 Time to talk about S3 and the amendment that we would offer before third reading, I think I guess I would offer. You have that. Yeah, should I pull that one up. Yeah, please. Yeah. The moment or two background I'll sort of mention as I'm bringing the bringing the text up is that as Senator Sears mentioned this is a an amendment for S3, which is the competency to stand trial and Sandy defense bill. And you remember there was discussion in the committee about the requirements that the bill has for notification. In particular, there's two different pieces of notification that are that are in there to different stages of the process really that that notification kicks in or two different types of notification. And the, you'll recall, I'm sure that one piece that was really geared toward victim notification in particular required that essentially when when someone who's been committed to DMH custody, because they've been found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity, the there's notification that's required when essentially when the person's So this is not the amendment right here that I'm talking about just giving a moment of background. So remember, there's one piece of notification is when the person who's been committed. Say if they are going to be discharged from DMH custody or if they're going to be moved into the community on an order of non hospitalization. Or, or as well as that they're a scone from DMH custody, there's notification that's required to the prosecutor essentially who then has to pass that information along to the victim. That's not what this amendment goes to this is the other type of notification that's required and this is when a person is already in the community on an order of non hospitalization so this isn't a question of their status changing the way that I just described the the victim notification piece working. This is triggered by a different circumstance which is that the person is in the community on an order on an OH order found hospitalization. But they they either don't comply they're failing to comply with the OH in some way, or the alternative treatment that they're getting is not adequate to meet the person's needs. So those are your two sort of triggering events under that notification. And if that's the case, then the commissioner of mental health has to has to notify notify the prosecutor. So the question that came up in the committee was well, there were a couple of questions one was well how what what counts as a triggering event you know what would it mean for for the person either to to be not not in compliance or the treatment or not working to meet their needs what, what are we talking about for the kinds of events that would constitute that sort of, you know that would meet that standard and then require notification to the prosecutor, and not only that the next question was, and then, if that did happen, what does the prosecutor do with the information. So those were I think the main questions the committee had so the thought had been that the committee would ask this, the forensic care working group to look at those two questions and that's what the amendment does and that's really the second sense. So the first sense just says okay, the working group that you've already established in the bill has to consider that notification process which is the one I just described when the commissioner has to provide notification to the prosecutor. After becoming aware that a person in the community on an own age is either not complying with the order, or the alternative treatment is not adequate to meet the person's needs. In that case, the working group is then asked to, or actually required to shall make any in them online 10, any recommendations it seems necessary to clarify the process, including recommendations as to what facts and circumstances should trigger the notification to the prosecutor. So that's that first piece what what's going to require notification. And secondly, any recommendations as to steps that the prosecutor should take after receiving the notification. So that's the gist of it, the only other thing I wanted to point out real quickly is that I know there had been some talk about, you know, the language itself in other words that the triggering language that the person's either not complying with the order alternative treatment is not adequate to meet the person's. Treatment needs and I just want to. Yeah, sorry, go ahead. Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were done. I just got one more piece I just want to bring to the committee's attention just in case it, you know, perhaps comes up on the floor as well. Just and I mentioned it this last meeting I just couldn't quite, I didn't have the statute at the tip of my tongue. So that language is in the existing ONH statute if you look at the very first sentence under the existing non order of non hospitalization statute. If the court finds it a treatment program other than hospitalization that's the ONH is it is that adequate. It's not an A it's in B sorry. If it's at any time during the specified period so that's another word that's when the person is on the OH, it comes to the attention of the court either that the patient is not complying with the order, or that the alternative treatment is not been adequate to meet the patient's needs, then the court may after hearing consider other alternatives modify the order, etc. So I just wanted to bring that to the committee's attention, maybe even just also Senator Sears as well in case anyone were to ask the question during the report, where's that language come from. It's right out of the existing statute on circumstances that are that can trigger in the case of the existing statute, the court, having to consider modifying the ONH or entering a new one. So it's not, it's not language that was made up out of nowhere. Before we go any further, Peggy, could you email us a copy of the bill as past the committee. Sure, I think I did but I'll do it again. No problem. If you could please. I don't have one. No problem. Phil, Phil had a question first but I have a question also. So I'm just wondering, in B, does this mean, in other words, what I'm wondering about is, could a private citizen bring, enter, get to the court to make a complaint I mean would they be allowed to make a file a complaint with the court, in order to get some action going, or does it have to be the state's attorney or someone official. The existing statute, I think it's phrased very broad says, at any time it comes to the court to the attention of the court. So I don't think there's a limitation on how it can be brought to the court's attention so there's certainly nothing prohibiting a citizen from providing some sort of notice to the court that that's going on. That's helpful. Yes, my, I see that you're paralleling the language from right from this. I'm wondering, not complying as one thing, not adequate as another and not available as a third. Does, does the court to read adequate as including not available. In other words, let's, let's say that someone was assigned a treatment, and then, as has happened many times in the past, turns out not to be available. It's not really accurate to say that they're not complying. And it's not accurate to say that it's not adequate because if they were able to take it it might be adequate. That's what I'm saying. Mm hmm. Yeah. I was going to suggest in the other language that we say, adequate or available. But that obviously breaks with your trying to use the exact language from the statute. Yeah. And, and the only point about that I would flag is that not that you couldn't make the parallel change elsewhere is that is that the underlying not the, not even the existing statute put the bill, the underlying full version of s3. This tracks that language. I so you'd want to make it if you did want to make that change which you certainly could, you'd want to have that other amendment made to the bill also. And then I'm guessing that a court would treat adequate as including available. So, so in other words, if they were confronted with with someone who had been ordered an alternative treatment, and then that treatment proved unavailable, then adequate would not adequate would describe that. Yeah, I would read it that way. And then, okay, you know that there's an alternative treatment that is unavailable is almost by definition inadequate, right. Yeah, yeah. Okay, so sounds good. Yeah. Try to pull the language down center series we want to keep. Yeah, no, that's fine. I'm trying to. So what are people. I mean, it doesn't take anything out is that correct it just puts this. No, just puts this in. I'm trying, I just found my copy of the bill. A copy of the bill. Thank you Peggy, I did find it. Yeah, and I just recented everyone, but it's, it's in section six of the working group. And it adds to be it's the working on forensic care working group. Look at good idea. Anybody with a problem of offering this for third reading. Great. So I have a, I have a, the proofed and edited copy of the amendment center series that when I first sent it was still with the editors but they finished with it. So I'll send you the final copy right now. There's a possibility that. I won't be reporting S3 today. I have to take my wife. Her second shot. So if I don't know what the, what the floor will look like today. And when we get to it so we may have to pass over us three. If we do, then I would offer an amendment on one Tuesday. So if I sent it to you and Peggy, you can send it to John boomers at work. Yeah, yeah. Okay. I think Peggy does it and then she sends it to John and them and then I have to send it to them saying I'm okay with it. Okay. Something like that it's really convoluted but it's. So this is different than something we're voting out right. Yes, well it's an amendment from me, but I'm going to be able to say that the committee supports the amendment. I'll send it to him and CCU on it. Just, I don't want to get in trouble with John. No, but wait until Eric sends you the edited. Right. Yeah, we'll do a good week folks. Tough week, tough yesterday on the floor with S 30, but it's not often our committee is divided, but everybody did a good job. All were respectful.