 Okay, we are on YouTube again, and this is the house health care committee. It's Tuesday, April 20th It's a little after one and We are convening a little early today in part because There's been a request that I come down come down I keep acting like we're in the building like I come down to the next floor down but that the institutions and Corrections Committee is also wanting to look at our amendment which and Representative Emmons chair of that committee has asked if represent coffee could join us on our zoom today As we were doing our final review of the amendment language and so welcome Sarah Fun to have you here and somewhere around 230 or so I anticipate that I think in depending where we are in our own discussion. I will Join their committee to review what we're doing in the amendment So you should members should have gotten a copy. Did everyone get a copy of the? Latest so Katie can't be with us today because she is being pulled in as per usual I think three different committees had asked her to be there and I Assured her that we would that we so first of all I want to appreciate Katie's work on this yesterday and over the Weekend and yesterday to get this for us But she was not able to be here with us. So I thought We had a fairly thorough discussion on Friday and there were numbers of suggestions that were put forward So I think that what I'm looking at right now is the copy that she gave us with the highlighted areas Which are the new changes Subsequent to what we looked at last Friday so Given that there's no one from Ledge Council to walk us through it I'll just take the liberty of guess I'm just kind of giving us a walk through and and And along the way invite people that you know raise questions and then we'll have some open discussion and If we need to and my hope is that by the you know Hopefully in the next hour and a half that we come to some closure I think we need to come to closure on this so that we can make a recommendation and Our recommendation is really to the House Judiciary Committee, but also corrections and institutions as asked to see our amendment as well so I'm gonna start on page eight because that's because you had asked to have it put in contacts which was I think reasonable arrest request, but pages one through seven are really the House Judiciary Committee's amendment And so I'm gonna start with page eight, which is the beginning of section five Which is where we began making some changes and I think there's actually one change that wasn't discussed on Friday But I think and I'll ask you to comment on it. You'll see it on page eight line 17 At least as I have it and you're on mute. I was I was trying to go and open the document from My other source which meant I didn't see the screen so I couldn't unmute right away So let me go let me go open it so that I am ready to I think the changes from current to currently available. Oh Right. Yes. Oh, yeah Yeah, I can explain it without seeing it before I Sure when when we had first talked about adding that phrase about don't use this To compare to the community because we know the community is underfunded and we don't want to use that as the baseline and I think Katie had I had captured it pretty well, but when I reread it Freshly and read it just as The current community system It's it still could it could be read as saying the current community system isn't using best practices As if it was a criticism of the system So my suggestion was to change it to the currently available to make that clear distinction That's him that seemed to that worked for me. And so I said just put it in the draft and we'll see I'm going to keep moving through unless so if you have questions or comments I'm going to ask you just to either chime in or raise a hand or whatever The next change in this draft is on page nine And I think Woody this is in response to a request that you'd made to not use the term for monitors And you're muted again with sorry, but that's fine. Oh, I'm sorry. Pardon me was art. Was it yeah, okay, apologies In any case, I think that's responsive to that I Have the question sure This is earlier in the bill. I know it's not our area But they keep saying psychiatrist and psychologist if applicable and I didn't understand that distinction and what that meant That was actually changed based on I had told you folks I gave some testimony and recommendations under my Personal hat rather than the committee and that was something I recommended because if a person is being evaluated for Intellectual disability rather than mental illness then it's usually a psychologist who's involved Whereas for mental health, it's a psychiatrist. So that was That was why Dale got included in various spots and that was that specific reference to and if applicable a psychologist So a person involved always gets involved by a psychiatrist, but sometimes people get a Evaluation by a psychologist The psychiatrist would say oh wait a minute, you know, this is a co-occurring or this is primarily we need a psychologist to do An evaluation. Thank you. I have a question about page nine Okay, okay, it's okay to ask as we go. Well, let's let's is that that wrap that up for you Leslie. Yeah, okay, right Yeah, I'm sorry. I assumed it wrapped it up for you when I jumped in sorry so It's you know, it's in section five. It's talking about this evaluation that will be done and When the word was changed to put in Vermont residents you know, I I understood it as You know Vermonters is about someone's identity versus where they live But as I think about this section more and I we may have talked about this a little bit last week, but We're asking that they look at the Comparison of services and how they differ between correctional settings and it says Provided to when it says provided to Vermont residents and out of state facilities, I guess like my question is We don't really clarify is it Vermont residents who've gone through the Vermont court system and were placed in out of state correctional facilities Or are we looking at all Vermont residents? Which could be people who live in Vermont who committed a crime out of state and are being sent to of Correctivity or who committed a federal crime and are being going to and so I just are we looking at all of that? Or are we only looking at the services for Vermont residents who went through the Vermont court system and are being placed in out of state correctional facilities? You see I mean like it's really being picky, but it's unclear to me Yes, I think well, can I say that my understanding is what we were trying to do was to be consistent with those Vermont those those Persons from Vermont who are in an out-of-state facility under the supervision of the Department of Corrections Is that that's what other people's understanding was as well? Yeah, what about people who aren't from Vermont? But get or don't live in Vermont, but they get Convicted of a crime in Vermont and are then sentenced into the Vermont correction system Are we not gonna look at their care? because then if if because then they may not be Vermont residents and So I guess I'm questioning like is it Vermont residents or is it like Vermont? I don't know if this is the correct term inmates or Vermont people in super in Involved I don't know how you put it maybe our corrections and institutions member has a better term for what they would use in their committee But I'm only asking I know it's nitpicky word thing and it's not a big deal But as I was reading it more carefully it stood out to me So that the second part of your question Brian I think that wouldn't actually matter because since we're looking at what the mental health services are unless we had a group of Non-vermont residents convicted in Vermont sent together to one Correctional facility outside of Vermont It doesn't matter because they they would be mixed together and we're looking at the the facility Services not what an individual receives The whole study is about what are the available services how long might you have to wait to see somebody what kind of Professional care and so forth. So I don't think the second part actually matters my own view on the first part is you're absolutely correct from a Language point of view, but I think that there's a lot of understanding from The administration from corrections and so forth about what it is that we're trying to look at so I don't I don't know that we need to You know fix that to make it precise. That's just My one person Okay, Alyssa and then No, I just want to I mean on that same theme because I'm not wild about the Vermont residents because how long are you in an out-of-state Facility before you're no longer a resident of Vermont. You're a resident of wherever the out-of-state facility is And then there's lots of people within the custody of the Department of Corrections in Vermont that are not residents of Vermont So, I mean shouldn't it shouldn't it just be provided to Those under the custody of the Department of Corrections. Yeah, I think that's those from Vermont Yeah, well not even those Under the Vermont department of Corrections Yeah, I think your I think your points well taken you're getting to what I was getting at to with the language there Yeah, Sarah, do you want to I was just gonna say the language that we use in the corrections world is those under the custody and care of the Commissioner the Department of Corrections. So I think what Representative Black is Suggesting is probably consistent with that And we can fix it now so that they don't fix it downstairs when it gets to them Well, okay, so I but I think so I think you the point you've raised Brian is like it had layers of possible interpretations and I think what At least what I'm hearing and Now it would be great to have a legislative counsel person here, but we don't so we'll I'm writing it down. We're going to keep careful notes. Okay. We persons under the custody of the Department of Corrections or was it persons or I forget Try that and then Katie can fix it up. Yeah And then it needs to say something like placed in out of state or Placed in out of state correctional facilities Are placed by Department of Corrections in our state facility something like that But if they're in the custody of the Department of Corrections, I would think that would cover Everyone, you know what I mean? State and state it wouldn't matter No, but this but this particular phrase art is specific to those What's available to those who are in the out of state facilities? Okay. Yeah Otherwise it would be you're right. Yeah. Yeah, okay. We don't have to repeat We don't have to repeat Okay Anything else Turn to page 10 Was there was anything else on page nine? I printed mine out so I can look at it and is that the same way it's on the screen? I think The page numbers are the same I'm scrolling. Yeah, okay And on page 10, I think we took the lead of the Judiciary committee and added in this draft To the people that they suggested for the committee for the working group the superior chief superior judge and The Vermont Medical Society in lines three and twelve I'm trying to remember if we discuss that with the committee or what if it was when Laurie and you and I met with Katie on the language at the end that Rather than having something we brought to judiciary which then they had pieces They had already thought of or we would just integrate them. So I think we talked about some of them in committee actually We did The racial equity issue in committee and fairly certain Yeah, maybe but but I think in turn well whatever those two were specifically because they were in judiciary's draft draft so And to be honest, I'm not entirely clear what our direction was from judiciary in terms of whether I mean they gave us their copy of the draft and we've integrated some things and I mean if they I don't think too much matters where it's coming from at this point they have it in their draft Represent gold Leslie gonna be more we're gonna be more informal now since it's just us. Oh good. I like that I'm looking at the bottom of page nine and it and this is just helped me understand how these working groups get organized When it says including as appropriate and what does that mean who decides what's appropriate Is that just the department or like the commissioner What line are you on I'm back on page nine. I guess I was looking at the working group right page nine. Yeah, it's line 20 It says including as appropriate. I just wanted to understand how that how that process happens when the language is as appropriate Well, I can make a comment. I don't know if it's what other people are thinking but when I was reading this after the conversation that we had the testimony from Deputy Commissioner Fox There was in fact there was some anyway The suggestion was that the Department of Mental Health which is going to convene this might actually convene subgroups rather than having the entire group Meeting on each each task that they're assigned and so that's where I took that to mean Like, you know, there might be one task where it's appropriate to have this set of stakeholders at the table and Not everybody has to be necessarily present for every Individual task So is that implied or doesn't say as appropriate to the task? I mean, I don't even know what the right like that That's that was actually exactly the phrase that I think so is contemplated and you know, we could put that in there if that's you know Yeah, because I got confused as we went further down about how many working groups and who's doing what and it seemed like there were a lot of moving parts But I don't think but I think we need to find a way to put enough here and then step back from it But I think if as appropriate to the task Appropriate to the That may complicate it because then you have to say as appropriate to the task. Do you mean the whole task or the specific task? Yeah, it's probably a bad idea I And it's not an idea. It's just trying to understand the sort of the functioning of the work groups Because they will be broken up to address specific problems, but it never really says that in there. This is this giant list of people and But maybe that doesn't come from us and I'm fine with that It gives the Department of Mental Health latitude I think I think that was the whole point of from the center of saying as appropriate was to kind of signal That then they could work out how they were going to put those tasks together How to fix it if it says convene working groups then we know they're going to be multiple groups. That's up higher on line 18 I think you know And then it just says as appropriate to work to you know meet to meet the goals of that particular group Then we don't have to change as appropriate, but that was it just doesn't it says it makes it sound like it's one group and that's what sort of confuses me because it's not it's going to be multiple groups It is one it is one group in terms of one pool of people and I think ultimately they'll come back on when dmh has a final report they'll be usually giving input and feedback on it so That they may work break up into subgroups of the work group, but I think it is still in the overview of a working group that's I was gonna say I think we've done so many working groups and legislation agencies understand what we're saying and where they can have latitude so I so I Yeah, you're making me something else Laurie you're making me realize if they're if there are more than one people are going to really start rebelling against we're creating too many working groups We're making a lot of suggestions here to start with I think I'm hoping they'll Be open to a lot of them One question I had if I can chime in for a second of the bottom of page nine Seems like the group is being formed to have input on B and C that follow it And it almost feels like it's backwards that B and C Should that that's the meat of it by this date the reports have come forward by this date the reports have come forward and if and I share I really really really share The feel I'm performing way too many groups, but it will talk about that later, but it seems like maybe The working group should come after that. I don't know. I mean I I don't think we should Yeah, I think that's a draft Machination is too much. Yeah, I think it's a drafting protocol from Yeah, okay. Yep, and that's fine It just occurred to me that it's funny that the working group and now B and C below what the reason you have it I don't know it's just different but that's okay I think that's I think it's more protocol and legislative drafting than anything else are actually Alyssa you've had your hand up. Did you have a Not regarding that something else on this page Which page are you talking about? We're still on page. Oh, we're on 10 right 9 9 10 9 and 10. Yeah, working group So I know that we heard this in testimony And we talked about expanding To lived experience within the criminal justice system But as of last week we had not changed it from two to three and I see it's being changed to three right and I think that's that's for committee discussion. Yes And I because we really we had said to in the course of the course of the committee discussion Well, though the test that was came out of that testimony from will the white Yeah Her suggestion it doesn't mean we have to adopt it I just I I just want to seek balance I think is You know one of the things that I I'm trying to remember that this bill is It's also public safety bill So that's my only comment. Okay, Woody Well, just to add on to what Alissa said about balance I'm hearing a lot about Victims not being heard As much as they would like or should perhaps be heard From and here again, we only have two representatives. I think it's two. Let me see. I've lost my place. Yeah, it's two We need more. I don't know should it be balanced without many Individuals that have suffered Mental illness. I don't know just Like so I Alissa said there should be a balance. I think every every group and everyone I'll leave it there So I'm gonna suggest that we do two and two And then it's on his face balance And How does that work for people? Mari So I have a I'm on page 10 Can I bring up something there? Sure Well, so is this on the different line than what we're just talking about On line 12 I have a comment. I don't know if I can Actually On line 12 I have a comment about the numbers of the balance issue. Yeah, okay. Let's let's finish that discussion first. Yeah, Leslie If you look at all the officials on there, it comes up to like 10 or 12, which is sort of a pretty big number And might be a little intimidating So I don't really mind having three and three when you think about it in the context of the whole committee It's like 12 to 6 So there's still I think plenty of representation of authority In my comment may impact that number Okay, well then this year Mari I know I was Out ill when we were talking about When we were having some discussion of this this bill I'm concerned that there are many Psychiatric nurse practitioners in Vermont And they're not listed as a possible representative only a representative appointed by the Vermont Medical Society So I'd like to add the Vermont nurse practitioner society. I don't believe that physicians assistants work as work in psychiatry Happy to be proven wrong I don't want to leave out Substantial part of the psychiatric The licensed psychiatric workforce Yeah, I I think that the focus on it and partly from the testimony because it's a forensic Forensic work group. I think the focus was on the work group On the whole issue of psychiatric evaluations for the criminal justice system rather than for the issue of Treatment generally because that's more the hospital and Designated agency roles and who they would bring in but that was very specific to the The question of evaluations which has come a lot up a lot in this In the context of this bill Are we certain that psychiatric nurse practitioners, especially those with PhDs are not allowed to do These evaluations. Yes That is that is true by law. Yes. Okay That's helpful. Thank you And I think to be quite honest, I think One of the witnesses we heard from was the president of the Vermont Medical Society Who is a forensic psychiatrist? And I think there was some thought that that was a likely Representative who would be appointed by the Vermont Medical Society. I don't think that's a given but that's I think that's To bring that Expertise or viewpoint to the table Okay So on line 14 we agreed to change it to two. Is that what we're talking Number 14 line line 19 well to our chains and both to three. I mean Leslie your point is well taken I That's frankly why I thought you know, there's a lonely voices in the midst of all these all these you know states attorneys judges and your cracks Well, I don't want to call them Well, one of the advantages of having three and three is that as things get broken into work groups by areas where the different Departments have a bigger role and interest You're gonna end up with some that don't have you know a victims advocate or don't have An individual with direct mental health experience So having more gives more ability to make sure that You know, you don't have one person who's got to be a part of all the work groups running around as opposed to if they're broken up So actually I'm warming to that idea Like that if someone you know if you have three and one person can't make be part of it You still have a you know a colleague or you know A connect someone connected to your experience. So I like the idea of three and three Can we just put it to a straw vote of the committee because at this point I'm not clear I mean, I don't think everyone needs to speak to it, but Can I'm gonna say how many for those who would support increasing both Excuse me for victims as well as the electric survivors of three and three for those who Okay, I see there's an overwhelming support for that. So we're going to change that to three and three Anything else on page 10. Okay, turning to page 11 And this is this this actually picks up on something that someone was just saying I think maybe it was it was a woody But if I'm getting people wrong about adding this was imported from the public Judiciary's Online 13 consider the importance of victims rights in the forensic care process So that that's an addition that was not In our draft originally but was in the Judiciary draft and we imported into this And then Folks go to that. I'm just kind of looking around. I'm just basically going through that. I'm just kind of looking around. I'm just basically going by nodding heads and raising hands and all that. Okay. Ask a newbie question. Sure. What's the difference between a preliminary report and a final report. One's preliminary and the one is no No, it doesn't help me. Oh, part of it. I think DMDMH brought up part of it. I mean a preliminary report is not necessarily a whole long formal Table of contents and so forth it can be You know verbal testimony it can be an overview of what the status is of the work It's a distinction numbers of agencies the state government are asking us to think about in terms of Not having to do as many formal reports every time it says report And I think for them to be able to come into a committee and give testimony as opposed to Spending many hours, you know making sure it's the complete report It also allows you to To edit the report before it becomes finalized to make necessary changes on some feedback that you receive as well And feedback from the legislature into well, you really didn't look into this as much because they have a lot of time before completing a final report so they can You know pursue some issues in more depth and do follow-up It's really kind of a status report Yeah, it's a final report locked. I mean, I would I would wonder if you had a final report, but it wasn't sufficient that it would be You but you would then need more legislation to say go do it again. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, it would be a final report for the what was requested. Yeah Thank you. So So Wasn't that also we heard that that they needed more time and that this was a way that we could get a status report preliminary report Yes for crossover Yeah, yeah, exactly So I'm going to I'm hearing no no concerns or questions. I'm assuming line 13 is good Going back going back to line to line six just to remind people because we don't have it side by side that was where I had asked that we took out reference to the expertise Because that the expertise really goes to the outside experts they're going to bring in rather than experts in forensic mental health on this group just Refresher that discussion Okay, yep, sorry and I think we heard in our testimony getting myself confused here, but I think it was in our testimony I think it may have been from will to light but to try to include That when we're looking at models of restore restoring competency restoration models that they're Include one include at least looking at some models that do not rely on involuntary medication. I think her term was forced drugging Yes, that was will and so and so that's where this that's where this came from and I think there was a general sense to include it Are there any questions about that? Okay Anything else on page 11? Page page 12 So I think there's some language changes on line four and five, but it was most I think it's mostly to Include the to make explicit what is Sometimes not stated explicitly That those who because if they're If they're if they haven't been adjudicated, they're presumed innocent and making that clear because not falling into the product, you know the mistaken language That people who are not adjudicated because they're found incompetent stand trial or insane at the time of crime Have not yet been adjudicated. They're still have a presumption of innocence and have the right to a full defense So I think that was to try to incorporate that in line five and not seeing any questions in that Line six and seven we talked about earlier. That's that's to include the fact that not all not all the bases for Not being competent to stand trial or yeah or Can be based on Intellectual disabilities to right brain injury intervention. We've included that earlier Lines nine and ten were really to make explicit that To see if there are models for forensic treatment that are not Facility based but that are based in their community and I think with it. I think that actually was in the that was actually made explicit in a draft that I saw from the Judiciary committee and seemed like whoa That's implicit in a lot of what we're saying But let's make it explicit the way they did and that seemed seemed like a good thing to add I'm not sure we did discuss this in committee I think this was something that I after I looked at that draft I said, well, let's put this in here and then bring it back to the committee Does that I mean for me it seems consistent with all of what we're talking about Okay I just I was just going to say initially I think it stated That there was a need for forensic treatment facility and we discussed whether That should be there as you were saying Yeah, and I think we I think and actually I think then when we get down to I'm gonna skip over 11 through 15 for a minute Woody and going down to In lines 19 and 20 it says As to whether a forensic treatment facility is needed in Vermont And I think again, I picked this out of the judiciary draft because I think it made it even clearer about whether or not There is need so that was that was kind of picking up on that Woody So then back to lines 11 through 15 That was somebody on the committee we discussed that I can't remember who it was who was saying shouldn't we have a Oh, yeah Catch all an additional and anything else you think of I don't remember who said that but Was that I knew I do remember I think it was Lori Lori. Okay I just did the whole gardens thing Her comments were more memorable because she Including gardens Okay, I apologize to people who are not giving The appropriate Whatever the word is, I'm not sure credit is what you think but Okay, Lori does this capture what you were. Yes. Thank you. Okay, and I still don't think gardens should be in there anyway I can't wait to introduce a bill with gardens in it now Okay, any other questions on page 12 Okay So page 13 doesn't have any newly Lit up anything but is there anything else on page 13 that people are out to mine Otherwise a good page 14. Okay, so I think this was actually some of this we'd seen but it was reworked by Katie in terms of structure And it also incorporates Again, excuse me Okay has several things in it and I And I think the first a is what we talked about in committee About because that was in the Judiciary committee draft or something akin to that and we we all said yes actually We should have included that we shall include that And then be I can't remember if that I think that came up in committee, but I can't be honestly sure Yeah, we I think we discussed the Yeah, I think will will the will the brought it up and then I Okay, I dug up that the specific citation the specific You want to say something about that citation so that people are familiar with what that that is in statute Right in our in our mental health statutes There's a section that addresses the the intent of the general assembly to the first part is Is about the fact that people have the right to make their own health care decisions unless They lack the capacity to do so and then this Next piece that said it's it is the policy of the general assembly to be working towards doesn't mean it's Always possible yet, but to be working towards a mental health system that does not require coercion or the use of involuntary medications So that's the quote that's a quote from current statute. So it's just it's sort of making it a reminder that that's part of our public policy It's an aspirational public policy. It's not saying that we cannot be ever be anything, but that is an aspirational high level goal When we can we want to be doing that Among other things because there's lots of evidence that that's The most effective that when people agree to to the treatment recommendations, it's more likely to succeed, but at any rate Okay, so anybody have a Questions about including that You don't see any hands or raised eyebrows And I think too was just part of this Partly reworking the language Under eight nine and ten to make it consistent with the restructuring of the language That that that was in the judiciary draft, but it was we broke it into the pieces yet And then eleven twelve and thirteen Again, I think this was picking up on I think in part deputy commissioner Fox's comments that the department would really want to reach out to regional and national experts and not assume that all the expertise is within the working group And right and that's that's what we included. We asked them How much money they needed for bringing in that expertise and that's what we included And then that that had been my when we discussed it that had been my follow-up suggestion to what Fox had said is that That we should should put it in the language that there's they need to be doing this Yeah Seems doesn't seem to be controversial. Okay Lines twenty and twenty one I plugged in the dollar amount on the high The department of mental health suggested it previous I think just been a blank amount But I believe we did share the memo from the email from the department of mental health saying they suggested twenty to twenty five thousand dollars So I figured it on the high end and see what makes it Any other questions on page 14 seems like such a trivial amount when we think about all the other money that's flying around Well, it'll end up with a small amount more that appropriations puts in just to for the paragraph above the standard per diem amounts That only goes to people Oh, actually this I'm just realizing this is this is not Quite aligned with the language we often see here and is not quite accurate G We don't give per diem compensation to people whose full-time job is to be able to do that We don't give per diem compensation to people whose full-time job is to be doing this kind of work as in somebody from the hospital association or from Vermont care partners they don't get per diems if it's It's part of their full-time jobs is language we use for that Yeah I've seen that boilerplate Basically it says it means if you're not already paid to do this by its part of your job Yeah, they refer to probably the victims representatives and those with lived experiences who they'd be really referring to everybody else's has paid employment that be doing his part Yeah, and we have standard language we use for that so we just need to inject that Good catch and yeah I was only looking at it because I was thinking I was just from a learning curve point for new members that that 25,000 actually Approach will put in the right amount that aligns with needing the per diems but then I was looking back to point to it and I said so Wait, it only says we're not state employees So it's probably going to be for six people right Under our current graph. Yes. Yeah. Yeah, I don't right. I don't think there's anybody else on that list who's I think most everybody else is paid some organization or the state Anything else on page 14 K page 15 and And I'm going to Sarah did aunt did Alice have a conversation with you about this She did she did with me and she said maybe you would bring something to our committee. I don't know if you want to comment Sure. So this is this is section seven the creation of the committee I'm working up a slightly different version than you are so I want to make sure we're talking about the same section Talking I'm talking about the actually this is but well, let me back up and say this this is a committee that exists And so when it's when it says a section seven eight or one creation a committee that's read that's that's current language But it talked but I had proposed that the house health care committee have representation on the Justice oversight committee, which it does not currently so this committee this section is referring to the joint justice oversight committee Just I want to make sure that we're all clear I'm clear so I think my understanding is that it's often good with these kinds of committees They want to make sure that there are also odd like equal representation from The Senate and the house and also diversity of parties represented and it sounded like a good idea I think to my chair that mental health be Represented in that through through your committee. I think her suggestion was hoping that That let me just That to see if we could increase the committee to one member at large on the house side And two members at large on the Senate side because I think she wanted to be sure that Some of the representation there could be some continuity we wouldn't lose some continuity With one of the at luck with an at large member so that makes sense. So I think Let me see if I can summarize this I had deliberately not tried to increase the size of the committee and there was an at large membership in the house side Currently filled by a second former member of the corrections and institutions committee but So I said well, let's make that the health care representative from the health care committee Representative Evans Was saying I really would like to secure the continuity of That at large member And therefore I would I support having a health care committee member be part of this absolutely support that but would instead suggest that we Add Still an at large member believe it have that there's an at large member of the house That then could be filled by Former member from the corrections institutions committee and then add that the Senate would also have been to at large members To have the parity between the house members in the Senate. I said I have no objection that I don't know how the Senate will feel about that But that's but in terms of a proposal So that anyway, that's the proposal that Proposal, yeah I think 12 is still very workable. I don't think that Particularly this is usually I was one or two who can't make a particular meeting I So I'm not I'm not opposed to seeing it Increased and that that might make a lot of sense I don't have a strong opinion as long as the health care committee has to see the table I'm serious because it's been frustrated in recent years particularly after mental health Services were moved to jurisdiction of this committee Even though I think it should have been the way before because health care mental health care is an issue for corrections in many instances And I think there's someone from our committee should be sitting at that table I think it's really critical with the work that we're doing with justice reinvestment Mental health looms large and you know thinking about how it both inside facilities but also in the community systems of care Like there's a lot of intersectionality with that So I think it would be I think our committee that's where a chair comes down, but I think the committee would be so It's a good idea So Any objection from committee members to shift to that model add one for more senator and leave leave it at large and add health care in the house side Okay, seeing that seeing that that's generally agreed to as a change Question about this it doesn't say in this paragraph that it's the joint judicial That we're talking about so I was confused when we got there I didn't know where I was so I was Because it's in the middle of another bill No, it's it's actually it's in the middle So I made a note here as well Leslie that it should they should import the name of the committee Into this amendment so that it's clear what committee we're being talked about So that the heading should somehow reference the joint committee joint justice oversight committee Yeah, it's one of those guide guide headlines whatever it's caused Otherwise it looks like we're we're also gonna have a forensic. Yeah, like we're creating yet another committee which we're not Yeah, well I called in last night and said I don't get it. How many committees are there anyway So then she explained to me what this was so thank you and excuse me represented done Being informal. Oh, right. We were gonna be informal. That's good And If I may but when you're done So the reason that this is Particularly relevant here is that this That one of the reports gets sent to the justice oversight committee and and frankly I think the justice oversight committee will have a role in justice reinvestment going forward as representative coffee as Sarah said And in any further discussions around Forensic Whatever forensic model emerges. I think this committee the justice oversight committee will undoubtedly have a role in addition to the standing committees And so that's another reason why I think it's important after doing well whether or not there's a facility It's gonna be a significant I'm going issue around the forensic system. Yeah, right? Everything is very important that we have full representation there. Okay Can I ask? I got confused also when it's I thought maybe it could be two paragraphs because when it says in addition to one member at large I thought you were adding one addition to the ten members And that I got confused about that So could we just say in addition just say one member at larger post appropriate so not add that in addition So there's there would be no confusion or am I just the only person that was confused which is very likely No, the problem is just that that's existing law So I can't if there was going to be a rewrite. Okay. Never. Yeah. Yeah We want to minimize the changes in something like that where make the point what we're what we're actually trying to do But again, there are times when I you know when we need to just defer to legislative councils drafting Yeah, they Okay I'm gonna see if I can And you've taken notes about changes and I've taken some notes maybe others have as well Yeah, let's just cross just go through and quickly summarize the changes that we're recommending because it'll be important to be able to report that to this So I've got page nine as the first one Persons persons under the connect under the custody of the Department of Corrections placed in out of state facilities Okay, and then page 10 The only change was both both position number 11, which is victims representatives and 14 which is Lived experience that there would be three three each And then unless I forgot to take a note when somebody said anything I don't have anything again until page 14 which is the or paid by your job Language for stipends per diems and then page 15 the Six Senate six house With the Senate having two at large and house having one at large and one House health care And ideally making reference to our committee is Oh specifically house health care. Yes. No, no, no, no, no, no justice joint justice. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. I didn't write that down. It should write. Yep. I mean Yeah Okay, so I mean we had discussion number of things with those. Those are the things those are the items that I had made notes that we agreed we would Modify in our final path recommendation. Okay So any other comments discussion my goals to try to Depending on whether I mean we've had to discuss a long way. So I'm not sure Okay I'd like to I'd like to I'd like for us to take a To actually take a vote on recommending this as an amendment and I don't think we need to do a roll call on this but I think we should I think we should weigh in as a Individual committee or as a committee and So Are people prepared for that Can I have a few minutes to read it first? I'm just kidding. I've been reading all along. I just have to say that because I've asked it a few times I have a question for an Um, I was just looking at Dunda doesn't say possible vote. Does that apply to an amendment or do you not mind that we didn't Mourn it if for one does not apply to straw polls if we were taking a formal vote We would normally give notice that we might be taking a vote Or if we forgot to and we all agreed to it we could do it. Okay. I was just curious. Yeah, I know That is not actually something that's anywhere in the rules of anything It's not a rule. It's not a yeah, it's a protocol around transparency with the public It's also a practice of respect to other committee members so that you're not like not letting them know that a decision point is about to arrive No, and quite apart from your question on that which you've asked a number of times, but seriously in the past we tried to You know let people know that this is and it's also the signal to the committee. We're getting we're at the point where you know be prepared. Don't say I Whatever So, okay, so I'm going to propose Since we're not it's not a bill and we're not doing a formal vote But I'm going to pose the question of those members who As amended as amended on the record today, we've a number of changes. We just reviewed them Who would support want to support recommending This amendment to the House Judiciary Committee for Senate bill three those in support of the amendment as amended on the record today by show of hands. Okay. Okay Those posed We're not the support. I mean it's not like active opposition, but Yeah, I don't know you want to make a comment or I just like to explain why sure Section sex which we just went over I Support B and C and the parts of D that apply to be okay, and those are the reports being asked okay asked of the of the groups But hey, I just can't go along with any more working groups test forces Organizations, I think we really need to rely on our experts to make decisions and be done with it So that's why I'm against it that that that one section. I just I just we've got so many of these I just Enough's enough. So, okay. Yeah Okay, so I see on the vote of 9-1-1 Recommending this to the House Judiciary Committee and we will take that record I think it's useful for us that to be taking a recommendation to the corrections and institutions committee that this is this is not just a draft This is our recommendation and asking them to I mean, give me giving them a chance to review it as well Okay The question chair Lipper sure when And this is a process thing. Yeah, we've made a change to a Senate bill Okay, assuming it goes forward assuming we the House approves it is it go back to them again And now they look at it and they could tweak it again And then they come back to us or I assume another tweak and they take they take charge Okay, so here's how it works. So just to say there are a couple different paths, but they all Yes, so first of all, this is the Judiciary Committee has possession of the bill we don't So they're gonna make a decision about what we've recommended they could change that and put something different in the bill that they The Senate but assuming let's assume whatever they decide is the proper amendment to send to the Senate It'll take it to the House floor and then the House floor we will debate it and we'll vote on it on the House floor Assume for a moment that it goes through the House floor in whatever form Then yes the Senate it will go back to the Senate will be put on their calendar The committee that had jurisdiction there which I think is the Senate Judiciary Committee will then They have to review what the House has sent back to them They could accept it in whole and concur Then it's done and then it goes to the governor They could they could say, you know They could they could take any part of it and do what's called Further proposal with further proposal of amendment And then it then they could take then I have to take it to the Senate floor They have to vote on it and they send it back And then it's in the House's hands again in the House Judiciary Committee Then they can concur and say we're done Or they concur with yet further instance of amendment Okay, this can go back and forth like a few times Okay, okay, but in in recent years and so that's the very formal process In recent years, it's not unusual at some point for the chairs of the two committees or representatives of the two committees before you get there Before you get to the recent years the other piece that can happen is And you and you ask for a conference committee, right? Yeah, so you ask for a conference committee and that's a formal committee of three members of the House three members and And they have a there's a set protocol under which you have a conference committee meeting One side chairs the meeting one side doesn't It's like where where the meetings are held As the session comes to an end and particularly in the second year of a biennium but even so in this half of a biennium Conference committees are established on different bills They're publicly posted Now we're on zoom world But if it was in the building even you can go and sit and listen you can ask questions only the members of the conference committee can actually participate But then they there's a sometimes it depends on the nature of the people involved. Sometimes it's a very formal process of proposal counterproposal Let's go big proposal counterproposal Or it can be let's sit down. Hey, you know, let's work this out And so it depends on the personalities and the people involved But it can be a very formal process and that conference committee has to come to an agreement Well, they don't have to come to agreement. The goal is for them to come to an agreement Let's assume they do come to an agreement Then the agreement has to go back to the body in which it originated This is where I get I after all these years I was really confused it has to go back to one or the other. It's in the rules It goes back to a certain body first They have to approve it then it gets shipped to the other body for approval And if both bodies ultimately approve a conference committee report then it goes to the governor Gotcha All right. Thank you. I it's it's Now he's gonna well now he's gonna get to in recent years So in recent years Many many times me frankly it's like do we really need to go through a formal committee of conference? Can we have some informal discussions Outside of a committee of conference and say This is we know where we can figure out where we're gonna end up and one body whoever has possession of the bill at that point makes the changes Puts it in and the other body proves it Okay, if you'll do if you'll do this before you send it over and you're willing to do it then we'll accept Or Backroom negotiating. Yeah, it's back room, but it's just it's called like pre-conferencing. It's like, you know, yeah Let's just let's just kind of cut through the Cut through the stuff and get to where we need to be now There is There is an element and you mean you go back room, but is it element of the conference committees actually have to meet in public They can be observed by lobbyists and and other members and so the the the appropriations the budget bill the big bill Almost always has a conference committee. No always but almost I And and they And there's some people feel very strongly that that must be a conference committee in public Because You hear what they're moving what they're doing and not doing and then frankly they get lobby all the way through it by lobbyists Members who I'm sorry Brian. I didn't see your hand. Good Brian wait. I what I just wanted to say that like It may sound to people like there's some there's like this back room thing But actually we've already done some of it in our work where we look at a bill that the Senate's working on and we talk about it Yeah, talk about what we want and then they do it So it's not necessarily back room because a lot of times in fact It almost always ends up in a committee being talked about before So they're obviously is going to be off the record conversations between people because we're human and you know And that's how ideas are shared but I I find that you know, there is a way that we can work to make it as public as possible and I feel like in general we do so Yeah, it's not perfect, but in general we do Okay, thank you And if partly it's sometimes it's all Conditioned on how much time there is between when you're trying to do this and when adjournment is coming and when the budget is ready to go The budget sets adjournment Yeah, and sometimes yeah So Okay, so we've spent a fair amount of time on this but as you pointed out, there's no guarantee What we just did is going to end up looking like what we just did but you want to put into your proposal your best thinking and your best ideas so that There's a chance that that things will emerge the way you hope to or come some some semblance of that And I think we've done a good job with that. I appreciate the input again from different members of the committee all along the way So I'm going to suggest that we so Let me take a minute Sarah, do you have did you want to weigh in I'm going to pop out and just thank you for When you tell your chair, I'm prepared to come down whenever 230 whenever I think where you guys talking about 230. I'll let her know Yeah, do you wouldn't want us our committee assistant to shoot you an email or do you send me an invitation. Okay, great Zoom invitation and I'm just going to spend a couple minutes. Thanks, Sarah. Thank you So we have several Senate bills still in front of us And Lori and Leslie have been working on one of those bills as 22 I believe don't get the number right. Yeah, that's great to have on our name STEM cells STEM cells STEM cells STEM cells STEM cells STEM cells STEM cells STEM cells STEM cells STEM cells STEM cells STEM cells STEM cells STEM cell issues And Leslie had agreed to report that bill. I think that's the way the way we worked on it and I asked Lori to work with you on that Just so you had somebody else to work with And they have been doing some meetings. Well, actually I'll let you talk about it and but to say that they're Ideally we're at this point still thinking there may be some testimony on Thursday. We may not come to closure on Thursday, but And then I'll talk about something else that's come on. I don't think the testimony is going to work on Thursday because we So I just said to Colleen to keep it on our list to talk about for next week. Okay. Okay. And in the but then tomorrow we have on our agenda. S 42, which is the wellness commission for emergency responders. I think we're pretty close to ready to go on that. We'll see. I don't think we have any more witnesses scheduled we've heard witnesses. So that is, I think that's on the agenda with committee discussion and possible vote. So I'm also, I have deliberately not packed in a lot of other things into this week so that we can try to work our way toward closure on some of these Senate bills. And because I know there's some work needs to go on in the background with some of this, such as Leslie and Lori and Jen, etc. Getting ready for things. I'm going to propose that when we finish here this afternoon that we adjourn for the day. And that tomorrow morning we come back and we'll be here on s stem cell. Morning is wellness. I'm sorry, I said it wrong after all that. I mean on wellness commission. Yeah, on wealth condition. I've been asked to come down to the corrections and institutions committee at 230 to present this bill at 230 or three whatever work down I thought we did what in the time I thought we would need. And then there's another issue that has kind of emerged again. And that is the issue of children and youth and mental health, and particularly what appears to be continuing, if not an increase in the number of young people in emergency room settings. And so we are trying to schedule some additional time. Ideally on Thursday morning, if we can do it to try to shine a light that is lined up but that's an update you haven't gotten. So then why don't you or whomever's been working to that we will we will be turning some attention to that Thursday morning. And that's an issue that number is come up on a number of our discussions, and it's come up again with some additional external issues that are being expressed and we said yes let's put some attention there this week, talk with the department health talk with others involved, because it's, it's a it's a very important issue. So, yeah, the Department of Mental Health responded pretty quickly when Colleen reached out to them with three people they want to send so it's clearly on their agenda. And Dr. David Brett to who's with UVM and works with youth psychiatry. I don't think he is, he may consult with the image he's not not actually with DMH even but they, they put him on the list along with Deputy Commissioner Fox and Colleen. The third person I didn't recognize the name right away. They, they sent three names as people they wanted to send to address the issue. And there will be somebody from the hospital association which has actually been gathering information on from their emergency departments and have a number of thoughts about some some pressing issues and way that ways that there might be to try to begin addressing them. And then we were also going to invite. I don't know if Colleen's heard back anybody yet, Laurel Olmstead. That rings a bell but I can't place the name at any rate the third Vermont care partners because a big piece of the issue is not just inpatient inpatient capacity it's also crisis bed step down capacity. So. So let me say this so if you have other folks you think we could or should invite to be part of that discussion on Thursday morning would you reach out to and who's working with Colleen to schedule testimony for Thursday morning. Are we going to write a bill. And would we hope to come out of this testimony. Well, my intention. No, I don't see us writing a bill, but I'm don't preclude something but at this point it would be highly unlikely we'd be writing a bill but I think it's important at times for us to shine a spotlight on an issue that is needing a tent further attention, both from the administration as well as from the legislature even if there's not an immediate solution at hand. Do we write a press release or how do we get it out. What what does a spotlight meet I guess it means putting it on our agenda, having testimony and we'll see what goes from there. Thank you. Woody you were was that Brian did put in chat I had I pronounce the name wrong it's online not Olmstead. Okay, what are you at your hand up. I'm not going to send out an email when I can just tell you and. But I think it might. Well, HIPAA requirements may preclude this, but it would be nice if we had family members of some of these children testify about their experiences. I think that's a great idea and actually I have a contact from a person who was at a meeting I was at this morning who this issue is. She's with NAMI it's on the top of her agenda which probably means she knows some parents who have direct involvement so I can reach out to her and see that makes very good sense. I think what the issue is if anyone can talk about their own situation. It's, it doesn't run a fellow HIPAA if you're not, but if you're talking about someone else's medical records or medical situation. But you're although there has been there has been a change I'll just comment that I very much appreciate that folks like from NAMI have have have done over the past decade really it's been I think a very conscious change because it used to be that parents would come in and say, you know, my, when they're talking about adults, my adult son, my adult daughter, and, you know, that's, I can speak as somebody when my parents went to NAMI family support about how to address helping their daughter, me, you know that was really personal and kind of their I'm an adult, they're talking about me with other people, I mean that just was, you know, sends a chill up here. And so, although they could legally share it, they weren't providers, and they have made a change where now they will say a family member, I have a family member, which could be a sibling could be I mean that opens the door and it's not identifying your adult child. Yep. So, I really appreciated that effort on their part. Thank goodness my parents never came testifying the legislature about me. Okay, but makes you conscious. Okay. Okay, so I'm going to bring this to a close for this afternoon, and we'll see you folks at nine o'clock tomorrow morning.