 Welcome back folks. This is House Corrections and Institutions Committee. And we're continuing our work on the House Health Care draft 5.1 to S3. And we have with us the chair of the House Health Care Committee Representative Lippert to give us an update on the language here where his committee is and also to help us understand the language a little bit more. I did go through the language as best as I could in the last 45 minutes on draft 5.1. So the committee has some understanding, but I think we need probably a little deeper dive a little bit in the thinking of health care committee. So I'll turn it over to you Representative Lippert. And if you could just introduce yourself for the record. Thank you. Representative Bill Lippert, chair of the House Health Care Committee. And our committee, let me start by saying that our committee has just reviewed and made a few additional changes to language to draft 5.1, which you have all had a copy of. And I can go over what those specific changes are. And to say that our committee voted on a vote of 9.1.1 is recommending this as our amendment to the House Judiciary Committee for sections 5 and section 6. Those are the sections of S3 that we focused our attention on and that was requested from the House Judiciary Committee. So we as a committee do recommend this. Section 5, should I just start by doing, I'm not going to read through, I mean, you have it in front of you, you can read it, but I'm going to summarize or paraphrase and then be open to questions or clarifications. Does that work? That works. Okay, let's do section 5 first. Yes. So section 5 is what I think we all share is an important, I think what's referred to as an inventory and evaluation of mental health services provided by the Department of Corrections to do that inventory and evaluation of services provided by the Department of Corrections. And what we did was expand some of the specifics of that section from what originally had been there. Because there was a, as you can see in B1 lines, I think we have the same copy so we can refer to Page and Line together, is that right? Yes, we do. Yeah, so in, on page 8 lines 14 through 18, it's talking about a comparison between the services that are available in the community throughout Vermont. And as contrasted or compares to those available to inmates in the correctional facilities. So we've, on line 17, we've actually made a minor change, but we think it has some significance. I think what you have in front of you, oh no, actually I think you have this in front of you. So it's currently available. Yes. And we wanted to just be clear that currently available does not mean that it previously said current. We don't need to put a judgment on what's currently available because frankly we think there is more that needs to be done in the community and that should what's currently available should not be just the only baseline against which what's available to correctional inmates when you're making the comparison. So what's currently available is the language that we're recommending there. But we also we go on and in in number two on lines and starting online 19 on page eight. And this is where we'll, I'm sorry. You're, you're talking about the full, the full bill or something because the what we have from for for draft 5.1 is only seven pages. So what are you talking on section five. Yeah. Okay, but he's talking about page eight. Oh, I'm sorry. So, we only have before us sections five, six, and seven so we don't have to. Okay, okay, I'm sorry so the pages will be different. And so represent Kim let me say what we had, we had a request and I thought that's what had been sent to you but if it wasn't I apologize. So sections one through four are sections which have been revised by the House Judiciary Committee. We are not reviewing them in our committee, but our committee members had said, would you put sections five six and seven in the context of the whole bill. So we, we print we are 5.1 and I don't know why yours doesn't have the same but 5.1 as it was presented to our committee had sections one through four. So the full bill has as proposed by the Judiciary Committee in sections one to four and then so I won't refer to page page numbers will be often our versions are different, but refer to section numbers etc. Okay. I'm sorry. Okay. Sorry, Scott, I didn't realize we were. And so there'll be a little harder because we won't have the ease of page numbers and that's right. Okay, let's go. So I was so okay to move on to the. So I'm in section five. There's a and B and I'm on B, no B2. And this is where the chair of your committee, as well as our committee arrived at the fact that the language which we had in this isn't sufficient to really articulate what we're trying to convey our decision was or our proposal as we approved it was on the third line or fourth line of to where it says I'll read the whole thing. So just to how the type frequency and timeliness of mental health services different among Vermont correctional settings, including between men and women's facilities which we felt like that was important so we that's in addition our committee made. And from those mental health services provided to, and this is where I think we're both saying there needs to be a change in language and the language that weren't but I think Sarah helped us with and others in our committee raised the issue. And this is provided to persons under the and should be the Karen custody or under the custody of the Department of Corrections or the commissioner however you. Well what we said anyways, under the custody of the Department of Corrections placed placed in out of state correctional. And I think you're right there is only one out of state correctional facility in terms of the major contract. That's that's not ours price just as facilities although I can hasn't been done yet so I can change it. But that but that's what we were trying to get at was that. Because I'm sorry just a second but Al Cormier says he can join the group if you if you want. Oh that'd be great. Okay, I'll. Phil, if you could send out Alan invite. Yes, I will do talking about this right now. Sorry representative leopard I didn't mean to. Yep, that's fine. So I'll just pause. You can. So the goal is that it's just the out of state beds that we have a contract with course civic. That was that was our intent. Although the issue was raised that there may be individuals elsewhere. We were trying to compare we were thinking we were trying to compare what a facility was able to provide. And if in fact, in your committee's view it should be something broader to include where individual offenders are that that's that's I would say that's for your committee to determine. But we were we were wanting to include the current missus Mississippi right the current Mississippi contract which has been in different states. And I think it's important for the for those out of state beds because the contract lays out what mental health services would be provided. That's the only change for. Come on board. Anything else in section five, that's the only changes in section five, correct. That's the only change our committee is recommending to the current section five as you have it in front of you. That's correct. I might just say that and I can wait till I'll see her if you wish, whatever your preference to explain what else is in section five. Okay, so why don't we hold off here. I know, I don't know if you've seen the language we have representative leopard heroes chair of the house health care committee. I don't know if you've seen the language this is for section. This is for Senate bill three. And it's the section five which deals with DOC and mental health jointly doing an inventory and evaluation of the mental health services. And the health care committee is looking at this and they've got language that's saying they're going, they would like a comparison done as to the type frequency and timelinessness. The mental health services that differ among Vermont correctional settings. So that's to compare between all of our facilities, including between the men and women's facilities. And, and from those mental health services provided to Vermont residents which is an issue we're trying to figure out the language there in out of state correctional facilities. And the issue is let's see what the mental health services are being provided to our folks who are in the Mississippi facility. Okay, so it's the language Vermont residents is not appropriate should it be for persons under the custody of the commissioner corrections. To define the folks who are the 200 folks or 180 folks who are now down in Mississippi. I think, I think that language, just to identify myself Al Cormier, chief of operations for the Vermont Department of Corrections good afternoon. It doesn't work. No, no. And I think this is this would be specific to Mississippi. So those, those individuals committed to the care and custody of the commissioner of the Vermont Department of Corrections housed in contracted out of state facilities. I don't know if you want to add that language in there. So, I wondered about putting in that word contracted. So, we have situations out where we may have one of our Vermont inmates that needs a higher level of custody than we provide, and you're involved in interstate compacts as well. And how if we use the word contracted. Would that bring those folks into the I don't think the intent is to bring those folks because one in one of inmate Vermont inmate may be serving in one state, another one may be serving in another state. And so those those cases in particular, those that go to another another state through the interstate compact process, they are not required to follow Vermont's policies practices, because we transfer them to the custody of that state so they fall under the rules and regulations of that state. So those cases are also detainees so they may be serving federal, for example, individual serving federal time, but they've got a Vermont detainer on them. So they're technically ours with a warrant, but they don't belong to us until they finish their federal time. So they're under the federal requirements. Correct, correct. So, so any of that is any of that contracted. Okay, that's what I'm trying to figure out because you know it's it's part of the interstate compact which is separate federal oversight. But those individuals are required to follow the rules and regulations of that that agencies department or the Bureau of Prisons depending on what what system they may be in. So the only ones that are out of state and under the custody of Vermont Commissioner of Corrections are the ones in Mississippi. Correct. So we could use so the under the custody would cover would be good enough. We don't have to worry about contracts or anything like that. So what you're saying Kurt is if we put in the words persons under the care and custody of the Commissioner of Corrections in out of state correctional in and out of state correctional facility. You're only talking about one facility. Right. Not facilities. Right. Then you're saying we don't have to put in the word contracted. Other folks are under the care and custody of different entities not under the Vermont Department of Corrections. They're either under that particular states custody, or under the federal Bureau of Justice. Yes, but if you really wanted to keep flexibility in the future there's the possibility that remote possibility that we would have those same inmates in two different facilities so it would be plural but that's a long shot. We're only talking between now and January of next year. Yeah, so I think facility would be fine. I don't plan on doing any other contraction next year. Okay. So what I'm hearing is under the care and custody of the Commissioner of Corrections services provided to persons under the care and custody or inmates. We've started really leaning towards incarcerated individuals trying to get away from the term inmate. But yeah, persons incarcerated individuals. So persons would be okay. Under the care and custody of the Commissioner of Corrections. And, and got to put an A and in there out of state correctional facility. Not facilities. Okay. So is this a change that. What's her name. Just blank. Katie McLean. Is that a, is that a change that Katie would make. We are going to communicate our changes to her and this is, this was an area that we identified so we could simply make sure that our language is completely parallel. Yeah. I didn't know here. I think it is. Because I don't think we're going to be doing a separate amendment to house judiciary. I think we're working off of your amendment. Okay. Well, I, if it's agreeable, I will, because we just Katie was not able to be with us this afternoon. So the final draft. And this is so, I mean, this is like, this is not a substantive change. Our committee will be perfectly fine to have your advice on how to make the language work for us. Okay. And work for you. Okay, so we have another question here, Linda. I'm just so I was only going to suggest that you do can custody or control, but that's, you know, that you included that as well. But that's your choice. But I suggest that. I think the normal term is Karen custody of the commissioner corrections. That's that's what's on our minimus from the core, the language that comes from when somebody's remanded to the care, it's remanded to the Karen custody. I don't think we use the term control on the minimuses. So it just tracks. Okay. Okay. I think that's it for that section. And then the rest deals more with the Department of Mental Health, correct. So anything else for Al, I think Al can go back to work. Right. Happy to help. Thank you. I mean, I'll just know. I mean, we had had the benefit of talking with Al, but I just so he's aware, I mean, he'll see the language. But we, we are asking for them to also look at, are there any implications of working with a for profit entity in terms of costs and quality of care? I mean, that won't be a surprise that those are the kinds of things which are raised on a regular basis. And, and, and we also raised the question of quite frankly, whether and we didn't, this is not a conclusion. This is a question as to whether the Department of Mental Health should have any role in terms of oversight of the mental health care of incarcerated individuals, as you say, who are served under your contract. But again, these are questions which we thought should be at least asked and answered. No, makes sense. That's in that's in the bottom. That's number four, where the working group where the assessment of the mental health services, which is done by both do see as well as Department of Mental Health. I'll be reporting back from January of next year. And you'll be also looking at an assessment of whether DMH should provide oversight authority for mental health services provided by the entity with whom do see contracts for healthcare services. So that sounds all right with you now. It does. Yeah, yeah, I think, you know, just thinking about transition and reentry and as we talked about reentry facilities and once those individuals leave the incarcerated setting and go to the community. And they are seeking mental health services DMH is going to be responsible so for us to collaborate on the, on the beginning, before they leave, it makes sense. Okay. Questions in the committee. Questions. Any more questions represent Lippert. Well, I just again, since I'm taking advantage of Al being here. The last, the last area that we had included was just to make sure that the MOU that because there is an MOU between the Department of Corrections and the Department of Mental Health to make sure that it adequately addresses as we describe it the needs of individuals with severe illness or in need of inpatient care. That was the other issue that we would ask that the department, the two departments evaluate that. That makes sense and I mean would that SFI population that we have now we do certainly a lot of work going on between DMH and ourselves with the SFI population and placement and housing so. Anything from the committee. Okay. I think we're out on this. Does that help represent Lippert? Does that help Bill? It's just helpful to hear the Department of Corrections have reviewing that and saying this. Again, we're not drawing a conclusion. We're raising, we're saying these questions should be evaluated. Yeah, and it makes makes perfect sense for us. It's only, I think for us, it's only going to make our system better. Yeah. Great. Okay, thank you Al. It's handy. You can just zoom in and zoom in. Yeah, that's nice. I have to drive down from Waterbury. Right. Have a great day. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Anything from our committee on the committee on this. So we supportive of section five as it's presented to us from healthcare committee. I'm seeing nods. Yes. Okay. Really good changes. I think. So let's go to section six. This is where the bulk of the changes are really done. Yeah. This is our working group for the forensic care. Yes. And so. The charge to the working group comes after the listing of the working group. And the working group is large, but let me just say this testimony that we had from, and you've had, I know you've had testimony from deputy commissioner. He was asked for some additional time. That was what was being asked in the time period was not a realistic time period. And so he also suggested the staging of the work. And implicit in that was the idea that there might be some subgroups that it wouldn't necessarily all be one large working group all the time. And so. That's, that's kind of the conceptual idea, even though it maybe isn't as explicitly stated. There was some discussion about trying to spell that out. We said, look, the departmental health is. Charge with convening this. They have the ability and the authority to. Manage this. So we decided not to try to make it more specific even than it is. But online. Section six. A. The last line of a before it goes to one, it says, including as appropriate with giving them the authority to say, well, this is the group that these are the members that should be a part of this evaluation. Then this is the members. So they get, they get to, they get to do that from our point of view. We did. So again, we've been, you know, I don't know if we were asked to do this specifically, but we had been given a draft of what the Senate, the house judiciary committees redraft was. And so we incorporated a number of their suggestions into our amendment. And so we added the chief superior judge. And representative of the Vermont medical society. Who we had heard from in terms of the president who is actually a forensic psychiatrist. So we had heard from her testimony. And. We incorporated those two suggestions. In number three and 10. And the other, the others are the same as what you've seen before probably. And, but we did change today. I've got. We heard the same testimony as well. The chief justice. The chief superior judge recommended. Be added as did the medical society. So that tracks. So that's consistent with what your committee is thinking and hearing. Today we did make a change in the number of crime victims, representatives, and the persons with lived experience of mental health. And we decided after some committed discussion. To actually have each of those groups have three members. In large part that was these voices can easily get lost in, I mean, this is a group with like judges, states, attorneys. Directors of health care reform, et cetera. And so initially we were said, well, let's have two and two. And then someone said, well, let's have, I think we had a witness who said, you know, if you really want to have people with lived experience. And I think the same could be said for victims, but the testimony is from those with lived experience of mental illness. That it's intimidating, frankly, to be part of a work group where many people are holding positions of authority. Et cetera. And, and that was the reason to actually increase it to, to, and then ultimately our committee said, no, let's say three, three and three. Because these are folks who were asking them not only to come on their own, usually on the, they'll get, they'll get, you know, the compensation, but they're, they're often having to leave their lives to participate in, you know, again, I just, I said it now, I'll say it again. These voices can easily get lost or feel intimidated in the midst of a larger group. And so our recommendation right now is three and three. What do you mean by three and three? Because I'm sorry. Three individuals with lived experience. Are you saying now six individuals? No. No, I'm sorry. I'm saying. Yeah. And actually the draft does have three lived people with those experience, but we said. It says two crime victims. So we're saying three crime victims representatives, which in this draft says two. And staying. That's number 11 online. Yes. Number 11. And yeah. Mark. What's what page is that on? For you. It's line four. Page two. Yeah. Three. Three. Thank you. I'm only used to dealing with millions. I'm not used to dealing with little numbers. Okay. So the two crime victims. Were increased. Yes, we were saying. If they're going to have three people with lived experience and there's, let's have three people with poor. Victims of, you know. We put it. Crime victim representatives. So you got three, three crime victim representatives in. In 11. And you've got three individuals with lived experience of mental illness in 14. That's correct. That's our recommendation. Okay. So we have a question here, Karen. Thanks for clarifying that. Curious who is appointing the three folks with lived experience. I saw for the crime victims at center for crime victim services. I didn't know if it's important to. Designate entity to. Put those other names forward. Be honest in our deliberations. We didn't. Identify that. What we do know is that the department of mental health. And maybe it shouldn't be the department of mental health appointing because they might have. A particular point of view. But. They also do work with a number of peer. Superior service groups. Remont psychiatric survivors and others. It could. So. Good point. We didn't. Don't have an answer. That's right. Is that something bill you should. Try to figure out, or do you want to leave it up to the department of mental health? If it was agreeable to the committee, I might bring that back again informally to our committee to see if we could resolve that before. Incorporating that into our final draft. That might be helpful. Because I think, I think there's members of our committee who would be more. More. More able to articulate that even then I am on the spot. But I. It could be by the department of mental health and consultation with peer. Peer. Peer groups that they work with or something along those lines. That's one of the thoughts that come to my mind. For example, right now in, in the, in the three 15, the bill we just passed. Or that the governor just allowed to go into law without his signature. And this was not an area that was. Controversial for him. But there is a, where there's $150,000 for doing out peer outreach to. Person to with lived experience of mental health. And actually a number of the community mental health centers, the designated agencies also have. Peer. There's an increasing use of peer representatives actually in the outreach to others who are in crisis themselves at this point in time. It's, it's increasingly seen as a. Increasingly valuable service. So I think there's, there's more contact with. A network of. What I'd call peers around the. Issues of psychiatric hospitalization and mental health. So maybe just bring that concern back to your committee. Who appoints. Okay. I can do that. But thank you for pointing that out. I don't think. Just kind of. And that was not actually in the original. I mean. I think it was in the, it was actually in the original draft from the Senate, but I don't know. Thank you. Anything else? So those are the changes that we recommended in terms of membership. I'm going to highlight some of the things that are here. Rather than again, not trying to read every line to you. You can, you've read it. But we incorporated from the. Again, from. I think it was in the, it was actually in the original draft from the Senate, but I don't think they had it. We incorporated from the, again, from the house judiciary's. Draft including making sure to consider the importance of victims rights in the forensic care process. And that's incorporated in this draft. And again, when talking about. In talking about competency restoration models. We, we added several things. One is that. And again, this is based on some of the testimony that not some people make the assumption that competencies, competency restoration can only be done through the use of medication, but there are others who believe that there may be abilities to restore competency in models that do not rely on involuntary medication. So we explicitly said that those models ought to be taken into consideration. Again, some of what we know from our work in the mental health department is that. I mean, and there are differing opinions. And we in Vermont have multiple models. We actually fund several models that do not. And that provide care outside of an involuntary medication. Model. Soteria house in Burlington is a model. Where involuntary medication is not a part of the care. Or medication generally, I think. And also a listen. But we wanted to at least make sure that that was taken into consideration. And. I think it's later. You'll find a reference later on in the bill, which I'll point out that also touches on that. Again. I'm moving on to like E on that list. See where I am. I think that's a good point. Because I think you've, you've seen the language about competency restoration models. We took out specific recommendations, references to the Connecticut program. And, and we thought, let's, let's not constrain what people can look at. And this is where this is frankly where I think the deputy commissioner said, we, we will, we will want to reach out to regional and national experts. As an example. We're going to be able to, we're going to be able to reach out broadly and not be constrained. But in E, we, again, it's, it may seem. Minor, but it's actually significant that we, you can easily fall into talking about people who have been found incompetent to stand trial. Or not guilty by reason of insanity. Right. And I think that, that, that they, that particularly in incompetence stand trial, you, you, you have not been adjudicated. And so therefore you're presumed innocent. So we felt like that needed to be made explicit. Because you are presumed innocent. You're, you're, you're the right, ultimately, if you regain competency to have a, to have a vigorous defense. And there are instances in fact where. We know that that defense will be successful and you will not have been adjudicated guilty of the crime at hand. Again, in line G and F F again recognizes that not all incompetence to, to stand trial is based on mental illness. There are other instances of. Intellectual disability traumatic brain injury and dementia. And then G. Again, I think we took this again from the, from the house judiciary committees model where they made an explicit reference to the fact that where, which we implied in a lot of our language, but we said they may were explicit. We like this. They should look at models for, for forensic treatment. Other than inpatient facilities, including community based treatment. And if there are models that are successful in other locations, as we're looking at how to address our needs around forensic issues. We should look at community based models. We should look at non institutional models as well as institutional models. So there was a question that came up on this one. That. Why are we. Just looking at. Something other than inpatient facilities. And what was the thinking there? Because as a bill came through, it was really looking at an inpatient facility model. And I think we're operating from the assumption that that will be absolutely looked at, but that we wanted to be sure that in addition. In addition to inpatient facilities. Alice, the question actually was, why are we highlighting one over the other? When they should all be addressed. All aspects of whether it's a facility, not a facility, community based, whatever. Why should one of those options be highlighted? That was the question. Well, you know, it's interesting. I think that's represent Morrissey, I believe. Yes. Yeah. I think. Interestingly enough. I don't think it was our intention to exclude because I think we were trying to make sure that there was an inclusion of non facility based and if that's the language that's here, that somehow inadvertently excludes. I don't think that's what's intended, but. Again, maybe that's a place for the. Judiciary committee to modify our language or I could bring it back to our committee. Because again, I went again, Bill, I simply when I asked the question, I guess I was assuming and maybe I'm wrong in assuming this. But I think the other thing is that when this group gets together, they are going to uncover every angle of this discussion. And it shouldn't weigh towards one or the other, or if there's three or four possibilities, it should never weigh towards one. And to have the specific language for one of the possibilities in there, I think puts it out kind of in the highlights it as. You know, I think we should be looking at that. Instead of everyone being on the same level playing field. And yes, I don't want it to be lost in the shuffle, but I would think all of that should be looked at from our last specs, but that's just my humble opinion. I actually agree with you. I actually do agree with you. And I think, but I think, and this may have been, and maybe this is true for this discussion, but I do agree with you on the judiciary's. Amendment. I think there was, I'll speak for myself. I felt like the initial version provided by the Senate. Went directly in the direction went, went right to the idea of a facility. And when it talks about repurposing a building and. And we were concerned that we said, we need to step back and say, whether we need a forensic facility. And I mean facility. I mean, I think it was in, we picked up on the language that the House Judiciary Committee had and said, we need to make explicit that we're not talking just about a facility, but about other. Community based treatment options, et cetera. Maybe there's a better way to do this language. So that, so that it spells it out that all options are evaluated. That's what I hear you saying, am I correct? Yeah, yeah. Absolutely. Because there may be even options. We, you and I haven't even thought of, right? That are there, but I think it should be all encompassing of everything that's available. Look at, and again, not saying it's a facility. Or community or what? Let's look at the whole picture on this picture of what this is. So I'm just, I don't disagree with what Mary is saying. I'm just trying to, this is our preliminary report. Correct. This is a preliminary report from the age to our committees on February 1st of 2022. So would they at that point be able to tell, would they be able to report on models of forensic treatment within an inpatient facility at all? I'm not, I'm not negating what Mary is asking. I'm just trying to see the layout of the language. This is what would be included in the preliminary report. Auto before February 1st, 2022. DMH would submit this preliminary report to our respective committees addressing any gaps. And the current system, mental health system opportunities for improving public safety and addressing needs. And consideration of the victim's rights. If I might comment. Yeah. Isn't the basis of this preliminary, preliminary report. Isn't that going to be the basis of any other information and other things that come forward? So it's important. I would think that this is done upfront looking at all aspects. Because that's what I think you're going to end up basing on. That's what you're going to end up basing on. So before kicking the can down to 2022. You know, there's the time that's why they were lengthening the time to do this report and do it correctly. Is that that's where you're going to have the bulk of your report coming back. So if you're only kind of doing this. I guess preliminary type of. You know, any other committees and commissions are going to look at it. I'm sure it will be reviewed and continue to be reviewed, but your bulk of your information should be coming. During this next period of time that the whole group. The groups are together. But again, my humble opinion. So I'm just trying to follow this. I have the phone here. So I'm just trying to follow the flow here. So we have a preliminary report on February 1st. Which would lay out a through. H. And the question is, do we also want them to report. On, on an inpatient facility. July 1st, 2022. On February 1st, 2022. There's another second, there's a second preliminary report. That's going to be submitted to justice oversight committee on whether or not a forensic treatment facility is needed in Vermont. So that's six months. Five months after. February 1st. So what I'm hearing is that. Inpatient facilities for that report in February. That. That. The room. That. We should also include a preliminary report in terms of the inpatient facility. In the first report. And then follow that up. Five months later. In the second report. Can I. Can I jump in here? I think, I think what I'm hearing is that. There's. I think, and I would want to step back and make sure I'm not misunderstanding further, but. That. That we, in reacting to the language that was leading, I believe, to assuming there was a need for a facility. Inpatient facility that we. Included this language in G. But I think what, what I hear Mary saying, and I think I agree. That what we're really asking them to do is in the preliminary report, look at models for forensic treatment. That includes a forensic facility and inpatient facility, but also includes others. So, but the language perhaps is better, better, might better read. Include models for forensic treatment. Including inpatient facilities. Community based treatment models. And any other models or something along that line. Because I think that. That sounds good. And I think, I think that, that still allows. And I think we need to, I'm going to say, Mary, I think we do need to call out the community based models or any other models. Because that's important because some. Absolutely. And I completely agree with it. That's why I said it. They should all go beyond a level playing field and whether you have to. In language, put it there. That's great, but it should be there where you're not highlighting just one technically over another. I think it's important that they should all be there. Okay. So Bill, what you're saying just so people are clear in terms of what the language could look like. This is my, this is my best suggestion right now. And I would want to step back and kind of am I missing something, but I think there, I think this is point well taken. That somehow the, the, the. I think it's implicit in the language, at least for us, but I think there should be a forensic facility because later we're saying, should there be a forensic facility? But I think what make it explicit. Models for forensic treatment, including. Inpatient facilities, community based treatment or any other models. Right. So you would take out other than. And put in including. I think so at this point that, you know, I think that's what I'm, because that doesn't take anything away. It doesn't say they're not going to look at community base, but it looks at, it looks at the community base. And it's not going to look at all the different models. Because you need to do that in order to then come to the conclusion. In the next report as to whether or not there should be a facility. Right. And that next report is five months later. Yeah. Right. So I. So in terms of process. I can suggest a possibility since I'm already taking something else back to our committee that we take some of your suggestions back and see about incorporating them. So that we're, so that we're providing judiciary with one amendment. Is that, I mean, if we could, I think that would be. That would be a help. That would be very helpful. Is the, I know Mary is comfortable with this language. Our other folks comfortable. I'm saying not. Okay. So if you could bring that suggestion back to your bill. I will. That's great. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you, Mary. I think I right. I think we have some time tomorrow morning, unexpectedly that when we can kind of revisit this, my committee is going to say, I thought we were done. We got kind of tomorrow morning too. Yeah. Okay. And then an H. Any additional recommends to address the gaps. So that's sort of a catch on. That's a catch on. Okay. And then number two is really this next preliminary report. Which is based on number one. That we just finished. On whether or not a forensic treatment facility is needed in Vermont. And that would be July 1st. 2022. And then in January 1st of 2023. That would be the final report would come to all of our committees. The refines and finalizes the recommendations. Of those preliminary reports. That are in one and two. Above. Right. Which would include the size scope and fiscal impact of any forensic treatment facility. If, if one is recommended in subsection two, which is that report in July. If they recommend a forensic unit or facility here in Vermont. That. For the beginning of the next biennium. January 1st. There would be a recommendation. There would address the size scope and fiscal impact. Of any forensic facility. If it's recommended back in July. If it's not recommended, then that might be moved. Or it might morph into something else into forensic treatment services. Or something along the lines as opposed to a facility. Both options are out there. For more study refinement. So we have a better direction on where to go two years from now or year and a half really. From now. So. Are folks okay with that language? In the process. Okay. I'm seeing nods. Mary. Are you okay with that? I am. Okay. So C, this is another report. And it's in February of 2022. That's a recommendation. And it's a recommendation. And it's in a fiscalization order and they have violated their conditions. This was language. It was adopted on the floor at the Senate. And I might say this was initially put into this statutory change recommendations in the first part of the bills that came from the Senate and everybody in the. Apparently we didn't, we did not take test minors. But the house judiciary committee said they had consistent recommendations to take it out of the statute. And they had to take it out of the statute. And put it into the study with them. Because there's, there's quite a bit of controversy around whether and how there should be notification. Regarding a violation of non-orders of non-hospitalization. As an example, we heard deputy commissioner. Fox saying. Is someone missing one. Dose of medication of violation. And should there be notification? Not necessarily. But it is a violation. If someone misses an appointment. Should that be a violation? That there's, there's the department is saying this is. The language as proposed was overly. Prescriptive. And. They were not in support of it at that time. But they said, okay, well, well, let's talk about it. And that's what this section basically says. So. Let's move to. When this is also for the forensic working group. To look at. This is D one. So can I jump in here for a minute? Yeah. I think this is, these are some considerations. To be taken to, to taken into. Consideration in the overall. Preparation of all of these reports. And that they should. Consider social and racial equity issues. Again, that was frankly in this judiciary's committee report. We were a little embarrassed. We hadn't included ours, but we imported it to ours. Because in fact. Again, useful to note that there is a disproportionate, there is a disproportionate. Number of people of color in both our psychiatric facilities, as well as our correctional system. And so therefore this is simply underscoring the fact that racial equity issues. And. Need, need to be thought about in the course of. Anything that we're doing here with. Thinking about further. Forensic needs as well. And so our committee strongly supported that. So what this section is saying that on that report. That's coming back. On July 1st. That's the second preliminary report. That the working group should really look. At if they decide to do a forensic treatment facility, they need to look at A and B. Within that facility. Correct. Yes. So I'm clear on the dates. I wasn't clear on the dates before some clear on the dates now. So then the question was asked. On B consistency with general assembly's policy of working. Tournamental health system that does not require coercion or the use of impotentary meds. The question was asked. Is there a general assembly policy somewhere? Yes. This is directly a quote out of statute. Yes. The general assembly has adopted. We have adopted as the general assembly. Some principles. They're aspirational. Not saying that we don't, if everything doesn't comply with this, that it can't be done. But the ad, one of the aspirational principles is that the. That Vermont is what would work toward, and this is the quote, work toward a mental health system that does not require coercion or the use of involuntary medication. It occurs to me that I might. Include a citation there. In statute. A citation to the statutory reference so that people know where to go to find that. Cause that was the question. And I said, well, it's probably in statute. So I'm going to, I'm going to make a note here to add a citation for that. Isn't it amazing? Sometimes when you have other people look at it, what you can see. You know, it's, it's like you read it. You get, you get kind of, you read it and you read it. And you read it. And you think you got it. And then someone else looks at it with fresh eyes and go, Oh, Oh. Right. No, that's, that's. Little bubble. That's exactly, that's exactly right. And then these, these considerations. Would be reflected in the final report. That is pursuant to be three. Okay. And that's the report that comes in January 1st, 2023. Yeah. And that's actually, that's what I was referring to early when I said these, these need to be incorporated into all of the final report. That's, that's what you're referencing there. Yeah. And then he goes into your accessing your regional and national expertise. And again, that reference is also the $25,000. They said, we really need some financial support to do this. And that was the recommended. I don't know that I shared it with your committee, but we had an email from the department of mental health saying, our judgment is 20 to $25,000 would be sufficient to for us to be able to do this. And so we were waiting for that. And so we were waiting for that. And then we were waiting for that. And then we were waiting for that. And so we were waiting. Our judgment is 20 to $25,000 would be sufficient to for us to be able to. Reach out to regional and national experts. The previous draft that we looked at of yours was draft 3.1. And it was X. Yeah, it was just a blank. It was a, we were into it. We were waiting in anticipation of. Recommendation from department of mental health. And I did share with the committee that was thought that would need to be an appropriation to support this working group. So where are we as a committee on. I need to tell you one, one other. Can I, are you talking about the appropriation? I'm sorry. I interrupted you. Sorry. I just want, is there anything else on section six? Yes. Okay. We discovered again, along the lines of what maybe it was representative Martell said, we looked at this and looked at this with ledged council. And then we finally, we looked at it today and went. That's not what should be there. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. In lines in G. It says members of the working group are not state employees. Wait a minute. That's right. I mean, you want, you want members. Wait a minute. No, no, no, no, no. What's wrong here is that. What's wrong here. There's some standard language. This is not the right. Because there's a lot of this working group or not state employees. But they are, they are employed like by the hospital. So the language, we need to just substitute in here this, the boilerplate language that says, for those essentially says for those who are not already doing this in their paid employment. And that then will refer likely to the victims, victims, representatives, and those with lived experience. Not pull in people who are not state employees, like someone from the Vermont medical society. Because we don't, we're not playing. We're not, we're not going to pay those. Right. We're not going to pay those victims. And I think that's the intention. So that's going to be replaced with a regular language to choose. Right. So for section six, are we okay as a committee with what healthcare committee has proposed in this language? Are we okay with this? Seeing thumbs up non CS. Yes. Thumbs up looks good. Mary. I have three suggested I'm going to take back to my committee that you, that came out of this discussion. Yes. Yeah. Right. With the changes. Yes. So right now we're good to go on this with those changes bill. Okay. I see Linda with their thumb up. So that's good. So then there is this new section seven. And I've kind of briefed the committee on this a little bit. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm not a justice oversight committee, though it says creation of committee. It's not creating a new committee. It's already there. Yeah. And our committee members went, why, how many communities are we creating? I said, no, no, no, no, no, no. This is something that already exists. Right. So. Your committee was okay with having one member at large on the committee. As long as the Senate's fine. Yeah, right. This may be a battle with the Senate. No, I just, I think I want to just be clear. I think it's actually critical. That the house healthcare have a representative, have a member on the justice oversight. The joint justice oversight committee. Because issues of health and mental health regularly come up and they will come up increasingly. So as we talk about forensic issues. And about healthcare. And it's, it's, it's been a noticeable. Absence as I've had to attend and sit in the audience while. The joint corrections or the joint justice oversight committee talks about issues, which are actually the jurisdiction of our committee. And we're not able to participate. However, it gets achieved. That's all I care about. And we do change sometimes the makeup of this committee, because at one point the house education committee had a member. That was a member on the justice oversight. And now we've kind of gone away from, from. That issue within DOC. We've taken care of it. In some form. So then it keeps kind of. Melding. For that. It was okay with the suggestion that Sarah brought to us. And that you had previewed with me. Which is to say have two at large senators and one at large house member. That's the committee. That's the committee that's designated house healthcare committee member. Right. Because for, for the committee in the Senate. Senate health and welfare committee has both medical and mental health. Where our human services committee only has the health care. I mean, you have healthcare. The substance abuse. Right? Substance abuse. and health care. Kurt? I just was not sure what you said about the members at large. So now there's instead of one from the House and the Senate, there's just one from the Senate. No. What we're proposing is if you're going to include a member of health care committee, you need to include a member from the health care committee on the House side, not on the Senate side. So we also have a member at large that we need to keep, we want to keep. So on the House, so we're increasing the membership from 10 to 12. So on the House, you would have a member from health care and you'd still have your one member at large. On the Senate side, because Senate health and welfare covers both health and mental health, you don't need another member from there. So in order to have six members on the Senate side, you now have two members at large in the Senate instead of one. Now I'm totally confused. How many members? 12. The committee shall be composed of 10 members. So first sentence. Well, we're increasing it to 12. So why do we say composed of 10 members? That's the old committee. It's the old language. It should be 12. Can I just say that we changed this? That was our recommendation initially and we changed it in conversation today in response to what your committee kind of telegraphed to us as a proposal. Okay. So what I have is not what we're really dealing with. Okay. That's fine. Thank you. That's why there's a disconnection there. Disconnect. Disconnect you. Our side has already been appointed. So instead of pulling something back, just add in the Senate, I don't know where they are at this point. So I'm seeing okays with this. Okay. So Bill, I think we're good to go with some of those changes. Alice, the only thing is what are we going to put for the title creation of committee? Because that really isn't creating a new committee. So what will be in that line? Well, that's current statute. We were suggesting putting in, they have the informational or what are they called? They're inside of three asterisks on each end that give you basically information. So they would say either pull it right on the statute where it says joint justice oversight committee or give an informational piece that says it's for that committee. Right. Because I think that's important. Yeah. Otherwise it's confusing. Right. Well, it looks like we're adding the 100th commission or committee to be studying something. That's true. That's true. Yeah. And that's not what's going on. Right. So we're okay when I'm picking up from committee members with going through the draft, making those recommended changes that you seem amendable to Bill that you're going to then refer back to your committee. I think when you get your final draft, the final version with these changes and go through them to also let us know or see the draft and maybe we can just coordinate all of our votes tomorrow morning to be in support of it. Does that make sense to the committee members? Are we sure we need two new members on this justice oversight committee? You want to let go of butch? Well, I don't know. I'm just just like there's so many committees and so many people out there that and why is it an even number? Why is it one? An even number? Because you're balancing the House and the Senate. Okay. That's why. It's not like a study committee where you want an odd number so you can't steal me. Yeah. Well, I'll see out of this. Well, it's true. It's true. No, this is to represent both bodies equally. Sarah? I just think that actually adding in the perspective of the health care and the mental health care into the so many of the discussions around justice reinvestment that we've been doing over the years will will really be a great help and I think will help us as we work on legislation moving forward that will be informed by that perspective. So especially with regard to this, the forensic yeah, I'll just say, I don't want to say forensic unit, but it's not necessarily a unit that we're talking about. It's a piece. However, it's a piece. Yeah. So I think it's a good addition to expand that committee. So logistically, may I ask a question? House judiciary indicated that they will arrive and send the link that they will be meeting at nine o'clock tomorrow morning. It was sounding as though at that time, they were looking for and I don't know if it's the same in Representative Lippert's committee. I think they were looking to kind of have our overview or our recommendation from our committee at that time. Is it likely that will be after the fact later in the morning possibly or what? What do you think, Bill? Should we I can try I can like to two of the there's there are three suggestions that came out of this discussion. The first we'd already agreed to in our committee just a matter of the language that was in terms of the out of state. And the last is adding a citation that's straightforward. The second one is the one just clarifying that we had discussions with Representative Morrissey and us about having all the models looked at. I think that I think that should not be a major issue. I want to make sure to be honest, Mary, I want to make sure I step back and go now tonight. Did I suggest something that didn't make sense? But I think what you're suggesting and what I suggested is consistent with where we were really going. I will try to process this with our committee via email this evening. And if if I can get everybody on board, then we'll have Katie do a clean draft so that we hopefully could present something. And I'll just basically we did a straw vote. And I'll just ask people to do a straw vote by if I can try to accomplish this this evening, I will, because I think that would then put us in line for providing that draft to your committee, which you are I hear you saying in a preliminary way. Anyway, your committee is ready to support. And if that's, and I'll check in with Representative Grad, who's the chair of judiciary and see if we can't line everything up. Right, I was just going to suggest that so that they are anticipating responses from our committees when we are not quite there yet. But I'm sure we can get her done. I'll check in with Maxine to see whether how critical it is to have something at nine o'clock. And but I think maybe we can achieve it. Which means for our committee, we should probably think of coming together at quarter nine to start and then just quickly take a vote. And I might need to do the same. If I can't get it done by email, I might just ask our committee to weigh in it to convene at eight 30 or quarter nine just to get that taken care of. Yeah. So, Bill, you and I should be in contact this evening to see how far along you are. Yeah. Committee and then that will determine what we do here. Yeah. I think we're close. I think we're very, very, very close. Karen. Yes, just confirming with Representative Lippert, you mentioned the three things and was there the fourth thing as well as figuring out the who is going to designate the folks with lived experience? Yep. Yep. Yes, I think you're right. I'm just looking here. I do have four points. Yep. That's you're right. There are four things and that is the that's the other one. Yep. Thank you. Appreciate it. It's hard sometimes to put all this. Think about it on your screen. Just trying to keep track. It helps to have others thinking as well. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. So, I think the committee is supportive at this point of this draft with these changes. I just want to confirm this. Folks, we're okay with this and pending any major changes. I think it should be a pretty quick vote tomorrow on it. And Bill, I want to thank you and your committee for really doing the heavy lifting on this. As I've stated to this committee here, our committee, we're really coming up to speed in terms of the forensic world. We deal with corrections and then the mental health piece we really haven't grappled with too too much within the world of corrections and with forensic in terms of what the process of the court process for incompetency to stand trial and the sanity defense and how all that plays out. So we were coming up to speed on on those processes and the issue of being competent to stand trial or insanity defense. So I really appreciate the work that your committee did on this because it would have been a heavy lift for us to do this. And I just I'll just say I think I think increasingly your committee as the Committee of Jurisdiction for Corrections is going to be faced with dealing with more and more issues of health and mental health. And so I think we're going to need to actually work collaboratively because I think frankly one of the issues has been that the issues of health and mental health services for individual incarcerated individuals I'm going to adopt. Is it Al? Yeah. His phrase for incarcerated individuals has in some way slipped under the radar of anybody's jurisdiction. And that's I think that leaves Department of Corrections both being responsible and in some instances Yeah, there need to be other parties involved I think at some level at least in our jurisdictional committees if not otherwise. This allows for an evaluation of that. Well thank you for your help. Thank you. I hope I speak for the committee and saying thank you for the work that your committee has done. It's been a terrific help for us. So I'll get on it and see if I can get those four things resolved. And then you and I can connect later on this evening when I know where you are. Your committee is Bill. Yeah. Okay. Good. Great. Thank you all. Thank you. Good to visit. Yes. Now you can go back upstairs. Yeah, I'm just going to say I still talk about life is going to go down to the Institutes Corrections and Institutions Committee. But for some members they've never even been in the building as a legislator. So it's like where are you going? Well we get more exercise in the building because at least we're going up and down the stairs instead of just getting off the chair here and walking out to the kitchen. Okay. Thank you all. Thank you. Okay folks. I think that was pretty good. We got I think our committee put in some really good input and suggestions. So I feel pretty good about it. How do you folks feel? Okay. Really good changes. Yeah. Because it really doesn't lock us into the original language about a facility language that really good changes on all the way around. I wanted to make sure it was balanced and I think Mary brought up a good point. And I really appreciate that. Yeah. So we've got kind of a light schedule this week for committee. We don't have anything scheduled for tomorrow morning on this. We will be meeting on this and I will know more as the evening progresses. We build doing the work with Katie, the drafts, the legal staff for the committee as well as getting back to his committee. And once I hear something from Bill that things seem to be okay. Hopefully we have new language. I'll connect with Phil to get the language out and then set up a time. So I would be prepared to meet tomorrow morning around either 8 30 or a quarter of nine. Seeing that Mary has to be in judiciary at nine o'clock. Is that correct Mary? That's what they said, but that was why I asked the question. Are you and Bill going to talk with chairman grad to say, you know, we're in the last stages of finalizing the proposal. And basically the language came from the healthcare. I guess I would be, and I don't want to assume anything here. I guess I would be because they said something about me testifying. So basically I think I would just be reporting that the committee agreed with the language and language changes as is presented in this file would be, I guess, draft six one. And so that's technically all I would be saying, correct? I believe so for this particular, right. So, so I will check with Maxine. I think Bill also said he would check with Maxine in terms of trying to find more of the time frame if it's really at nine o'clock or might be more a little later for that. Right. And that's all I was saying so that we are on the same page and they're not waiting for something that is probably likely to come momentarily but not maybe right at nine o'clock. Right. Right. Just to cover our basis. So I will do that. And then so be on the lookout for an email from Phil in terms of what time we meet tomorrow morning. It could be eight thirty. It could be quarter nine. Hopefully knock on wood. Everything is okay with the language. And we can just quickly take a vote on the draft. Okay. Make sense to the committee. Analyst, when did you say we were getting possibly the Capitol Bill out of the corner? The last I heard from Senator Benning, they're planning on voting it out tomorrow afternoon. So if they voted out tomorrow afternoon, it goes to Senate approves. And it might be on the floor as early as Friday or next week on Tuesday or Wednesday. Depends. You know, the Senate operates on a little different schedule than the House in terms of when they bring things up or how soon it gets kicked out of Senate approves. So we probably as a committee, we would see the Capitol Bill as a version, as it voted out of Senate Institutions Committee. We would see that Wednesday afternoon or Wednesday evening or Thursday morning, whatever that timeframe is. And then it could change in Senate approves. It could change on the floor of the Senate. So we would physically not get the bill back until next week. That's the thinking at this point. So late tomorrow, maybe Thursday morning, we'd see a version of the Capitol Bill in the spreadsheet. See where they made the changes. Yeah, I know, but they're not voting it out, Phil. Now, it was a conversation I had with Senator Benning or email. And he said he was hoping to get it out tomorrow. That was his plan being Wednesday. They put it on their agenda to have people pay attention. So that was my understanding from Senator Benning. To pay attention to the two changes they made while I was in thinking the ship. I think they're making a few more. Okay, I'm just I'm just being a tab sarcastic. Pardon me, pardon me. I think they're hitting something in Springfield. I wonder why? Bargaining chip. And I think they're also in conversation with the administration about the 113 million for the ARPA funds. And they need to be in conversation with it was Senate Appropriations Committee as well. There's some moving pieces over there that they have to work through. Alice. Yeah, I was I've been following the Senate's agenda too, just to see where they were that were what they were up to. And I noticed that that they had folks from the administration coming in to talk to them about ARPA. Would we do the same thing over here on our side? I hope we will when we will. We got to see where the Senate institutions ends up, what the administration is proposing for that. We don't know where we don't know what's going to happen over there with ARPA at this point. So we'll have a better idea when the bill comes out. I don't know what's going to happen. No idea for that. Some of those conversations are even beyond our committee too for that. So we're in a wait and see. We're in a holding pattern of a capital bill at this point. Things just, you know, things change. It's part of the process. It's just like we changed some Senate bills. They changed some House bills. Yeah. So we'll see. And then when we see those changes, and this is one thing, Sarah, we talked about earlier when we convene, when you were upstairs, it's like, what's the process for when the Senate version comes back? Yeah. And you can concur with further proposal of amendment. And that's negotiations that you do with our counterparts and Senate institutions. To modify some of the changes and see if they agree to. If they don't agree, then you set up a conference committee. It's so funny. Healthcare had the same conversation about the process. So, and your explanation matches up with Representative Lippert. So yeah. There's advantages to not going to a conference committee. There's some disadvantages. There's advantages to going to a conference committee and there's some disadvantages. So it cuts many ways for us, but we will be setting up time to have Senator Benning come in and walk us through the changes. And if they vote the bill out tomorrow afternoon, that's something filled that maybe we can schedule with Senator Benning on Thursday morning would be a thought. Because I know he's in Senate judiciary in the morning. We're going to be tied up on the floor really long on Thursday afternoon. So I'm hesitant to do that on Thursday afternoon, unless we come back at 12 o'clock or something, if we don't have much going on Thursday morning, we could work through come back at 1130, maybe and work through till one o'clock or something. There's a lot of changes. So that might be in play for Thursday. So we'll wait and see. Any questions, any thoughts? So we're done our work today. So let's finish up on YouTube. And we'll see everyone back on YouTube tomorrow morning.