 Why don't we start, Brynn, if you could just go quickly over updated draft of the bill and then we come back to the issue that's probably the most controversial. That's the emergency or the involuntary medications and involuntary commitment and timelines. So if you could just run through the copy of the bill. Sure thing. So, everybody should have draft 2.4 of S 114. Hopefully it was posted to the website this morning. And I was just going to go through the changes that were made to this draft from the last that you looked at last week. Most of the differences between the drafts are in yellow highlight. So the first one is in section one. This is that rent escrow hearings portion of the bill. So if this is where if a plaintiff asks for an emergency hearing the court can exercise its discretion to hear it. And to the extent that the case is heard and as an emergency than the section would apply and it gives you recall gives the judge discretion whether or not to order the person to pay rent into escrow. So that the change here from the last version is that it's put into session law, and it only applies during that emergency period, which is the duration of the time that the governor has declared a state of emergency arising from coven 19. I've talked to Senator Sorokin, and she's fine with having this in our bill. Also heard from Chris Rice, who's okay with it. He represents landlords in many cases. Okay, so I'll move on to the next section. Dick, if I could just ask in a couple of different things we're doing we're adopting different end dates for the emergency. So this one is 30 days after the end. In some of the other legislation it was 60 and then in some others it's 120. I can understand how you might have different necessities, but I'm just putting it out there should we be leaning toward one date to make it easier. Because otherwise I think people might become confused about what's going on and off. So I would, what I'll say is that section one, the emergency period here is defined the same way as defined in the Senate Economic Development Bill, which stays all eviction proceedings until the end of the emergency and that's how it's defined in that bill. The idea was to line it up as closely as possible with what's going on in that bill with respect to landlord tenant hearings. And the other, the other sort of timeframes of when that state of emergency ends are based on the proposal from the judiciary so I think that there are some situations which may require a longer period after the end of the state of emergency. And others which don't so that I didn't come up with these on my own directly from the proposal. Okay, fair enough I just wanted to kind of wondered about it too and maybe we will just pick up on that as we get to those sections. Section two is the execution. Right so this is the power of attorney. Yeah. This is the powers of attorney section. The following is the deed section these are sort of the same with respect to powers of attorney and the deeds there's no changes here. Remember this just permits the powers of attorney and deeds to be executed remotely over a secure communication link rather than requiring that all parties be physically present. So, I'll move to section four I'm on page three now. This is the rule 43. This is the section that permits the defendant to wave their physical appearance in the courtroom, as long as they've had the opportunity to consult with their counsel, prior to that waiver, and also their appearance is made by audio or visual transmission at the time. So the only change there was to add that requirement that the defendant have the opportunity to consult with their counsel before the waiver. We okay there I'll move on to section five. Okay, this is the section that suspends on statutory timeframes for some court proceedings until the administrative order 49 is terminated. So if you turn to page five. Subdivision one at the top of the page extends the time frame for certain court proceedings. So in subsection a hearings on application for involuntary treatment, which right now are required to be held within 10 days of application that's extended to 14 days. And hearings on application for involuntary medication is required to be held within seven days of application by statute, and that's extended to 14 days as well. Subsection be conditions of release review pursuant to title 13. This is on this applies to people who have been detained as a result of their inability to meet conditions of relief, or who have been released on orders to return to custody. That's required by statute to be held within 48 hours, and this extends it to seven days following the application. And then the other conditions of release review is required by statute to occur within five working days that applies to everybody who's been released on conditions, and that's been extended here to 14 days. So there's nothing to do with the involuntary treatment or medication. No, B and C don't know reason I raise that is that this morning at the joint rules committee. We were given permission to vote on the rest of the bill, but not on these sections having to do with involuntary medication or involuntary treatment. So we're going to continue to take testimony, but we'll need a separate bill for this section. Okay, that's easy for you. Just section a subsection a on the. Yeah, subsection a would be out. Where's the involuntary medication. It's there. Yeah, subsection, subsection a would be taken out and be dealt with in a different bill. At some point, I mean, it could be Thursday could be whenever next week, whatever, but we're not giving up on it, but Senator, I think the Senate rules committee was concerned that one section of the bill would become controversial and hold it up. Okay. That was their decision. I agree with that decision. I don't disagree with it. I just. So anyway, if you keep going through, so we will deal with that separately this morning and hear testimony from judge Greerson morning flocks, Doug Green and Jack McCullough. We're all waiting. Okay. So VNC, those are just the ones we just went through applied to bail review. Those would be the only types of hearings for which the statutory timeframe would be extended then. Do Matt Valerio or James Pepper have anything on the bail review. I have no objection. The state's certainly have no objections. This would more likely impact the general office. I'm sorry, I lost part of what was being said there. The conditions of release pursuant and that that should be held within seven days rather than what it what it currently is and condition I've released review would be held within 14 days following application. Yeah, that's not, that's not a problem. I mean, you know, you'd obviously like to have it done quicker, but we understand what's going on here. The real hope is that these things are going to be resolved at the front end as opposed to by review. So, Well, I noticed a case in Bennington that usually would have resulted in much more than a citation for June ended up, you know, just as a citation in June and not even a criminal charge. So there's hundreds of those around the state right now. Okay, so I'll move on to subdivision to starting online 12. This is the provision that suspends all the statutory timeframes that would apply for issuing orders to seal or expunge, or to hold hearings on petitions for ceiling or expungement until 120 days after a o 49 is terminated. And again, that was a proposal from the judiciary to keep that keep that suspension extended until 120 days after the state of emergency. Sub division three. This is the, this is would require that those statutory timeframes for preliminary or merits hearings on civil suspensions be suspended. So prohibits any actual license suspensions until that civil suspension and hearing on the merits is held. So no changes to that section either. Thank you. And then the last section is section six the suspension of statutes of limitations for civil actions. And wording changes here that provides that all of those civil civil action statutes of limitations that would otherwise expire during the state of emergency are told until 60 days after the governor terminates the state of emergency by declaration. Mr chair. Yes, to go back to what I was saying before. So in these two sections, we have one at 120 days, one at 60 days. And I understand that those are proposals from the judiciary, but I'm just wondering why we couldn't reach one uniform time frame. Because otherwise we're, we're just creating a profusion of different time limits that people will have to keep checking and rechecking. To the extent we could find common ground for them, it seems like it would be worth the effort. Judge Grayson, would you like to respond. I think you're muted or something. For the record, Brian Grayson chief superior judge, can you hear me now. Yes, thank you. Good morning. Senator Bruce, I think each one of those. I understand they're different deadlines but they reflect the particular subject matter and for instance, the expungement extension for 120 days reality is when when this is over and we're trying to get back to whatever the new normal is. There's a significant backlog in every single docket. And the 120 days and expungement to me is more of a reflection of a prior we're going to have to set priorities on what gets set early. And it, it's more of a reflection of the priority and I would put expungements and ceilings on a very low priority for staffing. It's not a reflection of the impact on staffing, but for instance, the, the 60 days on the statute of limitations is a reflection that a different issue and it's one that is not involved with staffing it's a matter of getting those cases that have been held in advance because of statute of limitations to process those understood. So, what we're trying to do on evictions is really rent escrow orders. I, that's something that we would want to start that process as soon as we can. And so that's why each of those dates reflect the different. What priority perhaps is one correct me if I'm wrong. The, let's say they were all 120 days. It wouldn't change your ability to prioritize. In other words, let's say that the statute of limitations we set it 120 days. What, what would be, it wouldn't change your ability to prioritize that over expungement. It would just create a uniform line in the same way that the beginning of the emergency had a uniform line. It would and using for instance the statute of limitations as an example. There was a debate among the Supreme Court considering this language of the Vermont buyer association and then I believe there was a, I think it's predominantly a plaintiff's group and there was a debate between 16120 and the court came down, and I believe the VBA was consistent with that so it's, you're not wrong there are other folks wanted a different number. This is our recommendation and it's obviously a decision for the committee to make. But I think, in many respects, they set, they do reflect a priority from the court's perspective. Okay, and it's not a, it's not a deal breaker for me obviously it's just, I feel as though we're, we're doing a sort of first pass at these things, and we're setting a number of different dates for the end zone. And then we will then do other bills, and we will wind up creating a kind of mishmash of dates. So it will take someone like Bryn to keep us straight all the time on when things are ending or we're not so I just, I just put it out there but I'm happy to go with the recommendation of the courts. Thank you. Any other questions about the dates? Judge, you have another issue that you I believe sent out and sent out to everybody. Yes. The requirement that you clear that the above statement is true. What do you call that swearing it's declaration or swearing as opposed to appearing before the notary. But we're talking when we talk about execution and swearing here we're talking about the notary public said. So there is a statute now titled for I believe it's section 27. Relating to electronic filing does away with the need for notary and substitute the use of a notary for any document that is electric electronically filed and allows for a declaration under oath as to the truth or accuracy of the statement. What this language that I've proposed and I believe I've sent it to all of the committee members would allow that substitution for sworn declaration to apply in any filing in any docket in the court with the exception you'll note in the language of search warrants or application for non testimonial identification that same language is reflected in the current statute as it relates to a product filing. And this. This is a proposal from the court because we're seeing more and more as this situation develops and evolves that the difficulty in finding notaries and the actual fact and social distancing when you involve a notary. There's a number of elements in this request. It also comes from the bill that I think some of you if not all of you have many members have seen involving evictions and foreclosure proceedings and the moratorium or stay on those proceedings. There is this exact language in there in that bill. It relates specifically to evictions or foreclosure proceedings. So what we're asking the committee to consider is adopting this same language and allow it to apply to any filings in court. And in some in substance it would be to allow a sworn declaration as opposed to an authorized document. Some things never change. I lost my agenda again. This piece although coming in late is probably one of the most important pieces of could be of this bill. Are there any questions from committee members about this section. Everybody okay with adding this. Okay. Then we'll go ahead. So that brings us to the more controversial section which is section a section five. I think it will become a second. Why can't I find it. You have Jack McCulloch and morning box and Devin Green on your list on the agenda. Well, Judge Grayson just briefly could you you change the wording to be 14 days from the date and combine the involuntary treatment and application for involuntary medical medication. Maybe you can just introduce the changed version. So I believe in the earlier version and I don't have the earlier version in front of me it was essentially just suspending the the timelines in place and if the committee will remember and as well as the other witnesses involved in this. If the committee doesn't adopt this we're going to continue to attempt to follow the guidelines that are in existence now. This is more of a reality that we're not able to meet those guidelines we're trying to and even if you adopt our proposed language the idea behind the language of 14 days was just to create some uniformity in these proceedings many times they're combined for hearing but even if you were to adopt the 14 day proposal. We're going to attempt to do these proceedings is as quickly as we can anyway, it's just a recognition that, for instance, we're no longer able to hold hearings and these matters in the Vermont psychiatric hospital. But in that hospital we have a separate courtroom that were all of these hearings took place, but as a result of not being able to access that. So the we're now turning to remote hearings. And, like, frankly, we're struggling to be able to create those remote hearings to everyone satisfaction. So it's not again, if the committee decides as a matter of policy just to leave the guidelines leave the timelines as they presently exist. We will attempt to meet those guidelines but much like the comments that I said about the bail review and review conditions of release it's just a recognition that at the present time we're struggling to meet that short of a timeframe. In its simplest terms that's where the proposal is coming from. Thank you. Thank you. Jack McCulloch do you have any comments on this section. Jack has got a picture but I don't see it. Maybe morning Fox do you have anything for for for the record morning Fox deputy commissioner department of mental health, just checking in can you all hear me. Yes. Great. So you know I appreciate judge Gerson's comments and the spirit behind the change and judge Gerson is actually very right. That we are working on trying to do for lack of a better term virtual hearings. And we did the first relatively successful hearings this past week at that VPCH for my psychiatric care hospital. As well as the retreat with some some hurdles and some some bumps in the road but being a new process similar to this testimony new process. That's to be expected and hopefully we're going to continue on that and making it a smoother process. I just like to state from the department's perspective that hospitals and health care workers are already under tremendous amount of stress right now with the public health emergency that we're doing hospital staff are being asked to work overtime hours to work in very potentially hazardous situations that may be hazardous for other reasons normally, but now have an added complexity related to the COVID-19 epidemic. But the fact that individuals can carry this this disease with them and not be showing symptoms. The fact that anyone with this could be being served in any facility. We're asking healthcare facilities to make sacrifices during this this time. We we're asking that the courts and everyone else try to work with us as best as possible to meet those needs of the statutory timelines. When we're talking about staff already working extra hours, many staff being out because of illnesses or related to the COVID virus. So any delays in our ability to treat people is places are staff as well as the other patients at higher risk for dangerous outcomes. It's also it's pretty well accepted that people are best served as far as from the healthcare epidemic that we're currently dealing with our best serve, not in a hospital congregate type setting. As that's where the disease can really spread very quickly. And so any any tool that we have to try to help engage someone and get them into treatment and out of the hospital sooner is better. And so we just want to express our concern of the potential of the delay in particularly applications for involuntary medications could have serious detrimental effects and it's our hope that we keep. We try to keep on task to meeting those statutory guidelines as is. Thank you. Questions from the committee. Jack's having a hard time. I can't hear him. He sent a chat Peggy are you there. Peggy if you could see if you can get Jack so we can hear from him. Oh, yeah, sorry. I forgot to unmute myself. Yeah, I'm chatting with him right now telling him to call in because there seems to be a problem on the zoom with him. Okay, so hopefully he'll call in. All right, we'll jump to Devin green then from the Vermont hospital association. Thank you Devin green from the Vermont Association of hospitals and health systems I just wanted to underscore what Deputy Commissioner Fox was saying about mental health patients in our hospitals we are very worried about them being in the hospitals so we don't want to see any delay in particular with the application for involuntary medication we want to make sure that we can treat these people as soon as possible and release them as soon as possible instead of keeping them in hospitals longer because any time they're in hospitals longer they are interacting with other people most likely they could be exposed they're interacting with healthcare workers they could be exposed to the virus and it can spread very quickly so we would like to ensure that these cases are prioritized and that there is not delay although I do understand the reality that the court system is going through Jack available now. Any questions for Devin I'm sorry. Thank you. Let me see if this is him hold on. Hello Jack is that you 851. Hello Jack is that you. Yes, can you hear me. Yes. Yes. Okay, thank you. Great. I'm Jack McCullough I'm the director of the mental health law project at Vermont legal aid. As morning Fox mentioned, we have done a number of these cases to give you an overview that the statute does have some time limits where hearings are required to take place. The physical time limit except for involuntary medication cases is 10 days for involuntary medication cases. It's seven days. The courts satisfy the 10 day requirement of ordinary cases by generally scheduling a status conference in those cases within the first 10 days and issuing a scheduling order that calls for disclosure of information and motions and that kind of thing and typically gets the case scheduled for to go to merits within roughly 30 days. The time limits for and the majority of cases are resolved without having to go to hearing the time limit for involuntary medication cases is seven days from filing in in the recent weeks. We've worked with all the courts to be able to do these hearings remotely. And last week we did two trials at the Vermont psychiatric care hospital remotely. In one of those cases, the judge and the two lawyers were in the Washington Superior Court courtroom and all the witnesses participated remotely on in the other of those cases. Everybody including the two lawyers were participating remotely. I did a trial in Wyndham Family Division last Friday and the judge and the two lawyers were physically present in the courtroom. Everybody else was participating remotely. And although there were some technical problems, we finally did get started and we got the hearing going. What we've found is that it's predictable that those hearings are going to take a bit longer than a normal hearing because of navigating the technology. So, we may not be able to get as many hearings done on a typical court day than we would have if everything was being done in person. But we are fine with with the extension of of the timeline to 14 days. We do have a bit of a concern that particularly in the busy courts, there may be if we don't get cases moving we will be facing a backlog even during the emergency. We're I feel pretty confident that that's not likely to be a problem now that things are moving along and that we're we are have found that we're able with the help of the court staff in the in the clerks offices and the tech support people working for the judiciary. It seems to be working. Okay. With regard to the timing of the involuntary medication cases. A number of those cases are scheduled in consistent with the expedited hearing provision of the statute for applications for involuntary treatment. And I do have a vision that if the application for involuntary treatment has not been scheduled for hearing within 26 days of filing that the state has the ability to file an application for expedited hearing of the of the application for involuntary treatment and then file an involuntary medication case so that those two cases can be heard together. And that's what happened in my trial. And then we add the AIT and the involuntary medication trial held heard together and and the judge issued the decision on on both of those cases, the commitment case first and then the involuntary medication case. We're trying to do and I think it's worked really pretty well so far has been to cooperate with with the judiciary and with the attorneys in the department of mental health to get cases scheduled. As they need to be heard and consistent with the the capacity of the courts and the two offices to do those cases. And then one other complicating factor in these cases that I think we're we've been able to surpass or overcome is that because none of the hospitals are allowing outside visitors. We have to make arrangements for independent psychiatric exams to to be done remotely and we've got had received contacts from each of the hospitals so that we can get an independent psychiatrist to meet with the client by video connection. So, I think it's, we can live with the statute without any changes, assuming that we'll be able to work out with the courts and with the AG's office, any scheduling issues that that arise. It would also be fine with us to have the have the bill passed as it now exists. Jack, are there any questions for Jack from committee members. David, sure I see you're wrong. If you would like to comment on this section, you're welcome to I know, Attorney General handles some of these cases. David. Hi everybody. Thanks for having me here today. We don't have a lot of comment to add to it I would say only that we have no objection we think the certainly we're all working under difficult circumstances to allow for more flexibility in this time and with respect to these particular timelines it seems like a altered to be a relatively modest extension and reasonable under the circumstances and we have no objection to it. Thank you. Matt or pepper any comment, a committee what are there any questions or is there a motion to remove. I mean we've already decided to move these remove this from the from the bill. But is there an interest in continuing on with section a and another bill. Senator white. First of all I think pepper was trying to say something so I'll let him say it first and then I'll make my I'm sorry pepper I shut you up. No problem. So I know the state's attorneys do not object to these changes I think what you're hearing is that even under normal circumstances. The timelines aren't always abided by through agreement of the party so I think this changes just a reflection of what the court needs to do at this time. So with the state's attorneys do not object to just be clear we do not have jurisdiction over the involuntary medication so probably limit my comments just today. Committee. Senator white. Well, I think that everybody seems to be okay with extending it to the 14 days, but I do believe that it would cause a lot of controversy, and that everybody in the Senate is not going to have the ability to hear what we've heard from everybody I would recommend leaving it at the seven days and if we need to come back to it at some point since. We're trying really hard to meet the seven days and we'd be trying really hard to meet the 14 days but I would suggest not having not making the change because I believe it'll cause a lot of controversy in the Senate, and may not pass. Well, the other out and I know that Senator lions wants to look at the proposal. So, I guess we could punt it over there. Temporarily. And then we'll come back to it. Is that okay with everybody. Yep. For the rest of the bill, assuming you took out. A. In. In section. Five. Taking out a in adding in a new section regarding. Swearing. Documents not swearing at people. Does that rest or any questions or comments on the rest of the bill, which would be. That's 114 to present to the. I'm okay with that. Okay. So. All right, so I think what we have to do is have a roll call. And Peggy, if you could take the role. As I'm understanding our new procedures. If one correct Joe. That is true. No. I need to find Peggy. Or I can guess I could do it. Peggy. Yeah, I'm here. I'm here. I'm going to mute myself. Could you call the roll? Okay. All right. So I think what we have to do is have a roll call and Peggy, I'm going to mute myself. I'm going to mute myself. I'm going to mute myself. Could you call the roll, please? Sure. Hopefully I have it in the right order. Senator Baruch. Yes. Senator White. Yes. Senator Benning. Yes. Senator Nica. Yes. Senator Sears. Yes. Great. Thank you. All. So, Bren, what would do is, is. You can make a. And I guess tomorrow. I could hand it to. Speaker. Speaker. Secretary Bloomer. Or you can send it to him electronically. I don't know how we're doing it in the new age. We. And, um, Secretary Bloomer and he can let us know where we go from there. Yeah. And also, would you send a copy to representative grad? I think she's going to take it up tomorrow in her committee. Yep. I will. I think they're taking it up on Thursday and I'll make sure she. Thursday. Okay. Procedurally, procedurally, Dick, I believe you have to sign a copy of the bill. And you have to submit it to the secretary. For it to become official. That's what I've been told for the bill. Introducing an institution. I'm not great at these electronic signatures. Give it a try. I think you could always take a picture of it. You could sign it and maybe take a picture of it and send it to them. Okay. Well, that's a good idea. That's a possibility. I can. I actually have the ability to scan things. Oh, yeah. That's, that's an option. That'll do it. Um, so Bryn, we're going to wait for the clean copy from you, right? From drafting. That's right. It will, um, it'll come straight from me later today. Okay. And I'll make sure you have it. Senator Sears or bring, do you want to send it to him too? Yep. I'll do that. I'm sorry. I didn't ask you for any comment from the bar. Oh, that's fine. I would have had nothing to add to what judge Gerson indicated regarding the ones I was involved in. Thank you. Thank you all for the hard work on this bill. We have, um, as I said earlier, uh, we're hopefully going to hear from, uh, the department of corrections tomorrow. Um, I mean, excuse me. Um, regarding the update from them on what's going on. Morning box while we have you here, is there anyone in the new Woodside program? No, there's not. We're still working on, uh, trust trying to stand that up. Uh, our biggest hurdle, uh, is going to be staffing. Uh, we, we, uh, we're getting close to having the number of staff from a psychiatric perspective, uh, to be able to maybe open it up. Um, we're getting close to that. However, we also need medical staff there because it's designed. You know, the concept is that it will be for people who actually have COVID, uh, 19. Uh, and we know that that can people's conditions can, can change fairly quickly, uh, with that. And so the individuals who would go there would, would have only mild symptoms. However, knowing that that can change fairly quickly, we have a need to make sure we have, uh, medically trained staff there as well as, uh, psychiatrically trained. Uh, and so it's a matter of trying to find all those resources. Um, uh, we're also trying to do some physical structure, uh, changes, uh, trying to change, uh, from a rehabilitative, uh, setting to a hospital, uh, setting, uh, as well. So, uh, still our goal to do that, but we're probably still a good, uh, we can have to go over two weeks out before we think we can actually open the doors, uh, and take individuals. Thank you for that update. Senator White. So perhaps I shouldn't even bring this up, but there is some, um, tension here with the department of mental health and the retreat around this. The retreat is, um, working with Brattleboro Memorial Hospital to take one of their units and turn it into a 12 bed. Um, exactly what Woodside is designed for, which is for people who continue to need mental health care, but have symptoms or have been positive, but aren't sick enough to go to BMH. And they are working very hard with BMH to do that. And, um, we've been told that the department of mental health is very unhappy with them for doing that because they want to, um, have it all at Woodside. So I just. We're, we're, we are not, uh, unhappy with the retreat and trying to do that. Um, that we've had a number of conversations with the retreat as well as Brattleboro Memorial Hospital and we have a joint conversation set up, uh, tomorrow, uh, to discuss, uh, some of the plannings around that. Um, Brattleboro has gone forward, uh, um, to set up that, that unit and I, I, we, the department applaud them for taking that initiative. Um, uh, if there's any, been any displeasure, uh, if you will, in the description of where those patients may come from, um, that, uh, it's not necessarily a statewide resource. Uh, Woodside, the perspective of Woodside is if, uh, you're in Springfield or you're in Brattleboro or you're in Bennington or you're in Burlington, you could go to Woodside. Uh, however, with the, the, uh, at least as far as my current understanding with the collaboration between Brattle Memorial Hospital and Brattleboro Retreat, their concern is that people come from all over the state to that unit. And if they are, are in need of medical services that it would quickly overwhelm Brattle Memorial Hospital. Uh, and so that's, that's the concern, uh, that's been expressed in that. So that's some of the discussion. Uh, and so I think that would be some of the difference between what the retreat is setting up and what we're proposing with Woodside is that Woodside, uh, we would see that more as a, uh, like I said, a statewide resource, uh, whereas the Brattleboro Retreat, they're looking at more for the folks who, uh, are already within their care that may develop this, uh, or someone from kind of the local area, uh, that would come in. But again, it was the major concerns of Brattle Memorial Hospital as they're doing the medical support for that unit, uh, that if someone were to, uh, need to be stepped up to hospital medical level of care, uh, that if we use that as a unit for, uh, individuals with psychiatric needs that have COVID, uh, uh, that are tested as COVID positive from all over the state, that it potentially could quickly overwhelm Brattle Memorial Hospital. So that's been, that was, that was the discussion point. It's not that we're just pleased or don't want them to do that. Thank you. And I want to just thanks for bringing it up, Senator White. Thanks for being here, all of you. Um, there are so many rumors floating around as a result of all this. So it's always helpful to be able to deal with it. Actually, on Thursday, one of the issues we're going to touch on, and I know that for Senator White, Senator Nicker and myself, because our districts are right on the border and Senator Benning of another state, there's a lot of concern about the border crossings. And what does it all mean? So we're going to try to hear from both the attorney general's office on the enforcement and, and AOT on, you know, the trucks, what, what information are they taking? I'm getting people from who's it falls saying, well, does this mean I can't shop in Bennington at the grocery store? Because, you know, that's where they always go to Hannaford, the price chopper. So there's a lot of confusion. Hopefully we can settle some of these things in these meetings and try to lessen that. I'm going to suggest we take a four or five minute break. Judge Grisson, go ahead. I just wanted to thank the chair and the committee members and particularly bring for all the work she did on this bill and also thank the witnesses for understanding where the basis for the court's proposal that we're just, it's more, this bill is more of a recognition of what we're seeing in the system as opposed to any other, any other reason for bringing this bill forward. So I just wanted to thank everyone. So when we get back together in about three or four minutes, Ken Schatz and Christine Johnson are here from DCF and you have received, I think an email from DCF. Your last name is Caitlyn, which is, she has four documents that Ken and Christine are going to be going over. So if we could take a break for three or four minutes. Could I ask a question? Nope. What's the best way to take a break? I never let my committee do it. It's just put yourself on mute. Just mute yourself and go get your coffee, water or use the facilities. But we don't leave the meeting. We don't leave the meeting. No, no, no. No, just put yourself on mute. I'm going to, I can mute everybody and you might want to shut your video off. If you're going to get up and go and do something else. So if everybody shuts their video off and then you can put it back on when you come back and I'll mute everybody. Okay. Thank you. When you get back. So for the record, we're taking a break. An update of where we're at with Woodside substitute care. COVID. You've moved twice. That's right. So we'll be glad to provide you with that update. Ken shat's commissioner of the department for children and families. Christine Johnson, the deputy commissioner for family services division is here with us today. We did provide you some written material to. Give you some more detailed information, but again, in terms of responding to center, seriously, your question, yes, we have moved again. We moved into the middle sex facility yesterday. There are two youth there. One is a youth in DOC custody. One is a youth in DCF custody. As you know, from our prior discussions with the committee, we were prompted to move from Woodside because of the need of the department of mental health for an alternative psychiatric facility for COVID. 19 positive patients. This is all temporary moves to deal with this pandemic, but we actually are appreciative of the fact that when the department of mental health vacated the middle sex site, which only happened last week on Tuesday, we had the opportunity to move to Woodside. So I think it's a great opportunity to say that it really did present a better opportunity for us in terms of an alternative to Woodside. It is frankly a better facility than Woodside. It is a hard secure, meaning locked doors has an outside recreation area with a perimeter fence. It has a capacity for five youth, and it has a capacity for five youth. So all of that is working reasonably well. We did provide you that is the committee with a copy of the press release and a more specific stakeholder memo, memo that we sent out to describe. The program, essentially the idea would be this would be for males. To be clear, we have alternative programs available for males. So we are not going to separate out the population because it is a locked facility. It will only be available for youth involved in the delinquency system or in the custody of the department of corrections. So not Chin's kids because Chin's kids can't be in a locked facility to be specific. So we are appreciative of the fact that our staff have had to make two moves relatively quickly. We are very appreciative of their flexibility, their willingness to make this move. As far as I know, it went seamlessly. Appreciate the department of mental health and BGS, frankly also for helping us to make all this happen. So let me first turn to Christine to see if you have anything to add with respect to that move. Christine Johnson, deputy commissioner for DCF FSD. No, can I don't think I have anything else to add other than I just want to emphasize what you've said, which is that our staff have just done an amazing job of pivoting twice. First to allow for adult psychiatric patients who may be COVID positive to have. Access to the Woodside facility. We, we really, it was, it was a huge. Lift and we've done it twice and we've done it successfully. So just very grateful to them. Can I, this is difficult to put in the proper term, but Woodside was proposed to be closed in the 20, 20 budget. Now we've moved from Woodside to middle sex. You actually are saying this is a more ideal spot. Does that change thinking you're at all? Or are you reexamining that? Even though it's self, it doesn't change our thinking. The department of mental health has been very clear that their intent is to move back into the middle sex facility. Once the crisis is over. So it's not as if that is available in the future as far as we know. So for the time being, again, the budget situation to be very straightforward is incredibly up in the air. But as far as we're concerned at this point, we have not made a change in plans. So this is temporary. Yes. For the duration of the emergency. Exactly. Thank you. Where are the females going to go? We actually have capacity in southern Vermont through the Vermont school for girls. And if Christine can talk more specifically for looking for more information on that, but we did enhance their capacity by adding four. Beds for acute care needs of girls. And they, that is definitely a resource. In addition, we, as you may recall, we created two beds in Washington County mental health. For youth with significant mental health issues who need a lot of supervision. And so that is also. Is that at the regular campus. On Fairview street. The bedding to school for girls. Turn to Christine to help answer that question. Yes, that's my understanding. We have four beds that as Ken mentioned are for high acuity. And we have 17 beds that are available for general population for females. So 21 total. Okay. Because they have group homes throughout. So that's my understanding of the area and. As well as the fair view street facilities. So some of my constituents. So that has been an operation for several months now. It's not. Brand new. All right. Thank you. Are there questions about the. We're still calling it Woodside. But. Maybe we should call it this short term residential. So actually. One of the things we did talk a little bit about the name. And one of the things that we're doing is looking to the residents and staff to think and talk about naming the temporary facility. So if we come up with something, we'll be glad to let you know. I can give you a little history there. We were so original at 204 Depot street. And now we have 119 river street. So that's the original way to do it. Frankly, that's how we came up with sweet 12. Anyhow. It sounded like you were also interested in knowing what was going on in our substitute care system. Yeah. And how we're dealing with. Those programs and in terms of the. The. The entire system that DCF deals with in state. How they're being dealt with under the PNMI rules. Right. Well, as. If there are extra, for example. I just saw. Yesterday. That BSEA and the administration had come to an agreement on pay. So basically, I think. I'm not mistaken. Short-term residential program. Yet to be named with state employees. We'll be receiving a dollar 50. Hourly pay increase. And if some of those. Other programs. How are they going to deal with that? They're. You had a list of all of them that I think about 20. Programs. Right. Correct. About state employees. And we did actually have within the agency discussion about how to support. The existing residential programs, which are primarily run by. Non-profits. Some DA, some other organizations. We recognize in terms of COVID-19. They are also very challenged to maintain ongoing operations. And so we did attach a letter that came from. With respect to the PNMI rate system. The PNMI standing for private non-medical institution. As many of you may be aware. That's the rate setting system that we use for a residential system of care. In effect. What that letter describes is that we will stabilize funding for those programs. Based on their. More stable annual costs. So that rather than, and you will talk in a minute about how their, their numbers are down right now. We will continue to provide them financial support. At their stable rates. In addition. We will make available to them an expedited financial relief extraordinary financial relief system. So that if they are having. To undergo special costs with respect to dealing with COVID-19. We will have a system and a capacity. To support those programs. We will continue to provide them financial support. That means we will have a system and a capacity to support them. From our perspective, again, what we need to do is make sure that we're meeting the needs of youth who need residential programs right now. But also wanting to make sure that we maintain a stable residential system of care. Once we come out of this crisis. So we're trying to hold both in terms of short term needs and long term needs at the same time. And I imagine many people who work in these programs are. Not exactly high paid jobs. And so they're seeing people who are laid off. Receiving an extra, you know, they're unemployment plus $600 and saying. Here I am going to work in very difficult situations. We're definitely aware that we're aware that we need to provide some sort of incentive for staff to work. And that's as you pointed out with respect to the state has done. I think that we fully expect. These private nonprofits will want to do the same thing. And candidly, we want to support them. Right. Same time we're seeing reductions in staff. Go ahead. Sorry. If you had a question, Senator White had a question. Okay. No, I'll let you finish that first. Cause it's about this sheet that you sent out. Okay. Let me, you know, I appreciate that Ken, because that's really a. You know, obviously have. People who work in that, those programs. I am well, well familiar with some of them. And I think they're concerned about that, but they're also have a lot of people out because they're, you know, they have childcare issues or they have other staffing issues in these programs. So that's exactly right. I haven't heard them. Anybody. I have all of the designated agencies, group homes, as well as the Bennington school for girls. With a pretty large operation in Bennington, as well as all the people street, river street programs. So I have a lot of constituents who work in. We do understand that. That's why we provided this chart. So you can see the, in effect, the reduction in capacity and that again is a fact of life in dealing with this pandemic. And as you pointed out, you have some staff who have childcare issues. You have some staff who are starting to show symptoms. We, the good news to be very clear. We don't have any children in DCF custody who've been identified as COVID-19 positive. Obviously we're expecting that to happen. But we don't have that. Because it's happening in other places to be sure. We do have the site at Goddard as an available site in case we do have youth who are COVID-19 positive for the time being that hasn't happened. But in terms of our residential capacity, it has substantially been reduced. We have recognized that. We're not sure that we meet the needs of youth. We're trying to recognize that we need to be flexible on an ongoing basis to make sure that when youth need this level of care that we have it available, it's going to be an ongoing challenge though. Depending on how the pandemic expands in Vermont, we will keep careful watch on our capacity and the programs, abilities to care for kids. We're trying to make sure that we don't have any new referrals at a state programs or basically not taking any new referrals. Frankly, most of our in-state programs are not taking any new referrals at this point. So we're trying to manage our programs with that in mind. The numbers, you know, basically we've reduced, we were over 100, we're down to approximately 80 in-state programs, giving you a sense of the changes that have occurred over the last few couple of weeks. Can the narrow way close just for the interim or is this closed permanently? My understanding is this is temporary. This is related to the COVID-19 pandemic. We're certainly in conversations with them though on an ongoing basis. So looking forward to them being able to start back up. Senator White. So my question was about the list here. When I'm looking at it, I see that would the normal capacity was listed as 30 for Woodside, but we know that there weren't 30 people there, even though the capacity was for 30. Were all of these others that are listed as normal capacity, all full before this happened and they've been reduced to that or work, is it the same? Woodside, for example, says 30, but we know there weren't 30 people there. Who would say number is way out of whack, as you correctly indicate. The others are typically not always full. It varies. Certain programs, frankly, are more full than others. And so they're, but we're typically pretty close to three quarters to 95% full in most of these programs. Again, it does vary over time. Thank you. Yep. Ken. We had an issue that was raised by Senator McCormick. That our joint meeting regarding visitation by parents. And my understanding is in all of these programs of visitations are done remotely like we are today. Is that correct? No. I'm not aware of that. I think we deal with visitation. And as you know, we did ask the Supreme Court to suspend in-person parents for their child visitation. The court refute didn't deny that request. So every case has its own visitation order by the court. And so we are doing our best to frankly encourage all families, whether they're residential programs or in foster care to use remote visitation. There are for the by and large, most families have agreed to that. And so we're doing our best to encourage all families to use remote visitation. And so that's one of the exceptions. We don't have a special rule for residential programs. Okay. And so we are operating on a case by case basis at this time. Thank you. I know we heard a lot from foster parents, which is part of the substitute care system. Obviously. Who are concerned. We're concerned about the visitation by parents. So we're going to do our best to encourage all families to use remote visitation. So that's one of the reasons why we're doing this. We're doing candidly and ongoing challenge for us. Are you losing foster parents as a result? You know, we've been told we will. I don't know that anybody has actually. Refused care of a child. For that reason, as we sit here today, maybe Christine has more up to date information than me. But I know that that's a real risk that we're looking at. We're looking for a way to address that issue. And we're looking from our field offices that it's becoming a real pressure. But to date, I don't know of anyone who has stepped down. As of yet. Anybody with other questions about that. Issue. I know that. Senator McCormack has. An amendment that. Has been drafted by Michelle child's to. You know, I'm not only for substitute care, but for kids that are in the. What's the right word? In the civil courts with. Standards. You know, parental contact issues. So if there are further questions about that, I'll turn it over to Christine to talk more about what's going on. With respect to our foster care system. So I just wanted to let you all know that we have. Done a stipend for all foster parents who currently have kids in their care. For the month of March, every foster parent will receive an increase of $20 a day. Across the board. And that will go out in this week's a payment to foster parents. We will evaluate at the end of April. I'm guessing we will likely do this again. For the month of April. For the month of March. And it's really our way of, of acknowledging the extra burden that our foster parents are carrying given, you know, the situation with childcare and schools being closed. And we're also looking to do an increased rate of $75 a day. If foster parents are caring for a child that is COVID. And so we're hoping to. We're hoping to do that. And so our real goal is for our residential programs and our foster parents to be willing to keep the kids in their care and really maintain a shelter in place, if you will, even if they have somebody that is COVID positive. And as Ken mentioned, the Goddard site will allow us to have the capacity in a very planful, thoughtful way. In case somebody cannot be maintained in a foster home. Or in a residential placement. But our first line of defense really is to make sure that they're in place. That they're in place. And that they're in place. And that they're in place. And that they're in the families that they're with now, or in the residential program that they're, that they're in now. So those are some of the things that we've been putting in place to, to help bolster the system. Great. Question. Good. Yes. I do want to ask a question. With. So Christine, I'm just wondering when you say the. The foster family will get $20 per day. If COVID positive. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Other questions. Comments. On any of the reports from Ken. Do you actually have a question? No, it's actually $20 per child per day. So. That's right. And 75 per day per child. If COVID positive. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Other questions. Comments. Are there any other reports from Ken? Do you actually have numbers of kids or any kids who are COVID. That are. In either. Group homes or substitute care. I think you mentioned none, but in foster care. That's right. Today we have none and we're really incredibly fortunate for that. All right. Well, we're going to make your 1130. I guess there are no other questions. Thanks so much for the update. And thanks. I, I really appreciate your working with. And dealing with these. You're welcome. Thank you. As a former operator myself, but completely understand what. With those folks are going through. We never went through anything like this. Luckily. When I was working there. So. It is an incredible challenge for everyone involved. As I know, you all understand. So we appreciate everybody's efforts and commitment. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, everyone. Okay. Well, we're going to turn to the final item on the agenda, which is the. An issue that. Regarding the sentence modification. And I just wanted to make clear because. I've had some comments on social media and other places that. About this. And I think. Clearly it's an issue that needs to be dealt with. In the normal cost course of events when we can have witnesses from. The defender general, the state's attorneys, the victim's groups and any other groups that are involved. Rather than. It's part of an emergency situation. And I know that. What is concerning to me is that. This would have been permanent. And we wanted to make it temporary. And. I think. I made the suggestion that we. Limit groups. And I think that was correct. And suggesting that we just leave it alone at this point. So I. That's why I haven't done that. And I asked. And we didn't post. S. 217. But I have to tell you that when 217. Got early. Posted or something about it on our agenda. I started to get these emails from groups who are against. The bill that deals with. Sex workers. That came over from the house. They wanted to testify. So we have to be extremely careful when we post. Stuff about different bills. Because they thought that we were taking up that bill. And we're trying to push it through without testimony. Certainly not going to do that. I assure everybody that we're not. Taking up bills without getting full testimony. Other than the summer emergency situations. And I don't know. Anybody wants to comment on that. And I know that's still on board. Pepper's still here. And. David. Sure. And. Anybody wants to speak on this. Issue. Where we end the. Meeting. Judge. Person. Request. Was not. Intended to be. Permanent. I don't know. Anybody wants to comment on that. I know that's still on board. Pepper's still here. I don't know. I don't know. Was not. Intended to be permanent. Everything else in the bill that was. Temporary. And as I said, there's nothing. About that request. That the court. Took a position on again, it was a reflection of what. Some of what we were hearing in the. In the process. So. I certainly understand the committee's position. And that was not our intention. Other than to let the committees know. That. This is one of the issues we had been seeing up there. It was not intended to. Take any authority away from. I would say it was one of the things that we're trying to do is stay away from. Issues that. At least. From my point of view to require more testimony. And more people. I understand. Anybody else would like to comment. As long as you're not taking it up, I'm fine. Thank you. I'm just as happy to see it. Deferred. Because I support the intentions behind it. But I do have a lot of questions about it. And it seems like the sort of thing we would need a couple of months to work out. I'm just on the same page as the committee. I think we'd like a full opportunity to kind of talk about. The process and the procedure and how we could work through. A process that kind of gives victims voices and. Just has a lot more. Guidance from the legislature. David, did you want to comment? I don't really have much further to say. Our position on it remains the same, but I also understand the committees. And I think that we need to have a more thorough vetting of this type of legislation. And we respect that and appreciate. That perspective. Well, I've got you right here in front of us. For Thursday's agenda, what we're looking for. What I'm looking for. And. Is. How exactly. The enforcement of the governor's orders would be going. That would be done by the attorney general's office and. What created some confusion for some people was. In Vermont digger, there was a story regarding Burlington and their particular changes. And then the states. Looking at logic. And I think. People were some people were concerned that we were going to. Hand people a thousand dollar fine, for example, for. Being five feet away from somebody at a supermarket. So I. That's really what the subject is. Whether you or the attorney general or whoever wants to speak, we're happy to hear from anyone regarding how. We're going to enforce this. And then the other issue is the borders. And people coming. There's a couple of other issues on there for Thursday, but. What I think we're looking at is. What exactly is going on. And I was the attorney general. I don't know if you read the story about Rhode Island. But it's a fascinating story that. Three people, three men from Massachusetts decided to go. Play golf with their, with their Rhode Island buddy. So they stopped at McDonald's. In Rhode Island. Get out of the car. And put their golf clubs in the Rhode Island car. And then went off to play golf and. Somebody from the McDonald's called and. Said they were. From Massachusetts. And it's against the law in Rhode Island, I guess, under the governor's order to. Play golf. If you're from out of state. And so. They, they each got fine to part are facing a court date. One a thousand dollar fine for having played golf and. Rhode Island. So. That type of thing is happening. People are reading these stories that are wondering what, you know, what is Vermont. Senator White. Do you want to go to the island to play golf? No, no, I don't, I don't even want to play golf in Vermont. Thank you. But you can't. So I would throw in on that question. And I don't know if David would be the appropriate person to answer it or not. I'm getting a lot. We have a number of state parks around here and people are very concerned about. People coming up for day. Trips to, because we're so close to the border. People coming up to go to the state parks for the day. And what, what is the, I've gotten a ton of emails from. Jamaica area. Jamaica, Vermont. I don't know. I don't know if there's any enforcement around that also. And how, how does that working? You can check on that for Thursday too, David, maybe a Peggy, if we could add if he's available, somebody from forest parks and recreation. Sure. Anyone have any suggestions? Well, with the commissioner and work our way down. Yeah. For a forest and park recreation, you said. Yeah. Forest parks and recreation is. I can't take it. Mike Snyder. Thank you. Okay. Great. If he can't make it, find a sense on somebody else. Yep. Sounds good. Okay. Anybody, anything else. So. Um, Bryn or would you either Eric, Bryn or Michelle be joining us. On Thursday. I think it's going to be me. Okay. So you will send me electronically the bill we voted out. And I'll have to sign it electronically and send it to John. Yes. I'm going to plan to send it to you and to secretary Bloomer. And he can give you specific instructions about whether you need to sign it and scan it, or if you can just take a picture. Or maybe even just your email. An email saying I approve it. Joe, what did you do for your bill? I've saw, I've got a copy of it from ledge council. I'm signing it and I'm bringing it in tomorrow physically. Oh, I guess I could do the same. I guess. We, we just sent ours to the secretary Bloomer and to Tim Ash. And I haven't heard how we're, if I'm supposed to do anything. Well, maybe we should find out what we should actually do. I can set it off. I can sign it, scan it and sign it. Can I ask that Peggy send us all a link to Thursday's meeting. Yes. Yeah, I definitely will do that. And I had reached out to center Bloomer myself. Not center Bloomer secretary Bloomer to ask what the process was. And I never heard back. So hopefully. You guys will get that information. One of you. Right. So busy. Well. Thank you all very much and see you all Thursday. If not tomorrow. We'll see you tomorrow. Bye. Until tomorrow or Thursday. Tomorrow probably, but just know that you're. We're meeting Thursday. Okay. All right. But from 10 o'clock. 10 to 12. Thank you. Bye.