 on YouTube again. Welcome folks who are listening in on YouTube. This is the House Healthcare Committee continuing our work on responding to a proposal from the administration and specifically from the Department of Public Safety to add mental health staff or assistance to law enforcement and more specifically I think the through the Department of Public Safety for the Vermont State Police but more broadly we've been taking testimony we've heard from the Commissioner of Public Safety who is here with us today on Zoom not as a witness but as a resource should we need to check in with him since the proposal is coming from DPS we heard from the Commissioner of Mental Health Commissioner Sarah Squirrel and from a variety of witnesses both from the designated agencies who are seen as an essential in the proposal as seen as an essential partner in moving this proposal forward and we've heard from a variety of stakeholders including those whose lives have been impacted by the mental health system in the past as well as from those who are some of whom are working in the mental health system in the designated agencies so today's goal is in today's format is that of committee discussion we do not intend to have witnesses we've heard from witnesses over the past number of days in order to help us at the end of at the end of yesterday we had a very brief opportunity for committee members to weigh in on some of the questions that are before us the testimony that has been brought before us representative and Donna here the vice chair of our committee has taken the lead in organizing our testimony and again today she and I have discussed this and she and I are going to together facilitate our work as a committee through our committee discussion we've learned I've learned and I think we've learned that it is often helpful to have something in front of us we do not have a full proposal written and developed but based on some of the comments we heard the testimony there's been some what a couple maybe called background principles articulated in part by representative Donahue but in consultation with myself and I think what I'd like to do at this point is to turn it over to representative Donahue and suggest that we could either open it up for again broad committee discussion to hear more thoughts not everyone had a chance to offer them yesterday but and or we can move into some of the background principles that have been articulated let me say before we before we move forward and I recognize the mission of Shirley here there's some there's someone who has a lot of background noise not sure who that's where that's coming from thank you I think that whatever it was that accomplished that thank you I think one of the one of the key issues is the funding is now proposed to come from the Department of Public Safety in the placeholder language that we provided to this House of Preparations Committee it suggests moving that those monies are directing those monies to the Department of Mental Health and we acknowledge and recognize that that is a change and a significant change perhaps from what the Department of Public Safety proposed at some point we this committee is going to need and I think has expressed some some sentiment but we're going to need to actually make a decision as to whether our proposal moves forward with monies being in the Department of Public Safety and then working toward an outcome or being directed to the Department of Mental Health or elsewhere and so I think that's that's a kind of a fundamental question that we need to resolve and so maybe that's a place to start but I'm going to turn it over represent Donahue and welcome you to use your judgment how to help us move forward in accomplishing an outcome which would be it's been suggested that the outcome is possible would be a substitute amendment for the House Appropriations Committee budget proposal to be offered on third reading this has been done in consultation or this is this has been discussed in consultation with the Speaker of the House that was not our original intent but it is now I think it is now the framework within which I'd like us to try to try to accomplish our work if possible so with that can turn it over to Representative Donahue. Thank you yeah I think I want to after I make just a couple comments I want to recognize Representative Page because he's had his his hand up but I'm sorry that's okay yeah I think it might be helpful because what I tried to do and as the chair and ranking member went over it with me is sort of identify the key issues that seem to have emerged in a series of these background principles and after that kind of context you know the specific one at the end raises the question that you identified chair but but I think it might be helpful to go through those and from there if they're missing things that would kind of be the open discussion or you know significant revisions and so forth so I think that would make sense to move that way but but Woody yes I have some information that I think that I think I should share with you and I hope you'll allow me to do so yesterday at the end of the day I made some comments you know I said I thought that this proposal of having clinicians involved with the police is was a quick fix which would not really fix the problem I said that I felt clinicians are not always the best trained or have the proper training and I said I think that we really need to look at restructuring or re-engineering our mental health system and in retrospect even though I shot my mouth off yesterday I really don't think I was that far off the mark based upon some conversations that I've been having we're seeing we're seeing that the mental health screenings are ineffective for individuals who suffer from mental illness particularly when local police are having to perform emergency perform and submit emergency warrants for screenings and that's not their job and it takes a lot of time for them to do that that should be something coming from the mental health department there needs to be more accountability by the mental health commissions and not just push it on to the police with their warrants that they have to perform mental health is failing with their screenings of individuals of individuals suffering from mental illness they should not be in the criminal justice system I think we would all agree and this is not just a problem in my district but it's happening throughout Vermont and from what I hear the program located in St. Albans receives very high marks that program that they have with the clinician is working not just at the state police barracks but also St. Albans Police Department and that clinician also goes out and follows up with individuals that are suffering from mental illness I feel that Department of Mental Health is failing our citizens and if we don't have a crisis now we're very close to having and I would also like to add some more information this came from I'll just say it came from an individual source he has a significant concern for his community of an individual that suffers from mental health issues it's impossible to get assistance for this individual and he goes on to explain that this individual one day strangles a woman he's charged with simple assault and disorderly conduct defense attorney requests a competency evaluation the doctor completes a competency evaluation but does not do anything to assist in determining whether that person is in need of treatment the defendant repeatedly refuses any type of assistance or evaluation refuses to comply with any voluntary treatment plan and therefore DMH will not assist the state's attorney's office with any aspect of the case because this defendant will not voluntarily comply the defendant repeatedly fails to appear in court so his competency hearing takes months to happen his failure to appear COVID related court finds him not competent and at this point the doctor says well he did not evaluate him as the hospitalization needs to not render opinion and the doctor further states his original report is stale and cannot be used for treatment needs defense attorney argues the defendant no longer needs to appear in court because the attendance at a hospitalization hearing is voluntary and the state has no authority or ability to have anyone evaluate the defendant treatment needs or even require him to appear throughout this entire process the state receives multiple emails from the community regarding the lack of services available to help the citizen so if DMH is not involved in the process or the solution let me see here so if DMH is not involved in the problem or in the solution why would you know police officers or states attorneys ever take the time or the money to try to get orders to help this individual get treatment so this is just one case but I bet it's very I bet it's happening throughout the state maybe mr. maybe secretary Shirley would like to read we're not taking any we're not going to go there Woody okay but see what you where I see where I'm coming from and I think yes I think we have an issue we have a problem we do yep we do and I think that's actually a very good intro to our broader principles of where we want to be going I think the details of some of the court aspects of course are not details we're going into now I can't help but mentioning that there's a bill on our wall that was trying to look at that aspect the warrant system the court process which I agree is very contorted right now in each work but I think we all recognize how much work we need to address in the whole mental health system today we're only focusing on that emergency response component but you know in your opening comments were I think very much in line with what you said yesterday and what we've been talking about and digging deeper is something we just have to keep front and center but I think a lot of what you said goes straight to the number two one on the list and what you opened with goes to the number one so maybe we can just start opening up that a little bit without going too far a field into all of the details of what work we do need to do on our community system and can I just say what yeah say Woody I appreciate you're taking the time to be in touch with people you're sharing that information my pushback when I said we're not going to go there Woody it was simply that we're not trying to have Commissioner Shirling become a witness again today on issues we could we could spend the entire time on the issues that you've raised they're very real issues I and other members of the committee here on a regular basis from constituents in our own areas and from across the state and I think it goes to what Representative Donahue is saying and what's articulated that it's a great frustration that we are that we cannot fully address all of what we need to in this moment in time but what we can do is acknowledge and articulate what those broader needs are and I think that's that's part of what I've appreciated about and support personally that we articulate some of those broader understandings of what the what the tremendous need is around mental health services as a part of healthcare and so so I just want to be clear with you I was not trying to push back on saying you know you should not have brought that up that's not the case at all and I think as Representative Donahue said frankly simply sets further context for what we're what we're what we're faced with right now so again with that but I do think we have we must fortunately and unfortunately we must focus our attentions on what we're able to achieve as I said yesterday I think I think and I think this language that Ian has helped craft I think we need to think in terms of staging our responses that what what what what is it that we can do now what is it that we can set in motion what is it that we can put on the agenda for this committee whether all of us are back or any of us are back that we should we should say these are things that do need to be addressed it's part of our jurisdiction is healthcare and and then continue to and underscore where we made some commitments and where we made some changes along the way this committee is I think consistent in our commitment to these issues and so I'll stop there I'll turn it over to you so I see Rep. Smith has a hand up is this is this a an overview comment or should we hold off and and go through some of the principles going right along with what Woody has just been talking about okay I again we we don't want to get too far of field of what we have to get through today but I think it's important to get the issues on the table I want to add we'll be brief but the people that we've spoken with about this feel that embedded workers that have been doing what they can now may not be as qualified and not well enough paid to be able to make the correct decision correct me if I'm wrong Woody but we need to make sure that more money can get appropriated into these mental health service agencies and that the the money gets channeled to the proper embedded worker so they can hire someone that's a little bit a little bit more knowledgeable of what needs to be addressed in a situation am I correct in saying that Woody yes partially but I would go further and just say Department of Mental Health needs to do their job and they can't I was I was being polite you cannot rely on law enforcement to do it believe it or not I was being polite and I would suggest that they can't do their job if we don't give them the resources to do their job that's exactly that's where that's where we come in as the legislature so that's all I wanted that's that broader context and I I think it's exciting frankly and powerful that we across a variety of political backgrounds share a common commitment around it that's what I'm hearing anyway yeah yeah and I think we we can make that even stronger in the the language as we talk about it in terms of the background and what we share with with the probe so Mari you have a preliminary comment before we start looking at some of the concepts you do so it sounds like we're doing sort of values and principles comments right now well yeah I'd like to kind of work it in the framework rather than all over the place so I mean that's what this this document is about the principles and framework so um but if it's something outside that that you want to get on the table up front well it's tell you what I'll just tell you what it is yeah um so I agree with um most of what's already been said I I also very much appreciate the work that the that commissioner shirling has done and the department of mental health um and I think that the data that they've given us actually in my mind um because work is now involving mental health professionals in a way it hasn't before it proves to me that um any mental health um crisis services the system should be led by mental health not by um department of public safety um I agree that this we as a state have not provided enough financial support for a strong or responsive mental health system our committee has worked hard to change that um and I think we have another opportunity um to keep it work I also think that in our whether in a commentary um I know this is going to be a brief um and to the point um bill um or policy but I think that we we must require in statute that mental health system developments are led by the communities that know it best as clinicians mental health program leaders and people with lived experience including um an appointment requiring appointments made perhaps based on recommendations from the human rights commission to ensure leadership from um black indigenous people of color LGBTQIA people with disabilities all of the um usually marginalized and uh in uh in proportionately impacted communities so that's my 30 000 foot view comment I think that's going to be very helpful to walk us right in because I think um what everybody has just said um are good things that we can use to augment um in some of these different areas some of the the um framework that that I we're putting out on the table that those are all things that we can actually um add to that framework to specifically say when we say this we need more money or so forth so I think really that the first two points on this um framework um is really the document up yes well why don't we put it up because the first two are really um incorporate a lot of what we've been just talking about without as much detail on some of the subcarts but there may be ways that and I'll take notes and Katie's here taking notes to incorporate some of that in what we communicate to our colleagues even if it's not language that actually goes into this very uh focused short term budget piece so yeah uh there we go so again the the first two are really a lot of what we've been talking in briefer form but the first one uh trying to start with that point that um as we've been saying for a long time underscoring that mental health is a part of health care not the criminal justice system um and emergency services do need to include public safety needs at times but they have to be considered within the framework of um the health care system and mental health uh responses and the second one I'm just sort of taking them together because our conversation so far has been talking about those two points that our current services just aren't adequate um and there may be a lot of reasons that they're not adequate but they're not adequate um and that's the root cause of ending up with many of these emergencies so there's a really pressing need for more robust community services to support mental health needs and I think that's where there's some expansion in some of the comments about what that means and it may be important to reference that our entire you know that includes the needs for how we address when the court system is is intervening or is expected to intervene and the quality of the services delivered and the Department of Mental Health's responsibilities to ensure that those things are happening so I think there's room um in those for all of those points um maybe what we should do is quickly quick briefly go through all of them because I'd like to go back and and take the input and incorporate other things in one and two but just so people know if you didn't get a chance to read it what the later ones are which get much more specific to the issue that we need to make some decisions on before we go back to the the general ones um so the third one really is trying to capture some of the conversation we had at the very end yesterday and some of the testimony about the fact that we've heard there are a number of different models for emergency responses um they vary in locations they vary in how they're funded um and I think we heard actually a lot from the commissioner of mental health right at the beginning and from the commissioner of public safety in terms of some of their revisions and reforms in how policing is division is developed so this is acknowledging the need for a more cohesive framework not something we can achieve in the current budget but some of the aspects that needs to be more equitable around the state we've got different funding that's helping or not helping in different areas uh needs to incorporate improved mechanisms of triage including the role of the 911 system we had conversation about that yesterday needs to include appropriate utilization of peer support it should be developed by the department of mental health but it's got to be in close coordination with people with lived experience of psychiatric disabilities all branches of law enforcement designated agencies and the hospital system the balance of funding needs to be looked at you know where does medicare and medicaid play in uh what's what is the community uh contribution that's happening in many places what's the state contribution and finally can't this can't be developed in our time frame for the budget but this is ongoing work that we want to somehow see continue to move forward so the next ones I was reworking and consolidating some particularly after uh bill and lori made some comments so i'm sorry it goes from three to five it's don't don't ignore the numbers um so the next one goes to but but we we've gotten immediate need um and the immediate need is to enhance that safe appropriate crisis responses that can reduce when law enforcement is is drawn away needs to be there if those supports aren't needed um but when they are that ensures really strong coordination I think we've heard a lot that that's the critical aspect is that collaboration and coordination um next recognizing law enforcement is using a lot of resources responding to crisis that draw them away from their core duties and that's not what they're best equipped or or trained for it's not an appropriate use when it's not necessary the framework for the immediate enhancement needs to be driven by the identification of the appropriate mental health services reflected through the resources and oversight uh headed by the department of mental health that goes back to kind of our number one about it being a health system need but then it also leads to that final decision point that the chair mentioned this is the issue the money appropriation which this language reflects or this principle reflects what we had in our placeholder language that it's appropriated to the department of mental health but for the purposes of working with department of public safety and the stakeholders to add to the frontline staff who are targeting those most immediate needs for mental health crisis um again as it says in number five in support of the law enforcement needs to be both supported and to be not be responding to things where they're not needed um I think we can add some discussion at the end about what pieces need to potentially really be in the budget language to ensure that the principles that we are talking about are part of this um and then we'll need some decisions on presumably we want some report back at some point on how this is being implemented or put into place and maybe also uh some kind of a report back you know a year down the line or in order to bring back some of this how how are we moving forward on what what both commissioners told us they are working on as the systems are re-envisioned so um let's go back to one and two and I see we've got hands up I've got to figure out how we how I look at hands oh I can do this good and both look at hands and look at the the sheet so trying to sort of keep it focused um if we can look at number one and two and how we may want to change or bolster or expand those ideas as the background big picture pieces before going into the uh crisis response um let's start on that I'm I'm gonna um I'm gonna recognize a representative Christensen next just because she hasn't commented previously and then uh Ryan Smith I'm not not ignoring you you're I know you're also uh wanting to speak so Anne Marie yes I just have a question about the amount of the funding uh at the bottom and uh I thought we were talking about two million dollars now it's like five hundred and some half a million that the police were going to give us two million was I wrong totally wrong yes that that's an error that's an error we've we've never changed the number um it's the number that the DPS had had uh identified within their budget this is this is within their budget through vacancy savings it's it was not was never proposed as new money at any time so um this was a DPS budget proposal for this amount of money for seven positions um Brian yeah I understood I just thought I'm sorry two million instead thank you no all right um yep Brian Smith can we jump to number six and um I think it probably would be more helpful if we kind of say do we think this is the big picture of where things where things should go before we get to the specific detail okay saying all right this year this money how should this be handled does that make sense not to me oh well then go for it okay uh could you let me let me see if I could you scroll down to six okay this is probably going to be something that's too simple to do but uh five hundred and twenty five thousand dollars the Department of Mental Health for the purpose of working with the Department of Public Safety to add frontline staff for immediate needs now you're talking about hiring six people uh seven I think the budget allows for if you hired six you'd get someone a little bit more qualified to do the job with that five hundred and twenty five thousand dollars and if you want to get someone that's uh like this line six says add frontline staff that will understand the immediate needs you need to hire somebody for more than forty five or fifty thousand bucks a year so Brian I I think that may go to that we may not want to say this is for seven positions as opposed to saying this is for the need that's been identified and we want a decision-making process between the Department of Mental Health and Public Safety and stakeholders as to how that works which may mean not seven positions but six at a higher level but okay because we're not going to be able to sort that out but but that may affect how we want to word this as in terms of discretion well if they decide to spend the money and they don't spend it on qualified people they're wasting the money I hear you okay that's all I wanted to add to it thank you Anne um all right uh yeah thank you scroll back to one and two so any any other discussion or thoughts about the the first two the real background um what are you talking but you're on you up me yes I'm sorry to jump along with Brian Smith to number six um but I have to add an item which he mentioned in Sherling's report he initially said that they want to expand the these positions within a three-year period is there any way that we can do it in a shorter period of time yes Woody actually that was changed all right okay yes good good good the first plan originally was over three years but what they brought in in the August budget was for moving all of it uh this year well those seven at this point that amount yeah I think that's important to recognize Woody that that that change that that is a that is a change that the Department of Public Safety itself brought forward to say this this needs to happen more immediately and that's what this proposal encompasses so does anybody else want to weigh in or thoughts about those first two um I I think you know we've we've got some good input I I think the the second one we can add some thoughts about it it's it's broader in terms of systemic it's it's the whole uh court response elements I think I would support mentioning when we talk about I mean when we talk about public safety responses that the press in number two perhaps the pressing need is for more robust community services to support mental health needs as well as a more robust ability to respond to the needs where it is appropriate of the criminal justice system broadly including the including just broadly states attorneys defender I mean I don't know if we want to list them all but I would I would mention the courts that's a good way to that's a good context for including the court right right yeah and I think that picks up on some of what Woody was particularly and with your specific example and an example which we've heard and we know we need to deal with more yeah Katie did you get that I think that's a that's a great basic wording to work with on that incorporating the broader okay great um okay um representative Rogers I'm sorry go ahead do I have a hand I can raise I don't think I do I think I can go after chair Lippert you go ahead and then I'll just know that I because I know because I think I'm a co-host or something and I don't get a hand to race so I'll just right right so was it representative Rogers representative Lippert and then representative um how um the the majority of my thoughts I've been having and working through have to do specifically with the money so I will hold them I guess I just am I think you may have said um and I just am I'm struggling to kind of place in my mind right now what is what is the end like location for this document that we're discussing right I guess I'm feeling myself really pulled to work on the proposal in front of us that we need to have figured out in the next hour in 20 minutes and so I'm trying to kind of place what the envision is for this document and how to kind of how to weave that in thank you I think that's an excellent point because we really do need to keep on task so the the I think the end point we're working on is that we have consensus on the background principles so that the leadership of the committee can take it and work with Katie on two pieces one is the very brief amendment to the budget that articulates where this money is going this year and why I mean it's got to incorporate a little bit of our framework but there there won't be the ability to have any lengthy language and secondly a document that's more like a memo to appropriations um and really in some ways a member memo to our future selves and to our colleagues perhaps and to our colleagues right it may you know in other words verbally on the floor um what are the key bigger picture pieces behind this specific appropriation um and I think it also becomes background for uh you know potentially a memo a follow-up memo to the commissioners involved saying you know we we said in the in the budget that we think there needs to be uh longer term work this is what we were talking about so it's not going to be a formal budget language and so you're right we don't want to spend all our time wordsmithing um something that's sort of the general concepts that we agree on and we really do need to get to you know number six um with enough time to to work it out so I'll try to keep an eye on that time where did my I don't have a I don't have a clock on my oh when the when the uh screen is up with a document it blocks out my uh you can hit escape on watch out my clock hit escape on your keyboard and and it will bring it it'll minimize it oh yeah nice to know thank you thank you Mari oh perfect yeah now I can see okay so from Mari super um and then I can see the hands better too all right so that it's a good reminder we do need to sort of remember that this isn't wordsmithing for legislative language it's our basic ideas we need to get through them uh you know hopefully let's say in the next um before uh one so that we've got close to a full hour to work on the the meat to talk about that so uh bill no I'm going to I'm going to step back from my comments I think in order to help us move forward okay Laurie and I don't know if this is the appropriate place for this although I think it is a good uh placeholder for the letter you know back to ourselves reminding us what we want to do next year but we seem to always leave out the school systems and I I'm thinking in my head about the conversation we had with puck and how they were using police to come into the schools and get the kids and the fact that there's also an incredible amount of money being used with success beyond six that we've not dived into um so again not sure it's here but when you look at the whole system I don't want to forget the schools the children I think it is here I think it's it's a reference under that number two it's it's it's but it's the criminal justice system um it's the schools it's across and I think that's worth including in that same reference um woody yes I'm sorry about being a Johnny jump up here but um item one um I don't know whether it needs to be incorporated but you know for mental health again ideally treatment should be like what we have for our our other ailments with primary care it would be nice if mental health treatment could be done before it would ever get into the court system or dealing with law enforcement and I don't know if we can put that in some way yeah what what do we can put it right back that's a line I was I was trying to try to you know shorten I tend to be overly verbose and and that was a line I cut we can put it right back in under number two I I opened by saying you know our healthcare system looks at wellness and preventive services first and we're not doing that adequately in mental health and then it went on to say you know failing to do that is the root cause of many emergencies that can go right back in put it back in here thank you woody uh okay um I think some people didn't put their hands down unless they're wanting to speak again Brian chain I yeah I wanted to I I thought I I thought earlier I heard someone mention it might have been Mari I can't remember now and it might be that I'm just it wasn't said today mention getting the perspective of of um BIPOC and I think Mari did say it and I'm just wondering like is that where is was the idea to fit it in where it talks about it being developed in close coordination with is that where we were talking about fitting some language in there around that well I think in terms of the the bigger creation of that framework for emergency responses which is sort of in number three I think we can spell out more yes that's when it was talking about some of the people that needs to be in coordination with I think that can be added there to make it clear all of the stakeholders that need to be involved yeah and that's why I'm asking I just feel like it would be a missed opportunity if we didn't acknowledge that that in addition to the discrimination that might occur for people with disabilities that systemic racism plays out sometimes in these emergency interactions as well as homophobia and I would even go so far as to say classism to be honest with you that there's issues where there's where class differences people of different class get treated differently by emergency providers not just the police but by the emergency mental health system and so if there's some way we can take that into account when we're making these improvements it might go a long way to to improving um the way that our mental health system and public safety apparatus functions for people so I just would advocate that we add some language in that that that's a little more clear around looking at the different layers um the different sort of layers of identity and oppression that people experience well I I agree and support that and and it really goes well into number three both in terms of identifying some of the different voices that need to be part of the discussion but also adding a line you know it's talking about needing a triage piece it's talking about balance of funding it can add a line saying and we need to recognize and include the different just you had some good wording and I know Katie's here but the different systems of discrimination that are sort of additive factors if you will to the failure to have good responses in crises and I think can I can I just say that I think again we don't want to conflate being a person of color or LGBTQ with mental health issues but what what I think the key here is and I think this is what Brian I think what you're getting at is that when when you combine when you when you layer on as you may different different types of marginalization it amplifies in a negative way and that's maybe amplifies not the right word but it it creates more difficulties both for the person who's presenting and more challenges for people recognizing how not to misunderstand what's going on and that certainly has been horribly historically true for different ones of these communities both in health care broadly as we have heard for our witnesses and some of us know historically there's just been the misunderstanding of what mental health issues are place right into our work on health disparities and even in this current period these continue yeah yes and and yes exactly chair and and and vice chair what you said about disparities I was going to say that if we're talking about dealing with disparities I think every chance we get to weave that into the work we're doing the better absolutely and and um and just to say that as a mental health crisis worker sometimes we get called for a situation and when you go in you see that it's actually not a mental health crisis that it's a housing crisis so that it's a but a domestic violence situation or that someone there's racism like someone's being accused of being quote unquote and I say this you know sensitively crazy you know something's wrong with them when they're just having a reaction to racism or to some systemic barrier they're facing and not all crisis workers have that awareness or training and so you know I just think it's important that we're looking at improving the triage and the and the dispatch and the the emergency response that we're making sure that we're taking all those factors into account so that people aren't just labeled with having a mental illness when they're having a natural reaction to some form of oppression might even be a reasonable reaction um lucy is your hand up again it's up again yeah um yeah I was just wondering if it might make sense just make a separate um like a separate point and numbered number point and just say kind of reiterate what we heard in testimony reason number four dropped off um but I think just to reiterate the piece that you know this is somewhat about shifting the emergency response to a medical response away from a police response which is as it should be but an acknowledgement that that in and of itself does not do anything to it well it does not do anything to address the other disparities in the system and so so just just an acknowledgement that you know we're just shifting the location of the racism or the other levels of disparity if we're not making that shift with that in the front and center of our mind I don't know if I explained that as well as it was expressed by our witness yesterday but but just to to make an acknowledgement of that oh I think that's exactly right I think that thank you lucy makes sense Mari so um while we're talking about language um I I agree that we need a very clear um separate point um about the impacted communities and I feel strongly that instead of saying in collaboration with or in consultation with um we recognize that those people need to be leading and because we are addressing systemic change on so many levels it needs to be led by the people who are experiencing the inequities from our current system and well-intentioned folks tend to invite uh impacted communities to the conversation or um you know give them I'm not gonna call it a token place but I think we need to be really clear that um we are going to require that um leaders in those communities are just that they're gonna lead um have a strong and very clear leadership role in this process Chena's your hand back up no I failed I failed to lower it I'm sorry yeah I don't mean to to be critical of people wanting to speak again I'm just trying to clarify when I ask that um okay that that's great I think we have some good framing for for a number four there um if we want to move to number five that's really kind of the lead-in language for the for the uh where we go with um with the fundamental issue of the the appropriation um so again in terms of that background and lead-in um so that we can get to the the core um appropriation anybody have things to add or um want out uh so forth under number five it's talking about what the immediate need is it's recognizing the pressures the inappropriate pressures on law enforcement um and it's talking about the framework uh it needs to be driven by mental health uh and and that's kind of the that's kind of the lead-in statement for why why the money would go via the Department of Mental Health budget so it brings us to beginning to discuss that issue as well so any thoughts on that as as background and lead-in to get to number six? Bill? Yeah I'm sorry I want to just say that I really appreciate the distinction you're making in the first sentence in number five that I think it's uh because I think there is a recognition that there are times when when there when safety issues are there and there needs to be there needs to be strong coordination where public safety supports are necessary but that the first part is like we need to reduce the involvement of law enforcement where there's really no need for that and so I think you you've you've I I personally think that dichotomy is well stated there and and I appreciate it uh Representative Smith? Thank you once again uh and I'm on number five this time okay great I listened to uh Ann Reynolds the other day and very smart smart lady and a lot of things she said uh sunk in one thing she did say that I didn't agree with when when she started to discuss uh not being very excited about police involvement uh I got to thinking a little bit so I spoke with some higher police officials this morning uh about school resource officers and school so let me let's let's not unless it's just a parallel Brian we we can't go off into that issue no no this is I'm just saying that police resource officers do provide safe and appropriate crisis responses in the schools and she didn't say it didn't sound to me like uh Ms. Reynolds agreed that police should be in schools and there are cases where maybe they shouldn't but uh in this case North Country High School Resource Officer was a very highly respected officer and he he prevented problems that could have occurred on numerous occasions so I think that goes along with the first sentence in number five and that's all I needed to say about it okay thank you um representative page yes I have a comment on line on item five line three four five six I do not care for the way um that sentence is worded about law enforcement and they are not best equipped or trained for that level of response um I know that a number of I know that law enforcement are being trained on these issues um I don't know as if I like the term I would I would probably remove or trained for that level of response and just leave and they are not equipped for that level of response I think that would be fine I think level of response is probably really not clear to what was trying to be conveyed here because it's more what what they were identifying as this this isn't our expertise you know mental health counseling doing that kind of thing isn't their role but yeah I mean cutting that back um I think makes sense well you know I'm just they're not they're not just me if if the rest of the committee agrees that's fine but I just I think our law enforcement in general you know are being trained more and more on on mental health issues and so right what I'm I'm agreeing with you because what you're identifying as reading that's that's not what it was intending to say so I think it needs to be clearer what it's intending to say because this was intending to reflect what they were telling us about you know these these kind of responses are not what they're uh equipped for so yeah I think I think they've been saying to us this is not what we're trained to do we're being asked the two things we're not trained to do yeah that's that's what we're doing but we're I think what we're doing Woody is layering on additional training because they have no choice but to respond at times and we want them to have as much information and ability as possible but this is not their core uh training and mission okay yep okay um Lucy I just don't understand what's meant by the last sentence I was wondering if you could explain a little more uh that simply it doesn't yeah if the wording's not clear we can work on it that is simply the transition statement from kind of the background into number six it's saying developing the enhancement that we're talking about the fact that there's a need to enhance this should be driven by the the expertise if you will of the Department of Mental Health because it's an it's about appropriate mental health support so it's just meant to be lead into why we think that it's the resource that it's the Department of Mental Health that should be heading up the issue the heading up the initiative so feedback on on wording that better so that it's clearer would be great I wonder I guess I'm yeah I don't have any specific feedback I just read it a few times and couldn't quite get it don't say that it could be that everything from um uh you know it should be the middle part identification of appropriate maybe that needs to be left out and it's just because it's really just talking about the framework for this should be through the Department of Mental Health okay I just the other I guess the other piece I had with five I know Laurie also wanted to Laurie did you want to jump in um the other piece I had with with five which maybe is related is I think it seems and maybe this relates to six too it seems like we're kind of drawing this dichotomy between situations that are sorry loud track situations that are purely um that purely should be receiving entirely a medical mental health response versus situations that kind of exist in both the mental health and the public safety sphere and then it seems like from there we seem to further discuss situations that exist purely in the mental health sphere and not really that I can see further discussed situations that exist in both spheres so I think it it led me astray a little bit as far as just following our logic and in point five I think that's all yeah no I think it needs to be clearer that that what is trying to say is that you're exactly right about that there's situations where it is really purely mental health that sometimes the police are contacted and drawn into first now and don't feel they're appropriate and we need appropriate services but there are also those where there is the public safety element and they need to be involved but they need to be involved in in strong collaboration and then it kind of leads to you know because of the of the depth of mental health issues that we're recommending that it that both those aspects be overseen and you know somebody's got to kind of lead it up and that the department of mental health should be the one leading it up that's that becomes the issue in number six okay so the last number five is what it's intended to convey that in situations where there is both a mental health crisis and a threat to public safety that in those situations the response should be led by the department of mental health I I think it's saying that that the response that is developed whatever that response is which is not necessarily led by mental health but right the the point place for coordinating identification the details of implementing a program by putting if we place the money in mental health then it's the department of mental health that's the point place for uh bringing the bringing the players together the department of public safety and working it out so that's what that's trying to say I mean that sentence isn't really needed it's really reflected in number six it's it was really just a lead into saying it's got both these elements but because the core is the health issue it's the health side that needs kind of be in charge of working with the department of public safety on how those collaborations work when both parts are needed but I think I mean this is very valuable because this is again this is background for sharing with our colleagues and if it's not if it's not clear and doesn't flow logically then then that that has to be worked on I guess I I'm if other people find it clear that's fine that's sufficient for me I would probably opt to just take the sentence out but I don't need to work you know wordsmith one thing here David and then Laurie are you yeah and then and then Laurie okay yeah I just wanted to sort of pause and ask whether we're jumping ahead in numbers and assuming that the language in number six expresses a sentiment that we all have decided is the way we want to go and some of the comments that you've been making and or some of the responses that you've been giving sound to me like that's where we're headed and I I'm not sure that that's where we're headed or not I I'll say that I I think that you can we can all agree with the the sentiments that are in one to five whether or not we think the language is is is perfect without necessarily feeling that for this particular proposal the best solution is to have the funding directed through mental health and so I just I just wanted to throw that out there because I'm not entirely certain that I have enough information even sitting here now to say that that's the case I I'm not saying that I don't but that I feel that that's not the way that it should be going but I I I think this is important obviously this is critical and we're covering an awful lot of ground in in this and it will be great to have it laid out in the that we've taken the time to do it now I think is is useful but I I'm just feeling a little bit hesitant about using it as justification now saying oh well we obviously we have to fund it through mental health because I'm not sure that I would draw that that conclusion yeah no I I I think you're exactly right that's bridge language and we haven't gotten to the other side of the bridge yet so I you know I I think we should just strike that last sentence basically and go to the heart of what we need to be deciding on as a specific budget recommendation so um Ann Marie wants to make a comment but let's just assume that that's what we need to move now and and we're time-wise we we need to move there as well so maybe we should just um maybe we should just get to that key issue because then um at the very end of our time sorry is somebody trying to say something it was me I'll be quiet go ahead okay I was just gonna say what we need to get to the to that crux of the matter because then we also may need some time at the end to identify if there's specific parameters we want to regardless of where the money goes if there's parameters we want to set on how it's used so um thank you David I think that's going to help get us on track to what we need to do in our remaining in 45 minutes um Ann Marie are you trying to talk in your I guess my question is somewhat the same as David's and Lucy's I totally now maybe it's just my computer can you hear me never mind I'll call can you hear now you're good okay yeah I'm I'm good with number six pretty much the way it is um but I agree that it should be Department of Mental Health we get rid of the onerous thing of that they're not police at all but in real life I'm still not sure how this is all gonna work the call still gonna come to 911 there's no triage there the police are gonna have to answer it actually good work in practice I the um but number six I'm totally for that but that's where I become knotted on it's it's just a comment yeah no I think I think what we end up doing I mean we are turning it over to the Department of Mental Health and the Department of Public Safety along with the key stakeholders to to begin working that out both short term and the the bigger issues around the naughtier ones as you say around triage and 911 and all of that we're not going to try to do any of that in this Bill and then Woody can I can I suggest because I think what David raised and what I'm fine that somebody's working it out what what David raised and what I had mentioned at the beginning I think it's a pivotal issue I think it's a foundational issue and I think we ought to just engage that and my thought was we've had a lot of we've heard a lot of witnesses we've had a lot of discussion and we've heard some sentiment expressed by various committee members but sometimes it moves forward helps us move forward if we just say let's do a straw poll I mean I mean unless people need a lot more conversation and discussion and which is fine if we do but if not I I think sometimes just saying okay well what's our what's your what what is the where does the sentiment lie within the committee right now and sometimes it helps us to just say okay put the money in Department of Mental Health put the money in the Department of Public Safety straw poll and if you're equivocal about it you can say that but I think that might really help us move forward great looks like you've got a bunch bunch of hands up in reaction to your comments so let's let's hear from those and see if we're gonna do a straw poll woody yes I don't really have a problem with six I do think the money should be spelled out appropriately it may go to mental health but it should be shared with Department of Public Safety in in in dealing with these matters I have a comment regarding five and three the last sentence on five we talk about a framework for developing the responses and in the first sentence on three we also talked about a need for cohesive framework in the past testimony there's been discussions of other communities that have done good work I think Seattle was mentioned maybe there are some others do we need to mention that perhaps they should look at other we shouldn't be reinventing the wheel what is what is working out there we should perhaps no copy in some ways and I don't know whether that needs to be those are my my thoughts thank you representative Gina I just have a question about the process with this like because we've been working on this document and then I'm realizing like we're voting on the budget today so where how does this fit into that process at this point it be what our actual language kind of this number six aspect would be an amendment on the floor Friday afternoon from this committee we're changing our placeholder language into what we now discernment determine that we think should should happen and what about all the rest of the language how would that get incorporated into the process that would be in a memo form that would be shared with appropriations that would be part of the floor presentation though not language and probably and part of what we would be sharing with the administration as well in terms of what are in our you know deeper thinking and messages but it's not formal it would not be formal language for any purpose which is why we need to move to the yep oh sorry just to clarify that I'm understanding it would be a memo of the committee's legislative intent that would go to appropriations to explain our amendment which would be um a shift in funding in the budget exactly assuming we decide on a shift of in funding or if we just want to whoever gets the funding if we want to spell out more how the initiative gets developed but yes thank you i want to i want to acknowledge in the chat that peter reads trying to speak and can't raise his hand just to call it to your attention oh thank you yeah for okay right because i don't have him seeing with the little hands and he hasn't spoken at all yet so i i'm gonna go ahead and recognize him next and then go on with the little blue hands well i'm i'm listed as a co-host so that's why i can't raise my hand so i thought i was having a problem then i realized that but no it's a very it's a very tricky way of silencing people yes i had the same problem but it's okay because i i really didn't have any major comments till we got to number six but i i appreciate what david had to say on this point and in looking through some of the the written materials that were provided it strikes me that i mean the department of public safety clearly thinks this that the original funding proposal is the correct one and from what we heard from commissioner squirrel she seems to agree as well that that's the right mechanism for the funding to flow through to the department of mental health so i'm i'm a little cautious about changing a funding mechanism that that both departments involved would not agree with i'm sure it wouldn't be the first time that's happened but i just wanted to be cognizant of their their viewpoint on this since they're the ones that will have to be implementing it and it it does seem like there is a mechanism for funds to to flow to the department of mental health for the to fund this i'm a little concerned about the comment about how moving this would create a deficit in the department of public safety but i think my main point is uh is they they kind of would like to see it both groups would like to see it work this way so i would not necessarily want to change it willy-nilly yeah brian chena that's so that that that's an artifact for my previous comment i'll lower my hand uh representative rogers um yeah i just had all now that what i had been wanting to ask about question six that to me i think is kind of pre-straw poll discussion so i think anmarie pretty much got to the crux of what what i've been thinking about which is the theory makes sense but i really want to understand how this is going to work operationally in practice before saying this is the right move and i think you know commissioner shirling sent the memo and and the and to anmarie's point as well 911 calls as much as i think our testimony indicated that this maybe shouldn't always be the case but they are going to be directed through emergency response in a public safety manner and just the actual how is this going to work is the money that goes through dmh does it get kind of swallowed into their whole budget is it set aside specifically for collaboration with law enforcement and then i think um just i i do want to understand a little bit more about the piece of a deficit in the dps budget which it didn't make total sense to me but i want to understand if i'm missing something there and then i think the the last piece just is i i guess i can i can leave it at that for now i i just seem it seems like we're kind of missing missing the full picture of what it is that we're actually proposing to do yep thank you um one thing that we may want to at least mentally go back to we can't pull it on the screen at the same time is that um placeholder language which i think was a little clearer than the quick sentence in number six about the fact that the the money would be specifically restricted to address this emergency response need um to support and or reduce the need for law enforcement response it's it's it's sort of who is in charge of developing how that specific short-term emergency piece plays out is is the question and in some ways the money flow is maybe a statement about the philosophical part more importantly than it is and i mean the money i think we're going to need to articulate is intended to go to those the very direct frontline responses positions that are intervening in a crisis so that it reduces the need for police or it's in collaboration with police when there is a need for law enforcement i'm talking too much i'm sorry uh representative smith sorry sorry can i oh i'm sorry you aren't finished i apologize no that that's helpful i think this is the last piece i was going to say that i kind of had lost my train of thought before it was just the last piece was just that um this the piece of having the two departments that are ready have the yeah i know we're moving away from the term but i think the term was used of embedded um workers for for for mental health response i guess it is just something too that to me i know we talked a lot in this committee about how frustrating it is when we have all these pilot projects which seem like such a good idea but then what it ends up meaning is we have just different responses to everything in different parts of the state and kind of inequity of of what our statewide values and responses are and so i don't think that just because something exists means that it's the right answer but i do see you know i i think it's it's a it's nice to think that we would be able to come up with a model that would be statewide and so i kind of and and left wondering if if what we're doing is keeping the two i think it's two departments that have embedded um is it social workers or mental health workers or or both and if you know if the idea would be to keep those two departments that have this other response or or how that all fits together and now i will i think that i've laid all my kind of questions out on the table right and i think that's part of what's totally unclear how many because they're they all are actually different models and then there are a bunch of others that play the same role but aren't in the quote unquote embedded or some are embedded in local police department so it is i think that goes back to our you know number three that you know this this has all got to be worked on but in the short term it really becomes dps and dmh who have to somehow identify which is the one to build on and enhance right in the short term um uh representative smith uh i would uh i don't think this would be asking too much either i would like to see the department of mental health send a note or notice back to the health care house health care as to exactly where the checks get written for this five hundred and twenty five thousand dollars into what department it goes to uh i'd like to see one of part of this money come to orleans and asics county that's the reason i'm asking for this uh i don't think that's asking too much either i'd like some comments on that no i think we definitely want to report back i don't think it's anything we can ask for in up front because we need them to do the work first i'm just afraid the money's going to get filtered somewhere else where it hasn't been designated to go as in a lot of cases no i think we need the language to be very specific as to where we think it needs where what um lori so i'm i'm basing what i'm about to say on what i know of the program here in chitlin county for community outreach workers which has three different streams of funding department of mental health the local community um and until recently uh uvm mc o though i think that's changed a little bit um and i and i i think we're getting i think there's a message we need to send about the money and that it it is for mental health and and you know i believe it should come from department of mental health but i also feel like we're getting hung up on that piece of it and that you know within chitlin county and the community outreach program there is a clear directive of where the money needs to go and if we're putting into words where the money needs to go personally that's my goal and whether it comes from department of public safety right now because of the way the budget is done i would love to see that change eventually but but that's not going to happen right now they have money that's earmarked for one thing that they're looking to earmark for something else um i just i feel like if our language is strong enough and we put in the language that says how we want the follow-up let's let the people who know the understanding of the money figure out where it goes where it comes from where it goes my comments okay um representative derpy sounds work like we're backing into kind of a straw poll but it's it's bringing us to that anyway with background that's what we need to do yeah yeah right right i mean i guess i i sort of feel that i'm not sure and having read the letters from the commissioners gives some i guess explanation for this but why does it matter i think a question for the committee is why does it matter which what the channel is for the funding and so we've gotten some response from the from department of health and from public safety to help us answer that question and and i guess we've we've also heard other perspectives that might suggest why it would be important for it to flow through the mental health system rather than public safety but anyway that's sort of for me the crux of the question why does it matter the other thought is that if we take the funding away from public safety they're going to be short seven positions or whatever whatever however many positions vacancies they're not going to be able to fill you just want to be sure that when there's an emergency call there's somebody responding to it and and that the money is you know we're being specific enough and saying this it has to be sure that somebody's able to respond whether it's whoever it is so that's it thank you um marie people please please remember to put your hands down so that i know if you want to speak again or if you're okay oh marie are you on or yes okay and then and then brian chenna okay i'm bill and then bill sorry and don't forget peter i think has been trying to wave again okay you know what i don't even get that through the faces do people still need the language up on the screen because if we take that down then i can see everybody's faces yep okay so i'm gonna if uh demis if we could take that down now that will help with not missing waving hands okay so brian brian chenna is up i think i was oh i'm sorry marie you were actually up and followed by brian thank you there's always a risk in taking your hand down too soon um so as far as the seven positions um we're still funding the same thing if it goes through the department of mental health we're we're funding however many positions um they would be supporting for this particular work whether it's the dps or the department of mental health and i i recognize that we're hearing from agencies and i i am very much um taking to heart and lifting up the voices of the other people that testified to this committee yesterday um and if we are going to create systemic change um it is going to take many complicated small steps some bigger um and we can't keep kicking the can down the road so um i will be supporting when we get to the straw pull part um that the money be appropriated to the department of mental health brian chenna yeah i i then will then peter and then bill so yeah i um would also it actually does matter to me where the money flows from um from a policy lens that if we're talking about providing mental health services i really think that the funding should flow through the mental health um the department of mental health and the and the mental health system and if the police uh were willing to spend money that they were going to spend on officers on mental health workers then i don't understand why it's a problem to just transfer to have that money flow through the mental health system if they're still going to have access to those workers and that we heard from many witnesses and i don't want to be too repetitive but i we've heard from many witnesses their concerns about um in having mental health services provided through the police and so i i just it does actually matter to me um and i just think about the people who feel disenfranchised and scared of the police already um all the people who won't even speak out because they're afraid um you know of the backlash they might face and and so i guess i would i it really does make a difference to me and i would like to see the money going through the department of mental health and to see um close collaboration between the state police and mental health providers but a very clear distinction in those services and um all the way down to where the funding comes from you um peter then bill and then i'm gonna give a okay i i guess prelude to vote comment my my brief comment would be just the last line of of the note we received from commissioner squirrel which uh says the provision of funding through dps underscores dps's commitment to the modernization of public safety as well as significant buy-in on behalf of public safety and i think that sends a good message as well um so i i i understand that we want this to go as efficiently and directly into the mental health process but um i think there's a uh and maybe it's a political story but there's a story to tell there by running this through the department public safety bill uh i'm rick i would just have us remember that as i understand it the the intent is to actually contract with the da's through the department of public safety and the da's are principally uh agencies whose mission is uh mental health and not public as not law enforcement so i mean perhaps that can be can make the case for what peter said or or or the reverse but i think uh i think we should also i i want us also to remember that our job is to set policy and the executive branch's job is to implement the policy set by the legislature and sometimes we find ourselves uh getting confused by that and the executive branch says oh we couldn't do that we can't possibly do that uh we it's too hard or it'll be complicated or we'll have to do an i from time in fact just earlier today i had a conversation with someone from a different department of state government who said well we can't do that the state law says i've said we do statute let's talk and we talked about okay we can change that statute and we have changed a lot of statutes recently in the covid environment uh just not with standing laws and saying this must happen because we're in an emergency so i just don't want us to get confused by that uh and i would just suggest that it's i think it sends a message i think in this particular point in time i think there's a way in which i want to really appreciate the department of public safety because and the commissioner shirling in moving forward with a modernization plan but i do not want to but i think it would be a terrible mistake that that modernization plan when he suggested there would be a chilling effect on future modernization or future innovation i think i think quite the reverse i think if the department of public safety if we were to move the money to the department of mental health and the department of public safety was able to find a way to embrace that that would actually potentially enhance further innovation and in fact we can lead in that policy i think it sends a message in this period of time um that mental health services belong in the department of mental health we want strong collaboration we want law enforcement to be supported but the money should be redirected to the department of mental health and they should be directed to figure out how to work that so that i mean if there's a deficit in one fund come talk to us during budget adjustment that that's not a reason to not move forward on what i think is a really important initiative and i applaud the department of safety public safety for saying let's do it in one year not three years let's do it this way we're asking them to take another step into the future that's that's what my that's what my point of view would be but i but i but i yeah so i'll leave it there so just um speaking not as coordinating but but my thought on on the specific i i mean there's part of what david said that that's exactly right why does it matter on the front line part it is going to be done through memorandum's understanding between the department of mental health and the department of public safety and the designated agencies um and that isn't going to change where the money flows but i i think it it does make a really important policy statement to say that it should be flowing and the person the the entity that coordinates how are we going to actually put this into place as a an implementation people remember the um commissioner shirling's memo talked about there needing to be a bunch of different implementation steps policies developed and so forth and so what this would be doing is saying the department of mental health is the is the lead agency on working with dps and stakeholders in those implementation steps for money that's very specific to where we want it to be going um and um um that memo and that proposal the the thing that concerned me about it first off in the very beginning was that it didn't include the key stakeholders and i think that has to do with it with an organization that is not yet tuned into how essential it is uh to talk to um people with a little experience of mental illness and with having police responses so i think that policy perspective um is really is really important so i that's why i support the department of mental health being the spot that coordinates and has the funding screen ready for a straw poll because i don't see back to you bill you're the chair i'm yeah i am the chair so um i want to say i i i again i i spoke strongly and i'm not trying to tell people not to have a point of view that's different so let me acknowledge that but i do think it would be helpful just i think we need to make a decision and and i think um so i would suggest that we do a straw poll by a show of our actual hands because blue hands get mixed up here and i think that it's for it's it's a it's a dichotomy between directing the funding having the funding continue to be directed by the department of public safety in collaboration and contractually with but having them be the lead for the funding uh or asking them to actually to actually have the fund for us as the legislature to say the funding shall be in the department of mental health and having them be the lead on the mental health aspect as it has to do with supporting law enforcement crisis intervention right without changing the purpose no without changing the purpose and making sure that the money is in fact intact there and doesn't get swallowed up and used for something else etc so i i guess i would then ask um for i guess i'll say first to show a hands for those who would because that's a proposal that we've talked that's those who would like to so i'm not sure if everybody's able to be some people are not face right now so the blue hand versus the face i don't know how we okay well we will pull the we will pull people just to make sure that's the way to do it i think um i mean maybe we just start with saying okay the money is currently in the department of public safety those who wish to have it continue to be in the public safety and have them take the lead uh show a hands for that okay and emory and lucy do you wish to weigh in because we can't see your video oh i see emory has a hand up is that the hand up emory what was the question again by the question right now it's not going in and out the question before the straw poll i'm asking us right now is first those who would like the money to continue to be directed through the department of public safety and and then the next question will be those who wish to have it be direct redirected through the department of mental health as the primary um point so again those who would like to have it primarily to have it stay in the department of public safety uh show hands and lucy and emory you're going to have to indicate it with a blue hand or are telling us somehow i don't see emory or lucy weighing in on this one so let me say the reverse or the opposite which is those who would like to have it redirected to the department of mental health rather than primarily through the department of public safety and show a hand okay i'm raising my hand and i see lucy as a virtual hands okay i think i think it's pretty clear uh and and yes and i think emory raised a virtual hand as well so i think i think that that moves us ahead on that decision that uh with respect for you know different opinions here and very and nuances of it but um so i'll turn it back to you and um emory is your hand up from that but okay so um i think i think it was helpful to have people articulate their thinking on this too thank you yes very helpful um i think in our remaining time what we probably want to do is is put together at least a target list for uh when uh katie specifically drafts it what are the key um elements that we want to make sure are in the in the um language to make sure the money uh goes where we want it to go and the the um decision making process in it going there includes includes how we want it decided or who's at the table um to me those are the two key things is is articulating to what degree we want to be specific about where it goes and to what degree we want to be specific about who's involved in that decision there might be other issues people want to bring up but i think those are the the two key things um brian yeah i just have a question um that the term to the specific language of the amendment what is going to be the number of the appropriation again because i know that the document we looked at said five twenty five thousand but yeah i believe i believe that's the accurate number it's the same one that's been from the start so where why am i remembering a two million dollar number from somewhere i have no idea okay i have no idea that and marie was also in and i don't know where that came from i don't think that's ever been part of this discussion because of different other things that we've talked about millions yeah different bill marie just repeat um that i think we need really clear language about having leadership from impacted communities not just representation and one thought would be to have a requirement that the human rights commission um recommend at least one representative um to be working as a leader on how this this program works somehow to include equity and true leadership from the marginalized communities that are most affected by this work i'm gonna raise my hand on on this one um i think that my opinion is that goes to the the further development of where things go and re reimagining the correct system i think that for this immediate appropriation this is a a more rapid process and that a full um community led process would not get us there quickly enough in terms of this interim step so i i think we need to say who the people are that need to be part of the decision but i think um a lot of process of involvement of um who's leading it and all of those things isn't isn't um i don't i don't personally don't think that that's possible to make this happen um on the rapid scale that we want this interim step to happen um that's purely my personal thought peter well i i think in in practical terms it seems like the the designated agencies are the ones that are actually hiring these people and contracting with the department of mental health or department of public services whichever way that ends up let's say department of mental health so i'm wondering how uh how much control in a sense you might have over that hiring process if it's dispersed among many da's so uh maybe some some guidelines on the type of person we're looking for but again then you have to find them so i don't want to create a process that yeah that takes six or nine months to actually get boots on the ground um lucy i just reread the placeholder language and from my reading i'm not sure it does clearly say in there that the intent is that this is for outreach specific to responding to 911 calls and so i think if that is i think that's kind of actually an important in my mind a really important policy distinction and i think if the intent is that this money is for outreach specific to 911 calls i think we should say that is it is it intended to be exclusively to 911 calls i don't think so not well i think it's right i think it's emergency responses which might or might not come in through 911 yeah i don't think i don't think that is as it was it's distinct from street outreach kind of things i guess i'm just trying to understand if we're if if there's a if there's a deviation that we're discussing or not from the way the money was originally proposed to be used through dps where it would be i i guess i guess it would be emergency response but not necessarily 911 calls through dps right and i'm just wondering if we're expanding in our language the way that this money can be used or if the intent is to keep it to the same scope that it would have been from the my understanding was that the intent was to keep it to the same scope that it would have been in the dps proposal which like that that was what my understanding was of what we're doing and if i think that if that is the intent then i think it should be stated it's my understanding that that was our intent for this immediate first step in contrast to what needs to further develop but but that doesn't mean we can't change that if other committee members want to see something broader but my understanding is we were taking the the the scope of the responses the scope of the emergency response as per the dps express need which i think there's pretty pretty big consensus that that is a need the question is how it happens okay thanks woody i i just thought the scope was to expand the mental health outreach program to all the various agencies to include you know municipalities and all the stakeholders um i think it's simple uh a simple statement like that would be sufficient there is remotely enough money to do that so um david well but i think but i think woody's point was i think testimony we heard even from was that this would be working with the vermont state police but also uh responding to other law enforcement as well yes that's that it was a very ambitious um it was a very ambitious scope that they identified but you're right i i mean i think we need to stick with the scope that was identified and so yeah and and you're right woody and the scope that they identified it was statewide not just um dps uh uh david and then lucy is you wanting to be heard again now david yeah i mean just i guess in response to to woody and then echoing lucy's comments i think that if if we if there's a consensus that the intent was to direct the funding to emergency response whether it's 911 or something else and you know i don't know how many calls come in that are not through 911 but i think it would be it would be useful to get the language in there because otherwise i think it does leave it open to the money being used for perfectly illegitimate and needed reasons but uh but taking away from an emergency response need that no no one has said isn't there no one has said that we don't need funding because there aren't we're not anticipating as many emergency response calls yeah good good point thank you other thoughts can i suggest that i'm sorry i'm sorry just a quick comment that that is potentially could we add something in terms of direction that this this should really the fund should be directed at actually hiring people that will be doing this work and not getting swallowed up in administration bureaucracy uh something along those lines and that's part that's part of yeah that's part of saying it's it's it's the scope of what dps was proposing that we want to right support yeah um bill well again this is aspirational and can't necessarily be achieved broadly but uh that's some prior that's some recognition and priority be given to uh individuals who also have a lived experience uh as having been impacted by the mental health and the law enforcement system that if we have two you know and i don't know we run into legalities here but uh but that that's a that's that's a perspective that if you can bring it into this that would be you know that would be an enhancement that i think would be quite valuable yeah i i i think that we i think you know we can talk with katie but i think um indicating that um i mean i don't think that we can be proposing that that it not work through the da system right now for example at and i think that's an assumption but but um the statement that that da's should prioritize hiring qualified peers to fill those roles is something that we can probably articulate yeah when they are qualified for otherwise qualified as well yeah yeah anyone else so the one other piece and we and i'm not saying we can't go back as people think about more of those details but um right now the placeholder language says report back on how you're doing with this by november 1st that's a status report it's not a final what your plan is but that's what it says right now um and so that's one question and the second question is do we want to say something about tell us how you're doing on the bigger picture um even though that's not going to be in the legislature the details of the bigger picture we're talking about is not going to be in the legislation so can i ask a question i found myself thinking the 10-year plan or the whatever you know how it's the vision plan right 10-year vision it's not a 30-year plan right 10-year the vision plan i mean to somehow tie this to uh how this is manifesting itself as the 10-year hopefully not wake 10 years but uh that some of the issues that we're raising uh need to be i'm not quite i'm losing my ability to but that somehow to to say this this this should not be done apart from that but in in coordination with uh with because that plan also calls i believe for accelerated peer involvement etc in the mental health system it does and i think it also they're also we somehow recognize that connection that that's this is a part of what we're asking the department of mental health itself is asking to move forward yeah well and so um katie might remember offhand more rapidly than i do but the the um the vision implementation council integration council the integration council we authorized right and i believe the department of public safety was i hope maybe maybe we could add them to that council if they're not we have a lot of people on that council from all of a lot of different departments and it seems like they certainly um i mean this this should be something when we're talking about integration of mental health in the health care system it includes emergency services with with the with the adult standing committee and the integration council yes right there you go and i think we heard something to the effect and just to acknowledge i mean there's a lot going on you know we're operating within an emergency situation pandemic with people doing amazing work at state government to stand up various programs and i think we had had a request i don't know if it's public and formal but that the possibility that we had charged the integration council i believe it was to have its first meeting in october and they were saying there is so much going on to do that right we really would like to be able to defer that till january one i think that right we were going to give some informal consent to that which we need to remember to do yeah because i think they're saying you want to you want to force us to do that we'll do it but it will be a token it'll be meaningless and it won't be done right but i but i think but i think making some reference here is still in order i think your hand i'm just uh questioning the november first date by the time this all gets through that that's really not much time to do anything so maybe we want to push that out to january or something um yeah that that's fine yeah people december january it is it in my thought it wasn't give us the full report on what you've done it's where what's your progress i'd say what's your progress yeah i'd love to know i think january one seems too late i would hope that they'd be implementing things by then can we do november 15th it's just a status update have you have you had a chance to start it started please yeah i mean i can think of another initiative we took that did have five million dollars that we should have been asking for status updates every three months because we found out later nothing had happened and now we lost that money yeah now we lost that money that had to do with mental health that had to do with supporting mental health staff in the da's with scholarship money there's no hands up right now we have two minutes left in our meeting time we do yeah 155 we're on the floor at two what's the next step will we be emailed something yes the next step is that katie will help with redrafting our you know memo component incorporating the discussion and with a draft of the of a very brief targeted language that will substitute language for the budget subset due to language for the budget and as soon as we have drafts will circulate for you know what will need to be any any comment or you know big misses and so forth for pretty rapid turnaround since we need to be presenting the the amendment on the floor tomorrow afternoon or maybe to approach in the morning right so approach in the morning they will need to see it before we hit on the floor yes yes yeah yeah but what what time do we meet again tomorrow is it at nine is that correct that's a that's a joint yes that's a joint hearing at nine with the senate yes and that's focused on new language from the department of financial regulation to supplement their emergency their ability to do emergency rulemaking having to do with testing around covid and now they and I think from my point of view I appreciate their initiative around flu because of I think if you if you haven't had a chance do look at their I asked I had asked them to give us a written rationale ahead of tomorrow morning's meeting because there's and they mentioned in part that there may be a both a covid and flu test merging that might become and they want to make sure that we protect from our consumers from being billed for things where we have protected them from having to have any out-of-pocket costs and you want us all there tomorrow at nine if you can I mean obviously it's a committee meeting it's a joint meeting if you can be there and it would be nice it's actually nine scheduled nine to ten fifteen I put ten thirty but nine to ten fifteen and we're going to be primarily hearing from the department of financial regulation you know chair it would be nice if you just said you're all ordered to be there I do that you are all ordered to be there thank you and some people will know what to do I quit and other people will probably rebel I'm on live YouTube what am I talking about I'll be very careful here okay I think that does it for today thank you again let me say let me I after we got off yesterday I wanted to very publicly thank representative Donahue again for your leadership in organizing the witnesses that we had this we had three days of testimony and for also once again taking the lead in organizing some of our thoughts where we offered thoughts and she reduced a lot of that to paper and so thank you and representative Donahue for your leadership on this it's it's tremendously invaluable tremendously valuable and with that I'd say again thank you to the whole committee working as a team let's move forward and please when if there is a draft to the degree possible respond rapidly you did many of you most of you did previously and that seemed to work fine and then we'll we'll reconvene at nine tomorrow morning and be in touch okay thank you Dennis we will go off on YouTube live at this point