 Welcome back to House Judiciary Committee after a brief recess and we're going to resume our testimony on S3. And I would like to start with Will DeWight, founder of Mad Freedom. Good morning, Will De, welcome. Good morning, Chair, and good morning House Committee on the Judiciary. My name is Will DeWight, and I'm the founder of an organization called Mad Freedom, which is a human and civil rights advocacy organization whose mission is to secure political power to end the discrimination and oppression of people based on their perceived mental states. As I told the committee before, we are not a mental health advocacy organization, we are a rights based organization. And so my testimony today is focused on on rights and not really mental health. And I, you know, this is not a bill that I've actually wanted to weigh in on, I followed it in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and did not test, was not invited to testify and did not testify there. But, and the reason for my trepidation is because I find that the more you know about the issue kind of intimately, the more complex it is, there are no easy answers. What I found remarkable about the testimony in the Senate was everybody seemed very sure of their position and the righteousness of it. And I don't come to you today with any of that certainty, or that I'm right. What I hope to do by my testimony, raise issues, policy questions, maybe issues of constitutional law that I think that prudent decision makers should take into account when passing on a bill of this of this magnitude. So, when I say a kind of what I know, it's based not only on the fact that, you know, I am an attorney. I have practiced law. I was a trial lawyer. I am also the legal guardian of a brother who has a diagnosis of schizophrenia, and who's also been caught up in the criminal justice system. And I am also a person who has experienced mania in psychosis for a protracted period of time. And, and so that personal experience is very different from being a guardian, being a lawyer. A lay person in our society. And I've also been the victim of a sexual assault. So I also bring that perspective here. So I'm not insensitive to anyone's position. But I think it just makes it a more complex decision. So I think what I'd like to do before I begin is just do some kind of table setting. Because I was actually confused by some of the testimony explaining what this bill was doing and so I prepared a flow chart to help me. And I'd like to use that flow chart to illustrate my testimony, if I may. It would require me to share a screen. Absolutely. Thank you very much. So am I have I been given that have I been guess I have been given that. Okay. This is when it gets dicey I think I'll share my screen. And then I will pull up the PowerPoint. Are you able to see my screen. Yes. Okay cool. Excellent. So far so good. So I'm going to be sharing a flow chart. And basically what I'm going to be sharing is a flow chart. About the competency to stand trial and the insanity defense. So, basically, as I understand what we're talking about today, a person is arrested. And we started this corner here I'm going to try to use my mouse pointer. We started this corner where the person is arrested. And then the first next step in the process is to ask the question question has the person been charged on information complaint or indictment. And if the answer is no. The answer can be no, and it could be because they were not indicted by reason of insanity. And in that case, they are sent to a commitment hearing. And when they go to the commitment hearing, the determination is whether this person is in need of treatment. Let's see that was the fancy part. And the answer is yes, they have been charged on information complaint or indictment. They proceed to court or trial. And then the guy, this is very jumpy this morning. I'm sorry. And then the question there. The first question there is, is the defendant competent. I don't know why this keeps switching, but I apologize. The question is, is the person competent. And then this is a determination that says is the person competent to stand trial. And the questions there are different than the ones in the commitment. There we want to know does the defendant know the charges against them and how severe they are. Does the candidate defendant tell you how a trial works and do they know what guilty and not guilty is. Do they know what their role of their attorney is and the prosecutor and do they understand like plea bargaining and their rights to appeal. And that question is asked at the time of trial. So if the answer is so, so anybody can challenge someone's competency, it can be the court, it could being the prosecutor, it could be the defendant's own attorney, the defendant's guardian. What's important to understand here is that the defendant has no ability or right to waive a competency examination, or someone's questioning their competency. They just have to submit to an examination. And this is a constitutional right the Supreme Court is says you are not it's unconstitutional to try a person for a crime who is not competent so the defendant has absolutely kind of no choice here, they have to submit to a competency examination. And then, as you know, the court on its own or at the request of any other parties can order an examination and then a neutral examiner is selected by the Department of Mental Health. And then the question there is, you know, you know, competent not competent. So if the person is found not competent, they are also sent to a commitment hearing. And again, the question is whether the person essentially the question is whether the person is a danger to themselves or others. If the person is competent. They just go back into the regular process of the trial. And then the question there is, are they going to raise insanity as a defense. This is something that the defendant actually has a choice right. They don't have to raise insanity as a fence even if even if they were insane at the time of trial they don't have to raise it as as a defense. But if they do, the court, there's an examination and both the defendant's attorney and the prosecution are allowed to by law conduct an examination of the defendant. And then the question then is, at the time of the, at the time of the crime, was the defendant able to appreciate the criminality of his or her conduct, or were they able to conform their conducts to the requirements of the law. And if they couldn't appreciate the criminality of their conduct or conform their conduct to the requirements of the law. They can do that, but by more likely than not to to a jury, usually. Anyway, that's basically that's what an examiner was trying to decide could they conform their conduct, or did they know that what they were doing was wrong. So that examination is done, they go to trial. The jury kind of has three options they can find the person not guilty by reason of insanity, they can find the person guilty, meaning they didn't believe the person was insane at the time, or they can find the person not guilty. So if the person is not guilty by reason of insanity, they're sent to a commitment hearing. And that gives you what the determination is there. And so I put these. You'll see that these, there are three boxes here that are in purple. And I put those in purple here because those are the areas where the S3 proposes to change the law, and those are also kind of decision points. In this process. So, the first thing that you know S3 changes in this process. I'll start with basically the competency examination. The first thing that's changed is that the law says the report of this examination can now be sent to the Department of Mental Health. They were not listed in the original in existing law. And the only comment I have this is that it also says that reports can be sent to the state's attorney in the respondent's attorney, if the respondent in this case it's the defendant is represented by an attorney, but there's no provision in S3. And that would provide the defendant with a copy of the report. And that would be my suggestion is that the law be this law be this bill be amended to allow the defendant to receive a copy of the report. I'm coming from a rights perspective, and I also come from experience perspective because I was actually sent to, I'm actually in California was committed and had a commitment hearing. And, you know, I had the lawyer who was assigned to represent me met me on the morning of the hearing, I interviewed him, you know asked him questions about, you know, what's the process what's the burden of proof what's the standard of proof that he couldn't answer any of these questions to my satisfaction so I elected to represent myself. And so this is not, you know, not everybody will be allowed to represent themselves particularly in Vermont I think Vermont doesn't allow you to represent yourself if you're at a commitment hearing. But nevertheless, I feel like a defendant has a right to that report. And, and I feel that the law should be amended to give that person an unequivocal right to a copy of the report. Thank you for your suggestion I just want to make sure I understand where that are you looking at section one. I'm on page one. Yeah, and see one. It says the report shall be, it's the last sentence on that page. The report shall be transmitted to the court issuing the order for examination and copies the report sent to the state's attorney to the respondent attorney if the respondent is represented by counsel and to the Commissioner of Mental Health. And I think that the respondent should be entitled to an examine to copy. Thank you. Yeah. And not to brag but I successfully represented myself at the commitment hearing. And in fact as I was, you know, free to go. I had several of my other patients in the hospital trying to get me to represent them so it's not impossible to represent yourself it's probably not advisable but it's not it's not impossible. I think I ask a question. I'm sorry. Absolutely no thank you for, thank you for jumping in and yet committee members if I don't see your hand it's it's it's because I know it's tricky with a screen sharing go ahead Barbara thank you. So will that this chart is amazing. Thank you because it's been hard to. It's just very helpful. You, given the fact that you successfully represented yourself and could interview your attorney. Doesn't that even, doesn't that by itself show competence to you know, yeah, I mean, this is this is a, I like this question because it gives me an opportunity to talk about these this competency examination because, you know, it's all up to a psychiatrist or a psychologist. And you can get you can pay a psychiatrist or psychologist to say anything and I, I don't say that cynically I say that as a person who was a trial attorney who hired experts every case I brought I had to hire an expert witness. And every case I brought had an expert witness on the other side. And they were not saying the same thing. There's a study done in California that showed that the state was using competency examinations as a way to bring kind of chronic people who weren't dangerous but they were bizarre, like, and they would, you know, maybe arrest them for thoroughly conduct, loitering. They bring them to trial. They say they weren't competent. They would have their person do a competency examination and find them not competent. And as a, because then they get to be sent to a commitment hearing, and then they get to be committed, right, have orders, like maybe for struggling. Yes, you know, my representing myself, maybe indicative of, you know, maybe evidence that I'm not competent. But if somebody wanted to find me not competent they could have found a expert witness to say I was not. Does that answer your question. It does. I was thinking about what you said that in Vermont you can't represent yourself. And I was wondering if you were going to question that as well. Well, that's not part of this bill and I, you know, I do believe that I kind of do believe that, you know, the attorney who has heard heard him or their cell for for a client, you know, as a fool. But sometimes, in my case I felt like I had a better shot at getting out and I also felt like representing myself was evidence itself that I didn't need to be committed. You needed a competent hearing for the lawyer. Yes, I gave a confidence is yes. But no, I don't I did it's not the subject of this bill and I'm not rep and I'm not arguing at this stage that that that people. I do feel like they have the right but I don't think it's appropriate and I'm not really prepared to argue for that now I do think that it would be helpful to give them a copy of the report, because when you've been diagnosed with a mental illness, your agency is always removed from you you are always just a specimen you're always just something that information is extracted for and mad freedom is it you know we're we're trying to give people back their power and their agency. Not just in the abstract, but it is a path to well being. It is the only way you know to free yourself from the system is to become responsible for yourself. So, I just think it's, it's just so important that the respondent not be just manipulated and objectified through this process, but be treated like a human being and be given the report. I don't see any harm in giving the, the report. I just may come in and say well yeah, so it's harmful because they can't handle the information but I just think that's ridiculous. I think it should be given as a matter of right. And if you want an exception, let it let someone prove. Go to their hearing let them prove that there's a reason not to give the defendant a copy of the report. Thank you. Bob has a question. Good morning will the thanks for being here. Just a point of clarification here when we're talking about the responder receiving a copy of the examination here with with Vermont being a discovery state and the state attorney receiving a copy obviously they should have access to this and more importantly, if in fact their attorney is sent to copy of this then clearly they must have access to report through one of these to to to individual agencies correct. If simply giving the report to the attorney guarantees that the defendant will also receive it. No guarantees the defendant has access to the report if in fact his or her attorney receives a copy of it. You know, it's, I don't trust that as a person who's been involved in this system. I know things have been hidden from me. And I wouldn't try. I just in a real world way, I would not trust that. I would like it to be codified in statute, because if it isn't in statute. Someone could argue that, you know, the legislature didn't intend for the for the person to see it. And also if the respondent is not cooperating with their attorney and doesn't want that attorney and doesn't feel like that attorney is representing their best interest. And, you know, particularly a competency hearing where sometimes the attorney takes a position that the respondent doesn't like like they will say you're not competent and the respondent will insist they are in that sense there's not a very good attorney client relationship. And so I wouldn't depend on that as a sure means of guaranteeing that the respondent has an access has access to the report. And I agree they should have access to the report, but I was just once again, not the little things here is they should have access to it. In fact, both of those attorneys receive a copy of it and that's somebody dropping the ball sort of speaking. In fact, they don't receive a copy of it, but to codify it does not a problem that either. So thank you. Thank you. Yeah, and actually, excuse me, I'm looking at the language on page one current law. And it. It says copies of the person who states attorney to the respondent's attorney if the respondent is represented by counsel. So I think that that that question of whether or not there's always an attorney is seems to be left open by the language. Good point. Kate. Thanks for taking a minute to unmute. Good morning. Well, thanks for being here. If it's okay. I just wanted to respond. Also, the Bob question in my capacity as a social worker, I think. Oftentimes, and I know we're talking about attorneys, but I imagine this translates into that world as well. Like, if you're working with someone within a community mental health setting, you have these forms you sign certainly, and you're supposed to have a right to access to your file, but they always have a disclaimer in there that allows the agency to determine if the person is some version of like quote unquote, safe enough to receive access to their file. So there's always this ongoing dialogue that if someone is has a mental health condition that it's that the agency has the power to assess if giving them that information is going to somehow trigger some kind of mental health event in them that would make them unsafe. And so there's always these mechanisms in place that allow for some level of denying folks access to information that should otherwise be legally available to them. So I just want to just want to explain a little bit of how that can happen on the back end. Yes, what you described is exactly why I, what I was alluding to you stated very clearly. So thank you for that. Coach will every time you come. I learned something new. So thank you. Being a avid student. You're a great teacher. I spent. Well, I've always been an advocate for students and families and doing social work for a six year stint with Northeast Family Institute here in Vermont. And working in the court system as a therapeutic case manager. I would agree with you know what Kate was sharing. And some of the being an advocate in that situation. Unless we are very, very clear and and and I am in agreement that it's important that it be stated. Is that intrinsic bias, you know, whatever the bias may be that either one of the defending attorneys or the prosecuting attorney, or even the judge may have. And when you're sitting in a family court, and then and those of you that have participated in family court it's a very closed environment. Not everybody gets access. And I spent a lot of time at family court in the dynamics. We're just really fascinating to me, but it was also clear that it's important that we codify, you know now that I'm in the legislature and looking at it from this, the policy perspective. It becomes even more clear. So I do appreciate, you know those comments and opportunities to get more clarity for us in, you know, in this. And then we get into the, the youth, the youth side of things where the adults in the room are guiding the process. And that whole question of competency comes into play even in that realm as well. So now you've got multiple controls over the individual, you know, their age. And then the mitigating factor, you know, of competence. You know, and it just complicates, you know, the whole thing and especially if people come in with, you know, with bias, you know, be it against people with a mental health issue, be it, you know, color be it, you know, any women. I mean, seen that. Oh, you know, they're just too emotional and, you know, and I've heard people actually say that, you know, in the courtroom and you go, wait a minute, but so thank you. Sorry to. It just brings a lot, you know, of the importance of being clear here. So thank you again. So there are no other questions. Okay. And then so the next area that S3 addresses is still back on the competency is still back in this, this competency examination. And it's now I'm on page two, that first paragraph that's a subsection to in here what the change in the law that S3 is proposing. If a person's, you know, here whose competency is being challenged. In the current law, the psychologist can be asked to both assess the person's competency to stand trial, and also at the same time assess whether the person was insane at the time of the alleged offense. Under the under S3. These two examinations could not be done at the same time, if the person was found not competent. So for so the last sentence and subsection to on page two says, the examination of the person's sanity shall only be undertaken if the psychiatrist or psychologist is able to form the opinion that the person is competent to trial. Third, I think it was Morning Fox testifying the Senate that best practices, whatever those are. It is to do these separately at two different times. And in some way, and in some ways. You know this that that makes me very nervous because it you know a person, a person may not become competent for a long time and memory fade and witnesses disappear. And that defendant is put at a disadvantage, the longer that evaluation is from the time that crime was committed. In my case and point you know there was a period of time in my life when I could not conform my conduct to to what it would have been had I not been psychotic or manic and probably to the law you know I was not fortunately wasn't arrested for anything that I did or charged with anything I did, but I clearly when I was psychotic felt possessed. I felt like I could not form my conduct. And say at the, you know, the same time that that was happening I was also, you know, unable to assist my attorney with my defense for whatever reason. And then they waited until I regain competency. And in my case, my psychosis in mania had been triggered by medication. And so, after a while I stopped taking that medication and you know I presented as I'm presenting today. And so if at that time then a, you know, psychiatrist comes to examine me to determine whether I was insane at the time of the offense. They may be unduly skewed by my current presentation, rather than my presentation closer to the time of the offense, or in my case, you know, there might there, there were witnesses who could have given valuable information about my behavior during a period of psychosis in mania that would have further evidenced my inability to conform my conduct, but memories fade. And those witnesses may not be available at that letter later date. So I feel like this change, while it might be expedient, and they may save money does really put that that defendant at a disadvantage. Now I say that knowing that it is the psychiatrist who are implicitly saying that they're able to do this evaluation whenever. But I also feel like the law really operates on a fiction that the psychiatrist and examiners really can tell whether someone could conform their conduct to the law, or knew that their actions were not competent and so in some ways you know I have to, it's almost, I have to hold two competing thoughts and I'm presenting to you two competing thoughts at the same time, and I'm asking you to consider them both. One is a psychiatrist saying that they're able to do it. And, and my saying that they should be required to do them at the same time, because it's better for the defendant, because of, you know, evidence fading so that's a little. Anyway, so I really think the law should remain the same that if somebody knows they're going to be making it an insanity defense and there's also a claim that they're not competent that those that the defendant should have the right to have that examination conducted at the time, just so that memories don't fade and evidence doesn't become stale or or spoiled. Any questions about that before I move on. I'm not seeing any. But thank you, thank you for that and I know this section is a is a piece of the attorney general's office is interested and I and they won't be able to testify today. I will make sure to present your questions so our concerns so thank you. So I did have a question Maxine. I'm sorry yeah thank you for jumping in. Yeah, go ahead. Nice to see you will do. So, are you suggest. Do you have a language suggestion or are you just saying completely take out that section two on page two. I can send you language because what I just suggested was that the defendant should have some say in this about when this examination is conducted. Just for preservation of evidence. It makes a lot of sense what you're what you said I was just wondering if in particular where. But I appreciate that. Thank you. Now area where S3 kind of changes this competency examination hearing is it now allows the state to S3 proposes to allow the state of the prosecution to examine higher its own examiner. It disagrees with the neutral report basically so like I said before, someone's competencies question, the court orders a examination DMH hires the person they do the examination. And that under and so then under S3 the proposed bill if the state doesn't like the results of that examination it's allowed to hire its own person to examine the defendant. And, you know, this is such a blatant case of, of, you know, expert shopping. You know, I'm obviously very much opposed to this. I don't think it really makes kind of a mockery out of the whole system, because you know I can see if maybe if you were doing it at the same time. And, you know, you wanted your person and they had their person and did at the same time and it wasn't dependent on what the result was but you know that would probably be a better case but waiting until you don't like the report and then hiring your own. You know, you get, you know, your own result. It just means that now we just have to competing reports. The judge is going to have to decide between them. This is just another instance for a lot of biases to enter into the process. And I don't think it elevates fairness or justice. I just really feel like it just tries to force a conclusion. I think it's a policy question about whether, you know, this is, this is what we want to do. There's also, you know, there's also a, there's also testimony that it's unconstitutional to allow the prosecution to examine the defendant. Some people have cited this case people versus Sharon. I don't read people versus Sharon was saying that allowing the prosecution to have its own evaluation of the defendants as competency is unconstitutional what people versus Cheryl says is that it's not currently in the statute and so you don't have a right to do it. And apparently that's probably why this statute is being changed. But I think it's worth reading people versus Cheryl, and it's also worth reading the cases that people versus Cheryl relies on a Kentucky case Bishop versus coddle, because it, it really explains what the policy issues are, and allowing a prosecution to conduct its own examination of a defendant at this stage of the process because remember competency, the defendant has no choice, whether they can't wave competency, they're just an object and to be examined. And there are, you know, real issues of, of getting, you know, the defendant, you know, may say something that discloses his attorney's thought process, which the prosecution is not entitled to, and which cannot really be cured by not, you know, using it what in the bell has been wrong so there's some there's some real policy issues I don't think they're constitutional issues but I think there's some real policy issues that this committee should grapple with and I think they're really well laid out in both the people versus Cheryl decision and the underlying case that they rely on Bishop versus coddle. I don't want to get to on the weeds but I would encourage the, the committee to look at those issues and decide for itself. Where it stands on the policy issue. Any questions there. Thank you and I think you said you would send us the sites or maybe they are. I'll send the yes I'm going to commit my testimony and writing and I will submit the cases and the legal citations. Great, thank you. Thank you really really appreciate Professor white Dr white. So it's really. Sorry. Can I jump in really quickly. Question. Yeah. So, I don't, I don't, I'm at the risk of mischaracterizing what what folks said the other day and taking testimony. I think that there is there's agreement around this concern that the process of assessing competency or insanity I guess for that matter is getting drawn out, and that there's this ability to sort of like keep reassessing until someone receives like the report that you're looking for. It seems like this amendment from folks on those who were advocating on behalf of it was like aimed at addressing that I don't fully understand how it would address that, especially given the testimony or giving which is it could just prolong it even further potentially. I guess I'm just curious. So I think that your experience. Do you have thoughts on a more effective system in this regard like it sounds like it's not necessarily working well for a variety of folks and I'm just trying to envision how that kind of assessment process could work differently that would not allow it to just be used as a tool in this way that it seems to be currently. It really lies with psychiatrist and or psychologist forensic psychiatrist and psychologist and I say that because I read I recently read a lot review article that did a study with forensic psychiatrist and psychology it gave them to vignettes gave them three different standards for finding competency or insanity. They asked them you know how how they would rule and the what what the report would show and the results of the study was that these forensic psychiatrists were all over the place. There was no consistency. And so I think those of us who who who've been subjected to these examinations and their results understand that these forensic psychiatrists are actually being asked to do something that is they really don't they can't do and they can't do consistency there's no calibration between them. And so we look at all of these other elements of the system you know there's so many other there's so many decision points in the system and we were looking at all of them but we never look at that one. You know how can we get more consistency in these examinations so that you're not. And so that it's not possible to shop for forensic psychiatrists to give you the opinion that you want. You want to hold them accountable. How can we make that profession more consistent. And I think that's, that's where we should be looking. I personally don't understand how a forensic having been let me let me back up having been manic and psychotic myself for a protracted period of time, and having my own treating psychiatrist refuse to recognize that I was psychotic simply because I was telling him I was psychotic and manic. I don't have competent confidence in psychiatrists to consistently evaluate whether someone was was competent or is competent or was insane or not insane at the time of trial. But that's where the problem lies. You know when you when I heard the people who's lost family members and who are angry with the system. They never they never indicted that part of the system, but that is you know that is a part of the system that has a lot of power here. And we're not looking at it. And I think lay people don't understand. I was exacerbated because lay people don't understand what it means not to be competent. I heard. I think Kelly Carol say during her testimony in the Senate, that the person who, you know, kind of lay and wait for her daughter pulled up his pants before running to kill her and she felt like his pulling up his pants was a sign that he was competent rather than incompetent And I think so the problem is, you know, many full one is the public doesn't understand what's involved in in in competency. Also the public doesn't understand that you can be insane and not able to conform your conduct. And also, for me in my case go to work every day, try cases every day. I secured the largest settlement of a lawsuit that I ever received when I was psychotic. So, that's a big question. And I've given you an answer that you probably won't hear very often. Although that if you if you actually I think there are some some lawyers out there who are writing law review articles who are saying something similar to me about the problems with forensic examinations. But I think that's what needs to be reformed, frankly. And I'm not. I'm not going to do it in this moment, but it makes me think about the forensic working group that is written into this bill and whether there's a way if we hone in on that or when we hone in on that language, if we can think about whether that think that part of the systems encapsulated here and if it's not. Let's put it in there. I think that's something that they should be looked at. I don't know how though, but I think we shouldn't overlook that step in the process. I appreciate that and I'll make a note of that in that section. So, then we move on to the other part of the bill that. And we're back at this commitment hearing and what the law changes what built S3 proposals to change here are some, you know, one that the Department of Mental Health can appear at the hearing math freedom does not. We're not opposed to that. The other is that the defendant can be represented at that commitment hearing by someone from the mental health law project math freedom is not opposed to that at all. And then the other thing that's changed by S3 are what I'm going to call notices to the public. And so, in one instance, now I'm on page five subdivision, like to a basically says that when a person has been found not guilty by reason of insanity so it's this person down here, or this person here and not competent. And if they've been committed, the S3 would require some notices to the state's attorney or the attorney general. And the state's attorney and attorney general would be required to give that notice to the public. So that's one part of it. And then there's a second notice requirement where if a person, not guilty by reason of insanity. Oh, my gosh, such a sensitive slide, not really built here by reason of insanity or not competent. So if a person's mental health becomes aware that the person is not complying with the order of hospitalization or the alternative treatment has not been added up with the person's needs then they're required to give notice to the state's attorney or the attorney general. So that's what the, the second instance first. And that is this this requirement under S3 that if the Commissioner becomes aware that the person is not complying with the order or the alternative treatment has not been added but to meet the person's needs. They're required to give notice. So in the Senate, and I think in some of the early testimony even in the House, most people talked about this provision as possibly violating HIPAA. But in my mind HIPAA is the least of our worries here, because if you recall those of you who are attorneys and still remember law school, you know, the US Constitution also has guarantees of right to privacy, the fifth and 14th and this second provision where the bill proposes to require the Commissioner to notify the attorney general or the state's attorney that someone's not complying with an order or the treatment is not successful is a, in my mind a very clear violation of the US Constitution. Because there's nothing in the statute that says what they're supposed to do with the information. And while the US Supreme Court has said that these rights to privacy is not, you know, they can be, you know, lessen if there's compelling state interest. When you're telling someone that they can have access to someone's private information, but you're not even saying what they're supposed to do with the information. You have not shown a compelling state interest, and I don't, I don't see any way how this provision could pass constitutional muster HIPAA, you know, is relevant as far as I'm concerned here it does not even pass constitutional muster by any stretch of the imagination. And then on the I'm sorry excuse me will them. I, I just want to make sure I understand your, your points so. So the notice goes to the state's attorney or the attorney general and then on the next page page six it talks about. And then the notice is provided to any victim who has not opted out of receiving notice. So that's the first note that's, that's only about. That's when the person, you know, escapes the notice provision, the first notice provision, it goes to victims, the second notice division, the state, the S3 doesn't say what happens with the information it just goes to the attorney general and the states attorney. Okay, all right. So I'm addressing to see right now on page six where it says, okay, yes, yeah, yeah. So that I think is clearly unconstitutional because you haven't shown a compelling state interest, because you haven't even said what you're going to do with it and all the testimony admits that we don't know why we're doing this. I think it gives people a false sense of security. I think it's clearly unconstitutional. And it's, it has no purpose. It just, the only thing it does is further, you know, kind of stigmatized oppressed people who have, you know, been who have a, you know, who have been found not competent, or who have found not guilty by reason of insanity. And in the case remember in the case of someone who's found not competent. They're under the law presumed innocent, they haven't been convicted of anything they've had no adjudication of the trial and so I think there's probably going to be an even stricter. You know constitutional look at that because they have been presumed. They still have the presumption of innocence, which is different from a person. So this person not competent has not had a trial they they're presumed innocent under our law, not guilty by reason of insanity. Sure, they've had a trial, but in both cases, I think it's unconstitutional because there's no compelling state interest in just passing on information where you've said you don't even know what they should do with the information. Oh, thank you and actually we have had other witnesses that have said that recognize that this needs work and that they are committed to reworking it so, so I appreciate that. So in the interest of time I'm, I mean I, I have, I'm going to stop there because I know there are other people and you have a short day today. I do have, you know, about this forensic working group I can just put it in writing if you wish or just I, please, please, please take your time I, I did ask Evan to send out a sort of a disclaimer caveat that we didn't know whether or not we would when we would be back if we'd make it through everybody's testimony so it's important to to hear your hear your testimony in full. If, if that works if that still works for you but I certainly don't feel rushed. Thank you. So, um, So, so then I will move to the this forensic care working group. And I guess I just want to make two points right now. The first is, you know, there are a lot of people on this on this forensic working group and you've said a person with lived experience of mental illness. And, you know, that I feel like that person's that person's token voice will get drowned out and it's not enough to just have a lived experience of mental illness to participate fully in this type of hearing. You know, we, we want to be more than just informants, we also want to be epistemic agents and I think it would be helpful if, first of all, there's more than one person who with a lived experience of mental illness, but also that they actually have some experience with this issue. You know, it takes a lot to hold your own and a lineup that includes the people here. And also people's experiences of having mental illnesses are not all the same, you know, I've, I've been heard to say that if you met one person with a mental illness you've met one person with a mental illness. And so I would encourage you to put more people more than just one person and also not have just to live experience of mental illness as the only, you know, kind of price of admission but that they also have some experience with these issues and something to contribute to this. The other problem I think with this forensic care working group is, it directs people to, you know, it directs this review board to look at Connecticut Psychiatric Security review board and it always makes me nervous when the legislature is already kind of telling the workgroup what they want them to look at. I attended a grand rounds in the psychiatry department at UVM where there was a presentation on this Connecticut Psychiatric Security Review Board, someone who's actually on your witness list did the presentation. And she explained about this Connecticut Psychiatric Security Board and was asking questions about whether this is something that Vermont should adopt. And during the Q&A I asked her I was like why are you, why are you appointing us to Connecticut, you know, Connecticut is one of the wealthiest states in the country by income it's also one of the densest states by you know population. It does not have you know this this kind of order of hospitalization they don't do forced drugging like we do here in Vermont they don't do that in Connecticut. And so I said why are you pointing out that system is something that Vermont should adopt and she said well she wasn't saying that Vermont should adopt it and she was saying you know that was a system that she knew and she so she was holding that up and she also said that maybe there are things that Vermont could could learn from it. But I think that we're like requiring this workgroup to, you know, look at that is is too much like, you know, kind of putting your finger on the scale. Especially at a state that's very different from Vermont and has very different resources and so I would ask that that provision, not be so specific in what they should look at, but actually include what you're trying to I mean include something broader than improving public safety. And kind of give more directions to what kind of what Vermont's values are and what Vermont is trying to accomplish, rather than just looking at specific systems. So I'm going to stop there for today. Thank you, thank you so much is is incredibly helpful and the other day I was saying I wish we had a flow chart. And here. And here it is. So I so so appreciate your testimony. And I'm going to pass your hand up Kate. Thanks. So I had maybe two questions for the first one, you were talking about in the section that's referring to reporting out to victims. And I was wondering, so in other arenas of mental health, I think it was maybe in Vermont like the terrace off. Maybe but essentially it gave permission if you, if you had essentially like an identified target who it was clear that this person was at risk of imminent harm it created the opportunity for a mental health provider to essentially like a duty to warn, essentially. And that keeps coming up in my mind in this case and like how does the statutory language line here like but maybe that's another thing but I'm wondering if is that the kind of thing you're referring to and you talk about a compelling the interest or does that mean something different. I think a duty to warn would be considered not duty to warn but a, you know, public safety may be compelling state interest, but it has to be like your infringement on someone's right to privacy has to be closely tied with your goal of public safety right I mean that's what a compelling state interest is it's like, yes we're infringing on your right but we're doing so to achieve this compelling state interest which in, in the case of like the terrace off warning is, is public safety. And in this in that provision that I pointed out. You haven't said what your compelling state interest is because you say yeah we're going to infringe this person's right to privacy but we don't know why because we're not saying what we're going to do with the information. Does that answer your question I. Yeah, it does and I think. Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. I think it does answer it and again maybe just a thing to flag I think in the realm of mental health is dictated around assessing the person's date in the moment. It seems like in this bill in front of us it's like dictated just by by an act, like someone did or didn't follow through with a certain condition. It's not assessing whether that person is actually poses a risk to anyone. Yeah, because it's just saying you didn't comply with your treatment plan well, you could be fine I'm not compliant with my treatment plan and I'm fine I'm not a risk. Or, you know, your treatment isn't working but that's not spoiled out like what does it mean not to be working. You're doing this regardless of whether the person is a risk or not. The person can be fine going to work every day, doing whatever they want to following the law, but you're still saying if, if in someone's opinion. These things are true, you should report it but you're not saying why you're not saying what they should do with it. And also I think there's probably some, I won't get into the weeds doesn't say there's probably some due process issues here too but I won't go into that. Thank you and then I'll ask this question but I'm thinking it's probably for maybe morning talks later on I guess I am sort of like confused by that section on page two number two the section that addresses someone doing two assessments at once and the thing that kept coming to mind for me this notion of clarifying that you know it's examining in person sanity show only be undertaken as a psychiatrist or psychologist is able to form the opinion that person is confident to stand trial it made me wonder about. Are they, are they trying to make a statement about the assessors ability to assess sanity, because the person in the moment is in the state where they're not deemed competent like is this is this provision about assessment. So if you if you know much about what the driving force behind this or, and if that's the case like how you might respond to that, if that question is making sense to you. Well remember under current law they're doing those assessments and have done those assessments at the same time. So, were they not able to, you know, I don't you know so they have been doing them and other states do them at the same time they're not competent. And remember competence the question is narrow. Right, they're only asking in this, can you help, can you assist your lawyer, you know, can you do you understand the procedure, it's not competence in the way that you may know it as a social worker where you're saying, you know, competence for other can they manage their own affairs. That's not the question here. So those those narrow questions about do they understand this this procedure in this courtroom. So my answer would be one they're currently doing it other states do it all the time. They've done it in Vermont all the time. I'm more concerned about kind of the the spoliation of evidence a loss of evidence the fading memories and, and, and knowing in my case that you know, if you wait till someone's completely like back to their baseline. They may be more basing their determination on the baseline rather than how you appeared at the time. Thank you that couple. Thank you. Not seeing any other hands and again encourage representative, down to you and representative Marcy to. No, no questions. Okay, great. Well, we'll do as always. Thank you. Thank you so much. Really appreciate your, your testimony and I appreciate your patience I went on much longer than I thought I was going to so it was, it was great. No, it was really, really helpful as as always and so to do take care. Thank you. Thank you. And as I said, we'll be continuing this, this bill. And you'll, you'll get zoom links for when we do it next next week. All right, and I will submit something and writing to you. Great. And we'll have a posted wonderful. Thank you. Okay, I'm Kristen Chandler. I believe this here. Good morning. Good morning, Madam Chair, and thank you for having here. Well, there's always a tough act to follow, I gotta say so my timing is not great. Fine, thank you so much. Um, just a little bit of background. I, I was an assistant attorney general in the Department of Mental Health and I for eight years and I came to that job from being a prosecutor for 10 years in King County, Washington. And when I was at DMH, I handled all of the forensic cases because of my criminal prosecutor background. So that meant that I worked with all the state's attorneys and the defense attorneys when somebody was found incompetent or insane, or if there was some suggestion of there was a mental health component to their criminal case. So I would appear in court. Uh, and just help them try to resolve their cases. And so I am fully in support of the provision in this bill that allows for this, the attorney general to be present and for Jack McCulloch shop the mental health law project to represent the defendants. Just because the state's attorneys and the public defenders just really, you know, they have so many other types of cases going on. It really will be much more helpful to have somebody with expertise there to represent and make sure the defendant is represented. You know, robustly, I'll say. What I do now is I subcontract with Vermont care partners and I run a training program for police and other first responders on mental health response. And so I'm coming at this from a different perspective really from the designated agency perspective, and with that experience that I had and I was on the summer study committee for the when we looked at on h's in general. And part of that process when an own age. Sorry, I'm going to thank LNH stands for order of non hospitalization. Great. Thank you. Sorry. And I also just wanted to say that I heard on Wednesday I heard representative for debts questions about competency and sanity and Eric does such a great job of trying to explain that I just, I had happened to have a PowerPoint all done because I presented on that at a conference, and I teach that at Norwich so I sent that in, in case you're more of a visual learner than a, than a listening learner. So that's available for you as well. So, when an order of non hospitalization comes out of criminal court. And that's where I'm coming from input from designated agencies and that's really where I'm coming from today is, you know, the, the, if somebody is incompetent, the prosecutors. And if they're incompetent as a result of a major mental illness, because I think it's really important to keep in mind that people can also be incompetent. And that's one of the reasons and I think representative Donahue pointed that out earlier in the week, because there are some people who are incompetent because of intellectual disability or low IQ or TBI, and they don't fall under the statute. And this is really narrow to people who be as a result of their major mental illness. They could qualify to be on an order of non hospitalization, and that is a commitment to the care and custody of the commissioner of mental health. It's a big deal. It means that their right to possess a firearm is taken away. It falls under the Brady bill provisions when you're, you bet it's a commitment, even though it may be in the community. It's, it's you're in the care and custody of the commissioner. So in that, the order of non hospitalization. Initially it's good for 90 days and the conditions in there might include lots of things and Jack McCullough talked about what those are he talked about those yesterday, or the other day. What's difficult for the designated mental health agencies is when somebody is placed on an order of non hospitalization who they are not familiar with actually I'm going to I see representative Donahue has her, her hand up so Thank you. Yes. Chris and I just to go back a second because I think some of this is new territory for some of the committee members. And if you could just clarify when you said that TBI and developmental disability are not under this statute. So assuming you meant this bill and this process as opposed to not being under the statute as grounds for being found to have a mental disease or defect and therefore not guilty by reason of insanity. What I mean is they are those. And it's a pretty wide category, the intellectual disability prohibits somebody from being in the care and custody of the commissioner if that's their only presentation. Thank you. So that part of the, of the statute doesn't apply to them, but they are under the broader statute for being found not competent or not guilty by reason of insanity. Yes. Thank you. Just wanted to distinguish those two. No, thank you for that and that just represents an entire different problem where there's no comparable system or you know custody for them. And I used to keep track of those cases as well it was very very frustrating for prosecutors who had to dismiss cases and there was no alternative at all. That's for a different day though today it's really about the conditions in the order of non hospitalization. It's really helpful for the designated agency to have input into that and if they don't know the person. It's really hard for them to know what treatment will actually be effective, what can what those conditions should look like. So I think that that's one of the big reasons that having departmental health president at the hearings hopefully that communication flow will be really great and they'll have some input from the designated mental health agency. The real issue here is the same issue a lot of people have brought up which is on page six section three the notice issue about when the department of mental health becomes aware that the person is not complying with the conditions, or that the treatment is not complying with it. The way that the department of mental health becomes aware is through the designated mental health agency, because they're providing the care. They're working as a team with the person who used to be a defendant and is now a client and try and making sure that they're in compliance with those conditions. Sometimes people are not in compliance but it doesn't mean they're not in a healthy in a healthy space or doing well. And so this is the issue is like at what point does the designated agency have to make DMH aware that they're not in compliance. And so Representative Richardson brought up the other day about liability issues for DMH. Well, it's a liability for the designated mental health agency that I'm concerned about. If they don't report this. And I'll just give you an example. And I had many of these but I think this is a great one where I had a psychiatrist call me up and say hey my guys on an OH, he's doing really well he's working well with the team. One of the conditions is you're not supposed to use any illicit drugs and I know that he's smoking pot, but I don't think it's really affecting his treatment. Do I need to report this do I need to enter by reporting it means you're you're asking the department of mental health to revoke his order of non hospitalization. You can either revoke it or you can amend it. But generally when the designated agency is asking telling DMH that somebody has not complied with their conditions. They're asking to start that revocation process. And the only remedy from that is really to put somebody in the hospital. So that's the kind of thing that I'm talking about then and I outlined that in my written material as well and I think a lot of people have brought that up that. If somebody is has a beer is that you know technically yes that's not abiding by conditions but you got to look at the big picture and I and I get from my prosecutor had I get that what what prosecutors want to know about are really the major violations and the things that might put the community at risk. And so I really hope that that entire language could be stricken until that study committee has a chance to really look at what are we talking about here and I think you could narrow it down to a way less of a broad category of what needs to be. You know, what what the image needs to report to the state's attorneys. So that's Thank you. And so when you say that entire section, I'm referring to section C. Yeah, that under two and sub C. Yes. At least I mean, I did notice that this is supposed to the committee right now is supposed to be complete with their work by November 1 and this is supposed to go into effect on July 1 as currently written. I also agree that the study committee is going to need way more time to look at all the things that currently are being asked of it. Absolutely. Let's just say that there are lots and lots of interventions that are tried so so that when the mental health agency is working with that client. Somebody who's on an order of non hospitalization, and they know that they're, they're not complying that like maybe they're not taking their maybe they've missed the medications or they they're not living in the housing that they want them to do. They have a whole team of people around them that and they meet regularly and they try lots of other interventions before they get to this last resort of having to revoke their order of non hospitalization. And I will say that for some clients. It's a piece of paper, and it really doesn't mean a lot to them for other clients. It is it has a judges signature on it and it is what keeps them in treatment. And there's a. I did I did see I heard that I think representative bird at it was might might have had some questions about the numbers that we're talking about here how many people are found incompetent or insane how many people might fall under this category of being being eligible for an order of non hospitalization so I put I had some numbers in that presentation as well that they were from 2018, but they're in that PowerPoint if you want to take a look at those. If I'm happy to take questions but that's really what I wanted to point out. Great. Thank you so much. Very helpful and and your, your PowerPoint your slideshow is is posted. So, okay, very helpful to folks Barbara. Thank you. So thank you for your testimony. I'm wondering if you can help me. I have worked at a community mental health agency it's been a while and I didn't work really in the department that would be overseeing people who are found incompetent. So, I'm more familiar with how probation works, and I was hoping you could kind of compare and contrast what probation and terms of probation provide versus what the designated agency is providing. And I know that it differs from designated agency because some have more robust resources than others. Well, and this is the thing when I, when I, when I train police officers I tell them that this in order of non hospitalization is it's not a ticket back to the hospital you can't just yank somebody back into the hospital there you have to go through a legal process, this is the revocation hearing for probation, you know, you can have violations of probation that you still have to involve a state's attorney and there still has to be a court hearing so in that way they're similar. But there can be conditions of probation or furlough that are not illegal. They're not necessarily committing another crime. Absolutely. Yes. But they could be in violation of their probation conditions, which would be a separate offense. So the what what the designated agency can provide the mental health agency can provide is lots of different things and as you said it will depend on the particular region of the state where they are but housing. There could be a vocational oversight there could be medication management if that's what the person needs. If they, they will always have a case manager somebody on an order of non hospitalization will always have a case manager that they meet with once a week or like what's the depends depends on what the needs are there you know and I and I will also let you know there's there's a lot of people out in the community who were found incompetent who were charged with murder, and we're initially found incompetent they spent some time in the hospital, they, they're able to comply with treatment. They are out on the street out being served in our community. So the range from people. So you go from a murder all the way to misdemeanors could could fall under somebody where an order of non hospitalization is issued out of criminal court. So there's a wide variety there so it's really going to depend on the person and they're and that's why the conditions can be flexible depending on what the needs are. Okay, I'm sorry can. So the condition of somebody smoking marijuana. If it's not a big deal, what, like, why is it even on the list like why not hear that list down right to begin with. And as you can imagine that that's something that that it may be something that the prosecutor thinks should be in there, you know, depending on what the crime is, but generally the people we really want to have the most input into those conditions is the mental health agency who will be in charge of treating that person. So the state attorney has to sign off on the conditions. Because that seems they don't usually well in my experience what we used to happen is everybody would stipulate or agree that in that the state would dismiss their criminal charge, as long as the defendant at that time was going on an order of non hospitalization. And yeah, I think the state's attorney and the defense attorney would sign the ONH. As I recall, I believe that's how how the process went. And have people raised concern about being a treatment provider and being in the relationship being compromised to some degree because they're also the reporter. Yes, exactly. Well, and this is the thing about orders of non hospitalization that you can't force somebody into treatment, they have to actually want to be treated. And that's what would be really what I in my experience was really hard for those individuals who you know, committed a crime came into our, you know, jurisdiction only because they committed some kind of a crime were unknown to the mental health agency. You just don't know like what would be appropriate for them. And it made it really hard, because it was, while the person is named in the order of non hospitalization and it's up to them to abide by the conditions. If the conditions don't actually fit what they should be doing for treatment. It was really hard to abide by them. So, it was always a lot easier when the criminal defendant was known to the mental health agency and they could actually hit some background and they had some ideas about what what were they actually the needs here. And not everybody needs that kind of an order in order to stay in treatment. Right, it was sort of the trade off with getting their charges dismissed. I've got to say, I mean this is sort of not your expertise but I've got to say, if we have the same factors going for people who are still in DOC of they're not they won't benefit from being incarcerated. And they could be out and receiving treatment for murder. I mean it's just it's just interesting that on one side, we are willing to do that with public safety and we're not on the other side. But anyway, I realize that's not your, your area. Do you have any comments about the psychiatrist. I mean, it is true, like you can get psychiatrists on both sides of the. So I don't know if when DMH is getting expertise if you know the, the medical director at even for different mental health agencies are giving different opinions. Yeah. Well, you know everybody's different. And I think that it's, I think you are going to hear from somebody with expertise in forensic psychiatry or psychology. And I think that they're probably a better person to explain that I did have I mean I heard Will to talk about her concern about splitting up those evaluations and I initially when I saw that language I thought well what why would you have why would you do them separately because you're going to actually, I think save money by doing them together. And her, I know her concern about the loss of evidence and time going by if you didn't get to the sanity piece until later, you know, what I, and I, and I worked with all of those because Department of Mental Health has the contract with the forensic psychiatrist. I read a lot of reports and over the years and I, and what they're really looking at is what the actions were of the defendant before, during and after the crime in order to determine sanity. And those things don't that evidence doesn't change that that's that's still going to be there. So, and I, and I think from what I heard from what will decide is that her concern was more what the defendant themselves would be able to recall in that interview with the second interest but there's, there is still going to be evidence that is preserved, no matter how much farther down the line, that exam, you know when that exam occurs. I also think I'm sure the Department of Mental Health has some ideas about why it would benefit them, or be beneficial to have those examinations separate. Thank you. Yeah. Representative Donahue and then Kate. I have several questions for for Kristen but I, I wanted to briefly just respond to Representative Rachelson when you were drawing the parallel between being released on conditions and treatment and why we would handle it differently between corrections and mental health and just just a reminder that people in corrections have been convicted of the crime. And the people we're talking about now have not been. Yes, thank you. That's it. Yeah, and yeah, thanks Sam. Um, but Kristen and if this goes too far back, it's fine. I really wanted to ask you some questions that are drawing from your experience and time at at DMH and your role there. Because you are you are referencing revoking an OH, which is as you pointed out a court process. Am I right that when and if that happened it was usually because DMH brought a petition to revoke to the court because it felt the person. If it was to return to the hospital it was because DMH felt the person needed to be back in the hospital. It would begin it all those revocations always began with some notice from the mental health agency to DMH who then would file in court and that back then the product it was a very it took a long time to get to court depending on what you were in but it often could take three or four months to have a hearing and then at that and by that point. A lot of times those revocations were dismissed because the person had to compensate it to the point where they were on a new emergency exam or a new mental health warrant. Since the ONH summer study committee, there's been an effort to expedite those hearings those revocation hearings so they don't take so long because the idea is like something's going on right now we need to address it. But it's so it's it's the really the current treatment providers so it would be the community mental health provide that team that would testify and work with the Department of Mental Health legal division in preparing for that revocation hearing in making that determination of whether hospitalization was necessary because the only other possible remedy is to amend the conditions. For example, if the condition was take all medications as prescribed. And they thought the person wasn't taking their medications they could add in take medications in front of, you know, your medication provider, for example, to make sure that somebody was actually adhering to the condition. So it's either. But, but so it's, you know, to answer your question it's not, I wouldn't technically say it's what while DMH is the person who is in court that information has come from the community mental health provider. It's being driven by the, the treatment needs and then DMH is the one who petitions the court and DMH might or might not say and we think this person needs to be have it revoked and return to the hospital based on an assessment of needing to be in the hospital. Correct. And sometimes it would just that process of filing it, and would would would be kind of a almost like a treatment tool and it would the client would say like oh wow like this you guys are serious, and then would get into compliance and so then it's very easy to just dismiss that revocation. Is DMH the only one who's permitted to apply to the court for a revocation? Could a state's attorney petition the court? It's no. The Department of Mental Health has that jurisdiction. So no one else if the court could the court on its own initiative. I don't believe so. I haven't looked at that part of the statute for a while but I don't believe so representative Donahue that the court could do that on their own. Can the court if DMH is recommending a change in the, a change in conditions but not necessarily recommending hospitalization. And again, if you haven't had a chance to look at the statute it's maybe it's not a fair question, but but I'm wondering if the court can order hospitalization without DMH having say had a psychiatrist evaluation that they need hospitalization. Is it within the court's authority to decide. Yeah, I mean I've had hearings where a psychiatrist didn't testify you know it might be an APR advanced practice registered nurse for example if they were part of the treatment team, or other members of the treatment team who were testifying about the non compliance and the potential danger to the community or to the to the patient. That could happen. And the other one other thing that could happen is we could, we would communicate with the mental health law project who represented the client and sometimes we would agree on how to resolve it without hospitalization. Yeah, I'm sorry I'm not asking the question clearly so if if DMH is has brought a petition because of of a compliance issue and DMH is is recommending a change in the conditions. And there's not a psychiatrist has not said that they actually meet the level for needing hospitalization. Does the court have the authority to order hospitalization without, for instance and admitting psychiatrist saying that they are in a need for that level. I get I get your question now sorry about that. No, no, the court couldn't do that without evidence to demonstrate that the person needed hospitalization. And are you all set or I can't. I'm sorry. Yes, thank you. Okay. Okay, great. Okay, so I see Kate and then coach and then hoping that we can hear from the medical society before we adjourn. Go ahead, Kate. Thanks. Um, so I just want to you apologize to make you repeat yourself because I think you sort of talk through this already but I just want to get it clear in my mind so if there's an order of non hospitalization. I guess the first question is are we saying that it's the court or or the attorneys essentially that that sort of dictate what that initial order will be like what what the person will have to follow in the community is that what you were saying. Yes, usually DMH would draft it. Hopefully with input from the mental health agency the designated agency for what those conditions should be. We'd send it around to the both the state's attorney and the defense attorney so they could take a look at it. And then we'd present it in court I would present it in court and remember this was, this was not I mean I, it was sort of the state's attorneys were like. And you know please do this because I don't know what I'm doing. It wasn't like that it was actually allowed, but it was, you know, we just did it because it was easier to do it that way. It was a lot easier. The Department of Mental Health and the designated agency do have an opportunity in the very beginning to help draft what the order is but they might be doing that without really they're doing that without necessarily knowing who the client. Well right or the defendant. What would happen is Department of Mental Health we get the evaluation back and if the forensic psychiatrist found the person to be not competent, then I would alert both parties, like, okay this defendant is not competent so your own here are your options. I'm not competent because of a major mental illness I'd say, you know, either they could go on an order of non hospitalization or the designated agency, you know doesn't know them and is there another way to resolve this. Or do you really, you know, based on what the forensic psychiatrist said, I don't know what treatment would be appropriate. Or I'd say the reason that they're incompetent is for this whole other reason and now you don't really have any options other than to dismiss the case. I would do that they would be alerted to that, and then, and then I could help provide the input through so I was sort of the liaison if you will through the for the designated agency to provide input into what the condition should be. What what also has happened though is that sometimes a case would just come up in criminal court that nobody would know about. And the and the designated agency would not have an opportunity for any input, and suddenly a defendant would show up at their door and say hey I was court ordered to come here for treatment. And here's the here's a copy of the order. And the agency would be like well, you know, we can't do this or we can do this you know it was just way more difficult that's why having representation from DMH and from mental health law project will be, I think, really really helpful. So, thanks for that clarification and purple. And so, I guess that well, the way the bill is written is that the Commissioner of Mental Health would have to alert the attorneys if the person's not complying with the order, or the alternative treatment isn't adequate to meet their needs. But I feel like what I'm hearing you say is that's what is that's sort of already true is that is that already sort of like behaviorally what's happening or does this section of the is this is this part of the bill putting into statute with already happening or is this requiring something in addition. Well, this is requiring this the Department of Mental Health to notify the state's attorney. That that is not when somebody is not in compliance so like in the past right now. If Department of Mental Health files a revocation of an OH, in order of non hospitalization. So, they don't notify the state's attorney. If it came out a criminal court states attorney wouldn't know. And that's what their, that's what their concern is that they ought to know that somebody is not in compliance and I'll also tell you that there were where, you know, somebody like a police officer or even a state's attorney at one point, let me know like hey did you know that so and so is living next door to his victim. When the ONH said you got to stay you know 500 feet away from your victim. And so they would they might alert me to that and then I would just in turn get in touch with them designated mental health agency and say hey you know why is this guy living within 500 feet of his victim. You know so it's the notice requirement. It's always, it's always up to the designated mental health agency to notify the Department of Mental Health when somebody is not in compliance with the order of non hospitalization that's their obligation. But it's, and like I said before, if it's not really affecting their treatment. You know they may not think that it's necessary to notify them. And so you're saying that the path to amend the order is essentially in the beginning the same path as revoking the order, like you have to make this report to DMH that they're not in compliance or that you want to amend it and so this current bill in front of us written essentially saying that if DMH was working with someone who is on an order of non hospitalization and they found that the order didn't align with what this person needed and they were then reporting that to DMH in an effort to amend it that that would also be sent to the state's attorney like any is it sort of on such that like that. Yeah, sorry go ahead. Yeah, no that that's how I read it. I'm sorry I didn't mean to interrupt you but that that's how I read it says like the only way I mean the way that DMH becomes aware other than those weird circumstances I just said the way that they become aware that the person is in compliance is through the mental health agency. So, you know that's that's that's going to happen. I mean, if that doesn't change what's what the this step this bill does not change what the current practices which is the mental health agency, if somebody is if they have a client on an order of non hospitalization who's not in compliance, they have an obligation to let the Department of Mental Health know that so that that there needs to be a revocation filed. That doesn't change this just adds on then in turn. Now, if this passes that Department of Health would have to notify the state's attorney. So it's that become aware section that's just really, you know, that that's what's what the big concern is is, given the spirit of this whole point of this is to make sure that the state's attorney, you know, assuming the amount of a criminal act and that there might be a victim that they'd want to notify that person, you know, does the mental health agency have to report every single little non compliance that that's the concern. Thank you. Okay, great. Coach. Sorry about that had done on me. Kristen thank you very much for joining us today. So basically, the Commissioner has like jurisdiction similar to the Commissioner of corrections, as far as the onus of responsibility in these cases for the agency, and then similar to the Commissioner of Children and Families for children under his care, or her care. So, so hopefully what we're attempting to do just getting that flow chart piece together is to clarify some of those unclear gaps, you know, in the process. It seems like, like some of the things that you provided in your experience have been helpful, but they hadn't been codified. Exactly. Correct. And the piece about having the Attorney General and the mental health law project present at the hospitalization hearing that will happen in criminal court. That has not been codified. Correct. And I did that regularly I went around the whole state when I was there, I left there eight years ago and they, you know, I mean I had a real passion for and I had the background so it made sense but and they still, they still keep track of some of the cases but not all I mean not all of the criminal cases where somebody is incompetent or insane. At the time of the crime so it's not a it's not as consistent I would say, but this this should make it very consistent, I hope. Thanks Kristen, you bet. Madam chair you're muted. Okay yeah thank you. I think your hand is up from before I just want to make. Yeah, okay. Thank you. Not, not seeing anybody else. Okay, so we, I did want to hear from the, from the medical society but I also realized that it is good Friday. I don't want to be sensitive to that. So, I am hoping so I'm sorry that we're not getting to, to everybody, but we knew that might be the case so I'm, I think it's a, is it Eric Thursday morning that we, I'm sorry, Evan Thursday morning that I think we have the schedules. Work on it. So that's what I'm hoping that we'll get back to this on Thursday morning and have have the whole morning. So, so with that.