 Welcome folks. This is House Corrections and Institutions Committee. We're going to be picking up where we left off last Friday, which is on with DOC and our CRF, the Corona Relief Fund. And we had some discussions back then of some of the appropriations. And I know that Becky has worked up a little bit of language. It was to transfer dollars between some of the items. And also there's concern from DOC that was raised for the scanners and Wi-Fi and IT equipment. And we're not at the point of saying we need less money. We just don't know how it's all going to play out with the timing in terms of getting the equipment and then the delivery and being able to get the dollars out the door by December 30th. So the thinking was having sort of a check-in in October or November. I've had some conversations with a speaker about this. And she indicated to me that they're hearing this from other areas as well. And the JFO, Steve Klein, is going to be working on some language for a check-in before December 20th. So I don't know what the language is going to say. So that's one piece. The other piece that we were looking at and Sarah Coffey did some work on this, which was the 363,000 for the CJCs and trying to figure out where that money is and if there's a log jam to get it out the door. So Sarah's been doing a lot of work on this the last couple of days. Do we want to start with the language first, Rebeccae? Or do you want to hear from Sarah about the CJCs? Where do people want to go? Or does it not matter? Why don't we go with you, Sarah, for the CJCs and then we can figure out where we want the money to move between what projects? Okay, I think this can be relatively quick. At the request of our chair, I reached out to Jill Evans with the Community Justice Centers to understand what might be going on their side of things with some of these dollars. And then Matt D'Agostino and I had a conversation this afternoon. And I think between Matt, please chime in here anytime. I think we figured out that it's not, it was more of a communication and perception problem about some of those dollars. So we, I think we got to some of the bottom of it is that some of the CJCs are not as comfortable in understanding what these dollars are for. And I think there's some room for clarification on that and there's some flexibility. It sounds like with DOC to figure some of this out. And then there are some real dollars we heard from Matt on Friday around the 111,000 of that 363 that was for transitional housing that that's a real, that's hard to get out the door. And that might be something that we might want to discuss, but that the 252,000 that for the CJCs for specifically, this is stuff for like cleaning supplies, PPE, sneeze guards, laptops, things so that they can do their work outdoor plastic furniture. So COSA groups can still meet. And they're 18 CJCs and different members have different understanding of how this could work. And I think they're all trying to be really careful with their budgets and their grants. And they don't want to do anything wrong. So Matt, we had a great conversation. And Matt, do you want to add anything? I think we figured out like that it might just be a communication issue with some of the CJCs and that some of them might be able to kind of come back to you with some more requests. But why don't you add anything that you'd like? Yes, thank you. Oh, yeah, for the record. Matt, I guess, you know, financial director of corrections, we've I've since heard from from both Derek Midovnik and an email that Jill Evans had sent him. I think there was a little bit of confusion from the CJCs in terms of what they can and can't do. And you know, I could take the blame for that. You know, we were moving very quickly with this. And this is kind of uncharted territory for all of us. I think that the COVID relief fund questionnaires that were that were communicated and just communication in general, we weren't necessarily all on the same page. Now, that said, by no means is anyone restricted in terms of what their requests are so far. We're very flexible in terms of the allocation of funds, the 252,000 of which about 140,000 of that has been requested by the very by several of the CJCs. There are a couple that didn't request any funding at all. And we do want to get to the bottom of that, why there wouldn't be expenses or what confusion there might be. So we have already set up a couple of conversations for starting tomorrow in terms of how we can better communicate this and or answer any questions that there might be outstanding from any of the individual CJCs or as a whole, because there are, I think, a lot of areas where funds were spent previously and it wasn't CARES Act funding because none of us had CARES Act funding in March or April or knew that it was necessarily a guarantee that there would be any. And I think that there's some the comfort level with some of the CJCs might be that traditionally, when you've spent funds and then receive federal funds, you can't just undo the purchase of the expenses you've already incurred because it leads to supplanting and then or thoughts that that's generally prohibited activity. I think we need to kind of have a better a more in-depth conversation maybe at the individual level with the CJCs in terms of if there were expenses incurred, if they were COVID related that if they're from March starting on March 1st, these are eligible expenditures. And I want to make sure that we capture all of those because it is possible in the roughly $150,000 of the $363,000 total that's now been requested, it is possible there's at least some funds that haven't been requested simply because of a misunderstanding. And again, they're not locked out of this process. We've submitted our request in terms of starting to grant and expend these funds, but that by no means does that mean that the $150,000 that's been requested is the cap. We know that we have access to the full amount should the CJCs need that full amount or something more than what's already been requested. So for Sarah and Matt, is there any need for any language to be put in to the appropriations bill to make sure these dollars get out the door? Or do you feel confident enough that the communication avenues have been addressed over the either one of you? I would I might look at the language again, but my sense is that it was pretty clear when we did this with the original dollars. And I think it's I think it's just about how we you know, this is a complicated process and a new process. So I might look back at the language just to double check. But I think I looked at that. I mean, Mary Hooper also looked at the language. I think it's I think it's clear as long as DOC has a clear understanding about what the legislative intent was, I think I believe so. Looking at it, it says that that $252,000 specifically is for direct costs incurred at the centers as a result of COVID-19. I think if we have the flexibility to communicate our interpretation of the intent, which is COVID related expenses, and so it says incurred, but I think incurred could be slightly confusing because some haven't incurred these costs yet. There's some in fact that I believe haven't had any COVID related costs because they didn't have funding for those costs prior to prior to this language going in. They had no ability to spend funds because they they didn't know they'd be reimbursed for those and didn't have them available. So there may be some confusion with the word incurred, but if we're if we're if we're able to read this intent as incurred, not as a previously incurred from the period March 1st through December 30th, I think that that we have there's plenty of flexibility in the language to enable all of the expenses that that have or will be expended to to be approved if they're eligible. So questions from the committee or folks? What people are thinking? Kurt? Yeah, just for for my edification, what is the communication path if something happens that we need to get something out to all 18 CJCs? Is there is there a central person or how does that work? So yes, there's so there's there's the grant managers for the for the Community Justice Center grants and Derek Midovnik is our restorative justice director and he heads he heads the group that works with them. I think Derek and and his staff are the ones largely that interact with the the CJCs and and any of the entities related to the CJCs. So there is a way of and we've been on a couple of or I've been on a zoom call now. I know he's done several of them similar to how we're all doing these in terms of communicating and reaching out to all of the Justice Center directors at one time. Okay, this is a very quick turnaround in terms of any any additional communication we need to have and and clarifying with them any any concerns. Okay. Other questions, butch? Oh, Matt or Sarah. So the the I'm getting the feeling or the thought or whatever the CJCs were scared to because they didn't know how to or what it was eligible for or they just don't want to bother or all of the three. I could I can respond to that Madam Chair. Okay, so because I spoke I reached out to a couple of CJCs and my local CJC was one of the ones that did not apply for the for the funding because for some of the reasons which that you said like you know kind of like they've they've to figure out their priorities and there's a lot happening right now and so they they just were like oh no I'm I'm gonna do a our CJC and did some extra fundraising that wound up covering some of these costs but that that would have gone to something else and so I think that there was the perception by some of them that maybe the funding wouldn't be there so they didn't want to spend the money. So I think Matt and I figured out what where maybe some of the things might have gone astray and that there it sounds to me that between Matt and and Derek that there's going to be another communication to let folks know and I and I circled back with Jill Evans too to let her know a little bit about what was going on because I think the environment that we're all we see this with our schools you know like our school janitors don't know that there's funding to pay for the the special cleaning supplies that are needed all you know that's it's we're I think it's similar here and that's what I heard from the few CJCs that I spoke to and from Jill so I think I think there were I think there were two who didn't apply one was from Brattleboro and the other one might have been from Rutland that's right so so butch you might want to I mean I just want to marry we got married from well you said Brattleboro not Bennington so Brattleboro and Rutland we got so if you look in the chat Becky just sent us all a chat that incurred in the language it's in the act incurred is costs incurred between March 1st and December 30th so it's pretty clear that yeah I just wanted to point out that that the section that appropriates to DOC is part of the greater coronavirus relief fund section and and there are some administrative provisions that are tied to that and and it clarifies the time period so thank you for that Becky that will help DOC with knowing what incurred means Marsha what it might be wise then to just check in with our local CJC and ask them it might be that might be the path and not worry about any language is what I'm thinking too does that make sense to the committee does that make sense to you Sarah and Matt that we just check in with our local CJCs and sure and and and I think that makes a lot of sense to be proactive about it and it sounds to me also that Jill Evans is is kind of a liaison between all the CJCs and DOC and I circled back with her and I just want to say there was there was a form that that that people got and Matt and I agreed that we could understand how it would be confusing because it looked as if like if you're starting a new program compared to expenses that need to be reimbursed so I think you know we're all moving fast here so yes we have a good solution butch so even though many of us are going to check with our local CJCs would it be wise to and I think Matt you said you were going to do it anyway just to reiterate and restate the conditions and eligibility requirements to every CJC either in an email or some some form of communications through Jill or or somebody officially so that we double check and triple check so we want to make sure they're taken care of I agree with that because I think you need to have that that connection with the DOC so that it's directly in case one of us missed being in contact with our ahead of our C our community justice centers. So I'm hearing and seeing support of that as the path forward and not any language makes sense okay that one's easy so let's transition to Becky with the language that she has worked up and Phil maybe you could post it or put it on the screen we talked about moving money around and where we were thinking is not moving money from the CJCJC's we wanted to move money between the 327 that would be going was it there no that one was for the network um no it wasn't there we were going to keep money there it was the 760,000 for the scanners temperature scanners and the 700,000 with the wi-fi and heat mapping we were thinking of allowing money to be moved between those two projects those two items then it was the 350,000 that they're for domestic violence and direct rentals and there was thinking that not all of the direct rentals would be out the door and then the balance could go to the domestic violence program so there were two different places that we were looking at to move money around so Becky I know was participating and listening in but she was also working on other things at the same time so some might have gotten lost in the translation or not so I'm going to turn it over to Becky and walk us through the language and we may have to change this a little bit and also Becky if you know anything of what's going on with joint fiscal with Steve Klein and looking at a check-in like maybe in October or November? Yeah I um I do know that there's um language is going to be worked on sort of generally for all um CRF money that's unexpended um and a check-in and uh it's uh I'm working on it too so it's not done yet but it is being worked on um Becky is that going to be with joint fiscal committee or is it going to be with the emergency board or who um it's not really finalized all yet but I think there will be a legislative um a sort of approval process involved in in how to prioritize any unexpended funds. Okay right so why don't you walk us through this? Sure so um I just wanted to point out um in the first paragraph here this is from Act 120 the the quarter one budget and I just um we're just looking at the amount the 2.5 million that was appropriated to DOC from coronavirus relief funds and so there is already some language in here that I wanted to point out to the committee that um starting on line six it says that these funds are are allocated below allocations that cannot be used by December 30th may be reallocated to other eligible COVID-19 cost categories and if um there is a reallocation that would be reported to justice oversight finance and management and the joint fiscal office um so there is some provision already that was baked into the Act 120 to allow for some reallocation authority for DOC um so I just wanted to point that out because it's kind of general and I don't know what you want to do right now is be more specific about um how that money can be reallocated. So Becky I'm going to interrupt you there would that then allow DOC line six through eight would that then allow DOC to transfer money between the temperature scanner line item and the Wi-Fi and heat mapping and IT equipment? I think I actually think that it does allow that I think that it's well it allows it if it can't be used so I don't know how that is um interpreted by DOC is it it can't be used because they didn't have enough funding to buy a body scanner or it can't be used because the product is not available yet like I so I don't know um um it doesn't really define what the reason why it can't be used is um but I think it it could it could perhaps be broad enough to cover that situation. So if anyone has any questions I can only see a portion of you. I have a question. Okay Kurt. Uh regrettably but um line seven I realize this is I don't know if it's existing law but it's not something we were planning to change but line seven um the funds are allocated below comma shouldn't that be a this is current law okay but it still still doesn't make sense should that be a period in the capital A for allocations um it could be uh this is not something that I think um I think this was part of the the JFO budget bill drafting process so I don't I actually don't know if all of the um sort of introductory paragraphs are like that I can double check on that and um but you're you're right it's not really a full sentence okay sorry that's in the appropriations world yeah but even the appropriations world has to use full sentence other questions point yeah other questions to speak up because I can't see all of you we have a question does DOC feel that allocations that cannot be used by December 30th gives you that flexibility to move particularly between those two items of scanners and the IT Matt Matt I'll let you answer that you you know better than I believe so I believe in Iowa I was aware of this language when we were speaking about this last week I just wanted to be certain that if we if we know that there's going to be a higher cost in one area or not the expended not the full expenditures of an allocation in another area that that this language actually did give us the authority the ability to to do that because it it's slightly restrictive I don't think so restrictive to Becky's point earlier that that that we can't do it but it's it's not it's not as clear as the language sometimes is regarding moving funds from one area to another I just wanted to be certain because it is federal funding because it was allocated specifically for these particular purposes that if we knowingly you know have less expenses in one category and move it to another that there won't be an issue with that again reading it doesn't seem like there would be but we just want to be certain before we do that and of course there's there is the need to speak with joint the legislative justice oversight committee finance and management joint fiscal so it's not like we'd be doing this without anyone knowing about and of course there's going to be a conversation if that happens but I believe the language allows us to do this and when we'd be able to work within the confines of this anything else in the committee before we continue down we do this in the capital something similar to this in the capital bill too and in section typically in section two we outright say that the commissioner can move money around and he has to notify the chairs of the committee and I'm just wondering if the language is proposed here is a good backup language so that there's no question when the money moves and just people get notified or if it's redundant it's redundant but sometimes redundancy is the best thing to have well if you look at the justice oversight you've got I'm on the committee you're on the committee um senator sears who's part of the appropriations committee on the senate side I'm trying to thank who else you got uh senator hooker senator lions mary over mary yeah you have mary so you've got the bases covered on justice oversight other questions comments speak up I can't see you all so Becky why don't you bring us down to the rest you've got the 760 for the scanners 700 for the it and then you added some language there at the end of the it section yeah sure so um on lines 19 to 21 um would I and I may have missed her the the discussion but what I thought was being discussed was moving um any unexpended it money to the the temperature scanner and body scanner line item so the language here says that any funds not expended for the purpose in this subdivision for the technology upgrades may be used for the purpose described in 10 a which is the body scanner and temperature scanner so I I don't know if um you want a greater flexibility than that to allow body scanner temperature scanner funds to be used for technology upgrades if that's a case and I would have to um perhaps put the same language in in the line item above in a in subdivision a um if you want to be more specific than what is in that introductory paragraph so I'm wondering if we're in conflict with the language um Phil if you can scroll it so we can see that introductory paragraph if we're in conflict with that because allocations that cannot be used we're talking all the allocations are in this section so it's more than just a and b but also deals with the 350 000 for rentals and domestic violence as well as the CJCs so in the opening paragraph it appears as if within all of those a b c and d you can move money around and then when you go down to a and b you're limiting and I think what we were thinking between a and b you could move money just between those two a and b so if temperature scanners came in higher and technology came in lower you could move the money up to temperature temperature scanners and vice versa is that in conflict with that opening paragraph where it's saying you can do it through with all of those that are listed below um I think it's sort of being more specific I think that in the the introductory paragraph is pretty broad um but I do think that if you want to prioritize how you want the money to move then I would suggest uh maybe taking it out of a and b specifically and moving the language up to the you know to add it to six through through eight to um just clarify maybe a priority of you know you know first priority would be to move between a and b um if you want to be that specific I just I don't know how sort of prescriptive the committee wants to be with the ability to move money around there is a there is a big difference here though because in the first paragraph it says that cannot be used by December 30 and the other paragraphs that we're talking about just say uh not expand expanded on any time so the first paragraph has to wait till December 20 30th before it can reallocate doesn't it um no I think uh what that is saying is if if DOC determines that they're not able to to allocate it by December 30th so I would say I mean I don't know this might be a question from that but like for example there might be something that you know by October 15th that you're not going to be able to use the money for by December 30th and I think that language in six through eight um would cover that scenario I see yeah that's reasonable and I think I might have been on mute before when I was talking about the conflict so I'm sorry about that um I have a child who's not in school right now so I'm trying to be on mute as much as possible so we can we hear your child that's fine yes yes um yeah that's fine so um um what I was saying is that I I think that there's perhaps a conflict in that the language and the introductory paragraph is is pretty broad and then you're creating this sort of priority with A and B so it could create some um it could just be like an uncertain decision for DOC about how that how they what the intent of the legislature was so I think if you know I think first you just have to decide if you want to be that specific and if so I would probably recommend um taking that language that I added in on line 19 and just um maybe creating a sort of a priority list in the introductory paragraph about how DOC might think about moving the money around um to just show what the the intent of the legislature is um because I do think if they have some unexpended money and then there's those these two um sets of language that they might not know what the committee's preference was right it's yeah I mean that's what I was thinking DOC wouldn't wouldn't know which way to go because it seems like they're not um in tangent not together why don't we scroll down because we've got the temperature scanners we got the IT upgrade and then we have the three for the justice centers and then we have the 350 for the rental housing and um and what's the other in the domestic violence so when we were talking last Friday we were okay with the 350 with the rental housing and the domestic violence to be um reallocated or to be used between those two where DOC could move money between those two we were okay with A and B moving within those two we wanted to keep C with the justice centers uh protected we didn't want those dollars to be tapped for A, B, or D are we still thinking that yeah yes yeah other folks I'm thinking that if rather than have the if the money can't be used for the CJCs then I think it should be able to be used at any other DOC purpose listed here as opposed to return on December 20th I mean if we can use it in for the scanners we might as well Sarah I think the the the challenge with that is that I think the scanners need to be ordered earlier than that and I do I I I feel pretty strongly about wanting to protect that money for the CJCs because I think we received information that they really can use it so um and that the it might be about clarifying in the language as our chair was was saying that might be about the and Becky about prioritizing things because I agree we don't want to leave any money on the table but we want to make sure that the decision about how it gets taken off the table is in a you know in a priority order because I think those scanners will need to be ordered soon and what we heard on Friday was that some of the IT upgrades we already know are not going to be possible so that's I think where I heard at least all of the committee members saying that there was that made a lot of sense to give that flexibility now um and so maybe there's a better way to to maybe maybe it's about pulling that out and putting up top I don't know Becky and might know other folks I think the fear was that we had on Friday because we're so uncertain with the CJCs we didn't want that money pulled to go towards the other items that's what we were concerned about and I think that concern is still there um yeah and I don't know how would we list our priorities I mean our priorities are A, B, C and D um in D we're saying that um you can move money between domestic violence and rental housing within that 350,000 only and then we're also saying in A and B because it's more equipment that we're purchasing and IT equipment keep those two together and move money between those two is that where we still are as a committee? Alyssa it's Carl here I um so I just on the scanners they have some real benefits to the facilities beyond the whole pandemic piece the degree that you know I don't I don't know if we'll be able to get all the ones that we want or if we'll be able to spend all that money but um I think to the degree that we can get them we should do that because there's some cost savings there for the department down the road in terms of staffing and or not so much staffing but it frees up staff to do other things um but at the same time I really think that all the money that the CJCs are eligible for they should get so I'm not sure how to how to parse that out and all this but that's that's sort of where I am with this. Other folks? Is it too cumbersome to have a have uh something saying that they need to before they move anything from the CJCs they need to check with us or check with you or something? I could do that I don't know I don't know. Why would we move money from the CJCs I mean give us a chance to touch base with them and see if they're using it right back in so so if it if DOC touches base with them and it finds out that it can't be used there is and they want to reallocate it the provision in the first paragraph says that there is that notification um to justice oversight um finance and management and JFO. So maybe the key to dealing with this is approaching it backwards in that the introductory paragraph does allow for movement between A and B and C and D between all of those they can move between A, B, C and D however they well not however they wish but if there's no I can't see the first paragraph but no cost incurred what we want to do is carve out the CJCs from that sentence on line six through eight that's really what we're doing and we want to hold the CJC money aside from being um allocated reallocated to the other items below to the scanners to the wi-fi it to domestic violence to um rental assistance we're saying for all those other items you can move the money around but for the CJCs that's held harmless and we're not taking money from there that's what I'm hearing the committee say well that does assume that the I mean they have 140k that's already uh allocated there's 252k for all together right so that's assuming there's another 112k that they'll be able to come up with no Sarah well I think Matt can probably answer that question more clearly I think it's 252 to the CJCs and then within that this the CJCs also work on with transitional housing programs so there was a hundred and eleven thousand dollars yeah but that's on top of that's that that brings it up to 363 what Kurt is saying there's 252 for direct programming to CJCs and 140 has already been requested so that leaves you 112,000 that has not been requested I see um yeah and if you divide that by 18 CJCs that's 62 a little over 62,000 which one the 252 the remaining 112, oh brother like I said I think we should touch base with them and see if the ones that haven't applied and see why and maybe we can help them out so if I may that's Matt related to the language we know we're commissioner I hearing loud and clear related to C the 363,000 that there wouldn't be the same flexibility in that particular item given that the the introductory paragraph requires that we get approval from Joint Justice Oversight and others I don't I don't know if the language needs to be tweaked in any way where we our hope is that we can work with the community justice centers to at least on the $252,000 piece fund them more fully from that from that allocation the 111,000 for transitional housing could be a little bit more challenging and that's a couple of reasons there's of the 18 I believe there's four justice centers that have transitional housing attachments and because this funding is limited I think that that because it's only through December 30th they don't have the same ability that they would if this were a longer term for instance you know if they wanted to get an additional apartment or building or something they're not they wouldn't be able to sign a lease knowing that this is one time funding that that ends in December so I think that the request that we've seen from there the roughly 13,000 of that while I suspect we might be able to help them increase that request it's very unlikely that we would get to the full 11,000 given that the restrictions on those expenditures but again related to the language if our understanding is is that this is money that stays in that allocation and doesn't get moved to the other subsections the first the introductory paragraph does that as long as we're understanding at DOC that we're not going to request it through Joint Justice Oversight Finance and Management Joint Fiscal Office well you know if you really look at this language in the opening paragraph it isn't that the Justice Oversight and Finance Management and JFO needs to approve it it's just that you report it there's no approval process so maybe with the 363,000 there needs to be an approval process and maybe just do the approval process through the Justice Oversight Committee before any money is reallocated Alice can I ask Matt a question mm-hmm Matt I just emailed Susan Cherry who's head of the CJC in St. John'sbury and she said that that she hasn't seen anything from her request yet well we these so the the grant the grants with the community with the community justice centers need to be amended to include these federal dollars um before we're able to do that we have to get approval of the spending authority and that's that's through the the CRF questionnaires that are being approved reviewed and approved by agency of administration once that's completed we can actually issue the grants to them um perhaps one of the failures here is that there's no new news for them but we should communicate to them that we've we know they know we've received their requests I don't think there's been communication good enough conversation or communication to let them know that we haven't received news for an update there's there's this is still being worked on their requests effectively what they've requested is what we've requested to fund them with but we haven't received an approval of that quite yet so it's not it's not that there's no news because we we because these requests aren't going anywhere it's there's no news because we don't have the ability to grant those funds yet but the intent is to grant everything they've requested when we worked with them at the early stages on their requests so far there's not something that's been requested that doc isn't supportive of thank you for getting through the the processes to to fund them for this these items okay so Becky were you going to weigh in or not yeah i'm just trying to uh think through carving out the cjcs and getting approval um and just how that timing would work with the fact that the money has to be spent by the end of the year um and also just with the language that i know is being worked on which is going to allow so i think i think department and agencies that have not spent their money at the beginning in october are going to have to report if that money was not spent um so there might be sort of like a greater force in the background that is going to be just deciding what to do with that money so in some ways i almost it almost seems like i'm i guess a concern i would have is that if you carve out that you can't reallocate any of those funds and then for some reason they're not um used in october and then doc has to report that um does that somehow put at risk those funds generally than from being able to be perhaps reallocated to one of the other cost categories here um i i don't really know the answer i'm just trying to think through that but i just wouldn't want that to be the result by somehow um saying like you can't touch that particular line item sarah just to follow up on what becky was saying i think a lot of this is a very tight timeline um from what i understand from how it's working with the agency of the administration and doc in these grants and so i would have a little bit of concern about making another hoop that then leaves 111 thousand dollars or something on the table that can't be used i mean is it worth having a conversation about the transitional housing dollars that doc is fairly confident cannot get out the door like of that 363 um so it feels like we've gone complete circle to um go back to where we were not with becky doing any additional drafting what she presented to us just go back to what's in the current act and not change anything i mean that's where i'm sort of it feels like we've gone full circle going back to um the original language and not looking at anything that becky has drafted to this point funds are going to be allocated below and allocations that cannot be used by the 30th maybe reallocated to other eligible COVID cost categories and any of those reallocations would be reported to the oversight committee commissioner of finance management and joint fiscal office so the way the language is currently in law doesn't cover what we want so we have to have as a committee have to have some degree of trust with the current commissioner and his team as as they're operating today we know or i think i know that his desire to strengthen our cjcs and transitional housing is is pretty strong i would and what i've heard from matt today i think they'll make every effort to expend all the money they can in in those areas in a judicious manner so i i have that kind of trust in the commissioner and he doesn't do it he can talk to justice oversight and we'll put him in the hot seat so i'm comfortable with with the current language in lines six to eight and just kind of leave it alone and let them manage this money because of the short timelines involved other folks sarah are you nodding yes or yes yeah i would agree with that too i think the most important thing is to get the money spent yeah i agree too it's fun to spend money right so we've come full circle to keep the current language in law the way it is and not do any new drafting i'd still change the comment to a period i think you gotta let that one go kirk so well hey matt could you let us know when you do get the ability to send the grant dollars out absolutely we'll do our hope is our hope is that in the in the next couple of days or sometime next week we'll have we'll have the we'll have that that answer and and be able to we'll communicate out prior to this of course and and let let everyone know where where it is in the process but the hope is by sometime by next week that we would have the ability to start moving these funds and grant change amending the grants to include the requested dollars before we do that of course we want to make sure that we're not excluding any amounts that perhaps were left off the original request so there there's a couple of steps we need to take here but we will definitely keep the cjcs as well as you all apprised of where we're at thank you and eyes will be looking many eyes are going to be looking in sarah i just want to express my appreciation to matt who's been really responsive and and i appreciate you helping our community justice centers you know figure out how to use this these these federal dollars i really appreciate the work you're doing thank you thank you okay so that completes our work for today on this particular piece there's another issue i want to bring up for how we our work for coming up on thursday which is a little different madam chair before you move to that i just want to i just want to say i appreciate representative shah and his comments and you know you all know i've said this many times the justice centers have my personal commitment and corrections commitment they are going to be and they are a vital piece of what community corrections is going to look like five years from now and we need to invest every penny we can in them and um so you have my word that you know for some reason we run into problems we're going to come back to you we're not moving money that money was that money was uh you know a box was put around that money for the purposes of supporting them so appreciate that right the representative you now know why i was so happy that matt came back to work for corrections you now know why i was so happy i do he's an asset that's both of you are so so we don't have any recommendations to give to appropriations on any of the crf dollars the only recommendation was you really need to have a check-in sometime in october or november and that's being worked on by joint fiscal office so so that ties up all of our work on our budgets um and we did good work and that should be behind us did we send an official letter on the bgs piece to everything was unofficial when peter fagan was here we sent him off and then when mary was here we sent her off last friday on the doc budget and then we started working on the crf for that so for our work going forward um i was reached out to and and sort of had my statement as well there's work happening within two of our committees house judiciary and house government operations committee on racial equity and and social justice work and racial justice work a lot of terms are used sort of interchangeably as you know when we were in session at the end of june there was legislation passed about use of force uh for law enforcement and um there is thinking that we've just been looking at law enforcement in terms of racial justice or the whole social equity and corrections is really an important piece and i think that was brought up particularly with a situation that occurred with uh kenneth johnson um i think it's also coming into play with what occurred within the chitinon correctional facility over the years not just a chitinon facility but across the system with the sexualized work environment um there's lots of issues happening with uh inmates with mental health issues and how people can people empower or people with control over folks have some implicit bias and a number of arenas so it it was requested that we take a look at this within the corrections world and i stepped up to the plate and said yes we this committee should take a look at this this is our jurisdiction we understand corrections it's not getting into a deep dive because we just don't have the time to do this because we're only going to be in session a few more weeks um but it's to lay the groundwork for how we proceed in january and maybe come up with some simple language of maybe doing a report report back to us in terms of how the training should possibly look look like to encompass racial justice for social equity however you want to phrase it i had a conversation with the commissioner today earlier today about this and um commissioner if i can just quickly just turn it over to you and what your thoughts are a little bit on this and from there we can possibly see if we can set up some testimony to begin our work come thursday morning with some folks and one thing i did ask the commissioner is if we did something like this who who would doc want to be working with um as a whole piece here so i'm going to turn it over to you commissioner and thank you madam chair first of all let me start out by saying that um if you are you if you are anywhere in a leadership role in any place in the criminal justice system and you're not paying attention to this issue of equity then um you're you're you're um you're not paying attention i mean all we have to do is look up what's happening across the country and um you know i i think historically for correctional institutions and correctional departments and i don't mean this specifically to vermont i'm talking about systems in general they've kind of looked at it as well you know we just supervised the folks that the court send us or whatever the case may be um but there's plenty of places in the correctional system where bias can sneak into decision-making and uh madam chair is right um when you have power and control over people's lives it's important that you step back and do a self-evaluation of how you use that power and control you know i i set a message out to the entire department on a video um after the george floyd case in minnesota and i talked about that power differential that we we possess and that we have to pay attention to how we use that and it isn't just about it is not just about um individuals of color you know black skin brown skin folks it's um it's around gender it's around sexual preference it's around religious beliefs it's around a whole host of things that um i think the time is right for vermont department of corrections to step up and be a leader now as i explained to the chair prior in our conversation today we're we're starting to do a lot of that work in fact just before i i got on here i was on an hour and a half briefing that our leads on our hiring process gave to um the dhr to include the commissioner about what we're doing to change the hiring process and we've already we've already engaged tavis the moore for rullin and double acp who advise us as we develop the hiring process where can bias sneak into the system and this goes to your point madam chair about training and and there was a i was saying to the chair when we talked at noon time today there was an incident i was just briefed about um this morning by staff around an incident where a mom had called about conditions and her son in jail and he happens to be somewhat of color and our reaction to that followed the protocol no doubt about it but the protocol ended up with a bad outcome and so it's kind of you know it's one thing to hide behind we follow protocol it's another thing to step back and go did we have to follow that protocol and did we follow that protocol because this person was a person of color and that's a very hard conversation so i'm i'm all for getting into this conversation um you know as as we talked about earlier madam chair i'm a little hesitant to get into too heavy lifting right now um before january um 338 is is uh pretty heavy lifting for us right now we pretty much got two staff members that's all they're doing um five days a week is work on the implementation of 338 with csg but i wouldn't like to have this conversation and start the conversation and maybe come back with some recommendations in january and i mentioned this to you madam chair i think i would like to come in in january with recommendations about a legislative package that deals with some of the challenges that i think corrections has and i really think that our position in the system is not much different than the position of a police officer in the system we we owe a lot of authority um we have we have a lot of control over people's lives especially when they're incarcerated but we also have a lot of control over people's lives in the community too and so i think um i'll say it again if you're in the justice system and you're not thinking about this then you're not thinking and i think that's uh that's an important conversation to start having with your committee and i mean i think we could come in and start talking about we're doing a lot of work in the space right now and the first part of the work is um being willing to have the conversation because it's not easy um if you're as old as i am and been around for a while and i've had a lot of conversations about issues around race in my career it's still uncomfortable to talk about it it's uncomfortable and as i said to staff this morning in this situation that we chatted about the only way that you're going to start changing that culture to open up that dialogue is it's not about being hard on employees it's about having the conversation and having it so um with some level of sophistication and education that you understand what this issue is about because a lot of folks react to it unsophisticated on educating and i think that's the piece that we need to focus on inside corrections so and the last piece i'll talk about is many times in these situations you may have somebody that's a very tough situation to deal with they've been in and out of the system for a while and kind of referencing the situation that i have briefed on this morning you know folks are in and out of the system a lot the system's hardened the hell out of them and they're not easy to deal with they're not easy for the corrections officers to deal with but there is a level of procedural justice that we deserve to give to them but also to change this conversation our employees have to have a level of procedural justice too it's not all about okay you violated that policy and we need to do something with you it's more about having the conversation around equity in the system and making sure we're being fair and partial to everybody we deal with there is no way of becoming imperfect in this area but i do think opening up this dialogue and i had mentioned to the chair and i'd actually mentioned the senator sears at one point as this conversation unfolds on the policing side of the issue um i think it should be more than just policing and criminal justice by the way because there's a lot of bias in other pieces of the system just not police and just not corrections but as this conversation unfolds you would do a very big injustice to the system if you didn't include corrections at the time that conversation we had yeah i appreciate your take on all this thank you commissioner and we do have a question uh carl thank you commissioner i uh i appreciate what you had to say i like the idea of um some sort of uh uh legislative package and your thoughts on that next january last january when i think you first came and met us for the first time along with secretary smith um three words that we heard a lot of and the three words we've heard a lot of all along here have been hiring supervision and training it in in your mind is that are those the three issues here is that what needs work or is there something beyond that that also uh we'd like to as i as i stated at this meeting i was at earlier i think hiring is one of the big keys i think hiring is one of the big keys supervision is one of the big keys to and education um around the issues of equity fairness and in partiality in the system is is a is a big piece that'll go a long ways of changing the culture representative i think you have to remember that um in the situation i described this morning um folks followed the protocol the one i'm told about the protocol just didn't feel right but that's how folks have been trained and educated to deal with someone who wasn't compliant right and they followed protocol and they didn't do anything wrong but just because you didn't do anything wrong doesn't mean it was the right decision if you know what i mean so part of that is also this slow process of educating people and i and i and i'm kind of adding on the education about open dialogue and having people who are who have been part of the system help you better understand what it's like to be in that system if that makes sense yeah that completely makes sense i i i get that i and i get that you know when you're talking about changing hiring and changing uh training and changing supervision you're talking about changing culture that's it's uh and again you know i have to say this and i sometimes i forget to say it um the folks in corrections right now are working under enormous pressure and um what they do every day is just amazing to me um and i've been around the block a few times you all know um so the majority of the employees we are are doing the right thing even when they do the right thing we still have to evaluate on this issue of equity just i'll say it again just because it's the right thing doesn't mean it's the right thing if you know what i mean follow protocol doesn't mean that you couldn't have found another way to deal with the situation is what i mean and that's where i think the opportunities for bias sneak into the system thank you commissioner thank you sir kurt um i have a couple of questions i was wondering um madam chair how this fits in with what you put your hearing with our report coming back uh december 1st from s 338 having to do with um racial inequity and things like that is that part of it or are you i'm just not sure and i think that's what maybe our work is to kind of vet this out a little bit and see where the s 338 work uh plays in um but also trying to to maybe carve out something a little different what i'm hearing here is the culture within corrections that's tied into hiring that's tied into training and maybe what we need to look at is the front end which is maybe the training piece of it and that's not where s 338 is focused in on 338 focused in on getting the data um we're looking at a level of how can you take those first steps to address the culture change within the context of racial justice okay uh i had a question yep uh question for the commissioner you've said several times that the difficulty isn't hiring it's retaining uh people is it just a without retaining is that people who are coming in and they're only there a little while and they're saying this is not for me i'm out of here or is it the older ones who have been there longest and you can't keep them there or how does that break down so interesting often you know represented Howard you asked that question because that was part of the presentation and i'm really thinking at some point i'd like to have the staff that worked on this hiring strategy come in and brief the joint justice committee and whoever else wants to hear it you know it may take almost an hour to do it i mean i know they can shorten it down but um it's it's it's it's the first not the last we're so when when when the presentation was made today the latest numbers are we lose about 15 people a month that leave and a big chunk of them are self-selected out they're not retiring they're self-selecting out i think part of the issue is you know you all know this we spent eight million dollars a year in overtime last year right that's an enormous amount of overtime and and 90 percent of it's forced overtime i just had a conversation with uh with a relative of someone who works for us who was explaining to me how this young man may move on because he can't deal with the forced overtime you know he works the the two to ten shift and then all of a sudden that you know uh 10 o'clock at night he's being told he's got to stay until two in the morning right and um that young professional that we're looking for you all know this they have a much more balanced life than i did when i was 25 or 26 right i would work all the overtime i could at the state police because back then we didn't get paid overtime you would just work and i think there's a much more balanced life but the problem is we're so it's kind of like being on a treadmill and we keep pushing the button up to 10 and now we're at 20 we keep running we're not going anywhere because it's this constant churn of people so the retention's a big piece because it'll cut down on the forced overtime and um people are getting fed up with that now we don't know for sure i'm guessing on that but a big piece of what we're doing right now is collecting data i i'd kind of like to comment on the other piece that um i i would urge you to think about keeping 338 a little separate from this conversation because i would not want the issue of equity to get mixed in and kind of drown it out in the bigger conversation of what a 338 is all about which is eventually getting to the point of having a more robust community justice system correction system excuse me and focus on a conversation about equity because i think it's a big conversation it's tough it's hard to have it's hard to move people on people can be set in their ways so i i just i just made that comment i mean it's clearly up to you how you want to proceed but there is a piece in 338 that i think applies to it around the way that we dealt with furlough interrupts we have no idea of bias knocking to those decisions or not no i did because we have no data one way or the other that's why 338 is so important to start collecting the data taking a look at in context and so on but the conversation about equity and how you hire and how you train for the first time in the last class we spent eight hours with tabitha moor the president of the n double acp and rufflin presented to the class for a whole day on equity and bias and it was a as i understand it was a fascinating conversation and that's how you start getting people to think about how does that come into play in my role as a correct and that might be important for us i mean i'm putting this out to see for thursday and possibly friday to bring some of the folks in and talk to us that might be able to give us some direction on what language we can propose to the bills that are working through house government operations and house judiciary to get the wheels going in this get the ball rolling not to do the deep dive but just to say hey this is the first cut at this and this is the direction we're going to look at um and then do a much deeper dive come january so you have a couple questions sarin then budge but the commissioner kind of said what i was going to offer to say with the keeping the data piece separate is important but in the same report i'm hoping that we can hear from you know there was a pretty extensive rdap report that etan gave to us and include it was about and there were a number of different issues and one was the issues relating to justice reinvestment but the other one was a topic about training you know and i think that so i think that he along with some of the folks from the nwcp might be helpful if that's what you're asking us for madam chair about some folks who might be you know be able to lend their expertise around it and i know commissioner i appreciate what you're saying because early on you talked about training um as being an important piece of this and it's that we have this opportunity with the the legislation that's in um i think would it boot it most likely alice go on be part of the gov ops the bill that's the gov ops is working with or do we not do we have a sense oh yeah both both committees are working and if we start working on this we'll have to work with betsy and rass and bren here okay for that i'm excited to do this sorry sorry i just want to say madam chair thank you for i think this is a wonderful opportunity and having the commissioners input on this is in support of it is wonderful so thank you you know and we're very active in the disparity panel matter of fact one of my staff was with a ton of folks today they had a press conference um we emphasized you revisiting the report talking about the next steps we're very actively involved with that with that group that's great uh butch and then we'll tie this up so that we can uh let fill we can give some direction for phil poor phil's been working a lot today so it's time for us to finish and he can connect with folks tomorrow and see if they're available for thursday so butch oh thanks alice so jim this is kind of like uh 12 steps sounds like a 12-step program first of all you have to admit that you've got a problem and thank you all for bringing this forward because we know you do have a problem uh and so it's important we're going to talk about we'll try to figure out something to try to get something together to kick kick start the game here a little bit or start the ball rolling or whatever you want to call it but when you talk about training many people just go like well we'll fix it in the academy we'll get these new recruits we'll train them and all that but that's that's the real easy part it's the continuing education for your rather 1100 or so employees whatever it is today to bring them along with the new guys the new guys i have faith that they'll be fine they're they're younger and they're smarter they're faster the quicker they're all that stuff than we all are so they'll be fine it's it's the existing employees that will be tougher i think and i and i think back to the bill we passed requiring uh driver or state ids when people are released there is another provision in that bill to ask uh pmp officers to train some of the we weren't even asking to train the pmp officers but we're asking them to do a little job with the people that they were they were coming out of their control we got pushback we would do a lot of pushback on that and uh we left it in the bill i don't know how it's going we've never asked but we've got a lot of pushback on that from from that group of employees so we need to figure out a way amongst us how to make this happen yeah that representative show i think just my point i think sometimes when you get into this conversation probably there could be some staff members listening to me talk right now and they're they're going to say he thinks we're racist and that's not what this conversation is about it's about keeping the opportunities for bias out of the system and making yourself aware of that and you're right i mean the younger folks have had experience my experience over the years now is that when you ask a younger person you're hiring you know mid 20s you know what's your experience around um diversity and ethnicity and so on and you know they look at you like what are you talking about you know my my roommate my roommate was was uh was black and you know they have they've had a different experience the problem is it's the system and people get trapped in the system and so i think again we're not talking about we're not talking about open racism or open it's that implicit bias that is just so slow and you're 100 right you've got to be able to admit that that may exist before you start having the conversation it's kind of fascinating now just in my conversations in corrections now about this issue and how people were starting to say you know um we need to face this and take a look at it to see where we are because we don't want to be someone that treats folks just with disparity and really and i think it's been unfortunately proven that it's not this this conversation not all just about race i mean we have sexism we have a workplace harassment of anybody so there's a yes don just about race and you know from the rollin days that some of the bias was around socioeconomic status that's a that's a huge that's a huge bias that you know some of us have had over the years that we've had to confront how folks that that sit in a socioeconomic status that's different than ours and i think that's a huge that's another example of what i'm talking about it's just not about ethnicity and race so i want to move this along because it's after 4 30 and we've had a long day but phil one what i'm hearing for thursday maybe friday is to start vetting this so that next week we can come up with some language um that we could offer to the other house committees it would have to of course be doc i don't know if it'd be the commissioner or whomever the commissioner would want to bring in i would check with at anton aton i have trouble his name with the racial disparity panel um there's tabitha more with n double acp and also there's the racial equity task force that the governor has set up and the lead person on that is ywanda davis is that correct susanna davis she'd be a key piece so she would be a key and i think we also need to bring vsea into the conversation too because we're dealing with staff with that that's going to be for thursday and friday you can't do all of that one day but i'd like to hear people's thoughts on this and suggestions on how we can do just the first like get the ball rolling we're not going to do an in-depth legislation on this but what are some of the places the highlights that we need to look at so that we can put in maybe intent language or we could say we want to report back by the middle of january and in january on how to best proceed to implement these x y and z be it hiring be it training be it supervision um whatever so and it will allow time for committee members to vet think this through as well does that make sense phil uh yes and if i have any questions i know how to reach you alice okay thanks uh kurt uh that that sounds good to me um i i'd like to talk sometime uh thursday or friday about woodside a little bit just from what sarah and i um what we heard from the human services committee and the status of woodside just so we keep people appraised and uh quick question speaking of speaking of that kurt did you see the news last night on channel three no well they're going to close it october first yeah it's well anyway we should talk about that well the legislature needs to act this september for that so anyway another quick question for the commissioner i september first was the date for emergency rules to be submitted having to do with good time do you do know whether those are how that's progressing i don't know off the top of my head but i can get back to you okay um i mean i know that they that the team that's working on 338 um has been working i wasn't brief exactly on the rules for good time yeah okay thanks so hang on sarah well i think of this for phil it might be worth also to reach out to brian and betsy brian here and betsy and rass to figure out which one would want to listen in or or zoom in okay sarah no i just have to hop off i i'm sorry i have a that's our finishing up thank you okay anything else from folks before we sign off here from youtube and sign off for the day so be thinking on this whole racial equity um what we've just talked about and see what we can come up with thursday and friday and maybe work in submitting some language next week we'll figure out where to submit it to and what the language says uh mary you joined us at the last minute um we did do some work on crf for doc we're okay with all the funding that's been there for the cjcs and the equipment domestic violence and there is language that was within the crf act that we put in in january that does allow uh for dollars to be moved uh between items and we have clarified the issue with cjcs that doc is going to um connect with them and clarify a little bit more of the procedures and that's been doing a lot of work on this and we feel pretty confident that uh the cjcs and doc will be able to work together and get the dollars out the door mary did you want to say you're on mute if you want to say anything thank you um so you i had a question you said that there was in january a proposal to allow the transfer between and i think you said crf and between line items are you just referring to june okay so june and it's that did i say january i meant june that's okay just there's so much going on that in fact maybe it did mean january january that's just the standard language that allows the transfer between um correctional services and i think out of state beds no no no no this is with the crf funding specifically that was in we've lost becky whatever the act was when we did the appropriations back in june it does allow for those allocations to be moved but they would have to report to justice oversight commissioner of finance and management and joint fiscal office what's also now being worked on is there may be some language that joint fiscal office is working on to also have a check in on the crf funds come october november to see what what um may need to be reallocated and are you proposing that line well that's that's being worked on by jfo that's going to be proposed to you guys just broadly not something specific to your budgets that you're responsible for yeah okay we'll be broadly because i had a conversation with mitzi over the weekend that we're finding that some of our dollars we're not going to know if they're going to be able to be expended because we're dealing with vendors and actually getting equipment and they may not be able to get here in time yeah and oh yeah i can certainly understand that but well that's the reason for the check in on our part yeah okay so are you proposing any changes to the budget no got it thank you no to the doc budget no to the crf budget no what about the other day we did have that discussion about the reallocation of the three hundred and sixty thousand dollars in the reinvestment investment you stand by that but otherwise yep okay got it thank you reach all of that last week yep yep good curt another completely different topic is that do you want me to wait or i want to make sure mary is okay with everything oh i'm happy with everything in the world thank you thank you very much for your work thanks for coming down into the committee i miss you guys i know i miss you too miss you stopping in the committee room being in the committee room yeah miss that too miss that too curt um i gather the contract with core civic down in mississippi is coming up for renewal sir any issues that are we might need to know about with that i mean the issue is the issue it's out of state beds right um so our contract expires at the end of the month you know we um we have plans to bring um somewhere between eight and 12 more folks back this month um because they're either coming close to ending their sentence or they have to come back for programming in order to prepare to be reintegrated into the community um we don't plan on sending anybody down so the number will shrink yet again um the contract um it would be if we were to renew it and i mean we're in the position where it's pretty difficult to come up with another plan to deal with 200 inmates would be for one year the secretary had talked about that last week at the governor's press conference and um you know we're discussing internally right now um additions that we need to put into that extension of the contract to include um uh language around protocols about kogan okay thank you great thank you and we know that negotiations uh can get um they're not always public because there's some important information that needs to be negotiated right um so we need to be a little sensitive to that when negotiations are going on um anything else before we sign off here if not once uh we're done for our work today and we will be back as a committee on thursday at 8 30