 You're live. So welcome, folks. This is House Corrections and Institutions May 14th. And we're quickly working right now on the Senate proposal of amendment on House Bill 435. We have with us Interim Commissioner Baker, as well as Steve Howard from the BSEA. I want them to just focus in on two pieces. It's on the investigative unit. It's the employee rights language, as well as the collective bargaining language. This was put in on the Senate side. And we just want to connect with the two folks. My understanding is that this language is to ensure that if there's any investigations that these rights are there for folks that it's currently laid out within their current contract. But the concern was that we just wanted to make sure it would apply here as well. So quite often we use the term belts and suspenders. And this is why the language was put in. So I'm going to turn it over right now to Interim Commissioner Baker. Why don't we start with you and welcome? If you could please identify yourself for the record. My name is Jim Baker. I'm the Interim Commissioner of Corrections. And thank you for the opportunity to come in. Your description of that, Madam Chair, is correct. The union made the recommendation in Senate Governance and I have no issue with the language. It just solidifies the fact that we're going to honor the contract and follow the guidance. And I think when this came up, I'm not speaking for Executive Director Howard, but concerns about if we got into situations where we're doing a central review of a major incident and we come across potentially criminal conduct or misconduct that the employees were afforded the rights. And we absolutely support that. So I have no issue with the language. So let's turn it over to State Employees. Steve, would you just identify yourself for the record? Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the committee. For the record, I'm Steve Howard. I'm the Executive Director of the VSEA. And Madam Chair, I would say I think your description of belts and suspenders is accurate. What this language does is it guarantees that some of the constitutional rights that a worker who comes under a collective bargaining agreement are not ignored in an investigation of an incident. So for instance, wine garden rights, the right to a garrity letter if there's potential criminal implications. Our concern was just that in these investigations of incidents that the contract and the Constitution don't get ignored, they need to be respected in all investigations. So that's really what this is. I think belts and suspenders is a good way to describe it. OK. So it seems on the surface pretty straightforward. Are there any questions from the committee? So for the two of you, we've been working to try to concur with further proposal of amendment. And we've been working with our Senate counterparts. And it appears as if we're on a good track to concur with further proposal of amendment. The amendments right now are just kind of looking into how do how does the Monitoring Commission have access to employees and former employees? And there were issues around the exit interview. And we have addressed that a little bit differently in working with Amron last evening, and also working with Senator White. And we're going to be going through our draft of that. We're looking at the Human Resources does the survey. And the executive director of the VSEA showed us that survey. I think it was sometime in February, or it talks about a lot of employee morale and issues. And we thought if we use that instead of doing the exit interview reports would be better. So that's what we're switching language on that part. Just to let you folks know any further questions from the committee or anything else from Commissioner Baker or Steve Howard. OK, great. You folks can stay on if you'd like. We're going to look at the sexual exploitation section. There was a question on this particular piece. And I reached out to a legislative counsel for Bryn to help clarify the question came up yesterday about the language where it indicates at the time of sentencing for the offense for which the offenders being supervised by the department. The question came up. And we know this is language that we had on our side that came from House Judiciary. And the question was if they're being sentenced for a particular offense, but what if they're already serving another sentence for another offense? How does this language play in with that? Because quite often there are folks who already have a sentence and then they commit a new crime. And then they're going to be sentenced for that crime, but they also have an underlying previous sentence. So how does that all play in with the language about the supervision and knowingly or reasonably should have known that the offenders being supervised by the department? So I'm going to turn that over to Bryn to help us understand the language here. So Bryn, if you could introduce yourself for the record. Sure thing. So good morning, committee. Nice to see you all again for the record. It's Bryn here from Legislative Council. And as I understand the question, you are looking for clarification on the language about sexual exploitation of a person under the supervision of the Department of Corrections as it passed the House. So this is language that has not changed in the Senate. And what I would remind you all is that this is in Title 13. So this would be a crime, sexual exploitation of a person under the supervision of DOC. And really, the crime is key to when did the sexual act take place? So if the sexual act took place while the person was being supervised and that those two individuals were not in a consensual relationship at the time of sentencing for the offense that the person is being supervised for, then that would be considered, I mean, depending on the circumstances, would be considered sexual exploitation of an inmate. So if a person is under supervision and they engage in that act when they were not in a consensual relationship at the time they were sentenced, that could be sexual exploitation. If the person is then, it reoffends, say the person is out on supervision and they reoffend, and they are sentenced again, if they were engaged in a consensual sexual relationship at the time of that sentencing, then moving forward, that would likely not be considered sexual exploitation of an inmate if they engage in a sexual act later after that second sentencing. So I think that you may be thinking of a situation where an inmate and a worker were not engaged in a consensual sexual relationship while the person was being supervised, but then the person reoffends and is under supervision again for a second offense, and then they are in a consensual sexual relationship at that time, then the first may be considered sexual exploitation and the second would not. Does that help? I've had a hard time following that. I don't know if other people did or not. My internet is unstable, so I may have frozen up. So this is a crime. So the sexual exploitation of a person under the supervision of the Department of Corrections, the crime would be committed by the employee or contractor of DOC, correct? Not the offender, correct? Okay, just so people are clear on that. So Scott and then Kurt. Well, I think what we're trying to get at here is, is prohibiting a correctional officer, or somebody employed by DOC from engaging in a sexual relationship with somebody under the supervision of DOC because of that power differential, right? So in any time that that happens, unless that relationship predated supervision by DOC. So I think to me the question was about the phrase at the time of sentencing might be better put basically something like prior to the offender being under the supervision of DOC. Do you see what I'm getting at? I guess that's another way to put it, yes. Yeah, well, but I mean, I think it, because of the possibility of somebody being under supervision for another offense or whatever, having it say at the time of sentencing for the offense for which the offender is being supervised seems to leave a gap. But it is a little hard to follow the, you know, it wasn't a little hard to follow what you just said, right? So. I think what we're dealing with here, this is language within statute that sometimes is worded differently than how we think in layman's term. And this was also worked on through our house judiciary committee without legal staff. So I would just caution about trying to tinker too much with this language. I think the other piece that's triggered folks is the addition of the word consensual. I mean, just the question is whether there's a gap. So I would encourage the committee to look at the actual elements of this criminal offense. So the elements are that a person, an employee of the department shall not engage in a sexual act with a person that they know is being either as confined to a facility or as being supervised by the department. So that's what the timing is. If that person knows that the person is being supervised by the department and they engage in a sexual act with that person, that's the timing. So the concern was what about an existing relationship? So this committee worked on this language and decided that as long as they were in a consensual relationship at the time that they were sentenced for that offense for which they're under this department supervision, as long as that at that point, if you say prior to, then you may, there may be some question about how long prior to the time they were sentenced. Where is the timeframe there? So I think you were trying to tie it to a particular point in time, which was if at the time of sentencing, they were engaged in that consensual relationship, then it would not be considered sexual exploitation if they engaged in a sexual act while the person was under supervision. So I don't see there being a gap, but again, there may be a specific fact pattern that you have that I'm not privy to. Yeah, I don't have a particular fact pattern in mind. I'm just trying to see if there was a gap there. But yeah, this really is sort of judiciary committee specialty rather than ours, certainly rather than mine. So I guess I just wanted to ask the question and make sure that we weren't missing something. So we have a couple more questions. Kurt, and there was Karen and your hand went down. So I don't, okay, Kurt. Maybe I'm, maybe there's a fundamental misunderstanding in my thinking, but detainees, if we have, and we have lots of detainees, they have not been sentenced yet, correct? Correct. So if a person is a detainee and they have, and there's a relationship building between a corrections officer and that person, that person is under the supervision of the Department of Corrections. Correct. So they're detainee. So that would mean that this would say that they cannot have a consensual or non-consensual sexual relationship? Correct. That person is confined to a correctional facility. So that relationship would be considered depending on the circumstances, but that relationship would likely be considered sexual exploitation of an inmate or of a person in supervision of the Department. Regardless of whether it's consensual or not, but even though it's pre-sentencing. Correct. Because that person is confined to a correctional facility. Or under the super, ooh. No, just in the correctional. Just in the correctional facility? Right. So you're looking at, if I understand it correctly, you're looking at that language in subdivision too, an offender who's being supervised by the Department who's on parole, probation, community sentence or furlough. But if you're talking about detainees, those people are confined to a correctional facility. They're being detained. I see what you mean. Yes. Okay. I'll think about this some more. It sounds like we're all right, but I'll thank you. Other questions? Michael? Yes. Based on Bryn's explanation and rereading it here, I think it's spot on. I think it does the needed trick for us. And I'm comfortable with it. I see that it looks good. And I like the explanation that, Kurt just asked that question. And that sums up basically the bottom line. If they're under the supervision of DOC, then there wasn't something prior, you have a problem. And to me, I think it's pretty straightforward. I think it looks good. Thank you. Other folks? So are we okay with this language as was language that we had approved on our side previously? Marsha? I agree with what Michael just said. I'm on board. Okay. I'm on board as well. Yeah. I am too. Great. So thank you, Bryn, for coming in, zooming in real quick. Absolutely. I'll clarify. What I'd like to do, we still have time. I would like Amron to quickly walk us through the proposed changes that we have discussed. We discussed this as a committee yesterday a little bit at the end of the day. As a result of conversations that Sarah and I have with Senator White. And then we sat down with Amron and Amron, I know it was sent to Phil. It's on our webpage. And I've got to get there. And what I would recommend Amron is to go through the markup of the Senate proposal of amendment. I think that would be the easiest. So for folks at Senate proposal of amendment markup is what you want to click on. And it highlights where the changes were made. Come on with the yellow highlighting, in other words, the second document. Okay, great. And I also just received an email from Senator White. She has quickly looked this over with some members of her committee. And at this point it appears as if they are supportive of this. So Amron, I'm going to turn it over to you. If you could identify yourself for the record. Yes, good morning, Amron Aberjaley, Legislative Council. So I am looking at draft number. Oops, nope, I'm looking at the wrong document. One moment. I am looking at the Senate proposal of amendment. And you'll see in the header, it says markup-ala. The draft amendment proposal that is also posted is the instances of amendment are in the same order that you will see them here through this markup. In case you want to go back and look through, they go in order as you find them in this draft, or excuse me, this markup. So the actual amendment that will be presented in the calendar will not look like this. It looks totally different and it's harder to follow. So I said to Amron for the committee, it would be easier just to see the markup in the Senate proposal's language first and not go through what's really gonna be written up as a formal amendment because it's very hard to follow. All right, so the first instance of amendment is going to be on page one in subsection B, subdivision one, the commission shall be composed of the following eight members. Would you like me to pause, Madam Chair, between each one or keep going? Okay. Because we have short on time and if folks have a question, just raise your hand. So just keep going. Okay, and the reason we have changed this to eight is you'll see on page two, the removal of subdivision H, a former employee of a Vermont Community Justice Center appointed by the Community Justice Network. So the membership of the commission with that deletion will be moving down to eight members from nine. And that was one of our concerns and this is how it's addressed. The next change, the third instance of amendment is on the bottom of page three in subdivision two of subsection C, powers and duties. This is to delete the exit interview records and you'll see that the sentence will now read, the commission may engage with current and former department employees and individuals in the custody of the department, review the analysis of state of Vermont employee engagement survey results from the Department of Human Resources and meet with the Vermont State Employees Association to further the commission's understanding of these issues. And I should note the analysis that is put out on a mostly annual basis from the Department of Human Resources is a public document and it is an aggregate of an analysis of data obtained from employees filling out surveys. So we do have a question, Amron. So the commission may engage with current and former department employees. If I'm on the commission or there's a commission and I decide, you know, I'd really like to talk to such and such the supervised, the superintendent from the certain facility or something. Does that mean that I will be able to or is there anything stopping me from, stopping the commission from interviewing that from engaging with that person? I read this as giving the commission the authority to engage with those members, although I would think that, well, it doesn't say anything about coordinating with the commissioner. It just says that they may engage. Okay, all right, thank you. Anything else? So this is where we really worked on the issue of the exit interview records. The part about the exit interview records was also for former employee, it was for former DOC employees. So we incorporated, we thought if we incorporated where the commission could engage, where it said current department employees and individuals to also add former, because the Senate really does wanna have access, allow the commission to have access to former employees as well, not just current ones, but former. And we had concerns that the commission would do an interview with current employees and that the commission could also review the exit interview records of former employees. So we've melded those two together into allowing the commission to reach out to current and former department employees and individuals in the custody of the department. And I see some faces that look a little confused. Karen, do you have anything? You looked a little confused. No, so this is the way we kind of melded those two together. Any further questions on this? And we worked with Senator White on this one, particularly the interview issue and the exit interview records issue. And we worked through that. And I wanna thank Amron for bringing in the analysis of the state employee engagement survey results as a mechanism for folks to see where our employees really feel in their work environment. And VSEA had shared that with us, I think back in February. And it was very informative. And that is a public record, okay? So let's continue, Amron. All right, the next instance of amendment, which is the fourth instance, yes, fourth instance of amendment is on page five in subdivision four, beginning on January 1st, 2023. The commission now will submit an annual report rather than report annually. And this is to indicate that this is not a requirement for a presentation, but it will be a requirement for a written report. And Karen brought up above where on number two, it stated the commission shall report annually on or before January 15th to the commissioner of corrections and secretary of the agency and human services and committees. The department's progress and improving staffing retention, the barriers for further improvement to staffing retention, improving working conditions, employee morale. That would be a separate report that's specific to those items. So we were okay with thinking it would just be a report annually instead of tracking. Shall submit a report because it was specific for those areas. Scott. I have a note here about this particular change that something about sunsetting in two years. It's coming. I'm getting to that. Okay. It's coming. Karen. Yes, and as commissioner Baker on still my screen. Yes. So I guess I would be a question for commissioner Baker because this is the addition of looking at the staffing retention piece of it, which we hadn't had originally in this commission makeup. So I would be curious to get your thoughts on, how manageable will this be to work with a commission to have the, because I'm assuming that's going to be a lot of meetings for you and coordinating with them. Does this see manageable? What are your thoughts on that with this extra body of work? I have no issue. I mean, the next commission may have issues. I don't know. I'll go back to what I've said all along about this commission. It's just time that corrections opens up its curtain windows and lets people peek inside. And I think there's going to be a huge benefit from the way I look at it. From my background, I've always said in these type of agencies, you're going to be successful when you let the public touch the process and better understand the process. So for me, I have no problems whatsoever at all. In fact, I'm looking forward to it. Great. Thank you. So let's keep moving because time's a wasting here. All right. So the next instance of amendment is down on page six in section three. You'll see that I have amended this section to add a new subsection A to say that 28 VSA, section one, two, three, subdivision C4, which is the report we were just discussing, is repealed on July 1st, 2024. So that would mean the commission will be providing the written report from subdivision four for January 1st, 2023 as well as for January 1st, 2024. And then the requirement would sunset July 1st, 2024 unless the legislature determines that they would like the report to continue and changes this session law. Okay. Let's keep going. I'm now moving down to page eight. And this is right now we're in the implementation of the commission. This is to set up the staggering with the removal of that ninth member appointed by the community justice network of Vermont. We now need to remove that from the staggering implementation section of this. So that is the change that you see here on page eight. Okay. Let's keep moving. And those are all of the changes. So that's it. So I received an email from the chair of Senate GovOps. And I'm just gonna, she had passed this by three. Let me get the email again, see if it's been updated. She said, so far three members have weighed in and they are okay. We'll let you know if either of the other two have serious objections. So I would like to finish this up today. If possible, are people okay with this amendment? Proposed amendment. Okay. I don't feel comfortable just yet in taking a vote. I would like to come together really quick. I'm gonna, what do you think, Sarah? You're the one that worked a lot with the committee over there. Would it be safe to take a vote right now and concurring? I just, I would like to hear, I think Senator White is making fast work of this and I'd feel better if knowing that she spoke to all five members of her committee. And it might make sense for us just to wait if we could come back and take a vote on this after the floor, that might be. Then we know that we have an agreement with this further proposal of amendment. Those are my thoughts. I think it depends on which member she spoke to. Mary? I would agree with that. I think we wanna all be on the same page. So we don't have a last minute kind of question. So I would probably say it's important to wait to just hear from the other two. Okay. So why don't we do that? This is on notice. The bill's on notice today. So it'll be up for action on Tuesday. And I would really like to get this amendment wrapped up and submitted to the clerk's office. So it can be in the calendar. That's the push so that it can be in the calendar for Tuesday. And Sarah would be the person reporting this on the floor. So the amendment, Amron, would be from Sarah Coffey. Okay. Thank you. So be on the lookout, folks, for a text. What I would recommend as soon as we'd finish on the floor, come right back into committee is what I'm thinking. I think if Sarah, you'd be willing to connect with Senator White and say, we are in agreement and we are on hold waiting to take a vote to hear back from your other two members. I can do that. And we would like to vote on that this morning. Great. Okay. So thank you all. And we will quickly zoom off and off on YouTube and keep your eye out for a text members. So thank you, commissioner. Thank you, Steve. Thank you, folks. We're on a roll. We're gonna get it done. Thank you very much. Have a great day. Yes, you too. Thank you.