 So thank you all for being with us today. And it's a rare and special occasion to get these two committees together to take testimony on any issue. So I look forward to this collaboration so that we can be enriched by the perspectives of the different committees. I think we should just go in order that we have. Is that reasonable? All right, so first we would love to have Doug Pine. I will introduce myself, but I will probably defer to our general counsel who is also here today. So I'm Doug Pine. I'm deputy director of HR operations. I oversee the talent acquisition compensation divisions of our department. So we're going to start talking about investigations and that process. I think that you need to turn it over to Tom Walton who's our general counsel. I'm the head and chair first and members of the committees. I'm Tom Walton. I'm the general counsel of the Department of Human Resources and I can speak to the process of how allegations of misconduct come to the department and are handled by the department since that is under the legal divisions per view within the Department of Human Resources. Can you speak, maybe you bring the microphone down so it's closer to you? How's that? Is that better? Okay, fine. If allegations of misconduct can come from any different sources, they can come from a line employee, they can come from a supervisor, they can come from a member of the public, they can come from a media inquiry or a court of criminal charge that appears to be legal. When an allegation comes forward to the Department of Human Resources, it is first evaluated by a cross-functional team of folks within the Department of Human Resources. The team includes the labor relations, someone from the labor relations department, someone from the legal division, one of our investigators, usually a lead investigator and an HR field person assigned, usually a field person who's assigned to the department where the accused employee is employed. The allegation is reviewed to determine A, whether it actually alleges misconduct or not, whether there are sufficient facts to determine if an investigation is actually warranted, whether the allegation involves a possible criminal conduct and whether a full-blown employment investigation is warranted and if so, who should perform an investigation? So the review is done either by email or sometimes there's actually a meeting among all these folks. And those are the things that are considered. If the group determines that there's no investigation warranted because the allegation doesn't constitute misconduct, then the DHR field folks will work with the employee's at the department or agency to determine what steps may be necessary to find out the problem. Coaching could be feedback, it could be anything other than an investigation. If an investigation is warranted, those investigations could be performed by HR field people if the allegations are determined not to be too serious. Serious allegations that are determined to require a warrant investigation, those investigations are performed by a staff, we have a staff of six professional investigators within the Department of Human Resources. And those investigators conduct a full-blown investigation. First they gather physical evidence, could be emails, documents, state phones, computers, other tangible things. They conduct interviews of the complaining person, any witnesses that are identified and ultimately the subject of the investigation. They draft a written report of the investigation. The report is factual in nature, it does not make conclusions. The report is reviewed by the legal division, usually by me. And then the report goes to the DHR field person who distributes it to leadership in the department or agency where the employee is employed. So I have some questions. Sure. So the field person, does that person reside within the Department of Human Resources? The field people are employees of the Department of Human Resources. Some of them are resident at their client agencies. Some of them are. Do you mean residents at their client agencies? Well, for example, the Department of Human Resources field people who are assigned to the Department of Public Safety sit in Waterbury in the headquarters of the Department of Public Safety. What about corrections? The corrections teams, it's in Waterbury in space in the state office complex with great proximity to the Department of Corrections. But they sit with other DHR field people who also have offices in Waterbury. So do those other folks, the field folks that have offices in the Waterbury and Conference, are they there for the Agency of Human Services as a whole? They're there for the various departments and agencies helpful of the Agency of Human Services. So then that field person, when there's a determination that's made of the allegation and the results of the investigation in the Department of Human Resources then connects back with the head person of that respective department where the allegations came from? I don't think I understand your question. The report is transmitted to the field person. The field person transmits it to leadership of the department or agency where the allegation employee where the employee subject to the allegation is employed. So the leadership of that entity is whom? It's either a deputy commissioner or a commissioner or a designee of a commissioner. So in the case of the Department of Human Resources in the Department of Corrections, when the Department of Human Resources investigator completes this report, it gets sent to the team of field folks, DHR field folks who sit in Waterbury and serve as DOC and then it's transmitted to DOC leadership, to the commissioner. And then from that point on, it's out of your hands. From that point on, I wouldn't say it's out of our hands. I guess it is fair to say it's out of our hands because from that point on, decisions with respect to discipline are made at the department level. So the process after the report is transmitted, there is what's called a staff, what we call a staffing meeting with the commissioner, the deputy commissioner of the department where the accused employee works. Typically the investigator is at the staffing meeting. HR field person is at the staffing meeting. Labor relations person is at the staffing meeting. And at the staffing meeting, the commissioner or decision maker has the opportunity to ask the investigator questions with respect to the investigation, with respect to the evidence and makes a determination as to whether discipline is warranted and if so, what level of discipline is contemplated. If serious discipline is contemplated and that serious discipline is either a suspension, a demotion, or a termination, that triggers another process which is required by the, really by the United States Constitution and by decisions of the US Supreme Court. That process requires that notice be given to the employee and that the employee be given an opportunity to be heard and that another meeting is convened where the employee has the opportunity to attend with union representation or representation by a private attorney to give the appointing authority the decision maker any information which might be relevant to the disciplinary decision. He's always the best. We might have a few like that too. And I got them right there. Jim and then Carl. Any other questions? So I think I understood you got to complain or you do an investigation, your people do an investigation. You determined that something's wrong here. We don't determine that there has been a violation. We do a factual investigation. We first had a written report with what the investigation has shown. Regardless of? It's very possible that someone reading our report would conclude and appointing authorities do sometimes conclude that the allegations of misconduct are unsubstantiated. An investigation can either show that there is substance to the allegations or it could show that there is no substance. So let's assume your department concludes there's substance to the allegations. Well, it would be the appointing authority who would make that conclusion. All we do is present facts. We don't make any conclusions. Okay, so in your investigator's mind, there's something wrong here. Just bear with me for a minute, okay? You turned over to the agency and maybe in this example corrections. Do you ever follow back up and say what was your conclusion? Oh, certainly, yeah, when you were involved. We continue to be involved throughout the process. Okay. Do you ever have any instances where in your view, not your view personally, but the department's view, something was wrong, whether you concluded that or not, but clearly a back point to something being wrong. You reported to corrections. You follow back up and you're pulled by corrections. No, there was a logical explanation. Nothing was wrong. We just weren't the individual involved. Don't do it again. Does that ever happen? Well. And that you don't agree with that conclusion? We don't really, the department of human resources doesn't really have a role in making that determination. The determination as to whether or not this conduct has taken place belongs to the appointing authority at the agency or department where the employee is employed. So we will express, if asked, we will express an opinion. If asked, you'll give a recommendation as to what level of discipline is appropriate. But the factual finding and the ultimate decision rests with the appointing authority and the department of agency where the employee is employed. Okay, I'll hold. So Carl Butch, thank you. So at this point in time, if a DOC employee wants to report what they believe to mean misconduct, this conduct that report goes directly to your office, is that correct, does not go to... Well, at this point in time, a DOC employee has any number of alternatives. A DOC employee could report misconduct to his or her supervisor. A DOC employee could report misconduct to the HR field. People assigned to DOC or recently, Secretary Smith and the Department of Human Resources working together have created an employee, a DOC employee hotline for reporting misconduct. And that hotline rings at my desk. Is that arrangement exist for any other part of the state government? It doesn't exist. In terms of the phone ringing at your desk. The hotline is only for the Department of Human Resources. And that's new. That was, yes, because one of the things referred to in Secretary Smith's report, recent report to the governor, and that brings him on my desk. So if you've got a, if there's an employee who is very concerned about retaliation or that type of thing, they can get in touch directly with you. Well, they call the hotline number, and the hotline number has an outgoing voicemail message. They're instructed to leave contact information, and then I follow up. And you've got six investigators in your office? Yes, three in Montpelier and three in Warwick. How many of them at any given time were working on corrections related? Well, that's a difficult question to answer. Typically the three in Waterbury handle matters that arise out of the agency of human services. So the three in Waterbury certainly would, at any given time, be working on Department of Corrections matters. From time to time, there's overflow, if the workload in Montpelier is lighter and the workload in Waterbury is heavier, one of the investigators in Montpelier would pick up a Department of Corrections case. Is it true that corrections is the department that you see the most? I would say that it is certainly true that corrections, the corrections department provides us with more volume than any of the other departments. Can you share with us how many investigations you are working on right now in corrections? I can't share it with you right now because I don't have it at my fingertips, but I certainly could follow up and share it with you. Thank you. I don't want to be clear before we get too deep into questioning. It's not our intent to look into these specific investigations that you have going those are confidential. Correct. So our intent is not to go into the weeds with those particular investigations. We want to know what the process is. And the question of how many are coming from corrections is valid. Absolutely valid. But we're not going to get into those specific cases that are before you. I want to make that clear for you folks and for everyone here. That's not our intent. Our intent is to find out what the process is and also to find out how much of that is coming from corrections. I was interested in the volume. Yeah. And that was an important question. Sure. But we can provide that. Thank you. Butch. So the process you described is sounds very lengthy. So if I'm a complainant and I make a complaint and you're doing an investigation, this is a lengthy process and I kind of on average would like to know how long this process takes. But when do you or does the person that, in this case, DOC, when do they notify the person that's made the complaint? So the problem is these have been resolved or it's ongoing or do they just when does that notification take place? Well, under our current policies, those notifications are only made in cases involving certain types of alleged misconduct. So the complainant would never know for sure if his or her complaint was taken seriously. I believe that in all complaints involving discrimination or sexual harassment, there is a follow-up letter when a close-out letter is sent to the complainant. Yeah, it could take some time. Oh, well, yeah. It definitely takes time. So how long is it to say you've got a complaint today? How long would the process take to get to the person that I'm, person or persons that I'm talking about and then for me to get an answer? It's a very difficult question to answer because each investigation, each allegation is different from each other. Some investigations are much more complicated than others. Within the legal division and the investigative unit, our target for completion of a written report is 90 days from the opening of the case. That's in cases where the subject employee is not out on temporary relief or duty. In a case where the subject employee is out on temporary relief or duty, our target is 80 days to complete the written investigation. But I think your question really goes to the whole process. And as I explained, the process really, we lose control of the process when the report is transmitted to the employer, to the employing department or agency. So you had from the time that you had an open investigation at the time that you've turned that information over to the lead agency is approximately 90 days. Our target is 90 days or less. How long does it take you to determine that an investigation is warranted? That happens usually within, I'd say within a week of being, of the allegation. I should always say, this is worth doing something. Pardon me? You make the decision. We make that decision, certainly. And within that time, you made that decision. Do you also make the decision that this is beyond what we would investigate this criminality here, and that you go over to the state police? Yes, we do. We look at allegations to determine whether or not, whether or not there is, whether or not it can be construed as alleging criminal conduct. And if it is, we make an immediate referral to law enforcement. In cases where a referral to law enforcement has been made, we defer to law enforcement. We allow them, we allow that process to go forward. We hold our process, which is really a civil administrative process, in advance, pending receipt of word from law enforcement that they've either completed their investigation or that they have no problem with us moving forward. So is this procedure written down somewhere that we can see? It is. We have a written protocol that describes the Department of Human Resources process. I have with me today kind of an info graphic that summarizes that. I can certainly pass that out. I brought 20 copies of that, so I can pass that around. But if you'd like to see the actual protocol, we can, we can arrange to get that to you as well. So with respect to tracking complaints, do you have a system to do that? We do. Once a matter is opened and considered a complaint of this conduct, it's logged into a SharePoint database. And we keep track of the products and the cases through the database. And what data do you use that for? What? Well, there's a number of different categories, columns, certainly the date that it's opened the name of the subject, employee, the complainant, progress notes. It really tracks the entire process. Okay. Okay, so you don't make any conclusions of law about whether there's been a violation. And I thought, like her, so you don't even make findings of that? Is that correct? We don't. So if you have, say, three witnesses who all verify that a certain conduct occurred, you're not telling DOC or some other agency that you've concluded that that in fact occurred. Correct. But to the department or agency to make that conclusion, that's correct. Thank you. So I have a question. And I just wanna make sure that I understand what you said in answer to Rep. Nettishaw's question. So if a complaint is made and it is determined that it includes discrimination or sexual harassment, then you are obliged to give a response back to the complainant. Is that what I heard you say? That we send the complainant a closure letter indicating that it matters to complainant. Okay, who makes the determination that it was sexual harassment or discrimination? Well, that determination is made, well, whether the complaint involves discrimination or sexual harassment, that determination's made on the front end when the complaint is vetted by the cross-functional team at DHR. Okay, so it could be the HR field person who is stationed at the agency where that's being worked. Well, the HR field person would bring it to this cross-functional group. Okay. The cross-functional group will discuss the content of the complaint and make a determination as to whether or not it wants investigation. Usually, you know, if a complaint is, the complaint will describe behavior. And if the complaint says I felt discriminated against based on my classification or I felt as though I was being sexually harassed, then it's obvious that it includes an allegation of sexual harassment or discrimination. If the behavior described is inappropriate comments and the complaint says I felt intimidated or I felt that it was created a hostile work environment, that would be something that we would certainly label as discrimination or potential sexual harassment. Do you have a clear definition of what sexual harassment is? We're guided by statutory definitions. Definitions from the people equal employment opportunity commission, from case law, so yes. So I want to get back to these, particularly for discrimination, sexual harassment investigations, the results are given to the complaint and you said then you said you send a closure letter. Does that closure letter indicate the actions that were taken? No. What does the closure letter, so the person that complains will receive a closer letter from the Department of HR. Correct. And what would that closure letter say? It will say that the matter has been investigated and dealt with appropriately. So they don't have the results of that investigation. That was your question. But they don't know the results, they just know that it was investigated. Correct. Where would that employee then know the result of that investigation? Well, I think that to some degree the results of the investigation and the disciplinary action taken against an employee is to some degree confidential information. So then if the employee, the one who complained about sexual harassment from a colleague, that colleague who then put on administrative leave would validate that complaint was substantiated? No, because if an employee were, if a subject employee were put on temporary relief and duty, that might happen before the investigation happens. That could happen pending the investigation if in the judgment of the appointing authority that employee's presence in the workplace based on the allegation would be disruptive. So in a situation like that, a complainant certainly would know if employee A complained about employee B and then the next day employee B were removed from the workplace. Employee A could surmise that employee B was removed from the workplace based upon the complaint. But that would happen, that typically would happen immediately, not based on the results of an investigation, but based merely on the allegation. NASA. I keep hearing about employee to employee. What was the non-employee complaint against the employee? You were addressing the employee side, how was the complaint in that case, no, anything was done? And a complainant in that case, if a complaint came in from a member of the public, which happens, we get complaints, for example, about state employees speeding on the interstate in state cars. In the state of cars? In a situation like that, the complainant would know that action's being taken because the complainant would be contacted by the investigator and would be given the opportunity to be interviewed, to collect evidence. Would the member of the public in speeding in a state car in the interstate case would the complainant be notified of the ultimate resolution? No. What's someone incarcerated? An inmate. I think the answer, again, they would know if we acted on an inmate complaint and did an investigation, the inmate would be interviewed, so the inmate would know that an investigation's taken place. Would the inmate receive a closure letter? I think the answer is no. Maybe a hypothetical. If you ever had a patient to make a decision and send it to a person in charge, and your investigation shows something was warranted and then had no action taken, have you ever had any, if that situation happened, what would your response be to that? I'm not really certain I understand your question. So your investigation shows that action in action should be taken against the employee, but when you move that, because you don't make that decision, but you move that to the person in charge at the OCD person, remember, when no action is taken to the employee that your investigation has said is warranted, what's next? Do you weigh back in or do you just weigh your hands with what you turn to people? Well, I wouldn't say that we wash our hands of it, but it's not really our role. Our role is not to impose discipline. The Department of Human Resources does not impose discipline, the discipline is imposed by the appointing authority at the Department of Agency where the employee works. So ultimately, a decision not to impose discipline belongs to the appointing authority at the Department of Agency. So have you ever had any occasion or rise, to take your level award, when your investigation shows clearly that there was wrongdoing and nothing happens? I'll say this. I think there have been times where the Department of Human Resources professionals have felt differently than the appointing authorities have when it comes to the imposition of discipline. But we recognize that our role is not to make that decision, and that that decision rests with the appointing authority. Should you be part of that decision? I don't think so. You don't think so? No, sir. Yeah, human resources. Yeah, it's possible. In my understanding, what are the employees of the state? If, in the case that Bush just talked about, if that person was bringing a lawsuit against the state, does HR get involved in it at any point? Because of their paperwork that goes to this person? That does nothing? Or is that all of your hands, as you said? Well, if there were a civil action brought against the state, it would be referred to the internal sentence. The civil division, the attorney general's office, will represent what our agency or department or state official's name doesn't defend the lawsuit. I'm not sure that I'm answering your question, but I'm not sure that I understand your question. My question is, who will hire me? I guess it's the best way to say it if somebody doesn't take an action. Well, what we're talking about are disciplinary actions. Yeah, so I don't, you know, a decision, I don't see how a decision not to make a disciplinary, not to implement some sort of disciplinary action could result in civil liability. Civil liability to whom? In a situation, in a situation, say, where there is alleged sexual harassment or discrimination, the person who was on the receiving end of that alleged misconduct would have the right to bring a civil action against state, regardless of what action, regardless of any civil administrative employment investigation, or two separate tracks. That was very innocently stated, but I think most people understood what I'm saying. Did you understand the answer in the first place? Okay. Wow. Thank you. It seems to me that part of the confusion is around the fact that you're just a gatherer of facts and then in turn, your department, and then in turn, I forget what the term was, but you go to the agency. This is part of that because, well, one, different agencies have different procedures that they use, and the other part of it is if you're talking about classified employees, is there like a supplemental agreement that say if your department corrections, there's languages unique to that work group versus say if you're somebody in a different department or agency? Well, we do have statewide personnel policies that apply to all state employees, but your point is very well taken. There are certain departments and agencies that have their own work rules, their own procedures that apply, and the department corrections is one of those. The department corrections has its own work rules. When we investigate misconduct alleged against department corrections employees, we look both to our policies and also to the department corrections work rules. Thank you. Department corrections work rules? Work rules. Which are outdated. If it's the same ones we received as a committee, they're pretty outdated. They're like 1997. The questions? Yeah. Terry and then Carl. Is there still an investigative unit within the Agency of Human Services? There is not. There's not anymore. The three investigators who comprised that unit are now part of the Department of Human Resources. Okay, thanks. Carl? I'm just still trying to get a handle on what happens after a complaint is made. You do your investigation, normally 53 days, to release that, and then you made your investigation, you've got your report, the report goes to the agency. What level of follow-up occurs from HR after that? Is what happens tracked? Is it? Yes. Is it totaled at the morning? The pointing authority's disciplinary decision is implemented and the Department of Human Resources usually assists. If the decision is to issue a reprimand, the Department of Human Resources field folks assist in drafting the reprimand. If it's a suspension. Whatever the discipline that is imposed is, the document, communicating the discipline to the employee, it's, for the most part, drafted with the assistance of the Department of Human Resources, and the results are tracked and entered into the SharePoint database. So you do have a good sense of what goes on after you issue your report, just that the agency is coming back and telling you what they've decided. Yes. Do you, at any point, ever make recommendations with that report? If we're asked, we make recommendations. How often does that? It varies from department to department, but I would say most appointing authorities look to us for our advice. Okay. Thank you. What's the, I'm sensing that you're saying that every allegation of misconduct ends up at the top and then makes its way back down to the bottom, but I don't think that's the case with the percentage of complaints that happen at the ground level, in a correctional facility, that never make it outside of the walls of the facility. I can only speak to the complaints that make their life a part of the human resources. Don't you think that's a problem? I think that, I think that that is potentially a problem. And I think that our policies are that complaints, certainly complaints from employees are supposed to make it to the department through the resources. So at this point, when you take a complaint, you're essentially just making a determination as to whether it's judicial and then referring it off. No, we make a determination as to whether or not there's enough substance in the complaint to warrant an investigation. Sometimes, Is that not the essence of what judicial is? Not really sure what you mean by judicial. Basically what you just quoted. Okay. Well, if I put you in that, no doubt, that's fine. Thank you. All right. So what about, There's other departments that hold the owners under state custody. That's Department of Mental Health, DCF. Do you see complaints coming from those departments in terms of employee, in terms of allegations? Employee misconduct allegations. We get employee misconduct allegations from every department and every agency in the state government. So to follow up on the question about corrections, you don't see some of them coming through and you think that's a problem. Are you seeing that happening in other departments that are holding the owners under state custody? As I think I indicated to Representative Hooper, I can't speak to any, I can't speak to them because if they don't make, if the allegations don't make their way to HR, I don't know whether there are, I don't know whether there are such allegations or are not such allegations. I would have no way to know. I only know what our policies are and our policies are that allegations of misconduct are supposed to be brought to the Department of Human Resources. But we don't know if in all cases those allegations are brought to the Department of Human Resources, correct? Correct. It would be misconduct, for example, for a supervisor not to bring an allegation of misconduct to the Department of Human Resources. And who would report that of the supervisor, the superintendent? Anyone who became aware of it could report it. Are there levels of misconduct that you don't need to be involved with? For example, I worked with Representative Palusik at some job in state government. I'm tired of him using his mouth inappropriately. I talked to my supervisor, my supervisor talks to Mr. Palusik and it's corrected. Do you need to be involved with that? We would not need to be involved with that. That could be something that could be handled by what we call supervisory feedback. If it was persistent and if it interfered with your ability to do your job, then if you probably find its way to the Department of Human Resources, where we would investigate. Most departments have an embedded HR person. If the complaint goes to that HR person or they're obligated to contact the HR office to... Yes, according to our protocols. So does DOC have an embedded HR person? DOC has a team of three HR field people. Valerie Nipok is here. I just want to make a point of clarification. They're not embedded as in their Department of Corrections employees. There's a field operations team that are DHR staff that are assigned to support the Department of Corrections. There are no Human Resources staff embedded in the department as corrections employees. Does that... I think that my point was that usually that person sits, has an office in the department that that person services perhaps embedded wasn't exactly the term, but I wanted to get across that they work in that office even though they are the HR person. Yeah, and as I think, I mean, it's a fine point, but Valerie and her team sit in space in the water room, office complex with other HR people, but they're very accessible to their clients at the Department of Corrections. So those are the three you referred to earlier that are housed at the Waterbury complex? Right. So they're there for the whole Agency of Human Services? Well, no, Valerie and her team are only there for the Department of Corrections. There are other HR field people in Waterbury who are there for other departments within the Department of... within the Agency of Human Services. If I may interject, I'm the field operations director. And Tom is handling very well. I can give you probably greater detail if you like and understand how field operations works. Can you tell us your name? Sure, Chris McComb, I'm the field operations director. So the three that you mentioned at the beginning, there's three in Montclair and three in Waterbury. Those are the investing units. And then there's another layer. Well, it's not another layer, it's a different function. It's a different function, but it's through the Department of Human Resources. Correct. And they are in the individual departments? Sometimes, perhaps not in every case, but a lot of the smaller departments, that person, sort of several functions, and one of them is to be their human resources person. And they answer to the Department of Human Resources. And not to the department that their response they're working with. I think that Chris can speak to us. There are a handful of smaller departments within the executive branch who have what we regard as an HR liaison. And they're probably no more than two or three. And they work closely with their assigned HR field rep, but they are not necessarily beholden to our protocol as is internal to DHR. It really never happens that they don't consult with us that I'm aware of, at which point we put into play where our protocol is. There's a very close relationship. Beyond that, and I'd say you have a staff of Montpelier-based HR field office representatives who support the agency of administration and their Montpelier-based. Other than that, they are situated, if not within the very same locale in the same facility, whether it's in Berry, whether it's at Cherry Street, the Department of Health, or the Waterbury State Office complex. So Val has colleagues who support Dale, Diva and DCF, and the agency of Human Services Central Office who are all within the same office space in Waterbury and are within a minute or two walk from any other location in the complex. So Felicia? Yeah. I'm not sure if you can answer it, but a question that the chair had gotten thinking about it. There are other agencies who hold people in custody. And they don't use the Department of Human Resources for complaints necessarily, employee to employee. They have their own internal affairs, speaking to the Department of Public Safety. I know very clearly that corrections and Department of Public Safety are very, very different. They should not be lumped together in different functions. However, would it not, in your opinion, be more effective and efficient instead of having a 53-day turnaround to have an internal affairs inside of corrections? My opinion is that it's more important that there be independence and a perception of independence and separateness by the investigator. And I think that's the rationale for having the Department of Human Resources conduct investigations statewide. And I understand that, and that makes sense. What concerns me about the process is that it goes back to where it came from to be disciplined and... As would an internal affairs investigation. An internal affairs investigation would never leave the Department where it came from. Yes, but I do believe, if I'm understanding their processes correctly, they would be making recommendations, which you do not do. I'm not familiar with the internal affairs process in the Department of Public Safety, so I can't speak to that. I guess my point is, I'm only... There's a cumbersome effectiveness to the process that we have now. And it concerns me that in its formal processes, we are losing people who may not be reporting and things that are not being dealt with by the law professor. And that's not something that you can address. It's just, I think, a real point of the conversation. Well, I think that Secretary Smith was very aware of that. And that was why, among other things, working with the Department of Human Resources we've created is the DOC employee hollow. And I know that the Secretary, in direct communications with all Agency of Human Services employees, let it be known that his office is open and he advised all the Department of Corrections and Policia online. So, I mean, I think, to some degree, we're doing what we can to get at that issue. And I think there is an approach that is new to just being tried to get at that issue, so just, it's not always better. Aside from the hotline, has anything significant changed in Secretary Smith's total view in terms of reporting, discipline, investigation, is there anything in terms of policy? Not with respect to the Department of Human Resources process. Secondly, to clarify, I think I heard you say two things that I don't think, one, your expectation was that allegations are by policy expect to come up to your level. Expect it to come to the Department of Human Resources. On the other side, when you answered Tim's question, it was that supervisor can provide feedback and just do something on their level. Where is the policy differentiation that guides these people on what they're supposed to send out the tree and what they're not? Well, I think that the answer to that question lies in the exercise of judgment by a supervisor or manager, to some degree. So then, I don't want to beat the thing about what training the board. Well, also- I don't get to the point for consistency amongst all the facilities that are applied universally. All supervisors do go through the three-day SSG training. I don't know how to answer your question other than to make reference to that. Thank you. So I have another question that's maybe a little different. So you've already, say you've done an investigation and then you file your report back with the Department. And a few months later, the Department requests that we reopen that investigation. Do they need to submit new allegations or can you reopen that investigation without any more allegations? Well, I'm assuming from your question that the investigated matter worked its way through the entire process and either a decision was made that by the appointing authority that discipline was appropriate and that discipline was imposed or that the decision was made that the allegations were unsubstantiated and no discipline was imposed. And I don't think that we would investigate the same allegations twice. Even though those allegations were unsubstantiated the first time, but then there could be new conduct. If there were new conduct by the same employee, it would be a new investigation. So it won't be reopening the first investigation, it'll be doing a new investigation. Exactly, because you need a new allegation. If the misconduct alleged would be different, misconduct. So going back to temporary relief of duty, and this you may not be the appropriate person to answer this, but the decision for that is made by the respective department. The initial decision is made by the respective department by the appointing authority, the appointing authorities doesn't need. And that will be based on the investigation that you folks did. It's based on the allegation. Because that decision is made before the investing, oftentimes that decision is made before the investigation is even begun. So is temporary relief of duty the same as administrative relief? I think that people use the terms interchangeably. I don't use the term administratively. I use the term temporary relief from duty because that's the term that's in our collective bargaining agreements and that's really what we do. And to place the state employee on the temporary relief of duty is determined by their supervisor or their boss, not Department of Human Resources. It's determined by leadership at the Department of Human Resources where they're in consultation with the Department of Human Resources. But the initial decision rests with the appointing authority similar to the disciplinary decision. So we hear that folks are on administrative relief or temporary relief of duty for quite a few months and still being paid. Is that happening while the investigation is going on in the Department of Human Resources? It can be. And can those investigations go on for six months to a year? Well, it depends on how you define an investigation. From my perspective, the investigation is done when the report is due. When the report is completed and transmitted to the agency. When you're talking about the whole disciplinary process in a particular case, yes, it can take months. And the reason why it can take months is because there are scheduling issues, there are due process issues. Very often the VSEA and the employer will, it will embark upon settlement discussions. If that happens, that slows the process down. So it can take months. So it could take longer than 53 days. The 53 days is the average length of time to complete an investigation report. So it seems like there's some concern about the length of time. And for me, it seems that one, your primary objective, one is to provide a very accurate and thorough investigation. And put true that the employee that is being investigated, there's always a due process that they have to be considered. Along with, if they happen to be part of a collective bargaining agreement, that can also get entered into the discussion as you had alluded to, you made it longer. But I wanted to go back to the question about there is a chain of command, I would assume, in any agency and that not all, whether it be harassment or improper conduct, allegations, they're not all being equal. As the member from Chittenden had alluded to, if you have two employees that for some reason there's a personality conflict between them, that would well be within a supervisor purview to address that issue. On the flip side, if you have two employees and there's sexual harassment being alleged, that's probably where the supervisor would address the issue as best they could, but also bringing you folks and anybody else in to help with the matter as well, correct? Hopefully, yes. Right. So the timeline, I mean, so taken a long way around here, but the ultimate goal here is just to make sure that the employee has due process afforded to them during the whole investigation and that it's a very thorough and accurate investigation supposed to be in fact. That's correct, and the reason for that is, the reason for that is in the collective bargaining agreement itself, because the state as an employer cannot impose on any employee without good cause. And to demonstrate good cause and investigation is required. Thank you. Sarah, I have a question about the hotline. So it's my understanding that this new procedure, the hotline coming, those phone calls ringing at your desk was set up by Secretary Smith in December, soon after these allegations that we heard about in the seven days, I have a two-part question. Is it true that in addition to employees that folks who are incarcerated also have the same hotline? They do not have access to the same hotline. So it's a different, okay. It is not the hotline that rings at your door. My understanding is that the Agency of Human Services is working on setting up some sort of mechanism for those sort of people. But right now, that doesn't- I don't know the status. That's not your area. Exactly. Thank you. And my second question is, this is new. Is this a sustainable? Is this gonna be able to continue in this way? Is this the fix that we need? Having the hotline come, well, to you, I can, I mean, I feel comfortable reporting that the volume of calls that have come in on the hotline is relatively low, much lower than I anticipated. So I don't know whether it is, I don't know whether that means that A, it's not the fix, or B, there was no need for a fix. The hotline exists, people are not calling it. So I can't speak to why. Oh, thank you. Now? So how does one access the hotline? It's a telephone number that's been distributed to all the USC employees. So under free will they can contact you? Correct. If they have access to telephone? Yes. So you said that 53 days is the average for completion of your report. Is that a cross-state government? Yes. And is there something unique about the investigations that are done in the Department of Corrections that make those processes take longer? No, there's nothing unique about it. I mean, you know, we get all sorts of complaints of employee misconduct and they range from things as simple as inaccurate or allegedly fraudulent time reporting to really serious allegations that involve philonious crime. So, you know, making any sort of generalization about the length of time that it takes to do an investigation is not really a valid generalization because each investigation is different depending on the complexity of, you know, seriousness in the allegations. And is there anything unique that you can decipher about the allegations within the Department of Corrections that would make it more difficult for the appointing authority to make a quick determination and resolve the case such that the employees either back on the job or dismissed for cause or whatever the range of possible outcomes there are? In my experience, I would say that there's really nothing unique about the Department of Corrections. I don't think that the Department of Corrections takes any longer than any other Department of Agency state government. I think the process, the volume is higher, but I don't think that there's anything unique about the cases arising out of the Department of Corrections that makes them any different than employee misconduct cases coming out of any other agency department. Do you have the ability to get me the data on that Department of Corrections final resolution compared to state government as a whole? You're looking for time? I think you do. So I don't wanna get into any of the real specific allegations or complaints that have come in, but overall, what are the allegations that you're seeing coming in from DOC? They really run the gamut. And from what to what? They run the gamut from chronic lateness and issues with time reporting to serious allegations of unprofessional conductor abuse. And that unprofessional conductor abuse is that a stack to stack or is that stack to index? Both. Is it more at a few of the facilities or is it pretty even throughout all of our facilities? Can't really speak to that. I don't know, sitting here, I'd have to look. Is that something you could get us? We could certainly take a look at that, sure. I don't want names associated with names. No, we can't give you names. I understand the confidentiality. I'm just saying are there trends anywhere or not? I think, I mean, sitting here, reflecting on what I've looked at over the last year and a half, two years, I would say that there are no identifiable trends and that the DOC allegations in this conduct are fairly easy to find among the facilities. Does anybody look at the complaint data and say to identify potential problems, like, oh, we're all of a sudden getting a lot of great chronic lateness complaints from DOC versus another agency? I would say the answer to that question is yes. I mean, if a trend is obvious, it's noticed and it's addressed. How is it addressed? There, good question. How is it addressed? Well, I think it'll be addressed by the HR field person bringing it to the attention of Department of Leadership and Department of Leadership speaking with the facility manager. Go ahead, Ron. Well, it would seem to me that the facility management would know that issue well before it became an issue for youthful. I think a chronic lateness issue, they'd be acutely aware of it. Yeah, and I would anticipate that that's an issue that, again, is in their wheelhouse that they would address on site as opposed to having a kind of youthful. Well, again, and I think it's a question of degree, and if something was chronic with a particular individual, then it would work its way up through the progressive discipline process. Are you getting complaints about overtime at all with DOC? Well, the legal division doesn't get complaints about overtime. I can't speak to whether DHR has complaints about overtime. I know that overtime is an issue with DOC. Temporary employees, do you receive complaints against temporary employees at DOC? And are those handled differently? Well, temporary, I mean, I think there are people in the room who can address DOC's use of temporary employees better than I can. But I will say this, if there is a misconduct complaint against a temporary employee, it would make its way to us. Okay, thank you. We are gonna transition into classification issues because if we look at our correctional officers and in terms of what the employment requirement is for them, training, salary, if we decide to take a look at that and adjust that, then there will be implications in terms of their classification and also implications in terms of general fund dollars too. So we are gonna transition to that. Well, in that case, I think that I should step down. We may have to be back at some point. But we do wanna offer an opportunity for the commissioner of corrections or the PSCA staff to respond to any of those at all. I know that we asked you just to be in the audience in case any questions came up for you folks, but we just wanna see if there's anything you'd like to share. And just before I step down, I made commitments to get certain things to certain people and I didn't take notes. Okay, so the first request was? Just a number of active complaints. A number of active complaints, DOC's. It's basically... There was another request to make a comparison to other? Yes, I would like to know the time comparison between when the factual finding is delivered to the appointing agency and the final resolution of the process in DOC as compared to state government at large. And you can get those back to both committee chairs and committee assistants so that we can... I think I also made a commitment to provide a copy of our procedure program. Thank you. And should I send that to your committee assistant or to institutions? I'll do both. Thank you very much. Thank you. So my name is Amy Tann and I'm the first Vice President of the VSEA and just bear with me. I took a couple of notes so you guys were taking some questions. So the first thing I really wanna point out is I'm struggling to articulate this, but our members will never know if a report they've made about a bad supervisor or a bad manager has been received and investigated because they don't get a closure notice. It makes the environment and culture more vulnerable for that person and the increased retaliation rates. It's a very real thing. So people receive closure notices if it's reflective of sexual harassment or discrimination, not necessarily because they saw a supervisor or a manager doing a bad thing. So I just wanted to really reinforce that. VSEA has also proposed changes to contract articles related to discipline and grievances, timeframes for the last three bargaining rounds over the course of the last six years. The union has made attempts to try to tighten those timeframes because you hear things like 60 days that's not necessarily how long it takes but we have had members on TRD for over a year and we recognize that this is excessive. And then the last piece that I just wanted to mention, I heard overtime. VSEA recently was able to pull some overtime numbers for DOC and over the last, well excuse me, over an 18 month timeframe of July 1st, 2018 through December 31st, 2019, the Department of Corrections had 299,290.65 hours of overtime that equates to 10.5 million or 148 positions. So issues of overtime do exist. I would assume that issues of overtime contribute to the amount of investigations. That's all I really had. Thank you. What's wrong? Carl? Can you put that number in perspective? That's a big number. Is there a way to put that in perspective? Can you give employees what that averages per employee per week? That's about a 75 week period, something like that. So I don't have the numbers broken out per employee of Corrections but I do have the numbers based on the facility. That would be helpful. Yeah. Sure. So let's see. It's a Chinon regionals 39,185.25. Marble Valley, it's 20,708.3. Northeast regional is 55,079.5. Northern state is 49,144.95. I'm sorry, the 49? 49,144.95. Northwest is 60,768.19. In Springfield is 74,404.45. We actually have members sleeping in their cars there between the shifts. How much is that again, 72,404.45. And what was the grand total again? Sure. 299,000 something. 299,290. Six five. Six five. Rob? You have a lot of information. I'm wondering if you have any more backup data as far as like, because those are of course made for overtime. Correct. Do you know how many positions are vacant in those facilities that they just can't fill? I don't have access to that. And of the forced overtime, do you know how many of those are for people calling me sick or in plain absentee from the existing people? I don't have access to that. Okay. But those all will be contributing factors to those numbers as well. Sure. I would like to see the vacancy rights. Is there a way that we can get that? I'm going to give it to the police when they're packing. We can have them. That would be important. Linda and then Mary, can I just, thank you. Can I just ask a question and I want to make sure I heard you correctly. So, going back to what you say and your members never know if the report has been received, if there's no closing notice, is that included on the sexual harassment? Sexual harassment discrimination is different. I think so. You would receive a notification. Does it say matter has been investigated appropriately, if that's what you get? That's what I heard today. I have not received one personally. Okay, thank you. In terms of discrimination, sexual harassment. Only. And you have received those or not? I have not received a closure. I have not made a report regarding discrimination or sexual harassment. Mary? Would you be able to give us a number again for the overtime cost was like 10 million or something? I think what we did the battle was 10,489. So we just rounded 10.5. Free, thank you. Mr. Good afternoon. I think many of you know me, but my name is Jen Baker. I'm the Interim Commissioner of Corrections. I don't really have a lot to comment on, this chair, just because I know I can only use this excuse for solo. This is my fourth week. It's our fourth week too. So we kind of parallel all together. What I will say is what I've said in front of every committee that I've been introduced to since I've been here. I am deeply concerned about the well-being and the welfare of the employees that I'm responsible for. I take that very seriously. I have my entire career. Throughout all the organizations I've run and I'm in the process myself of learning how the internal affairs process operates. Just for reference for the folks that don't know my background, I come from a background where internal affairs look much different than it does in this process. And that's not meant to be a criticism. It's meant to mean that I'm still in the process of trying to figure out if we're using the process as efficiently as we can. And I'm not at any conclusion yet. I will say that some of the things I heard today are new to me and I'm gonna react to them in a reflective way to try to figure out how we can do better than what we're doing and work with our partners at HR to work on that. I do think at some point before my intro role is finished here towards the end of April, the beginning of May, that as I've indicated as Secretary Smith, I do not do these intro roles without leaving some document behind about what I found underneath the hood. And the internal affairs process is one of those issues that I believe I need to comment on but I'm just not sure what those comments would be at. And I'm certainly not trying to put the ball down the field. I'm really not. Couple things that we'll leave you with to think about. When we talk about discipline and when we talk about issuing discipline, there's always trust factors in government and there's always trust factors in every agency in government. And I've been through that in rebuilding agencies, my law enforcement background. And the only way you demonstrate trust to the folks that are stakeholders is that you demonstrate the fact that you can take care of business inside your agency to the satisfaction of the stakeholders that hold you accountable for what you do. The challenging direction is there's a lot of stock stakeholders. It's not as simple as my days policing where I police the community such as Robin and I knew of the stakeholders and specialist groups and advocates and all those kind of folks. I also take my responsibility as the commissioner of corrections at the folks that are by statute in my custody as the language says in the custody of the commissioner of corrections, I take that very seriously and they're well-being that take very seriously. So I'm the one responsible for that. So this all ties into the internal affairs process and the way we look at employee misconduct. Another comment I want to make, when you issue discipline, and unfortunately in my career I have a fair amount of experience in issuing discipline, discipline is not at all punishment. Discipline is about modifying behavior. And part of that process of modifying behavior is a reflected process that has to be applied to looking at the individual employee that comes in front of you. General Consul talked about we staff these things. We staff, I had my second staffing of internal affair cases this past Tuesday. That's done collectively with the HR folks in the room, legal counsel in the room, the investigators in the room and I get to ask questions of the investigators about what their sense is of the case they put in front of them. Some of these cases are very clear, some are complicated and it kind of goes back to what Representative Hooper was asking, is it a performance issue or is it a conduct issue? And then it comes down to is it a mistake of the mind or is it a mistake of the soul? And the moral compass is not more about that's an entirely different conversation than you would have if it was a mistake of the mind that something made a mistake. So there's a lot of stuff going through my mind in that and I'm not in the position nor would it be fair to anyone involved in this process for me to start making recommendations about what we ought to be doing. And the final conduct we'll make, we in corrections, not my final, so I want to go to the overtime issue because it does play into the issue of conduct that I'm concerned about and I'll tie that in for a minute. The whole idea of having some type of investigative process is to identify your problems and identify strategies to address the problems so you cut down on the number of internal affairs cases. And I'm not there yet, I don't understand it well enough yet, but I want you to know that for me, this issue is a priority and figuring out the way for us to have better outcomes with employee conduct is a high priority for me while I'm here and when I leave with recommendations is the Secretary Smith. Let me talk about overtime. The conversation you heard is exactly right. So ending this fiscal year, we're heading towards an 8.5 million dollar overtime expenditure. When I was told that the first week, and again for reference, I ran the state police for three years, that overtime is nowhere close. Now in fairness and corrections, it's 24-7, you have fixed post-event to fill, but this forced mandatory overtime is not unconnected to conduct their employees. When people are tired, sleep deprivation, they make bad decisions. And so this is an issue that's gotta be pulled apart and figured out and worked on and solutions come up and it's just not the internal various process. And I know I said last time, I promise you this is it. The length of time with the investigations, there was a lot of questions. And I want to venture too far into this because this is an immediate observation I'm looking for. The investigations are completed and given timeframe that the General Counsel talked about. Time was right about that. What takes time is when you start moving into discipline, you start preparing what's known as a water mill letter to give the employee notice that discipline is coming and there are due process rights and scheduling and conversations with the union, that takes time. And you have to respect the employee's rights and when you're issuing discipline, you have to do it right. So those are my observations and conversations and I want to emphasize that a few things that I heard today were new for me and I'm gonna reflect on those that conversations with staff at HR and see if I think there may be a couple places where we start doing some stuff a little bit better. So I'm holding the questions. Questions? Mary? Commissioner Baker, can you tell us the things that you heard today or are you still wanting to review them if you're lying? Yeah, I'm not gonna be well enough for a present and I'm gonna tell you, I really do want to just, I wouldn't be fair to HR if I didn't have a conversation with them first. It's just stuff that I'm not familiar with that I need to get familiar with. I'm not comfortable. All right, Bob? Welcome back. Do you have any intention, I guess, of looking deeper into the correlation between discipline and over time? I do. And again, I would get too far ahead of myself, but I'm very familiar with heralding the learning software systems that provide you ideas that people are, because the whole idea should be as management that we should be helping employees to stay out of those gray areas. And so, you know, this, it's gonna take a little bit to figure this out, but I do think there's a correlation between this and what it is. These conditions, again, I'm not gonna disagree with the union folks at all. It's not healthy. And, you know, we're running the risk of serious consequences of this all the time. But, Commissioner, I have two questions. What do our facilities, what effect do the condition of our facilities have on our employees? Have you thought about that? You know, I haven't, I think it's a fair question. I mean, I'm sure you wrote it for a little bit. Yeah. So, my other question, maybe more of a comment, maybe you do. So, you're in a business now that has to provide 24-7, 365 service to the customers who happen to be our inmates and our employees who are supervising those inmates. I think you're in a unique position because you can't cut services because you don't have enough employees. A few, maybe in the private sector or other places, would have to make a decision. I need to cut back on my delivery services or whatever I'm doing because I don't have enough employees to do that. You don't have that choice. Therefore, we're looking at millions and millions of dollars of overtime and not enough employees. I think that's something that we all need to consider, that your agency is kind of in a unique position when it comes to those type of things. Can you want to comment on that yet? I could agree more. Okay. You know, there are certain things you have to do with the facilities because, again, as the staff has reminded me, a lot goes on in crashes to include supervision in the community. But at the facilities, the safety of our employees and the safeties of the folks that I'm in charge with having in my custody, it's a priority. And I'm very concerned about that from the overtime issue, but you can't cut corners on having staff in there. So you're on this treadmill situation where we're running every day and going nowhere because of these factors that are tying in, short on the positions, forced overtime. You've got to staff positions. And I don't have the answer to it right now, but it's not lost on the uncomplicated distance. So I'll look forward to your comments on that before you take leave of our... Yes? Jim? Commissioner, thank you. I appreciate that you've stepped in. And as I watched you go from state police to criminal justice training center to Rutland police to some national group. And now you're back here. I think it's fair to say you've plunked retirement for several times. And I'm still there, by the way. What is the plan to hire more employees full time permanent? I think we put language in the budget last year and we might as well put language again but it doesn't necessarily get the job done because it's up to your team to take charge to find the personnel too. Yeah, so... And I can speak a little bit about this and that. Before I got here, two positions were authorized for recruiting and retention inside. During the position, they started just in the beginning of December. They're two great employees. They're doing unbelievable work. I had them coming into my senior staff two weeks to brief us on what they're doing. And I don't say this because this is my original agency of state government but we're having them entered by the recruiting staff to state police. Hiring today is very strategic. It isn't just putting that in the paper. It's very strategic. And trying to identify the folks that we're going to make good employees for us is part of the strategy. The other part of the strategy is... I've been very open about this and the HR folks know that. I'm concerned about the way we hire and that we do decentralized hiring. I don't think decentralized hiring is a good idea in an agency like corrections where you have the issues that you have in corrections. I'm not trying to make corrections sounds like it's special but the fact of the matter is we have a power differential over people we supervise. It gives you a lot of power and you have that very set norms in an organization like that. Very clearly up front in the employees about the expectations of HR and when you hire employees from multiple entry points you don't get a chance to set that bar. And so I have started the conversation my purpose in being in corrections is to make drastic changes. It's to stabilize the situation best I can. Look under the hood and make recommendations but I think we've got to move on this because you did give us 30... when I would almost say 30 extra positions for the purposes of managing attrition so we don't get into a situation where the employees are put in the terrible spot they're in sleeping in their cars waiting to come back to work in ownership. So there is a lot of work going on with that and I'm really hoping before I leave I can give you some real positive news about the progress that that good staff has made and that helps. It is not the last time it's something I picked up about within the first two or three days that I was in the building. So there are a number of things that I've learned today that I find very concerning but I just want to bring two of them to light. One of them is the testimony that we heard that it is completely subjective on the part of whoever receives a complaint as to whether that complaint is determined to be sexual harassment or discrimination and that's concerning because oftentimes there is not a black and white... I understand those that you care about now. The other concern that I have is we very much appreciate and respect the focus and the depth of knowledge that you bring to this task but your April departure date means that you may well not complete an analysis of what's wrong but you're alone and set forward a plan of attack to correct that and I'm just hoping you can feel a little less panicked about this. I'll try to make you feel a little less panicked. I will finish some type of analysis even if it's out of my own time back to Secretary Smith. This is not the first time we've been in a role like this and one of the reasons why I think these roles are effective is because I don't have any action to say below. I don't have to be worried about being very honest about what I see and so I will guarantee you that I will be very honest about what I see and let the chips fall where they met and so I know it's a short period of time. Now I suspect I don't think my wife is watching this hearing. Not yet. Make sure that doesn't go to our own time. Even though my letter of employment is April 30th I'm not, I've always done this I'm not going to leave until I know someone is landed in a safe place behind me and I feel like I've handed the agency off to them with an understanding of what the steps are for. Now with that said, going back to my candid and honest feedback I think one of the things that I would urge you to be very careful about is not getting to the point where the policy gets created coming out of the legislature. I mean legislation gets created and this is what I mean, I see your members in the show. There's great policy organizations to me is the leadership of the organization. Now if you have questions and you don't have trust in that leadership I understand that. I think so in this internal affairs process legislation may not be the best way to do this as long as I'm saying it. I'm not lecturing you, I'm just simply saying that. But going back to your point if someone doesn't have the understanding and experience of how to run internal affairs investigations coming behind me then obviously that's a concern for you. Representative Harris said you are the poster boy for not knowing what word retirement means while the film world gets the next generation. You mentioned the 30 positions and the 30 positions are important because there are people that are sleeping in the parking lot. It's incredible. And it's okay. In the deal that you made to come here did you by any chance get any reassurance from the administration that you would be able to execute those because we have just Jim said we have seen little things just to fill. I don't want to say I have a group guarantee but I have insurances that if we can make the recruiting piece work we get better at finding candidates than I have the support to do that. Okay, follow up. You just opened up all of the other canvines there. Do you think that the recruitment work that is being done now is not really bringing in the people they want to be? It just started in December so it's a month old. So they're just standing out the process and they're coming in to present to me I won't call it a white paper they're coming in to present to me they're running and I'm going to put a feedback on that and then tweet that and I did say to HR folks this week that I wanted them to start the conversation about how we hire and how we enter people in because I do think representative that plays into the challenges we're facing around this staff issue. Thank you. I'm just wondering should we look at what is needed in terms of qualification for folks entering because the system of DOC is very very different now than even 10 or 15 years ago. It's going to get a lot different. It's going to get a lot different and this isn't a disparage anyone or anything but when you look at a starting pay for a CO1 and that the requirements are a high school diploma or GED we're dealing with inmates that have some real serious serious issues either mental health issues, drug dependency behavioral issues, domestic violence the history of corrections it was always security security of the building, security of the facility and the people but what we're seeing coming in now in terms of students it's a lot more I don't want to say social work it's a lot more behavioral work understanding the human psyche and do we need to really look at this in terms of for our correctional officers so it's a healthier and safer environment for our employees as well as our inmates? So I think the question is should we like change high school education I forgot to say to you is what I would like to see the recruiting folks do is give me a better sense of and I'll use this analogy which pond do you fish in to find the fish you want to catch instead of just in general you know I've seen this often hiring me, you know my days when we rebuilt the raw same police department you know we were hiring people that normally wouldn't look in a pool before to hire and they became very successful candidates so I think that's part of the conversation I'm going to have with the recruiting folks I will agree with you and I'm going to echo the words of Commissioner Touche that you know corrections are shifting and what the expectations from this building are and what the expectations from the communities are and what the expectations from other stakeholders look much different now and the type of person that you have when we have folks under supervision in the communities it takes a different level of skill set than we may have looked for before and that's not a criticism of anyone it's the shift in where you're going and that's we've talked about we've talked about the facilities but we haven't talked about the the folks that work out in the community probationary below community corrections officers and so on and those folks that we are supervising out there we've had this conversation in your committee I haven't been in front of government off yet these are very complicated individuals with a lot of very complicated problems with very low support systems that we're left to manage so it is a conversation that has to happen I'm not quite sure what the answer is yet you know we'll probably see what each other know if we find you thank you thank you hello so you've heard a little bit of our conversation in terms of COs and CO1, CO2s and then you get into the field service officers and PDPs so it would be interesting to know what classifications they are in the state system what the job responsibility is and also the pay scale sure so my name is Amy Pope I'm done I have a variety of titles but the official title is Deputy Director for Classification and Position Management I probably won't be able to answer all of your questions that you have I'm not completely prepared to tell you all of the job duties of all the different classes but I can give you sort of a general I have some examples of the structure so the correctional officers we have a level one and two so a correctional officer can promote into the next level the pay range for the correctional officer which I think you had identified as right now as of today is $18.99 $38,000 a year and then the highest level for a correctional officer to would as of today would be around $68,000 and that's just you know looking at individual positions within our system that's not counting not counting over time that's just their hourly rate that's not counting bending correct just a straight hourly rate some of the other positions within the facility are the correctional sort of specialists they do more case work so your correctional officers are doing safety and security at the facility then there's correction, security and operations supervisors I don't know if you're interested in the pay grade would that help you? so the correctional officers currently they were recently upgraded a couple of years ago to are a 19 and a 21 for the classification number? so they're a pay grade 19 and a pay grade 21 so that's how you would then go to our collective bargaining agreement and go on the pay scale to see the ranges Kurt has a question but there's also shift differentials right? correct the shift differentials are not a part of what I gave you I unfortunately can't specifically tell you how they work but there's definitely different shifts and then there's different rates based on those shifts so the supervisor I believe the supervisor position is a pay grade 25 and I didn't come up with the pay ranges for that if you'd like I can send a spreadsheet that would help curious should we be able to provide an actual on this? sure so then there's the correctional service specialist who provide casework to those in the facility and then there's a correctional living unit supervisor I'm sorry I'm not doing this right so the correctional service specialists are one and two and there's also an opportunity for an employee to go up to the next level and so those are a pay grade 21 and 23 and the correctional living unit supervisors are a pay grade 25 there's a correctional service specialist who are working with youth offenders in the facility and in the community and they're a pay grade 24s there are parole officers out of the field and that's another opportunity for a career within that job class so if you come into a parole officer one there's an opportunity to become a parole officer two and those are a pay grade 22 and 24 and I don't have the ranges there I'm kind of the commissioner's gone but I'll ask the SCA this question for the for the overtime issue for the correctional officers who are putting in most of the overtime are they CO1s or CO2s is there any difference are you seeing that any difference for CO1s or CO2s Madam Chair speed power for the BSEA and Gary Goldie is here with the director of the relations I don't think there's a major difference I think the demand for overtime is pretty widespread between CO1 and CO2s temporary employees in your entry level CO1s so it would be interesting to see the vacancy rates because it's your CO1s that come in and then work up the ladder correct they don't come in as a CO2 usually correct very rarely come in as a CO1 and you work up the ladder you're a CO1 you can become a casework you can become a supervisor but you could go out into the field as a probation parole officer a field service officer just to give you perspective how it goes do you have a field service officers of separate classification or is that what you're going to put under officer 1 and 2 I'm just assuming it's the parole officer but I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to supervision in the community and I think what people need to be very the language may say parole officers but they're not just supervising folks on the parole staffs they're supervising folks on probation they're supervising folks on furlough and their official title is probation and parole officer and it's much more formal than just folks on probation in fact there's probably about 7,000 people we supervise in the community under different statuses and we have about 1,700 folks in Carson that's the breakdown we are the FSU district from probation and parole officer they are in the classification and maybe parole officer 1 and 2 I don't know I don't know either I don't know if that's my question different job different job maybe I don't know do you get into the qualifications what's required we work with our recruitment division to work on minimum qualifications for positions and what are the minimum qualifications for I think we know for CO1s I did not bring that with me okay I'll just start it's high school diploma and two years of working experience any kind of work experience or two years of college coursework so what about a case worker or supervisor that I don't know we can provide that to you it's accessible on our website it can provide information to you and what about a parole officer 1 and 2 it's quite often within the system people work out from CO1s up through my two shake away those so we could be a correctional officer for six months and become a CO2 and then they could go right into a supervisor position then they could go into the field service offices out in the field so we work out some may do that food applying for a position not a promotion Kirk those are the minimum requirements but they also to have to graduate from the academy they come as well so there are some that don't want to make it through the academy do you have to go through the academy to be a field service officer for probation parole just a CO CO1 or CO2 and you start at CO1 and then you are going to be a CO2 Madam Chair just to help you out to promote to a CO2 you have to have two years of experience or equivalent military experience so if you're a CO1 you have to do that for two years or you're doing it for less than two years you would have had an equivalent experience in the military so that really focuses in it's more law enforcement and security than it is behavioral work there's a distinction the distinction is that the fresh officers are responsible for the security of the the case workers are really more like they're not social workers necessarily so it could be those are more like the social work role of trying to work with the vendor before we enter that's in theory but in reality in a facility in a wing, a housing wing your correctional officer has that day-to-day one-on-one that's true I think we have to keep that in mind questions I think it's important for the police to argument each one to understand what works and each employee is assigned to a particular pay grade within the pay grade there's steps there used to be like 15 steps and the first three or four were one year steps so if you did performance properly you got a step increase and then it became three year steps for the next three or four and then there were what five year steps I think for the last two or three so in theory if a person came in a state government and didn't get a promotion just taking that job it would take 24 and a half years to get to the top of the pay grade now I presume that the correctional officer one is an automatic promotion after a certain number of years or it's not it's maybe automatic in that there's a form of conversation that's occurring automatic in our system there's definitely a conversation happening with supervisors and employees about that when that's happening Questions? Thoughts? Have you had the right thoughts? Want to warm up? Questions? Thank you So that finishes up for this afternoon our committee to go back to the stairs but I want to thank any help you think on this would be greatly appreciated and any help you can give you another shame correction for us we're here to help see what this tells to partners and one goal thank you