Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Good morning. We are live. It is Tuesday, 05/19/2026, 10:10AM, and we are here to review and possibly vote out a bill, S-one 193, an accolade to establishing a forensic facility for certain criminal justice involved persons. And we have led to counsel here, and the chair of house judiciary will be down soon, we hope, to fill us in on all of that. So we have Katie and Eric, and I don't know who goes first or how you all want to do this, but.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Eric, it's Patrick with the Office of the of of the I think we can both go at once, but we're also curious what it is that the committee would like to hear about. A long bill. We have this bill.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: This is I mean, we, they must and so what's it about, and why is it in our committee? What's the usually the questions that we ask. In a high level, what's

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it about? We don't

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: need all the same policy level detail that everybody else has. But if you can clarify what it means to what a forensic facility is, for example.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: All that stuff.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Great. Again, Eric Fitzpatrick, the Office of Budget State of Counsel. Good morning, everybody. And the high level description of what's going on in the bill is that it creates a forensic facility run by the agency of human services for certain people who are involved in the criminal justice system, to be housed for a temporary period of time if they have been found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity for an offense, not not any time, but with with respect to a criminal offense that has a lifetime maximum. There's only about a dozen offenses in Vermont that have a lifetime max. It's a pretty, uncommon maximum penalty. So it's a fairly small universe of people that would be subject to this.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: And not only does it

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: have to be subject to a lifetime max, the person also has to be either being held without bail, which is also quite common with respect to lifetime max offenses for a person to be held without bail. Or if they're not being held without bail, then they have a qualifying condition, which is defined in the bill, that would result in a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person if they were released. So you have these two avenues where a person could end up in a forensic facility, either it's not competent to stand trial, not guilty by reason of insanity for offense with a lifetime max, generally speaking, held without bail. The idea is that, those folks are then in the facility, and they are periodically reviewed, by the agency of human services medical director to determine whether or not they have regained competency, sometimes referred to as restored, whether competency has been restored, in which case they can go back to the criminal division and have their, criminal case proceed. If they have not regained competency, then they will generally stay in the forensic facility. But there's an opportunity what we've been calling off ramps for the person to be released into the community if it's determined that they're not dangerous anymore. So they have these opportunities, and they're and they're periodically, reviewed by the court, either oftentimes every six months. Sometimes it becomes a twelve month period where they are reviewed. But in addition to this periodic review, at any time, the medical director can certify to the court, Hey, actually, it looks like this person is competent now, or this person isn't restorable. So there's also an opportunity at any time for there to be a judicial review of the person's continued competence.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So how big would this place be? Do we know anything more about the it says to establish and operate a lock secure facility. Whatever

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: it is.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So Katie, it's the

[Katie McLinn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Office of Legislative Council. Later in the bill, you'll find there is a feasibility section. And a lot of the decisions around where the forensic facility will be, how many beds will be in it, who is staffing it, what are the operating costs? Is this a new facility that's being built or is it an existing facility that's being fit up? All of those decisions have not been made yet, and they're all part of a feasibility plan that is coming back to you next January. So there are some interim check ins to joint legislative justice oversight over the summer, and then a comprehensive proposal with staffing strategies, interim competency restoration placements. That's all part of this feasibility plan. Okay. So there isn't one in place, and this is really to try to get it figured out. The only decision that's really been made is that it wouldn't be within the walls of a correctional facility.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: It would be. Would not. Would not be.

[Rep. Eileen "Lynn" Dickinson (Member)]: Okay. Lynn? This is the Middlesex facility that we've had since the closure, what was the facility we used there for the closure of the State Hospital?

[Katie McLinn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There is a secure residential recovery facility. It's no longer in Middlesex, but that facility type still exists. And that's for individuals who are not necessarily involved in the criminal justice system, but they meet the medical level of need required to be in the care and custody of the Department of Mental Health.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: This is strictly related to the criminal justice system. Yeah, that's what I was talking still here. This one. Perhaps, yes. Sort of.

[Katie McLinn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's a secure facility. It's not hospital level care. It's a step down from that. But it is a secure facility. But individuals have not necessarily been involved in the criminal justice system before being placed there. So Go ahead. And the Department of Corrections, it says that the intent will not run this. There may be staff there for specific purposes, but this is an agency of human services facility. Right? Yes. And is the Department of Mental Health involved? I think those decisions really haven't been made yet. That's part of the thesis This is pretty preliminary. But it is very specific about the Department of Corrections role. Yeah.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: But it does say that a forensic facility could be co located on the grounds of a correctional facility. So not in the building, but a correctional facility may have an extra 100 acres and they can move them, they can be in 10 acres on the edge that's not part of it. So that's what they mean by within the grounds of no

[Nolan Langfeldt (Joint Fiscal Office)]: The record no manual at this block. I think to answer your question, I suspect the reason that Sears and its committee is be here it's a future capital investment. Does that answer your question? And then in terms of, maybe I'm jumping the gun, but the agency, their take on it is that the plan has been made through the bill, they say it will take resources and needs to make the feasibility.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Except we don't know how much.

[Nolan Langfeldt (Joint Fiscal Office)]: We don't know how much they will need. They will try to get back to a week soon, but

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: not okay. So Katie, maybe you can walk us through what the actual feasibility, where ever that section is. Sure. That's section seven. And I'll pull it up on the screen.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Page 24.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Thank you. Okay. I'll pull this up on the screen.

[Katie McLinn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So here's section seven. I already said it's coming back to you next January. It's coming from AHS in consultation with BGS. They're submitting a feasibility plan to seven different committees, including this committee. The plan assumes that operation staffing and programming is provided by AHS or its departments, again with the same caveat, the exception that DOC is not going to play a role in its operation, provision of services, or internal security other than security at the admitting area of the forensic facility or on the outside perimeter of the forensic facility if the facility is co located on the grounds of a correctional facility. And then there's a list of everything that's going to come back in the feasibility plan. So the proposed location, again, separate from correctional facility and if on the same ground, by sight and sound, proposed design plans, number of beds, entity or entities responsible for operating and providing services, a timeline for constructing a standalone forensic facility or fitting up an existing standalone facility, estimated cost of constructing or fitting up and operating a forensic facility, which aspects of the therapeutic community residence rule would be needed to modify, which rules would we have to modify to operate the forensic facility as a TCR. So in the definition of forensic facility, it says that the forensic facility would be licensed as a TCR. That is a licensing designation whereby Dale would license the facility. That doesn't mean it's only individuals in Dale's custody that would be there. It's just who licenses it. The the TCR rules would not entirely line up with the needs of the forensic facility. So that's why that particular subdivision is in there to recognize that there'd be some modifications to the role with regard to a forensic facility. The next question.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I didn't mean to interrupt. This, The way the language is here, would it prohibit the consideration of out of state placements being part of the portfolio or overall plan?

[Katie McLinn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There's language later on that looks at out of state placements as a temporary. Yeah, for the interim, well, there is a Vermont facility pending. And then there's language that says that the option for the out of state placements goes away when the frantic facility in Vermont is up

[Rep. Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: and running.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So somebody had made a decision not to really go on a permanent basis without a state for a discreet specialized population temporarily while it's being considered yes, but not long term. Do you

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: know why? Why don't we go through the rest of this section and maybe that question will get answered, but I think we got to the TCR.

[Katie McLinn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Then number eight is Okay. What the clinical services will be available at the forensic facility, including competency restoration. Nine, what does staffing look like? What are the staffing levels, staff qualifications, potential contracting needs. And then it's asking for multiple potential staffing strategies. Subdivision 10 is what is the security plan within the facility and around the perimeter of the facility. Same language about DOC's involvement. Subdivision 11, a resident discharge and community monitoring plan from each department with custody of individuals in the forensic facility. So what does it look like when somebody leaves a forensic facility? What services do they get? How are they monitored? Subdivision 12 is this interim language that opportunities and cost estimates for persons who would be eligible for placement at the forensic facility to receive the following service while the development of a forensic facility in Vermont is pending. So the first you could consider placement in an out of state residence or clinically appropriate programming can be provided. And second, there could be consideration of a competency restoration within a Vermont correctional facility provided by an entity that is not under contract with DOC. So Katie, we

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: must have people that would qualify if we had a facility now. Where are people being held right now?

[Katie McLinn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think it depends. I don't think there is a one size fits Sometimes they're

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: in the correctional facility. Sometimes they can be in the community on community supervision. As Katie said, there's no one size fits all.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: There are some out of state now?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know the answer

[Rep. Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: to that.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Okay.

[Katie McLinn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If they meet the clinical level of care, they would be in DMH's custody if they have a mental health condition.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: And then if DMH would decide the cus where they would be best placed? Yeah, I mean, it's ultimately a judge that decides, but they

[Katie McLinn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: could make a proposal. But they're only held as long as they have a clinical need. So once a person no longer meets the clinical standard of care, they'd be released.

[Rep. Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: So the only people here are the ones who are up for life in prison. So murderers, extreme dangerous people or have dangerous events. So the question I have is, we're ruling out DOC and what's the purpose of that? How are you going to secure those folks inside and keep the staff safe if you don't have anybody that has the experience to do that, ruling out a major class of people that have that kind of experience. Must have been disgusting. Maybe Chair Lalonde would speak a bit better.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Well, Mark. I'm happy to address that from morning. Introduce yourself. I'm sorry, Mark Malone, representative in South Burlington, chair of the health fiduciary committee. It would be equivalent to hospitalization. I mean, there's currently a lot of presidences that DMH or others or designated agencies already have very dangerous individuals who may have security that's not EOC. This is not unprecedented.

[Rep. Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: Okay, so the intent would be to contract or hire people to do that. So that would be part of this.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: That's my understanding is it would

[Rep. Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: be part of the feasibility plan with Lamoille.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: That's Tiffany.

[Katie McLinn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Subdivision 13 is part of the plan would be looking at an expansion of the Act two forty eight population to include individuals with a cognitive disability. Subdivision 14 is a proposal on reporting metrics and demographics, outcomes and staffing at the forensic facility, and then any other recommendations for legislative action. And then that language in subsection B is just saying that there are two interim reports that are coming in over the summer and fall about the work on the feasibility plan prior to the final one arriving in January.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Yes. So the joint legislative committee will hear that in the fall.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So where did this bill come from? I don't know. So Martin, maybe you want to give us a little background about it. Do you want to come sit at the table or grab a chair? You, guys. Sure.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: I'm a little confused about all of this, but we'll get to South Burlington Repp, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee. So this is something that the agency's, Agency of Human Services, has been working on for a while. We have, in the legislature, been working on it for a while as well. This isn't the first time we've really tried to get a forensic facility put in place. Last biennium, we fell a little short. That last biennium, it was a much broader concept, and it wasn't restricted to individuals with a life sentence charge. So this was really to deal with the highest needs individuals this time around. And this is something that I've had conversations with the Senate Judiciary and Senate Health and Human what do they call them? Community lines. Health Health and welfare, thank you. And I've worked with Senator Lines on trying to continue to push this through. There's a gap in our system. There's a gap where somebody doesn't meet the clinical needs for being hospitalized under the custody of DMH and having them on like an ONH, an order of non hospitalization, which there's really no supervision and such. So these are high needs individual, potentially very dangerous individuals, that we don't really have an appropriate place. So often they are sitting in Department of Corrections. They are in prison even though they've been found not competent to stand trial. They can be there for a while because they're trying to find a placement, because there's ongoing litigation about the individual's competency, because that's a fluid concept competency often. So individuals are being held in a non therapeutic environment, not getting the services that they need. So the other gap is that we don't have competency restoration programming. Most other states do work to try to restore an individual's competency so that they can be tried, so they can have their day in court. And that's very important for victims as well to have that kind of closure. So this would be our first step in having actual competency restoration services specifically. So those are really the couple gaps that this is trying to fill and that we have been trying to fill for a number of years.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Yeah. But we've never had a forensic facility. Is that correct?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: That's my understanding.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: And so how many people would qualify right now if we had a facility? How many beds Approximately would be at this

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: five, so it's not very many people that meet all those qualifications, possible life sentence, not hospitalized, most of them are being held without bail because of the high risk and are incompetent or not guilty by reason of insanity. And we've heard that they wouldn't expect more than five or six individuals at any given time at this point. Okay. If it works, if we are able to establish this, sometime down the road, it could perhaps be expanded to other because we're not capturing all of the potentially risky or dangerous people, but this is a good place to start to keep the ball moving. Wayne, did you have a question? What was committee nine zero two. This go to any other committees? So it didn't go if no other committee took Possession. Possession, that's the word

[Rep. Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: I was looking for.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Which is the custody thing.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche (Member)]: Yeah, know, custody, yeah, exactly. The jurisdiction, custody.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: There's a facility to that.

[Nolan Langfeldt (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yes,

[Rep. Wayne Laroche (Member)]: exactly. I've only been here for twelve years. You think I remember these words, but I don't. So, but we got input and there was a lot of testimony taken by human services, healthcare, and the main other partner in this was Corrections and Institutions, was really the author of sections five, six, seven, nine, 10, whereas the host judiciary committee was really the author of sections one through four and Okay.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: All right.

[Rep. Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: We're doing this previously, by any way, not when I was on corrections. I think we had joint unions with you.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: No, I think that's right.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Yeah. And I think I had a meeting with Chair Emmons and the

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: head of the Commissioner of BGS to talk about making sure the language was doable for them. So, and I do know that we have potentially going to see an amendment from human services from Chair Wood. I don't anticipate it impacting any of what

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: we're talking about here. It's really squeaking. Or a text because I thought that I read something that there might be an amendment on it, and I if we had to hear it, but it sounds like it could be a floor amendment and we wouldn't Yes, I know. But we probably wouldn't have to hear it.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Yeah, really don't think it's going to affect, from what I understand, I haven't looked at what that's going to

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: be felt. So, I'm guessing this is here because even though there isn't any money officially in here, there might be. And if it's a project, we're going to have ongoing staff and costs and operating costs, so there's future money that we don't have any idea about. Do we have any sense and I don't know if you're the right person, but maybe Nolan is. When we operate I don't know, red clover or Do we know what the annual operating costs are?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: I don't know. We can find out.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: I have like 4,000,000 or something like that. Yeah, many millions, but not 10, but a chunk.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: It's not inexpensive, this particular population, to treat and keep the public safe.

[Rep. Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: So a couple of years ago, again, we were looking at a couple of things. I recall there was a facility where they were proposing to put a solid board in, but they had to have a separation between one type of inmate and the other. I'm not sure whether this was to deal with these folks or not. But it was, there was also a salary court for St. Alphans up there too. But whatever happened to the one where they were gonna separate the two populations, and they couldn't interchangeable or they couldn't come in contact with each other? I thought that was meant for this purpose.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: That's a good question. I think where that comes into play in this bill is in the feasibility study and it's one of the last paragraphs where they talk about what are we going to do in the interim? So what can we provide as treatment for these individuals in DOC? And that may mean, you know, and sound separation within the facilities now, but from the experts, and this is not in my realm, but I've heard from these folks as well, is it's not a good environment to try to treat an individual, to try to get them to restore competency and to reduce their risk as well.

[Nolan Langfeldt (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I was thinking the amendment that

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: might be coming along here, we

[Nolan Langfeldt (Joint Fiscal Office)]: don't really have the content of that yet.

[Rep. Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: Do you think there might be something in there to provide some interim?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: I don't believe so. No, it's tweaking some language mostly in the first few sections, first and third sections.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: I'm hearing from Chair Wood that it's not something that we're going see. So, if I had to sort of sum up what we're doing, this is a program, a facility that we have long needed in many people's eyes. And so, point of the bill is to get started, do a feasibility study, and then see how we want to proceed from there, if and how we want to proceed from there. So we are not committing to building a facility. We're not committing to funding a facility. We're committing to letting people go forward and do some more research officially to try to decide how we go forward. Is that kind of right? Yeah.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: And what the bill does is it does set forth a process for who will be sent to such a facility and how long they will be there. And also, sets forth the requirements for a facility, the operation of the facility. So it lays out a lot in the bill to move this along.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Okay. So it's kind of how we ought to be doing things. If we're going build things, we ought to be doing it in a step, formal framework fashion. So that's making sense to me. Lynn?

[Rep. Eileen "Lynn" Dickinson (Member)]: For some reason, I remember vaguely that there was a forensic facility somewhere in the state hospital before Irene wiped out the state hospital. I'm not sure exactly how that worked, but that's the second thing that I

[Nolan Langfeldt (Joint Fiscal Office)]: remember is

[Rep. Eileen "Lynn" Dickinson (Member)]: the last time you did this, in the last biennium, there was a controversy in this, even why you say it was broader to include not just these individuals that you're talking about, the criminally engaged people, but also people who are terminally disabled who need care. Am I correct? Is that what that

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: So would still Not

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: a good idea,

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: if I recall. No, this would still include somebody for whatever reason they're found incompetent. It could be developmental disability, intellectual, but right. And they are charged with a life offense or phone not guilty by reason of insanity. So, it's fairly narrow. I think their last time was broader as far as it would be just individuals who were incompetent, and it didn't actually focus on competency restoration, which And this there may have been a There was a location in the state hospital for individuals who were criminally justice involved and had needed the treatment. But from my understanding, they weren't receiving, for instance, competency restoration treatment. So it was different.

[Rep. Eileen "Lynn" Dickinson (Member)]: They were warehousing? Sort of.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Yeah, I think, although they were getting better treatment there than they would have if they were in the Department of Fractures in So, the

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Nolan, I'm going to ask you to just speak because I think you were trying to get a sense of there's got to be some costs associated between this feasibility study, but there's nothing in the bill. Did you all try to get information?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: No, we did not. Just to back up a little bit, what was in the bill that came over from the Senate was a rulemaking process. And we've essentially, we thought that was premature, and we were changing that essentially to the feasibility plan. So whatever planning the agencies were doing as far as what they needed as far as resources, we suspected that that was going to be aimed towards a reporting requirement and the rulemaking. Now it's a feasibility plan. It has some overlaps with what they were going do with

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that Right,

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: and so they didn't think they needed money for rulemaking. Right. Right, okay. And Nolan, I know you tried to, you were in conversation with AHS.

[Nolan Langfeldt (Joint Fiscal Office)]: They said they were going try to get into something before the commission heard, but I just texted them and said they're hearing me.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Okay. There's no money. And if the agency wants money, they'll I guess it's going to go back to the Senate and this budget adjustment. But this lays out a plan regardless of when it happens. There's a plan for that.

[Rep. David Yacovone (Member)]: Yeah, I assume it's just internal costs. They're going to staff people from these two departments to sit down and They need match it

[Nolan Langfeldt (Joint Fiscal Office)]: hire a contractor to help understand the title of the

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Yeah, well then they'll have to come back to us at some other future point, but at this point we're

[Nolan Langfeldt (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I don't know that they know yet.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: We may see something in budget adjustment is my guess, if you want. Does anybody have any other questions about this bill? Anybody who's left sitting as a grown you're dropping like flies. John has a bill on the floor that he has to go report. Are we clear on this? We're being asked to vote this out this morning so it can be sent on its

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: way this afternoon. Is that right, Martin? At this point, because of the amendment from Chair Wood, we'll be looking at that amendment this afternoon. So this would not be getting the floor to tomorrow morning. So that's kind of changed the timing a little bit. I was hoping to be able to do this this afternoon, but we're not gonna be able to.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Okay, but we can get it off our plate. That'd be great. This morning, which would be lovely because we have many other bills tonight. I just wanted

[Unidentified Member]: just real briefly to say that this is one of those topics that is I'm more aware of because even though it's a small number of individuals, one of them did murder an individual who lost from my home. And so I know that the lack of a clear plan in the state has caused and continues to cause a lot of anguish in the family. So I really thank the judiciary for the work on this and just wanna reinforce that this is important.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Great. All right. Before anybody has to go up and report a bill, Lynn, I would like to make a motion to this. Support the bill? Just to support the bill. As presented. Oh, wait.

[Nolan Langfeldt (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Can process question? Sure. The bills, they have to do a feasibility study, do they have to present the feasibility study, does the legislature to approve

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: the feasibility study? Or can

[Nolan Langfeldt (Joint Fiscal Office)]: they just go ahead and sign contracts without, my point is a lot of times the administration signs a contract that puts it in their budget saying, we need to fund it. So is there any language that says they have to get approval from the legislature or they can subcontract and throwing that out there for consideration? Because a lot of times they move forward on these things and ask for the money afterwards.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: That may have come up in corrections and institutions because they really focus on the feasibility study. That's a question for Chair Addison, unfortunately.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Do we want to have something in here that's You know what, we might want to have Chair Emmons come down. Can you check She and

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: has been in a conference. I know.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: She got in touch with us and apparently said if we need to come down. How about if we go off live for a moment, and then we'll come back

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: and

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: we'll blow you a text or whatever