 This is the House Health Care Committee. It's Friday, April 16th. It's two in the afternoon. And we are turning our attention to looking at language, a draft that I had worked on and represent dying humans. Anyway, basically took some ideas from the testimony we heard on Tuesday. And then we heard further testimony this morning and I wanted to open it up to committee discussion to about the draft language, to see if there are questions or concerns about the language as it got put into the draft. And then also if there are any other further suggestions generally and suggestions based on the testimony we heard this morning, et cetera. I also wanted to bring into the discussion at some point, probably, because I was shared a draft of what the House Judiciary Committee has been working on and there are some things there that it may, you know, I've seen something and I thought, oh, well, you know, we've been thinking about that. Maybe we would have incorporated that. So I'm just gonna open it up. And I think the first question for me is, are there particular questions, concerns, or reactions to the draft as it was first circulated? And use that to make your comments as needed. So that's an open-ended question to any committee member who has thoughts. I think I had the latest. I think with the draft, I think we did cover most of Ms. White's comments, don't you? A number of them we did, yes. And I decided not to try to go through them point by point this morning, but although there were some points she made, and she also submitted her written testimony. Did folks get that, which I read through and there were, so. I just saw it, so I haven't read it. Yeah. And I might make a couple of comments. There were a couple things said there that I thought, oh, well, you know, I would actually ask us to entertain that, possibly, yeah. Well, so Leslie, did that, you were, Leslie, and then Ann. Well, I was just curious because this bill doesn't have sort of this notion of sort of intent. And she was talking about innocent until proven guilty sort of in this mental health world. And I was just wondering about that. Many bills we see has a, why do we have this bill? What's, and I didn't know, in the center version anyway, I didn't see any intent. And I was just wondering about that. I have some other questions, but that was just at the beginning of it. That's not always done. Okay. And if it's not done. Most often not done. Okay. Yeah. I mean, it's kind of an applied sense of intent based on what is being put forward. But I think if I can speak to it, so I think, and others kind of as well, but I think it is an issue that, and it came up early in some of the early testimony we were taking, comments were made to me that, you know, people are talking as if the person had been found guilty, they're not, they have not been adjudicated. That's the whole point. And so I think people get attacked, somehow get weary of saying the alleged offender or the alleged, I mean, there's been an offense, but this is an alleged, you know, offender. Or a not adjudicated something. Right. There's a point that needs to be made about that. I guess that's what I'm getting. Yeah. And we actually have that in our draft. And that was a tweak I was going to suggest to add to it, but we have, you know, I think it, like on our list, the list of issues they're supposed to look at, there's C, considered due process criteria for defendants held without adjudication of a crime. And to clarify that, we could add and presumed innocent, but. Or as per the constitution or whatever, you know, as culture, I don't know. I didn't know how to. And it should say due process requirements, not criteria, because they're not just criteria that we would invent, they're requirements. Yeah. Consider due process requirements. Well, can I also pick up on, on the very last page of Will the White's written testimony in the very last paragraph, she also has a sentence that says, there's really two things there. One is when the idea of maybe having some language when reviewing competency restoration models and the forensic need for individuals incompetent to stand trial, the working group shall also balance the presumption of innocence of an individual incompetent to stand trial, along with public safety. So somehow embed, and I think there's a way to embed that into ours, and I think that would be a good thing. Yeah, that's where I was going. I thought about it in the area of intent, but this might be way better. Yeah. Yeah. Now, Katie, Katie, Katie, Katie. I don't get it, Katie. Oh. We have to keep notes. Okay, because she was going to, I knew that she has a, she's again juggling several things, but I think that is one of the, I would like for us, I think we could embed that in some part of our language. And I think that would pick up both on what, I think what Will did said, and there's a way to strengthen that. And I think the one other related thing that she suggested that I thought made sense, and maybe part of the same sentence or whatever, but considering are the policy of the, the statutory policy of the general assembly to be working towards a system, I forget the exact language, towards a system that does not use coercion. There's a legislative statute that has the wording, but. Yeah, add that reference. Yeah, I agree, because that, I mean, basically that's the values goal that's stated in statute for the Vermont mental health system. Yep. Art, can you represent Peterson? You're muted. I got a new, yeah. I'm toggling back and forth. So I'm on the screen of the, on the first page, and this is a small thing. You're talking about our draft now. Pardon me? The draft that we started. Yeah, I'm looking at the draft you sent with the yellow, the highlighted area. Yeah. Page one, and it's just a small thing. And I always notice that we put Vermonters and out of state correctional facility. To me, I would put state residences, state residents and out of state correctional. I wouldn't use the term Vermonters in a, in a, in a thing like this to me. I mean, that's a kind of a colloquial. Kind of an informal. Yeah, I would put state residents. Or some word that really codifies that. That's just me, but yep. No Vermont residents. That makes sense. I don't know. Yeah. What's the legal definition of a Vermonter? Yeah, Vermonters very vague. I think Vermont residents make sense. That's that could be its own bill defining a Vermonter. There are no Vermonters in heaven, you know. Right. We all know that poem, I'm sure. Oh, right. Yeah. OK, I think we can probably find a way to do that art. OK. Leslie, you had. Yeah, I was just wondering to the, I guess if you want to call it draft that we got draft 3.1. They talk about Department of Corrections contracts for health care services. And I was wondering if the same contractor provides physical health services and mental health services. Well, you're picking up on something if I can pick up on that. There was a time when that was not true and there were separate contractors for mental health and for health. That is a minor stage. Now there's a single contract with a single contractor. I had initially gone through and suggested with thought about putting in contracts for health and mental health care services so that it was clear. But then that flies in the face of us thinking of health care services as including mental health services. So I backed away from making that suggestion. Although there was, although at the one point where. And I think I had suggested this, but at the one point where it talks about to evaluate whether I think it's in section five. Whether there should be some kind of oversight. By the Department of Mental Health. And I thought maybe that's the place where it actually should say, should provide oversight authority of the entity with whom the Department of Corrections contracts for health or for mental health services. So that's like you wouldn't want. But it actually, yeah, it says provide oversight authority for mental health services provided by the entity that's contracted for health care. That to me, that makes sense. Their oversight would be of the mental health services that are provided by who oversees them. Maybe I made that suggestion. I'm actually on the earlier draft before a few other small things were integrated. OK, so you may have suggested that. Yeah, OK, right. Who currently oversees for non-mental health services? The whole thing is just by the Department of Corrections. The commissioner. The commissioner of corrections. Yeah, no, that's the I mean, I think that's part of the issue that they they have a whole health care system for which none of the regular authorities have any relationship, which is why we don't actually have jurisdiction over health care in corrections. Ironically, that's corrections and institutions. Now, they're asking us to weigh in. We're weighing in on this, but in the in the bigger picture of committee jurisdictions. Well, I think we I think part of what we're suggesting in a way is that we should have an involvement there because, in fact, these people don't just stay there. They go in and out and are part of the system. If we're going to, though, parse out DMH having jurisdiction or looking at whether they should have jurisdiction over just mental health services, are we going to just leave health services out in the wind still under Department of Corrections versus the Vermont Department of Health? Is there any jurisdiction? Am I frozen? Yeah, I think I'm frozen. You are. I'm just going to pipe up because when I can't see anybody moving, but me, it means I'm frozen. Yeah. Yeah, well, the only problem is my hand doesn't seem to be working. Hi, Maureen. What would you like to say? Thanks, I gave up on my hand. I was frozen. Sorry. I gave up on my hand raising, so I've been indirectly involved in some of the COVID cases in a couple of the correctional facilities and I and other health care providers have been incredibly frustrated, not just around COVID care, but the care in general. And I don't know if we could manage to put the Department of Health in this current bill, but I think it's something that we absolutely need to work on. And at the very minimum, we should I do support the oversight by the Department of Mental Health in the the contracted services. And I won't go into more detail about my thoughts about what I've witnessed first and second hand. Well, may I may I because I oh, yeah, I just want to point out that this particular bill is about a study of the mental health services, basically the quality of care, mental health, services and corrections. So yeah, I'm not disagreeing with the bigger discussion. I think it's important. But in terms of what we're doing in this bill, we're kind of contained to look at the it's a study. It's not a directive. It's a study on these different issues related to the quality of mental health care and corrections. Can I throw out an idea, which is because I think you're right there and because that that's really the parameters of what we're working with here. But you know, maybe it's maybe it's something as simple at this point of a letter, ironic a letter, but somehow some communication from us to the to the Department of Corrections, to the Department of Health from us as the Health Care Committee of the House and include and copy to our Corrections and Institutions Committee saying in the course of our reviewing and raising questions about oversight of the mental health care, we are also find yourselves concerned about what kind of oversight there is for the health care generally of those under the Department of Corrections. And we can do that as a separate letter, which doesn't have to put something in this particular piece of legislation and raise that issue. And then think about a future bill. Yeah, well, that's what I mean. And then take some initiative, you know, think about doing something, I mean, not try to do it right now, given everything else that's going on. But but think about possibly a committee bill or or a bill sponsored by some of us, you know, to actually put something in motion. Yeah. So I'm going to make a note about that as possible kind of side addition to this. So yep. Well, I just want to check with Mari that that. Yeah, that sounds great. OK, they're just OK. Thank you. Yeah, scanning the screen here. OK, Ian, and then I have a thought I want to throw out. Yeah, I had just one thought on the draft. And it was I was thinking back to what Fox was talking about and describing, you know, bringing in that regional or national expertise. And I I would take out the word. Let me find where it is. Help us where you think about. Yeah, I'm I'm looking now. I can't. Oh, wait, I can find it on my right. OK, on the draft on page. This doesn't have page numbers. Let's see. The beginning of the forensic care working group. Very opening of section three. It says the Department of Mental Health shall convene a working group of interested stakeholders to provide expertise and recommendations. I think that the expertise is what was supposed to be brought in by the Department of Mental Health as part of advising the committee that a lot of the committee members are not necessarily people with expertise. And that's why they need to bring it in. So I would strike expertise from there and then maybe add a sentence somewhere. Katie could figure out where. That said, the department shall use, you know, national or regional expertise to present to the working group. Models that deal with these issues as a framework for their. Looking at gaps and recommendations and that might be the place to also say and they they should include models that are proposed by stakeholders. So that that and that that's melding what Fox said with what will do was saying about, you know, not presuming any models. If there's if there's stakeholders who specifically want to say, well, this is this is a really good model from this state. Well, that could be included in what's looked at. But. But I'm just thinking of a sentence somewhere. That would that would say this is how the department is going to. Is going to bring in national expertise. To present models for the working group to review and make recommendations on. Can I ask a question of Anne. Sure, yeah, go ahead. So I'm just looking at the list and I'm wondering if that you're thinking that. People from Dale or the state's attorney, the attorney general, that they don't have expertise to offer the group. Oh, no, all of the different groups have. Expertise in some area or another. But the purpose. Of them coming together, I think is bringing all these different perspectives to the table. But when Fox was talking about. Expertise on forensic care systems. These, but none of these people really have. Expertise. On. You know, systems of forensic. Forensic systems that we don't have in Vermont. But that some that many other states have. So that they all have expertise in their. Steers, but not on forensic systems of care. I see what you're saying. So make a note. I made a note and try to work that in. I'd like to pick up on several things that. Will the white put in her written testimony. She referenced it. I think in past, not in passing, but she referenced it in her verbal testimony, but also in her written testimony. And I think from my point of view, One of them was in terms of the list of representatives. Where she was making the case for, I think our draft has two individuals with lived experience of mental illness. She was advocating for three, but that's, I'm going to step aside for the number for a moment. But she, I think a point she made as well was. Not just lived experience. With mental illness, but in knowledge of the criminal justice and her civil commitment system. And I think that's a good addition. Maybe saying at least one who has, because I, you might start narrowing down where you're not going to find. It's not that easy even to find people who have the ability on the comfort level to be parts of working groups like this. Who have those experiences. And so if you start narrowing the criteria too much, you're going to. Right. Okay. Part. But at least one of them. We could put. I think that's a good choice also. To make that addition. Okay. Let's, let's, let's, let's. We can note here. And I wanted to just make another suggestion that. Okay. And, you know, I have to say, I'm, I'm saying this without knowledge. That's the issue. I don't know about, I'm not familiar with competence, competency restoration. Models. I am. Okay. I mean, I'm willing to offer that background. If you have a question. Yeah, yeah. Well, I'm not questioning that you don't. But I, but I'm not, I know that I don't. Right. And one of the, one of the things that again, will the suggested was. That the working group. This is on her last page of her. Written testimony. It says. That the working group show include in its review of competency restoration models. Models that do not rely on involuntary drugging. Now that's the choice at work. That she uses. I would probably phrase it differently because I think that's. Different people will describe the same thing where I think that right. We're referring to his forced medication. Involuntary medication. Of course, but involuntary medication. To restore competency. And I think. To the degree, I mean, I would be perfectly happy to have that be part of. In terms of looking at. Competency restoration models. To include. Looking at models that do not rely on involuntary drugging. Now that's the choice of words that she uses. I would probably phrase it differently because I think that's. I would probably phrase it differently because I think that. I would probably phrase it differently because I think that. Looking at models that do not rely on involuntary medication. And I think that. I think that that would be fine. You know, that. That would, that's consistent with what I was suggesting that. That model is that others. That stakeholders present be looked at. I think. Yeah. I think that language is fine. I think in looking for that, unless a stakeholder knows one. I. Not sure they exist because actually that. I don't know why they don't because, and that's why some advocates are very concerned about introducing this as a model because that is sort of the whole point of. Competency restoration. Models. That's why the department of mental health is asking for this. Because the criteria for involuntary medication for somebody who's refusing it. Rests on. Certain criteria around. Dangerousness refusal and all that and. Doesn't allow for seeking it. When the issue is restoring competence and a person is refusing medication. So. That's why there are people concerned about it. But I. And it's, and it's fine to add and shall look at models that don't require that. I just. Doesn't say that only only look at those. Exactly. No, no, that exactly. So I think that's fine. I think that's fine. Because I think it's messaging. Part of the. Intent to be in keeping with our state public policy. So it's messaging. Look and look for those. And it's also consistent with, it's a consistent with our support for. Settings like Soteria house. Yes. Where in fact we, we actually have said we will try to create settings which don't. Which are not premised on involuntary medication. So I think that's fine. I think that's fine. I don't know if it's successful. I don't know about it in this particular instance, but I think it's consistent with that. And I would like to have that be part of. You know, not, not constrain it from looking at anything else, but to also look at that. What do you represent page? Yes, thank you, chair. On. On section four. I don't know what you were just talking about with competency. She does make a recommendation. That item J. The deleted. I don't know whether you saw that. I do. Which is, which is item J. I don't have that. It's in section four of the bill. It's actually. And what do you, the only thing I'd say about that is that. I think that is out. I mean, we've been asked to. Focus on sections five and six. Yeah. And that I'm going to leave my mind and leading that to this judiciary committee to make that call. Okay. That's fine. I just, I know we were talking about competency here and. Yeah. And so that's fine. Yeah, she was sharing the, the, that testimony. I think it says on it. This is what she submitted to judiciary. And I think the. The underlying bill there is. I think it says on it. I think it says on it. I think it says on it. I think that is predominantly judiciary issues. I wouldn't know what he, and that in reviewing the full testimony, which I did or written testimony. That judiciary had incorporated a number of. Suggestions, including getting, giving a copy to the respondent, which. Will the raised earlier to this year. And also preserving evidence for future time. In terms of a future evaluation. So I felt like they were attentive to a number of the other suggestions that are. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I just got a note from Colleen saying that Katie's been stuck in a probes. So. We'll do our best to communicate with her. Okay. Represent Peterson. Yeah. This is more a comment chair than anything specific to this bill, but I was. I was blown away when she picked out my question about the possibility of a. Person faking. I don't know what that is. I don't know what that is. I don't know what that is. I don't know what that is. I forget what I call it. Game and the system. And I wondered if that had any. I didn't quite get the tie in to anything here. It was about the doctors. Testimony. About that. And I guess the doctor said that that. Didn't happen. Typically it was hard to happen. And most people didn't want it to happen. But it's the best I just, I was blown away when she picked it out. That's all. Yeah. I don't think it has relevance here, but. I can't see why it would. Well, I think it was brought up in the context of being able to evaluate. What is happening. And the suggestion being. At least a particular study that she was referencing, which I think. I mean, I'm not sure. I have some vague familiarity with. Of. Individuals. Deliberately trying to. Apparently it did happen. Or does happen. Yeah. And. Okay. I. The primary issue for us to have to look at, but. Right. But I think I get your point. I'm really interested in, in how she said that. You can't. Somebody that is. It's based upon what you were saying. You can't fool. Somebody that's mentally ill. From gaming the system. You might be able to fool. Maybe you or me. But not somebody that is. That is ill. Yeah, I just found that kind of interesting, you know. Just in the context, you know, what she was saying. Yeah, I'm not sure these are. Well, I'll just leave it there. It's not an. It was just an interesting, you know, sideline that she mentioned. Yeah. Question. We're so prescriptive, I think, and what we're asking for and in the evaluation and the working group. And the forensic working group. Is it appropriate to somehow say, and. And then catch all for. Other suggestions. That we're not thinking of. Or. Criteria. No, we're not thinking of. Isn't that like the intro language about. Yeah. I'm trying to find it. Out of order item one says identify any gaps. Right. Gaps and ways to. Are you referring to the restorative models? The competency restoration. Laurie. Because that's what I was thinking. Do you really want to put. We want him to look at this, this and this, or do we want like a catch all. Right. Yeah. I'm sorry. When it says there's the, the report's supposed to be. Gaps in the current system. I'm sorry. Where is the. I'm looking at, I'm sorry. It's at the, it's B1. It's right after they, all the participants are. Reference. The beginning of what the. What the group is supposed to be looking at what the reports are. Identifying any gaps in the current mental health and criminal justice system structure. And opportunities to improve public safety. And address treatment needs. So when we say the working group shall. And I don't, you know, I don't know the legal ease of this. Does that mean that they shall only be looking at the items listed there? That's my concern. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. If it's more like. A minimum. You shall look at these. Not necessarily. But it doesn't necessarily exclude other things that would be gaps in our system. You know, just you're pointing that out. Makes me think if I can just jump in here. Like if you look at the language in B1. In some ways. That thought that first thought. I think that should be number one. That should be the first one. Yeah. That should be one. Then everything else should be two, three, four and five. Yeah. That makes sense. That would help. Yes. Because that holds out that that's really the major. To look at the gaps in current mental health and criminal justice system structure and opportunities to improve public. And that's, that's the. Yeah. That's number one. And then can I actually suggest that we even divide it? Because I think opportunities gets lost as well. Sure. Gaps. Gaps. Then opportunities to improve. And shell. And then the ABC. It just kind of in that list. I mean, I know it's semantics, but I do think. It gets lost. I didn't notice him. Then maybe you're right. There should be an E and any other. Research evidence base. Programming or whatever that leaves it open. As E. Oh yeah, add one at the end, right? Or however they go, whatever the numbers or letters are, but anything else. Yeah. I mean, I know it's semantics, but I do think it gets lost. I didn't notice him. I didn't notice him. I didn't notice him. I didn't notice him. I didn't notice him. Anything else. Yeah. Alyssa, did that get to what you're. You mentioned that too. Yeah. I just. I keep thinking about. Representative Lipper talking about, we don't put gardens and statue. I actually wanted. I wanted to say what seed company that come from. I think it should be a labeled Vermont. I think it should be a seed company. Yes. Yes, it must be. Putting it in statute that you have to look at one, you know, without involuntary medication. I mean, we could get into a whole list of other ones. And I'm just thinking, can't there be, you're right. Catch all a phrase that says, we want you to look at everything. But the problem is sometimes if you don't, if you're not specific enough. It's just like, oh, we didn't look there because, you know, but if everybody says, well, of course they'll look there, or we want them to look there, but we don't have to say it. Then it doesn't happen. And so it's that, it's that balance. And yes, we don't put gardens in statute. I was going to say next thing, you know, you have a sandbox and stuff. But that context too, going into a lot of detail in statute may be a little different from going into detail on this is a, this is a study. So we want to hear and report back. Yeah, that's actually an interesting distinction here. But okay. You know, it is a study and they will report back to us. We need to go any further than that. We all know all about these studies, not really going anywhere. Do we need. We put that in the introduction. We all know. No, no, no. This is a waste of time. No, no, I don't, I don't mean it's a waste of time, but I mean, okay, they do the study, they report back. I mean, we need some language, you know, to do more than just that to really. And I, and I don't have a suggestion either. I don't know what to say. But one of the ways it does that a little bit that goes further than just report back is they, they are supposed to include proposed draft legislation. Which, which does help go a little step further in terms of giving something concrete, because just like when bill presents something to us, if you actually have something put in front of you. To react to, I mean, the draft legislation might be something that gets rejected or something like that. But I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. Whatever, but having it in front. Of us. As a product gives us. More. Gives us a starting point more than just a big report. From which you have to draw out how would you. Deal with these recommendations. So. So are you saying a study group with draft legislation? They've been asked to the department as part of it. They would ask staff to draft. Yeah, but it says the report that they provide in their final and their report is. I believe that's still in there. It was in an early draft. Yes. So. Yeah. I said line 13. Yeah. So Woody. Your hands up. I didn't know if you were still. Yeah. Okay. I want to just, I'm going to pull a couple of things out of what I saw as the house judiciary's initial draft and just throw them out. I mean, I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. Because I, there's things which I, we hadn't talked about, but I thought, oh, maybe we should, because. If we can incorporate some of those pieces here, that might be useful. I think. If, if there, if we think they're appropriate. And two of them that strike me, one is. I mean, I think it goes without saying, but these days we're, we're saying it. And it needs to be said. And that is. They have a language in saying that in the work of including those issues are considered. Hmm. These considerations should be reflected in the report submitted. And I think that that's, I think we should include that. I mean, that's, that's like one of those pieces, which. Especially given the settings that we're talking about. Well, especially disproportionate. There's, there's, there's disparities in terms of race, if nothing else. There's disparities in corrections and there's disparities in our institutional mental health facilities. Yeah. So I disproportionate. That's excellent. I would like to steal that from theirs and move it into ours as well. Pretend we thought of it at the same time. Well, I know I'm, oh, I'm happy to say I took that from somewhere else. And then. Now. What's that? It's on YouTube now. Yeah. Oh. Yeah. That's quality improvement science quality improvement sciences to build on other people's work and improve. That's exactly what I think that's what I was saying. Quality improvement science. Thank you, Leslie. And then there was one other. A line that jumped out. I mean, I think we're saying it in a slightly different way, but this really captured something that says. Talking about the models that should be looked at in terms of. You know, the models that should be looked at in terms of. Treatment. And they have some like. Models for forensic treatment other than in patient facilities, including community based treatment. Now we, we allude to that, but this makes it very explicit. Yeah. I like the explicitness of it, which is. We're not just talking about building a building and putting people in a. Institutional setting. We want to look. We want to look at the models that you look at include. That potential model and those models that. I think that's been embedded in what we've talked about, but I like the way it's made very explicit. No. So. Unless there's objection, I'd like to try to. Integrate something like that. What do you, your hand is still up or is it up again? Yes, I just wanted to bring up the issue about. Continuing our work after this is done. If you look on the last. Age of the, the bill that. We received. It talks about. Submitting a report. To the joint legislative justice oversight committee. Yes. There's nothing there about health unless it's. It's elsewhere. I don't thank you for that reminder, because I think, because I highlighted that before as well. I think there needs to be a member from healthcare on that justice oversight. Committee. Just to clip the reason that that particular one says that is, because it's when we're out of session, but that's, but then when we're out of session healthcare isn't represented. Yeah. So I think we ought to thank you, Woody, for remembering that. And. But if, if I'm understanding, may I ask a question? Please. Okay. I'm B1. I guess it's the middle of one. It says honor before February 1st. Department of mental health shall submit preliminary report. And then it lists all kinds of house committees. But we're not in session. No, we are then February 1st. Oh God, you're right. No, February. Oh, you're right. Sorry. Yeah. It's the next one. It's the. The one that's due July 1st. And then it lists all kinds of house committees. And then the third one, the final report is we're back in session. I can't imagine what it's like to be in session. So I'm sort of lost. Yeah. That's right. Well, let me tell you. You don't want to learn what it's like to be in session in September. That was an experience not to be repeated. Especially when you didn't until the end of June. Yeah, right. Oh yeah. You guys really had. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It was July. Wasn't it? No, I think it was June. It was June. It was June, but then we were back in August, not September. Oh, okay. We only had a short three or four. Oh, we were back in August. That's right. It's a reflection of my brain being. Scramble. Oh, I see. Yeah. Yeah. So. We're approaching the. Well, I mean, it's not quite three, but. We've made a bunch of suggestions. Yeah. Yeah. Here's what I'd like to suggest. I mean, and there may be more right now, but. That I work with Katie to communicate. The ideas that we've put forward here with a new draft. And that we circulate that draft. Ideally on Monday. So that we can come back and look at it on Tuesday afternoon. Does that work for folks to give you enough time to. I think that's enough time for Katie probably to reintegrate some things. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I don't want to have the whole bill because this is just the five and six. That's all we're looking at, right? Or just to have the whole bill in Toto to look at. The challenges. I can, we can do that. The challenges that we're not kind of, I mean, there may be amending to that that. I don't want us to get pulled into amending that, but when it's judiciary already has their, or I could ask them to submit. I don't want to get pulled into that. Right. Yeah. So that we have one piece. But that's reminding me, reminding me that. You know, I, I was following judiciary right, right in the beginning, actually. Representative grad had asked me to testify. Wearing my other hat. Not. This committee. And. And one of the things that I submitted actually as a language about presumed innocent. On the victim notification. And clearly. These are situations where there is a victim of a crime, but the person. Has been charged with it. Not convicted. They're presumed innocent. So, so I suggested and asked them instead of saying. Notification of the victim of the crime. In other words, assuming that the person being discharged. Is the one who did it. That it specifically says. Victim of the crime, which that person was accused of. Yeah, I don't know if they've done that. I don't know if they've done that yet, but I mean, Katie drafted the language and. They have it. So. Maybe this committee wants to like say, yeah, we support. That piece. But. Well, I would because I just because it's consistent with being clear that because of the. Incompetency stand trial incompetence stand trial or the. Insanity at the time of not being saying at the time of commission of the crime. You will not have been adjudicated. Right. That's the whole point is so easy to forget that in the course. That's the whole point. That's the whole point is so easy to forget that. That's the whole point is so easy to forget that. Because some of the, you know, the state's attorneys and people will, will say, I mean, I've heard people say. Well, yeah, but, but we know. We know this person did it. You know, they were like witnesses. And I. We don't know that thing called the Constitution. Is that where we use the word. I mean, we could just say. Well, but a legend isn't, isn't the technical. That's not what you would use. I think in statute or whatever. I would say that the crime would be the way to say it. But the point is that we don't just typically say. Well, we know, we know they did it. So why worry about that? Right. But it is it. We do have a presumption of innocence here. And you can also appreciate the. Yeah. Yeah, I understand that. And that's why I support the victim notification. I support recognizing that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But let's just. Keep that balance in mind. Yeah. Okay. Leslie. I'm not sure if we address this, but we'll to brought up the idea of doing the competency of Al. The same time as the insanity of Al. And I'm not sure we talked about that. And do we have any thoughts about that? My own reaction to that was that that was really a judiciary. Issue. Yeah. That was just my reaction to it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I did in the. Again, I don't want to speak for them because I, I just looked through this, but I noticed that that one of the things they did do was to. Talk about that there shall be, they shall collect and preserve any evidence necessary to form an opinion as to sanity. If the person regains competence. I think that has to do with the same issue of. Doing the same time or not doing it the same time. I think that's what we're doing. I think that's what we're doing. We're doing this study on all these key issues and what other states do and so forth. Things like that. We ought to, that should be part of what's done after the report back rather than doing these some pieces now, but. But that becomes really not our, and that's really up to judiciary. And I think they. I don't think that would fly well with the Senate to just say, let's put it all in a study. I think that's what we're doing. I think that's what we're doing. I think that's what we're doing. I think that's what we're doing. I think that would be that. There's, I mean, there's, it's hard to make a firm line between what is. What our. Purview might be, but we've been particularly asked to look at sections five and six. Anything else. There's an X for an appropriation. Oh, oh, thank you for saying that. Did I, I thought I copied to everyone, the memo from. I didn't. I don't, I think you just sent it to Lori and I maybe. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I just wanted to send it to everybody. It's like got lost in the transition. So I can send that to you. So Fox. Deputy commissioner Fox. Sent me an email. Saying that the department was recommending 20 to 25,000 dollars as an appropriation that would allow them to do what would need it. And I think that was to look at bringing experts, et cetera. That's for the expert. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But, but, but 20 to 25,000 dollars was in terms of the resources issue. Yeah. And so I think that should be, I mean, that'll get communicated. Yeah, Katie can plug that into the next. Right. Thank you. Thank you. I forgot about that. Would people like a copy of what he sent? I mean, I can easily forward that or have calling forward it. Yeah. We should probably have it all posted. It's probably, it should be. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Katie's here. Hi, Katie. So we understand you got way late. By the. Other committee. I heard about five minutes of your conversation. And a lot of it said, well, we'll communicate all these suggestions to Katie. And so we will try to do that. I've made notes and some others have made notes. There are, there are a number of things we'd like to add to the draft. And our hope was. That you might be able to have a revised draft for us to look at on like late in the day, Monday, or Tuesday afternoon. I think I was told you weren't available, but honestly, at this point, I apologize, but we just have to keep moving and we'll do our best to. Communicate. And let you know what we're trying to do. And you can balance your various commitments. I think right that point. Does that seem feasible though, Katie, in terms of a timeframe. Of what you have. Yeah, okay. And just for, I got it. I got an email. I got a request from. House judiciary. To testify to bring the healthcare. Recommendations. Wednesday morning at nine. Hopefully not Tuesday morning. Right. No. So that's. Okay. So I think, I think we will, we'll have achieved it by then. Yeah. Okay. Great. Seeing nothing else. I'm going to call. Call us to a halt. For the day. Thank you for taking, I think this was a good use of our time this one hour. And I think what I'll do is. Bring us, bring this to a close. And then. Katie. We'll find a different time to communicate the things that we want to have added to the draft. I'm not going to try to. I would prefer not to try to reduce that to a memo. But I think it'd be easier to communicate verbally and we'll find a time that works for both of us.