not fully aware of either, but I'll do my best to give you what I think is the issue. We have an emergency rule in place and we are operating the program based on that emergency rule. The emergency rule as required in Act 148 with all of the information and criteria that was put in Act 148. And we've been implementing that. We also have the permanent rule in process. It's the same exact rule. It doesn't say anything different. It just goes through the different process. It takes a little longer. So when S18 passes or becomes effective, the rules are out of compliance with the law at that time. And so we would need to, my thinking is and it's possible I'm incorrect on this and this is why I brought it up and we could think about it more. File and another emergency rule that brings the program into compliance, right? That says, okay, now there's these disqualifying crimes and we're gonna be able, we need to stop providing good time to these people who have committed one of these disqualifying crimes. They're currently earning it now. We're gonna stop it. The rule will indicate that. The rule will also clear up some of other issues. At the same time, we would need to make sure the permanent rule has the same information in it. And right now, the permanent rule is on schedule for us to file the final document on April 18th. And I can't file a final proposed rule that doesn't align with what the law says. So I can't file that rule based on what you're doing in S18, cause it's not law right now. Did that help you? Understood, that helped a little. That does. I mean, it's really about syncing up and understanding that there's already a timeline in process and that this is gonna need to sync up with that and that we have to figure it out. It's not that it can't be done. It's just another little, it's an administrative complexity. It's not anything that we can't overcome. I'm just letting you, I'm making you aware of this because I know that the rulemaking process has also been sort of one of the issues that come up during these deliberations. Sure, cause we wanted an emergency rule cause we wanted these things to go into effect quickly. And so this is now we have to, if we pass this, we have to make sure it syncs up quickly as well. Cause I think there's some feeling that if this gets passed that there's also time sensitivity. Right, that's my understanding. I heard some of you had that discussion yesterday that and I under, I do know the Senate judiciary based on what they said would like to make sure that it passes and it's not one of those bills that waits for a July 1st start date. That's correct. And I'm looking on page two of the bill which really sets out the program of earned time. And there's A and B and B is the program is implemented pursuant to this section and the shall comply to the following standards. And under B one towards the end of the bottom of page two it says notwithstanding this subdivision one which really indicates who's incarcerated or who would be eligible for earned time. That when an offender is convicted of a disqualifying offense, which is the carve out the language is allowing that carve out with the notwithstanding where it lays out who would be eligible for earned time. And I'm wondering if that notwithstanding is sort of the way we can work around the rules that we're saying notwithstanding how we've established this program and going through the rules process to implement it that notwithstanding that we're saying this carve out's gonna go into effect upon passage. And I think that's an issue, a question for our legal counsel. Yes, I agree too. I'm certainly not qualified to answer that question. And I think that's something that we just need to discuss and make sure because from the Department of Corrections perspective we wanna follow the law, we wanna implement the policy as you pass it. Rulemaking was part of that activity. And you can file an amended rule. Yes, oh yeah, no, we definitely will. I'm just letting you know that there'll be a fair amount of work with Elkar and rulemaking on this. And you, Representative Emmons even mentioned, right? It's gonna come back to the committee chair. So it's something I wanted to make sure you were aware of. So, Marsha? Yes, I'd still like to amend it and put in that the word never on these carve outs. And that way we don't come back in here from now and say, well, maybe we should make another adjustment. Maybe we should only make it partial or something. I'm not following you, Marsha. What are you? The defendant shall not be eligible for good time under this section that's on page four. And I wanna put the word, the defendant shall never be able to be eligible for good time under this section and put it in once and for all. I don't even put the words once and for all, just the word never. Otherwise it's just gonna keep coming up. We're gonna find a reason to. I don't think there's a lot of agreement in the committee about that. So I would say I'll speak for myself. I don't see a practical difference. The people who are currently sentenced are never going to be eligible for good time if this passes, right? That's correct. Until we think of another way to rearrange it next year for two years down to five years down the road. Then we revisit it. But I think this is a pretty stable carve out that will be there for those folks who are sentenced. I really do. I mean, we wouldn't be doing this work right now. If we didn't feel it was important and that it would be in effect going down the road. And if the rules get adjusted to incorporate this, then it's more solid that this is what we really mean for that. Michael? I guess I would just ask, I'm asking Marcia, do you mean never for what I was alluding to before in terms of like in the future too? In other words, the parent bill saying everybody's eligible for good time. Are you saying nobody in the future? You're saying never, I'm just gonna sort out. I'm seeing the people on this section of the disqualified offenses, they will not be ever eligible for the time for what they did. Because I think that's true already, the way it's written, correct? That's correct. Okay. I think it's already there. That's correct. And that will get carried through in the rules. So for those folks who are currently sentenced for that. Okay. So the other question, Monica that came up was how is this going to be difficult to calculate the earned time for folks who, how can I phrase this? You're now gonna have two different calculations because we have to carve out for these folks who are sentenced for these offenses. So they're not going to be receiving earned time for the remainder of their sentence. Then you've got folks who are not serving these sentences. For these offenses with this bill and they're gonna be earning earned time. Is that gonna be causing some issues within DOC or because there is a few of the offenses have been carved out. And for these folks who are currently sentenced that it's not as onerous as it could be. So you were asking about sort of the administrative way in which we would do this. Is that the question? So what we will need to do of course is at the time this becomes effective, right? I'm assuming it's like we would say going back in time from the date this bill becomes law and find anyone who was sentenced on those disqualifying charges prior to that date. We will have to make some note. I'm imagining how we'll do that in our offender management system, right? This group of people is forever disqualified on these charges from earning time. And so we will have to do that. And I'm imagining it'll be some upfront work that we will hopefully just then not have to worry about after we put that effort into it. And again, we've had so many like small things come up as we implement that I'm probably oversimplifying it but that's sort of what I think would happen. There will be some upfront work that we'll need to do and probably work through some questions. But it can be done. Great, thank you. Oh, Scott. Well, it seems like you just have to pull those people out and then there's no further calculation, right? So it's not gonna be like you have to recalculate two different sets of people. It's just one set of people will be eligible for earned time and this other set of people aren't. Yeah. The nuance here, and I hate to get into detail, right? Is some of these people may also be convicted of other charges that are not disqualifying charges, right? And the bill is about the sentence and the crime. And so we'll have to look to see what the universe looks like and what other charges these people may have and then the sentence is on those charges. And I suppose we could talk about how you calculate sentences for different crimes when people are serving. And you really don't want to get into that. You're dealing with these offenses and disqualifying offenses and they've been sentenced for these offenses. Yeah, it is something that we have experts expertise in and we have a unit of people who do that as their entire job. Right. Okay. Anything else? Because we're not scheduled for any more testimony until we need to clarify this with Eric Fitzpatrick and David Scheer on page four, number five in terms of the notwithstanding with the effective date. David Scheer brought something up that needs some clarification. He's been working with Eric Fitzpatrick, our legal staff on this and Eric can't make it into the committee until 1115. Isn't that the way it is, Bill? Yes, that's correct. Yeah, because he's tied up. So at this point, I would prefer to wait and see the possible language that they may recommend or not. I'm not sure on clarifying that effective date and get a better understanding of it. And Eric and Fitzpatrick and David Scheer are gonna be coming in a quarter after 11. So it's an hour from now. If the committee doesn't mind, I think the best thing to do is just zoom off and come back for the 1115. Give us a little bit of a time break here this morning. Does that work for folks? That's not an April Fool's job, right? No, it's not an April Fool's. It's a scheduling issue. No, I'm fine with that. Why don't we do that? And Monica, if you're available at 1115, that would be terrific. And you can zoom into the committee room again. Okay, if Phil will send me the link if it's a different one, yep. It will be the same one. It'll be the same one? Okay. It is for us as a committee, so I'm assuming it's the same for you. I have no idea, but. Yes, it is. Okay, I'll use the same one then. Okay, great. So we're gonna zoom off now off of YouTube and we will be back with our legal counsel and the attorney general's office.