 And an amendment that everybody has in front of them, I believe, that you and the state's attorneys work on? Yes, sir. We have witnesses scheduled to be then commented on that. James is on his way. Huh? Pepper's on his way. Good. All right. So we have really gutted this bill in terms of any additional policy, you know, which the original is, three years old. Correct. For the record, Morning Fog, Deputy Commissioner Department of Mental Health, I'd like to start by saying thank you to the committee and to the chair. I want to repeat what I've said at the beginning. Almost each and every testimony around this bill, which has been to say thank you for introducing this bill. This is a discussion that has been long needed. And it's been my pleasure to be a part of this conversation and getting this bill to the point where it is now. As the chair mentioned, we've had conversations with state's attorneys as well as elect council in trying to provide some further input on the language. I want to thank Eric. Your work on this has been tremendous. And thank you for your patience as we've been working around numerous illnesses in our department trying to come up with the language and finally get it to you and get it in front of the committee for today's testimony. Interestingly enough, the language in here, I can kind of go over again if that would be helpful for the committee. And so, some of the specific provisions that we had looked for to have included in this bill, just giving me a second as I'm trying to reorient myself to the first time I'm actually looking at it on paper. But the basic tenets are of the different things that I testified to last week have all been incorporated into this version, including some of the following. The idea that competency and sanity evaluations are now to be separated, that if there is competency and sanity question, that the competency evaluation would take place first. And that sanity evaluations would only take place once competency has been established or that the evaluator feels that they can have a finding of competence to stand trial. And this would help, I believe, with Vermont in becoming more in line with the best practices throughout the nation in regards to that. This language also includes the party status that the department had requested when competency and sanity is requested or that sanity and competency have been raised as an issue. That the Department of Mental Health and the Vermont Legal Aid Mental Health Law Project shall become parties to these cases. Again, as the Attorney General's Office for the Department of Mental Health and the Mental Health Law Project are the folks who really truly understand some of the ins and outs of our mental health system, the needs of individuals and can speak to those needs most appropriately going through and in the court cases. I can continue as long as, unless there are questions. Well, currently the department is not a party? Currently the department is not a party in criminal cases. And part of the issue is that at times there may be questions as to once a decision of competency or sanity has been determined, the next step in the process is to go to hospitalization hearing where they determine whether a person should be ordered hospitalized or placed on maybe an order of non-hospitalization. And it happens that at times the department is notified of an order of hospitalization that we were not a party to or not aware of. And there are times that, and significant times where we've had some strong disagreements with the court's decision in that and had no ability to express that to those concerns or the clinical concerns that might indicate that a person was actually not appropriate for hospitalization. And especially in light of limited resources and psychiatric inpatient facilities, we're looking to ensure that the folks who are ordered to an inpatient facility truly actually need to be in an inpatient psychiatric facility. Maury, I'll look at the bottom of page 2, top of page 3. Yes, sir. If I go before a judge, and I make chronic, and we are questioning whether they were sane at the time of the event, but there's nothing about my relationship with that individual that leads me to say, judge, I don't think this person is competent. I would only be asking for a sanity evaluation. This language specifically says that the examination of sanity should only be undertaken if the person is determined to be competent first. Do you want to go through the expense and the time of the competency evaluation if that issue hasn't been raised? I don't think it was our intent to have language that one would have to go through a competency evaluation. I think our intent with the language was that the evaluator had no questions about it. There were no questions so they would just continue on there with the sanity piece. It's possible that we can make some language changes. It is an odd wording that is able to form the opinion. It presumes that he's conducting an evaluation of competency. And the way this is designed, that issue would have to be a separate court hearing from the actual target, which is the sanity knowledge. It doesn't make a lot of sense to you. It's the way that comes out. Sorry, if I may. I care about my general counsel for the department. Actually, if you look at the top of page two, it talks about examinations shall have reference to one or both. It does talk about how you could only have a sanity or only have a competency if that's the only issue. And then if you look at the section I think you're talking about, it is talking about if this psychologist or psychiatrist has been asked to provide opinions on both. And so I think that's when that would play in and come into effect. But the statute does actually talk about only being able to order one of them if that's what's being requested. So we do think the language covers it but certainly we can continue to work with that counsel if you have concerns. So my understanding right then, maybe it's weak, there's an address to an entertaining point. Is that line 17, page two, if the psychologist or psychologist has been asked to provide opinions as to both, right, as to both the person's competency and the person's sanity. And then you could say at the beginning of the second sentence, line 20, page two, in such cases the examination of the defendant's sanity shall only be undertaken. Is that right? So that links them up to the, that way there wouldn't be the situation that's on our page, I think. Yeah, that does. Yeah, well we'd be good with that as well. But it still makes it too separate for a determined person's competence. If there's a question for them. If there's a question about that and I'm whether or not they're understanding. It seems to make sense. We'll hear from other witnesses that it might not be. And Pepper, you can, you kind of came late to the party with that. Feel free to jump in here. I know you and Morning Gore on this. Right. I missed the question, but if the question. The bottom of page two. The issue is if I have a client who I am interacting with and I have no indication that this person is a defendant. I wouldn't ask for a competency evaluation. But if there's a question about what their brain was like at the time of the event. I would be asking for a sanity evaluation. I don't understand why you would even need the impression that a competency evaluation should take place first. A separate course for shading before you can get to the actual target of what the problem is. And that was our exact concern about that decision as well. It sounds like we'll be supportive of the change. Some of the other language that we've worked on that we had asked to add in is actually later on in the bill. Part of the forensic study piece where it talks about that part of the study would look at different models such as the psychiatric security review boards. We also added in language also to study guilty but mentally ill verdicts in criminal cases. As those seem to have kind of risen to the top of some of the discussions around how some of this from a mental health perspective can address some of the concerns that Bill originally sought to address. And so we want to make sure and really do. And again this is something that when the department of mental health says we'd like to study folks should sit up and take notice because we get asked to do a lot of studies and a lot of times and kind of get weary of studies. But we feel that this is an extremely important topic that we want to be judicious about and careful about. My understanding from talking with other national experts who have worked with other states around this topic that it's all too easy to have unintended consequences. In relation to the setup of things like the psychiatric security review board or adding criminal verdicts of guilty but mentally ill things of that sort. And so we wish to be able to study that as part of that study. It was mentioned in my testimony last week that the department would suggest the addition of having an external expert slash consultant be a part of the study. And the department would also ask that that some funds be attached or requested to be able to do that so that we could have an expert come in to help us. Someone who has national standards, a national perspective that's worked with other states in these types of issues. So that we're not just having our own internal conversations that we actually have outside folks who have some expertise in this area that can help guide some of those conversations. It's possible I'd have to look into that. I don't mind putting in appropriations. It's unusual for the administration to support an additional appropriation. It would be difficult for us to have a, I think, a robust study if we did not include outside experts. And I failed to see how to do that. Where's the victim's piece? There's a notification. Yep. And we didn't make any, there was no real substantive changes to that other than what Mr. Pepper from the state's attorneys had suggested last time, which was the addition of the incompetent to stand trial. Oh, okay. The victim gets notified by the state's attorney if they so desire. Correct. There's also put in the attorney generals if they happen to be the one prosecuting the cases that Mr. Shear brought up in last week's testimony as well. Okay. James Pepper, again, Department of State's attorneys and sheriffs. You know, we added, we asked specifically for section five, which is on page six, that's the quote, unquote, Cheryl fix it allowed that permits this a state retained expert to examine a defendant for competency. Again, this would put these competency examinations on the exact same footing as the insanity evaluations where the state can seek their own expert to evaluate a defendant. We think that this is the most appropriate way to place that you make the change. We consulted with the attorney general's office and we're in agreement that this just adds a section to the kind of discovery rules that allow where it's a section right after the insanity evaluations add one for competency evaluations. Other than that, you know, we, we looked at the some of the additions from Department of Mental Health about adding party standing. We don't have any serious concerns about it at this time. We got them last night and I'm just want to just reach out to a few more people. I know that the bill has a possible vote tomorrow, but I was. If somebody found incompetent to stand trial, what happens? Do they get competent enough to stand trial at some point? That's that would be the intensive part of the study looks at helping Vermont create a competency restoration program. As it stands right now, there is no legislative mandate to restore someone to competency. And so current practice is it's random to, you know, someone's mental health treatment and they no longer may require to say inpatient level of care. It doesn't necessarily equal that they're now competent. And so, you know, we have that struggle. Generally more familiar with the insanity plea than they lack competence to stand trial. And usually until the state attorney had checked the county, dropped those charges, those cases. I think the competency issue was really raised very often in here. It's usually been the insanity plea. And in various cases, it can vary. But in those cases, in particular, you're correct. So I'm sorry you're kind of caught off guard here. Did you want to testify together or do you want to have anything to add? You know, this bill, I think is a very good bill. I think that it, you know, the study committee in particular. Addresses all of the areas of the original bill was trying to address, but maybe in an insufficient or potentially unconstitutional way. And so we're very much supportive of the kind of forensic study group and we hope that, you know, we can come back with a polished product for this committee to look at or the committee next door. And with respect to the kind of other pieces of this, the victim notification, I mean, that's something that can happen immediately. And, you know, in many cases should be happening, you know, by our perspective. And honestly, under the kind of some of the other provisions of the law, it seems like it should have been happening. But then it got interpreted differently by the Supreme Court. So I think that that is an incredibly important piece of this. So I don't have much to add. You made that section effective on passage. I look to the mental health just because they're the ones who would be notifying us to see if they could do it. I mean, I'd have to check, but my current thought is I don't see what the barrier to that would be from our perspective. It is limited to the big 12 crimes. No, I mean, that's the sort of thing most people who are concerned about. Right, of course. That's obviously the... Obviously, any crime serious thing, there's a victim. Any crime serious. Any crime serious. Crimes where there are victims identified are not much more serious and victims need to be taken into account. Get on TV, say at tribes. Some tribes are not serious. We've been taught on the same worst thing. Well, I know, but I'm afraid that, you know, my opponent... I know. He's running for my Senate and Governor. He's running under a Republican ticket. Running for both? He's also very outspoken about the amount of huge voter fraud in many times. Is this the guy with the dog on the next thing? He's 20 years. Yeah, but I have no idea who you're talking about. Mr. Huy, you'll become familiar with him when you have your... Alright, great. I thank you all for working on this. David Sher, do you have any comments? A few more on the technical nature. If the committee wants to hear that now or some other time. Yeah, sure. Sounds good. Can I make comment after, at some point? We can put you in there. If we have time. Today, tomorrow, Chris, you would also... Yes, if you have time. If we don't have time today, tomorrow, for all of you. Why is there a shortage? Well, we're hopeful of that. No, I'm kidding. We know you, we know you. We're happy to hear from you. Morning. David Sher with the Attorney General's office. Thanks for having me this morning. I tried to do a very rapid review of this bill. I apologize, I didn't have a lot of time away. I had our criminal division look at it, and there were just a few things that they were wanting to bring up. Some of them are actually current law issues, but they spotted in here, which, again, in those places where it mentions only state's attorneys, they would appreciate having the Attorney General's office mention as well since the AGO is often a party in some of these... often a party in these cases. So, for example, on page two, line 15, state's attorney without AGO is there. Moving on from that. One question that the criminal division had, and I apologize that I wasn't here for Deputy to Deputy Commissioner's testimony earlier. On the top of page four, I understand Attorney McCullis here, too, and may be able to answer this. They were... The criminal division was... Our criminal division was wondering a little bit about the purpose of the Vermont Legally Mental Health Law Project, having party status at a hearing where the defendant would presumably be represented by counsel. Understanding, of course, that they do represent folks in civil commitment hearings and just wondering what the policy rationale was there. Our criminal division's view of that was that it makes sense that the Commissioner of Mental Health there, but with somebody who is currently represented by defense counsel and now also with the Commissioner of Mental Health coming in with the clinical side of things, what the sort of policy rationale behind this would seem to be giving defendant a second sort of counsel, this type of employee, by legal aid, and just trying to understand where that was coming from and what policy end that was serving, again, given the context of this being a criminal proceeding with counsel already present. And I assume that folks here in the room will be able to help us out with that. The final thing that I'll bring up here was at the, actually near the end of the report section, there is on page eight, there's a chunk that says the working group, and this is lines 13 through 17, instructs the working group to do a sort of large survey, which is entirely appropriate. We are very much in favor of that. But we were also, the criminal division was also curious then if you skip ahead to page nine, the bottom of page nine, lines 19 to 21, there's a very specific directive about the Connecticut system, and it's not to say we take any position on that, whether Connecticut is good or bad, but we're just, it seemed a little bit unclear to have a sort of let's do a broad survey, entirely appropriate, and then a seemingly specific directive to look at Connecticut. It may be that that's where we want to go, but again, our position was a bit of testimony regarding how good Connecticut's model was, and so we wanted to make sure that that was reviewed. We could be put in that frame of reference that, you know, we had some testimony about it, that's why it's here. Good. Can I, I had, I didn't catch that before, but this very specifically says there will be legislation adapting that model. It doesn't say to study it and to look at it, it says there will be a legislation, proposed legislation to adapt that, adopt that model. Yeah, I don't think we need that. Yeah, it should be over here in the study. Yeah. Well, I'll take this study also. Yeah. You don't want it there, that's what you're saying. Yeah, it shouldn't be there like that. You don't want it to say shall adopt it. Well, it's presuming the outcome of the study before the study is done. Could it be? Well, why would you even say anything? Yeah, just don't. If you were going to say something about the mainland. If you were going to say something about the mainland. Well, I think you can say that shall study other states including the Connecticut area. In the study itself. And we're here. High March. Yeah. Yeah. But not presuming that you come to a conclusion. That's right. Also part of that is proposed draft. Yeah, just take that sentence out. Yeah. I would take that whole thing out. Okay. Thank you. I didn't catch that. Yeah. And the only final. Huh? Did you want to take out the requirement that both draft legislation hold together? I wanted to take out that whole. Is it a report seller? I think they should propose draft legislation regarding changes. Right. Yeah. Yeah. No, they can propose legislation if they want to. And the only final piece I've mentioned is attorney pepper already testified to the competency hearing piece. And we are in agreement there and happy to answer any questions with anything else. Or that in the bill. Well, thank you very much. All right. Thank you. Are you ready? True. I got to defend the general. Took a look at this. I had some questions as much as anything. I wish I had my glasses as much as anything. Do you want my? Yeah. All day. Yeah. Rangers, is that what you need? Yeah. Yeah. I left them in my other coat. Wait, can I have some right back here? Oh, that would be great. You're not like those threes or fours. No. They really do. They work. Oh, geez. How do you get around? Would you like to try a different pair? No. I'll figure it out at some point here. You know, the biggest questions that we had about this had to do with bringing in, you used the word parties a lot in this. And you talk about that. We have a criminal matter pending. And probably somebody's already gone through this or at least looked at this issue. And usually the parties are the state and the defendants. And I just didn't know if the commissioner of mental health was also going to be a criminal defendant party or maybe legal aid also. What do you mean by parties in this? What does party status mean when you're talking about mental health? The commissioner or the state's attorney to respond to that question? They might be interested parties in some way and have a legal position to put forward. But I don't think that they rise to the level of parties in a criminal matter. It confuses me. I just don't know what that means. What rights do you get? Absolutely. This actually came from the Department of Mental Health. So I think the Department of Mental Health's concern is that there are times when the confidence we are standing here raised with being contemplative and putting someone into the commissioner's custody. And so therefore we do have an interest. And we have before, in several cases, we disagreed with what has happened. They're making decisions to put people in our custody without getting our opinion or our clinical opinion on it. And so what the Department is really seeking is to be at the table to get the reports to have the opportunity to present to the court our concerns or our recommendations. I think however you want to phrase that, I think that's what we're getting at, is that we would like to be at the table and we would like our clinical rationale to be heard by the judge who you consider in the case when thinking about committing someone into our custody. There's some other terminology other than party status To me, they sound like witnesses. Almost. If they're going to be presenting a clinical opinion that is contrary to then they should be subject to cross-examination and examination under oath just like any other witness if they have a if they have a position that's based on legal aid and mental health spots. I kind of ask the same question. I understand what their role is after the criminal case is over that doesn't bother me and I actually we've talked over the years about when we get to the point of the hospitalization or non-hospitalization we've spoken before about having legal aid pick up the case at that point they do more work with the Department of Mental Health as far as the therapeutic end than the Defender General's Office does and they have more expertise in that I mean there's individuals within the DG's office who are as good as anybody but I can't guarantee that any attorney representing anybody all over the state who might have a mental health defense or case. The Department of Children and Families role in a case for example where you're determining whether to place a child in custody is that one? Because aren't they a party to that or not? Well the state is the party it's not DCF versus But DCF is there? Yeah and they put social workers or people on the stand and you can cross examine them and ask them questions and test their opinion as to why they're recommending what they're recommending You know the state is the party that they are I don't think they're parties they're just their witnesses You know party status to me raises other issues and I actually don't know how it would even work Did this I have questions about this more than I had various issues when you were early on in the proceedings at the beginning of the bill was this on page 2 and I had a note on beginning on page 3 is this proposing that in every case where there's a mental health issue that competencies in sanity evaluations be done immediately at the same time? Okay You described that It read that way to me and they're really very easy Well, Joe Senator Benning brought it up and nice to see you both on the same page Everything was awesome I was with Pepper too It's a sequencing of when the competency in the sanity evaluations were placed in particular cases and that was not as clear in the draft I don't know if you have a plan or want to add this but the way the change is so you're on the bottom of page 2 line 17 So it only were applying in situations where if the psychiatrist or psychologist has been asked to provide opinions as to both both the person's competency and sanity in situations where they've been asked to provide opinions as to both then the sequencing kicks in so then the opinion shall be presented in separate reports and addressed separately and then the start to second sense by saying in such cases the examination of the sanity should only be undertaken if the competency formulation is done so when they're asked to do both they're separate and that's the sequence that they go to the purpose of that I mean to ask that the purpose around separating the competency and sanity evaluations is that your question Well it sounded like you're almost combining them as opposed to separating them The language that the place council mentions should be basically saying that when the court orders both competency and sanity competency evaluations shall take place first or do an evaluation for sanity in cases where just competency or just sanity is ordered you will do just competency or just sanity And the idea is that if you're having a confident that you don't do the sanity exam until you've been found competent Right Just so that everybody's aware you can raise their you have a period of time to raise sanity You don't have to do that immediately at the very beginning of the case sanity is a defense that can be raised only with the consent of the defendant assuming that he's competent to stand trial or she and so sometimes what it takes is the gathering of information that you don't have at the very beginning of the case so just so that you're aware that timing of this it's not neat like this and the way some of the clients address these issues because you might be competent but that doesn't necessarily mean you're well and making a decision about whether or not you want to raise a sanity defense can sometimes come and go and if you want to tie it with a bow early on in an easy procedure that's probably not going to work but I can see if there are enough if this happens then this happens that's fine but that's not often the way that it happens I already talked about before the notice issue regarding victims and we have no problem with that now we see it in a draft and it's worthwhile I'm running this by our appellate division between last night and this morning I haven't seen any of them but if you go to PACE PACE 6 and PACE 7 particularly PACE 7 involving treating a sanity examination like a non testimonial order it's in that kind of same section medical inspections handwriting samples rule 16.1 I think that there might be constitutional prohibitions against compelling somebody to have a sanity evaluation or in order I actually think they have a constitutional right to refuse to be examined if they decide that that's what they want to do and I know that this may arise out of some cases that have occurred in the last couple of years where the state was seeking evaluations of the defendant in cases where mental health issues were raised but there was no authority to do that but I think the reason there is no authority to do that is you probably have 5th and 6th amendment rights not to that you don't have to participate in those evaluations so I don't know I don't think you can thoroughly overcome those well not the part that's not on page 7 that's underlined and re-elected and well it's similar to what's on the bottom of page 6 I think the existing law permits the ordering of a sanity when the defendant raises a sanity as a defense they can order the examination so the proposal is to allow it for competency and allows it to what? Consciousness Hi These students are from my entity so we're here Welcome to China Dishara Thanks for being here I hope you had a great time and I hope to get a picture with you later I hope so too unfortunately we have a crowded room here Welcome Welcome I'm Nick Stevens and the chairman of the committee we're talking about the sanity please and when people are deemed to be not guilty by reason of the sanity or not confident to stand trial and changes that might be made in that particular law so I see you over here I don't know now Hope Kehan and Dominique Thies Welcome Any guys go to school there? Same thing happens when my school goes somewhere all the girls go and the other guys go Oh my male students are in another committee meeting I do have males here though Where are they? I don't know what committee they're in I'm sorry So what I'd like to do is get lucky to have you for and bye You're the teacher This is an adventure general so I hope you never meet But if you do it's alright I'd like to get back to you on this constitutional issue I wanted to run it by like I said I sent it over to a palace and We're going to take it up tomorrow I think I'll have something for you by then I know What are the same things regarding the directive language on Connecticut I don't know what's so special about Connecticut Yeah I was here I saw that But What I do know about Connecticut is they're good every 5 to 10 years where they create great systems and then by year 7 they don't fund them and then there's a lawsuit and then they get a whole ton of money and it's great again for another 3 to 5 years where they don't fund it and then there's another lawsuit You try to get along here either That's what I have Thanks for the glasses Lucy that puts you up next Lucy Garland I did want to say that in the event of legal aid if somebody is declared incompetent or insane at the time and we get to the hospitalization hearing if legal aid and we've talked about this before if they want to pick up the representation at that time for the hospitalization hearing I've said it before and I'll say it here just so we're clear we don't object to that Jack will be touched by tomorrow Lucy Lucy Garan DRM I will be very short on page 8 with the workgroup we're hoping to add a representative of the designated hospitals to the workgroup appointed by Boz the hospital association there are 5 designated hospitals in the state so we just would like to see the table UVM medical centers CVMC the retreat Springfield they have the Wyndham Center Wyndham Center but not the Wyndham Center not anymore oh they're not as bankrupt anymore they may be bankrupt but the Wyndham Center has a January 1 January 1 it doesn't exist at all the Wyndham Center still exists they have psychiatric patients just voluntary in nature they voluntarily chose as of January 1 not to seek redesignation while they're going through their full process with Springfield Hospital it's possible in the future that may change but right now they're not currently does name for involuntary psychiatric patients but they're still under the auspices of Springfield Hospital the VA hospital so a representative of designated hospitals appointed by the Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems thank you Chris Bennell represents the victims of crime and I too will be very short why did so all of you from the audience know you also have representatives of crime if you should become a victim of a crime thank you Senator Sears Chris Bennell from the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services the only question I had in pepper may actually have an answer for this is that I would like the state's attorneys in the AG's office to have a policy and procedure around notifying victims and I would suggest that rather than opting in that they opt out so that it's incumbent on somebody to try to notify the victims if they have not opted out of notification maybe actually I dealt Saturday morning with a family member of the victim of murder the murderer escaped from Ferello and Bellas Falls and he murdered a young man from Bennington in 1987 and his brother still lives in Shaftesbury and wasn't notified that the guy had absconded and it's like it's a long story of Ferello failures but to make a long story short the fact is that they evidently had been confused about signing up for the victim notification so they weren't okay the victim's wife was notified but the brother wasn't there's this kind of confusion about that so it might be I think that's probably a good idea um I will say this for your state's attorney she's more than willing to help get him signed up I call Tracy about it because it happened in Bellas Falls so I think that's a good picture I got him this morning I got an email from Ronald so that's my only recommendation is an opt out rather than an opt in because then I think it will give it some importance things just years later and I just think that every attempt should be made to notify victims if they want well I would see if they don't lock down I had a long conversation I mean this guy had a number we also talked about expunging his record so it was more than just you know but in talking with him he said every time this happens and we hear about it just revictimizing us we then get reminded of all that you don't wish to be notified and then they would opt out and we actually we were talking about this in the office and we have two time employees who actually victims call them they were so sort of paranoid that they didn't even want to sign up for the victim notification automatic one but you know 15 years later they're still checking in with our staff because they're worried that people are going to get out okay any questions? okay we've got some extra time are you ready to day Jack or do you want to wait till tomorrow? I was going to talk to Karen Barber about one of the things that might be better for you to wait till tomorrow thank you Judge Grishan if you're ready I never thought we'd get to you today neither did I good morning for the record Brian Greerson chief superior judge speaking to revised draft 4.1 183 section 1 I'm looking at line line 16 commissioners shall be a party the committee are raised I had a chance to at least get this out to the judges a quick response in my view and we've discussed this before and other committees is that I think it's appropriate not when the issue is raised but once there has been a competency determination if the individual is found to be incompetent the next step is the hospitalization I think you refer to it here as a commitment hearing regarding commitment so it's a hospitalization or non hospitalization hearing and there was a study commission maybe two or three sessions ago involving all the folks that have been testifying here and my recollection was that there was consensus that at that stage at the hospitalization hearing or non hospitalization hearing there was a consensus to then bring in the department of mental health as a party as well as legal aid and the primary thinking at least my recollection was that at the competency stage it's still clearly a question of public safety and criminal behavior if you determine if the determination is that the individual is incompetent to stand trial then at least at that point the focus turns not punishment but treatment and I think both legal aid and the department of mental health are better informed at that stage as to what is necessary I think the last I forget the bill number I don't know if you found it Eric but that provision actually went through in a bill form through the house and I believe it came here when we ever had a hearing in front of senate judiciary but it may be one way of resolving what I think was a concern by the state's attorneys was to leave the state's attorney at the table at the hospitalization hearing but still a lot of the DMH and the attorney general's office to come in and they could work together at that point but I think it would be important to bring in Jack McCullough and folks from that if it once it's in the civil forum they're the ones that are going to be involved anyway so I agree with the concept but I think it's later at a later stage it would be appropriate under section two I think currently at the later stage where the bill does actually maintain a big way to party at the top of page four this is the presentation hearing you right you're saying that's the appropriate time for them to be a party as far as section one I think you guys have to think about what that language might read I think there was some concern expressed by the defendant about what the party's wording means in that context as well so maybe that's either keep it in that place or tweak it a little bit I'm sorry if I notice and it's not going to be heard maybe or strike it and just keep it in the later piece most of the issues I'm glad to talk to DMH Rack they clearly should be involved at that hospitalization area as parties as to what notice it may be a matter of getting notice of the earlier proceedings and not necessarily party status so that may be maybe one way of resolving that that's what I was saying to you so section two the current statute seems to require that the psychiatrist conduct every examination and that an examination by a psychologist be included when the defendant has a developmental disability feel free to take a seat open up feel free to take a place I think it's a matter really of clarifying is it just the psychologist or do they intend that a psychiatrist should be involved in every evaluation and then only bring in psychologist when there's a developmental disability when there's a developmental disability which words Adam I'm in section two oh I'm on seven yeah and this is all of course this is the current law so one of the just raised a question of does that mean that in every case there is a psychiatrist and only bring in a psychologist when there are cases involving developmental disability or if it is a case identified as developmental disability psychiatrist still have to be involved and so I think with more matter of clarification and anything else and again we're going to talk with folks from DMH on that and on section three we have no comment it makes sense to us we agree with section four that notice should be required when the person is discharged we have no objection to that and we have no comments on section five I'm sorry no objection 55 and have no comments with respect to section six or seven one matter that's not part of the bill that has occurred at least brought to my attention recently when individuals are found incompetent and we move to the next phase other than extremely serious offenses most of those cases are dismissed without prejudice at that stage and then they go to the civil process we discovered recently that at least in one county and I don't know how widespread it is and I'm looking into it that they have left those cases open without dismissing them sometimes for ten years or more which raises all kinds of questions about the conditions of release that may have been imposed on time ago and so the thought was that there ought to be some consideration to when a case should be how long does the case stay open and if we're going to be talking about restoration services you probably wouldn't want to dismiss it but the question is how long should a case remain open and so we would suggest that the committee may want to consider that as they move forward we're going to take this up tomorrow and then the plan would be that it's voted out on Tuesday markup, final markup Tuesday along with the robo call bill which most people are we have not yet heard from the robo calling history don't want to test before so Tuesday we should be ready to mark it up and I hope everybody will have any suggestions and by then the whole weekend after tomorrow's testimony I think this bill would go to health and welfare and that may be appropriations if you if you have language on that appropriations thank you that's all I have thank you unless somebody else wants to testify we're going to take a lengthy break so everybody can be back yes could I just make one freeze comment absolutely and stay right there okay and for disability rights for other people at Mount Anthony if you have a Bennington connection Bennington connection, heck I was born there grew up in Chastbury, graduated from Mount Anthony in high school in the first class to actually go through four years there so that's my old stomping grounds as they say I'm an original alumni oh most of your furniture I would just make the comment in the section on studying forensic needs that the state's mental health care ombudsman ought to be included there and that's the state's protection and advocacy system which is disability rights for a month I think we're ready to jump thank you thanks for that advertisement alright we'll take a break until 1030 to be back at 1030 to talk about