 So good afternoon, everybody. Today is the 16th of February, 2021. You are now live and in-person with the Vermont State Senate's Committee on Institutions. If you happen to not be talking right now, I'd appreciate if you could mute anybody who's on the screen. We are going to be talking about a couple of bills this afternoon. We are also live on YouTube for those of you who are witnesses here with us today. I just wanted to keep that in mind that somewhere out there in the public is a great big audience that's potentially listening to us right now. So we always keep our comments nice and clean moving forward. First up on tap of the players, I'm Joe Benning, your chair for institutions. We have Senator Mazza from Grand Isles, Senator McCormick from Windsor, Senator Parrot from Franklin County and Senator Ingalls from Essex Orleans. And we are going to start off by having Senators Brian Collamore and Senator Joshua Terenzini talk about S73, a bill that has been introduced by several folks, but they are the lead sponsors of this particular legislation. So gentlemen, welcome. Brian, would you like to go first? Yes, thank you, Senator. And I appreciate the time you're giving me to speak before the committee. This bill, S73, I introduced at the behest of the Vermont State Employees Association. If it looks- Can I just say you pick up things correctly if you could identify yourself for the record, please? Sure, Senator Brian Collamore representing the Rutland District for the record. And the bill may look familiar to some of you, maybe not everybody, because it was a bill that I believe your chair introduced last session. And it's a bill that would propose to allow probation and parole officers to carry firearms while on duty after successfully completing, of course, conducted by the Vermont Criminal Justice Council. And hopefully you'll be able to hear from witnesses. Another Senator from Rutland County, Senator Terenzini's father worked for years in the parole and probation department so he can speak from personal experience. And I note that we also have Vincent Aluzzi from the VSEA with us today and he can probably explain some of the circumstances that parole and probation officers are based on a regular basis. Kenny Hodges? Hello, Mr. Hodges. This is Judge Harris. We're gonna be starting your hearing in a few moments. Vince, if you could mute, please. Yes, I'm sorry about that. Okay, I didn't know if I said something wrong for a second. Vince is new to this, Vince is new to this. So that's my preamble to the bill. It's a fairly short bill and I know that Attorney Child is with us if you care to. I'm sure she can walk you through the bill, but it's a pretty quick bill. Senator Terenzini. Well, good afternoon, everyone. Senator Benning, thank you for allowing me to come, to share a few minutes of my thoughts on this bill. Nice to see all my Senate colleagues. I prepared a couple of pages if I could read them and offer as testimony to the committee. This is my first time testifying in a committee, so I appreciate you bearing with me. So the first thing we do, Josh, is we have you officially introduce who you are. Thank you, Senator Benning. Senator Josh Terenzini from Rutland County. My schedule says you are made in Vermont. Is that true? Made in Vermont. That's listed next to your name on my schedule. I'm not quite sure why. Is that what it says? I don't know why, but. So to the Senate Institutions Committee, I come to you today, not as one of your Senate colleagues, but as the oldest son of three to our father, State Representative Thomas Terenzini. My dad spent 30 years of his life working for the Vermont Department of Corrections. For the first 20 years of my father's tenure, he was a supervisor within the Marble Valley Correctional Facility in Rutland. During his last 10 years of employment, he was a community house arrest officer with the Department of Corrections. This was a position change that he was excited for at the time, but came with great fear by my brother's family and me. Within the four walls of our correctional facilities, there are a lot of control poles. The danger is still high, but through proper screening and protocols, what comes into the facility is highly scrutinized. The likelihood of a firearm or a deadly weapon entering our correctional facilities is rather low. However, in the field, our community correctional probation and parole officers are at a much higher risk of serious danger due to the unknown. During my father's decade in the field, there was constant worry from our family and friends. For safety reasons, along with the bond of a father and son, daily phone calls and check-ins began. I can recall stories of scenarios which could have ended poorly for the safety of my father and his colleagues. Weapons, drugs and other activities were not uncommon and first often detected from these field correctional employees. These field correctional officers work individually and not as teams most of the time. Many of the individuals on house arrest, probation and parole live in rural communities far out of reach for cell phone and radio reception. Time is of the essence during an emergency and it could have taken far too long for law enforcement to arrive to back up my father or his counterparts. The fear of the unknown is real. Where was my father going today and what would he encounter on the other end? Was today going to be a routine visit with those individuals on the program or would today be the day that violence struck and my father would face a deadly situation in the field? Armed with pepper spray and handcuffs, he and his counterparts wouldn't have the means to defend themselves from a deadly weapon. While in the field, these professionals from time to time are faced with making decisions about the reincarceration of those who violated the probation and parole or house arrest programs. This is a stressful and emotionally charged time for the individual facing certain return to jail. Out of fear of returning to a correctional facility and the emotions that some of these individuals are experiencing, violence can become a natural defense mechanism, putting these correctional employees in danger. I wanna go on the record by saying that most of these people on the house arrest program and probation and parole are fine individuals who have made a poor choice to land themselves where they are. My testimony is not meant to categorize all of these folks as violent and dangerous. When thinking about setting up our field correctional probation and parole officers for safety and success, giving them the tools that they need is imperative. I completely support the idea of giving a well-trained and certified department of correctional employees a firearm in the field. We provide this life-saving measure for our police. It's time to offer the same for the Department of Corrections. Thank you. Committee, gonna pause here and ask if anybody has any questions for either Senator Collamore or Senator Terenzini. And I can't see all of you at the moment. I don't see anybody waving hands. So at this point, I'm gonna shift over to Michelle Childs and have Michelle do a walkthrough of the bill itself. And then we'll pick up with Vince Aluzzi if he's off with just Judge Harris by that time. Michelle, welcome. Hi, thank you. First time testifying in institutions? Not first time ever, but first time certainly this year. Okay, well, we have one new legislator and we have three total new committee members. Senator Collamore. Senator Benning, is it possible for me to leave? Well, I'm certainly not shackling you to the chair there, Brian. So I wish you well and gov ops today. Thank you. And Senator Terenzini, you also are welcome to stay with us or leave at your pleasure. I appreciate it, Senator Benning. I'll probably head back to education. Very good. Sorry, Michelle. Thank you for the time. No problem. So nice to see everyone. And I think I know everyone except our new member. And so for the record, my name is Michelle Childs with Office of Legislative Council. I typically staff criminal and family law, but I do do some corrections and that's why I'm here today. And so I'll take you through this, as the sponsor said, short bill. So I wanted to give a little bit of context. We're working in title 28. So the corrections title that you're very familiar with and we're in the parole chapter and we're amending a specific statute where and I should have, I realized that maybe it might have been helpful if I put some of the existing language that's in there, but under current law, the commissioner of corrections can authorize a designated correctional officer to become certified by the training, well, it's not called the training council anymore, the criminal justice council as a law enforcement officer and then can prescribe the duties of that correctional officer and where there's some blending of the law enforcement authority. And in that provision, which is in subsection B, they can restrict whether or not the correctional officer carries a firearm or a weapon while they are on duty. So just so you know what's currently in existing law. So the new subsection C that's added here in the bill, you'll see is that upon request of a correctional officer who's assigned to the field supervision unit, the commissioner shall, so it's not discretionary, shall authorize the officer to train and become certified by the council in the use of firearms. So not going through, my understanding is that it's not going through and becoming a certified law enforcement officer, but rather going through a separate training for firearms. And you'll see that the purposes would be on line 16 and 17 for defensive purposes, appropriate use of force reporting and record keeping related to the firearms and personal liability for actions and conduct related to firearms. On line 18, the commissioner and executive director of the council are to develop the curriculum that's necessary to do that particular training. And then a correctional officer who successfully completes the training is permitted to carry a firearm while on duty and to employ it in a defensive capacity. The effective date of this is this July 1st. This language, usually we get kind of a, at council we get like a little nugget of idea and we work to develop the bill, but this was as I believe Senator Collinmore mentioned, this was language that for the most part came from VSEA I believe. And so I don't have a lot of details or history about why the policy choices in the bill. So I think those are probably be better directed to the witnesses, but I'm happy to answer anything about legislative drafting or the context in which this proposal exists. Michelle, could you scroll back to page one please? If I understand this correctly, the field supervision unit, anyone who is assigned to that unit would be entitled to ask the commissioner of corrections and the commissioner would have to give them the opportunity for training and to possess a weapon. Do we know whether or not there are field supervision unit workers who do not actually go out into the field? I wouldn't be able to answer that question. I think that would be a question for the department. Okay, committee questions. Senator Mazza. How many correction officers do we have? Anybody know that number? That would be eligible or do we have 25 to the state or 50 or just my curious to see how many would want to do this? They must have taken some sort of survey. I assume we're gonna hear the answer to that question from Vince and Lucy when he gets on shortly. Okay. I don't think Michelle has that off the top of her head. Senator McCormick. Thanks, I just want to make sure that I understand this correctly. Under present law, a correctional officer can carry a firearm at the discretion of the commissioner. And what this really does is it sort of takes away the commissioner's discretion and makes it a right of the officer. Is that my reading, understanding that correctly? I don't think they can carry one now. Well, I think if I recall the testimony from the last time around, there are certain corrections officers who for instance, patrol the exterior fence of a facility who are authorized to carry weapons. And I think it's a great question. We're gonna need to have the commissioner come in and talk about who's allowed to do what. There may be other witnesses on here today that can also answer some of those questions. But again, I suspect that Michelle is probably not the ones that are gonna be able to answer that question. That's correct. What I had mentioned though before was that there is something in current law that allows the commissioner to designate correctional officers for training to become law enforcement officers and going through that particular training. And then through that, they may be carrying a weapon. So maybe particular officers may be doing that, but that includes going through and becoming certified as a law enforcement officer. And then at that point, it's still at the discretion of the commissioner whether or not that individual officer carries a weapon. That's what I understood. So really what the, there is already a path for a correctional officer to carry a firearm, but it's ultimately at the commissioner's discretion. That's really the change the bill makes. Takes the authority away from the commissioner and makes it a matter of course. Right, but there is a big distinction between the two levels of training here between those two. I'll send you the, I mean, you can pull up on the web. I'll email everyone a link to the existing statute so you can see the subsection B language. Okay. Thanks, Michelle. Just so you're aware, this committee in the Senate does not normally handle corrections policy questions. That's the judiciary committee on the Senate side, but over on the house side, corrections and institutions, that committee does handle both questions. So this committee would not normally be familiar with the rest of the statute. Well, you're right. We're all in the same boat because I haven't been handling corrections for a few years either. I've been engaged on another issue that's been taking my time. So we'll all learn together. Mr. Chair, why are we taking this up if we have no authority? Because we got assigned to it. Who got assigned to it? Our committee got assigned this bill from the lieutenant governor. John Boomer or Senate Senate Yelp? I, well, it was certainly Molly Gray who handed it off to the path to my door, but who made the decision prior to that? I'm not quite sure. I would question that. What our role is in this bill. Well, we may have to talk some more about that. Other questions? Okay, Michelle, thank you very much. And by the way, Michelle, before you go, just so you know what happened to me this morning, if you haven't checked your email, I was stuck waiting for two hours to get in front of a judge this morning, but I did finally get my guy out of jail. So say, LaVie, that's where I was. Good job. I'm gonna stay, I'll stay on. And that way, if there's anything y'all need me to follow up on or whatever, I'll be here listening. Very good. It was my intention at this point to turn it over to former Senator Saturni now, Vince Aluzzi, but I see he's got a frozen picture on the screen that makes him look important. And I understand he is now with the same judge that I was with and waiting for this morning. So at this point, Casey and Justin, I see both of you are on the screen. I don't know whether either one of you wanted to take the lead in the conversation. Although it looks like... Senator Benning, I'm on with Judge Harris, but real briefly, I wanted to just take an opportunity to introduce probation officer Joshua Hanson. He's been with the department for 15 years and lives in West Rutland. He's now the acting assistant superintendent at the Rutland facility. He supervises two probation officers, four community correctional officers, and two in the work crew division. And he can give you a better understanding of this legislation. We also have probation officer Leahy, who's on the phone. He's been with DLC for about nine years. And he also works as a shift supervisor and caseworker before moving into the field as a probation and parole officer. I think they're in the best position to answer any questions and to give you a brief overview of the legislation that's been introduced kindly by Senators Collamore and Taranzini. So with your permission, I'll turn it over to Mr. Hanson, Joshua Hanson. My, Vince, before you go, is Michael Averiss going to show up? He's on vacation this weekend. He's not. It's just a probation officer Leahy and assistant superintendent Hanson. Okay. And then I'll click back on as soon as I'm done with Judge Harris. Good luck with that. Okay. Thank you. I've got Justin Hanson on. He called you Joshua, but there's already one other Joshua that's testified from Rutland before us this afternoon. So I'm going to assume you're Justin. Yes, sir, Justin. I get that along with the J name thing. Welcome. And just for the record, could you state your full name and tell us what you are by way of your job situation? Okay, my full name, Justin Richard Hanson, originally from Franklin County, Vermont, now living in West Rutland, Vermont, currently serving as the interim assistant superintendent at the Marble Valley Regional Correctional Facility. And that assignment was hoping, I'm hoping it ends in about two to three weeks where I had back to Rutland probation and parole as a community corrections program supervisor. Down there, I supervised two to three, a caseload of two to three probation officers, four to six CCOs. We have a hiring freeze right now, so I presently only have four, and then two CSTLs, which are work crew leaders. Myself, Michael Harris, Casey Leahy, has been a multitude of DOC employees that have been pushing for this legislation for, I've been involved with it for at least five years now. I don't know, Senator Benning, we went up and saw you last year about the same time of year in that vicious snowstorm in February, and it was just you. And us from corrections, and we were thankful for that meeting. And then of course, our bill died in committee again. We haven't an issue getting our bill out of committee out to the floor where everybody can hear it. There are some questions around what the current law enables our commissioner to do, and it's all discretionary. And like Ben said, we're kind of looking to get that taken away. We've had many changes, differences in administrations where we have some commissioners that support us and some that don't. We had commissioner Menard, she ended up being supportive of us right at the end of her tenure. And then when she retired, commissioner Tushette kind of picked it up and made a start all over again. So, it's just been a cycle and it's been going on for far too long in our opinion. Again, the reason why we wanna carry defensive weapons is for just that, for life safety. You know, I'm tasked with supervising, sending employees out into the field, probation officers, especially community correctional officers, like Senator Taranzini testified about his father was one of those for a long time in Rotland. And the truth is, is that our population in the community and our communities themselves are more and more dangerous every year. Recently with justice reinvestment, there's been a lot of changes that have kind of streamlined the process of getting people from a facility to the field. And a lot of the checks and balances that made it safer for us as employees are now gone. For instance, residence approvals for somebody coming out on furlough. All they have to do now is provide an address that we verify as an actual address and it's approved. Before we would do a house visit, it would call landlords, check in with other household members. We actually did an actual tour of the place where they would be living. It was a full blown, full residence investigation. That no longer occurs. We see every day more heinous crimes being pled down to just probation sentences and they're immediately put on community supervision. A lot of split sentences, suspended sentences. So, the jail population right now in Vermont is the lowest it's been since like 1975. I got the population count stat today and we're under a thousand male in-state detainees and sentenced inmates right now, which it's mind blowing in a way. Obviously those numbers are a little, a little, I guess skewed due to COVID and what's going on with the courts and the backlog and everything there. I expect, you know, we see those numbers go up. But the point is that, you know, the community caseloads are gonna get bigger. They're going to get more dangerous in my opinion. Again, without the ability to do certain things that we used to be able to do, those were taken away through justice reinvestment. And like I said, the bill states, you know, these people, everybody who would be given a defensive weapon would be trained properly. We already have a curricula that's been approved by the Vermont Criminal Justice Training Council. Mike Harris did a lot of work with that. Everything's ready to go. The whole training package has been signed off on and to answer Senator Maz's question, we figured it to be about 200-ish current field supervision unit employees that would be eligible for this. And we did do some polling and not everybody is interested, but a majority is. So as far as our field staff, obviously we're not gonna be sending up our administrative assistants and our business managers for this training as they don't go in the field and deal with offenders on a face-to-face day-to-day basis. But our officers that do go out and deal with these people, you know, the overwhelming resounding support of getting this done and them taking up the training. I'd like to take a minute now to have like Casey talk a little bit about where he's coming from. I understand he's had some issues, some more personal issues in regards to this. And he has probably a little bit more insight as to his input. Casey. Casey, you're on mute, there you go. First thing you wanna do is introduce yourself and what your position is within the department, please. My name is Casey Leahy. I'm currently a probation and parole officer out of the Brattleboro office. As Vince said, I've been with the department for about nine years and worked on a wide variety of roles. So I have a broad perspective and experience with the department. The issue of defensive weapons for field staff has been important to me for a long time. I haven't been involved directly as Justin and Mr. Harris have for as long, but I do think it is important and necessary for our field staff. Justin referred to some more personal experience I've had with this. So very recently, I had an offender I supervised basically telling me that he'd been planning for the last few months to obtain a firearm and kill me and then shoot as many other staff members in the office as he could. And we vetted the information to make a very long storage kind of concise for you. He had a plan, it was premeditated. He had a backup plan and obtaining a firearm if his primary plan failed. And this all unfolded real time in the office while I was on the phone with the offender. So we followed the protocols the department set in place, which is of course to call the police, lock down the building, shelter in place. Unfortunately, the police response turned into squabbling over jurisdiction and we couldn't get any real assistance as far as apprehending this individual and mitigating the threat. So in a very quick period of time, we were just kind of stuck here at the office with no option. The PDs were again bickering over jurisdiction and who's gonna help and who's gonna do what. And the only option we had was to lock the doors, put your vest on and shelter in place, hope for the best. That's a very unsettling feeling when you have no other fallback. The fallbacks the department has pushed and told us to rely on for years pretty much fell apart. And there was no alternative for us. And it really highlighted to me the importance of the ability to defend yourself appropriately. For being told that someone is plotting to come to the office and shoot people. And the only response we had was to sit tight and hope it didn't happen. That is not to me an acceptable or appropriate ability to respond or respond. As was discussed earlier in this testimony, the department does have a training program in place for issuing firearms to DOC staff. They do in some capacities issue firearms. When I worked in the facility, I went through the department's training curricula which is approved by the Criminal Justice Training Council to carry firearms on duty as the DOC employee. And I did so for several years working on the arm perimeter at Southern State and also with the special response teams. So the ability on the department's half exists and it has for quite a while. What we're really asking for is that that be extended to those of us that work in the field. As Mr. Hanson said, going out in the field conducting checks or even just the day-to-day business we do, it puts us in danger. The situation where I had the offender threaten me and the office was not a situation that would have typically raised red flags. Say if we were to go check on him where we would have brought police assistance because we expect the trouble. It was unexpected. It was not your typical situation where you'd expect threat of violence. And it again, highlights that what we do is dangerous. The danger is ever present and it is real and we need the appropriate means of protecting our lives. That's all we're asking for. We're not looking for firearms to change the way that we supervise or the way we do field contacts. We just want the means and ability to defend ourselves appropriately should the situation arise. And I understand the gravity of that request. I understand the responsibility and the liability of carrying a firearm. The state has trained me and issued me firearms in the past and is doing so again in response to the threat that was made against my life. So again, the department has the ability. What we need is the opportunity for all staff to be able to do that because it's reasonable and necessary. So Casey, as you know, there are standard conditions of probation and there are special conditions of probation. And if I recall correctly, one of the standard conditions of probation that applies to every probation or is the phrase violent or threatening behavior is not allowed at any time. The description you've given of that probationer seems to me to be a threat that would enable you to violate him on his conditions of probation. If you had a gun on your possession when that threat was made, what exactly would you have done differently? We wouldn't have done anything differently. As I said, we're not requesting firearms as an aggressor tool. So we could have gone out ourselves looking for them. We would still file the department policy for a situation like that. The difference would be how the offender arrived at the office and started shooting people or ambushed people in the parking lot. Later in the day, we would have had the ability and opportunity to defend ourselves with a commensurate level of force. We're not requesting firearms as an aggressor tool. We are requesting firearms as a defensive weapon to defend ourselves appropriately. It would not change department policy or procedure. So if the corrections officer inside the facility is not authorized to carry a weapon like you were for patrolling the perimeter, would they not have the same threat if for some reason an inmate who was getting out had promised to do harm to them? I'm not sure I understand. Can you clarify that? Let me try to play it out a little bit more. Instead of being in a probation office, you're actually a corrections officer working inside a facility. You're not authorized to carry a weapon inside the facility. And I'm assuming on facility grounds. The latest inmate getting out has had a beef with you forever and has promised to kill you. They don't have the ability now to defend themselves in that situation that you've just described if you were walking outside of your probation door. Do you think that there might be some, I don't know, argument for a corrections officer to make the same argument that you're making right now because the threat is still the same. It's just a different locality of where you happen to be. Yes, absolutely. And I know at least one instance in the past where that has been the case and the department did authorize that officer to carry a firearm to and from his vehicle and secure it in a lock box at the facility. So again, the department has never not acknowledged these threats or that the threats are real and significant and need to be addressed. It's just not, it's only been done on specific case by case basis, which is good and that the department is responsive. But the concern is that we may not get advanced notice. We may not get the courtesy of being threatened to put it like that, you know. So the ability for staff to carry in general, it eliminates that gap, so to say intelligence or information between a threat being communicated or threat being acted on. It gives staff the ability 24 seven. So we cut out the information lag, if that makes sense. Okay. Committee. Cameron. Senator McCormick. Yeah, okay. I think my question brings us back to the idea of jurisdiction. I think this is really more of a judiciary committee. But I'm noticing the story told. I wonder if the problem isn't, is not that the probation officers were unarmed but that the police didn't protect them. The dispute about whose job it was. I know with constituents who complain about, you know, any kind of gun regulation where they talk about their own right as a citizen to defend, you know, I have a right to defend myself. And the answer always is, well, you don't wanna, we don't want vigilance. If someone's progressing on you call the police. And the answer often is, well, the police, it takes them too long to get there. The idea, the argument is, if you're not armed, you're supposed to have the police at your disposal to protect you. If you can't protect yourself, the police are supposed to protect you. And if there are instances where it appears the police don't actually do that. It's an argument that I find very hard to answer. And I wonder in this case, if we shouldn't just ask the judiciary committee to make a policy decision on that. I'm shocked that the police thought it wasn't their jurisdiction. Well, just to clarify that, Brattleboro PD has respond to the office. Even though at the time the threats were communicated, the offender was out of their coverage area, but they did respond to us, but they could not leave their jurisdiction to try to apprehend the individual. They responded to what was within their purview. But once he was outside of their jurisdiction, that's when the argument between other agencies started. Did you call the state police? We did, and the state police, they are the ones who would not respond to the area where the individual was. We had them on GPS and we can tell them, here is his active location, can you please help us? And that's where the jurisdiction came in. And they said that their policy during COVID, is it unless bullets are flying, they're not responding to anything? So that was the response we got. And I said, like you said, it's a very unsettling feeling when you call the police for a legitimate reason, a life safety issue, and you're told, no, call us when the shots are being fired, then we'll do something. It's too late at that point. Yeah. I saw Corey's hand up first and then Russ. Yeah, I mean, I'd hate to see this bill get slowed down because of technical reasons, what committee it's in. I've signed onto this bill for a number of terms. And now, those of us from Franklin County saw the issue with a social worker in a hotel room. I'm getting assaulted. So I would be extremely supportive of this bill. I'm a co-sponsor, but I think we need to move it forward. I think the time's right. That's where I am. And then the only other side comment I'll make is, Mr. Hansen, Representative Toof has told me a lot about you and nice to finally meet you. Did he tell him that Justin moved down to Rutland because he wanted to get out from under your jurisdiction? I'm pretty sure Casey uses, I think it's Mr. Hansen's property where Casey always brags about having a lawn sign up in Rutland County. Senator Engels. Chairman, earlier in the day in one of our caucus meetings we've discussed a little bit about this bill and I think it was brought up that last year that corrections had difficulty with this bill. Who would we ask that question to? Well, I'm trying to remember who the commissioner was at the time. I'm not sure whether or not commissioner Baker was the same individual, but you also had different members on the committee itself. One of the things that's becoming very clear to me right now is that certainly the commissioner of corrections needs to be brought into this conversation because the authority to make a decision about whether or not to give someone a weapon with this bill would be taken away from the commissioner. That's a policy conversation. I'm not gonna say that I disagree with it, I'm just making the observation that this committee doesn't normally do policy considerations. Now as luck would have it at four o'clock we have a chairs meeting. I'm gonna discuss this with both Senator Sears as well as Senator White because it's gonna fall, I think, into one of their two committees to make decisions about the policy. It's just a jurisdictional question that is outside of this committee's authorization. So that's a concern and I'm gonna raise right now. If they both say they don't want it, then we'll continue talking about it, but clearly this is a policy conversation and I'm a little nervous about stepping on the toes of another committee. It'd be interesting to hear what the commissioner, the current commissioner would have to say about this and where their support lies. Well, if the two chairs tell me they don't want the bill, we'll have commissioner Baker come in and give the commissioners explanation about why this is a good idea or a bad idea. Other questions, comments, concerns? The Senator Mazza. Well, they put the people, if they're authorized, wanna put them into a different pay scale by carrying a weapon. They'll have more responsibility and more experience for they could transfer to other jobs and law enforcement or whatever. If you spend the money on all the infrastructure or the equipment, won't it put them in a different class for pay scale? I don't know if either of our witnesses has an answer to that question. I certainly don't. I know there is no plan for us to file any kind of RFR due to if that were to become the case. Our job is still the same. We're still doing the same things that we do now. We're still issued a bulletproof vest just without the inability to return fire if it's being fired upon. That's the only thing we're looking to do. I don't think he's really gonna change. In the case he said, it's not gonna change how we do our job. At the end of the day, it's life safety, life preservation. That's all it is. We as correctional officers in facilities and the field, we have fire extinguishers and SCBAs, but we're not firefighters, right? We don't ask for more money because we're qualified and trained how to use that equipment. That's for life preservation. Same thing with a defensive weapon. Life preservation, it's not something that will be used, hopefully ever, right? That's the goal. But the one time that you need it and you don't have it, you probably won't need it again. So we don't have a plan to- The training at Pittsburgh is the same as a police officer. It would be just the firearms portion, correct? Like we're not gonna go through the entire police academy curriculum. But it would be, like Casey was saying, our department already had, we already have our own certified instructors for our special response teams and our perimeter officers. So we wouldn't even be using the state police per se. We have, like I said, we already have our own instructors. The curricula has already been approved by the training advisory committee. The whole package is bundled up and ready to go. We just need this bill passed so we can get it done. I was surprised to hear that the commissioner actually has the flexibility now to provide even somebody inside the facility the authorization to carry a weapon with them. But I did not realize he had that kind of flexibility. Not inside the facility, right? So once you hear perimeter, there are no firearms allowed, period. Unless you have express permission from the superintendent at the time. And that would be for like an incident where the state police are coming in to help us resolve an incident and they've been justified to bring or they've been permitted to bring deadly force weapons into the secure part of the facility. We've had safety plans for correctional officers where they're allowed to carry the firearm into the insecure portion of the facility and secure it prior to walking in the actual secure part of the walls. Therefore, if somebody was waiting for them in the parking lot, they would then be armed at that time. So what does a corrections officer do in the case that Casey was explaining that an individual inside the facility had been threatening and made a specific threat to a specific inside the facility officer. And that officer was subsequently granted authority to carry a weapon to and from his car. What does he do with the weapon when he walks in the front door? We have gun boxes in every facility that they'd be secured in. Other questions, thoughts? I see Senator Beruzzi is still standing at the podium. Vince, are you with us or are you back with Judge Harris? Looks like he might be back with Judge Harris. At this point gentlemen, I guess I'm gonna say thank you very much. We will have a conversation with the other chairs because I'm seriously believing we are dancing on the toes of at least one other committee. And that's not trying to brush you off by any stretch. I just wanna make sure I'm not overstepping my jurisdiction somehow. So we will be back in touch, but thank you very much for coming today. Thank you for your time.