Meetings
Transcript: Select text below to play or share a clip
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Welcome back, folks. This is House Corrections and Institutions Committee. It is Wednesday, January 21. We are now working on House Bill five forty nine, which deals with non driver ID cards being available to folks who are incarcerated. And the bill proposes that we extend that to detainees. Currently, it's just available to those folks who are sentenced. Okay. So we have our legislative council here to walk us through the bill really quick, and then we can go with DOC and DMV. Hey, back off Hillary.
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Hey, good morning, everyone. For the record, Hillary Chittenden aims for Office of Legislative Counsel. So as Chair Emmons mentioned, this bill would make a very narrow change in Title 23, which is the motor vehicles title. That title is super broad, covers registration, insurance, title, parking, traffic violations, ATVs. But this bill is focused on one particular chapter on the Department of Motor Vehicles and makes a very narrow change in that chapter. So as you can see, bill text reproduces section 115 in its entirety. Section 115 covers non driver identification cards. And all of the sections or all of the parts of this section before the change on page seven essentially cover who is eligible for a non driver identification card, what requirements there are to get one, the fees that the DMV can impose. There's a default of $29 I think there was a question when the bill was introduced about that. But the statute does outline certain circumstances where DMV imposes a fee that is less than that. End of this section. So now we're skipping to page seven. Chair asks for a quick walk through, so I'm trying to do that. But I guess before we start on there, are there any questions about what this section covers before we get to the non driver identification cards for folks who are in DOC custody. On page three. Yes.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Line seven through 10 is the fee of the $29
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Line 17 through
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Seven through 10. Seven through 10. Every identification card, it'll be
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So on page two, line 17 through 19, that first part of Subdivision 3, that is kind of the default of the commissioner shall require payment of a fee of $29 at the time application for an identification card is made. Subdivisions A and B at the top of page three set out two of the exceptions to that fee requirement. And there is a place later in this section that sets out a few other exceptions. Chair, the piece that you were pointing to on page three, line seven, subdivision B, that covers renewal and renewal fees, which are also set out in the statute. So this only pertains to non driver ID cards. Correct.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: There is a Not your driver's license.
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Different statute that covers.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Non driver ID. So if a person has a license revoked or if they're no longer driving and don't have a driver's license, this is a way for folks to get an ID card. And currently, within our correctional system, the non driver ID is available to folks who are sentenced. Yes.
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So that brings us to page seven. This is subdivision M. This was added in 2019 as part of miscellaneous bill related to vehicles. And subdivisions two and three were added in 2023. So some of this, the legislature has addressed recently. So existing law, as the chair has mentioned, someone who has been sentenced to serve at least six months in a correctional facility is eligible for a non driver identification card. The fee is $0. And then there are some additional there's some additional language about DOC needs to this is subsection two on page seven, lines 13 through 16. DOC needs to ask an individual about to be released if they are interested in a card and inform them if they're eligible about any costs. And then subdivision three, this is page seven, line 17 through 20. If the person wants a non driver identification card, DOC has to coordinate with the DMV to provide that identification card for the person the time they are released. So that's existing law. That's what the statute says about who gets one and how the process happens. The bill would make this narrow change that you'll see on page seven, lines four through 12, that in addition to someone who has been sentenced to serve at least six months in a correctional facility, someone who is detained prior to trial, pending trial for six months or more would also be eligible. The change online, lines 11 through 12, are changes to make sure that this section uses the kind of standard language that is used in other parts of Title 28, inmate and correctional facility, which are defined elsewhere. If you're interested in those definitions, I can provide those.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah, an inmate, trying to recall. An inmate is everyone in the facility or just sentenced? I can't remember.
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So anyone. Inmate is any person, not a child, committed to the custody of the commissioner. That's the DOC commissioner we're talking about. Pursuant to the law of the state, and any person confined at a correctional facility during the pendency of a prosecution.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: An offender is one who's been sentenced.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Correct. Hillary, what type of person would not be eligible for a non driver ID card? You
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: mean, like when it
[Conor Casey (Member)]: says if they're eligible for one, like, I'm wondering who's not eligible, maybe like an ICE detainee or something.
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So it has to be a Vermont resident. If you look earlier in Section 115, it's any resident. Sorry. So page
[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk) — possible diarization mix]: Line 15.
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Page one, line 15. Thank you. Earlier, not so helpful here. Page one, line 15. It's any Vermont resident. The other requirements in the statute are making the required application and providing evidence of age identity as required by the DMV. So the statute doesn't spell out everything there. I think our DMV witnesses could answer more specific questions about that. But as far as the statute goes, otherwise eligible means Vermont resident, you submit an application and provided whatever evidence DMV requires that you are who the ID will say you are. Okay. Thanks. Yep.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Any other questions? So DMV and DOC work together on this because DMV is the one who really issues the non driver ID. It is not DOC that issues it. It is DMV. And when we worked on this, Troy, you were here. Right? And Mary, Gina, and Conor and me, we worked on this. And 2324, we worked on this because we did expand it a little bit. But one of the issues is really trying to figure out to get the documents to verify that the person is who they are, like their birth certificate or Social Security number. That can be really, really difficult. We're very clear that folks who are sentenced have access to a non driver ID with no cost to it. They don't pay for it. That is administered again through DOC and DMV. They need to have been sentenced for a minimum of six months. We also opened it up to those folks who were sentenced. If they are eligible for a driver's license, they would have the ability to receive a valid driver's license prior to their release, they would pay for it. So we opened that up a few years ago. So, for the
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: detainees, does this indicate they could also get a driver's license as well if they wanted to, or is this language just limited to non driver ID? This language is limited to non driver ID. I have not looked at the section that would cover driver's licenses. That would be a different statutory section. If the committee wanted to expand beyond non driver ID, we would have to look at changing language in that section.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So the bill is specific for non driver IDs. Very specific that a detainee, if we expand it to detainees, they would have to have been incarcerated for six months. So it's really for those long term detainees, not for folks who are cycling through in three days or a week or whatever.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Yeah, I'm just hung up on the word like sentence there, because we often talk about the sentence population compared to the detainee. So if you're a detainee that's just waiting for your day in court for eight months there, have you been sentenced?
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So been sentenced. We have both verbs. It might if this is a long sentence, I think the sentence tracks from line four through line 11. Okay. So ideally in statutory drafting, we make this for you. I admittedly did not draft this bill, but I will do my best in future bills that I see We for this
[Conor Casey (Member)]: can blame Bennington he's gone.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I think it was Bennington.
[Unidentified Committee Member]: Bennington's bus.
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So to your question, representative, there are kind of two clauses. We have an inmate who is, and then from line four sentenced to line six facility is kind of the first clause. So that's the first person who is out who this provision talks
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: about. And it is
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: everyone. It is everyone. Because the language of the statute previously referred to someone who is sentenced to serve a period. That is why this language still refers to still add someone who is detained, but an inmate does an inmate as a noun covers both of those things. But we have an inmate who is one, sentenced to serve a period of imprisonment of six months or more in a correctional facility. And then, or second piece, who is detained in a correctional facility prior to adjudication for six months or more.
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: Either of those.
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So that's why sentence doesn't occur.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Yeah, that sounds good.
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Perfect. And then for either of those individuals, they also have to be this is the and at the end of line seven and who is eligible for a non driver identification card under the requirements of this section. There are ways to draft to make this clear and if it is interested in amendments. I think it needs
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: to be clearer because you have to go back to the definition in gate and then care back. I just think it needs to be clearer if we're gonna clean up, if we're gonna add detainees. I think if we keep it just for a sentence, it's clear. But if we're gonna add detainees, I think we need to really clear up the language, restructure it a little bit for that. Because the term inmate has a definition that includes everyone. And then when you start out, an inmate who was sentenced,
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it does not include a detainee, but it does in the definition. Happy to offer some clear, structured language as the committee moves forward.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Questions?
[Unidentified Committee Member]: This probably isn't a question for right now. I'm curious what this idea is going be used for. Is that a question for later?
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: What? What
[Unidentified Committee Member]: this identification can be It's used
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: for them to be able to access life.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Right. Who's going
[Unidentified Committee Member]: to stand and salute? You could use this to help in renting. You could use this to access your meds. You could use this to buy booze. You could use this to vote. It was Kevin's question, I remember. Can use this
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Don't want vote in Vermont. I'm sorry? You need to vote or to register, maybe.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: When you register to vote
[Unidentified Committee Member]: Sorry for for all the
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: you when you register to vote, you need to give them your driver's license number or your Social Security.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Yeah.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: I mean, open utility account, maybe? Maybe
[Unidentified Committee Member]: that So
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think that might be a question for some of the witnesses who
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: will follow me. And if
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: there are questions remaining after that testimony, I'm happy to happy to follow-up.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So this request came from our PMP offices office, where they deal with a lot of detainees who have been incarcerated for a while, and they're coming out and they don't have ID. A lot of folks either have their driver's licenses suspended or revoked or that hasn't happened, but they don't have a driver's license. So you just drive without a driver's license. And those detainee folks could be coming out on probation. They could even be coming out on, if we expand the pretrial supervision, they could be coming out on pretrial supervision. They could be, and I don't wanna open up this can of worms, but they could be on home detention over time. So there is some supervision there from our probation and parole offices. And they had run into issues with not having IDs. So this came as a request to do that.
[Unidentified Committee Member]: I guess a better way to phrase it would have been accepted everywhere, but a driver's license is except for driving. Right? Cool. Yeah.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Okay. Yes.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Thank you, Hillary. Do folks want to go right to DMV so they can talk about the IDs and driver's license? Would that work?
[Unidentified Committee Member]: I do
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: so. Yeah. Okay. Yep. Okay. Because we spent a lot of time when we looked at this with commissioner Manoli, who was Commissioner of DMV at the time. And we have to work within federal requirements as well for that. So welcome. We have Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations from DMV. Thank you so much for coming before us. I think it's the first time you've been before us. We'll be all right with you.
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: All right. Well, thank you.
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: Good morning, everyone. For the record, I
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: am Nancy Prescott with the Department of Motor Vehicles Director of Operations.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Any insight you can give us on this? Maybe give us the process right now of how you work with DOC in terms of how you administer the program, how it works?
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: Absolutely. Happy to share current process. We have a great working relationship with DOC. We receive a weekly file when there are inmates that are set to be released within a month to two month time range ahead. Our e services team works through that list. Our MOU states that we have seven days to process the credential. We typically process them by Monday or Tuesday. From there, just similar to your interactions with DMV, they are printed off-site and they are mailed directly to the Waterbury DOC contact where they are then given to the caseworkers prior to release of the inmates. It has been a very good collaborative working relationship between the two entities. As I was mentioning yesterday, through the process, in the last five years doing this, we have only had two credentials that have come where the inmates happen to be getting released prior to them receiving for different sets, whether it was an earlier release than the timeline, getting it to the caseworker, getting it to the facility, that type of thing. So our collaboration of working together has been extremely successful open communication. That is the current process. We did approximately about 500 non driver IDs for the current process for 2025. Those cost us a DMV about $3.30 a credential, not including staff time and not including postage.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Can you say that again? You had 500 IDs. Approximately 500. In this past calendar year?
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: Yes. From 2025, from January to December.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And what was the cost again?
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: $3.30 per credential is the DMV cost, not including staff time, not including postage.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: What do you mean on credential? You need to
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: The non driver ID to make it, what we're charged from the vendor is $3.30. $3.30.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And you absorb that within your budget or DOC absorbs that? We absorb it. D
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: absorbs Yes. And
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: that's been a long standing practice.
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: It has been for the last five years. I think it was possibly 2019.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah, that we started. Okay.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Could you talk about the staff time associated with making those? Is it sending it to a vendor and getting it back? Or is it What's the actual workload for your staff? And how are you resourced right now if we added a bit more burden to you?
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: That's a great question. Not knowing what the potential number is right now of what this shift could add, I don't and can't equate what that would look like. And that is one of the things that we were trying to identify or would need to identify what that approximate quantity would look like from a financial standpoint, as well as a burden, a lift to DMV to do. At this time, because we're receiving the files on a weekly basis to work and knowing that it's 500 that we did, just to give you an example, as of yesterday, we had received 16 for January. From January 1 to yesterday, we had received 16 credentials to be processed. The lift at this time is very doable with our e services team. We have something that's very smooth and worked out on both ends.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: But
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: not being able to answer what the quantity will look like at this time, I will not be able to answer your last question.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Sure enough,
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: thanks. So to follow-up on Conor's question, so what roughly is the time that it takes to the manpower, whatever, per application?
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: It's all computerized on our end. They would need to speak on what their lift is for DOC. We receive everything in a file that's already been vetted that, yes, they are a Vermont resident, that they are able to provide all of the proofs that is necessary for DMV to process. We just need to manually enter everything into our new modernization system, which is outstanding. I must speak to that. So the LIFT is actually I want to say that it's not there because somebody does need to enter everything in. But it is a pretty great process in that collaboration because they're doing all of the vetting prior to us receiving it. We have all of the documents and everything's in a row.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: And how do we define residency? I know like working on elections, that's sometimes a bit of a challenge, right?
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: They must be able to provide proof of residency. They're paying their taxes to the state of Vermont. They have to show an address that is listed here for Vermont. They're also signing under the application under perjury that they are stating they are also a Vermont resident.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: So if somebody is incarcerated and comes from an unhoused situation, would that be proven?
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: As long as where they're going is willing to give us that documentation, the answer is yes. And that has been a separate initiative that we've been working on the past few years regarding the homeless population as well
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: as those in those encampments.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Thank you.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So if they go to a transitional housing or recovery house, that address would be used? As long
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: as they're okay using it, and that comes from DOC validate. But for us, that is a piece we need.
[Unidentified Committee Member]: It's sort of a mess of a question. It's probably a follow on to Conor Casey's. But number one, I'm wondering about pictures. And number two, more about the address. Who
[Conor Casey (Member)]: would
[Unidentified Committee Member]: be turned away or what would be turned away or what's deemed Chottam sufficiency? How does that work?
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: I love that you asked about the photos. So as you all know, you come into the DMV offices and you get your photo taken. We have your mugshot. I like to call it a beauty Photoshop for many individuals that come in. They're like, retake, retake. So that's a great question. We have worked out a process again with DOC. They've been minimally trained of what we need, what the backdrop needs to look like. And so they funnel exactly everything to us. So when I say that we're getting everything to just check, check, check, it is that smooth of a process, which includes the photo. Your question in regards to what would be rejected
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: Like, I'm
[Unidentified Committee Member]: going to stay with mom, I swear I'm going to stay there, or I think I'm going be in this halfway house for two weeks.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: No, it's not coming from the offender. That would have to be approved by DOC, their housing.
[Unidentified Committee Member]: Let's speak more. So
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: me just go. So you are absolutely correct that it would come from DOC approving that piece of it. But one of the pieces in regards to DMV and statute, so
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: if you were going to
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: be staying, let's just go down that scenario. If we were going to be staying at mom's, DOC said, yes, you're going to be able to be under the authority of mom. Mom is then going to have to sign off on a form saying that this is your residency because you're not able to provide the x amount of documents in your name at that address.
[Unidentified Committee Member]: And again, I don't know if this is DOC or if it's y'all, but is there a duration to that? I'm being released to this program for a week or two weeks. Is that sufficient?
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: Repeat that again.
[Unidentified Committee Member]: It's a question of, do you have to know what you're doing for a while? Because I assume many of these folks don't. What if I'm going here for a brief transition program or something? Love to get an idea.
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: Then you're responsible for updating D and B by law of when you are moving to a different address.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Just like us. Yeah, that is correct. Just like us have not even moved across the street. That is correct. Okay. So have you seen an increase? You had 500 ID requests last calendar year. Have you been seeing an increase over the years or has it leveled off pretty much?
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: I don't know the answer to that, but I can certainly follow-up. Do you know Matt by chance? No.
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: But we're happy
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: to circle back on that.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I'm just curious because the population, of course, this, I remember we did an awful lot of work on this during the session pre COVID, came out of our institutions committee. We did a lot of work on this to make sure that there was an ID for folks as they reentered the community. And then COVID hit, so of course the numbers plummeted. So, know, just as the program coordination was take coming into being. So I'm just wondering now after COVID, what you're seeing for numbers, if that's gonna level off.
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: Happy to get back to you on So
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: the question is, in order for DMV to really know how to move forward with this, with the detainee population, you really need to have a better idea of how many folks would avail themselves of this to determine if it would be more burdensome for you folks and the cost. Right. Just to be
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: able to evaluate it. Mhmm.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Good questions for folks. How many of the folks were coming through? You said there were 500 non driver IDs? That's correct. How many do you know last year or anything? How many folks came through to have a driver's license?
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: I don't know the answer to that either. But that, again, that is something I can circle back on. I'm not even sure of the process, to be honest with you. I know that is something that can be done, but it comes to their cost, not DMV's. So I'm not sure that it's funneled in the same manner, but I can certainly look at that and get back
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: to you as well on that question. Just curious how many folks are available themselves, but it is on the person's nipple. Is correct. Because
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: my understanding is we're looking for an individual to be able to go, as you said, life, right, be able to have life. You need an ID for everything. A license is a luxury. It's not necessarily something that is a guaranteed.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: With a non driver's ID, would they be able to board a plane with that? With a real non driver ID, yes. Are they getting a real non driver ID?
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: They are able to supply us with all of the documents that are needed for real ID, yes. And in majority, it would be an offset for them not to actually get a REAL ID.
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: Just for the record, could you state that federal requirements are for the REAL ID? Yes.
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: Yes. For a real ID, you must again be able to prove US citizenship or the right to be in The United States, whether it be a valid passport for a US and or an out of state social security card with a valid social security number that has been vetted through the system, residency.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Residency would be like bringing in one of your utility bills. With your name on it. Do you need your birth certificate? I'm trying to It's
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: a valid birth certificate certified or valid passport, one or the other.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And what is really hard for folks who are incarcerated is to get that valid birth certificate because many of them don't know where they were born or don't even know where to go to get it. A lot of folks don't even know their social security number. Yeah. And then you throw in the residency. So those are the two two of the three are stumbling blocks for many folks who are incarcerated. But for hang on. Just for a non driver ID, but it's not the real ID for non drivers,
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: what do they need? You can come in for a non driver, non real ID. Is that what I just heard? You can come in with a letter from Social Security saying that you are not eligible for a Social Security number. You can come in with your two pieces of mail. And you can come in or need to come in, again, you don't have to have your birth certificate.
[Unidentified Committee Member]: We don't. There's so many other options. There are other
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: options. If you can't supply your birth certificate or passport, you're not getting your real ID.
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: Like if you filed taxes, a October, there are other items listed. There's our primaries, and then there's our one offs to do a replacement, if you would, for consideration.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Oops, I'm sorry, hang on. Then.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: I apologize.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Oh, sorry. It seems to me like,
[Unidentified Committee Member]: this wouldn't qualify obviously for real ID, but if we put somebody in jail for a crime for an extended period of time, can we add that as an identity marker that would replace a birth certificate as far as proof of identity? Not for a real ID, but for a non real ID. I mean, they're doing time. I feel like that's a pretty good indicator that they are who they are. Yeah.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Anyway. They better be.
[Unidentified Committee Member]: And I mean, if you added that for that next, it wouldn't be real ID, but that next call, it would eliminate a lot of that parts certificate problem because
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: they just need the cooperating. Department. Correct?
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Yeah. Yeah.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, how would that work on DMV's part?
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: So for a non driver ID, that would be something that we would probably work through with our MOU with the vetting of what is required from DOC. And that is something we probably could definitely look at for sure and see what's viable for a non Yeah. Real No, I know the Fed Something can throw this ID else just came to my mind in regards to when you had asked about clarification for a replacement driver's license of somebody being released. A driver's license has to be valid within the last three years in order to renew. If you did not have a valid driver's license within the last three years, say somebody was incarcerated for four years, three and a half years, they would be required to retest in order to obtain a driver's license.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: They would need a road test?
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: They would. They would. So I imagine without knowing those numbers that those numbers more than likely are going to be Exactly. Yeah.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Joe?
[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: What is the experience now with individuals who may want an ID who just can't obtain one because there's proper documentation? Does that does that happen with any frequency?
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: Of an individual or DOC specifically?
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: DOC specifically.
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: So we work as one offs to try to find something that we'll be able to check off all the boxes because we're audited to assure that what we're issuing is meeting all of the necessary requirements. So when we're talking about residency, we will work to figure out like where are they going? How can we get those individuals on letterhead something to state that they're going to be in their custody. That's where they're going to be residing, whether it be from a certified birth certificate that we're looking for. There are some online platforms which you can also request them. But as chair had mentioned, not everybody knows where they were born and that can definite and there's a little bit of a cost associated with those online to receive them, but those are not always no. And that's more on
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: the DOC end because DOC submits all the information to So DMV isn't doing the work directly with the person who's
[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk) — possible diarization mix]: in I
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: understand that. I understand that.
[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: But just to restate the question, have there been any situations since program's inception where you just don't have the information you need to
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: Not that I'm aware of, and they could certainly speak on that a little bit more, but not that I'm aware of.
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: Okay. Thank you. You're welcome.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So I would think most of what's coming through through that 500, they're all non real ID.
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: So the 500 that I spoke about are actually all non driver IDs. I would need to verify if there were any one offs, as you had mentioned, in regards to a driver's license replacement.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. So non driver ID, I just want clarity, means that it's not a real ID, non driver's ID.
[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk) — possible diarization mix]: No. It can be a real ID, non driver's ID.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: It could be both.
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: It could be both. Depending on the documentation.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So you but you haven't broken it down in terms of those non driver IDs? No. Of the 500, we don't know how many of them would be the real IDs and how many of them would just be the lower? I don't know. No. Just be curious to find out.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Do we need because it sounds like the department's actually going above and beyond what statute requires here. Statute just requires the non real IDs, right? But I think it's better if we can get them the real IDs. That's good. And I wonder if that should be reflected in statute too. Sorry. Another question for you?
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Let's say the statute doesn't specify.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It doesn't specify. It just says non driver ID card, so it could be either.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Commissioner shall issue non REAL ID compliant.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Are you? Hold on. And we'll get you across the border in
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Looking at page six. We're opening up both of those, two and
[Unidentified Committee Member]: three. 4.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, we'll get you across the Canadian. No.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Two three four.
[Unidentified Committee Member]: Oh, you need an enhanced ID.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. Oh, the enhanced.
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: I learned that. You're
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: hired.
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: I got a fallback, Gina. Hang
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: on,
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: folks. Subdivision L talks about Real ID and non Real ID, because that subdivision specifically talks about residence and real ID requirements. But M does not specify one way or another, and the rest of the section doesn't either. So I don't think we would read M to either require real ID or non real ID. If the people are interested in specifying some requirement,
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: we should change the language.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Okay.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Great. Thanks for that. Yep.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Nothing is simple on this one. Anything else? So let's bring DOC up. Yep. And we're gonna don't go anywhere, damn big. It
[Conor Casey (Member)]: worked today.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Monique? Welcome. If you could also identify yourself for the record, weigh in on this proposal, and you do have a document, I'm assuming. And also, you heard the DMV concern, and maybe you could bring him
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: on. Monique Sullivan, Department of Corrections Facility Operative Manager.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: The slides that I'm just going to It's fine.
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: So the slides are basically our process. An individual with a qualifying sentence, they have to be sentenced to serve six months or more, Not they have to serve five months, but they've been in for six, so that's good enough. They have to be sentenced to six months to serve incarcerated. Then they're eligible for a non driver ID. During reentry planning, which starts about six months out for most individuals, the caseworker works with the individual to see if they need an ID and then start the process from there.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And that starts about six months prior to their release?
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: Release planning does. And as part of the release planning is things like residents, healthcare, food stamps, ID. So
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: it's
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: just part of the process.
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Just wrap a simple mind around something. So if somebody was sentenced to six months, then you literally start out processing basically when they get there?
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: You don't need it, basically? Can be.
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: If the person says yes, they want an ID, DOC fills out the application with them and sends the document over to DMV for processing. The turnaround time to actually from when DOC submits the paper application to when the ID makes it back to DOC is three to four weeks. So that's part of the reason that we have to start the process early, three to four weeks. Everything, as DMV just stated, every ID goes to Waterbury central office, because that's where the identification specialist, that's where she works. So all the IDs get locked up until shortly before the person's ready to walk out the door. And then DOC sends the ID either to the facility that they're releasing from or to the probation office, depending. If the guy's still in, then we send it to the correctional facility. But if it's close and it might not get to the facility through the mail on time, we'll send it to the probation office because the individual has to go to probation within a certain amount of time from when they get out. So it'll be available to them.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Are you seeing most of this is coming from the three large facilities being St. Albans, Newport, and Springfield? Or is it coming also from and Chittenden facility, but is it also coming from St. Johnsbury and Marble Valley as well?
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: Yes. A lower number, I'm sure. We didn't I didn't think to ask for a breakdown per facility. Just curious.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I would think most of them are coming from those facilities and not Saint Jay or Marble. Probably. Broke it down by fiscal year, not by accident. Fiscal year in '25? '24 to '25.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: 165
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: non driver IDs. And so far, from 'twenty five to now, is 182 non driver IDs.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So that kind of tracks what Dan Vega, you were working in the calendar year, you were saying May. That was a calendar year. So that's for FY 2526. We've already Well, it tracks about 500 between those two lines there. Tracks about 500. Shawn Whatever your name is. Conor. Excuse me.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: I'm excluding myself. You know, like, gift numbers of how many IDs were requested and how many of those were denied for whatever reason?
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: I don't have specific numbers, but they're not usually denied. In addition to being able to provide a non driver ID through DMV, The non driver ID is one of three parts in an application. You can request a birth certificate and a social security part as well. So that way, if, let's just say, the person still has their ID, but they don't have the others, then we can request those others. Or if they happen to have their birth certificate, but they need an ID, then we can get that. So they're processed all together. So there's really no reason that the information that the DMV needs is a social security card and a birth certificate, and we usually get all of them at the same time. Okay. Yeah. So there's no reason that we would
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Do mind just talking about this other reentry planning there? That'd be one point where maybe there's a breakdown. Somebody thought they had a valid license, but it's been more than three years. They don't know. Is there like a verification process or is there like an actual box you check as part of the reentry process that like, yes, I would like this or no? So yeah, Okay.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Thanks. James? Just a follow-up
[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: to Conor's. Do you have any situations or many where you have gone out and asked for some of these birth certificate, etcetera, and they don't exist or you can't find it? Whatever entity you've asked, like, I don't
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yes and
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: no. The identification documents that we can request are for Vermont residents only. Mhmm. No, I'm sorry. They need to have been born in Vermont. So somebody who was born in New Hampshire who committed a crime in Vermont, we can't help them because they were born in New Hampshire. Vermont, we have an MOU to be able to get birth certificates, but we don't have anything for anywhere else. So other states say, Yep, we understand what you're looking for, but no, we're not gonna give it to you. Or they charge $50 for a copy of a birth certificate, which we're not able to pay. So it's only for Vermonters.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Thank you.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: How many folks that are coming in have documents on them verifying who they are? And they come in through booking.
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: How many folks have all those documents with them? Nobody has all of them. A lot of people have an ID, though.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And what do they usually have for an ID? Driver's license. So what if it's been revoked or suspended? Then what do they have? None. Are there times that some of their personal belongings have been taken as evidence and held at local police department stores? And then they come in with no verifiable information. So how does DOC then proceed? A person's been sentenced. They didn't come in with any ID, And then they've been sentenced, and then they're due to be released. How how does DOC work to make sure to get those ID documents? Do you go directly to the Department of Health to get the birth certificate that's in Vermont.
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: Law enforcement doesn't bring anybody in until they've positively identified the person. So by the time they come into a facility, we work in good faith that whichever law enforcement agency has processed this person got it right.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And that is true for everyone that comes into the facility. Some more questions, but I don't know what else they're gonna be presenting here because I'm looking in terms of DMV needed more doc figuring out for this piece of legislation what the numbers would be for detained individuals. And in '25, is that calendar year '25 or fiscal year '25 where you're talking about the total releases? It's calendar. That's calendar. So you have. 2,400 plus detained individuals through calendar year of 'twenty five. And of those 2,468, about 400 to 500 has been the number of our detainee population, though it may not be the same individual. But that's about what it runs. Our detainee population runs about 500. So do you have in your database those detainees that have been there longer than six months? We're working on getting that. Yes. Yeah. You have a gut gut feeling of the current and I'm looking at the current folks. I know there's 2,460. It's there's a lot of churn in the detainee population. But of those 500 folks who are detained, over half of them are there longer than six months?
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: I would say most of them.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Most of the 500 are there for longer than six months. So then the question becomes. If they've been there for longer than six months. And then just thinking how this would work because with the senescence population, you're waiting until they get close to their reentry date. Right. The detainee population, you don't know when they're gonna be released.
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: Excellent. All of the problem. Yeah. The way the process works now, the individual has to be incarcerated for six months, during which time we will sentence to. We will do work on reentry, whatever the individual means. For a detainee, they are detained on bail or held without bail for the most part. There's no way for us to know when mom is gonna show up to post bail if the individual can go to court and get a bail reduction, so mom can come and post bail. If they go to court and it changes from a hold without bail to a bail amount, that can be paid. So there's no way for DOC to know when the person could potentially post bail. Also, are situations where the person goes to court and they're sentenced for time served and they're eligible to be released today. At which point, there are no reentry services because he gets sentenced, comes back. If he actually goes to the courthouse, he comes back. We run the sentence computation to make sure that the number of days is correct, and he has to be released that day. So there isn't really anything.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Then,
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: right, charges can be dropped. They could immediately be sentenced to probation from court. The the problem is we have no idea when a person who's detained is gonna be released. I believe the longest person that I've seen incarcerated as a detainee, he was incarcerated for five years before his case finally completed. So, technically, he would meet the criteria. He's been detained for at least six months. So we get him the ID, and then he sits there for another four and a half years, at which point the ID is no longer valid. DMV did the work and absorbed the cost, and now we have to start over. This individual happened to get sentenced to credit for time served and is eligible to leave that day. One of the other potential issues is DOC can submit the application, But once it gets to the DMV and they start the process, it takes as long as it takes. So if the person gets released today after we submit the application, they can't walk into DMV and get an ID. They have to wait for the process. So then they're outside for three, four weeks with nothing. Whereas if they just walked out the door and went to DMV, they might be able to get a paper copy of the ID today.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Right, and then Gina?
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: So, no problem at any given point in time knowing how many of your detainees would meet the six month threshold. You have that information. Forgetting it. Right. But it's easy enough to yeah, okay. How long if you all knew, if DMV knew that there was this group of people who have met that threshold, and let's say they get released from a court and are permitted by statute a non driver ID, that turn if if you knew that these people were in limbo and could possibly show up at your doorstep, are we still looking at a typical turnaround time of three or four weeks? Or I I I don't presume that you would have a stack of people who have met six right? A stack of IDs ready to go. But is there administratively stuff that could already be in place? Should they show up at a moment's notice?
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: So that would be something we would have to logistically work through as well as system work through our new modernization that would have to be programmed. To answer your first question though, would it take three to four weeks? Remember everything is printed off-site, nothing is printed here. So they're never gonna leave with a credential in their hand outside of a temporary. Everybody,
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: that is
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: not something we take advantage of now in the current situation, but we could always work through by getting a temporary, which is valid for thirty days, a paper temporary.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: I just renewed mine and it said print this. Your new license is on the way.
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: Perfect. Yeah. That's exactly what we could potentially work through. It's not in our process right now. In order to pivot and consider having somebody come to the DMV with the appropriate checks and so forth, it would require a system change on our end, as well as changing our MOU and documentation of saying that they're being released from their custody,
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: that type of thing.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: I'm considering this token coupon, you get a free ID. You've been released.
[Unidentified Committee Member]: That's gone to my head.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Thinking and talking at the same time.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's trouble. Would it
[Unidentified Committee Member]: be more helpful with the detainee population, just throwing this out there, if we worked on getting all of their documents together so when they
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: walk out, they're ready to go to the DMV?
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: It's kind of what
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: You know? Like, no. I like that. I like that. Like, here you go. Here's your packet. Boom. And it whatever. If you
[Unidentified Committee Member]: wanna give them a voucher for the cost of it, all good. But
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So you'd still have the six month trigger. And then once the person has been detained for six months, it would then be DOC would start working on getting their documents in place. Yeah. And not pursuing.
[Unidentified Committee Member]: Actually filing
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: it. But just getting their birth certificates, social security, whatever is needed to get their documents in place so that when they are quickly released, they have access to that. Yeah. Then they can go on their own down to DMV. Right.
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: And anywhere else for that matter that they may need to use that kind of information for, because this can't be
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: the only place that they would need that kind of documentation. What onerous would that put on DOC in terms of having to do that network? First, you need to know how many detainees hit that six month mark. But then is that something that's possible for DOC to do? It'd be for all detainees, they're longer than six months. In
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: addition to that, can you just I can imagine having been in the institution for however long, and suddenly you're going to be released. And sometimes it's suddenly. There's probably a mental state that shows up in and around that. Like, oh my god, where am I going? What's my first step? There's a lot of stuff going on. And then you all are providing them in this scenario with, here's this, this, this, this. If you want to get an ID, here's this, this. What's the word I want to use here? A capacity to manage that as they're leaving a fairly controlled environment,
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: what kind of confidence do
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: you have? Do you give them a little ziplock that says, this is your ID stuff. Hold on to this ziplock. Take this to the
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: DMV. Basically. Okay. Most of the people who are released go through probation and parole. Either they're furloughed or on probation. So they immediately have to report to their PO. The caseworker and the assigned PO work together with the person and make sure all the boxes are checked. They have their ID, they have their Three Squares application, they have a residence, they have a ride to somebody pick them up, they have all the things. Some people need DOC in some way to help them get all of those things. Some people are going to moms, and it's good, so they really don't need a lot. But so, we don't usually just kick a person out and then say, There's Good luck to a plan. And the individuals involved in the entire reentry planning, So they know what's what. If they have questions Sure. Some people don't know the questions, and you get a sense of people who have not ever had to do it by themselves before, that kind of thing. We just give them everything that we can think of that they'll need, and then the POs basically take it from there once they're released.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: So there's somebody there to, Right. We don't yeah. We don't have to spoon feed that room. But I wanna make it easy to do. I I mean right. Yeah. I know. Yeah. What is the ID? We don't have the statute. Put that in the spoon feed being statute.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Right.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Right. Yeah.
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: Something else that's just started as of January 1 is the eleven fifteen reentry waiver.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: And BCCIA is gonna
[Unidentified Committee Member]: be Correct.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: The And this is for sentenced or is also detained folks? It's for sentenced people. Most people end up being sentenced. Long term detainees usually end up being sentenced. Right. To
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: speak to that question specifically, the way that the program is set up is there is a reentry person in a correctional facility, as well as in Not in the field site, but in the region that the field sites cover. So there are six facilities. So there's six reentry coordinators through BCCI, and then there are six reentry coordinators in the communities. So they start the process, say they do telehealth to meet their doctor and their therapist and their MAT counselor. So they start the telehealth in, and then it's a warm handoff to the VCCI coordinator in the community who will help them with things like, This is how you get to your doctor, and that kind of thing. And help them with, This is how you need to get to the pharmacy to pick up your meds, and that kind of thing. So there's now an additional person in the community and in the facilities to help them get on their way. And the community services last up to six months.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Again, it's just for those folks who are sentenced. Correct. So what about the thought that was put on the table for detainees who were there longer than six months? The DOC did the legwork to at least get the documents to verify their ID so that when they are released, they could have that changed. What are people's thoughts on that?
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Sure there's enough.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: get the best sort of fix. I may come up with something, but
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: We could apply for a social security card and birth certificate for people who need it, and then they would have those two pieces of ID. Let's say there's the six month mark. That's something you could hold on to. Sure, definitely. The identification specialist who holds on to all the IDs when they come in, where the person's released, She holds those documents as well. So we'll just get her a bigger filing cabinet.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Is this a direction that the committee's interested in, so that we could have Hillary do an amendment?
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Yes, absolutely.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Yeah, it's still the biggest thing you hear anecdotally, people being released and that's the barrier, they don't have the ID. So I feel really confident after hearing both the testimonies today that the system is in place to work. Think I we just got to expand it and By maybe make a few
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: doing it this way, then you don't have to get into updating the MOU with DMV. DMV doesn't have to worry about getting an influx of a whole bunch of folks all of a sudden. And also it would take you to the situation of someone is going through the process as a detainee, then they're released. And then they go down the DMV. And it's like, well, you gotta wait a couple weeks because it's already in the process of being acted on. It's too simple a solution.
[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk) — possible diarization mix]: I do. Shawn? Maybe you answered this, but how many people leave from the facilities with their with their ID in their hand? And how many of them get it afterwards?
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: I don't have numbers for that. Most people get it
[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk) — possible diarization mix]: Before? Before. Okay, that's good. That's wonderful. Okay. And
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: like I said, sometimes it's a short and we're not sure if we mail it, if it'll get there on time, we'll send it to the probation office. Most people, when they get out of the facility, are directed to go directly to the PO. If they know an ID is hanging there,
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: they might be more incentivized to go. How does earn time play into that six month prior to release timeframe?
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: Sentence computations are updated on a monthly basis for the people who earn earn time.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So you would know that already calculates. Because they receive seven days a month, right? Right. It's too easy to fix. Something's wrong. So we will get the draft out to DMV and DOC. You can DMV can just relay electronically, so I don't think it's gonna impact you. And we wanna make sure of that. So we won't need you coming back in unless something really percolates. But please, it would be getting it from Hillary Chittenden. And then if you could just respond to Hillary, it would be great. And then you don't have to come in unless you really want to come back.
[Unidentified Committee Member]: Fun, great. It's
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: easier than transportation committee. I've been on transportation.
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: So that's where I
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: was sitting here. Yeah. That was quite a while ago when I was there.
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: Were feeding Richie Westman.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Oh, We're
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: lunches all the time. That
[Unidentified Committee Member]: was just a visual. I didn't
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Not physically.
[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: She was sharing her lunch.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Then DOC, right? Then DOC will be back. And speaking of Richie, Richie and I were talking this morning. So when the governor yesterday spoke about the deficit and problems back in 1991 and mentioned Richie and I were the only two left here. Rutland and Rutland talked to me about that this morning coming into the State House. It's like, it's sobering, isn't it? Let me sign up. So I'll have you folks back. And if you could also get the numbers how many detainees would meet that six month threshold, but you wouldn't start getting the ID information until after that six month threshold. You wouldn't be doing it when they first arrive and are there for a month or two. It would be the six month. So we'll get the draft out to you folks and then follow-up. Thank you.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Thank you so much. Thank you.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's easy, but maybe it's not easy. And be prepared, because if we do get the spill out, somebody's going to report it. It's not Troy. Take a step. And it's not me.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: The beauty of introducing That's your game. Yeah. I've got something coming right now.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: So, the
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: person that introduces Okay, so we have Hillary again. Let me see what bill we
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: were on.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: $5.05 0. Perfect.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's your bill that we just worked on. 540 we got so
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: many numbers that are so close here. That was 540 9. I think I'm up for 540.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: 550. No
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: way. 550. Let's try 50. Oh, you're Yeah.
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You're getting a lot of my face. Know.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: 05:40 and then 05:50.
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: Okay.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So about 05:40, folks. You guys are gonna wake up. This is kind of in response to when we worked on expanding the justice centers and then also working on the reparative program and working group.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: And
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: representative Ellen came in and gave us a quick walk through. We said we wanted more information. So, Hillary, if you could walk us through the the changes, walk us through the bill. Me too.
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: For the record, Hillary Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel. I don't know if I have do that multiple times
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: in the morning, but I will.
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: As the chair mentioned, this bill is coming out of a 2024 Act, Act 180, that made a number of changes related to restorative justice and restorative justice approaches. So much of that bill was focused on pre charge diversion. So before someone is even criminally charged, providing diversion approaches. The bill created a precharge diversion program. The existing diversion programs were post charge and were referenced in a lot of different statutes. So that act also created a working group to make recommendations on uncertain post charge diversion issues and specifically to recommend legislative language in the final report with an eye toward streamlining the existing post charge version. So post charge, just to be clear, post charge and I'm looking at
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: the title here, and it says post adjudication. So post charge, does that mean that they have been sentenced on probation? They've actually gone through and there is a sentence. And this is a way to divert them from that sentence. So say their sentence is probation, but they could be diverted to a program. They failed that program, that sentence still is there, is still underlying, so then they would be have to carry through on probation.
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. That's one of the options. So the Act one eighty referenced post charge diversion. But the chair is certainly right that the working group title refers to post adjudication. I will confirm whether any of the bill's changes kind of rely on that distinction and follow-up. So the working group this bill essentially takes the final report recommendations of that working group, implements them in a bill as recommended by that report. So a little bit more on the working group before I jump into the statutory language changes. Act 180 set out the members of that working group was the DOC commissioner or a designee, the chief judge of the superior court who chaired the working group, and then five representatives selected from community restorative justice providers, different geographic regions. They were to meet six times over the course of last year and provide two interim reports in January and July. And then a final report in November, which is the report was supposed to be a written report in the form of proposed legislation. So if the committee is interested in a copy of that report to reference, I'm sure we can get one.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Be helpful. Great. Because if we do this, Phil, and report it out, the reporter would need to know the background of that working group.
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Great. And that final report sets out some of that kind of a summary of that background. Great. So I will share that with Tate. It's related to the committee. The working group, the act of the working group study seven issues. So, as I mentioned before, the working group was supposed to look at post charge or post adjudication diversion and restorative justice approaches. So the working group Was supposed to study defining the post adjudication reparative program and its scope determining which offenses would presumptively qualify for referral to the program. Establishing eligibility requirements for referral to the program. And this is something that representative Dolan really emphasized in introducing the bill, but designing uniform operations and procedures for the program, including how referrals from courts would work and other kind of uniformity in how cases were handled. So any questions about what that 2024 act set up for the working group or about the working group before we jump into the working group's final report?
[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk) — possible diarization mix]: So those seven things you just talked about, that was in the first
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: part of that.
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Act one ED specified here are the members. It listed those seven things for the working group to study. They had a very clear mandate in the act for what they were supposed to be doing and were set to they had administrative support from DOC. The act provided that. And were set to provide those two interim updates in January and July 2025. And then the final report with proposed statutory language in November.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And that's what this language is.
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And that's what this language is. So the language Great. This was the most straightforward bill draft. Again, I did not draft this bill, but this was very straightforward bill drafting because the working group's reports specified exactly the statutory language changes that they were recommending. Share the working group. I believe that was chief judge zoning.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So we should have judge zoning in on this. Yes.
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think the the working group members or chair could speak more specifically to why they were recommending these changes, but I can explain what changes that were. Alright, so section one, we're on page one, line 12. This section, generally section seventy-thirty, lists factors that a court has to consider in deciding whether to order referral to a community reparative program. So as the chair mentioned, when someone is sentenced, part of the sentence can be referral to participate in a community reparative program that's taking a restorative justice approach. This section lists the kinds of things a court must consider in deciding whether to make that referral. And the bill proposes making two changes to this section. On page two, line two, the working group recommended changing the word board to program. My understanding is that this was consistent with referring to this more uniform post reparative program. Then on lines three through 11, the working group recommended removing language that provides more information about kind of the rules around how a referral to a community reparative board happens and some notes about that. We'll see in a second. This language has not gone from statute. Instead, what happened is the working group is suggesting moving it from here, from section seventy thirty, and including it in a new section that they recommend adding. So I think the idea is this information fits better with the new section they are recommending adding about a uniform program. And so they are moving this language there. So I'll flag when we get to that new section where they have moved that language. Any initial questions about that, about section one?
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So the real change is that used to go to a community reparative board. And the big changes instead of a board, it's now being termed more program that could be carried out with a board or something else. Yes. I think when the community justice programs were being first initiated and that thought, what really carried that through were reparative. Now your community justice centers have really expanded, so they're much more than reparative boards. And it could be a restorative program within other parts of your community justice centers. This one I'm kind of thinking. I don't know if that's true or not.
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I think this would be a really useful question for one of the members of the working group. Part of why they were set up was to take these existing restorative justice entities referenced in different parts of statutes and kind of explain, here's how they work together, here's how to specify what happens for post adjudication projects. And I think they would be well positioned to answer kind of the distinctions between the work that community justice centers do as referenced in the statute and what reparative boards are charged and what the overlap is or relationship there. And if they're not able to answer, will find other answers for you. Alright. So moving on to section two. This is section nine ten. Existing law provides that a restorative justice program can be used for anyone required to participate in such a program by their sentence or as a condition of a sentence of probation. Or current law also provides that someone who is ordered for civil contempt of a child support order could be required to participate in restorative justice program. The working group is recommending removing the language that would allow referral to a community reparative program for civil contempt in a child support
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: order case. So current law, does it mean that restorative justice could be a condition of release for someone on probation. Is that what that really says? A condition of a sentence of probation?
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Probation being sentenced to probation is officially a sentence. We say conditions of release, we're generally talking about free trial. But yes. And there's another there's more language coming up next in the bill that clarifies that someone can be required to participate in a reparative program as part of the sentence of probation. But even if they are not sentenced to probation, they can still be required as part of a sentence participate in a community reparative program. So it can be part of the probation sentence, but you don't have to be sentenced to probation to be required to participate in a community reparative program. So it could be so it's a sentence, but it's almost a condition of your release, but it's termed more of a sentence. When we talk about court orders as a result of being found guilty, we use the word sentence, even if we're used to thinking of a sentence as
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: a- Probation or incarceration. So the person has been found guilty, but instead of sending that person to a sentence of probation, This allows the court to sentence the person to a restorative program. That's my understanding. And if they fail that restorative program, and there's no underlying probation sentence, incarcerative sentence, what then happens? That's later in the bill?
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I believe that's later in the bill. But if the discussion later in the bill doesn't answer that question, I will confirm that for you.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So it would be they have to carry through on their settlements? Yep.
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So then what's the process? Yeah, I believe the bill will answer this.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So the big change is if they going they're then deemed to be guilty.
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And the big changes, they could be sent to a restorative justice program. That would be their sentence. So as I understand it, that is possible under current law. The big change being made in section nine ten on page two lines 15 through 20 or really on lines 17 through 18 is that under current law, it's possible for an order of civil contempt to be required to participate in a community reparative program. The bill would change that such that for a civil an order for civil contempt of a child support order, you cannot be required to participate in a reparative program.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I'd know why they made that change.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Yeah, I'd like to get somebody from the working group in here. That's the question I have, too.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: think, again, I'll share the report. The report provides some language relating to that, but they would be able to The report. The report does. Yes. So the report outlines, it gives a summary of the working group. It has sections for each of their proposed statutory language changes like in the bill. And for each of the proposed changes, it has at least a short explanation of what the change is doing or why they think the change is warranted. So I'll share the report. But if you have further questions after that, the working group would be the right ones to speak to that. Alright, moving on to section three. Section three would add a new section, section nine thirteen, that puts all in one place what happens and what is required for referral to a post adjudication restorative justice program. So remember when we talked about what the working group was charged with doing, one of the key things that they were charged with doing was making uniform procedures requirements for participating in one of these programs statewide. So that's really what this section is doing. In Section A, Subsection A on this is page three, lines three through seven. This is specifying what cases are eligible for referral to the restorative justice program. Offenders who have pled guilty to a nonviolent felony, a nonviolent misdemeanor, or certain misdemeanors that aren't excluded from referral to a community justice center. So for domestic violence, sexual violence, sexual assault and stalking by statute, If it's a misdemeanor, those are prohibited from being referred to a community justice center. There are some exceptions to that. If folks have questions, can speak more. But this section outlines what cases can be referred to the restorative justice program. Remember that the language deleted at the top of page two on lines three through six, the language I just talked about in subsection A is just moving that language. So this is not actually a new statutory requirement. These eligibility requirements are not different from current law. They're just placing them in this new section so that people can look to this one section, read through, understand which cases are eligible, how to get referred. It's just putting them all in one place.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So could you give some examples of a nonviolent felony? I may be putting you on the spot. You are. Don't know. Unfortunately, I just thought of that.
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: A nonviolent felony.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Or nonviolent misdemeanor.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Felony theft over 900?
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Yep. I think trespass. Don't think trespass would qualify as a nonviolent. There might be felony or misdemeanor versions of trespass.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So it's not your high level crimes. That's what I'm trying to be clear for the committee. It's not your high level crimes. It could be a felony, but it's not your violent felonies. Or it could be a non violent misdemeanor. Would that be burglary in an unoccupied dwelling, where if it's occupied, it would be a felony? I believe that is correct.
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Should have been ready
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: for this question. I just think we need to have some thoughts about what group we're dealing with here for whoever reports it on the floor.
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. So when I send the working group report to Tate, I'll include a couple examples of each of those categories for the committee to reference.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But folks who are being charged and plead guilty for domestic violence, sexual violence. What was the
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: other one? Sexual assault and stalking.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Separate And that would not qualify.
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Correct. There's another exception to that exception, that if a community justice center enters into a memorandum of understanding that has a protocol to protect the victims, then for domestic violence or sexual violence cases, they can be referred. So there are some provisions that would allow certain of those accepted cases to be referred if the Community Justice Center establishes a particular protocol for protecting victims.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Have some of them done that? Do you know?
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I will have to confirm. Yeah. I believe this was done somewhat recently, but I will confirm.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Okay. Then I answered my question further down on lines eight through 12. Yes. So section B
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: specifies that referral to the restorative justice program can happen even if the court does not place the offender on probation in sentences where referral is not a condition of probation, then the offender returns to court for further sentencing if either the reparative board does not accept the case or if the offender fails to complete the reparative board program to the satisfaction of the board in a time deemed reasonable by the board.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So then the offender has to go back to court. And then the court could decide to continue the person on the program or to institute probation or even incarceration.
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's my understanding. I think if chief judge is coming in to speak about the working group, he might also be able to speak to an example of how that has happened if it's happened since because, again, section B is another one that does not change current law. On page two, lines six through 11, that's that same language in current law, but it's moving it into this new section. So that has been an operation. That is current law. And if there are examples of where that has happened, I think Chief Judge Sweeney might be well positioned to give that. So in this new section, we have a new section putting all of this referral information in one place. Subsections A and B are not new law. They are just moving current law to this location. Subsection C is new language, but is consistent with what we just talked about that the court can choose to require participation in restorative justice program as a condition of probation. So it can be separate from ordering probation, but it can also be a condition of probation. Whether as a condition of probation, actually, condition of probation has its own analysis. So if a court is determining whether to require someone to participate in the restorative justice program, the court has to consider relevant factors. So the statute lists a couple of examples. The court should consider whether there is an agreement between the parties for the referral. So if the parties involved agree to be referred to the restorative justice program, that is a fact for the court to consider. The views of any victim of the offense, the impact of the offense in the community, the offender's willingness to participate in the program, the offender's capacity to meaningfully participate in the program, and whether there are any orders of protection in effect or previously in effect between the offender and any victim.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. Is
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: there any mention that you know of in the report about who's determining that capacity to meaningfully participate?
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I do not believe there is reference in the report. I can confirm that. Ultimately, is the judge considering. Based on this language, it's not clear whether the judge is requesting input or information from someone else's assessment of capacity meeting. I think the working group could also give an example of what they intend that that language to mean. Meaningfully, could cover a variety of things.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: So it could be a parasite.
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Indeed. And depending on the working group's answer, it's certainly possible to further specify. All right. The last two parts of this new section, we're on page four, line six through eight. Subsection E, standardized forms. This section says that the court administrator shall create standardized forms for referral to the restorative justice program to be used in all courts of the state. So again, the working group was supposed to be looking at uniformity of procedures. They're saying standardized forms that the court administrator shall create, and that will be used in all courts for referrals to the program. Similarly, this is page four, lines nine through 10, subsection f, that the Supreme Court may adopt procedural rules to effectuate this section. Again, I think the idea is uniformity statewide. And section four effective date, the actual take effect 07/01/2026. Any other questions that we have not answered that came up previously or that anyone still has?
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I don't think I think the key now is to get some folks in to testify. And I'm trying to think who else besides the judge, just members of the task force, some members of the task working group.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Maybe from the CSC, perhaps?
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So the working group members
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: yeah. I didn't
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: hear. Somebody from CJCs, maybe?
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: They would be
[Unidentified Committee Member]: on the
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: task force. Yeah. So the working group was DOC commissioner or designee
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: And five
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Chief Judge Zone and five of the CJC members. Okay. They're listed on the report. Okay.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: The committee still interested in working on this bill?
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Yes. Yes.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Okay. So we'll set up some schedule next week, hopefully. K? Okay. Anything else before we move on to h five fifty? Hillary, you're in the hot seat.
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I am. You're getting a lot of my voice this morning.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And this is totally new. A lot of this
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: I can tell you.
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Courtney Whitmore from Franklin Bendisl Restorative Justice Center, Neil Favreau from St. Jay from the Restorative Justice Center, Gina Galfetti from the Barrie Community Justice Center, Damian Barnes from the Rutland County Community Justice Center, although it looks like he did not he was not a member for the full period of the working group. And then Casey Viato from Interaction Youth Services and Restorative Justice and Bridal Group.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Okay. Five fifty.
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. So one caveat upfront. I did not write this bill, and there are a few places where I think the language would benefit from clarification to be a little clear. So as we go through, I'll just point the match. So this bill proposes to create a number of standards for transgender, non binary, and intersex persons who are housed in DOC. The standards touch on a few issues. They touch on classification, placement housing decisions, on search policies, and on medical care. So we'll get into that in more detail, but that's the big picture. That means that the bill proposes changes in title 28 in two sections, in a section on classification of those housed in DOC and in a section on medical care for those housed in DOC. So I'm talking about those two things. On page one, line 14, section one, this is the intent section. The intent section uses some terms that might not be in everyone's everyday use. The bill does not define them. So in walking through, I'll offer kind of a plain language definition for purposes of the walkthrough. But it's something the committee could decide to either add definitions, hear from witnesses about preferred understandings or not include them and kind of rely on everyday meaning. So an intent section does not come into the green books. Is that correct? That is correct. Remains in the place out the intent
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: of the legislature in changing these laws. And it doesn't show up in statute. Correct.
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Some of the terms used in the intent section also show up in the statutory language. So that is something that committee could consider when it's thinking about which terms that may want to define or not. So on page one, lines 15 through 19, this is the first intent section. And for intent sections, I'm gonna read the language straight, and then I'll provide a couple additional thoughts. So it is the intent of the general assembly to recognize that gender transition is a deeply personal experience that may involve some combination of social transition, legal transition, medical transition, or none of these. Some transgender, non binary or intersex persons experience gender dysphoria that requires medical treatment, while others do not experience gender dysphoria. So this subsection A describes the intent to recognize that there's no one way to go about gender transition. It may involve some combination of social, legal or medical transition or none, and it looks different for each person. Reminder for folks that social transition means aligning your gender expression with gender identity. So that might be using a preferred name or pronouns or changing how you what your appearance is. Legal transition is changing official documents to reflect either a name or a gender marker. So if you go in to change driver's license or other official documents, that's what is meant by legal transition. And medical transition involves health care interventions. So that could be hormones or gender affirming surgery, two examples of that. Gender dysphoria is a psychiatric diagnosis for psychological distress resulting from your body not aligning with your gender identity. And so this is saying that some persons experience this and it requires medical treatment and others do not. Any questions about this first part of the intent section or clarifications? They also will. Alright. On page two, we have another part of the intent section. This is lines one through seven. And again, I'll kind of read that straight. Is the further intent of the General Assembly to recognize that due to safety concerns, inconsistent medical and mental health care, and insufficient education and resources, among other factors, incarceration often serves as a barrier to gender transition or recognition. And that regardless of the ways in which a person chooses or is able to express the person's gender or to take medical, social or legal transition steps, the person deserves respect, agency and dignity. What is meant by deserves agency? I understand agency to mean the ability to make choices about what is happening to you. Mhmm. Welcome other thoughts about Absolutely. Understanding that differently. The ability to make choices. Any other questions about the intent section? That's setting the stage for what is intended in the bill. Alright, so moving on to section two. This is page two, line eight. Current law has a section about classifying persons or defendants. So when someone is sentenced or committed to DOC custody, current law says that DOC has to classify the person within five days. Classification is a process that DOC uses that involves custody level determinations, risk assessment and programming needs, and release decisions. All those details are in DOC policy. And so if you have further questions about that, DOC will be best equipped to answer it. But the current statute just says DOC has to classify someone within five days of sentencing or commitment. Section two, the changes here, propose new standards for DOC to consider gender identity and determining housing placement, what search policy to apply, and programming and other DOC decisions. Change
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: in section A1.
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, thank you. On page two, line 15, there's a change from he or she to the person. This is consistent with broader drafting norms to avoid gendered language. So that you will be seeing that in this and any other bills that bring this up. We haven't gone back to wholesale do this to every use of he or she in the BSA. But as bills come up, we are conforming that with tracking practice. So this on page two, line 19, and this will continue onto page three. The bill would add a section for when DOC is classifying or assigning someone. DOC needs to operate consistent with certain standards that are spelled out on page three. So the first is that the inmate is addressed in a manner consistent with the inmate's gender identity. This is one area where addressed is not totally clear. I understand it to mean using appropriate pronouns. But if there's any clarity and something else is intended, we can clarify that language. There is one typo on line four. Toward the end, it says inmates gender identify Fs look like Ts, but that should be a T.
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: So we will correct that going forward.
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Subsection B and C, I think it's helpful to kind of understand them together. Together they mean that an inmate can state which search policy applies to them. And if they don't have a preference or a stated gender identity, then DOC should apply the search policy consistent with the gender designation of the facility. So a search policy might specify the gender of the officer either conducting the search or viewing the search. And that might differ depending on the gender designation of the facility or of the person being searched. So B and C boil down to saying the inmate can identify a preference, either the policy for their gender identity or according to the gender designation of the facility where they're housed. But if they have not stated a gender identity or a preference, then DOC will use the search policy of or the gender designation of the facility where they're housed.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So I just have I'm gonna flag this Yep. Further testimony Terms of where does DOC house the policy for search searching? Is it their directives? It's on their website. But is it through your directives? Yes. Well, that's important to know.
[Unidentified Committee Member]: Well, for those sorts of things I'm sorry, chair.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Go ahead.
[Unidentified Committee Member]: For those sorts of questions, we're tabling them for now because I have a staffing question too about that sort of thing.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Flag it. Bring it on the table and flag it.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: So
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: what do you mean for staffing?
[Unidentified Committee Member]: I don't know what DOC staffing looks like. And if we're talking about the gender of the person doing the search, I don't know if that person's always available.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So if it's in a woman's facility, it should be a woman. If it's in a health facility, it should be a male.
[Unidentified Committee Member]: Depending on how the person identifies. I mean, sent testimony saying that's not always the case.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So I would continue for folks to voice their concerns and then flag it. Because when we do testimony, you know, that will help to determine who to bring in if we decide to continue working on the bill. That will determine who we bring in and what questions to ask.
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. Moving forward with subsection D on page three, this is lines 10 through 12. The other new standard is that an inmate is housed at a correctional facility designated for men or women based on the inmate's preference. And if they're eligible for a residential treatment program within the jurisdiction of the department, they can also indicate a preference for gender designation of that program. The last standard added to this section is E on lines 13 through 18. And this really says that the DOC must seriously consider the inmate's perception of health and safety when they're making decisions about bed assignment, placement, or other decisions. The statute gives a couple of the bill gives a couple examples of what kinds of decisions this might include. So whether to grant single cell status, housing the inmate with another inmate of choice, or when an inmate expresses a safety concern that DOC has to seriously consider that concern and that perceived health or safety concern when deciding whether to move either the inmate out of a place where they feel a health or safety concern or moving another person who poses the health or safety threat from that place. That is on lines 16 through 18. And I think that is one of those areas where the language could be clarified. So right now it says, we're removing the inmate or individual who pose a threat from any location where there is access to the inmate expressing a safety concern. I think we could state more clearly what is intended there. So, if the committee moves forward, this is one of those areas where I would recommend clarifying the language.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So, what about this is talking about within the facility. And I'm assuming it's just talking about the Vermont facility. What about the out of state beds in Mississippi if someone is transferred? What then happens? Because they're all all the Vermont folks are in a separate unit apart from the rest of the facility, all the Vermont folks. But what what happens when there's a transgender person?
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think it might be or something that would be relevant in answering that question is the understanding between DOC and the correct. Yes. Flagged for me. There's language elsewhere that refers and by elsewhere. Later in the bill, we will see new language that references what DOC, including its contractors, must do. But if this section were to cover contractors, language would need to be added, I think, to specify that.
[Unidentified Committee Member]: I mean, DOC is already making some choices, aren't they shared depending on an inmate's health, for instance? Who's eligible? I think I'm seeing now.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. If there's more and more pressure on the population, that's going to get expanded. It's something to keep
[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: in mind.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Would that be considered a health issue?
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: I don't know.
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: We don't know.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Ron? So, Larry, how does this intersect with the Prison Rape Elimination Act? Because I think federal law does specify some of these things. Was just looking up CoreCivic, for example, there, and they follow the PREA's guidelines for separate rooms in some cases. So is this in conflict or just how does it work with PREA if we pass statute?
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Again, I did not draft this, so I cannot speak specifically to how this was drafted consistent with PREA. I will follow-up with a couple notes on that. I will say that this language mirrors something that California passed in 2020 that has not been challenged as inconsistent with PREA. But I will follow-up with kind of a specific comparison for PREA touches on these subjects, here's where that would overlap with the bill.
[Conor Casey (Member)]: Great. Thanks.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So when did this type of legislation pass in California? In '20. Right. The language is modeled off of that?
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I did not draft this, but comparing the language, my understanding that it was very closely modeled off that. And it
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: hasn't been challenged. Has not been challenged,
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: which does not mean there isn't an issue, but that was just my initial answer in thinking about how this intersects with. And I should say, I did not see a challenge. I will go back and before I represent that it absolutely has not been challenged, I will go back and confirm that it has not. It was not flagged as such, but Oh, You never know. I will confirm exactly before I affirmatively confirm that. Will confirm. All right. We're still on page three, but moving on to Subdivision 3. This is lines 19 through running onto page four. But Subdivision 3 A says that if DOC denies a search or a housing preference, if the inmate expresses a search a preference for a search policy or housing, that DOC and DOC denies it, DOC has to first document in writing a specific and articulable basis for why they cannot accommodate that request. So this subdivision would add a kind of documentation requirement where DOC has to provide a specific reason why they're denying the request.
[Unidentified Committee Member]: Is it implied that for initial instance, does that mean for search, especially this could come up repeatedly, right, even if the document each time, do you?
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: As drafted, it means any time that there is a deny. So if you're saying any time they apply the search policy, perhaps not. But the way it's drafted is that any time an inmate expresses a preference for either search or housing and DOC denies it, they would have to document that in writing for a specific reason.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And what is the recourse for the inmate on that decision from DOC? So
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I would be curious to hear from DOC on that. My understanding is that having a written justification would allow the inmate, if it's a grievable issue, to file a grievance. And I unfortunately do not have at my fingertips what constitutes a grievable issue and what would have to be handled outside of the grievance process. But the idea of documentation would be to enable that kind of process to happen. But I think, again
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: just real quick. I think it's actually addressed in the next part of that, which says if an inmate raises concerns about the inmate's health or safety at any time, the inmate's housing replacement shall be reassessed. Is that the grievance process? As drafted, not necessarily. I think this and this is something where
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: if I were drafting this in the first instance, I might not put b as a subsection under a because as written, it says more broadly, even after initial assignment, if an inmate is concerned about health or safety, then DOC needs to reassess an inmate's housing and placement. So that's not surge policy that's specific to housing and placement. But yes, so this section, the new language would both impose that kind of initial assessment requirement. And it also says that at any time during custody, if an inmate raises a health or safety concern about a housing placement, then DOC must reassess the housing in placement. And in terms of how this overlaps with DOC's current practice, I think DOC will be better positioned to explain how this would interact with the way they currently respond to these situations. The last edition in this section, so we're page four, lines five through 11, subsection four. This says that DOC shall not deny a search or housing placement based on any discriminatory reason. It gives some examples of what could constitute a discriminatory reason, but it prohibits denying a search or housing placement for any discriminatory reason. So even beyond the things listed. A discriminatory reason would be denying a search or housing placement based on the anatomy, including the genitalia or other physical characteristics of the inmate, The sexual orientation of the inmate or for housing, a factor present among other inmates, the preferred correctional facility. I am not sure what that refers to that language is in the California law, But I would recommend clarifying what that means.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, I'd also want to clarify discriminatory reason. How do you define that? Is it just A through C? So
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: in interpreting a statute, any discriminatory the the way this is structured, it means that any discriminatory reason is broader than the examples listed. Right? If it were just going to be A, B or C, this would be drafted as the department shall not deny a search or housing placement based on the following. So it's designed to encompass something more than this. A court would still look to these examples as ways to understand whether something qualified as a discriminatory reason or not.
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So the question then that I would flag is how does the department determine the discriminatory reason?
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think it's a department makes that decision. They wouldn't determine if it were discriminatory. They would need to know whether the reason they were giving for denying a search or housing placement would count as discriminatory. So to try to understand that they would look to the three examples. But it's a question for the committee to consider whether the way it's drafted provides sufficient clarity for DOC to be able to understand what it cannot do.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: My take on C is that you cannot deny a housing preference because of something that's already present and they requested. Does that make sense? I didn't say that very well, but I think you caught it. I'm not following. Meaning because x person is already living there, we're going to deny your request. I see. And x person has these factors.
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That makes sense to me. It's probably It's a little clunky. Yeah, we could think of a way to more clearly express.
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: And the person who inspired this legislation
[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections, Facility Operations Manager)]: will have a lot to say. Wonderful.
[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think witnesses will be able to help illustrate what is meant by some of the language that we want to make sure we capture as clearly as possible in in statute. Any questions on the changes to section two section two before we move forward?
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: No. But it's 12:00, and I know some members have some appointments that they have to go to. So I'm wondering if we could schedule you again, Hillary, to go through section three. Is that a cool character? Because that's gonna take some time. Yes. If you could work with Tate while you're here and see when you could come back to finish this, and we'll go from there. That works great. It works. Then if you and I can talk real quick. Yes. So we'll just
[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Going across and help her break her computer. So
[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: for a committee, we're back here at 01:00 to really quick to talk about the eleven fifteen labor with DOC as well as with the director of complex care field services. Is that the BCCI Vermont Chronic Care Initiative? Yeah.