Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Good afternoon. This is the House Appropriations Committee. It is Monday, 03/09/2026. It's 02:00, and we are going to hear another bill, age five fifty nine, an act relating to the parole board. And we have a new to us member of legislative council. Hillary is here. And since we haven't met you, we'll introduce ourselves, those of us that are here, and then introduce yourself. And I see that representative Grier is also here. Here is here from House of Crunchers and Institutions. So Dave.

[Rep. David Yacovone]: Welcome. I'm David Yacovone from Mooresville representing the Lamoille Washington District.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Mike Nigro, represent Bennington.

[Chris Root (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I'm Stevens from Waterbury, representing Washington Chittenden District.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Martha Feltus from Linden, representing Linden Sutton. We watch that field into work. Robin Scheu from Middlebury. Hi, I'm Jeff Ripley from Burlington.

[Rep. Trevor Squirrell (Clerk)]: Trevor Squirrell, Underhill Jericho. Wayne Laroche, Highgate, Franklin, Berkshire, and Richford.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: We have two Vermont State University trustees who are at a trustee's meeting today, So that, and then one who was online and is not anymore. And hello, Greer. And if you've got anything you wanna say, just raise your hand whenever it's time. Okay, great. So introduce yourself, and walk us through the bill, please.

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Great. For the record, Hillary Chittenden aims for the Office of Legislative Council. Grew up in South Hero, went to Burlington High School and Middlebury College, and I've been away for a while working outside Vermont. But glad to be back. I'm excited to be at Lodge Council. Welcome back. So H. Five fifty nine, we have draft 4.1. And just a quick reminder about where we are in the criminal justice process. This is after someone has been convicted and sentenced. Parole is a discretionary conditional decision to release someone from a correctional facility into the community. And it's the parole board, quasi judicial body, that makes that determination, decides if someone will be released and under what conditions. So this bill is focused on four main things with respect to the parole board. It authorizes more training for parole board members. It makes some changes related to the parole board composition. Three, it creates a pilot project for external legal counsel for the parole board. I think that will be the main fiscal impact that we can focus on. And then fourth, it adds some process and reporting requirements related to the parole board budget for fiscal year 'twenty eight and fiscal year 'twenty nine. So the bill is focused on making changes to the parole board, not anything about eligibility for parole or how parole determinations get made. So jumping into the bill language and stop me at any point if you have questions. I'll do a high level overview. And if there are any kind of further questions, then we can go into that. So sections one, two, and three cover the expanded training for parole board members and the parole board composition changes. So the idea was to provide some more training on topics relevant to the parole board and to make sure that when new parole board members are appointed, they're considering general balance and composition on the parole board and the kinds of experiences and knowledge that folks have. Section four, It'll be on page four. We'll do this in little more detail because I think this will be the one potentially more relevant to the committee. Section four would create a parole board legal counsel pilot project for fiscal year 'twenty seven. This external legal support would do two things, provide training to the board on due process and similar topics related to conducting quasi judicial parole board hearings. It would also provide legal advice to the board as needed related to parole So board a little step back, I mentioned the parole board is an independent quasi judicial body. They do not have their own counsel. And parole board members aren't necessarily lawyers or judicially trained, but the nature of their job is hearing evidence, making determinations in ways that are pretty relevant to things that lawyers are a little bit more familiar with. So the trick with using available DOC lawyers is that there's kind of a conflict of interest, where DOC lawyers are advising parole officers who appear at hearings and kind of present information. So having a DOC lawyer, where generally AAGs in a DOC litigation unit funded by the DOC budget, having them provide advice to people appearing before the parole board and to the parole board at the same time is a potential conflict. So that's where the external legal support comes in. So Section four, after noting what kinds of things this external legal support would do, says that the OAG will help AHS and the PERL Board with putting this out to bid. And that in budget development for fiscal year twenty eight, AHS, DOC, and the Parole Board director will assess the pilot project, see how it's going, determine any resources that are needed for external legal support for the Parole Board in fiscal year twenty eight. There's also a provision. This is subsection D, page four, line 19, that by November, November 15, the parole board director will report back to house corrections about how this pilot project is working, provide any recommendations about how this should look going forward. What does it mean for external legal support for the board? And what kind of resources are involved?

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So this would start July 1. Correct. They only have three months under their belt before they're starting to write a report.

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, there was some discussion that that might be a little early. But I think there was interest in catching it in the fiscal year 'twenty eight budget development process. So I think there would be an initial report in November 15 that would prompt House Corrections to be looking at this, considering any bills, and certainly could be an ongoing conversation. If no other questions, we'll move forward to sections five and six, which are about funding for this Parole Board legal counsel pilot project. Section five designates $25,000 that DOC had in the fiscal year twenty six budget for rural board external legal services. That was put out to bid and did not get any bids at $25,000 which I understand is part of why the committee wanted to put more money there going forward. So Section five would carry that $25,000 from the fiscal year 'twenty six budget for this purpose forward to fiscal year twenty twenty seven for the legal counsel pilot project. Section six would appropriate an additional $50,000 again toward the legal counsel pilot project. My understanding from House of Corrections, and they've communicated it to at least some members of the committee, is that they will find this $50,000 elsewhere. The draft, currently written, designates the general fund so that House Corrections would pass the Senate Committee and bring it before you. But my understanding is that that is a placeholder and house corrections will have a recommendation about where in the DOC budget or otherwise that additional 50,000 would come from.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: It doesn't have to be general fund. Yeah. Will, do you have something you want to say? Go right ahead.

[Rep. Will Notte (House Corrections & Institutions)]: Yep. Here. Let me lower my hand real quick. There we go. Yeah. For the $50,000 that's in section six on if you're following on the the draft 4.1 for May, that $50,000 right now, our committee's still working through the pretrial supervision program that was in the governor's recommended budget. We're gonna be we're gonna change kind of we're gonna pivot a little bit from what the governor's recommended had. So that $50,000 appropriation is gonna come out of I believe it was 1,500,000.0 that was recommended in the governor's budget. So that's where we're hoping to get that $50,000 for the new appropriation.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Great. So no new general fund that we have?

[Rep. Will Notte (House Corrections & Institutions)]: No, ma'am. No.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: At the moment. That's great. The 25,000 is carry forward that they expect to have already. So so your your repro group has looked at that, I'm sure, and that's where the 25,000 got uncovered.

[Rep. Will Notte (House Corrections & Institutions)]: Yes, yes, Yep, so the $25,000 from that because like Hillary said, the RFP that was put out, there were no bids on it and so that's just gonna carry forward from last year's fiscal year.

[Unidentified committee member]: Great. Thanks.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche]: You know, it's general fund money that wasn't from the the cash fund, was it?

[Rep. Will Notte (House Corrections & Institutions)]: Say say that again. I couldn't hear that part.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche]: That was general fund money from last year, not not from the general fund, but some cash, you know, what do they call it? The the cash fund?

[Rep. Will Notte (House Corrections & Institutions)]: Yeah. No. This was general fund because this was corrections budget. So the cash fund that you're referring to is just on the capital bill end of things that we work with you all on.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Great. Thanks. Okay. One

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: more question. Well,

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: let's finish up. Yeah. Why don't we finish up

[Unidentified committee member]: with Section seven now, I think?

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Section seven is about the Pearl Board budget process. So as I mentioned, the Pearl Board is an independent body, but its budget is part of the DOC budget. And historically, it has not submitted a budget or separately identified its budget needs. That's been part of DOC budgeting. So section seven would require that in the fiscal year twenty eight and fiscal year twenty nine budget development process that the parole board director submit a proposed budget to DOC and AHS. There's also a report back provision that by 12/15/2027, the Parole Board Director would report back to House Corrections about the budget development process, including a recommendation about the Parole Board submitting essentially its own budget line item to DOC. Section eight has an effective date of 07/01/2026.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So we'll have an amendment to this appropriation coming from directions and institutions. Wayne, I'm wondering if you want to hear from Chris Root from Joint Fiscal before asking your questions or

[Rep. Wayne Laroche]: are there

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: other questions you need? More

[Rep. Wayne Laroche]: general correction, they're not about money. Keep going.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: All right, so why don't we have, don't go, Right there, Hillary. And Chris, do you want to join us at the table?

[Chris Root (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Hello, everyone. Welcome back. Chris Root from Joint Fiscal. I have very little to add to the excellent summary that Lynch counsel gave over the bill. I just wanna point out a few things. The section one through three, there's a lot of training in this bill, but it's not all the same training. There's two different trainings. There's a requirement that the Department of Corrections provide regular training for the parole board at least annually on a variety of issues related to criminal justice and behavioral issues. That is likely going to represent some resource need that the Department of Corrections would have to absorb through their existing budget, but, it's likely not a massive need. I just wanted to flag that that is different from the due process training that is more, like, legal and procedural in nature that is contemplated in the pilot project that is really at the heart of the bill. Section two made a few minor changes to the composition of the parole board, but it has no fiscal impact. Under current law, there's seven total members, five regulars and two alternates. All seven are entitled to compensation. The bill would just get rid of the two alternates and make it seven regular members. So I checked with the director of the parole board. They do not expect this would have any sort of, meaningful change of a fiscal nature to their own. Section four is that legal counsel pilot project, which is really at the heart of the bill, and that is to provide the external legal support for the annual trainings to the board related to due process and parole violations, as well as to the legal advice to the board as needed. This the bill contains $75,000 of general fund support in f y twenty seven for this pilot project. That includes the $25,000 of carry forward funds that are in the current year budget that have not been spent. They propose to make those available in f y twenty seven as well as a $50,000 general fund appropriation in f y twenty seven. As as was mentioned earlier, you know,

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: I don't know how you

[Chris Root (Joint Fiscal Office)]: guys spend your Friday nights, but I spent my Friday before the break watching all of the testimony that corrections and institutions

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Oh my god. And Jared

[Unidentified committee member]: Evans is

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: very thorough.

[Chris Root (Joint Fiscal Office)]: And they were very clear that they were not it was not their intent to come to you all asking for money without suggestions on where to find it. So the bill currently says that there's a 50,000 general fund appropriation. My understanding is the committee will be talking to some members of this committee about their ideas on where to find it. The mechanics of that might be doing a reversion in one part of the budget in order to fund this. We'll figure that out. At the end of the day, though, this is not an additional thing to add to your list of new items.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: It doesn't go on James' spreadsheet. Right. And and

[Chris Root (Joint Fiscal Office)]: as was mentioned earlier, there's a reporting provision here that was really intended to, I think, help tee up a budget ask for f y twenty eight. Since this is all talking about one year in f y twenty seven, there would then be a report coming in mid November in advance of you all coming back to figure out the f y twenty eight budget. So whether or not this should be continued in what form would be part of that conversation. Section five just stipulates that carry forward language, and section six makes the $50,000 onetime appropriation. Again, we'll figure out on the back end how to how to make that happen mechanically. And, you know, section seven doesn't have a fiscal impact directly, but it is fiscal in nature, and it's related to the budget process. I thought you all might care, so I put a little description in here. As was mentioned, you know, the the parole board is sort of an independently operating unit within the broader DOC budget. They do have their own little line there in b three thirty six, but it's my understanding that the practice had typically been that DOC took the lead in developing the budget for the parole board. This language contemplates flipping that around and putting the parole board director in the position of formulating a budget proposal to then elevate to DOC for a limited period of time to to see how that works. And, you know, since it's a bit of a change of current practice, but the appropriations committee might be interested in that.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Improving budget processes sounds like a good idea to us. Who can argue with that? I know. I know. It's so fun. So, Wayne, do you have some questions you wanted to ask?

[Rep. Wayne Laroche]: I was some of them because I was wondering why the extra two people were added, what was impetus for doing that. They were already there. They just weren't serving except for when somebody was missing.

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They were effectively participating in the same way that regular So members I think this was kind of a align the statute with practice kind of change to say they're participating in hearings just like the regular members are. So there wasn't something that happened that was an impetus for doing this bill. This is trying to improve No specific concern or problem arising to prompt it more of a

[Rep. Wayne Laroche]: They've been operating all along with no attorney, or was DOC providing an attorney?

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So at certain points in time, the AAGs and the DOC litigation unit, who again are in the attorney general's office, but they are funded by the DOC budget, at times, they would provide certain kinds of advice to the parole board. So there's general advice about parole board operations, and then there is advice related specifically to hearings. And AG's office has provided some of the general legal advice over time. But back in 2015, a bill was passed that specifically said that the AG's office and DOC attorneys cannot provide advice related to hearings because that is the conflict of interest that we teed up earlier, that DOC is appearing before the board And so to have the same attorneys be provided advice to the board for hearings would be problematic.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche]: So do the members of the board have any liability concerning the decisions that they make?

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's an interesting question. I might, if the committee is willing I know the parole board director is in the room and might be able to speak better to what has been happening in the last few years. I don't have any specific knowledge of parole board member liability or cases involving that. But I'm happy to look further and report back.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche]: But if they had it on attorney, they would have some advice concerning those issues, right?

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Correct. Yep.

[Unidentified committee member]: Your questions answered? Okay.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Any other questions that So, it sounds like we're going to get an amendment from corrections once they figure out, so we were not going to vote on it today anyway, but we've now had our walk through.

[Chris Root (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Or or, well, at least whether or not you need to amend the bill, we'll at least have the plan, I think, from them on how to and then we can work mechanically to figure it out. Because it might just be a onetime appropriation here, and then you do a reversion on the back end to make things balance out on the general fund sheet.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: We have no new general fund that works for me. We haven't we're yeah. We haven't voted. We'll come back

[Rep. Wayne Laroche]: to them.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Oh, yes. Thank you. The vote on the vote from corrections was Will.

[Rep. Will Notte (House Corrections & Institutions)]: Here, yes, I have that. It was, our committee vote was ten-zero to one.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Okay, excellent, thank you. Okay, Any other questions from anybody? I'm not seeing any. This seems pretty straightforward. Thank you very much for coming to visit us, as always. Right. So we're having another little break, we're going to be back with James at 02:45. And I do want to just point out that keep checking the agenda because we've changed the agenda for tomorrow morning. We're going to start at 10:00 and not 09:30. Some of us have to go to another meeting earlier, so we're going to do that. And then we'll start at ten with Jill Mazza Ouslan on the Rural Health Transformation information that you all asked for. So anyway, keep your eye on the agenda, but that's the plan. So thanks