 Okay. Good afternoon and welcome to Vermont house committee. It is Tuesday, April 13. We are now going to turn to S3. Thank you Eric for that. Yeah, sure. Just to for committee's interest that also the Senate judiciary committee this morning. It looks like they're going to concur and H. I think I have been. I was about to say H 199. I don't think that's what it is. Maybe it was one. The bill regarding powers of attorney and they're used during emergencies and conveyances that you folks passed out several weeks ago. Right, right. I don't think there's any changes to that. So I think they're. Talked about that quite a bit with them this morning and it looks like they're going to move ahead with it as, as past the house. Oh, great. Thank you. Yeah, that's, that's an important bill. Great. Okay. Thank you. So, okay, great. So now we're going to switch to S3. And we're going to turn to S3. And leading to competency to stand trial and insanity as a defense. And so you may remember, we're slowly getting through all our witnesses. And so, Robinson of the network is here to, to join us and share her testimony with us. So good afternoon. Welcome. Good afternoon. Sorry, I had a little zoom issue there. Thank you so much for having me for the record, Sarah Robinson deputy director at the Vermont network against domestic and sexual violence. Thank you so much for the continued testimony that you've been taking on S3. And I'm here today, I'll be fairly brief just to weigh in on the importance of the victim notifications sections and talk a little bit about that. So largely, you know, we do believe that there's an important role for the criminal justice commission where there's been criminal justice involvement and someone is committed to the care and custody of the commissioner of mental health. And in these cases, the bill that you've been considering does seek to address some significant gaps between the criminal legal system, the mental health system and victims of crime that have existed for some time. So I'm going to speak to section three of the bill. I'm going to talk about the importance of victims and speaking to subsections A and B of that section. And just to say that first, the is the importance of victims having some level of notification when there is a change in treatment setting, especially a discharge. And in our small communities here in Vermont, it's important that victims have this information through trusted information. This allows people to consider what might be needed for their own safety, all kinds of safety. And most importantly, not to be surprised to find out that the person who caused them harm has had a change in their freedom of movement or location. And there have been a few instances where victims have reported hearing from other community members or even seeing individuals have had no notice that that was a possibility. So we're supportive of that. Second is this seems like a small issue, but I think it is significant to victims. And that is the issue of absconding. And we work to add this language in the Senate. And I just wanted to lift up and reference a letter that has been posted to your committee webpage several weeks ago from Deborah Brookfield. And in the case of this victim, the person left their treatment setting. And the only way that the victim found out is because their advocate happened to see a missing person's poster on the evening news. And Ms. Brookfield is not the only individual who has experienced this. And we feel like this is an important change in procedure. And we would be fined with changing the language of the victim's name. And we have a couple of other questions to elope, which was a suggestion that was made by Jack McCullough from Vermont legal aid. And I think the reference he gave was 18 VSA. Seven one zero one. And that change. Would be fine with us. And in regards to subsection C in section three, which I know the committee has had a lot of discussion about. And I think it's a good question. And I think it's a good question. And I think it's a good question to the concerns raised by both disability rights and mad freedom. And I would just like to note two things here. First. Information on treatment status. Is often fluid and constantly changing. And second. After such a notification. Frankly, there, there's really no recourse for victims in those cases. And I think that would also be unhelpful. And contribute to a sense of danger for victims. That's not reflective of an actual level of risk. So we're glad to know that stakeholders are considering what can be done to the language of that section, either striking the language or putting this in the realm of the forensic working group. To address those concerns regarding orders of non-hospitalization. And we're certainly happy to assist in those efforts to the extent that our input could be useful. So we're grateful for your work on this bill. And I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you. Thank you so much, Sarah. Not seeing any hands, but I'll just give folks. A moment. Tom. Thank you. How are you doing, Sarah? I don't know if this is a question for you or not. It might be for, is Eric still here? Yeah, I'm still here. There he is. Um, is there any HIPAA? Um, uh, issues as far as. Letting victims know. When, you know, when someone that, when there's treatment involved, I mean that, that's healthcare. I can, well, I can just say, I think that, um, my understanding is that there has been some concerns about that section C. Um, and around the intersection that those types of notifications around treatment status might have, um, as it relates to HIPAA and other privacy concerns. And so that's the section that I was noting. Um, we very much hear those concerns. And, uh, would are glad that their stakeholders looking at that or that that section is going to have a closer look. But I'll defer to Eric on. The rest. Um, well, I would say that I have heard those concerns as well. Um, I don't share them in terms of the. The HIPAA concern. I, I think you've probably, the committee's probably heard that I don't necessarily have the same legal analysis of the HIPAA issue as. Um, as either Dale. I'm sorry, or DMH or, um, some of the other advocates you've heard from. So I think there's a legal basis for, for the information to be disclosed for the victims to get it. Um, not to say that it wouldn't be litigated. It probably would be, but I think that. The same exception to HIPAA that applies to the two sections that you're keeping in at least. At least of which there has been less, less controversy about moving out this, that same HIPAA exception, the mandated by law exception. I think applies just as much to. Uh, the ONH provision as it does apply to. The previous provision, the two other provisions about requiring. Um, uh, the department to let states attorneys and the attorney general know when somebody's treatment status to change. So that again, that that's not the policy question. That's for you guys to think about. That doesn't mean it's the policy you want. You can choose whatever policy you prefer. But I, my view, and I think our, our office's view is that you have solid, solid ground on which to rest your decision. If you decide you want the information to be disclosed, there's a basis for, for reaching that conclusion. And the only. Single case that I found that talks about this. Sides in favor of disclosing it. And, um, So that's my conclusion. So, so with, with, uh, again, with the HIPAA stuff, Eric. If, if somebody. I don't know if the right term is voluntary. If somebody voluntarily leaves treatment, I guess, or, or, or leaves their treatment ahead of time. Um, it would that. Not be so much a HIPAA. Um, concern as a, as a change in treatment would be. To me, if somebody is going to, you know, it's going to bail on their treatment, I guess to me that. They've, uh, they've. You know, I mean, it's just me knowing what I know. Uh, they've given up their HIPAA rights from there. It would seem, but maybe not. I'm not sure what kind of an impact that would have on the HIPAA issue. I think the. The sort of basis for. For the disclosure of information. Uh, that would otherwise be protected health information, PHI under HIPAA. Is that the disclosure is required by law. So I don't, I'm not sure that it matters whether the person leaves voluntarily or not. If they're, if their health information qualifies as protected health information, then it can't be disclosed unless it meets one of the exceptions under HIPAA. And as it happens, the exception that we're viewing as permitting it in this case. Is the fact that the disclosure is required by law. Right. And my, my thought was more around, you know, letting, letting victims know, especially if somebody did. Um, Um, prematurely leave treatment. Right. Thank you. Yeah, sure. Go ahead, Kate. Thanks. Um, hi. I don't know if you came prepared to talk about this section, but I was just curious since you're here, one of the areas in the bill talks about a forensic work group. And I don't know if you've taken a peek at that at all. Um, and it doesn't, it looks like the language creates some, some space in terms of ultimately deciding who comprises that group, but it has list out a number of people or entities that would be included. And I guess I'm just curious if you had any thoughts or reaction or if the network did in response to the, the makeup of that group or the charge. While we're at it. Um, sure. So we were definitely supportive of, uh, the inclusion of the two victims of crime appointed by the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services. I think that's going to be a really important perspective to have on the, on the work group. Um, and otherwise, um, I don't necessarily have any other, other comment on the work group itself. Other than just to note that it's. Um, obviously an extremely complex system of care and that it makes good sense to have a working group looking at the broader issues related to this population. Thanks. We do have written testimony from Chris, from Chris Beno about, um, putting in some language regarding victims in the charge of the working group, um, which we'll refer to when we start doing that. Um, I don't know if that might answer your question as well. Okay. Um, okay. Seeing any other hands, anything, anything else, Sarah, before we let you go. Oh, that's it. Thank you very much. Okay. Great. Thank you. Okay. So let's see. We have a, our break schedule to leave it to 30. Just to make sure I got that right. Yeah. Okay. So what I'd like to do before our break and since we, we have Eric is to go through. S3 and I'm going to identify places that. Um, where I've heard consensus. In terms of our testimony as well as places that, um, there may not be consensus. Um, and half folks, let me know if I missed anything. Um, I don't know. I think this would be the, you know, to, to start to put together a, um, a committee amendment. Um, I will say that representative and Donahue. Um, has put something, um, something similar to this in a, um, in an amendment. Um, not. It's not, um, it's, it's from, it'd be, you know, it's her thoughts not representing the committee on, on, uh, on healthcare. Um, I don't know what to do. So if we could just take three minutes to do this and Eric, I know you have an ongoing list as, as well. And I'm going to just go page by page really. Um, so in terms of on the first page where it talks about copies of the report. They're being sent to, um, I know there was, um, Testimony adding Dale. Um, but I'm not going to put them on the. Okay. Also adding the respondent. We heard that from. Uh, from Welder white. I, um, reached out to, um, Uh, AJ Rubin and, um,戰, McCullough about whether or not to add the respondent. And they were okay with that. on whether or not what happens when the respondent is not represented by council by an attorney, whether or not the respondent gets the report. So I would suggest again just for starters to add respondent to that section on who gets the copy of the report. Okay, am I forgetting anybody in there? Anybody? Okay, great. The next page, the new language in two talks about the two different opinions and the timing of them in that. That needs, I think we only had one witness, the medical society that thought that that language was clear. So I know Eric is going to be working on that. We also heard from Department of Mental Health that I believe Wyoming has had some language regarding that and that also that could be something put into the forensic working group. So any other thoughts or comments on that? Does that sound consistent with what we've heard? Martin. So I've also talked to Eric about trying to put in some language that addresses the issue of spoilation of evidence or preserving evidence and who would be responsible for that. So there will be a proposal just for us to look at that I've asked Eric to work on. Okay, great. Great. Thank you. Okay, and then let's see, the next on page three in B, this is having council, having remote legal aid represent, provide council and we heard testimony we heard was pretty much unanimous in support of that. Martin. I did have a question on that on that language as far as whether it can be clarified a little further even. The fact is that it cites to subdivision A2 of the section and then it describes subdivision A3 and A4. Shouldn't it just say, you know, stand trial pursuant to subdivisions A2 to A4 of the section? It's just a drafting question, Eric. It's not, you know, changing the meaning of it. Does that make sense when I'm asking that? It's just one of the things that just spells says look at A2 and the other two it actually has the language of A3 and A4. Yeah. Do you see what I mean, Eric? I do, yeah. It's not a consistency among those three. Right. So yeah, it might make sense to strike the cross-reference specifically since you don't have it in the other two places. Yeah, well, yeah, then right, right, just expel out what A2 is if you're going to spell out or have them all say A2, A3, and A4, whatever. Just not parallel. That's all. Great. Sounds good. I have that one. Okay. And then the next area is on page six. Madam Chair? Yeah. Why is the word entitled to have council appointed? Why is the state or taxpayer's paying for that? Why isn't, why is that written like that? You know, it gives a simple question, I guess. Well, they have, they have a constitutional right to council already because they're going to be confined against, potentially against their will. The only distinction is that this is shifting the person who represents them from the Defender General's Office to Vermont Legal Aid because of an expertise issue because they're not criminal proceedings anymore. And the reason that uses the word entitled is because previously, actually last year even it had said, shall be represented by Vermont Legal Aid, but they wanted to preserve the person's ability to have their own private attorney if they wanted to. So they could have their private attorney pay for it themselves or have Vermont Legal Aid do the representation, which they have a right to have the state council if they want to because of the nature of the proceeding. But it's not saying they can have their own lawyer, does it? No, but that's the reason the word entitled is used. They're entitled to have council, but they don't have to. But would an average person, such as I'm questioning it right now, they even begin to know they could have their own lawyer if it's not stated? Wouldn't it be you can have your own representation or you're entitled? I think that's a question for you, the how you read it. I read it as a permissive thing, but that's up to you folks. Yeah, thank you. And Eric, actually that history that it had been shall announced and titled is helpful. And I'm looking at my notes. We did hear from Judge Greerson that the judiciary does support this. And as Eric said, Legal Aid really does have that expertise in these cases. You think somebody that is involved in this would automatically go through legal aid, they wouldn't have their own lawyer? I'm really confused here. Most people do, from what I understand. Most people have Legal Aid do the representation, they don't have private counsel do it. That's interesting. Okay, thank you. Yeah. Great. Okay, thank you. And then, so then we come to page six and there's that section C that we've heard a lot of testimony on. You know, originally, there are some folks that wanted in there and then, but the Attorney General's office and others realized that there were problems. And so there has been consensus to take that section out and make that part of the charge of the forensic working group. Maxine, can you just say which section you just want? Sure. It's C, so I'm looking at page six. Yeah. I just wasn't sure because there's also the absconding language issue, right? Did I miss the eloping, changing that? I think it's at the top of page six, unless there's a different instance. Okay, yeah. Yeah. Thank you. I'm working off of, I have actually two copies of the bill. One is past the Senate and one, uh, yeah, thank you. That's right. So in, right, in three, change abscends to elopes. So Maxine, backing up, there's two other things that, okay, great. So back on subsection B that we're just talking about adding, and this is something that Ann Donahue flagged for us, adding, and if applicable, the Department of Disabilities, Aging and Independent Living. I know that Eric already has that language, since we're adding them upfront. And there's a second place to add, Dale, and that is in subsection two A on page five, I believe it is. Since we're adding them as far as they are being added in this. Right. Okay. Great. Thank you. Did, I think I was going to throw, just toss out there on that night. Is the presumption then that you want to add all the Dale references from Representative Donahue's proposal? Yeah. Yeah. So is, have they been involved? I'm just making sure that someone from Dale assigned up on that or? Let me double check. Yeah, let me double check. Right. Okay. And I'll double check with Representative Donahue as well. Okay. Thank you. The next change that I, we're going to need some committee discussion about is on page seven, where we have Jay, which is the Attorney General has, they have one position in the Defender General's office has, has another one. And so I want to bookmark that as someplace where we'll meet, you know, some, definitely some committee discussion on, because there has not been consensus on this from our, from witness testimony. Martin. Yeah. Sorry. I need to back up one more time. This was another suggestion that came out during testimony from Ann Donahue on page six in subsection Roman numeral two, the after the victim of the offense, she has suggested adding for which the person has been charged. That's a suggestion from her. I particularly, I don't think that's needed because this is talking about the victim of the offense. It's not talking about the victim of the offender, but yeah, I don't think it's actually necessary, but if it makes it clear for people, I just wanted to flag that as something that Ann Donahue had brought up. Okay. All right. Thank you. Yeah. Why don't we Eric, if you can note that, and then we can think more about that. Okay. Okay. And then so section five, I know that house corrections institution as well as health healthcare will be looking at this assessment piece. And but we did hear about time frames. I was pretty consistent that that November first time frame is really not workable. So I think we heard six months a year, I'd say probably a year, we can just put that in there and for starters and then discuss it. And then the forensic care working group that is also being considered by the health care committee as well as institutions, we, we did hear concerns that is the charges to prescriptive. Again, the timeframe, I think there's consensus on the timeframe cut out for a year, maybe the in terms of who was on it. We heard from Will de White person with lived experience plus person with experience in the, in the issue. Okay. Go, go, go. And let's see. Also under one on page nine, that's where Chris Venna talked about putting language after educated not guilty by reason of insanity, putting language, something like impossible expansion of victims rights. And I know there's concern that that this language may seem like it's assuming that we actually do need a forensic facility as opposed to determining if we do. So possibly some reboarding of that we might, might consider. I know the medical society would like a member of representation on here. So certainly talking and also mentioned of competency restoration programs, looking at those. And then like I said, the, the time. So, so we can, we can talk about those and we can share those with them with health care as they come to their recommendations. But certainly that's clearly those two sections or clearly sections that are, are in other community jurisdictions as well. Barbara. So I thought that there was restoration of sanity as well as competency and making sure, I mean, I realize it's not in our section, but just that that philosophy and the, the services that are lacking to restore people's either insanity or ability to stand trial. I guess it's sort of the same, but, and it seemed like a few people called out in the prescriptive sense that why are we mentioning Connecticut? And so perhaps it's saying looking at other states, but not directing people to Connecticut. Right. Right. Thank you. Yeah. So that's, that's a good point. Yes. Thank you. Kate. Yeah. I guess just to make a distinction in terms of Barbara, but you were just saying just because of the bill that we're talking about, like when they're talking about sanity in the context of the bill, we're talking about it in terms of assessing mental health state at the point of the actual act. So you wouldn't be, you wouldn't restore sanity in, in terms of like sanity defense. I just want to name that since these things get like confusing. I don't know. I mean, are you, at this moment in time, are we just sort of like flagging areas? Like there were a couple of things that I wanted to name, but I think maybe we'll be circling back around to all those areas so we can, I can save it for another time. Okay. Great. Thank you. Bob. Yeah. Just a quick question. I've got a couple of different one of these goings. I'm not sure which one we're on to follow here, but I know Chris Fennell, if I'm pronouncing that right, also brought up a question about notification for, has that been addressed in the amendments? So her, yeah, she, her written testimony, proposed putting language, I believe on page nine, which I mentioned. So I'll go back and double check, but, but yes. Thank you. Did Chris have an earlier suggestion though that we're, that we decided she replaced she, she rethought that earlier suggestion and then replace that suggestion and testimony with, with written testimony, subsequent written testimony. Yeah. And Bob, I think you had other questions or feedback. No. Oh, thank you. Okay. Great. And Barbara, I'm going to assume your hand is up from before. Great. Okay. All right. Well, great. Well, this is good. It just will give us something to, to look at and, and work from as we move forward and, and as we wait to hear from the other committees. So, and Eric, I'll touch base with you about, about Dale and reaching out to them. So. Yeah. When you say just about, you say something to work from, right? So do you want me to sort of integrate some of these comments now for purposes of, you know, having it in hand, or do you want to wait for a future markup date or what's your, what are your thoughts? I think it'd be good to take what represented Donahue and add, and then add these as a, into an amendment to, to look at. Yeah. The only, the only part that I didn't follow was you, you went through the working care group things more quickly than I could jot them down. I couldn't really tell whether they were just thoughts for discussion or whether some of them were like, amend the working group itself. So other than that, I think I got a handle on everything. Yeah. I think the working group, it may actually be more of a list right now until we see what healthcare is, you know, what healthcare and corrections are doing and just sort of a, a list of the points to, to be in contact with them. Sure. Okay. That sounds good. Yeah. Okay. Great. So thank you. Thank you, Eric. Thank you, everybody. So let's take a 15 minute break and then we do have some witnesses.