 Okay, welcome folks. I know we're running a little late. We were waiting for some folks to sign on and then we had to deal with some logistics of getting the draft legislation out to folks and also we're going to be sharing our screen with the proposed draft. So we've been working with the commissioner of DOC along with our legal staff legislative council to do a draft and I want to reiterate this is a draft. It is the first time that we have put any of these recommendations from Downs Rackland and Martin onto a piece of paper for us to take a look at. It is not written in stone, as I have just mentioned to the committee. We will do our due diligence and taking testimony on this, as well as working with our respective committees that have jurisdiction over some of the pieces be at the House Government Operations Committee, as well as the House Judiciary Committee. So this is our first walkthrough of the language. And I'm going to turn it over to our legal counsel Damian Leonard to get us started and Damian, I know that there's probably going to be questions as you go along would you prefer the questions to happen. As we go along or at the end of the sections that you're going to be covering. Each section is pretty short so if we can hold the questions till the end of the section, then I can just answer them all at once. Okay, great. So I'll turn it over to you and whenever you speak for the first time please identify yourself for the record. Okay, we'll do my name is Damian Leonard. I'm from the Office of Legislative Council and Phil when you are ready if you could throw up the draft there if we can scroll down to section one, which starts online 14 of page one there. This is an exception from our polygraph Protection Act here in Vermont. So generally employers are prohibited under both state and federal law. We're not requiring applicants or employees to take a polygraph. What this bill would do if we can scroll down to the stop top of page two is federal law provides an exception for federal state and local employees. And in Vermont we've narrowed that under existing law to employees of the Department of Public Safety. Sorry to applicants for jobs with Department of Public Safety applicants for law enforcement positions with Department of Motor Vehicles and Fish and Wildlife applicants for investigator positions which are also a law enforcement position with liquor and lottery and the board of liquor and lottery, and then municipal police departments and county sheriffs as to sworn police officers and deputies. What this would add online five is the Department of Corrections I'm sorry I'm not sure why I'm tongue tied this afternoon for applicants for correctional officer positions. So it's a it's a pretty simple addition there obviously the question of the policy questions here probably bigger than the language questions and I'm sure you've all read the Brown's Racklin report at this point and heard other testimony that I haven't been privy to but this would allow do see to use a polygraph with applicants for the correctional officer positions before they decide to hire them. Any questions. So I have a question here in terms just clarifying what is allowed under the federal law for probably so the federal law provides an exemption for federal state and local local government employers to use a polygraph with either employees or applicants and to also use the results of a polygraph. It also provides those exemptions for national security contractors ongoing investigations of an action that resulted in economic loss such as theft or embezzlement and then prospective employees of armored car security alarm and security guard services, as well as employees who manufacture distribute and dispense controlled substances subject to certain restrictions on several of those. But the controlled substances says if it's covered by the federal controlled substances act then you can be subject to a polygraph examination there in Vermont we've limited ours to the law enforcement officers I mentioned, as well as wholesalers and retailers of precious metals gems and jewelry. I am not sure if that exemption would still fit in with the federal law. We may be preempted there, and then also the manufacturer distribution and sale of controlled substances. And then any employers who are authorized to required by federal law which would include national security contractors, as well as the federal government. So that's our current exemptions this would add the correctional officers so list of law enforcement employees who are permitted to undergo a polygraph when they're an applicant for employment. So Damien, it seems like when the law was originally put in the current law for Department of Public Safety applicants and motor vehicles and fish and wildlife. Under the federal law, it would allow federal state and local government employees to be subject to a polygraph examination if you're applying for a position within any of those entities correct. That's correct. So, we are abiding by that by section one. That's right. So where this is consistent with federal law, the way this like many other federal employment statutes a good way to think of it is it sets the floor, and then states are free to go above and beyond. And so what Vermont has done is it's narrowed it to applicants for certain law enforcement positions within state and local government. And then this would be adding to that list within state government there, but not. It would not be violating the federal law here because these are again state employees. And this law was originally put in on the Vermont side this carve out for the certain do see obviously was not part of the conversation or people didn't think about it. Do you know when section one was put in with the Department of Public Safety motor vehicles and fish and wildlife. I can get you that answer in just a minute here. So those are all positions of law enforcement except for the board of liquor in lottery which is investigative investigators. It's, it's worth noting those are sworn law enforced law enforcement officers as well. But I wanted to bring up. Yeah, so they, they have a relatively narrow. Section but they're all level three sworn law enforcement officers. So I am just pulling up for a here so it was added in 1985 so 35 years ago now. And I do not remember when the federal polygraph Protection Act was added. See this was actually, it was added in 1985, and then it was updated in 2001 and 2009. And then again in 2019, but the 2019 update was just changing the Department of liquor control to the Department of liquor and lottery. I don't know how substantive the 2001 and 2009 amendments to that section were. I just want to put this out to the committee for thought. All of these law enforcement positions, they all have to go through some form of training, and it's usually at the Academy in Pittsburgh. So correctional officers also have to go through training as well. And that is not at the police that's not at the Academy in Pittsburgh. The DOC does their own training of their correctional officers and correctional officers are not deemed to be law enforcement officers. There is a definition of correctional officers later on in the statute that we refer to. So I just want to lay the groundwork here for folks. Questions. So I would ask for questions from the committee members first, and then I would open it up to our colleagues from appropriations and government operations to that. So are there any questions from the committee members. Karen. Yes, and I'm afraid that I might have missed just that last piece that you said and that might be the answer to my question. So I'm curious if correctional officer, if that includes all staff that supervise folks. No, there's a definition of correctional officers. So it's not all staff. And not all staff staff that supervise I feel like that is the pieces that supervise inmates. If you supervise within a facility, you have correctional officers one and correctional officers two. So I'm going to punt this over to Commissioner Baker to get into more of the nuances because you have shift supervisors, and you have folks who are working with offenders on their programming and their case management plan. I have your field service officers who are supervising out in the field for folks on furlough and parole. So Commissioner Baker. Yeah, thanks, Madam chair. So representative, I think what you're getting at what we would propose and as I said, when we first met, we're not prepared to do this we're just looking for the authorization to do it. We continue to build out our hiring process. So where the polygraph would be applied just like you do in law enforcement is pre employment prior to hiring, and prior to going to the Academy. So folks go to the Academy, they become a corrections officer. Now they could end up in their career anywhere inside corrections right. Everyone who works inside a facility and supervises and provides oversight to the incarcerated population, start out at the corrections Academy. They start out as a corrections officer at the crushers Academy, and they can be there are CO one, then they can get promoted to CO two, and then a shift supervisor, and then a security chief inside the facility. The superintendents and assistant superintendents. Could in theory be hired from outside the agency or never been to the Academy. Does that help. Yes, just knowing that starting point piece and everybody goes through that starting point right. So here's the other point I think that that madam chair was hitting on is, is the probation and parole officers in the field. Now, we haven't identified them here as being polygraph, because they, they can be hired from the outside as well. But I would propose it sometime in the future. If I was still here, I would advocate and sometimes this does happen that a probation and parole officer will go through the basic Academy before going to the field. So, if we, if we were authorized to do this and got to it, I can envision corrections then saying, everyone who's hired, no matter if you're a probation or parole officer, or a corrections officer is going to go through the Academy, because we're starting to talk about expanding the Academy beyond the five weeks that we do now. So in COVID we've been condensing it longer days condensed together to cut down on the number of days and people are together because of COVID. So I'm hoping that helps you understand the people in the field are in fact supervising individuals that are in the commissioners customer. So this, this is more complicated than just the correctional officers. Because there's a lot of layers to this one. So the thinking is you do it more on just the entry level of folks coming in as CO1s. Right. And now, once they start working through the system they could end up being a superintendent. But they already had that now do you hire someone who's a superintendent that comes from out of state that did not work through the Vermont system to get there. That could happen. Yes. Would they be required for it? No, I think it's worth, I think it's worth having the conversation, right? That's why I think it's worth having the conversation about the polygraph probation and parole. Now, I don't, you know, we can get really carried away with like case officers and so on. But I think it's worth the conversation about anyone who runs a facility. Anyone who runs a district officer that could mean a district manager to be hired from the outside in theory. Does it happen often? No. But it could happen. So it's worth adding probation and parole and language around anyone who's in a supervisor role in a facility. So what is the intent? I'm asking the commissioner this. What is the intent, the purpose of polygraphing an applicant who is applying for a correctional officer's position? What are you hoping to gain from that? Number one, I'm hoping to raise the bar on our hiring process that it reflects. And I'll just say this, I mean, we're not police officers, we're not law enforcement officers. But because of that, I have to be really candid. What I've learned over the last year is that corrections officers don't gain the kind of respect that they deserve. They do not get the same level of respect. And sometimes that's because they're not seen as part of the system, but also sometimes some of the conduct that gets reported publicly doesn't shine well on us. And it's a small number of people that do that. That's number one. Number two, we don't need people hired that that have been involved in undetected crimes. I can tell you from my experience of hiring police officers over the years, you think you've got someone that's a great candidate that go to polygraph, and you find out they were involved in, I had one case of my days in the state police, where a individual witnessed the homicide and never reported it. Didn't commit the homicide, but was at a bar with a friend in the military, where that friend committed a murder and never reported it. Those are not the kind of folks that we need working in our system. So that's the second piece of it is to be able to sort out folks that have backgrounds that their behavior could indicate that they could become a challenge, working inside of the cell. Great. Thank you. So I think we have some questions commissioner win. Yes, thank you commissioner working here at Northern State for a long time. Most of the people who are working probation and parole came from the prison system. They started off at the prison, decided they didn't want to go for three shifts and decided to, to go out to parole is that the true with most of them or are we hiring more outsiders. No, I think the vast majority that's the that's the description representative as my experience. Certainly, Heather can weigh in or bill can weigh in. But that's my experience but occasionally, like I know bill just before you left district office in Harper hired somebody from the outside. That's that happens, but a lot of the folks that are in the offices have in fact came through the corrections Academy. And if again, this is not the time to create this but feedback I get when I talk to staff that went from a facility to an office. They think the experience in the facility helps them better understand the job. That's that's what we always thought to that's what they would tell us as well so thank you very much. Thank you representative. So I quickly looked at the participant list and I see Linda has her blue hand up but if you have a question for committee members first and then it can be opened up to Tonya and Trevor. Just show your actual hand because with sharing a screen I can't see the participants list. So Linda. I think my question might be for Damian but whoever wants to grab it. So, it's for the applicants that's that I get. Is there going to be a limited use on the results of this, like or is it purely just for the hiring process and then it gets the results get stored or can this be used if there's complaints or so forth going forward. It's just like used in law enforcement is part of it's not the single factor that decides. It's part of the hiring process and the entire package, and it's not used after that. It's a screening device, and it's given a certain amount of weight, it doesn't get all the weight. But sometimes what you find out in an exam is that people admit the stuff it's just you can't turn back from. So it would never be used again in the future, and it would be part of a hiring package that gets stored in a file, and it's not meant to be used against people in the future. So somebody brought a complaint that wouldn't be brought out and held against them it's purely for screening purposes. Thank you. That's correct. Yeah, and it's worth adding to there's specific requirements and the statute about the kinds of questions that can be asked. And requirements around the when giving giving a people receiving the exam a copy of the law and the questions that are going to be asked during the examination. There's no exception of any follow up questions that become necessary. So there are very specific sort of requirements about what you can and can't ask, for example, you can't ask about someone's religious affiliation, or about their social habits or marital relationship, unless it has a direct relationship to their job performance. And so that the, you're, you're not just having a free for all here with the questions that can be asked during a polygraph. Okay, any other questions to the committee current was that you. That was me. I couldn't find those. I looked briefly in the statute, what you were talking about just now Damien, is that in state law the restrictions on the questions. So this section 21 vs a 494 C. And the 494s, as I call them are it's sub chapter five a of chapter five of title 21. It's 494 494 a and then little little letters all the way down to 494 e covers the prohibition the exemptions to the prohibition, the duties of an examiner when they're doing an examination employee rights and related proceedings and then penalties for violating the provisions. There is also entitled 26 I can't remember the chapter but there's a specific licensing requirement for anyone who's a polygraph examiner. And so they have to meet certain requirements to be licensed to actually perform the examinations under the state law. And a lot of the licensing requirements and practice requirements set out there mirror what's in the employment law. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Baker perhaps you can. Can you give me an idea of what such a polygraph test is or is like is this a 20 minute 10 questions or is this an hour and a half of, or freewheeling or I guess can't be freewheeling because what we just heard but can you give me some idea of what what it is what it entails. Certainly not a polygraph operator but I can give you some sense of normally what happens I would say our hour 15 minutes hour and a half. You know, there's a device that measures breathing and blood pressure. It's, you know, they're almost like a blood pressure cuff goes on an individual. Normally, the, the polygraph examiner will ask a series of pre questions that kind of set a baseline for the examiner. You know, you know, what's your name where you live just sets a baseline of understanding someone who is not under stress. Then there's a series of questions and what would normally happen in an organization is, is that within that statute, you're going to ask a series of questions that revolve around such things as prior criminal behavior. You know, honesty and dishonesty, those type of questions, there could be questions about. Have you ever stole from your employer, for example. And it's not about if they stole from the employer night. Yeah, I took two rolls of toilet paper out of the supply room. It's the first thing it's about is truthfulness. And the second thing is about is prior behavior that goes to character. Another question where I'm trying to understand systemic racism too. And it from my brief research into this the more flexibility you give a person the more likely or that that might occur. So, for example, if a cop is able to pull people over for anything he can think up, then he's given a discretion and sometimes he ends up pulling over more people of color than not. So we want to make sure that if we give the polygraph operator too much discretion that there isn't the possibility of some sort of systemic racism involved. But I guess from what Damien has said are these the guidelines put on the questions, enough to prevent that sort of thing. Yeah, I absolutely believe so. And we wouldn't, you know, if we were to implement something along the lines of pre employment polygraph. We would make sure that we bet the questions with the partners we're working with now around our equity work. For example, you know, Tabitha Moore spent a lot of time with our staff on, on the interview questions for hiring to make sure that we're not opening it up for subjective prejudice in that process right. So we're already doing that kind of work, and I would do the same thing, or recommend we do the same thing. When we work with setting up questions that go to apologize. You know, and just to kind of put in perspective. When I ran the state police. You know, there's, there is controversy around polygraph. And I used to say to the polygraph operators they would come up with inconclusive tests all the time. And I have to remind them, we don't use you shouldn't use the polygraph. The polygraph shouldn't be used for the kind of same levels scrutiny. That you polygraph, somebody who carries the nuclear code around them. You know, I mean, it's a screening tool it's part of the process, you want to understand a person's truthfulness and character, and make sure that you don't you're not hiring a corrections officer that a year after they're hired. You get a knock on your door and they've been arrested for murder that happened two years prior. Those are the kind of things you're trying to weed out around the character, raise the bar. Once we start raising the bar like this all ships are going to once you rise to tide all ships are going to be higher. And so that's the concept. Thank you. So, some of these questions are really, really good. And I know that I started off with also asking a lot of questions and I'm looking at the time on a Friday afternoons we have to move it along a little bit and some of these questions as we start working on the bill we're going to do a deeper dive as well. Any more questions from the committee members. And then any questions from Trevor or Tonya. I'm good for now. Okay, thank you. Tonya, did you have anything. I do have a quick question just I it's been made pretty clear that corrections officers are very different than law enforcement officers and I'm wondering if they're and that has created some challenges and has also created the need for for building in some specific things for corrections officer so I'm wondering if it has been explored or will be explored, moving them under the sort of categorization of law enforcement. So, that's a great question right here. I see Madam chair smile because I thought I've been here this long representative but there is no conversation about giving police powers to corrections officers. There is in this bill the conversation about seat certification and decertification of corrections. You know we don't certify or decertify corrections officers who have enormous power and control over people in my custody, but but we license, and we will suspend licenses of barbers or plumbers. So, we're not moving and nor do I think our corrections officer should have arrest powers police powers, but I do think they should be scrutinized and held to a standard that represents the profession that they work in that makes sense. Absolutely thank you for the clarification. You're welcome. Thank you. I'm going to do a lot deeper dive I know there's probably going to be a lot more questions so folks can just flag this. And let's move on to drug testing. Pretty easy to. Yeah, this is. This is another good one. So drug testing in Vermont is extremely restricted. And usually, you are generally prohibited from administering drug tests to your employees. The subsection a here you see it says an employer shall not as a condition of employment, etc do any of the following. So admitted that language but for the committee's benefit here it says request to require an employee to take a drug test, administer or attempt to administer a drug test to an employee or request or require that an employee consent in any manner to practice prohibited under this sub chapter. Sub subsection be prohibits random or company wide drug tests, except as required by federal law regulation. For those of you who are familiar with it federal law requires certain drug free workplaces. There are also drug testing requirements around motor carriers and folks operating trains and and airplanes and that sort of thing. For fairly obvious reasons I think there you want to make sure that that population is not operating under the influence and so the federal law has provided for random drug testing in those instances. So in that case the federal law supersedes Vermont law here it preempts Vermont law in those instances but otherwise random or company wide, or just drug testing in general is prohibited, except when there is probable cause to believe that the employee is using or under the influence of a drug on the job. And then only if you also have an employee assistance program set up to provide rehabilitation to an employee a test positive. You have a provision saying the employee can't be terminated for a positive test, unless they have a second subsequent positive test. And then the administration of your test is subject to various restrictions in Vermont law, after that regarding how the test is administered and what it can test for. So the probable cause means that you have to have a reasonable basis to believe that the employee is using or under the influence, which can be hard for an employer to prove. And so, as a practical matter. This exception, as I understand it from previous discussions of this and committee, obviously I'm not the operator of a business or or a state agency. But my understanding from previous testimony is that as a practical matter this is a rarely used exception because the probable cause standard can be hard for an employer to meet. So with that background, the, what this bill would do if we can scroll down to page three is it would say notwithstanding the restrictions and A&B. The Department of Corrections could conduct random or facility wide drug tests of correctional officers. And provided they meet the following conditions and I put these in based on the existing law, and it's having an employee assistance program that provides rehabilitation, protection against termination, provided the employee agrees to participate in and successfully complete the employee assistance program, but allowing that the correctional officer could be suspended while they're completing the program. And then subject to any rights provided pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement allowing for termination following a subsequent positive drug test after the employee completes rehabilitation and then requiring administration consistent with the chapter. So those conditions I put in are a starting point they're based on the current probable cause exception. But obviously they could be changed. This was just to make it as consistent as possible with the current drug testing law in Vermont, while carving out the ability for the Department of Corrections to do random drug testing or facility wide drug testing that's on a sort of scheduled basis. Any questions. So this is just for COs is that correct. This is just for COs. And that's based on that was based on my reading of the Downs Rackland Martin report where they recommended drug testing for correctional officers if I remember correctly. And this could be done while they're currently employed it's not carved out for an applicant. And specifically for current employees, I did not modify the restrictions on drug testing applicants, that would be another section. And so if that was something the committee wanted to pursue, we would have to amend the section before this one in the in the statute as well. Questions committee members. I don't see any Alice. Yeah, I have a question. Okay, Sarah and then Linda. So, if I'm understanding with this, we're just trying to get walked through some of this one. This poses the question to me about whether we wanted to widen the folks who are are tested drug tested or like PNP officers who supervise folks and so Damien my question would be, would that also require additional an additional section or just could we insert some of that language here if we wanted it to have a broader reach, because in the report. It didn't seem to be limited at all to corrections officers. That that may have been my misreading of the report there but yet you could very easily say, change this from correctional officers to employees of the Department of Corrections. So that without needing to add anything to this you could substitute another term or terms for correctional officer. And then the the only thing that you would need to add an additional section for is if you also wanted to test applicants. So, in some cases, there, there's an interest in testing the applicant, before you even get to the point where they're employed in the facility. But the report as I read it was just looking at current employees. Yeah. Okay, thank that's good clarification I don't want to mix up but I'm going to make a note of that actually for for myself anyway. And for the new members of the committee, and also for particularly for Tonya and listening in. These are all policy questions that we will do our due diligence to vet. This is a legislative process. This is the process of the committee. This is what committees legislative committees do. This is our work. This is a way of governing. And this is what we do. So we've got a couple more questions. Linda and then Scott. Thank you Damian. So my question is focused more on the random testing. Because what I understand is random once you're random testing it doesn't go away so what about the issues with false positives like people are on prescription drug drugs like are they are carbides here. How are you going to deal with that. So that's a really good question. The, I'm sorry I'm working on two screens here and my cursor is was lost on the wrong screen. The, there are a couple of things that the current law provides to protect. When you're going down this route first. Drugs to be tested are set out and specifically listed and they're also supposed to be in non therapeutic quantities or levels. Employers have to have a written policy that identifies the circumstances when a drug test would occur. There are several levels that will be screened. There needs to be a designated lot laboratory that's approved by the Department of Health. They have to meet a variety of chain of custody and procedural requirements, negative test results meaning that a drug is detected at a therapeutic level is not reported to the employer that shows as a negative test. And let's see there's also a medical review officer who has to be a licensed physician with with knowledge of the use of prescription drugs as well as pharmacology and toxicology of illicit drugs that reviews and evaluates all of the test results. And then report reports only the confirmed test results to the employer after their review. And then finally, employees are allowed to get a retest if they believe that the test results are a false positive. So if they believe for example that their sample was contaminated or perhaps mixed up at the laboratory they can ask for a retest. And my understanding is that they preserve a portion of the sample that can then be subjected to a retest. And there is also in that review process. I believe that would also be an opportunity for the employee to come forward and say, yes I tested positive for that substance. I'm using it pursuant to a prescription that my doctor has provided. So that that would provide some safeguards here in the process for employees. I imagine if you do move forward with this, you are perhaps this committee in consultation with the House General Committee might want to just look at those safeguards to make sure they're sufficient. Thank you very much. Let me just ask that question. So all of the procedures and the requirements around the drug testing is developed in the general committee and not judiciary. In the past this has been heard in the general committees as an employment law. So I ultimately it's up to the body to decide where the what committee takes the bill. But yet the House General might be where you want to do touch base with the chair there. If this moves forward. But for folks who are interested sections 514 and 515 of title 21 cover the whole administration and positive test result procedure. And then sub chapter 11 of chapter five of title 21 covers the whole sort of realm of of drug testing requirements and limitations. So I have another question, Scott. Damian I think you answered this before but just to clarify. So CEOs includes everybody except superintendent and assistant superintendent. Is that correct. That's not correct. I would defer that to the commissioner Baker. So, I know what the definition of CEO is entitled 28. But the it's not that definition is not specifically referenced here. And that is actually something that's worth highlighting the committee may want to consider using the title to 28 definition which is any person employed by the Department of Corrections. Who's officials duties or job classification includes supervision or monitoring of a person on parole probation or serving a sentence of incarceration. And then who has received training as provided later in that title which I assume is the corrections Academy I apologize corrections is not an area that I know a lot about. Or you may want to define it more broadly to say employees of the Department of Corrections. I know in the report there was discussion of allegations related to a supervisor using illicit substances, but I don't know if they would fall under this definite definition of correctional officer or not. So that that may be a policy issue that the committee wants to dig more deeply into. And then if you do include this, clearly define what's meant by correctional officer use a different term. Representative Campbell I think it's like, you know, when I think of corrections officer I'm thinking something different than what the statute, the statute outlines right that second piece of what Damon said, is what I would encourage you to be thinking about anyone who's supervising any role. In fact, in all these pieces. I don't want to leave out anybody. My experience is that since I've been here. On the personnel investigations, they happen in the facility they have an outside the facility so even though we're following the DMR recommendations and reports. I think that last description that you just gave them is what I was thinking when I came forward with these recommendations. Thank you. So, when when Damien states employees at the department. I think members have to realize employees at the department also means central office in Waterbury. So you're also talking about a lot you're talking about Heather Simons. You're talking about Bill soul. You're talking about Monica Weber. You're talking about all of those staffing as well when you say. You're talking about employees at the department of corrections so that's a really broad net that we'd have to figure out. Other questions, Karen. Yes, thank you and this can just be kind of looking at it from the higher level we don't need to get into the specifics of it but I'm curious how this language address the piece for me which I heard in the report that it was staff. We're having concerns that there was a fellow staff member supervisor that was using and so wanted to a cake and we do something about this. And I'm understanding that it's tricky with how law is you can't assume somebody's using so and would this work in that case to address the staff concern though because then would it just be a facility wide. So just how this meets that need that I feel like was spelled out in the report. So, just from the legal end, what this does is it doesn't change the standard for testing someone where there might be suspected use what this does though as it provides sort of a preventative testing. The department could implement either, you know, regular testing on a random basis so which could then discourage use, but it's not going to change that probable cause standard, which, and I, I, beyond reading the report I know nothing about that particular situation. But in my understanding from previous testimony the probable cause standard has been a difficult hurdle for employers in certain situations, because they have they may have an allegation but there's no evidence to back it up to give them that reasonable basis to then go forward with the test or not enough evidence to give them a reasonable basis so and just taking the word of of another employee may not provide you with with that reasonable basis so this approaches it from a different angle of saying we're going to do sort of testing to prevent people from using because they're worried that when next month's test comes around it's going to still be in their system or they're going to be the one who's called for the random test. Representative, you know, without getting into personnel reports that back up that investigation that I've had the benefit of reading. I will tell you, in at least one case there was more than enough problem cars to be able to request a drug test to include erratic behavior and signs of drug use. Right. So, but I also want to emphasize to the committee and anyone that's listening. The idea behind this is not to use it. It's good that it's probable cause, because that's what it ought to be. You shouldn't go around just testing anyone, because you heard rumor think. So that's one side of the equation like Damien said, you got to have probable cause and that's a pretty high standard. I mean, the use is setting up a random testing that's done very judiciously either through a lottery system, or a blind draw folks. I mean you set it up so it's blind. And it's random. And it's, it's, you know, equate it to what we're doing with COVID testing right. You're testing. We're testing our facilities now we're testing the suppress, and we're catching tests and preventing it from spreading. I would, I would, I would use the same analogy. The commissioner actually brings up a good point that I forgot to emphasize walking through this so this allows for this language allows for random or facility wide testing. And it's important to note that those are two different things. And if you move forward with this language, you may want to include both or you may want to only include one or the other. Random is like the commissioner said it's a it's a blind draw or a lottery where employees are selected at random, but it's only a subset of employees facility wide is is where you would basically say every employee who's covered by this and working in this facility is getting tested next Tuesday. And so that that could be. It's a much broader net, but it may be more intrusive than you want to go. So that's just something to keep in mind and again this is as the chair has emphasized is a policy question for you to consider. As you decide how to proceed on this. If you have drafted it now, it's an or you can do either a random or a facility wide test. And it leaves it up to the commissioners discretion at this point. So you could limit that. And you could also limit or expand the employees who are covered by this or be more specific as to what you mean by correctional officer. If you don't want to use the existing title 28 definition of correctional officer we can just add in language that says for purposes of this section correctional officer means the following. And then you can draft that as narrowly as as you think necessary to to address. The particular issues you're you're looking to address through this. Great. Thank you Damian for those suggestions. It's well appreciated. Are there any other questions for me. Michael, do you have one. I saw your hand. Yes, I do. Okay. Yeah, it's a commentary. Madam chair. I, I heard commissioner Baker correctly. I believe he was talking about the fact that you could also do. If you had somebody that you were suspect that was having an issue. Also, did I hear that correctly commissioner or did I hear you incorrectly on that. In addition to these other two categories of random like being instead of lottery. And a whole group, you could, if you had somebody that was, you know, had behaviors that you were suspect. And that said, was that what is that? Right. But that's representative under this under the language. That's where you would need probable cause. Right. Right. And I'm relying on my military experience. We had that ability as commanders. If we, I don't know if you had that when you're in the state police force, the same type of ability, but if we had somebody, again, because we considered it. It's a standard we were held to as well as a national security interest in the, in the sense with the military. And I would think we would hold these folks and some of the same regard, I guess I could say, and, and would want people that are, you know, we're expecting a cut above because you want that it's they are they are people that are doing a function that requires a high level of integrity and behavior type things. I, if I'm making sense. Yeah. And listen, remember, you know, why this is important. And I'll just use facilities. You've got someone under the influence whose job is to maintain safety and security in a facility. Right. That's your situation. Absolutely. And that's what I was looking to get hurt in a hurry. Or hurt somebody else or endanger somebody else. Yeah. Or themselves. So correct. Plus, if they have an issue with addiction, they are compromised. Once the incarcerated population figures that out. Yes. Yes, sir. When they figure that out, they own you and compromise security. So my ultimate goal in this is to raise, raise the quality of what we do. But more importantly, if somebody's got an issue, we want to get them help. That's been our emphasis for the last year and corrections is wellness resiliency and taking care of staff. You bet and help and or if they, and if they refuse it or can't get through it or repeat offenders, you need to weed them out. Yeah, it's a high risk. Business that we're absolutely. Thank you. Thank you, sir. So any other questions from the committee. Tonya, do you have any questions? I saw a tripper has left Tonya. Actually, I just want to, I'm reading subsection to a where it says participated successfully in an employee assistance program. I'm wondering why that doesn't read substance use disorder treatment and if it is in line with the Americans with Disabilities Act. So the, the employee assistance program is the paragraph one. It requires that it is a bonafide rehabilitation program for alcohol or drug abuse. So the rehabilitation plan program has to be provided here. The Americans with Disabilities Act does so substance use disorder is considered a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. There is an important caveat to though, to that though where active use of a substance is not protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act. So a subsequent positive test is not something that's protected by the ADA. However, if someone were to test positive and rehabilitate, they could not be discriminated against because of their past history of substance use that is protected. Whether it's once you're you're a user in recovery that is considered protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act. So there's, there's that fine line here where current use is not protected. But if you've gone through rehabilitation, you would be protected under the ADA. So, great. Let's move on. Okay, I'm going to depart Madam Chair. I'm just going through my sections and I have to go to another committee, unfortunately. Great. Well, thank you. Thank you really and I'm sure we'll be back in touch. Sounds good. Thank you very much. Thank you. Oh, and I did. I should point out here actually in section three I did define correctional officer as the same definition as in title 28. I forgot to add that but again that that could be adjusted. As I mentioned, thank you. Thank you. So now we will transition to help me with your first name Amarin. Amarin Aberjaley. Okay, welcome. I haven't met you before. Nice to meet you. So it's all yours. Just identify yourself for the record and then we'll go from there. Thank you for the record Amarin Aberjaley and with the office of legislative council, and I'm here to walk you through the section on correct the corrections misconduct advisory commission. I believe you all have a copy or can access the Downs Rockland Martin report. So before I dive into section four I just wanted to say that this section. In my understanding I was not a part of the committee discussion or prior testimony on this bill, but it's my understanding that this request to create this commission was based off of recommendation within that report. That is on page 51 of the report if anyone would like to look into that. I'm going to read just a brief piece of that so you have some context for what we've put in here for the bill. On page 51 of that report. DRM recommends that a monitoring committee of appropriate stakeholders be established to periodically monitor reporting of sexual misconduct, anti retaliation policy, policy implementation and effectiveness, transparency, accountability, cultural impact of agency and to ensure that the determination of findings, and if any disciplinary action is just and as intended, the monitoring committee shall be limited in size, and they specify five to six members and be comprised of institutional cross agency stakeholders with broad objectives, which must include some experienced in primary corrections. It is also recommended that the committee consider including a former judge with knowledge of the criminal justice system. So that's some background, you'll see that there's a lot of language missing in here. This is a draft for the committee's consideration there are a number of policy decisions also that would need to be made to fill in some more of this information. But I will now walk you through what we have so far. So section four creates a new section 123 to title 28 called corrections misconduct advisory commission. This section creates the corrections misconduct advisory commission, which shall provide advice and counsel to the commissioner of corrections in carrying out his or her responsibilities at the Department of Corrections to monitor reporting of sexual misconduct departments anti retaliation policy, create transparency and implement policies relating to misconduct and review disciplinary action. Based on the recommendation in the report, we have put in that the commission shall be composed of five members. Thank you for the scrolling moving down on to the next page. We'll include here for the fifth member of former judge with knowledge of the criminal justice system based on the recommendation in the report, but again that is a policy decision for powers and duties. We left those blank member terms we have put in staggered terms of four years and included that a vacancy created before the expiration of a term shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment for the unexpired portion. A member appointed to fill a vacancy created before the expiration of a term shall not be deemed to have served a term for the purposes of this subsection. Again, that is a choice for the committee to make whether serving the expiration, excuse me, serving a partial term is considered to be a full term for purposes of limiting how many terms a commission member may serve. Members of the commission shall be eligible for reappointment. However, members of the commission shall serve no more than two consecutive terms. We've included in here some language about how a member may be removed. Again, this is another policy choice for the commission. It could be removal for cause or the members could serve at the commission or could have control over members coming in going or the commission themselves could have a have a say in when a member is removed from the committee. Moving down to page six, the commission shall select a chair from among its members at the first meeting. A majority of the membership cell shall constitute a forum, excuse me a quorum. The commissioners duties, the creation and existence of the commission shall not relieve the commissioner of his or her duties under the law to manage, supervise and control the department of corrections for reimbursement members of the commission shall be entitled to receive per diem compensation and reimbursement for expenses in accordance with 32 vsa section 1010. Then I have section five which is an implementation. Are we talking about the same commission. Yes. Okay. Okay, because I just don't want to get off on a different topic. Okay. No problem. Section five is session law to implement the commission, particularly when you have commissions that are comprised of members that have staggered terms. And we have it in session law to make sure that those terms are staggered from the start of the commission. We selected a start date of January 1 2022. Not knowing when the committee would like this to be created. That is in subsection a subsection be members of the commission shall be appointed on or before you have a blank date in here in order to prepare as they deem necessary for the establishment of the commission. These are the commission that language may not be necessary. The terms of members shall officially begin on January 1 2022. In order to stagger the terms of the members. The initial terms of those members shall be as follows, and then following down on this page into the next page you'll see that we've staggered the terms based on four year three year two year and one year. At the start of the commission, and then as you'll see in subdivision to after the expiration of the initial term set forth in subdivision one commission members shall shall serve terms as set forth above, which is the four year terms. And that is the end of this section, or excuse me the language around establishing this commission. Now I have a broad question which is on page four, which is the beginning, which sets up the commission I just want clarification. The language is saying that the commission would provide advice and counsel to the commissioner and carrying out the duties, the department of corrections, who is going to be monitoring reporting of sexual misconduct implement the commission's anti-retaliation policy create transparency and implement policies relating to misconduct and the review disciplinary action. Is the way it's worded meaning that it's going to be this commission, or is it the commissioner. The way it is currently worded this would be a an advisory commission, which would advise the commissioner in carrying out his or her duties to do those following things. That is how it is presently worded. I would advise and give counsel to the commissioner, when the commissioner is reporting sexual misconduct when the commissioner is putting in anti-retaliation policy. That's yes, intent. Okay, I just that is how it is. That is how it is currently worded the, the DRM report does not specify whether it should be whether the commission should be more independent than that. It is a recommendation that there be a monitoring committee to periodically monitor report, excuse me, to periodically monitor the reporting of sexual misconduct, those policy implementation, looking at the recommendation of findings and then this language in the bill would then have the commission providing advice and counsel to the commissioner on those areas. It just doesn't take away any powers of the commission, the commissioner, it just is an advisory and monitoring of how the commissioners implementing his or her powers. Yes. Commissioner, did you want to? Yeah, just, again, it's the committee, but just a suggestion. I don't really like misconduct in the middle of that. You know, the original idea when we talked about this originally was following what SPAC does in the state police, the state police advisory commission. So it's not really, it's not about, for me, the value of this commission would be, and you all decide just the language, but putting folks that are on that commission that have backgrounds in equity, gender sensitivity, giving us guidance on those kinds of things that we're doing, but also reporting our misconduct cases to them. So we have transparency on it, and they're seeing what's going on and helping us put policies in place to impact that behavior. I don't know if I'm making sense to you or not, but I think calling it a misconduct commission was not what we were thinking when we first talked about it. That's flagged. Thank you. Linda and Scott. So I have two questions. As it's written under the advisory commission looking at it that way, looking at review disciplinary action, etc. Is that just in general terms how you might do disciplinary action or is that going to be specific to actual complaints because then I have questions if that is true. I have questions as to legal privilege and things that go on. So if it's just an advisory commission, would you just be talking about in a case like a we would do be versus identifying who the perpetrators maybe. So the way I envision this representative is that we have we have an investigative process now. I discipline employees, and we would report to that commission on a regular basis. The activity that's going on when it comes to the misconduct and how we're disciplining folks. So, redacting, we have transparency, and that commission could say to me, and let me give you the example when I was the Colonel State Police, right. The difference in what we're talking about here in SPAC, SPAC ran the internal affairs process. It's a different process here working with our partners at HR, but I would have to report as the Colonel, every time the SPAC met about internal affairs cases. And if you had it, if you had a problem employee whose name kept coming up, that commission started asking questions that forced you as the leader of the organization. That's, you know, if Billy Smith's name comes up three months in a row about misconduct. You got to explain that to a commission. That's that's the accountability transparency. Does that make sense. So that's kind of that gray line that I have some concerns about, but it's nothing that can't be fixed. But, and then my other question is, how did him say a monitoring committee that tells me that that recommendation which I understood down here saying was that it should be an actual compliance of investigations that should be a monitor over the compliance to then reported to you, which I personally would be more comfortable with. But that's, I just wanted to get the distinction to see if I was misunderstanding what was going on here and we could talk about that later. I just wanted it to be clarified for me. And for me, as the commissioner, it's not just the women's facilities across the system. Okay. Rep Dolan and I are supposed to go off to this other meeting at 330 should we postpone that or who you and Karen. Yes. We've only got one other. Can you just hold off on that one to maybe quarter four. Would that be possible. Yeah, well, yeah, we'll let, let people know. I think Karen has done that. Right Karen. Yeah, I'll let them know I know some people have to leave it for so we'll just get done what we can get done. Okay, this is taking a little longer than unless one of you want well, let's keep going. Any other questions. We might be able to finish it. Any questions. You're all set. Okay. Why don't we keep going. All right, moving on to section six. This section would add a new section 124 to title 28, creating a special investigations unit within the Department of Corrections. The purpose of the special investigations unit shall be to investigate complaints or allegations of criminal acts by persons under the custody of the commissioner or employees of the Department of Corrections. And also complaints or allegations against employees of the department for misconduct, including constitutional or policy violations. The Department of Corrections shall employ the proper staff and adopt the necessary procedures to carry out the duties of the special investigations unit and appoint a director who shall serve to administer the activities of the unit. I will note that I believe the director position was something that we may have added in. I apologize I was not here for the earlier discussions but I will add a new director in case that's necessary to create a new unit. In subsection C at the beginning of page eight, the SIU shall have the jurisdiction and authority to investigate all complaints and allegations of criminal acts or misconduct at any state owned correctional facility. I will coordinate with state law enforcement agencies when violations of federal state laws apply and the Department of Human Resources on employee misconduct investigations and disciplinary actions. And then in section seven. Again, this is more of an implementation section would be to include a provision that talks about where the position would come from if you were to include a director position for this special investigations unit. Questions. And so Karen and Scott I think you're going to be able to make your 330 meeting, maybe. Okay, let's keep going. And actually those the only sections that I have knowledge of. I don't know if Bryn has arrived. I don't see her. But what this next section is, is two things one is dealing with body cameras that section nine. And we're going to be working with Trevor on this for upstairs and there may be some work. Also occurring with policy work in terms of the data that's collected body cameras and who retains the data and what to choose for because there's other policy, there's other initiatives and bringing in other folks having body cameras. It was taken out of the appropriations budget adjustment. And so the shoe is going to be more encompassing with other entities besides corrections having body cameras. But this is for correctional officers. Again, it's how you define correctional officers. Having body cameras or video devices on his or her person. And then it would be looking at the Department of Corrections would initiate the acquisition and deployment of the recording devices of the body cameras, and the ongoing costs of the devices that can't be accommodated within DoC's budget, would it be included in their FY 22 budget proposal. And I think it's FY 23 or budget adjustment. That has to be looked at. So, oops, there's Brent. And then the last piece is of course dealing with the. What's the certification. Okay. I think it's missing. Representative Evans, I am here. I'm sorry. No, that's fine. We're, we just finished up to section nine. Okay. Oh, okay. The sexual exploitation. We didn't get into that one section eight. And that's what the section I was looking for. Okay. Okay. Thank you members. I have a 330 meeting. I would recommend you two members can scoot out to your meeting. I think that will be okay because we're towards the end of this. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Have a great weekend. You too. Thank you. Okay. It's just like we're in the building. You leave one meeting early to get to another one late. So let's transition to brand welcome brand. Thank you. I'm sorry for being late. I was on another zoom and took me a minute to transition over here. It's fine. It's perfect timing. It's perfect. So we are at section eight, which is the sexual exploitation. And this is for folks who are not under direct supervision. Okay. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. The offender is not in person's caseload. Yep. So for the record, Bryn here from legislative council and I've got the remaining sections of the bill. Section eight is the, the crime that set forth in title 13 of sexual exploitation of an end mate. And according to the report. The criminal prohibition was really too narrow because as it exists right now, and if you scroll down a little bit, you'll see the language that's removed. The criminal prohibition is when an inmate and a person who's supervising that inmate employed by the department. Are engaged in a sexual relationship where that employee is in a direct supervisory relationship with the inmate. So the report found that that was really too narrow of a prohibition. And so what we've done here is we've struck that language that provides that there has to be that direct supervisory relationship in order for that conduct to be considered criminal. So as it, as it's, as this reads then any person any correctional employee who engages in a relationship with an inmate could be this could that could be criminal conduct under the statute. So this would entail say a situation where person was incarcerated. And then was out on furlough. So now they're under supervision of a P&P officer, but a correctional officer could still be trying to engage with that previous with a person that they built a relationship or knew while they were in inmate. And are no longer incarcerated. So the person serving on furlough is no longer being directly supervised by that correctional officer that's working in the facility. That's the intent of this. Or vice versa, could be someone that was supervised in the community by a P&P officer. Then the person becomes incarcerated and it's no longer on the caseload of the person who was in the field service office. So this is a house judiciary issue. I have a question by the way. Do we have a definition of sexual act. I don't want that's a question. I'm not sure if we have one that reflects this statute in particular. But wait, just a moment. Oh yes, we do. So the sexual act means conduct between persons consisting of certain types of conduct. If you'd like to read the statute you can read it at 13 BSA 3251 is definition number one, I can read it for the committee if you'd like. No. Okay, I can check it. Thank you. So we know where we can find it section 3251. Subdivision one. Subdivision one. I knew there was another one there, but I wasn't sure. Okay. Anything else. Tonya you all set. Okay. Section nine. So section nine, this adds a new statute to title 28, which requires that the department corrections that whip all of its correctional officers, and I think that I've been listening a little bit on and off that you've been having conversations about this definition. So it ensures that all correctional officers are equipped with a body camera or other video recording device on their person. And so this language mirrors the language that was put into one of the police reform bills that passed last year requiring all law enforcement that are engaging with the public to be equipped with body cameras. So I'm not not being certain if the if the idea here was to equip everybody employed by the Department of Corrections or just those who are supervising inmates. And it was a ladder. So I put in correctional officers, but open, obviously I'll make a note if that needs to be changed. I'll make a note brand because we're talking about that in terms of either drug testing or the polygraph. Do we mean just CEOs or we meaning folks who are supervising them or we meaning folks who are employees at the department. Yes, commission, not not the pro long and get you all freed up on a Friday afternoon. I think when we talked about this originally, I'm talking corrections officers probably using that term in the planning process with the administration to secure the funding this year. We were talking about the greater definition of anybody who interacts or supervises either in a facility or in the field. The intent is to start with this corrections officer and security staff inside, and that would include supervisors and so on. But eventually, we would move towards the field when they're supervising individuals in the field. So you'd start small with the direct supervision in the facility and then gradually expand that. Right. Face in it would be correct. Questions. Okay. I'm sorry. Curtin and Sarah. Let's Sarah go first there. Sarah. Thank you. We might need to get into this further later, but do we need to also develop the policy around the use of body cameras or is that something that we would. Is that in our, that's in our committee's purview, correct. So, Madam chair again, I, what I would propose to you is there is model policy being developed by public safety. That is focused on law enforcement officers interacting with the public. We would take that policy and modify it to corrections with oversight from your committee or whoever you see, just like DPS is going to bring that model policy into the legislature for approval. I think that's the intent of public safety, but I would suggest that we would work with you and you're comfortable with the policy. Yeah, this is going to be a big discussion. This isn't just us. This is other committees as well. This is a biggie. So Kurt and then Linda. My question was the same as representative copies. Okay, Linda. I'm trying to figure out just with this short language, how it would fall into compliance with public record laws and wiretapping laws. So body camera footage that is going to be part of what the policy provides body camera footage is. I mean, for public employees for state employees is going to likely fall within an exemption to the public records act. So it will be up to the policy to sort out those details which is why it's important to have a policy in place once officers are equipped with body cameras. Any other questions for him, you can finish us up. Okay, so the next section section 10. This is again some language that mirrors the language that was put forth in the government operations bill last year about this immediate acquisition of devices. So I don't know if this is necessary I don't know how quickly the department wants to move on this. The idea was to put in some session law that authorized them to immediately begin acquiring these body cameras and outfitting officers with them. And then it provides some language about budgeting for them. So the idea here before was that the department should any cameras that couldn't be purchased with the existing budget. The department was was to come back and ask for it for next year's budget. So, Brian, that's online to include in the department's FY 22 budget shouldn't it be 23. That's right for next year. Yeah, so that should be 23. Yeah. Okay, because that or I was thinking budget adjustment but. So that means that leads to a question that we've been asking both Mary and Kurt to work with Trevor, we know that there's a request I believe the governor's has put money in the budget somewhere for bodycams you'll see is it within your operating budget that the governor is proposed commissioner because we can't. Where is it. Is it not there. No, I was, it's not in our operating budget. It's in his priority list. He's put one time money. Correct. It's in the one time. Okay, so I, I'm, I wish Matt was here because I always miss the budget term but but but it's in his priorities and the governor's priorities on his one times. Okay, and is there any language that Alice that's what we got that was what we got as well. So, is there policy written around that, or is that just kind of just the money to acquire the bodycams. Okay, that's helpful to know and do you know the amount that was put in one million, just one million. One, how many bodycams do you think you can get for one million. You know, I don't, I don't have the breakdown here in front of me, but it pretty much covers just about what we need to roll out throughout the operation to include the facilities and district options. Okay. So your project, obviously, it's going to take time to roll that out. That's why I said earlier, you know, we would start with the correction facilities and go to representative so solidance question about consent, right. So, because that's really what you're saying representative about consent, where consent would come into play for us is when a probation or parole officer is visiting someone in the field, because inside the facilities. That's not the issue. Right, because again, we have cameras all over the facilities already. But this is to get much better interaction between our staff and incarcerated. Thank you for that clarification that was my question so my other question is the million dollars is for the purchase of the camps. What about then the cost of storage retrieving them the redacting the video footage is that going to be above and beyond the million to kick off. So for the first year that figure included the estimates that we got from various vendors for storage for the first year. Obviously, after that, you got reoccurring costs on storage. But what I will say is that prior to the session starting, we had a collaboration meeting with the administration, where the other folks that are looking for body cameras met with Secretary Quinn, talk about a more holistic look at how you would do storage, in order to say, and how you would do retrieval at a holistic approach, so you would not be doing one offs on storage and retrieval. And the questions from the committee. Yeah, I have a quick question. I've heard of other states where the police, police officers do use body cameras and at times there have been altercations, and then they say oh my body camera was turned off. So I'm wondering, do we need to have some kind of language about if you have a body camera when when and how you need to use it to make sure that people comply with the expectation of using it. You know representative I think you know I have a good deal of experience prior to getting here on body camera policy across the country, and every policy talks about when you should have it on and off. And so what I would suggest to you is that that's a policy, that's a policy language that directs people when to do it. And I can almost guarantee in those cases you've heard, they're in violation of the policy. Right so. But, you know, again I'm not saying one way or the other. But what I'm saying is, typically you handle that in policy, and then it's disciplined as a result of failure to do that. Thank you. Anything else on this Tony or do you have a question. No. Okay. So the last section 11. So the last section is a session law directive. This is a. So, the idea here is to transfer the responsibility or the authority of certifying and D certifying correctional officers to the criminal justice council. Under under the statutes governing the criminal justice council now, they are responsible for maintaining uniform standards of basic training for law enforcement and in service training for law enforcement and maintaining statewide standards for law enforcement professional conduct, and they do that by a host of responsibilities that they have for law enforcement officers and including training and including investigating this conduct. So that's the idea of imposing administrative penalties. So the idea here is because the criminal justice council's authority would have to be amended to include department of the corrections officers or employees that this directs the council and the department to get together and come up with a proposal. And how the council would be responsible for the certification and D certification of correctional officers, and also how they would have the authority to investigate allegations of misconduct. And it directs them to give a report to the joint legislative justice oversight committee by December of this year. Members of that committee could introduce legislation. Following those recommendations of the council and the department. So this is a way of not having the fox guarding the henhouse, so to speak, right, where you have a neutral party. Being able to investigate allegations of any misconduct from correctional officers and if there needs to be a D certification that that's done outside of the powers and duties of the commissioner of corrections correct. That's what the goal is. But the question is how do you get there and that's what this language does is to come back with the report. Because it's not under the jurisdiction of the criminal justice council at this point correctional officers are not the training of correctional officers is not under the jurisdiction of the criminal justice council. That's correct, but commissioner can authorize and does it made a correctional officer to become certified by the council as a law enforcement officer but in general, no. It's a criminal justice council deals with folks who are law enforcement officers. And the definition of law enforcement officer within the council, the chapter on the council does not include correctional officers. Madam chair of it helps. I, I, I like the approach that bring has taken, as far as stepping back and coming up with a process, instead of putting that process on you. I think that makes sense to me, because it is, we are chartering new course here, but I would remind. I mean I think the difference. Now, the scope of what goes on at Pittsburgh is now the Vermont criminal justice council, not the Vermont criminal justice training council. And even though we do not fit in the law enforcement, we are part of the criminal justice system. And I think that's an important piece. And so I do like this approach from, from, you know, that we, we work with the criminal justice council to come up with a plan on how we do this, instead of just dumping on them that they're going to take this on. I think that's a reasonable approach. I'm just thinking down the road commissioner do we then train our correctional officers at the Academy. Some people want that to happen. Listen, I, I, you know, I, I don't want to jump too far here we got a lot going on. Yeah, but I understand why we ended up in Lindenville, why we're there. And I'm not being disrespectful to Lindenville, or my friends up in that part of the country northeast, going up towards the Northeast Kingdom. But I really do believe, at some point, correction should be at the Academy where they used to be. And they were quite a while ago. They were just trying to know I don't think I don't think most people up in the Northeast Kingdom, even know that it exists. I know that representative. I wanted to make sure I was being respectful to you, man. I know but I didn't know it existed when I came, you know, was put on this committee. And then they said I'm Lindenville and I'm like, where. But I don't think most people even know it exists. So if they wouldn't even know, they, you know, they had to make a quick decision where to go after Irene. You know, after, after the facility got, you know, damaged with the rest of the state complex. But as that as the training as the criminal justice council moves towards more to a global justice center for justice issues. I think it's the proper place for corrections to go to. But that's going to take some planning. Well, it may also take some renovations down there at the academy in Pittsburgh. Right. And there is money in the capital bill for feasibility study to kind of figure out what they do but it's for the police academy and I was there in 2010 and 2011 they what they left just before that. Yeah. Anything else for bring before we start my hands up. I'm sorry. I don't have the participant list up. I'm sorry. I just wanted to make sure he maybe commissioner can answer is this is this specific enough with regard to who's doing this. I mean, is it enough to say criminal justice council and department of corrections go off and do this or do you need more specific direction than that. No, I don't think so as long as I can't believe I'm about ready to say what I'm going to say represent. I'm not going to direct us to come back and report to you in a report right. I'm normally pushing back against reports, but I holding us accountable to come back with a plan to you in the form of reporting back. Okay. Sarah. So I know it's late and I just, I was, I think having all the attorneys work on this together pretty impressive and it shows how complicated this that what we're trying to do is. So I just I wanted to, and I think we'll probably come back to it. So this question really is very free madam chair. What our process is going to be around this because I do have a number of questions about some of the specifically around the, the, the role of the advisory committee in contrast to the recommendation of the downs rack then report for it to be a monitoring committee. And I just want to make have some, make sure that we have some time to discuss that it doesn't seem like today at four o'clock. This is the first walkthrough. Yeah. So I just want to say that this is realizing as this is really complex. So this is, I'm appreciative that we're making the time to do this and all the commissioner wants to supportive of this and all the attorneys who worked on this. It's going to be complicated. It's very complicated. It's going to involve many of our colleagues. So, Amarin, what committee or what topic do you staff, do you basically work with topics policy issues from government operations. Yes, that's correct government operations. Okay, so you deal with with commissions and boards, boards and commissions and that type of thing. Yes, for this and then Damien deals with employment issues with general and body camps is going to be involving maybe judiciary committee and the criminalization of non direct supervision is going to be judiciary committee so we're going to be reaching out to all sorts of folks is just figuring out how we're going to proceed and working on this and I need to spend some time thinking I know I sent out feelers to the chair of gov ops and also judiciary. I'm going to reach out to the chair of general. And I think what we need to do is a committee is figure out what sections we start taking testimony on and figure out who we want to come in to testify and look at it through a corrections lens, but some of the other committees are going to have to look at their lens. And then we meld that together. And I know that's pretty mushy for some of the folks who are new to this process but that's what happens as we work through legislation. So, what's the best way for the council ledge council when we start taking up a particular section to make to check on on your availability. Because I know bring you're tied up mostly in the morning, correct, we're tied up all the time. I mean, we all you know everyone is. So I think that it makes the most sense to, we've divided it into sections so Damien, I think I'm the first two or three and Amron has the next three, and I have the last four, I think. So, and I can get a list to fill so he can depending on what sections you're working on. And he can invite whichever one of us corresponds to the language. Right. And that will be helpful. I mean, I'm assuming the committee wants to do work on this bill. Am I getting nods yes or no. Yeah. Yeah, yes. And the other thing to the specific sections of pertain to other committees will have to get those out, at least to the chair so they can figure out how they want to go from there to from their lens. Our lens is going to be through doc's world. Our lens is going to be through their world of employment, and their world of setting up boards and commissions, and their world of criminalizing behavior that makes sense to folks. Okay, let's call it a wrap for the week. Brian. Amron, I'm going to have trouble with your name. I know that. So thank you and beat and do see thank you will get you back in I'm sure and then we're done for today on live stream so I want to thank you folks. This was our first walkthrough and we got some work ahead of us. So thank you for you to be