Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: This is the House Appropriations Committee. It is Monday, 03/16/2026. It's just after 01:30, and we are taking up another bill, S-two 94, which is from Corrections and Institutions, and we have John Gray from Legislative Council to talk to us about it. So go from John.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you. Afternoon, everyone. John Gray, Office of Legislative Council. Here we are on a Monday. I'm sure you guys are enjoying this week.

[Speaker 0]: It's our second to last Monday I of the

[Speaker 1]: guess that's a pleasant thing. This one will be really quick, think. So I'll screen share with you guys. H two ninety four, this is a report spill, two reports from the Department of Corrections. I'm happy to go by my line if you would like, but given the amount of things you guys cover, I'm assuming you would not like that. So I'm just gonna jump to the heart of the sections.

[Speaker 0]: Can you give us a little quick overview about what the reports are?

[Speaker 1]: Exactly, so I'll skip the intent language, which is just broad intent language about having data informed decision making and particular vision for how a correctional facility should work. Section two is an evaluation of telecommunication services. This is asking the DOC to report to the institutions committees by December 1 on options for having a no cost telecommunications service for inmates in the department's custody. So currently they pay fees to access to communication services, and this is just a report to say, can you evaluate options for doing a no cost services model? That report would examine what the current model is so that you could compare against those costs. It would describe alternative options, including using nonprofit providers and potentially looking at regulating as a public utility. We would have some analysis of the cost to the state of each of those no cost to inmates alternatives, and that would examine both startup and ongoing cost. It would also include, in addition to quantitative costs, some qualitative pieces about benefits to the inmates themselves.

[Speaker 0]: Question, Tom.

[Speaker 1]: And just really short, can you give us an idea? I've heard of this issue or heard that we charge or that we hire private communications companies. Can you give us an idea of what we're talking about here? Because the phrase I have in my head is what's currently available is a rip off to the people in corrections, and I don't to the prisoners. And I just want to make sure that I'm clear on what we're talking about here. So I have a happy answer to that in one way, which is the subsequent section is trying to address your exact question. I don't recall the exact rate, like how many hours you'd have to work to get fifteen minutes of phone time. If you ask folks on the corrections committee, they will definitely have an answer to how much time it currently takes if you worked in a facility work program to send a few texts, like they have that information. But the next section that we'll get to is a wage impact evaluation report, which is meant to set up what do current wages translate into in terms of what inmates can currently purchase and to try to draw out, I'm not gonna use the word rip off, but to try to draw out exactly how much you have to do to afford things that we might think of as quite simple or cheap. Great, thank you. So it would include both quantitative and qualitative analysis in the costs for those alternatives. Would identify implementation considerations, including potentially statutory updates if those are necessary. As part of the report that DOC would be providing, they would be required to consult with a number of stakeholders, including the PUC, JFO, the current holder of the telecommunications contract with DOC or Civic, certain nonprofit providers, and then justice reform organizations and others of a similar nature. And then just building in metrics for accountability, that report would go to the joint legislative justice oversight committee while it is being developed. There'd be a first check-in September 15, then an updated draft on November 15, that's two weeks before the final report to those committees of jurisdiction. So this section is speaking to a telecommunications service evaluation from DOC to try to consider the costs of switching to a no cost to inmates' telecommunications service model.

[Speaker 2]: Thank you. I know that they have access, limited access in a lot of the correctional centers. One of the issues that came up over the years with community high school and now CCV in there and other, the question of security and preventing the inmates from getting access to the web, to a lot of things that are off the web, being able to hack into things, all that whole piece. Is that being studied or is that been resolved?

[Speaker 1]: So that's not something that this speaks to. The committee took a different lens on the security and safety impacts of moving to a no cost model. You would reasonably expect that if you move to a no cost model, there'd be much greater participation or use of telecommunication services, because you don't have to pay that cost. And the framing that they had for this and part of the benefits that they're trying to identify in the report is I think that there were studies that showed reduced rates of recidivism and greater family contact and support, so greater security within the facility if folks were able to access this. It's kind of the best that I can give you the answer, but that was the committee's framing of this is that they would expect that this would actually have security and safety benefits, increasing access to the ability for folks to sustain their support networks.

[Speaker 3]: It's a little bit counterintuitive. So did the committee take any testimony to hear anything to the flip side of that? I mean, for citizens, it's about forty two to forty five percent of people that are being let out or going back in. If it's too nice inside, why stay out?

[Speaker 1]: I don't really know how to respond to that. But this report would just be information gathering. There was discussion as to whether or not it should include an outright implementation plan, which you could think of as further along on the process rate. And this report does not do that. This is truly just an information gathering so that the committee can come back and see what the evidence shows, whether there are or aren't benefits to doing this.

[Speaker 3]: I sat on the committee for a couple of years, so I didn't know the trend, getting to making everything a little more fuzzy. And I'm not sure the trend's working for us.

[Speaker 4]: This is a small report over a subject. We'll

[Speaker 0]: Okay. And what's the next?

[Speaker 1]: The next section is a wage impact evaluation report. Same due date, and in some ways you can think of it tied into the telecommunications piece of inmates' ability to access. So this is to collect and analyze the current wage levels for inmates, identify categories of labor that is performed by inmates that would otherwise be performed by the state, and kind of ask the question, if the state had to internalize the cost of those services, what would it take, basically? Look at different wage impact scenarios. So that's gonna be things like how many hours do you currently have to work to accrue sufficient money to purchase things at the commissary or to comply with your restitution obligations and the like, and then also to assess the relationship between your wage levels and your commissary items and telecommunication services. So, wage impact, looking at current wage levels, seeing what it would cost the state if the state had to internalize certain categories of labor performed by inmates, not suggesting that they would be, it's just saying that you paid them differently. These are this cost that you would internalize, and then looking at different wage impact scenarios. And the act itself would take effect on passage. So it's reports bill, two DOC evaluations, first, telecommunications services, and second, wage impact evaluation.

[Speaker 2]: Chris,

[Speaker 0]: would you like to explain why this is here?

[Speaker 4]: Sure. Chris from the Joint Fiscal Office, there's no fiscal note attached to this bill because there's still a lot or at least one that, but I would refer to the council on the specifics of what was in the as introduced version. But my understanding is, the procedure with the house clerk and the Senate secretary is if the bill has introduced the underlying bill had a fiscal impact, that would also go to the money committees. The underlying bill did have more significant fiscal impacts with changing some of these fee structures and inmate wages. And I think there were

[Speaker 0]: some per diems too at one point.

[Speaker 4]: I prefer to let council on that, but the Senate that came out of house corrections was a strike call and turned

[Speaker 3]: the bill into two reports. So there's no longer

[Speaker 4]: right that's going back.

[Speaker 0]: Right, but if there ever was the whiff of money anytime it comes to us, even if there's no money now. So go ahead and I'll have John explain that.

[Speaker 3]: My little AI exercise had all these at shall, so that these these things we're talking about studying the overall shall is the original.

[Speaker 0]: Ah, okay. John?

[Speaker 1]: Yeah. The the original bill as introduced did include changes in wages for inmates, which is I'm guessing what what's up here. So

[Speaker 0]: now we're down to two reports and no money from us. Anybody are we ready to vote on this?

[Speaker 2]: Are we good to vote on this and get

[Speaker 0]: it out? The more we get out now, the less we're doing on Friday afternoon. So Dave has now

[Speaker 3]: And

[Speaker 0]: Wayne is seconded. So this is is amended by House Corrections.

[Speaker 1]: That's correct, and Ways and Means had no amendment.

[Speaker 4]: Okay, also it got

[Speaker 0]: to go to Ways and Means too.

[Speaker 4]: There must have been CDs at one point

[Speaker 0]: too, that's why I went to Ways and Means. Okay, so I'm not seeing further discussion, so

[Speaker 3]: I don't want to know if it was the way it came out originally, but

[Speaker 0]: nothing wrong. Well, we might have been picking money up.

[Speaker 4]: I think we're

[Speaker 0]: gonna go with this. Ready? Let's call the roll, please.

[Speaker 4]: President Bluemle? Yes. Representative Dickinson? Yes. Representative Feltus? Yes. Representative Kascenska? Yes. Representative Laroche? Yes. Senator Nigro? Yes. Representative Swirrell, Representative Steven? Yes. Representative Yacovone? Yes. Senator Chuck?

[Speaker 0]: Yes.

[Speaker 4]: Senator Warren, Trevor, I think you are the reporter of the bill.

[Speaker 3]: I believe so.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. Thank you very much, John. You very much, Chris. At 02:00, we have fiscal coming in. James will be giving us information. I don't see him here yet, so I don't think it's going be before two. So why don't we go up