 Good afternoon, and for those of you who have been, uh, waiting patiently on YouTube while uh, Joint Justice Oversight had a lunch break and while they were waiting for the Joint Child Protection Oversight Committee to meet, our two committees are, um, the focus of this afternoon and of the next 32, 30, the next three hours is to focus on justice involved youth and, uh, we have a long list of individuals who are, can help us with decision and recommend, recommendations, but first we were going to start off with, uh, legislative council and, uh, Bryn to keep us focused on what our, uh, task is for today. Did you want to add anything, Senator? Okay. Bryn. Good morning committee or good afternoon. Sorry. So, um, I, you know, I was not prepared to share anything with the committee. This, um, at this meeting, um, we did speak at the last meeting about the, um, your general sort of tasks and directives for, um, this particular item on the agenda. So I, since you have such a large number of witnesses and kind of a compressed amount of time, I wasn't sure if you wanted to hear me, um, do that again. So I, I didn't plan to, but I would be glad to if you would like me to. You're muted. I'm really out of practice. Thank you. Um, Bryn, um, who minutes to refocus us because not everyone was able to be here last, um, time, especially some of the people who are testifying. They weren't in the room. They may have been, um, on YouTube and I just so that we all are on the same page. Sure. So, um, the, in this last legislative session, um, there was a directive to this committee, um, to hear a recommendation from the department for children and families about, um, the longterm plan for justice involved use, um, use that have been historically served by Woodside. Um, and it was the directive of this to this committee that they make a listen to that recommendation from the department and to make their own recommendation to the joint fiscal committee about whether or not to adopt the plan, um, that's put forward by the department. So that's sort of a high level overview of what your task was doing. Um, and I think as you hear from the reporters, you're going to get the details of what your, um, what, what that recommendation entails, including comparisons, um, fiscal comparisons and also, um, expertise comparisons. So, um, I will leave it at that since you've got a lot of witnesses, um, with probably a lot to say. Thank you. Thank you very much. Um, so in service of that, uh, one of the first witnesses that we, um, have is a Stephanie Barrett from joint fiscal. Um, hello, um, um, I don't have a testimony prepared. I did have Peggy did send out a side by side comparative document, um, which took the information on the operating costs, um, and put them on one page so that the committee could have an easier time seeing where the differentials were. Um, and I'm here, um, the, the, the, um, Estimates or estimates that were provided either by Beckett on one side or by DCF on the other side. And so if members of the committee have questions about that, I'm here, but beyond that, I don't have additional, um, testimony. That's perfect. I'm wondering if you have, um, Peggy, if you could share or does, um, Stephanie need to share that document so people can look at it right now. And yep, I can pull it up. Just give me one sec. And what we'll do is wait. If there are any questions and then if not, we will go on to, um, Sean Brown, who is commissioner of DCF. All right, guys. Take a minute. Share screen. The website of the joint, just a joint committee. Also, yeah, it's on the website. If you'd rather do it that way because you won't really be able to see everybody. That's the only problem point. Um, so for those of you who can do that on the website of both committees, if I might ask a question, Stephanie. Stephanie, um, the major difference in the two seems to be the benefits for the state employees, not necessarily the salaries. There is a little differential on the salary, but the benefits is the biggest driver. And then, um, obviously the contracts and overall operating expenses are somewhat different too. But benefits, I would say are the primary driver of the differential and I did in my note preface that these are estimates. They're not, you know, it's not, it's, it's not an actual amount on the Beckett side. It's an estimate that those negotiations are still underway and obviously, um, the estimates on the state employee side, um, you know, they're, they're the internal service funds, especially on the operating side would be, you know, you'd actually have to have the program up and running to fully understand the, you know, whether some of the, um, the wood side costs, which are the basis for the operating expenses might be different under this new programmatic, um, design if it was operated by state employees, but that's, it's a little bit harder to make those sort of apples to apples comparisons, but it gives you the, the, the best estimates that we have right now on an operating basis. There's, um, um, for comparative purposes, um, and you can see where those differentials are. So Stephanie, I have a question. Yeah. Um, I'm looking at the operating expenses and supplies down at the bottom and I'm on both version, both for Beckett and state. And then I'm looking on the Beckett about rent. Yep. 120,000 like that explained what the rent entails. And then I'm also wondering, have you, and I know this may be difficult because you don't have square footage of the building, but do you have fee for space? Do you have fee for space included in that operating budget for Woodside? So on the Woodside, I believe that's the fee for space is included because that's based on Woodside's current, um, operating expenses. Um, I'm going to let the commissioner perhaps speak to the rent piece. That's an internal to Beckett structure. I think that has to do with their current mortgage. It's a, it's an operating cost internally to them, not the rent that the like the between state and Beckett would be. So I, I'm going to let the commissioner speak to that piece. Yes. So the rent on the Beckett proposal is the fee that the state would pay for the use of the facilities in the grounds in Newberry. And that is based on, you know, the cost of their mortgage for the property. Um, and then also, um, upgrades that they have made to the property in terms of a wastewater and other investments. And so that, that is recouping their cost on that facility and covering their monthly cost of that, which is in that rent line item of 120,000 a year. So essentially 10,000 a month. It does raise an issue though, since we're going to be paying their rent, them rent, but we're putting $3 million into the facility and some kind of money for construction. Right? Yes. And how does that doesn't get paid back? So if we pay them rent plus we're improving their facility, yes, um, that rent line item would be significantly larger if they made the investments and then build that back to us and amortized it over the cost of the lease. Are they PM and I, would they be PM, MI regular? No, this would not be a P and MI facility. But the girls, the Bennington, they're Vermont school for girls like in Bennington. That is PM and I correct? Well, we are changing the nature of our relationship with with the Vermont that that program. You just mentioned also depot where historically they have been PNMI, but as we've moved to expand our system of care and we have contracted with certain beds in each of the depot in the Vermont school for girls facility to not be PNMI, but that they're contractual beds that would be similar to this as we expanded our system of care. So there it's a hybrid in those models. Okay. Those of you who don't are familiar with PNMI, it's private non medical institutions, which the division or rate setting comes in and sets what can be used for expenses. And I do remember when I worked at depot, they would come in and tell me what my salary was because I was only part time because I was in the legislative. So I've always had this deep love for the division or rate setting. So I have another question and this may be more for the commissioner. In operating costs for the Beckett. Where is the maintenance? There need to be some maintenance there with that. I see clinical, I see under clinical staff, there's 52,000 for maintenance. There's going to be repair work that will probably need to be done to the building and then just you're also regular maintenance. Is that going to be done negotiated with Beckett to do that? Or is that going to be the state responsible for that? That would be Beckett responsible for maintaining the property in general and then also for any damages that occur that need to be repaired. Thank you. I have a question. So last time we talked about a hybrid model with state employees and a Beckett facility concept. And so does the state of Vermont operated equivalent represent that? And Stephanie, is that part of this? Or would that would there be things that we would add or subtract from that column? I can't see if Stephanie is there, but she sent me an email that she had to step away to deal with a family situation. Okay. Maybe a commissioner. Maybe you could weigh in on that one. Could you repeat your question, Senator? I'm sorry that they were mowing the lawn outside my office, so I had trouble hearing for a second. It's okay. That's better than the F 35s that have been going over my house. The last time we talked about having a hybrid model with, you know, state employees and, and then the Beckett facility, but we'd still have an investment in the facility. So I'm looking at the state operated state of Vermont operated equivalent and I'm wondering which part of that is consistent with a hybrid model and or is that the whole hybrid model? How, how would it be different? Well, I think it would depend, Senator, on, on if, if that was a possibility of one, how it was structured. So if I'm aware of VSEA is put forth a proposal that Beckett would oversee kind of and manage the program, but then have state staff operate the program. So if you looked at it as that was the model, I think you would see that the management staff cost on the Beckett side of this spreadsheet would be kind of what you'd be looking at there. That might, that could change depending on the nature of this agreement. You know, but then also if you looked at on the state side, you know, the other staffing positions below the management staffing box there. Those would be the cost for state employees to actually operate and run the programming in that facility. One caveat I would say that this proposal looks at it from a point of view of new staff coming in so that they would be at the beginning of the pay scale. So if existing staff that worked in the program before it was shut down and those positions were eliminated, we're operating this those costs would go higher because those were staff with higher salaries. Senator Lyons, I just want to clarify that we may have mentioned a hybrid model as something that some people were considering and we all got a statement from the VSEA that they would like us to put forth that we did not ask and that was not part of our charge necessarily and we did not ask Stephanie to do a third column. No, I understand that I think my I asked to have the department come in with a hybrid but maybe it wasn't clear enough and I'm fine with that at this point. While we have the operating budget comparison up here, do we have other questions for this or can we take it down and Chairman Pugh. Representative Shaw. Thank you. I do have a bit of a question and I'm trying to figure out if I'm looking at apples and apples or apples and oranges here. We look at the Beckett program and assume or says it's being operated in Wells River and I fairly sure it's in their facility. I look at the state of Vermont operated equivalent. Can the commissioner explain to me where that facility may be and what may possibly the fee for space charges may be in that facility and also at the bottom of the comparative sheet government or general administration and overhead of a half a million plus dollars for Beckett but none in for the state equivalent. Maybe you could explain that to me also commissioners that's something you can answer or I'm sorry the lawnmowers were again outside my window. I apologize. I tried again commissioner. Yes please. I'll try to say the same thing twice. The Beckett proposal is obviously in Wells River in their facility. I think that's been a conversation right along and the state of Vermont operated equivalent where may that be and so that we can compare apples to apples and then I guess that simplifies my first question the last part of the question was at the bottom of both comparatives. You have general administration and overhead for Beckett at five point five hundred seventy eight thousand dollars and none for the SOV operated equipment and maybe could explain that differential to me also assuming if the SOV operated equivalent is somewhere that's going to have to do either pay rent or do fee for space. Where might we find that? Yeah so if you turn to the report that that we submitted anticipate before last of the testimony last time for these committees. We did indicate that it would be approximately based on BGS estimates approximately five point three million dollars to build a new state facility and that did not include the purchase of land. At this point we would need to go out and locate a piece of land to locate a state run facility that work has not occurred so that would be work that would need to happen but but based on kind of what were the square footage in the program we're building with Beckett BGS estimates would be about five point three million dollars for the building and permitting and whatnot of that facility exclusive of the purchase of land which we would need to locate in terms of your question regarding the general admin and overhead and that's a normal line item you would see in many of our grants and contracts that our providers are allowed on a certain percentage to account for the other services that they bring to manage these type of programs that are not accounted for in these direct cost that that might be the financial office staff's time to process billing and support the work of this facility IT staff that might that they might bring in from their other programs to help on IT solutions in the state of state of Vermont you might see those costs reflected in the internal service funds for like ADS or in the commissioner's office you would see those as general admin cost here they just get reflected differently because they're contractual. Okay. So that represent shy. I think one of the things that Stephanie would explain when she made this up it was looking at a hybrid where state employees would work at the Beckett facility and instead of having Beckett employees there would be state employees and so that that was was a hybrid discussion we had at the last meeting I believe that led to these figures. No, no similar to the vet. No, that isn't what you did. So no these these figures were actually compiled by by DCF. I mean it does it does assume an actual equivalent program but it doesn't make the assumption that state employees would be able to operate the program specifically at the Welles River facility. Oh, okay. It does not do that. I couldn't see you come back Stephanie so I'm sorry I just had to step out for a moment. And then after the commissioner if I may so the Beckett program we were putting something like three point something million dollars into their facility just trying to get the figures lined up. Is that true? Correct them. And then so at the end of the day how would you where would you show fee for space in the state of Vermont operating equivalent? Should you have that would be if you look on the on the right of the spreadsheet on the state of Vermont Operative Equivalent if you look at the down towards the bottom about one to the fifth line up ops operating expenses and supplies of 675,000 that's based on the operating budget for Woodside. That would be the fee for space is most likely included in there. I think Sarah Truckel from our business office is on as well and if she is she could confirm that but my understanding it's embedded in that number right there. Thank you. That's correct. Thank you. Are there other questions right now that relate this operating budget comparison sheet? I think I think so and commissioner was there any consideration or conversation with Beckett about purchasing the facility about the state purchasing the facility in Newberry? So initially that there were not conversations to purchase the facility but after our last testimony and discussion before these committees. We did go back and start a conversation with Beckett in terms of the terms of the lease and then what other options might be available and while those conversations are preliminary at this point and there's still a long ways to go. We are envisioning somewhere along the line of a 10 year lease commitment where we would recoup back those investments but then at the end of that 10 year lease they are open to some sort of reversion to the state of Vermont with either outright or with some additional payment based on you know our long-term lease and probe and running the program with them where they would be able to recoup their cost of that facility. Thank you. Okay, I'll ask again. Are there other questions around the operating budget comparison? Seeing none, Peggy, could you take that down? Appreciate it. Thank you. And while we've been asking you questions, Commissioner already, you did give us at our last meeting the report on the long-term plan for justice involved youth who need a locked a locked secure facility or placement. I want to open it up to you if you have any summary or further comments and then what questions we have. Thank you. Yes, I would comment that we believe a six-bed facility is the right size for what we're seeing for justice involved youth. I would also point out that right now, and this is kind of disability rights for my AJ Rubin submitted a letter to the committee that was put that that was provided to the committees as well in there. He references a large number of youth out of state and I just want to provide some information to the committee that currently we have 127 youth involved DCF placed in residential treatment program. 61 of those are in Vermont and 66 of those are outside of Vermont. Not all of those are justice involved youth. I would say the majority of those are our children coming from the child protection side of the house, not the juvenile justice side of DCF. But we really envision developing a more robust system of care throughout Vermont at all different levels. And this proposal is just one piece of that for justice involved youth. We hope to utilize this facility just to transition youth from out of state programs, bring them into Vermont, assess them further and then transition them to less restrictive programming or community based settings. You know, we acknowledge in the department that there's more to be done to try to develop resources to keep children stabilized at all levels throughout our system of care and that that work is underway and that this piece is just one aspect of that, but that this is a critical aspect and a credit and it's critical at this time given that Woodside is no longer operating. That we feel like this is the program that we we want to build and that it and that it is really designed in the building and the program and will really meet the needs of justice involved youth that in the ways that Woodside has not been able to. Commissioner, let me see if I'm understanding and clear about what you're just said. One what you said is that this what I understood you to say was that the universe of youth, the universe of justice involved youth who need a locked facility for a period of time is six. At any one time at its peak last year, we had five youth at Woodside at one time. So I mean so I just I mean I say that is that that is a universe that you are talking about and when AJ comes to speak and comment as I read his comments you're talking about a different universe of youth. So let me ask another question. There are many more youth who are in residential placements or other placements both inside and outside the state. Is it fair to say that those youth. It is in the judgment of the department and people who work with them or correction that they do not need that the most appropriate response is not a locked facility. Correct. We have children placed in residential treatment programs that have all varying levels of type of security whether it's staff secure lower staff secure it you know or up to the most secure which is the agreement we have in place with this in a new center New Hampshire right now where for the most secure type facility. Are you seeing that that facility would remain as part of our as part of the state's array. Or is the Beckett proposal meant to take the place of that one of the the agreement we have currently that we're working with with Sununu. We envision that going away that the Beckett program would serve Vermont youth name that highest level of care. How many youth are in Sununu now. We currently do not have any youth placed at Sununu right now. So while we have lots of needs for appropriate control care and treatment of youth and justice involved youth what we are talking about right now and what this proposal is and what our task is is this small number on for this discrete group of youth who need locked pool as you are calling it the most secure placement which you are saying is at any one given time 6 yes. Yeah. Now I think I understand. I can I Senator Sears either doesn't understand or has more questions. I think I have a follow up question too. Actually the eight beds the four at depot in the fourth of Bennington facility. Keep having a hard time with the school for girls those eight beds in addition to the six beds at Beckett would be fully replacing what the functions of Woodside were correct. Did you adjust this while you yes. So we we have been working was really 14 beds. Yeah. Well we expanded some of those programs capacity to meet some higher level youth with with Woodside closing. We certainly would envision like the the beds at the Vermont school for girls remaining given the Beckett program would only serve young young men. You know we would certainly still need those other beds at the depot program but we would try to transition them back to the lower level that they had you know that historically they've served before we certainly have a lack of you know a need for increase in those level of beds in the state as well. It's one of those areas that we are seeing stress in the system of the 66 kids that are out of state. How many of them are in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. I would have that available. I mean I don't need exact. Yeah I don't have that right at my fingertips tip senator but I certainly can get you that data probably it would be helpful. Yeah it would be helpful when we discussed out of state placement. We'll look at I believe they're the one in New Hampshire a Beckett kids. Is that correct. Yes. Senator I guess I want to understand whether or not what you are putting forth is an understanding that those are the same type of youth at this very narrow proposal and that what our task as the discussion about bringing kids back from out of state which I think we all would agree with. I wanted to point out that a certain percentage of those kids are in a Beckett program across the river from Vermont which is really close to Vermont in New Hampshire. They used to be in Bennington and then they moved the boys to Hampshire girls. Then there's a number of kids who are in Massachusetts that actually may be closer to their homes than they would be in Wells River. So that was my only point that that we when we talked about out of state kids issue. Keep in mind that a that a large number of that 66 are in states right next to Vermont. So if I might suggest what you are what you are reminding us is this is not the end of a conversation continuation of a long conversation deal with youth that are justice involved or youth that are in the department's custody because of so I thank you. My idea. So we're going to so we'll all figure that out. But the universe we're talking about right now in this proposal is a very place of those youth. So that's you know we keep wanting to do everything myself included. I'm trying to keep our eyes on the. I think what AJ Rubin was pointing out in his letter is that that yet that once we make this decision to put this amount of money into that it has an impact. So that will be a said that that may be a I'll represent them and I know you have a question but before you ask that commissioner based on what Senator Sears was just saying and talking about the what AJ forth there is a concern that putting this much money no matter whether it's 4 million or 5.5 million that will negatively impact the other a larger universe of youth that we will need to address down the road or soon. I I don't believe that that is the case. I mean we are you know in the state fiscal year 20 budget we were spending almost 6 million dollars on Woodside and we still had these large these number of kids and out of state placements and in need of other services and we're meeting those needs. This program that we're 6 benefits program we're working with Beckett to create will focus on that are you that need this higher level of care which is what Woodside focused on as well. So we just be replacing and in providing an enhanced and better service to those youth. I don't disagree with AJ that the rest of our system of care is in need of of work and we are committed to that work and continuing to strengthen our in-state system of care. I certainly would love to bring back many of those 66 youth in out of state programs. I would also like in general to create those community supports so that we don't have such a large number in residential placements whether in state or out of state. Those those resources take time to develop and I'm interested in focusing on those areas because I think we need to focus on all levels of our system of care and make it as strong as it can be. But right now our most urgent need is this highest level of care for justice involved youth that need a secure placement. Thank you. Representative Emmons is very patient. You know that's fine. I just want some clarification in terms of who who's going to be there. You're looking with Beckett at a six bed program no reject newly eject. Correct. Correct. Then you also mentioned you would be using the program for step down for the juveniles coming in. Is that still within that six bed? Yes. Yes. So the six beds would also be used as a step down. It could be. Yes. So like we had youth who this summer were placed at Woodside but needed a very specialized level of care and they were moved to treatment programs in other areas of outside of Vermont and other areas of the country. And once those youth reach the end of that treatment those would be youth that we would want to transition back to Vermont in a very thoughtful way. And one way we could do that is having this treatment program available. Bring them back to Vermont assess them and then arrange to step them down to either a lower level treatment program in the state or to a community based placement like a therapeutic foster home or back with their with their family with increased supports. And so it just gives us some flexibility this program. So I'm thinking it can also work in the reverse where a youth would really need a more secure stable situation to become stabilized and then move into another program. Would that work that way as well? Yes. So we're envisioning this is really as a stabilization program treatment program and that we really do want to limit the length of stays for our justice involved youth. So as you can see in the report we our goal is to keep the stays to four months or under that might not be possible for some DOC involved youth. But in general we want our goal with this program is to stabilize and lay the ground work for those youth to step down to other less restrictive treatment settings or programs in the state. So then my second question goes to the 3 million or so for the renovations and it's been my understanding that would be coming out of DCF operating budgets for renovations and what would be the process on that is that for the FY 22 budget or is that budget adjustment for FY 21. So in our 20 full year restatement budget for what for state this year 21 we asked for approximately four and a half million dollars to continue to support the services for justice involved youth for contractual placements but also set aside approximately 1.2 to 1.4 million dollars of for renovations to this program that we were working on with Beckett. And so we already have in our 21 budget approximately 1.4 million dollars available to put towards the renovations and we are working with the the agency and the administration on on the the remainder of those funds and and we do not anticipate seeking a capital bill allocation for those funds. Thank you. Thank you Alice. Are there other questions or as it relates to the report that we got at the last meeting or as you perused it in between meetings. Representative to sure. Commissioner you mentioned that this would be the highest level of care and in your report and from what I've heard I'm wondering if Beckett has engaged in this level of care before or what happens if you know someone is beyond what they have traditionally been dealing with and currently you know they can send them to whether it's an order or somewhere else. How are they hoping to fit into this this very unique situation. So Beckett is a very experienced provider of this type of service of residential type services as as you've heard here today. They operate programs in Vermont New Hampshire and in Maine. They employ you know literally I think over a hundred employees just in Vermont alone right now. And as what you've heard earlier one of the programs they operate is the Vermont School for Girls. They referred to as the Vermont Permanency Initiative South. That's how the name that Beckett gives it and they run that program and they have recently you know worked with us to provide the capability to provide to treat higher levels of need of young women. And so they're doing that work now but not in a secure building like this program will be. So they do have experience serving a higher level of youth not just but not in this secure type building that we're proposing in this proposal. Okay we have thank you. Representative Emond you have your hand up representative you have your hand up and representative Redmond you have your hand up. Thank you Madam chair. I have a question for the commissioner around the the two kind of possibilities that we've been talking about relative to Beckett and Beckett employees running this facility and potentially a hybrids where state employees and I'm wondering if you have had any conversations with Beckett about that possibility of potentially state employees and whether that's an issue for them frankly whether they are kind of all in for their approach to doing the whole job and not open to this hybrid thing or if you have any clarity on that issue from them. We have had high level conversations about their willingness and based on those conversations. It's my belief that they would not be interested in that but they are still considering the most recent proposal from VSEA we forwarded to them and so they are are in reviewing it they've not gotten back to us yet. You know we do have some concerns with that approach. That's not our proposal. We you know not only where there's structural issues with the Woodside facility but there were significant programmatic issues when it was run by state employees. You know we had the federal lawsuit a little over a year ago that then was reopened this past summer as well based on how youth were being treated in that facility and we believe that our proposal to work with an experienced provider like Beckett to provide this program that will provide a better service to the youth so we don't support it but we certainly are working with Beckett to see what their position is on that right now. We've not heard back from them. We hope to soon. Thank you. Senator Hooker did you mean to have your hand up before? I'm all set. Good. Thank you. Commissioner based on this last bit of conversation where I have to note and appreciate that while you don't support the proposal from the VSEA that you have passed it on to Beckett I guess I want to ask if Beckett were to say okay we you know we think that we are fine with hiring individuals and having them be state employees or we're fine with taking who had been whose job had been at Woodside were fine with hiring them for Beckett would the department still be interested in contracting with Beckett to provide the service. So I think you put two scenarios out there in your question one is if they were state employees and then the other would be if a former employee for Woodside applied to work at the Beckett program and our initial conversations with Beckett they were concerned about the first approach you outlined but they were open to if they were staff who previously worked at Woodside were interesting working for them that they would certainly be interested in interviewing them and seeing that they would be a fit for their for their organization in this program. And becoming and remaining a state employee or becoming be becoming a Beckett employee of the employee of their organization. Representative Redmond. Thanks madam chair just a different question relative to the municipality where the facility is located and whether there has been any next steps progress conversations with municipal officials there about this project perhaps at you know being in their community. In my conversations with the select board members. They certainly are interested in engaging with us and having community engagement just as we are with them. They wanted to take the approach that wait for the legislature to weigh in and if it moved forward past this point then they would want to start more meaningful engagement at that time and so we are preparing now to have community forums and and meetings and meetings with the municipal municipal leadership if this gets the affirmative vote of the committees today and then a formal approval at joint fiscal committee but they felt it was premature to bring it forward to the community until there was more certainty that it was moving in that direction. Thank you. More hands went up and I now see the face of Mike Dempsey and I didn't know if Mike if you were showing your face because you wanted to say anything. Hi everybody my apologies no I wasn't I was just trying to log on. I apologize for being late for some reason the calendar for 1230 Central time. I'm just and I can't hear anything because the planes are going over now. And the doctor. Thank you madam chair commissioner what kind of what with the oversight on the part of the state be on a facility run by Beckett. So as we outlined in our report. We have created a new position in the commissioner's office. A clinical director who will have more oversight of not only this program but our youth and other those other 127 youth that are in other placements right now that will provide us a greater level of oversight and clinical involvement and ensuring that those youth are getting the treatment they need but also only for the length of time they need so that we can transition children back to other placements or less restrictive settings as soon as they're they're ready and their treatment for that to happen. So but this wouldn't be someone who was on site or this would be a part of this position would would engage with the with the Beckett treatment team on a regular basis and would make regular site visits to meet with the youth who are there on a regular basis that's our that's our vision for that position. Thank you. Any other questions for the commissioner right now and commissioner do you have any final or summary comment before other people. Yeah, I would just want to expand a little bit on you know we just spoke previously about whether we supported the SEA's proposal for this hybrid model and you know and I and I did give it a lot of thought and as I've indicated we don't support it but I'd like to just touch on that a little bit more. One is you know the the the precedent that that they're putting forth for this type of model was from 1996 when the Department of Corrections started bringing in outside healthcare providers to provide health services in the correctional centers. And so in our understanding is is based on that agreement that it was a transitional agreement that the positions that were state employees that went and worked under the outside contractor only existed until they became vacant and then they went away and it's not a model that's in place now that my understanding talking with corrections is that the vendors of contractors providing health services are all using their own staff and not state employees as contemplated in that 1996 agreement. Also Woodside is closed and through the budget process that closed Woodside earlier this fall all Woodside positions were eliminated. So there are no positions to to to do that work right now even if that was a direction to go when they don't exist. Those staff have gone through the reduction in force process. Many of them are in other positions and doing other work in the agency. And that you know Beckett approached us with the understanding that they would be running that program in those in the nature of the program that we put forth and that proposal leverages you know their expertise and other programs that are in that general area near Newberry that they run and that it from our perspective that would complicate their ability to leverage different resources and move staff around based on the needs of the youth in that facility at the time because that you know just the nature of the collective bargaining agreement would really limit our ability to use staff flexibly there in that if they were state employees. And so you know I just wanted to touch on those points to kind of frame to frame some of our concerns. Thank you Commissioner. Next week we have a question from Senator Lyons. So as you were thank you appreciate the thought that you all have put into this and I do have a question though as you were considering it and looking at state standards and state interests in programming did that appear to be as a benefit to have the state overseeing the programming in a more perhaps a more rigorous way. In which way do you mean in terms of having state staff running the program. Yes you know some of my my hesitation is that we you know you know we were involved in federal litigation that that led to a very settlement agreement. Disability Rights Vermont reopened the litigation based on the belief that there were ongoing concerns in the facility ongoing and that the closure of that facility and by the legislature permanently based on the work we were doing to create this partnership with Beckett to run the secure residential treatment program in the community as a community based provider allowed disability rights Vermont in the state of Vermont to enter into dismissal. If the state one of my other concerns is that if the state of Vermont essentially works with Beckett to essentially lease a building and invest in a building but have state staff run it that you know it could put that federal lawsuit back on the table and that's concerning to us as well. I guess my question was not about that but really about a separate issue and that is a policy oversight of the programming with state employees, putting aside the issue that you've brought up understanding that you know that the lawsuit is the lawsuit. However, in principle would this would stay employed would having state employees allow for ongoing oversight and standards for those employees. We believe the contract the operating contract with Beckett would provide the same level of oversight and confidence that we that we would have in terms of what happens in that facility in terms of programming and policies with the youth just as if it had been a state run facility. Okay. Thanks. But I guess what kind of analysis did you go through to draw that conclusion? It's somewhat concerning to be honest. Well, Beckett is a very experienced provider. They work very closely with our residential licensing unit for the program they operate in southern Vermont for young women. They are incredibly responsive when we make a request in terms of programming or change of policy. They are very quick to respond and work with us on that and we anticipate that same level of cooperation and partnership in this program as well based on our history of working with them and their experience here. And so it's based on our long-term working with them in various other programs with the youth we place with them in New Hampshire that they're always very responsive to our requests and they've been incredibly open during our work to develop this program and the initial contracting conversations we've had. It gives me great confidence that that we'll be have that same oversight level that we would whether it was a state run facility or a contracted facility. Mac, I have a question. Commissioner, there's a follow-up with Beckett. Have you had complaints about restraints? Not specifically to me, but that doesn't mean they haven't occurred in the past. I mean, in terms, we know one of the reasons that a number of employees were unpaid administrative leave at this veterans home was the method of restraints that were used and that was the reason for the lawsuit was was partly due to the restraints that were used on on residents there. Have you had that level of complaint about restraints used by Beckett either in New Hampshire or the Beckett School of Management? Not to my knowledge. No. Thank you. Okay. That was that was a point that was made in Mr. Rubin's letter and we will have an opportunity to ask him that specifically. He's actually down down the down the list a while. Right now we have Marshall Paul is the Defender General. Hi Marshall. Good afternoon. So I will just jump in real quick. I really only have two things that I think are important for me to touch on and then of course I'm happy to answer any questions. So I really want to touch on two issues that have come up in prior testimony and I want to preface this by saying that we remain very supportive of the direction that DCF is going with this plan. You know if you look at the letter that Disability Rights Vermont provided it identifies a number of concerns and I think our office agrees that there are you know we're going to have concerns going forward. We're always concerned but we see them as concerns not problems. They're things that are going to be important to keep an eye on as this plan progresses and as things are implemented. But what we've really seen through this process is you know that the plan that's been put forward really reflects a lot of thoughtfulness on the part of DCF and a lot of intention to address you know the most serious and the most serious and concerning issues that we were confronting at Woodside. So I want to preface everything by saying we're still very supportive of the plan that DCF has going forward. We are you know like Disability Rights Vermont. There's a number of things that are sort of questions that we are looking forward to see how they are answered and looking to see how this plan sort of the finer points of it develop but we're very comfortable with how the process has gone so far. So two things that have come up in testimony today that I want to address quickly are the issue of out of state placements. I think a lot of times there's a perception that out of state placements are always a bad thing minimizing the number of out of state placements is always a good thing. And while I think that there's you know our office would agree with that in principle and in general you know every every one of these out of state placements really has to be assessed on its own merits and there's a lot of cases where we would actually much prefer to see a youth who's in custody placed out of state than in state. So for example a lot of kids who whose families are on what I would call sort of the east coast of Vermont along the Connecticut River. You know they have a lot more support. They have a lot more family engagement when those kids are placed in programs in in New Hampshire that when they're placed in programs that might be in Bennington or in Burlington hours and hours away from home we see similar situations in the southern part of the state where you know if there's an appropriate placement just over the border in Massachusetts that's actually much better than placing a kid in a program in northern Vermont because one of the things that we know I think really everybody who's involved in this work is identified is that these kids success is often very dependent on the engagement of their families not only sort of just in the process as a whole but specifically you know being able to visit being able to take part in the case planning process and that's a really hard thing to do if you have to travel you know hours and hours to attend team meetings and things like that. So you know while I'm not suggesting by any means that we just sort of broadly support placing kids out of state I think there's a lot of cases when it makes sense I would also say you know I've represented a lot of kids who have been placed out of state and there's been times when there's really you know it wouldn't make sense to have in state placements for certain kids. So for example you know I've had kids placed in Texas at adolescent traumatic brain injury centers we're never going to have an adolescent traumatic brain injury center in Vermont. You know we're way too small of a state for that honestly there's only a few of them around the country and there's a lot of you know when we talk about the 60 kids or so that are placed out of state there's a lot of those kids who are placed in specialized treatment programs like that that not only is there nothing that's appropriate like that in the state of Vermont but it also is you know practically speaking impossible to imagine that we would ever develop such a thing in the state of Vermont and that's okay I mean I think that as long as what we are doing is you know carefully identifying kids who need specialized treatment in out of state facilities getting them the treatment they need out of state planning carefully to make sure that they are returned as soon as it's clinically appropriate and step down through a process that's appropriate that you know that's a that those can be very appropriate out of state placements so I just want to be clear then that the idea that this six bed facility in Newberry should be some sort of solution to placing kids in out of state programs you know is that's that's something we don't agree with we don't want a locked facility we don't want kids placed in a locked facility instead of placing them in appropriate out of state placements it's really much more appropriate that the facility is limited and it's used to those kids who present such a security risk that they cannot be in anything besides a locked facility and that's not the kids you know there we're not talking about this population of 60 or so kids who are placed out of state with the exception of the current contract with the Senui New Center which really is meant to fill that high security need and which would hopefully that contract would evaporate then once this six bed highly secure facility was stood out. The other topic I just wanted to touch on briefly was the topic of oversight of the facility and DCF I think Commissioner Brown addressed from DCF's perspective that they would plan to have people there on site on a regular basis monitoring what goes on there and I just also wanted to touch on the fact that our office you know when Woodside was in operation when there was kids in Woodside we would be there twice a week in the facility talking to the kids talking to all of the new intakes talking to the kids who were there who were you know preparing the transition out talking to kids who were there who had issues around conditions of confinement or other problems that had developed while they were in the facility and we would intend to do exactly the same thing at the six bed facility if and when it stood up in in Newbury. So I just wanted to be clear that you know we don't see this as really diminishing our capacity for oversight and oversight and sort of supervision of what's going on there and knowing what's going on with the kids in the facility we're quite confident that we would be able to provide the same level of oversight and responsiveness to our clients in the Newbury facility as we would at Woodside and that's all I have to say other than that I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you. Thank you Marshall and let me look and see if any representative Hooper. Thank you. Marshall the question that you just addressed is one that I want us to fully understand. I think an element of wondering if this should be a state employee staffed facility is part of the questioning would we have better insight into the quality the care of the individuals in our custody and what I just heard you say is that you would be providing the same level of assuring that those kids have a voice and access to counsel etc in this facility as they would in a state run facility. In this is is much probably a question for the commissioner but I would want to assure that if we entered into a contract with Beckett for this that they acknowledge that indeed you have the Defender General's office has a right to enter provide services to those kids and have access to records so that you can have good a good view into what their needs are does does that make sense. I mean do do we need a kind of a an additional contractual statement about yes the DJ's office can and other attorneys representing those kids have access both to the kids and to records. Certainly I don't think it ever hurts to have that explicitly spelled out in contractual terms or in statute. I would also say though that we're very confident that we would get it whether it's in statute or not because it's a constitutional issue. You know the kids who would be in this facility would only be kids who are charged with or have been adjudicated of having committed at the Lincoln Act which means that under the Sixth Amendment they are entitled to counsel and we would and have in the past ensured that kids Sixth Amendment rights are protected whether or not that is clearly spelled out in any sort of policy or contract or not we would we would get it. That said we would be very happy to have it spelled out explicitly either in contract or statute just to be sure that everybody's on the same page. My confidence though is comes from the fact that you know we've litigated these issues in the past. It's clear that these that this population of kids would have your right to access to counsel and if we were in a situation where we felt that kids were being denied that right we would litigate and we would you know protect that right through the court system if necessary. Yeah it's and and if I may just jump in here yes that will be a part of the contract access for the child's attorney but also making it clear that disability rights Vermont and their attorneys and staff will have access not only to the youth but to their records and their treatment team as well and in our conversations with Beckett not not only do they understand that but they actually welcome that that level of oversight and participation in their program as well and so we don't foresee that being an issue but it will be included in the contract and to that point we've actually already invited disability rights and their staff to participate in our work with Beckett and developing this and the program and the facility enhancements already and so we welcome their participation. Okay, thank you just a quick follow-up on that is you know another thing to mention is we have a lot of familiarity with representing kids who are in Beckett programs and you know Beckett has for the most part been very open to working with our attorneys and working with our office through the case planning process and you know we have you know that the pandemic has definitely changed sort of how we operate but in the normal world where we're not you know prior to the pandemic you know we we very frequently had representatives representatives of our office visiting kids at Beckett facilities meeting with Beckett staff participating in treatment team meetings in case planning meetings and we've been very comfortable with the level of support and the level of cooperation that we've had from Beckett over the years. Okay, thank you. That's terrific to hear. I had understood that unlike the adult population that there has with where the DG's office has an unfettered right to records that that is there's a different statute controlling the juvenile and that you have had in the past to subpoena records in order to have access to them and I just want to make sure we're not that this is not a barrier. That's true that those problems that honestly have revolved around Woodside not around private programs. There you go. So yes, I mean I think that you know I think just to be just to clarify for the rest of the committee what representative Hooper is talking about in the in the public defender statutes regarding the prisoner's rights office. There's a statute that provides that the prisoner's rights office has pretty much unfettered access to communicate with DOC staff and to inspect DOC records and there's no similar provision for the juvenile defender's office typically when we need those need access to those kind of records we get it through the legal process if we need to go through that and it certainly would be helpful to us to have a statute like that in place with you know that would that would make our work easier but to the extent that we've had that problem in the past it's generally revolved around Woodside not around private providers. Thank you. Thank you Marshall. Thank you Mary. You sort of got us into a discussion perhaps that is more in terms of if we decide to approve this are there conditions or are there pieces that we want to attach to that approval. If there are no other questions for Marshall we have James Pepper from the state's attorney and sheriff's office. Hi James. Hey good afternoon. Thank you for having me James Pepper from the Department of State's attorneys and sheriffs. I don't have too much to add here you know where our department is somewhat tangential to some of these questions that we've been talking about today around staffing I would reiterate our support for the DCF proposal you know I think I mentioned in the past that the state's attorney see a need for a small facility that is no eject no reject that's located within the state that's building secure and that is right size for the population that we've been seeing trending over the last few years we think you know somewhere between five and ten beds this being six is the right size. I want to thank of course all of the placements that have stepped up since Woodside has effectively closed you know they've had to change their programming they've taken on justice involved youth that are probably beyond what they have in the past but I think you know as every day goes on we see a need for a facility like the one being proposed in Newberry and so we're very supportive of the DCF proposal and you know that's just where we are I'm happy to take any questions just recognizing kind of that we're somewhat tangential to the some of the questions that are being discussed today. Thank you James. Senator Sears please go ahead. Yeah I start with a couple of questions I've had concerns expressed about kids who are left in police stations who have been charged or have been picked up who are over who are there hasn't been able to since you're representing the sheriffs to evidently there's been problems transporting kids and I'm curious to know if how kids would would it going to Newberry I am actually I don't know if I've ever been to Newberry I think I've been to Wells River. Newberry is there going to be a difficult task for sheriffs and others to get to as they transport kids around the state and about kids about current problems with kids who are charged or arrested being left in police station. Well I think with respect to that second part that the this facility could serve as an alternative to certainly being you know left at a police station overnight or I think that this this facility would offer some flexibility to DCF which really currently has to scramble to find a bed from time to time and having a 6 bed secure facility would fill some of that need when it's necessary. The transport question you know this the system that we have right now is I wouldn't call it voluntary with respect to how the sheriffs respond but you know they they don't always have the resources at their fingertips to transport folks when they need to be transported and you know I think that's more of a I don't know if it's a contracting issue with DCF but I don't know how much I can really speak to the transport issue from from the state's attorneys from the department's perspective. Well to me it's an important issue and if you're a kid from who's picked up in Bennington for example going to Woodside there's a three hour trip each way. I don't know how long it takes to get to Wells River but I think it's going to exasperate the situation that's already something that we need to look at and that's sheriff's transportation particularly these juveniles who are justice involved juveniles. I heard of a case in Franklin County where the kid was left for I believe 19 hours in the police station and they only had one other person on duty at night in that community and so the they had two people total and one of them had to stay with that youth because they couldn't arrange transport to wherever they were going to transport. I think it was actually the Bennington. Yeah well you know I guess one of the benefits of what DCF has done over the past couple years is they've built up the capacity and some of these other placements that you know I think you know if you have if this you know the depot street was I think able to offer a bed but it came down to a transport issue but now if we have you know another another option around the state it'll just give some more geographic coverage but I agree with you on the transport issue. And if I could jump in Senator we you know that was an unfortunate situation where we weren't able to through the normal processes that we use in terms of contacting the dispatches for the sheriffs across the state but we are working with the sheriff's departments now and we believe we have a path forward to ensure that if we encounter that situation again that we have a process in place to escalate it higher up through the sheriff's departments hierarchy and we believe that that will allow us to arrange for transport in a similar situation in the future because we agree that that's not a tenable solution and it was unfortunate that it happened in that case but we are working to make sure that we have safeguards in place so it doesn't happen again. Thank you. I'm glad to hear that. Do we do we have other questions? James thank you. Thank you very much. Next I would ask Brian Greerson who's our Chief Superior Court Justice. Good afternoon. Thank you Madam Chair. For the record Brian Greerson Chief Superior Judge and I don't I don't believe I can add a lot to the conversations taken place this afternoon other than to reiterate that our experience has shown over the last few years that there is a need for a secure facility but I would agree with Commissioner Brown's comments as well as some of the other witnesses that the size that's being proposed here seems right at least from what we're seeing from our perspective the numbers have not been large over the last few years and this seems to seems to be the the correct correct number. I would also echo Marshall's comments about the need for out-of-state placements. It is not necessarily a bad thing. It depends on the individual case before us and there certainly are programs that are not available in Vermont that that are offered in other states and certainly we don't want to place a child in a locked facility because it's in Vermont as opposed to getting the treatment they need perhaps in another state so that that will always be an issue for the for the courts but we recognize the need for this facility and it is interesting in listening to the Commissioner because at the last hearing Senator Sears asked me to check with the judges on how many youth had been sent to the Sununu Center and consistent with what the Commissioner had said earlier this afternoon there are no Vermont youth in the Sununu Center and in fact none of the judges who responded to me indicated they'd ever sent someone there and there was even one or two who wasn't even aware that it was didn't know what the Sununu Center was so I think that speaks to speaks to a lot of the issues that are before this committee particularly in terms of the of the size of the facility were you're considering so I don't I don't have anything new to add to my testimony from the last time but I'm certainly glad to answer any questions that committee members may have thank you. Thank you Judge Gerson do we have questions for him. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much and committee we have two more witnesses on our schedule. Next we have Steve Howard from the VSEA and our final witness that is on the agenda is AJ Rubin from disability rights. Steve Thank you madam chair and thank you members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify. This is a very big decision that you have today the legislature has before it. I just want to make a few points. Many people have seen I think the emails that we sent on behalf of our members so I won't I won't I won't belabor those points but just want to say that as you consider this privatization contract it's really important to remember that privatization in general leads to the loss of control. It generally leads to the exploitation of workers. Generally those workers are often those workers are women and it often leads to higher costs for the state. This is a big decision. The taxpayers of the state of Vermont are about to send a private out of state corporation three million dollars to renovate a building they don't own. They will also hold all the cards down the road in terms of the operating costs of that facility. I'm not as bothered by what Beckett thinks about whether or not the employees who work there should be state employees. I don't really think that should matter. They certainly are happy to take our money but it shouldn't be a one way street where they get all the money but none of the accountability. And that's what state employees really offer. They offer the legislature and the offer the families. They offer these kids. They offer the taxpayers of the state of Vermont really the kind of oversight that attorneys who occasionally visit and the DCF officers who occasionally leave Waterbury and occasionally visit can offer. These workers just like the workers at Woodside are often the only family these kids have and they will be there every single day 24 hours a day. The only way they can freely speak up without threat of losing their job is if they have the protection of a union contract. And really if they have the only way the legislature is going to get real information not the information that DCF chooses to give the legislature but real information about what's happening on the ground is if these workers have a union to go to and the protections that those that that union provides them. We often and I know many of you know this bring information to the legislature that the administration didn't want the legislature to know. So the real accountability for a private corporation that's taking millions of dollars to the state is to have the hybrid model and to give these union these these workers a union contract. You know I'm the commissioner talks about the lawsuit. There's no reason why a brand new program with with a union contract would start a lawsuit over again. The commissioner can hire anybody he wants for these positions and in fact he hired all of the workers DCF hired all of the workers who worked at at Woodside especially the management. They should be held accountable for that. But there's no reason there's no no reason to throw that around other than to scare you and to distract you from the kind of accountability and oversight that unionized workers would be able to provide you the bottom line here really is if we're going to stand up a strong program for these kids. We need to have the best and the brightest working there. You know Beckett has never done this work before. The employees at Woodside stabilized our justice involved youth and sent them to Beckett and sent them out to the communities and then took them back when Beckett couldn't manage them. So if they're willing to try this, then at least we should make sure that those employees who work there have are are attracted to positions for which they're well compensated and for which they are well protected. The bottom line here is are we going to stand by the workers or we're going to allow them allow the administration to privatize and exploit them. That's the view of the VSEA. We hope that when you decide this make this decision, it won't just be about it won't just be about the numbers and the charts and the graphs, but it will be about it will be about the support you're giving the people who are going to be hands on every day of the week with these kids who have already been traumatized enough. There's no there's no way there's no way that you can substitute for attracting the best and the brightest and having them stay and be retained in positions for which they are well compensated and for which they can be they can make a career out of the work they do. Don't allow them to do this on the backs of the workers fine if you want to privatize it if you don't want to be part of the management anymore. That's one thing but protect the workers who are taking care of these kids and protect this legislature and future legislators from being shut out and and left in the dark. Make sure you have 24 seven eyes eyes on the program. That's the only only way you'll really know what's going on there and that could only come with the hybrid model. So we hope that you will put aside whether or not Beckett care whether or not Beckett wants the hybrid model and do what you want and do what you want to do for workers. They'll take the money and they'll find a way to work with it. That's the way every state manager operates. It's not the end of the world. It's it's just a level of accountability that of course they don't like but that they should have. Thank you. Thank you Steve and I want to turn it to members of the committee for questions. Senator Sears. I guess I'll jump in where wise men fear the trend. The relationship. My experience has been fairly positive. For the most part with the relationship between state employees and the veterans home. Although in prior administrations there were significant problems between management and the employees. A lot of it driven by because the board of trustees is basically in charge of the veterans home. And in this case Beckett would be in charge of the program. So do you see that as a problem in trying to I think what one of the things that I want to point out is that I think what one improvement we made was and the trustees made at the veterans home was putting a member of the staff on the board of trustees. Do you see and I know you've been involved with the veterans home. Do you see any problems there. Thank you Senator. No I don't and I think that's a great model. I mean we have certainly our differences with the management of the veterans home just as we would I'm sure with the management of Beckett. But the fact that a state senator knows about what's going on every day at the veterans home is not because the management there has made it clear to the legislature what's going on. It's because the union and the workers in the veterans home had a place to go to say this is what's happening needs to be addressed. This is this is what's this is what you don't know. This is what they're not telling you. So I don't know why we would want to limit our ability to get more information to the legislature and to the public. Which is what I think the union does at the vets home and what the what I think we can do here. Incidentally I want to say the veterans home recently received an award from the from CMS the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for their ability to retain staff. People make a career out of working at the Vermont veterans home in a way they don't in any privatized facility. Why is that they have a union. They have a contract. They have a retirement plan. They have a health care plan. And that is what we're really deciding here. Are we going are we going to give these kids a chance with workers who are paid whatever a private corporation decides to pay them. Or are we going to give them an opportunity to work with people who can make a career out of the work they do. Thank you Steve. Thank you Senator. Are there other questions or comments. Directed at. Steve from the VSEA comments. Steve thank you very much. Thank you very much. As usual you've been very your your state employees should be pleased at how strongly you support them. Are the final witness who was on the agenda is AJ Rubin from disability rights. Afternoon AJ. Good afternoon AJ Rubin from disability rights to the record. I have to say a big thank you to everyone on the on the call today as a meeting it's been a long meeting a lot to talk about you almost be tired so I definitely want to move as quickly as possible. I'd also like to just commend really everybody who's been involved in the process of thinking about what should happen after Woodside for these kids. Commissioner Brown and his staff have been exceedingly open with us. We communicate regularly and and they're a good collaborative partner. We may have different ideas about what should go forward but we are definitely. Glad to work with with with them and are committed to be a good partner with them and frankly the union to if they are if they are still involved in this program. I want to apologize for the typographical errors on our written submission. There were a couple in there and I try hard not to do that. The most important thing I want to put in your minds are our two main things. One is most people who testify today agreed that there is a need for more community supports and more or less restrictive placements in Vermont. That's everyone agrees with that. Secondly is I really think we have to talk about how many children boys have been placed in locked secure facilities for more than a couple of days since Woodside stop taking new children, which was really in July or August of last year. I think it's quite a lot less than six have been in these locked facilities and lastly I want to be make it really clear that Woodside despite the legislators effort and the hyperbole about it was not a no eject reject facility. It was absolutely true that if you were psychologically acute, you would go to a hospital. It was also true that if you were a DOC kid and the director of the program thought you were too disruptive they could send you back to DOC where they would, you know, house you either in a separate facility, separate unit of Marble Valley or in a hotel room with two guards. And that happened and that came out during our federal litigation so when we talk about this new place being an eject reject facility to be clear if the child has psychiatric emergency needs like they should not be kept there. And that was something that got DCF in trouble with the federal judge was holding kids who should be in a different program. Last thing I want to say is my concern is that we're still going to have the problem of moving kids out of this facility. What I heard the commissioner say is it might be a place to put kids who need short term detention before they go to a new place, or a step down for kids coming in of our state before they go to a new place. My concern is, and what our report wrongly confined shows is that there's a dearth of places to put people when they're ready to go. And our big concern is this will just be another place where people get held up in any event we're happy to work with with everyone involved to try and make it a safe, a safe place and to increase our ability to not institutionalize anybody, children included, if it's not absolutely necessary. So that's all I have to say I'm happy to answer questions. Thank you for your time. Thank you, AJ. Again, I want to open it up to any of the legislators. I might, if I might. Yeah, please. One of the things that Woodside had. Somebody asked me yesterday when it was first opened thinking sometime in the early 80s, but sure. So the physical building itself was antiquated, but I think you would agree that it was partly management that led this down this path that had been even teaching restraints that weren't appropriate. And I don't know how much of that you were involved in. During your with the courts and as they looked at the management, I know there were a number of employees who were dealt with but how much of that had to do with the management and techniques that were employed in this. Well, well, thank you, Senator like like you I have a long history with Woodside I was a public defender in Rutland. Back in the early late 80s early 90s and we sent children up there and then since I've been at the RBK we've been in there a lot with you know what I want to say about that is the use of force system was wrong and management and staff really everyone should have identified that but more importantly was the kinds of kids who were there I absolutely agree with Steve Howard that the staff there did remarkably good work over a long period of time with many children. The problem was that there was a group of children, mostly with serious mental health problems, but they weren't acute enough to be in patients like residents that that the staff were ill equipped to deal with, and they wound up using, you know what the appropriate uses of force and restraint, because these children really were beyond their level of ability to care for. They did not have the right type of on site clinical work and one of our concerns with the becket proposal is that DCF sort of clinical oversight will be done by a master's level person, not a PhD level person which is part of our federal lawsuit settlement agreement which of course that case is dismissed and it's it's a dismiss case, but we would you agree we still don't have a solution for that group. You know what I want to say about that is that that is the hardest group and of people that I agree, not just adults but kids and that there's no one really has a good idea but what's what I think is worth looking at and why my thinking on this has evolved over over time is that since last basically shut down new children going in the woods. We've scrambled as James Pepper said we've scrambled to do something else something better than Woodside, and we've succeeded time and again, and it's been a hard effort during the pandemic. It's been really hard, but we've done it. And, and to my mind what it says is that if we really put resources and energy into keeping kids in the community and limiting their time that they're in locked facilities, we can actually do that most of the time almost 90% of the time. The problem with the facility. So that's my thought. But as a follow up if I might taste that group of kids is still out there I assume that didn't change it may be worse during the pandemic for those kids with acute problems. Where are they. Are they at the brad will retreat or a day. I mean, that's the key if those same kids end up in the wrong program. You have that problem. Whether it be back dead or four or Bennington school for girls wherever it is. But where are those children with acute psychiatric trauma. So I absolutely agree and again we're talking about this small group of kids and there's a group of adults like this too but we're not talking about them. The rising tide was for the child protection committee. So, but so, so, so these are kids who would not be admitted to a hospital like the Bravo retreat from the hospital section retreat because they're not basically medications not going to fix them so much. They really need deep trauma informed care and and what I haven't heard and I haven't been able to get this information and you anywhere is what what is happening with those kids. I've heard anecdotally like you have said or that some of these kids are being held in police departments per day or two. And of course that's bad. And anecdotally that, you know, some kids are being sent out of state, but that's not a crisis placement that's a, that's a temporary placement and so it begs the question before we invest in a locked facility which again I wanted to say, having kids in a locked facility for three or four months is is pretty rough. It's pretty harsh. And how many of our kids right now need that long term walk facility. And short or short term, what is happening with these kids and this issue about it being far away and the transport being an issue that that's actually very crucial, not in terms of the sheriff's but also anybody going to visit, you know, the Defender General's office does yeoman's work in protecting these kids, but it's going to be a lot harder to get some new buried that is a new thing that is. AJ, if I can ask and then we have to, we have two or three other people who would have questions in hearing you talk. Is it fair to say that you don't support either a Beckett facility, or the hybrid with state employees in Beckett, or with a state of Vermont operated equivalent. Because that is putting new at those putting money into a locked facility. And what I'm hearing you say is that there's so you don't support anything that's on the table. So I want to be clear as I said at the beginning everyone has worked really hard on this and a lot of people have looked at it. And so my, our position from DRVT is that we're trying to raise questions, and we have concerns. We're not going to support one side or the other or anything but systemically, we believe that the more locked institutions you build the more you will use them, and that will necessarily take away resources from what works to prevent the need. In the first place and I think looking at the data would be useful for all of you but I can't take a position one way or the other and I apologize. That's that's fine. I appreciate the clarity. We have three people who have their hands up. We have Senator Lyons, Representative Hooper and Representative Redmond. So we'll go in that order because that's how it appeared to me. Senator Lyons. Thank you and thank you very much AJ for your testimony and your the information that you've provided in in writing. I haven't found the misspellings yet so I'll keep looking. So, first, just a comment first and that is that we know that our facilities and our environment very much influence our behavior whether we are professionals, or kids, adults that that it doesn't matter whether it's your home or a secure facility. We also know from our, the information that we've received that a home like environment for children is beneficial so it doesn't look like an institutional setting it looks more friendly so I think we've heard that that is something that is going to happen. Like I said that I am very much taken by your comments on the mental health treatment opportunities for these kids, as well as the need for a PhD clinical psychologist to provide services for these kids and I, I really I have to say I couldn't agree more with that. And then. So, it gets to the question if we have. We probably do need some kind of secure facility we can't get around that when I remember when Woodside was built. I remember the conditions that cause it to be built. It was very concerning. I had family members of the same age as the young woman who was killed. And so I think having a secure facility and some treatment is programs is important. My question for you I guess is, you know, which which comes first here. So treatment programs, should we be focusing in on the clinical psychology side of this. Should we focus in on the secure facility, or, you know how to, how do we proceed given that you're, you're, you're apparently agnostic but trying to get some definitive information. So I appreciate your, your comments I am trying to maintain, you know, that agnosticism, we will be here to work with whatever happens. I know I can, I can. My feeling is that the numbers show that at any given time, there's zero to two youths who need to be in a locked facility for a few days. So it's not really six anytime there's, you know, zero to two and they could be anywhere in the state. And that because there's a lack of a placement for people to sort of personality disorders not psychiatric mental illness, it's hard to find placements for them. And so they get stuck. And so, you know, I can foresee having a north and south, you know, two bed facility that staffed sort of by a team of a nurse, a high level mental health worker and, and someone was some security professional, you know, ability but plain clothes if it's, you know, for safety. And that's what they're doing in Hyde Park, the yellow house that that DMS has been using. I can see like a small two, you know, two unit thing here there in the state. What I what I guess I'm, I'm concerned about is this idea that there's going to be a program that's going to be locked for kids to be in for three or four months. And it's not clear to me that that's a specialized program. We talked to that about not being, you know, from out, it's not going to take kids from our state placement and put them here. But there aren't five or six kids right now in locked programs that we would move into this place. I don't think what there is a need for the police to take someone who murdered their, you know, family members, take them someplace quickly and hold them for three or four days with mental health treatment. But we may not need a six bed facility. And remember that Woodside was a 30 bed facility that cost $6 million a year to operate. And now we're talking about a six bed facility is going to cost. I'm not sure how much a year but but several amount. But again, we a lot of people thinking about this I think what's new to me is that over the last six months, what we've seen is that there hasn't been a need to lock kids up for months and months of time. And there really hasn't been, you know, a half a dozen kids at a one point locked up. AJ, thank you. Thank you for the clarity with which you keep saying that. And then of Hooper and then representative Redmond. You have questions for AJ. I'm not sure I have questions for AJ, but an observation about where we are. First of all, I can perhaps Mary, Mary, hold on. If this if this is a discussion. Let's give members the opportunity to ask questions of a day before we move to discussion. Thank you. Yeah. Mary Beth is yours a question. Just a question about the, the PhD level clinical director that caught my eye as well in the report and I just wondered if you could elaborate on that like why you think that's so important. Right, so I appreciate the comment. Representative so in our settlement agreement, one of the issues was the clinical oversight and we had been concerned that the people who were doing clinical oversight. You know, we're allowing stuff to happen that wasn't appropriate so as part of an agreement for us to keep the facility running website running as this and to settle our lawsuit. And the state agreed that they would hire a permanent director of the program who would have at least a PhD level of clinical academic success. And that was impossible because that sort of level of knowledge and professionalism would be necessary to sort of overcome the security. The force of the security aspect of the facility, as well as to work with medical doctors on a relatively equal basis. And we found that someone who didn't have that level of authority wouldn't be able to make sure that the therapeutic outcomes occurred. What I understand is that Beckett may have their own clinical management, but that the person at DCF is going to be in charge of not just making sure that the six kids at this Beckett program are being treated appropriately, but also the 66 kids who are out of state, and the other kids who are in state that one person is not going to be a PhD level person. And that is different than what we had agreed to early. But again, our case is dismissed, and we can't force that on anyone but this is sort of a diminution a diminution of the level of authority that was involved. And if I could just clarify, so the treatment program that's the preliminary program as described in the report we submitted, prepared by Beckett, was prepared by their vice president, Laura Colburn, who's a PhD psychologist. She's involved in the design of the program and they will have a PhD clinical person overseeing the delivery of services in the Beckett program. The clinical position within the commissioner's office is a position that hasn't existed. And this is just for the commissioner's office to have some level of oversight over our kids across. That wasn't implicated in the federal lawsuit. That was in terms of the treatment being provided at Woodside. This is more of an oversight function and I certainly appreciate AJ's perspective on this and I'm certainly happy to continue that conversation with him. Because I certainly understand his concerns, but we're really talking about two different positions with two different functions. And I just want to be clear about that, that there will be PhD involvement in the development of the program at Beckett and the delivery and on-site delivery of those services at Beckett. This other position is something that a capacity we didn't have within the commissioner's office of BCF and that it will be new. And so that role will evolve over time as well, because it will be a new function and a new oversight role that we just didn't have before here. And so it will be a work in progress and evolve over time as well. Thank you. Mayor Betz, did you get your question? Yes, I'm all set. Thank you. Does anyone else have a question for AJ? Then I'm going to turn it back to Mayor Representative Hooper, who I asked to hold her themes. So, do you want- Go ahead. Yes. Yeah. I was waiting out the silence. It's a social work skill. One that I am not good at. In fact, I rush in usually. So I think we are thinking about the decision about do we engage with Beckett or not as kind of the end process. And I do not believe that is what we're looking at. I think this is just another step in the evolution of how we provide services to a particular group of kids. What has not knowing anything about the juvenile world, but having spent a wee bit of time on kind of the adult world and trying to understand the services that are provided there. I am struck with the similarities of the need for a vast array of ever evolving services to meet the particular needs of the community at the time, rather than saying, we'll build a facility and that solves the problem. If we agree to go with what Beckett is proposing, I think we need to then continue looking down the road and understanding what else is needed out there. I, I never wanted on the adult, not more on the mental health side, I have always been concerned about the number of higher level, more secure beds that we're building believing that these services that we spent the same amount of money in the community. We would be reducing the need for those higher cost services that I believe is the same case with with kids not knowing that world but that just strikes me as it's got to be the case. I'm a little bit concerned with the thought that we, given where we are today. We only need beds of this nature on the order of about six. I think these are extraordinary circumstances DCF is probably knocked itself out to find alternatives. I'm a little bit worried about what the right number is, but we've got to make a decision that seems to be there seems to be an evolving consensus around, let's do that, but let's don't stop thinking there. I think that one of our recommendations should also be that there continues to be a process that not only that doesn't look just at DCF, but these are kids who are served by the Department of Mental Health sometimes they're shared custody there. The agency of education certainly has a role here that is significant and important and frankly I'm concerned about how they are funding and willing to engage with success beyond mental health services. So we need to be looking at this from a cross cutting point of view, not just justice involved kids, we need to be building a system. And at the same time, as a temporary solution for the next several years, it looks to me that Beckett is meeting the needs that we see there for for kids, and make sense to me to go in that direction. Thank you. Thank you, Mary. I sort of hear part of what you are saying it gets me back to the very beginning at 1230, when Senator Sears and I were sort of having a bit of a conversation that we have a decision here. We cannot stop the conversation around other other youth or what we're going to continue to do to treat this population as as the needs and science change. Thank you, Mary. Senator Sears. Yeah, I think I share the concern of those that have expressed is six, too many is six and up. There's always been a small group of young people who have needed a facility such as Woodside. I think six has been that's a small number is six too many is, I think six is more than enough. But there is that small group is also the kids who are under the DOC custody who committed one of the big 12 crimes that could involve murder or other very serious that I think many of those kids need to be held at least short term in a facility that can handle my my concern is that and I don't I don't have any qualms about voting to recommend that we go along with the proposal from DCF to contract. My big concern is will beckett be able to handle this population. And it is, you know, having been in the business myself. It's an extra. Some of those kids are extremely different. And we should never underestimate the difficulties. And I share the concern about making sure that there's oversight from some in a clinical nature. I'm a little concerned about that I share AJ Rubin's concern. But I, I don't have any doubt that there's a need for small number. Senator Sears, I'm smiling as you talk because you in the southern part of the state ran a residential facility. And around the same time, I was in the northern part of the state working in a residential treatment center. So I think we should sort of bring our history to this, which can be a help or can also, you know, be have to make sure that we don't get stuck in that, or at least I need to make sure I don't agree. I think I'm going to raise my hands up. I do want to, as people are beginning to, to speak, I think it's important to sort of say where they are. Both, both Dick and both Senator Sears and representative Hooper have sort of said that there's a growing consensus moving towards the beckett proposal, and then both of them. And I think that in the last years, it lasted needing to have something around oversight as part of the condition. I see some hands up I see Senator Hooker and I see representative Emmons, and I don't know. Senator Lyons and Senator Redmond and then I thought I saw a representative Haas's hand up but I don't know if by the time other people come in, brand is still up. Senator Hooker. Thank you, Madam Chair. I agree with Senator Sears about the need for oversight and today we've heard about retention in two different formats. We, we heard about the need for retention and DOC and now we're, we've heard about the need for retention in a facility such as the one that is being proposed. I would just like to make sure that we're getting the quality of staff that we need. And I am concerned that back at not having had the experience with these very difficult cases that, you know, we perhaps should look to some place where the experience has been on and online, and that it would be in our best interest to have the hybrid model that we've been, we've seen proposed so as much as I appreciate AJ's concern about money being spent on a facility like this that is taking away from community services. I agree that we have to start somewhere in that as Representative Hooper said, this is only the beginning of a more complete process that we're going through so. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Hooker. Representative Emmons, then Senator Lyons, Representative Redmond, Representative Hoffs, Representative Emmons. And thank you. I would like to add in to our recommendation. We move forward with Beckett. Many of you have always heard me say, if you don't have a building you don't have a program. And I've been through a few battle scars in writing a facility for different needs of the Agency of Human Services, and I see this as no different. This will be a secure building, a building secure for our juveniles, which means it will be a locked facility with a fence. And once you get a fence around a building, a community takes notice. So I would like to at least put on the table, we make a recommendation that the department work with local government in blueberry or Wells River, whichever community it's physically housed, and that they have some duly warned meetings for this. I don't want to get down the road and thinking we have a program with Beckett, and then the community is not supportive of converting the building over to the needs of DCF and Beckett. And I think the community also needs to hear what the future use of that facility might be, because if that's not up front with a community, then it will be very, very difficult for any buy in in the future. So that's what I would recommend that we ask for, and our recommendation. Thank you. Thank you, Alice. Thank you for your questions. Representative Redmond and representative Haas. Senator Hooker, do you have something you want to add after that. No, okay. Take my hand down to learn. Thank you. Thank you. I am concerned about ongoing programmatic oversight. I think that the best way to accomplish system improvements over time is by retaining state employees within the building. I think having the building as defined and as might be improved over time is perfectly fine, but I do think that the hybrid becomes important. But I agree with the comments that Senator Hooker has made regarding retention and I also agree with the comments from representative Hooper regarding ongoing systematic improvement. I think our recommendations should include something of the clinical oversight, something of the next steps. But I, I think taking the big step of leaving our, you know, not the, not the current, not the state employees who perhaps are no longer efficient at their jobs but leaving state employees at this point, I think for me does not make sense. Thank you, Senator Lyons. Representative Redmond. Representative Redmond, are you able to speak now. Sorry, thank you. I was on mute. I have real concerns. I mean, I really heard the point about the need for community based services that include placements for those with acute psychiatric issues. I really think we cannot let go of that alongside this whole consideration so I'm hoping that, you know, we can really do some work on that coming up because that is a growing issue I'm hearing about in my community. I, I too support this proposal. I would echo what Senator Lyons said I, I also agree that I think that maintaining these positions as state employee positions is a good, is a good move and a way for us to really have eyes and ears and quality of staff that stay and we don't have constant turnover I think that's really important. And I would add one other thing that I said last, last time we had testimony and that is that I still am a big advocate for an office of the child advocate, especially in this setting of trying this new approach, and not just relative to justice involved children but children across DCF across foster care across someone that would have independent eyes on that so I'll just throw that out as something that I'm deeply interested in I know it's not only related to justice involved young people but at any rate that's something I continue to believe we need in this system of care. Thank you. Thank you represent Redmond. Representative House representative Shaw and Senator Baruch. Thank you madam chair. I think it's important. So I support the proposal. But I think I think we need to keep in mind that that DCF is still in charge here. We are not, we are not outsourcing the care of these children to some company. We are allowing our proposal is to allow our state agency to put one piece into the system of care. And my personal bias would be that we say yes to the proposal with the following conditions. And at the very top of my list of conditions would be that that all children in this in this program be moved to the least restrictive environment ASAP that that be so that so even if it means that some nights there are zero children in this program that what that the focus is on the children and not on the census. We're agreeing that we need something for somebody sometimes we don't know how many that is we don't know how long that is, but it's about the children and they are children under our law. And so that is even though it's it's in everything that we've gotten they say oh yes it'll be least restrictive. I want that to be in what we in what our recommendation is going forward. Thank you. Representative Shaw then Senator Baruch. Thank you Madam Chair. I, I think I'm reasonably sure the people 30 years ago, when Woodside came to being felt that the best plan going forward but they had a plan going forward. I think we've learned through where we are today that that plan has has aged out. And we're now looking at maybe something new and sometimes new is is a little bit scary. We put forth to us by DCF, not back yet but by DCF seems to be fairly a fairly solid proposal given today's society today's societal needs of our youth. I am concerned that we do not see a PhD level director within DCF that would oversee this program. I would hope that our recommendation to JFC may may contain that that statement. I also think it's as much as I understand the value of state employees in and I do at this late date within this proposal. I'm not sure where we where we can go with that I'm not sure what control where DCF could go with that and I think that's beyond my scope here anyway. So I do support the proposal as as presented, but I would caveat that with a PhD level clinical director for oversight. Thank you represent sure. I'm Senator Baruch. I will just support some of the points that have been made previously by Senator Lyons, Senator Hooker and Steve Howard. I do think that one of the things that we're talking about anytime we talk about privatization is whether or people who are going to be working in that environment have the ability to form a career there, or whether they will become, you know, people with much more limited protections, much more limited incentives to put their lives into those programs. That's a big deal for me. The other thing I would say is that I'm not convinced about the argument over the lawsuit. I don't believe that the hybrid model would reanimate the lawsuit. Clearly, although I suppose it's an outside possibility. But for all those reasons, I support the hybrid model of DCF's proposal. Thank you, Senator Baruch. Is there anyone else who would like to say anything right now? Representative Hooker. One other piece I feels like we're going to have a longer conversation about who is staffing this facility, but something that we have so setting that aside, because I believe we'll come back to it. I think we should, if we enter into a contract with Beckett, there should be some sort of provisions about recouping or protecting our investment in that facility. We're going to put a good deal of cash into it pretty quickly. For some reason we sever that relationship before we've gotten our value out of it. We need to figure out how to recoup it. So I'd like that to be part of whatever relationship if we enter into one that it be part of the relationship. Thank you. Well, thank you representative Cooper and as we are talking. I realized, um, Brent, is this a fair thing to ask you to begin to draft? Or how are we going? I guess this is, I hadn't talked to you or anyone beforehand or unless Senator Sears you have a different idea. We're making recommendations to the joint fiscal committee. Clearly, there's a huge difference in money that would need to be appropriated. If you choose to go with the, with the state employees versus what shown in that comparison by Stephanie. So I think that our, we could state our preference would be state employees, but understanding the financial constraints. Secondly, what Mary just taught, what representative Hooper was just talking about is an important piece that I thought. Maybe Mr Brown can correct me, but I thought there was some agreement with Beckett that on recouping the investment through the attorney generals, signing off on this agreement, I believe it's the attorney general has to sign off on this type of my wrong or did I dream that or did you say something about that prior? I, Senator, I did speak to that at the at the prior testimony. We are negotiating safeguards to ensure that we will protect our investment in that facility. And we're doing that to and through two mechanism. One is a standalone lease agreement for a set period of time that allows us to recoup that and then an operating agreement with Beckett. So that if Beckett chooses to not run the program in the future or we choose not to have Beckett run the program in the future, that we still have access to that facility through that lease agreement for that set period of time. And then we're also in the early stages negotiating what that might look like at the end of that lease term as a like a lease to purchase type agreement as well. And we're bringing in BGS to help provide the technical expertise in the lease negotiations to ensure we protect that investment. Thank you. I realize, Bryn, but is this something that as we get clarity that you are have the time and are able to write up so that we have something we can present to joint fiscal, which is I think that Senator Sears is in joint fiscal meeting tomorrow or Saturday. Well, it won't be on this, I believe it's the 20th or I can't remember the date, but we are joining fiscal is meeting on the 20th and that's the date they have to take an action on this. Okay. Okay, so there is a few days. Okay. Representative Shaw use is your hand up for an additional comment. No. Okay. I guess I would like to see. I don't know another way of going back on if she could answer your question. Sorry, I've been looking at her and she hasn't said no so I was. Oh, okay. So I'm nodding committee and yes this is this is a I've been taking notes about what about the conversation and that's my job is to is to write that recommendation for you so. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. What I would it. It appears that there is a consensus to go towards. The Beckett, as opposed to the fully separate all state employee that there is a consensus and we may have conditions, one of which is who are the staff, one of which is other kinds of things. That we want to add but I want to burst and I don't know any other way of doing it except asking people to either turn on their whatever it is, their pictures and raise their hand or we can use the the visual raise our hand to say how many are we having people think that we we are willing to accept the proposal of contracting with Beckett with conditions but contracting with Beckett. Madame chair. Yes. Before we vote. It's difficult for me to do it in the order you're asking, because you're asking first to choose between the complete state facility and the Beckett one, and then leaving until then the question of the staffing. If the staffing question is decided against the hybrid proposal. And I would be more open to the state version, rather than the back of proposal. Does that make sense. It makes perfect sense to me, Senator, what I would be envisioning is that we, if we at this point, start with the bigger halves, and then we add the conditions and then when we have a package. We vote on the package. Okay, fair enough. That's, but I am open to a different way of doing that if people want to do something different. If people are okay doing it that way then could we see a show of hands as to who is whether or not people support the in general to the going with the Beckett versus a full state. Please raise your hand. Madam chair. Yeah. Do we need a motion to, could we use a motion that would would recommend the hybrid version. I am trying to, if you want to start there I was looking at that as a condition. And then with each one yes have a motion and whether we add that or not, because there's that there's the other pieces as well. I don't know if I could quickly jump in. Yes, you know going down. I mean I certainly understand that there may be a preference with this committee for the hybrid model. I have a provider that is not open to that and I just want to throw out there. You know, if that's not the case. Is there another decision point for the committee or are we the proposal. I just want to understand there's a lot of logistical things that are unknown here still. Commissioner, I'm not even sure we know where the committee is. Okay. I'm just trying to do, and we're having a discussion on the order and how to take a vote, and what to vote on first and Senator Lyons was going to say something and then Senator Baruch has his hand up. I will thank you for your clarification on where we are. And I think that we have been through the discussion many times and thought we had heard there would be some openness from Beckett for a hybrid model and so now I'm I don't want to get confused before we go through our discussion and final vote. My my understanding and I will have shown and if there's anyone else who can shed light, my understanding from the way I interpreted what was said was that Beckett is very, very willing to look at people who used to be or who are state employees in the work and have them apply for the job. And then when they apply for the job, that they would be Beckett employees. That is what I understood from the questioning, but perhaps Sean, and is it, you could say something and then we have Senator Bruce has his hand up as well. Representative Pugh, you are correct. That was their interest I know early on when we were starting these negotiations and whether this was a path that we both wanted to go down. That was one of their threshold questions that if this would they were going to have to use state employees they probably wouldn't move forward with it, but that they would be opening to to hire former state employees as their employees. Thank you. Senator Bruce. So, I want I want to support. Senator. Want to support Senator Hooker suggestion that we that we address the question of staffing first, because otherwise it puts those of us who don't like the Beckett proposal without the state employees. It puts us in the position of voting for that proposal, and then hoping that we get a condition that we like. It seems like there's, as I read it there's a sentiment of general agreement and in this joint committee hearing in support of the Beckett proposal. The question is how many people support the, the hybrid version of that. So, speaking for myself I would be more comfortable to address a motion of the hybrid proposal. If that fails, then addressing the, the Beckett proposal, which I would vote against in that case. Senator Bruce, I see the hands up of representative Hooper and Senate Senator Hooker. So, we have not had a real discussion of what it would look like to have state employees working in a privately owned and operated facility. And I'm rather lost as to how that would work. You know who would be management so it would we have a private sector person supervising a state employee that that doesn't sound right to me. You know, there's just a whole host of kind of issues there that I don't think we've gone down the road to really understanding. I had perhaps incorrectly assumed and should have asked of the commissioner that one of the advantages of going with a private entity was that in fact we had access to their other resources. And I had assumed, for example, if there were a particular kid who needed a particular service that is unique to one clinician or another, that Beckett would, for example, have the ability to bring that person in, you know, on an as needed basis. In other words, there are a pool of employees within the Beckett organization that they could bring in and apply to the particular needs of this population, something that we are not able to do on the state side, we just don't have the depth of it. So, I think they're kind of interesting management questions as well as kind of the resources available to us to run a good program that we don't understand. And I don't know how to gain that understanding if we're. So I don't know. I think it's more complicated than do we support a hybrid model. There's a lot of questions underneath that. Thank you. Senator Hooker and then representative Haas. Senator Hooker, I'm sure what you say is very important but we can't hear you. It's my understanding that the hybrid model as proposed by the VSEA would include the ability of Beckett to partner with other resources and bring them in the people who would be working with the children would be the same positions that were held at Woodside that you know these people working with the children would be VSEA or would be Vermont State employees, whereas Beckett would still have the opportunity to work with psychologists, psychiatrists, whatever from other, you know, other organizations. So I think representative Hooper that there would be that kind of connection with the recommendation that VSEA is making. I would, my concern is that we have the best qualified people applying for the jobs and Beckett has stated as as the commissioner said, would be willing to consider the applications from people who who had worked in this particular particular population, but I don't know that they would be willing to offer the same types of benefits and salary that they had been used to getting. So, thank you. Senator Haas. Representative Haas. Thank you so much. There was a question earlier about where we, how we know that the, that Beckett has a PhD member making the proposal, and I just wanted to guide people to appendix C, and it's on page 22, where they set out their, their treatment program. One, the vice president has a PhD. So I'm going to, I'm going to presume that sent that representative Haas and Senator Hooker have said what they need to say right now and that the hands are left over. I want to consult with Senator Sears who is the, I believe the chair of the justice oversight and if you have a preference as to what the, what we are, what is our first vote. My preference would be to have our first vote be whether or not the department of children and families should pursue a contract, a high bed model contract with Beckett. It may be that because of the cost, because of other factors, the, we're making a recommendation to the justice, to the joint fiscal committee. So my preference would be to, to have that the consideration that our preference would be to go with Beckett and use a high bed model, if possible. Okay, so my question. I think that just leaves that the if possible. I don't know where we'd be if, if, you know, joint fiscal, they're really going to look at the money and you're looking at. No, that's, Senator Sears, I don't mean to cut you off. I was not really asking your opinion. I was asking whether that should be the first vote. But I've now got both or whatever. So that's great. Right. So I think I will. Senator Sears is that emotion. Yes. That is emotion. We don't have a clerk, but I can write something. Madam chair. Yes, Senator Baruth. Could I clarify the motion? Senator Sears stated it as a hybrid model, if possible. And I see where he's going with that. I would, I would not want to vote for that. And then have Beckett say, no, we don't want to do that. And then, and then have that. And then I think that the first vote be taken then as. Not needing another vote. To Senator Sears, is that a friendly amendment? Well, it's friendly to the extent that I want to make clear that my. If possible, is the joint fiscal committee and the money. I see. Okay. It is. An additional, what, $2 million? One point something. One point five. Yeah. Not necessarily Buck Beckett saying no. So I'm Senator Sears. Could you please. For, for all of us and we have. If. Okay. Sorry, it's yours now. Can you try to say the motion and committee? We have 20 minutes. Go ahead. So let's see if I can. See if I captured it. So I see it as the motion is whether or not to accept the proposal. As put forward by the department for children and families. To contract with Beckett. While. Retaining those. Employee positions as state employee positions. And that is if possible, meaning if it is approved by the joint fiscal committee. And if the money is available. Right. Okay. So that is the motion that is on the table. And without knowing any other way to do it, but to go across the top. Representative, representative Hooper. I'm asking me to vote on that motion. Yes. Is there just further discussion. Because I'm, I'm presuming that Senator. Baruth is seconding the motion. I do second. Is there further discussion of the motion? We haven't read again. Please. And we are, remember, we are doing this because it is the. Suggestion. Of many of the members of this committee. That they're that what. Will impact their future decisions on what we are doing. Whether this is a yes or no. That for them. Right. I do second. Is there further discussion of the motion? We haven't read again. Please. And we are, remember we are doing this because it is the motion. Is there further discussion of the motion? Is there further discussion of the motion? The. Employee. The employees be in fact, state employees is a, is an important element. Of the vote and they want to have that vote first. Ren, could you read it? Sure. So I don't have it written. Say it as I, as I remember it. Which is to accept the proposal. A public. A public budget. And their hybrid model, which would retain those employee positions of state employee positions. If possible. Meaning, if the money is there, and if the joint fiscal committee agrees. And just to remind people that we are as a joint set of committees are only making a recommendation. The joint fiscal. committees are only making recommendations. Okay, a clarifying question, please. Yes. Yes. If the money is there in fiscal year FY 22 and FY 21, there's always money, but that means we're not going to spend it on something else. So how, I don't know what if the money is there means could could I suggest as wording Madam Chair that we begin the motion with pending approval by the joint fiscal committee. We accept the hybrid model that DCF has proposed retaining the state positions. To be clear DCF has not proposed the hybrid model or that that that the SEA that who proposed it is the VSEA. In other words if we if we if we make the conditional part of it pending approval by the joint fiscal committee we recommend a hybrid model. Yes, utilizing state employees that that gets rid of the ambiguity against the money is there. Okay, so if we do this and if JFC approves it DCF goes and talks to Beckett and says okay here's here's the way we will agree to this and they're going to say yes or no and if they say yes we move on and we figure it out or if we say no if they say no then we come back and we continue having this conversation or or at that point the administration just proposed it will be back in session. So so if I could jump in here real quick so you know I appreciate the committee's you know deliberations and and where and where you're heading I certainly respect that but the legislation um asked this these committees to make a recommendation whether to approve our plan pursuant to subsection B and so if if you're saying yes but you're essentially not approving our plan and you're and you're basically sending us back to start over because that this is not our plan we don't support that piece of the plan. There's no indication that Beckett supports that plan and we could be starting back over and it will be the second proposal we've submitted to the legislature. This administration has a replacement for Woodside and you've said no to and at that point I don't know if we would put another proposal back on the table given you said this will be the second time the committee has said no or the legislature said no. Senator Lyons. Thank you the way I look at it is this we had recommendations that came to us and we felt that there were additional recommendations that could be made and so I believe that whenever the legislature looks at recommendations we do have some authority to modify if we were doing this through legislation we would certainly be modifying it based on all the testimony that we've taken so I am so impressed by the work that has been done nevertheless I think there are concerns that have been expressed and we would like those concerns to be carried forward to the Joint Fiscal Committee. As the person who is facilitating this meeting the reason that I had proposed the process of starting with the do we accept the proposal or not is because that is how I saw our charge and that if we then had concerns or things that we wanted to also be considered that that was part and parcel of that I have been sort of that that that that way of going about went down the you know it's fine I have no but what I do want to say I'm going to say because I have kept my opinion to myself if this were an easy decision if we knew what we knew what was best for Vermont or Vermonters or the youth that we're talking about and for workers we wouldn't be have wrestled with this for the past four years and I wish I knew what the best plan is and what the best way is I will say that I will not be supporting and and I say this with trepidation I'm a I'm a union member I'm a member of the union at UVM in the world of human services rightly or wrongly the state of Vermont contracts out to private nonprofit agencies to provide and do nine-tenths of the services and I don't see this as being any different than whether it was contracting out to what is now known as the Bennington school for whatever or what used to be known as Laraway all those things and this is going to be a difficult enough population this is a difficult enough population and really good people have worked really hard and done tried to do really good jobs and have at the same time people have raised issues and there have been court decisions and there's all sorts of reasons why but I think having a treatment and a therapeutic and a structure and organization of a service where people people's bosses are not are the state as opposed to Beckett power I mean I I you know I think that that is just setting up something and that I think it's really we perhaps we put in a condition that they much like for veterans or other things that state employees who apply for the job have a you know get a few points in terms of being you know being appropriate for the job but if they want the job they become Beckett employees this is not going to necessarily be the same job as what is at Woodside Woodside which had people on for what was it 48 hours a 48 hour shift and they were living there that's not necessarily I don't know what Beckett's thing is but anyway let us go with the motion that is on the table from Senator Sears that Bryn has re-read. In light of your comments Madam Chair I'm fine with withdrawing the motion and just voting on the proposal and then having a second if that passes having a second vote that our preference would be to higher state employees and that can pass or fail but that we if you want to have those two votes separately I'm fine with withdrawing for now and then I would move that we have a second that what I okay the portion of the state employees you know I I think it should be explored I don't I whichever way you prefer to do it Madam Chair um why don't we have that first vote then I have to say that was my preference and I was not persuaded okay well then I you know then I would move that we approve the plan I know but that we have a second vote on whether or not to ask Joint Fiscal Committee recommend the Joint Fiscal Committee to explore the fuchsia state of a hybrid model of state employees. So the first vote is to um of the two proposals to support to um support the Beckett there's only one there's only one proposal to support the um to to support with conditions and then we will outline what those conditions are later right no that's what you want um Senator Baruch doesn't want that he has his hand up so I will just explain I if if we do it this way I will vote no and I'll just quickly and there may be a number of others yeah I'll just explain one thing what we would do then is we would be signing off on the proposal and then we would have a conditional condition and and the condition would say to the Joint Fiscal Committee do you want to spend another 1.4 million or not and they would say well they already signed off on privatizing the service anyway so let's just say we don't want to do that so it puts it puts those of us who support the state employees in the position of authorizing their removal and then asking if it's okay if we get them back so they've already been right well I'm just saying in the light of our votes here that's why I'll be okay fine fine I'm I'm sorry I feel like we are arguing over parliamentary procedure Rinne could you go back to the original motion that Senator Sears made which has to do with talked about something about if Joint Fiscal agrees or something and and I would put that forward under my name since Senator Sears is now not well he may want to go back to it he want he may want to go back to it Rinne can you is this the is this are you voting on the proposal the quote hybrid proposal for with this motion or is this the regular no no we are voting on the hybrid we're going to vote on the hybrid um so um okay yeah so um so you would be voting on um the following proposal pending approval by the joint fiscal committee um you recommend a hybrid model of the department for children and families proposal to contract with becket in a manner that would retain the employee positions as state employee positions perfect I believe that reflects what um senator baruch senator baruch and um and and and senator I would second that okay second by senator hooker okay um if we can start now um we don't have a clerk so I will um representative hooper um I I'm sorry I do not understand how this would work well enough to be able to vote in favor so I have to vote no and I'm really disappointed that it's being characterized as an anti-union vote and because that it could not be further from the truth as far as I'm concerned okay um thank you senator representative um hooper senator hooker yes um representative shaw you're you're you're muted okay uh no representative haas no representative west a senator restman no representative emmons no senator liens yes representative grad no senator baruch yes yes representative paella paella sorry I won't ever apologize okay no um senator sears I can't hear you yes I'm sorry yes um uh representative redmond yes and representative pew is a no oh god was anyone keeping track I was thank you Peg can I can I just reread it to make sure that I got it correctly yep um hooper no haas no shaw no hooker no no hooker was a yes okay hold on hold on hold on one second one second bear with me hooper no haas no shaw no westman no emmons no lions yes grad no baruth yes paella no sears yes uh pew no um who did I hear redmond redmond yes and then the fourth person I I might have I did I miss anybody no hooker wait hooker are you hooker is is I was a yes I think it was five to nine no five to eight I think there's only 13 of us here okay we could add a few if you'd like to go to the presidential level but okay sorry one two three four five yeses one two three four five six seven eight no is that right okay so on that motion field do I have another motion so we accept the plan but that we ask the department to look at the hybrid as well as the joint fiscal and I think we had a another set of some other conditions that brin was going to draft up that I don't think we had any dispute well I don't yeah I don't think there was any dispute we can just send them along to the joint fiscal so the other conditions being um a no reject being clear about that being um the least restrictive AS AP um with the communities um really more meeting with the community and and some the arrangement for recapture of the lease of the lease and I would add that the facility be limited to justice involved use I think that's implicit yeah I think it is yeah but say it that's fine okay I would be interested in the um the clinical director at DCF being a phd level uh credentialed person psychologist at DCF or at I'm sorry I'm confused at DCF or at the becket uh no the the person who's interfacing at DCF um right for we can add that that position is not solely related to this proposal I believe we heard from the commissioner that this is a position that they are considering that the legislature will have to that they're considering to be an oversight of all of the youth in placement from multiple avenues is that correct senator uh sorry commissioner bram that is correct yes and then if I could just say that all of those other areas you just touched on no eject reach reject lease restrictive the lease the community engagement um and only justice involved use we support all of those and and and those will be things we do engage in but we're fine with the committee recommending them as well okay um senator sears can you um sort of restate the the um the first part of the motion so that we know we accept the report of the commissioner we recommend that the department as well as the fiscal committee um look at the other conditions that just went through um and additionally uh look at whether or not it makes sense to have state employees um under the well that was just defeated but to look at that or whether state employees should be given a preference in hiring the the the state of putting a condition of state employees on it was was uh defeated am I correct so so my motion would be that they look at either of those two options so that that that it be that they explore or something like that they explore either one of those options okay sorry I I lost clarity on that there um it seemed as though originally senator sears was proposing that we ask joint fiscal to consider state employees being in the new facility yeah then then it is is that right senator sears or well we've just defeated a motion to make that a requirement so so now asking them to explore it but but the it that they're exploring is what whether or not it should be state employees okay well we should give a preference to state employees in the hiring under beckon well if it's one I will vote yes if it's the other I would vote no so no if you're good it's it's neither one neither one is a condition of approval yeah um I we just it was just defeated and so I wanted to keep the keep it alive in some manner so that it could be and but but in in some point I I don't know why we vote on it again that's okay so to be clear then your your motion does not include exploring keeping the jobs as state employees oh no it does it would explore that yeah okay not a condition I I feel as though you're sometimes saying yes sometimes saying no so can I maybe I am and maybe I'm not I don't know I'm trying to keep the whole idea of exploring whether or not the program should have state employees but we just defeated the motion I voted for your emotion that motion left that motion failed so what what senator sears is trying to do what this committee is trying to do is there are about four things that we seem to agree on that are conditions and we actually heard that the commissioner thinks that those are okay then there's something which is not a condition of approval but something that we are asking them to explore which is how to handle how to take care of how to respond to state employees and we are suggesting two ways that maybe state employees might or might not be interested in one of and and beckett may or may not be and whether if no one likes them we are all we're asking is that that be a conversation one being that they remain that that that somehow state employees work for beckett but they retain they are state employees they're there and their work station is at beckett and another thing maybe to explore is okay someone's worked been a state employee long enough they're going to be able to keep their benefits or their retirement they're up for a new exploration and so maybe they'd be given a leg up but they would but they would be interviewed maybe they'd be given a leg up but they would no longer be state employees I mean you know whatever I mean is it to keep a job is to keep or you know do we want to make a condition that people explore unionization though they have to be sorry we're going down a rabbit's hole um representative shaw so we just defeated the motion to make it a requirement to has state employees as the employee in the facility so we defeated that so we moved on to approving I believe we're approving the proposal with some four conditions that you had outlined earlier and and uh giving the state employees the opportunity to be first interviewed I guess is the way I would put it are we also are we also saying that we want the state we want state employees and state employees in the facility I don't want to vote on the same motion twice is what I want to do and I don't want to scuttle the proposal I want the proposal to move forward so I'm just a little confused there and I think I heard you say that these are just recommendations representative pugh that that was my understanding of where senator sears was going that this last piece around state employees was a um a please please ask the question please explore um whatever the answer is will not be is that right senator sears whatever the correct um is you know um will not scuttle the proposal I understand my law I don't understand that we were in the negatives on the lost that motion I'm just asking that it still be considered yeah okay so we have we've we've already voted to approve we approve it we approve it and this would be approving with four I think four or five conditions whatever that number was and then additionally asking them to continue to explore but but the proposal's approval is not subject to either one of those last two correct correct okay which would still may lead senator barus to vote no um I don't know I when my only problem remaining is that we keep using the word explore and then different people are interpreting explore to mean a host of different things so we're not looking at wording of emotion which is problematic so I guess the the question is really are we asking joint fiscal to explore the possibility of state employees in the facility now in my mind we haven't decided that question because the previous motion was to do it this is to explore it which is something different so um the only clarity I'm seeking is are we asking to explore jfc to explore state employees in the facility or not I actually thought we were asking the department or the department yeah either one or the department and it's uh in any it would seem to me it would have to be uh with the contract between the department and and becket I mean there are going to be a lot of conditions around how we're paying the three million dollars and and then the ongoing payment of um property taxes and so on so it would seem to me that this would be a part of that um discussion and and then we also know that after a period of time we may actually be eligible to own that property I think so we forgot that one yeah I know so I'm just saying there is a lot there and but I I I continue in the same vein as senator bruce has been talking that uh we need to have that exploration or that inclusion of a condition some kind of condition I won't say if at all practicable but I think that's what it does come down to so the question is who does that exploration jfc or dcf well if it's a condition uh that joint fiscal committee uh agrees with they can then as the money is uh appropriated can have dcf do that work I don't think that's the work of the legislate legislature I think that is you know it's administrative work madam chair yes I heard representative shaw a lot and clear he doesn't want to vote on the same thing over so I wanted to make clear no and so I wanted to make clear you and senator bruce well I wouldn't say that I don't think I do all I won't I will I I just want to make sure that we continue to keep the option open if the joint fiscal committee wishes to go that that was the explorer I'm not asking us to vote on the same thing again what you're asking senators here is just another look at the option of having state employees no friend do you have any sense of how that might read sorry so what I hear is that you would be according to the directive in the budget bill you would be pending approval from the joint fiscal committee you would be recommending um dcf's proposal to contract with becket and then period and then separately you would be asking the committee and or the department to consider um having state employees fill the positions in the new facility or giving preference to state employees and hiring um in becket's hiring um I I'm not sure that's where everyone is there's a difference between consider and explore because this committee on a seven something both said no I mean you know in terms of having b8 I use the term explore if you'd rather consider I like consider the committee's already sort of said no to that thank you the term explore if it's consider or explore I can go with explore as well yeah explore is fine representative straw thank you um my my my my concern an honest concern is if becket just comes back and says no uh to state employees run this facility and basically that's what will happen we're nowhere we just spent four years doing nothing um and representative straw I personally share that I don't want to be back here in three years having the same conversation which is why I keep saying I can get you know people really certain people really want this piece in there and so how do we put this piece in there in a way that will not stop us going forward no matter what the answer is so I'm willing to say if becket goes a fine this is the best thing since slice bread we want to do this okay um but if becket goes no way you know this is not workable then I don't want it just to stop it so madam chair yes this our charge is to make a recommendation this is not casting stone yes and we and and we are trying to be respectful to the five of you who wanted something that the rest of the committee didn't and we're trying to keep that thread alive I I understand that and I can I too can go with explore but it keeps it alive but again it's a recommendation this isn't the final vote on any of this I mean we don't have the final say exactly exactly exactly there you go I I think personally the motion as stated is an accurate depiction of the committee's division on this we have a motion on the table I believe with a lot of massaging from your friends it's your motion um is there is there a second second I'll second it um senator westman is seconding it is there further discussion okay um we'll start the other way um senator sears yes um representative paella yes senator westman yes representative ammons yes senator liens yes representative grad yes yes senator berth yes representative haas yes representative shaw yes senator hooker yes representative hooper yes representative pew yes oh sorry representative redmond yes um the motion passes unanimously um I think our discussion thank you committee um and thank you all the members who uh both today and last week two weeks ago testified and actually some of us have been having these conversations um we're probably the past what I don't know when when did we meet you know the past two years at least two years um and uh if this was easy we wouldn't have we wouldn't still be here um and um I really thank everyone's hard work and um it's challenging and um none of us are doing something that is easy for any of us um um so uh and senator sears is on joint fiscal I believe yep what as is representative hooper and as is representative hooper so we so the committee has representation um on joint fiscal um so that will be a fun meeting for you all on the 20th um and um representative redmond I'm not quite sure whether that's a um a high five or whether you have something you want to say no just that's great I mean the continuity onto that committee having representation is is is worth applause yeah so um thank you all very much and thank you for staying later so that we could actually make a um a clear um do do our job which was to um come to a recommendation to send to joint fiscal so congratulations um everyone for working through our our differences and finding um a path forward and brane if you have any questions or whatever please just run them by um I believe senator sears is chair of joint justice yep and so between um just run them by he the two of us will be great thank you madam chair for your effort today and I also thank the entire committee and all those who've worked on this for two to three years four years whatever it's been um I think this does move things forward which is um that's what it is good um I apologize I have um uh 16 students who are waiting for me in six minutes so I need to um uh jump off uh thank you all very much and um I believe this ends uh the the meeting of the two committees justice um oversight and child protection um on the question of um making a recommendation related to