 Good afternoon. This is the afternoon meeting of the House Appropriations Committee on May 11th. We are gathered here to review S3. I hope, so my apologies for calling you all away from caucus meetings. I hope you are comfortable with that. It's just we've got to keep moving to get this bill done, which ties into the budget, which ties into our adjournment. So I hope you are okay with calling this meeting. Thank you everybody for shifting. I think representative Lalonde you are here to walk us through the bill and we have a few other people joining us. One of the questions committee that we need to attend to is that there are costs associated with this, but no money was appropriated for it and we need to figure out if we have costs are and how to manage those going forward and if our guests have any advice to us, both on the part of the Department of Mental Health, I think they may have some thoughts on their side and I know we have don't have representatives from the legal aid, but there is a cost there that we need to think about. So we need to sort that rep Lalonde if you will give us the broad overview help us understand generally what the bill is doing and then bring us down to the particulars over which we have jurisdiction, obviously the money pieces. So thank you very much for joining us. Thank you for having me. So the bill addresses various couple things it addresses proceedings court proceedings that occur in criminal cases when there's an issue concerning either the defendant sanity at the time of the offense, or the defendant's competency to stand trial for the fence. And it deals with a number of procedures that are in law, and I'm not going to go over the first two sections that address a couple procedures because they have no money attached to them so I'm going to jump right to the third proceeding. And that has to do with actually I'm sorry the second it's the second section I apologize. That has to do when a court finds an individual to have been insane at the time of the offense, or that the individuals not competent to stand trial, there has to be a commitment hearing. You're no longer in a criminal case, you're in a different kind of proceeding called a commitment hearing. And the question is whether the individual is a danger to sell for others. If the court finds that the individual is a danger to sell for others. The person is committed to the Department of Mental Health. Or to Dale, if it's a developmental issue that underlies the finding of incompetency or insanity. Currently, when you for a commitment hearing defender generals, the attorney from the defender general's office, who was defending the case when it was called a criminal case. May continue in defending the case when it goes to a commitment hearing. But the individual the defendant is at somewhat of a disadvantage in that case because the defender general are not experts in commitment hearings which is kind of hearing. As attorneys from the Vermont legal aid, our experts in this kind of hearing so what the bill does in section two is it allows me find it so I'm. It allows an individual to be entitled to have the council appointed from Vermont legal aid to represent the person in the commitment hearing. And the other change is that because the individual is going to be committed to the Department of Mental Health or to Dale that they are now explicitly allowed to appear and call witnesses at that proceeding. And that's really where the money comes from. In the fiscal note, but I'm going to jump ahead real quick before we just back up to that because there is one other monetary component to this. There is in section six creation of a forensic working group that at a very high level is looking at various intersections and proceedings when mental health is an issue in the criminal justice system. And there's a number of reports consecutive reports that are to be produced. There is an ask of $25,000 appropriation of $25,000 in that section for an expert to assist in the consultant to assist with the work of the Department of Mental Health. My understanding is that because the stakeholders in the work group have different slices of knowledge and interest but no real expertise in the issues are looking at the actually the health committee which really took the lead on this part of the bill, asked the Department of Mental Health for an estimate for the cost of a consultant consultant, and that's where the $25,000 comes from. So the cost for the stipends for the work group members was left for appropriations to fill in. They're not included in the $25,000 I'm glad I just read this note from representative from Northfield, which to explain that component of it so so you probably have questions on that part as well and I may have to phone a friend that being representative depending on what your questions are in that particular part of the bill, but backing up on the section to we do have the fiscal note that looks at additional resources for Vermont legal aid from $245,000 to $265,000. I can give a brief explanation of that, which I will do right now before I get on to the other couple points. So, the question that we've asked of Vermont legal aid and the Defender General's Office is, well, you know, are we going to have more commitment hearings is that why there's all of a sudden additional costs well no the answer is what we're changing here should not change the number of commitment hearings that we are seeing. So my question is, well, are we going to offset the cost by a decrease in what the Defender General's Office would need. And one of that was, you can't really eliminate any FTEs in the Defender General's Office because this work is spread throughout the state. Through all of the various attorneys and they only makes up a small part of the work of the Defender General's Office. It would really be hard to find, you know, to be able to reduce small portions of FTEs throughout the state. So, but that doesn't mean that it's not going to increase from what I understand from Vermont legal aid. Unfortunately that they're not here today but that they will need some additional resources on their end so that's that's where that amount comes from. Two components as I understand it the independent evaluations and the legal representation for the Department of Mental Health is specifically related to the fact that the Department of Mental Health can now appear and call witnesses in the proceeding. If you have additional questions on that we do have Morning Fox is a witness here today and can certainly ask, you know, go in depth a little bit further on their needs for that component. I think that's all I have and I'm wondering I could ask Eric Fitzpatrick he's the legislative council on this if I missed anything or if he has anything to add. Good afternoon Eric Fitzpatrick with the Office of Legislative Council and other than introducing myself I have nothing else to add so represent the line you covered it perfectly. Thanks Eric. You bet. Thank you. Perhaps we should and move to Mr Langwell and ask him to walk us through the fiscal note and that may help us understand this. Great for the record Noel Langwell the joint fiscal office. I'm not going to go into the long already started it off, but I can just try to fill in the blanks. So it was referring to section B, which in, and essentially it's estimated that Vermont legal aid would need between 245 and 255,000 and funding for additional staff resources to represent these clients. Additionally, according to departmental health, they would need between 120 and 150 for the independent psychiatric examinations and between 95 and 155,000 for providing legal representation representation to the department in these proceedings so between those two is estimated that it would be between 460 and 570,000 dollars would be needed. If I recall the bill as it initially passed set a judiciary had $500,000 in the bill, and then when it went to send appropriations it was pulled out. And then, also in section six there's another $25,000. That's appropriate I think representative LaVond, a place that you name correctly, articulated need from that already articulated need for that. Representative Yacoboni. Yes, thank you. Can you hear me okay. Thank you. Can someone explain to me again, I may have missed it. How was this service paid for last year. How has it been paid for in the past. This can't be the first time we've done independent evaluations and this type of representation. Can anyone help me. Thank you. I think we can jump in and I think actually I'm going to yield to morning Fox on that. I know that for the representation on the Vermont legal aid that I mentioned before defender generals would have covered that for the most part, although in some instances Vermont legal aid did provide or does provide representation, but this is going to increase the amount of representation that they're going to have to provide. So those are two components I will defer to morning Fox. Thank you representative LaVond for the record morning Fox deputy commissioner Department of Mental Health. It might be easiest if I just kind of explain the process a little bit of how it's operated in the past and is currently operating. And one of the issues is that when these proceedings happen through the criminal court division. Mental health does not have any standing and so we're not a part of any of the, the hearings. Vermont legal aid is also not a part of those hearings. As representative LaVon mentioned, it's the defender general that would be representing the, the defendees as well as the generally the states attorneys, occasionally attorney generals but generally the defense attorneys that would be prosecuting the case. Once there's been a determination that the person is either incompetent to stand trial or is being adjudicated is not guilty by reason of insanity. They go to a commitment hearing. And even at that point, Vermont legal aid and Department of Mental Health are not parties to those to those hearings. The states it was the the funds that paid for attorney time were attorney general states attorney and defender generals. And so what we're what what this legislation is envisioning is that at that time at that commitment hearing that instead of the defender general representing the defendees that the defendees would have the option of being represented by Vermont legal aid through expertise and mental health law to represent them. And that the department we would not have party status per se, but it would give us the ability to to appear in court to ask questions and cross examine witnesses which we have not had the ability in the past. And so the increase for for Vermont legal aid is to take over these new cases at this point in time. So that's that's their increase case load for the department. We're not necessarily having party status and taking over these cases, but we'll be involved more. And so that's the ask for the for the DMH portion of funds, the 95 to 155,000 for our attorney generals to have an increase case load of work that will need to be covered in these hearings. So there is the possibility that there could be a conflict, the attorney's office is prosecuting the case that our attorney generals at DMH may not be able to actually represent the department, due to a conflict. And so this money would also help cover conflict council that the department might need to be able to appear in any of these hearings. And so this money would be to help pay for the independent evaluations that Vermont legal aid may seek. And so with their participation, it is not uncommon for them to seek independent evaluations at that point if they're going to contest the need for hospitalization or something of that sort. So this money would be to help pay for the independent evaluations that Vermont legal aid may seek. May I follow up madam chair. Yes, she may. Thank you. Morning Fox appreciate it. I'm still left with why the change. Why not just keep it the way it was where people displeased with the public defender and I wish I was more diplomatic worded differently I don't mean to disparage anyone but was there a lack of satisfaction with the way it was done. I think there's $450,000 less a year. There's been a lot of conversations around the appropriateness and being able to ensure the appropriate level of representation to a traditionally underserved under her population, one that traditionally has little to no voice. So the idea of having representation by Vermont legal aid, who are the experts in mental health law, from a defense perspective, to be able to represent people who are potentially being committed, either into an inpatient or an outpatient commitment under to be committed under the Karen custody of the commissioner of mental health should have most appropriate representation available to them. There's been questions from the advocate community as well as other conversations, which DMH supports that these individuals should have the most appropriate representation possible. It may be in the numbers and I just haven't seen them but how many such cases are there annually. Approximately. Several hundred cases a year where there's competency or sanity being asked for. There's approximately 60 individuals a year that actually are committed on inpatient evaluations. Just to give you a sense. But it's not insignificant. Thank you. Appreciate it. Rep shy. I wondered if representative Lalonde would care to add to what deputy commissioner Fox just said obviously the tradition. Had an opinion as to why we needed to change the way the system is working today. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you very much chair. So, yeah, we agree with what Morty Fox explained we did hear from a number of individuals who supported the idea of having that expertise for the commitment hearing it's a very different type of hearing than where a criminal hearing where you're trying to determine guilt. The individual is guilty of a crime as opposed to looking at the relatively convoluted or difficult. Kind of hearing for determining whether an individual should be committed. So just having that level of expertise having the involvement of of the agency that may may take custody of the individual that being the Department of Mental Health or Dale made a lot of sense for us to have a better outcome for the individuals in these situations. Thank you. Representative shy. Thank you very much and thank you for coming in on this bill. My question is not so much about the bill itself because it sounds like it's a pretty important piece of legislation. It's more about the process as related to the money. The fiscal note says we could have upwards of $570,000 for legal aid evaluations representation, plus another 25,000 for the forensic work group plus another 7500 or so. For the podium so we're talking over 60 and possibly over $600,000. And I'm just wondering. I guess I'm surprised that this kind of money is coming to us so late in the session and wondering, was their money actually ever appropriated in the Senate I mean what what happened that this is ending up here now. So so I can jump into that and Erica probably could if I miss anything on this. Again, my understanding is that the appropriation was in this bill initially the Senate judiciary took it out. And I thought my understanding was that the intention was that they were going to put it into the budget that they sent back over. But for a reason that didn't happen. I don't know if it was an oversight, or if they changed my I just don't know why that that follow up didn't occur. Maybe Eric has more insight on that. The only thing I would add is that actually I think the appropriation was in the bill as it came out of Senate judiciary. I voted out a Senate judiciary with the 500,000 in it. I didn't have at the time that there was no, the work group I don't think had that $25,000 yet, but the 500 K wasn't it. And then when it reached the Senate floor was when it got pulled out for purposes of review in the appropriations committee. I don't know if it was a representative of law and indicated for whatever reason. I don't know if it was that got lost sight of or, or people had other things going on. I don't really know but for some reason it didn't, it didn't get back into the big bill before it came over. I think that's the chronology. Okay, thank you. We'll recall that it is fairly standard practice for the Senate to pull money out of bills and to collect that those obligations and to take care of them in the budget and I. What we don't know is why it didn't appear there. I was told that in the, the Department of Mental Health thought that it might have an ability to absorb some of these costs within its budget can you comment on that deputy commissioner Fox. I think our position really is that, you know, we would do our best to do that I don't have specific figures that that tell me that we can absorb, you know, the, the, the total cost of the increased legal fees for our attorneys or if we need need to, you know, the conflict council and such like that. I just know that we, we would make do with, with whatever we have. It just could it could impact our ability to respond, but I don't have specific dollars to be able to say, yes, we could absorb the, the, the attorney, you know, increase costs for our attorney generals, you know, per se, you know, or something of that sort. The original hope was to try and do that. But we actually had conversations with the AGO office. And that's where the conversation of potential conflicts could arise. And that we might need conflict council, and that kind of changed that that picture a little bit, because we had not envisioned that the potential conflict. The attorney general's office was actually prosecuting the case that it could create a conflict for the attorney generals of DMH to be going against that that wasn't on our radar until we met with the AGO's office. And so that did have an impact on some of our thinking. Okay, thank you. So we have been hearing about the potential costs of changing the system to accomplish these goals. I'm curious about what are essentially avoided costs that exists today and this is where I'm going to start getting a little bit dangerous in my speculation so we have an increasing number of people I believe who are coming through the justice system who are being held for competency hearings and at any point if I'm just way off the facts please interrupt me but this this is my recollection is that there are increasing numbers of folks coming through the system who are being asked to stand for competency hearings and sometimes being detained while those hearings are being scheduled. And so there are costs there, and particularly if if people are scrambling to find the right people to represent. Whereas if we had a more efficient system that had, you know, people standing ready essentially to represent these folks would, would that change some of these other costs within the system do y'all understand what I'm after and am I just way off in my speculation so we're seeing hey it could cost and we're assuming the Senate's number was 500,000 but I'm wondering what the avoided costs are potentially I'm not, I would have to say I'm not aware of seeing any kind of significant increase in the number of competency or sanity evaluations or requests for that, even during the pandemic or kind of as we're solely coming out of the pandemic. We've seen an increase a little bit over the last month or two or three. But we think that's also partly just a backlog, because courts have been such slowed down during the pandemic. But it's been fairly consistent numbers of competency and sanity evaluations for the last three, four, five years now. It's been pretty steady numbers wise, we do have a backlog of forensic evaluations. And that that has slowed down the system. But that's a separate issue from the lawyer issue. That's an issue with having a number of evaluators, of which we have remedied at this point and have contracted with numerous new providers. And we're, we're expecting to be able to get back on top of and really be out of kind of the, the, the backlog of evaluation cases by mid to late summer. So, so thank you. So, I, thank you. Yeah, please. So, I really, my understanding is the cost savings component really is just with respect to the defender general and I've already addressed that part. The increased costs with regards to the legal representation at DMH, you know, that that doesn't have released. We're not offsetting other costs, we're just providing, I think, a better commitment hearing by having their involvement there. And that's what that that cost it so. As far as the holding of individuals in advance, I don't think that this really changes that from what I understand. Thank you. I'm obviously conflating to things. I have this recollection of the Department of Corrections talking about the number of detainees it is responsible for, and some fairly, I thought so this is where I was dangerous that some significant number of those folks were folks being held under some form of evaluations and I was connecting this with that. That evidently I am wrong. Representative Feltas. Yes, thank you. I, I, I guess I understand. Senator Lalonde mentioned that by shifting this work from the Defender General to Vermont Legal Aid, that the Defender General can't reduce full FTEs because this is work that's kind of sprinkled around in various places. So I can understand that but I would presume it would still nevertheless reduce some of the pressure on their workloads so that they would not be quite as pressured to be looking for new staff. We always hear from the Defender General that they need additional staff, or that they are tight and it's difficult to find staff. So I would presume even though they can't reduce the number of bodies that they have on staff it would allow them to perhaps just be more appropriately involved with with all the cases they have and not necessarily needing to hire more staff as they are often looking for. And I'm wondering if Trevor has had any discussion with the Defender General about how this would impact their workloads. This change. Yeah, I thought about that but I haven't had that conversation yet and I will. Thanks. Okay, thank you. I am struck that this is a particularly is a peculiar area of law. And would require I assume, particular expertise, and our Defender Generals are usually, I think of them as being generalists rather than specialists and that there must be a significant difference in the defense that one would receive being represented by an individual with expertise that can have all sorts of value in this. I'm seeing a head nod and I'm not seeing anybody saying no you're wrong on that one Mary. So I think maybe I've got that one right. Committee, do you have, so what other questions do you have committee with regard to this cost, these costs? Yeah, I think I have a question for the bill. And I feel like I representative yakovani. Thank you. This position DMH legal representation 95 to 155 with that would you use, do you imagine hiring a new person. To make a position that would be, do we need to give you authorization for a new FTE. I would have to check I don't believe we envision a new person I think we don't want to quote me on this but I believe we actually have some folks who are not full time that we'd look to make full time, but also part of it is also to cover the potential conflict council that we would have to hire in the case of if the Attorney General's office is prosecuting a case that we would not be able to have the Attorney General's office represent the department as well. Do you imagine perhaps contracting out when you needed those services. Yes. So it would go into personal services and some might be for existing staff and some might be for contractual and you would you would work that out. Can some of this from a clinical standpoint. Can this work be done remotely determining my competence. It has been pre pandemic and has increased during the pandemic. It's, it's, there are national standards for doing the evaluations, in particular with remote evaluations. There are certain pieces that might, there are certain pieces that might be better or enhanced in person, but psychological testing can be done remotely, as well as the interviews and things of that sort. I'm not I'm out of my league here and I don't want to sound like I'm trying to do this on the cheap, but I imagined, you know, could could one of the public defenders be trained to be our go to person to handle these kind of cases and do them remotely in the legal representation that's needed or does that occur right in the court, and that may be more for Martin and for you. And, and that's that's a that's a slightly different question to the evaluations by the evaluators happens remotely court is happening more and more in court now, and I think there might be some specific circumstances where an individual may be remote into court. But not necessarily, you know the attorneys as well as the defendant, etc, all being remote. Yeah, Kevone, I know that Jack McCullough Vermont legal aid is watching us and has who it and he Jack heads the group that represents folks for in these proceedings. He offered to come in and I was thinking there's no time and as you all know, we generally don't take testimony from non state sorts of people but if Jack is listening, and if Teresa will send him the link right away. I have a meeting at 215, but it just strikes me, we might as well hear from the person who is directly involved and can speak with some expertise as to how this process works so I'm kind of hoping that through the magic here that in a moment we will see him magic. I don't know. It is all. I was in a, yeah, yeah, but I don't know. So Teresa did you hear me can you send Jack. Yeah. So in a moment, I think maybe we will see, and rather than sending you off to have a conversation with him and asking then asking you to come back and talk to us about it I figured I would just make a short circuit this. While we're waiting for him to join us. Can I, I'm sorry I just in. I'm trying to do too many things to forgive me because I am sure you mentioned this rep LaLonde. Why are we adding two more members to the joint legislative justice oversight committee, other than my desire to be on that committee and I'm not. I don't think the invitation is going to you, chair. And if it would help us to get this thing past you maybe would think about it but no actually it's because mental health has really become such a pressing issue in the justice criminal justice. And we really designating having an individual from the healthcare that deals with mental health so that's that's why we are having somebody there and I do want to flag before you turn to Jack McCullough, that there was just the additional issue where the stipends for work group members. As far as addressing that and I would ask that we perhaps send a link to and Donnie you to bring her in if there are any questions about that because that really was healthcare that dealt with that group so. Yeah, that's okay with you just to have her on on the Waiting to, you know, okay, thank you. So that feels like we can sort that one out that's kind of pro former sort of work. And so, I think, yeah, Kevone has the reporter for us of this bill can follow up on that. And just my suggestion that Mr. McCullough join us is that we were talking about his work and the work that his office does and it felt like it was a little more helpful to hear directly from him as to the benefits of this change in the system. And so Mr. McCullough thank you for joining us thank you for having watched and offered to do this. You've been hearing the questions we're asking and are trying to understand how this new system would work. So if you can, if you would like to just in a few minutes we're really are running up on time but if you could help us understand this better that would be Yes, thank you and thank you for inviting me for the record I'm Jack McCullough I'm the director of the mental health law project of Vermont legal aid. We represent people in all the civil involuntary civil mental health proceedings in the state of Vermont. This proposal comes out of a legislative study committee that was done several years ago on studying people in the in the criminal system and corrections who have psychiatric conditions, and this was has been proposed through a couple of Jack you are freezing Jack you're phrasing I oh or maybe it's me. I beg your pardon maybe it's just my internet so I thought you were freezing and I was going to suggest turning off your video but it's me. Sorry. It's quite all right. The these it for several years it's been the idea that treat the of pretty much all the players in the system that it would be beneficial for the mental health law project to handle these hospitalization proceedings, because we not only have the expertise in the in the body of law that's involved the involuntary mental health system but also we have the expertise of all the components of the system and the fiscal assumption that it's based on in my project we have four attorneys and the fiscal note is based on an assumption of about 200 additional cases per year going to hospitalization hearings and we are counting on two additional attorneys to do those hearings. Our assumption is that we would be probably litigating more hearings of this nature than are done in the in the current system that we would likely probably go to hearing more than we're hearing now in the in the current system where many of these cases are negotiated out and we suspect that we would be challenging hospitalization. More than is done now which would result in additional hearing which would be the need would represent the need for the additional attorney time. The appropriation is in the neighborhood of 120 to $150,000 for independent psychiatric exams. It's my observation from the cases that we see now coming out of the criminal system that although defendants and criminal cases have the right to an independent psychiatric exam just like respondents in civil mental health cases they ordinarily don't get those psychiatric exams both sides rely on the findings of the forensic evaluation. And so again we are expecting that there would be independent psychiatric exams. Being acquired that are not happening now and so that would involve the additional expense at this point since we're not doing that work. These are estimates of what it would be and it's certainly possible that it could be either less or more than what we're anticipating now. But we think this is a fair estimate so that we would not be so we'd be able to cover the work because my staff and I are already working full time at all the cases we're doing now and it would not be feasible for us to take on a large number of additional cases and absorb that work within the cases within the current staffing we have. Maybe I should just stop there and see if there are any questions. So thank you Mr. McCullough. We have internet problems on the part of the chair so I'm going to be taking over and I'm going to apologize. Now I've got a budget phone call that is scheduled to occur three minutes ago. So Rep Jessup will take over if you see me if you see me disappear. So the just to just to and I'm sorry I'm working several different issues all at the same time. So Vermont legal aid low and high estimates are 245,000 to 265,000 a year is that accurate. Yes, yes, representative. Okay, thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. McCullough. I think I see somebody reaching. So made up your your your first and I think we might have somebody else but please made it go ahead. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I just don't want to be making an inaccurate assumption. These figures. Are they one time funding or ongoing funding. These would be annual. ongoing. Yes. Okay, thank you. The plan is the plan is that we would increase our staffing and that would. Thank you for clarifying. You're welcome. Okay, I think it's representative felt this had her hand up. Yes. And then regarding I assume that would be annual costs and I assume yes if you need to add two more attorneys than you have the obviously the personnel costs involved. I guess my question is kind of internally for the group. How do we typically handle something like this with this be a grant to Vermont legal aid for a set amount of money. If we were to manually that we would consider in the budget, or would it more be a, you bill us by the case, something like that. Well, I, I can answer that. I guess I'm answering my own question. Yeah. In for the work that we do now. So it's we're in the AHS part of the part of the budget and we have a contract to, to do the, do the work that we're doing now and I assume that that's how we would handle it for, for this additional work. And then there would periodically be a review to make sure that the amount of money that is appropriated for that purpose is sufficient or more than sufficient, less than sufficient, whatever, and we would figure out those expenses the next year around if there needed to be some adjustment. I believe we report to the Department of Mental Health Quarterly. Thank you. That's correct. The money would come to the Department of Mental Health and then through our contracts with the Vermont legal aid. The money currently goes to them and then these increased funds would as well. And we review a quarterly to make sure that, you know, our, the budget line is balanced that we're not seeing overages or underage and things of that sort. Um, thank you. I've, I, I'm trying my internet again. We'll see if it works. Just be prepared to stand by if I get booted off. We have four people using the internet in the house today so it's being challenged. Rep Jacoboni. Yes. I'm, I'm back to, and I don't know who can best answer this, but imagine you're on the floor of the house, and you have to report this bill. And it very well may not be me. Representative Squirrel and I, Madam Chair, I don't want to cross over jurisdiction, but it regardless whoever it is. How would you answer the question. Why are we doing this differently? Have we not been as aggressive with our representation previously as we should have been. Anybody answer that. Because these, you mentioned Jack got 200 cases. And I'm, I don't think it's 200 more additional cases, if it is correct me, but rather the body of work could be 200 cases where it's believed more representation is needed. I guess the question is, and I'm not trying to portray anybody in a poor way but is the belief from the state of Vermont that people behind these cases need more aggressive representation. And if so, that's okay. I just need help understanding why we're doing this after all these years. Can somebody help me. I will, I will give you my two cents on that representative Yacobone that it's not that it's not that we're saying or that people are saying Defender General, or those defense attorneys are not doing a good job or working hard for their defendants or anything of that sort. It's going back to what I said earlier. It's it's about ensuring that people have the most appropriate representation in court. I see this as a civil rights issue that we're talking about a vulnerable population. We're talking about people who are traditionally underserved people who are traditionally have very little voice out there. And, and so I see this as a civil rights issue to to ensure that their rights are most appropriately defended, and that their defense is is presented by by folks who have the most knowledge and expertise in commitment law, because we've now moved into an area of commitment and not criminal jurisdiction. And that is just not the expertise of your, your public defenders. So for me from the department and I think from many of the advocates that I've heard testimony from that we're talking about a civil rights issue, and ensuring that they have the most appropriate representation available to them. That helps. Thank you. Sorry, it took me so long to get there. But I, it's a, it's a level of expertise. It needs expert attention. Thank you. And just one real quick point on that is, you know, this is a different way that these individuals may be losing their liberty. I mean it ties right into the civil rights issue that that these folks may be losing their liberty so they deserve to have the best representation we can provide. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you very much. Yes, did you have another follow up. And any other questions for all of who are here. Okay, I'm not seeing any hands so I will circle back with. I'm sorry, Jim rep Harrison. Yeah, thank you. Doesn't really have a question though. I wanted some attention. Thank you. I'd like to just follow up on representative Yacobone's question. And I appreciate Mr. Fox's response on the type of defense that may not have been available up to now. If, you know, if it's more of a specialty, but I'm curious, and this may be getting a little off track, but it seems to me if you didn't have the right defense or adequate defense, there would be a basis for a, an appeal, and overturning of a decision made on behalf of the dependent defendant. Has that been the case in any of these up to now. I'm not aware of any. I would say that the majority of the cases that we're talking about. There's a determination that the defendant is incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity. And the overwhelming majority is findings of incompetence to stand trial. Then there is a resolution. There's an agreement to have the person be hospitalized or placed on an order of non hospitalization. There's a expectation that in some number of those cases. And it's hard to know until we start doing it but in some number of those cases, once there's this determination of incompetency, there would be a contested hearing on whether the person would be hospitalized or placed on an order of non hospitalization and some of those defendants would be successful at those hearings and not, not subject to involuntary hospitalization or involuntary treatment. And so this actually gets back to a question that the chair was raising about, is there a possibility of, of some avoided costs. And I think there is the possibility for some avoided, avoided costs, although it's impossible to quantify at this time. But if we successfully defend a hospitalization hearing, and some a defendant is not committed to a hospital who otherwise might be then whatever the state would be spending on keeping that person in the hospital since there will would be would be a saving. Okay. Thank you I just, you know, it would be much easier if we were just switching positions from defender general to legal aid. Representative Lalonde do you have any further insight to my question. Yeah, yeah I did I think I'm looking at your question a little bit differently. It's really tough to show that there's been inadequate representation. But we can look at this as a spectrum that that defender general may be adequate and, and, but, but there's still far away from representation that they can be provided by the experts from Vermont legal aid. So it's kind of, we believe that they deserve that, because we're talking about their liberty rights. We wouldn't want Vermont legal aid to be representing them on the filter innocence at a criminal trial. You know they may even be adequate to do that but they're not the right attorneys to be doing that. So so that's how I'm looking at it so yeah the fender general. I doubt that they've been deemed to be have provided inadequate counsel, so that a commitment is overturned, but it doesn't mean that they're the best ones to be representing these individuals. Thank you, I appreciate that it's, it's probably a little bit of a subjective question and then hard to, you know, necessarily pin it down unless there were certain cases, my last question is for Mr. Because this is now a significant amount of money at the end of the session that's not built into the budget that needs to be built into the budget every year. Is that something that the administration supports. I'm understanding that the administration does support this, this fiscal piece, going into the, the dislegislative session as well as the last biennium to so folks are aware this bill s3 had a predecessor in the last biennium of s183, which was almost word for word, the same but it made it through the process. And the, the administration has been in support of both that, as well as s3, knowing that there's a fiscal note attached to it, part of what hung s183 up in the last biennium was exactly this this fiscal note. And the conversations around it. So it's our hope to get move that through this biennium move this through this this session. As we've retaken up this bill. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any additional questions. Okay, very good. Mr. McCullough, thank you for joining us. You're welcome. Thank you for having me. Appreciate it. I'll log off now for. So right now as I'm sorry I've been as I said I've been multitasking and trying to do other things all budget related while we've been sitting here and listening with one ear. So right now, as I understand it, according to the fiscal note which I have open in front of me, we have a request for $460,000 on the low side $570,000 on the high side Nolan and I asked you to chime in here. Between 245 and 265 we would we would appropriate to Vermont legal aid and the balance would be appropriated to Department of Mental Health 120 to 154 evaluations and 95 to 155 for legal presentation as necessary. Is that an accurate statement. Yes, and if I may. In addition to that, you have, there's the bill appropriates 25,000 for section six for general fund to the image, and we'd need some additional money up to 7500. We'd have to maybe less than 7500 will say 5000 just for argument sake for per diem so if you sort of use the, if you sort of round up around down, if you look at the judiciary appropriate 500,000 initially in the Senate. So you say 500,000 will say is like a midpoint between the high and the low 25k for the section six plus 5k for per diems, you would probably be looking at about 530 $530,000. Okay, is the the funds for Vermont legal aid for the independent evaluations at DMH and DMH legal representation are those all global commitment funds. None of them are none of them are. Straight general fund straight general fund. Okay. Representative home. Thank you know. Bob. Bob. You have your hand up. Oops. I'm sorry. Doing business at home. Yeah, I understand. I understand. I just, I'm just going to say this then I'll shut myself off because it won't mean anything but I, I'm sure we've had it, but I cannot recall very many times and ask this large this late in the session. And I am at this point. And I think the idea is probably just great. But I think sometimes at this late in the session, all these little ones and miscellaneous size get tumbled into us. And I don't ever know. And I'm sorry for that recorder. I don't ever know, kind of like, what have we spent this week or month. We're adding some $600,000 on to a M. I am not talking poorly of the idea. I'm just talking about pure expenses here, which is, by the way, our job. I just want to bring that up. It's, it's a, it's a gobble money and folks, I'm telling you, in a couple of years, we're going to need money. Right now, but it's not going to go on forever. So just thought I'd share that with you. Thank you. Bob, thank you. Do we have any further questions. I know one of the issues that I have obviously there was no funds in this bill so it's not like we can vote on the bill with with the funding attached we're going to need to do an amendment to actually insert the funds into the bill. So we're going to need and that's the reason why I would presume Mr Fitzpatrick is here and that he could probably do the amendment is that an accurate question Mr Fitzpatrick. If he's still there. Yes, thank you representative taken absolutely certainly happy to work on the amendment with Nolan or however, however it helps the committee. That would be a good idea if perhaps the two of you could work together and come up with an amendment that that we could then act upon that would be that would be helpful. It needs to indicate the the the specificity of my question to Nolan. The funds being allocated appropriated to to legal aid and then to the DMH for for two different uses and then funds going to DM another 25,000 to DMH for for the complete the work described and then an additional 5000 for the work group. And I don't know who we're going to send that to but I'm going to. I'm not going to get to guess but if I had to take a guess I would say Department of Mental Health. So, representative taken it. I believe Eric probably use this language similar to what was pulled out of the judiciary in terms of where those, all the money would be going to DMH because we don't appropriate money directly to legal aid. So, the image for their contracting. Okay, I believe. Eric could probably just do the similar appropriation that was in the initial to the Senate judiciary with the addition of the $25,000, and the addition of we'll say, 5000 for prudence, or yes. Okay, I think that that's good and then we could. We can take a look at that and consider that so if you would please work with with Eric that would be great. And Maria. I have a question of you. What is our bottom line on on general funds here because obviously we're about to. If we do this we allocate an additional $530,000 roughly of ongoing general fund money into the future, although I would imagine that the, the, the 30,000 is not ongoing the 30,000 is one time is, is that, is that accurate Nolan. There's 25 K would be for the group. ongoing or one time. One time. Okay. Yeah, the study group and the per diems is also for the study group. And so that's a one time event. All right, so so we have 30,000 in one time and then not concerned here, and then or not as concerned, and then 500,000 and ongoing so Maria could you ascertain for us the status of ongoing funds to let us know where we are such that when we, when we contemplate the amendment will have that information please. Yeah, I need to talk to Steve and Stephanie about this, because there's a lot of different things moving around but I will, I'll do that and I'll very good. Yeah, thank you very much. Any further questions. Very good seeing none I do I appreciate everyone's assistance to this matter today it is important and you know that we that we act on this so thank you. And I'll take this as a lesson that when the Senate judiciary takes money out of a bill that and we won't count on that showing up in the budget that we see come over from the Senate so in the future we'll put it back in the actual bill so we don't run into this again thank you. Well, you just never know what's going to happen in this building via zoom or via actual so just just pretty amazing so thank you. Alright, so Teresa if you will take us off live.