Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Unknown Committee Member]: Good luck.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Welcome, folks. This is SaskRatchington Institutions Committee. It is Tuesday, February 3. We're continuing our testimony. We have with us Christopher Lewis, who is the founder of the Life Unit Inc. And Georgia's Certified Forensic Peer Mentor. A lot of words, but I first was, I don't want to say introduced, sort of introduced, but I first became aware of this when he was on Zoom working with folks who were incarcerated down at the Springfield facility. And also, we started to read a little bit about his background and time of being incarcerated and the work that you've done. I thought it would be good for the committee to hear about your time while you were incarcerated, what changes you went through, and how that's carried you through when you reentered the community and now working with both as well as when they are reentering the community. So I want to thank you for being willing to Zoom in today and take time out of your schedule to talk with us about your experience. So welcome. If you could also identify yourself.

[Chris Willis (Founder, Life Unit Inc.; Certified Forensic Peer Mentor, Georgia)]: Yes. Thank you, once again for the opportunity. Thank you, to everyone in the room today. My name is Chris Willis, founder of Life Unit Inc, national organization five zero one c three that, currently focuses its work in reentry, recovering intervention work inside and outside of prison walls. It's also a veteran founded, organization as well. We specialize in supporting our veterans as well. And, I'm a certified peer specialist mentor as well as a forensic peer mentor, as stated, for the Georgia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities, so certified through the state. I definitely I'm I'm really interested in having this conversation. I would if possible, I was gonna request if I could show the screen or share the screen.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Sure. Mhmm. Yep. Awesome.

[Chris Willis (Founder, Life Unit Inc.; Certified Forensic Peer Mentor, Georgia)]: And I sent the request, I believe. Okay. Here we go. Nope. Let me get back. Okay. Can you I think you guys can.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. You're up. It's pretty cold. It's hot.

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: Hot. It's

[Chris Willis (Founder, Life Unit Inc.; Certified Forensic Peer Mentor, Georgia)]: burning up up there?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. Well, Brian. Not it's not in the larger format.

[Chris Willis (Founder, Life Unit Inc.; Certified Forensic Peer Mentor, Georgia)]: Okay. Gotcha. Alright. Let me see if I can.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We can access it through our own web page as well.

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: If it's not.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Mean, you're up on a big screen. We can see it. Yeah.

[Unknown Committee Member]: You're good. I think you're good.

[Chris Willis (Founder, Life Unit Inc.; Certified Forensic Peer Mentor, Georgia)]: Okay. Cool. As long as you guys are good with it. So if possible, as we get into this, I'd like to go through the the slides or whatnot or part of this presentation. And at any given time, if you guys wanna stop me, if there's specific questions that you guys have that I may have not covered, please stop me. I would love to definitely answer those questions specifically.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Chris, can you see us on the screen or not?

[Chris Willis (Founder, Life Unit Inc.; Certified Forensic Peer Mentor, Georgia)]: I can see everyone in the room.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Okay. Okay.

[Chris Willis (Founder, Life Unit Inc.; Certified Forensic Peer Mentor, Georgia)]: Yep. I can see the gentleman waving to you as well.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So if somebody raises their hand, then I can call on.

[Chris Willis (Founder, Life Unit Inc.; Certified Forensic Peer Mentor, Georgia)]: Yep. Sounds good. Alright. Thank you, guys. So the first slide is just me explaining just my brief introduction. Outside of who I currently am today, I will tell you that in 2003, I was sentenced to one hundred and forty four years in prison. It was my first time ever being in trouble. I was, never previously in any type of had any interaction with the system. I a you could be deemed as a veteran of the United States Air Force at the time. I was active duty during nineeleven, was an E3 out of basic. And essentially, got into a car one night with my cousin. I hold myself 100% accountable. He asked me to drive him to a restaurant, him and two of his friends, that they robbed with a BB gun. And I ended up getting sentenced to one hundred and forty four years. And that was the prison sentence. All suspended, but 19. In the Commonwealth Of Virginia where I was at, I had to do 85% of that as a first time offender with nonviolent record. Nobody was physically harmed during the crime, but it's still very serious offense. This would lead me to being introduced to the system immediately. Jail is one part of it. Jail is is always what I kind of refer to as the beginning part of the journey that is a little bit easier because you typically your house near your town, your city, etcetera. It's easier to be connected to people, but through my prison sentence, and because of the severity of the case, I would be sent to a level four prison yard immediately, from the jail after sentencing in two weeks of what they call classification of receiving in the Commonwealth, which determines your security level, etcetera. I always wanna speak about the psychological shift that occurs when an individual's sentenced. I've never gone on record and said that prisons don't need to exist. I I understand wholeheartedly. I've been housed with people that will tell you they're not ready to go back into society, but I've also been housed with a multitude of individuals that probably if there was an alternative way of sentencing, if there was something else suggested, we probably could have saved the Commonwealth for a couple of dollars, you know, in Virginia and individuals probably would have had a chance to actually rehabilitate. Unfortunately, in a lot of prisons, it's more about warehousing than reform and programs. So the psychological shift for many of us when we're incarcerated in the Commonwealth Of Virginia, The sudden, you know, emotional feelings that we feel are not limited to the things that we can kind of identify as easily being felt through being sentenced to a prisoner, incarceration, like depression, anxiety, anger, separation from community and family, a multitude of different things. It's a sudden shift. And even if an individual is making the decision to involve himself in a situation that will cause him to be in prison, usually individuals aren't taking into consideration, you know, the impact that it does have on a person mentally. My experience while doing one hundred and forty four years, I kind of ranged from one end of the spectrum to the other. I started off as a 19 year old kid. They started to lose themselves mentally. Found myself in a system where programming wasn't readily offered at the time, back in 2003 when I first started my journey. And somebody that along the way eventually was able to get help, but that was after battling different types of mental health crises. And I'll get into some other things as well along the journey. I do wanna just note that nowadays, because of the things that have been implemented in the Commonwealth, there is hope when an individual goes into the system, the system's becoming less and less known in that commonwealth through that place as warehousing now geared towards programming. So people are seeing opportunities to rehabilitate. Loved ones are seeing opportunities for their loved ones to rehabilitate versus what it was back then, which bred an environment that was non conducive. It was hostile and just non supportive. It was both those ways, not just for those who were incarcerated, but also for the staff. My journey while incarcerated too range from a level four all the way to a level one, which is a minimal road camp so I can speak to all experiences. I was incarcerated altogether for sixteen years, eleven months. Next, I'd just like to discuss if there weren't any questions immediately about the one hundred and forty four year sentence or the impact on an individual's mind or long term sentencing is what happens to an individual's mind when they're in prison typically. A couple of things happen, and they happen to me. And prisonization is one of them, and it's the psychological adaptation required to survive not just long term confinement, but prison as a whole. When you're stepping into that environment, there's a certain expectation. It could be masculine driven. It could be whatever it is, but there's a

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: lot of

[Chris Willis (Founder, Life Unit Inc.; Certified Forensic Peer Mentor, Georgia)]: aggression, assertiveness, I call ill communication, all the things that you probably shouldn't have in an environment typically because individuals are unstable, they're battling certain things. And for me, this was the environment that I was introduced into. It wasn't something geared towards rehabilitation. It was something completely opposite at first. One of the things also is when we speak about that hyper masculine identity that a lot of us pick up when I'm speaking about the men that are incarcerated, it's a guarded persona so we don't become victims on the inside. And oftentimes we bring that to the outside as well. And one of the reentry hurdles is chronic hypervigilance as well, which is something that we pick up on the inside. And that has a bunch of different symptoms attached to that, but a survival trait, just to constantly and always be observed or in a place of observation, but also the majority of us are stuck in what's called fight or flight in high levels of trauma. And we, most of the time when we walk out of prison walls, we don't necessarily know or understand that we're mentally free, even though we physically walk on the other side of the gate. This next slide, if I could, I wanted to play a video. It's about two minutes and thirty seconds long. I wanted to give everyone an opportunity to see me coming home from prison. This is after sixteen years, eleven months. I'm walking outside of prison gates for the first time to a loving family. I had support. I had a lot of things that men and women don't have coming home from incarceration, which is while I'm also a mental health advocate and I understand the importance of getting mental health support, regardless of the opportunities that are presented, you need that to keep things stabilized. I ask that you just kind of just observe me and ask, does this make sense for an individual finally being free after all these years? And then maybe if you guys have any questions about what I was going through at that time, please don't hesitate. And hopefully there's volume too. I'm gonna stop it briefly right here. And and within a few seconds, you're gonna see hypervigilance kick in. And, also, you can just see it looks like I'm on a prison yard still.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Is that your mom?

[Chris Willis (Founder, Life Unit Inc.; Certified Forensic Peer Mentor, Georgia)]: That is my mom who currently Yeah, I moved her down here. She lives downstairs now. I made sure mom was close, but

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: she Oh, we can't hear anything.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We can't hear anything.

[Chris Willis (Founder, Life Unit Inc.; Certified Forensic Peer Mentor, Georgia)]: Okay. Let me well, can you as long as you guys can see it, I'll go ahead

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: and We narrate can see it.

[Chris Willis (Founder, Life Unit Inc.; Certified Forensic Peer Mentor, Georgia)]: Can see it. I'll narrate over it then. So essentially right here, this is my mother getting ready to exit the vehicle. My uncle is in the car, my cousin and the woman is my wife now is also in the vehicle. And what I want to tell you is physically that I walked out of prison, but you're about to see me scan the parking lot as if I'm still on the prison yard. Did you guys see my face right there?

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: Yep. Yeah.

[Chris Willis (Founder, Life Unit Inc.; Certified Forensic Peer Mentor, Georgia)]: So I'll allow it to play through, but I'll speak over a couple of things. PT PTSD, hands down, is something that impacts, I would like to say, 100 of the individuals that ever walk behind a prison wall or into confinement. It's not discussed enough, but it's also one of the leading causes is why the rates of suicide and more are going up, especially when it comes to the incarcerated population. Incarceration as a whole is trauma, you know, and I want to say though, of course, you know, states like Vermont and other places are doing some amazing things and being really proactive and helping people, just the act of being in confinement, you know, just being behind barbed wire, just hearing the keys jingle, doors slam over and over again repetitively has an effect on an individual. Also, I just wanna speak I think I'm just getting into the vehicle right here or getting ready to I didn't know how to operate the trunk or to close it, which caused another, place of anxiety when it came to technology being gone for seventeen years, not really having access to or any opportunities to learn anything about how technology shifted. And then they're getting ready to put a phone in my hand. You can't hear the whole family's laughing. They're happy. But at this time I'm lost, confused. I'm trying to put on that hyper masculine you know, image of showing that I'm tough, that prison didn't break me. Inside I was, I was done. Also when it comes to things like suicidal ideation, this is something that we've heard expressed multiple times through individuals, process groups, through one on ones. Anytime we're having an opportunity to go into prisons, it's actually something that the men and women experience more than they probably reflect out loud, we're finding. And then I'll just go back that video ended, but really quick, that aging in place piece, some systems lack the infrastructure for a population where cognitive decline occurs to meet untreated PTSD. In States where I was at, there's a percentage of people that are in population that are considered geriatric, incarceration, etcetera. There's really no programs to support cognitive decline for individuals that may be going through certain things with that. You guys got any questions?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We have some questions here, Shawn and Sounds then

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: good.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Chris, thanks. So just out of curiosity, do you like I I think I know the answer, but I'm gonna ask you anyway. Did you feel like it really aged you in there? Like, this close-up of you, do you look at that and be like, I shouldn't have looked like that with sixteen years later? What what where are you at with that?

[Chris Willis (Founder, Life Unit Inc.; Certified Forensic Peer Mentor, Georgia)]: Yeah. So mental health was horrible the entire time in there. And that that probably when I see I see darkness around my eyes, there's parts of that video where I'm twitching physically in my eyes. I don't know if the hair loss was tied to it, but there was definitely some things that were going on with me physically. Felt like I aged quicker than normal because you have to mature, you're exposed to some really serious things on the inside. And it happened to me early because I got sent to a level four yard. Somebody that I was incarcerated for a violent offense, but historically not a violent person. And I was placed on a compound where over seventy percent of the individuals had life sentences. Individuals had murders and everything else. And I know for a fact the first five to ten years of my prison sentence, I aged mentally. It definitely had a negative impact on me as a whole. Thanks. Yes, sir.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: James?

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: I was just gonna say, not on the still, but when the video is playing, and you'll probably, you'll confirm this, I'm sure. But when the video is playing and that frame right there, to me, it looks like you're not there. Like you're somewhere a 100 miles away. Yeah? Yeah.

[Chris Willis (Founder, Life Unit Inc.; Certified Forensic Peer Mentor, Georgia)]: Yeah. I was still I was still on the yard. I was still to me, was the equivalent of walking into a new pod or being transferred to a new prison. Immediately, I just wanted to scan. And then, now presently, I work with law enforcement, that, but I walked out and I seen police vans and all that, you know, and it just, it triggered me and I wanted to get us up out of there. Yeah, I was a shell of myself for sure. And that, you know.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Keep going there, Chris.

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: Alright.

[Chris Willis (Founder, Life Unit Inc.; Certified Forensic Peer Mentor, Georgia)]: I'm gonna speed it up. So transition shock. First seventy two hours after prison is one of the biggest motivators for the work that I do with individuals that are impacted by incarceration. But transition shock, the first seventy two hours, is an extreme psychological whiplash. For myself, after sixteen years, eleven months of incarceration, I came home 01/13/2020. And about two months later, the pandemic was in full swing. There was no access to mental health services where I was located down in Georgia. No support groups, things were closing obviously because everything that was going on in society and just the way probation was set up. I think that there were probably, I think the issue was there were more people than individuals that were qualified or able take care of the cases or the caseload with probation and supervision. So I fell into this weird place where I was deemed as, even though I did seventeen years in prison, was deemed as a minimal risk, which meant that I only had to call in once a month. Within the first seventy two hours, one of the biggest reasons I had my first panic attack was I went to probation to check-in. I asked my probation officer if they had information on how to get a job, etcetera. Her response was to me, you don't have to worry about getting a job. We have guys that really have things to worry about. You're just going to be on call in status. I walked out of the probation office into the vehicle where my wife was. Had a breakdown, emotionally. Looked at her because I realized that we were being told throughout our entire time of incarceration, especially through reentry, that probation supervision could give us information, lead us to jobs, resources, support. And my probation officer was cold, disconnected. And I just, I didn't get the response that I needed at that time. From there, I immediately had a level of distrust with probation and supervision within those first seventy two hours that would continue. And what I'll tell you is me being in a call in status, it was hard for me to even get ahold of my actual probation officer if I had an issue or if I had an opportunity to get a new job and update or I didn't, it was very hard to do that. But even before that, walking out of those gates, getting in the car, driving to McDonald's to get a coffee on the way home, walking to the digital screen, you know, the touch screen, the order. My family was happy. They ordered, they walked off to go wash their hands. They left me there. I started to sweat. People were behind me. They expected me to finish my order. I couldn't do it. So there was that initial shock with technology again that I was mentioning. But there's another thing that happens that doesn't get discussed enough, don't think, that's decisional atrophy. In prison, 100% of low level decisions are dictated. Release triggers tend to be like choice overload things that happen in the environment, but we don't make decisions in prison. Everything is repetitive. I think in a lot of situations that I see, unfortunately, it hinders an individual when it's time for them to come home. But it's not just decisional atrophy, it could be experienced as well. You'll see some individuals coming home from prison, including myself, a flat tire could send them into a crisis or an anxiety attack or a panic attack. While the rest of the society may have been dealing with something as normal as a flat tire forever, somebody that's been gone for ten years on a way to a job for the first time or a probation meeting that gets a flat tire, they can spin them into a different place. And the data just says the first seventy two hours are the most critical, yet many are released without a mental health bridge. I was really encouraged by some of the stuff that I've learned about Vermont there that's different and not practice in other states. I wish it was that you guys got going on, but there's no bridge for mental health support. There's no opportunity. Individuals typically that I work with, not just in the Commonwealth of Virginia, but throughout the country, that it's their responsibility to find insurance or support groups, mental health support therapy, any of that. And typically mental health support prior to release is minimal. And I would say from personal experience, I've witnessed a number of individuals go home and within the first seventy two hours recidivate or lose their life to addiction. One friend that was near and dear to me within forty eight hours, he had lost his life to addiction. And I would say he was probably one of at least over 10, somewhere between 10 to 20 individuals that I know personally doing time with. Went home, no addiction treatment prior to their release, may have struggled with other things, went home, tried to practice or use that substance or something different. And that was that. So the emphasis on the seventy first seventy two hours are extremely important. Support ecosystem, which is extremely important, but a lot of individuals don't have it. A primary predictor that we've been seeing when it comes to individuals that are successful, stay home once they go home, are individuals that have family support. There are some states and commonwealths that support family interaction, support programs, support interaction with their children, some that make it harder. But all in all, what we found is a determining factor for an individual's success level if they have good family support. Turning points for individuals like stable relationships, redefine identity from ex offender to husband, son, provider. When the opportunity is provided for an individual to have a relationship with family or establish some type of value beforehand, it helps them easier transition back into society. When I walked out prison gates, I did not see myself as a man or a free man. I still felt like a prisoner. I I felt like that way for weeks, if not months. I felt like a ex convict at best after that. That's all I would see myself at for the longest. And I needed to see myself as more. I didn't have the opportunity to engage initially. And I had to learn that I was more than, you know, my experience in prison. And then social capital, which we understand family provides, you know, opportunities at housing, emotional regulation, and more. If you've got good family support, they can help advocate for you.

[Unknown Committee Member]: One of

[Chris Willis (Founder, Life Unit Inc.; Certified Forensic Peer Mentor, Georgia)]: the things that we do personally is we work with families to show them how to identify, find support for their loved ones, as well as teach them how to advocate. And our definition of advocate is just find programs, medical, mental health, etcetera, for the individual that they're attached to coming home.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So Chris, one thing you mentioned is, you see yourself or the person would see themselves as an ex offender. How does that feeling translate into the community that you've come into Mhmm. In terms, not you have a supportive family, that's one thing. But if you don't have a supportive family or the town or neighborhood that you live in, they're gonna see you as an ex offender. How does that play out? Or can you weigh in on that?

[Chris Willis (Founder, Life Unit Inc.; Certified Forensic Peer Mentor, Georgia)]: Yeah. Stigma is one of the biggest obstacles for individuals coming home. Many we understand we're coming home formerly incarcerated, but language is important. It's important to be in environments that teach you that you're more, because what happens is oftentimes we see individuals that don't understand that they're more, and those are the individuals less likely to recidivate or to still practice or be more likely to just make riskier decisions that will lead them back to prison. If you don't see yourself as somebody being free, or if your neighbor is constantly looking at you a certain way, one of the biggest let downs when you go to employers and you're not necessarily able to get employment based on your record, etcetera, it's typically always a big blow mentally, and not everybody can survive it. There's individuals that I've worked with personally one on one that have recidivated. They've gotten into arguments with family members where they were told they were nothing more than, and they went out one night and fed into that. And it's their decision. They made that based off, you know, emotions, etcetera, but it's the reality. And it's why language is important, and it's important to provide environments where we're retrained and reconditioned to understand that we're citizens again, we're part of society again, we can contribute and just be in pro social environments. But yeah, I would just say the last piece, one of the detrimental moments for me was when I was told, I was a felon. That was it. You can't get this job, you're a felon. Was the, it was blunt. There's no need for you to interview, you know, and not everyone survives that. Not everyone goes and reapplies for another job because they don't necessarily want to deal with that part of the process again.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So was it fair to say that for someone who may have experienced that, that they've kind of given up and then they just, I hate to say this, but create a new crime, and then they end up back in the system because it's what they found? Mhmm.

[Chris Willis (Founder, Life Unit Inc.; Certified Forensic Peer Mentor, Georgia)]: Yeah. Yeah. I think that's one of the catalysts. Environments or, you know, cities, states, etcetera, that are more set up for individuals returning home from prison with opportunities. It takes away from the excuse or the reason to go back to that. But if you're coming into an environment where that's all you're looked at, yeah, that could potentially be a reason. We've seen it. We've seen it. Some people feed into that narrative. Nobody challenges them and shows them that they're more. And if anything, in some environments, they add fuel to it. And the unfortunate part is everyone comes home from prison, but there is a percentage of people as we know that, hey, this guy's been to prison, she's been to prison, they're an ex con, they're an ex prisoner. That's it.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Questions before we go on? Okay. Keep going, Chris.

[Chris Willis (Founder, Life Unit Inc.; Certified Forensic Peer Mentor, Georgia)]: Yes, ma'am. Alright. Alright. So, there's a couple of things. Systemic oops. Let me slide back really quick. Vermont dynamics, trust and support. These are some things that that we were looking at, but the systemic credibility gap, this is as a whole. Right? And there's a deep lack of trust between justice impacted individuals and department of Corrections usually as a whole nationwide. We're not saying this is a Vermont thing. We're just saying typically. If you've been incarcerated, you don't necessarily trust the system because it's just made of what you've been experienced or made of what you've heard and haven't even experienced yet. And then there's a paradox that happens in a multitude of different places, which should be observed. It's that it's typically low risk individuals that have high level of anxiety where that mental health isn't treated, that can cause a higher recidivation rate. We understand that certain crimes could cause for a higher level of supervision, but we also understand when we look at things nationally, that sometimes the individual that may have committed a petty larceny is supervised in the same way as somebody that came home after a murder charge of twenty years in prison. It just happens in some places. One thing that we've been able to offer in certain areas is requesting that support groups or peer led support groups can serve as a bridge for probation check ins and more for individuals that would be considered low risk. And we would cover their caseload information, etcetera. But the next slide right here is you guys I mean, comes to peer support. You guys know the importance of it. And peer mentorship, it's something that's finally growing more and more in other places. But what we're seeing and when we have the opportunity to go into institutions and prisons is that it's been a major game changer, for peer mentorship. Individuals that are trained inside the institutions are one level of it because it gives them an opportunity to train for a professional position and to help on the inside of the institution, but also by partnering with peer led or peer mentor led support groups or organizations, excuse me. These opportunities typically help bridge that trust gap that we were speaking about. And the proven impact, you know, if you guys have seen your state, but also just urban pilot programs show a 50% reduction in violence through a model for mental health and peer support. When you bring people in with lived experience that are qualified, not just anybody, but typically good things happen. Typically a narrative shift, typically excuses get taken away versus somebody that may fortunately not have had that lived experience. And one of the other things that we know that's amazing, you guys are already doing, and we've been able to partner and support Jeff Smith with WMRJ and all that. But just the financial literacy partnership you guys do so far from what I've seen is just amazing. But, teaching individuals how to be successful when it comes to financial literacy is key. When you look at individuals, their obstacles that they face, the majority do not understand or know how to have a bank account or a savings account. They don't there's certain anxieties tied to if they've been incarcerated for a certain period of time on how they could acquire or start building retirement. Because some people come home twenty five years and there's a gap in their work history and they're thinking about social security and all these things. So financial literacy is definitely something that's extremely key along with the mental health support piece. And then the other things that we wish the implementation of the 115 medical waiver that you guys ninety days before and after release, if we could get that everywhere, that would be amazing. If we could get, like, thirty days before and after in a lot of states, honestly. And when I seen it, I was like, it's amazing, because that's a need. Individuals should be assessed and they should be referred to mental health support on the outside. They should get treatment leading out the door and through those initial moments. And I just put some brief notes, cost savings, nonprofits, I put mine, but other organizations that are led by peer support that can provide services for formerly incarcerated population or currently incarcerated population through Medicaid because a lot of us through peer support, have our own NPI numbers, etcetera. And then just the support for presumptive for ROLAC, which was amazing, shifting from warehousing to earn releases to default. It's just, again, something that we're we've seen and we wish we could see in other spaces in in states. But the thing that I really wanted to speak to is alternative treatment courts moving towards courts for mental health substance use with a one to 2.2 cost benefit ratio where we can save money to put in other places or create other programs or whatever's needed and get individuals into those alternative programs or sentences. That's key when you're dealing with the veteran population, when you're dealing with individuals that are already listed with history of mental illness and so forth, especially with the community dealing with addiction, where we're seeing a large percentage of individuals that are just struggling with substance use disorder, that if they could get treatment, maybe they wouldn't end up and the result would be better. So that was definitely beneficial. And then just my conclusion to the piece was just that when it comes to cognitive reform, replacing criminal thinking patterns with prosocial problem solving. I've been fortunate enough to be in a few spaces. I was in Maine recently where one of the prisons, they they don't have fences around it, and the guys get to go to work in the community and it might make more money than I do. I don't know, they do pretty well there. And it provides an opportunity, a sense of value. They also have things like going to Walmart, which is amazing. It's simple, but it allows an individual to get back into the community briefly. They go on camping trips. A big supporter in anything. It may not look like that, but anything that allows an individual to step outside criminal thinking patterns and become pro social prior to release, not necessarily waiting to the moment of. And then just the emphasis on mental health initiatives, providing mental health support during and after. Me, we can provide anything. We can provide individuals with jobs, walking out the door, housing, walking out the door. We can put a stipend in their pocket, but if the mental health isn't addressed, if the trauma is not processed, if they're not well there, there's a great percentage and chance that they lose everything else. We believe wholeheartedly that that's the foundation of an individual being able to stay free and stay home and not recidivate. And then also with that mental health initiative, it's just something I always encourage is the potential for DLC to get take a proactive proactive stance in certain communities. I know Vermont is definitely way different than Georgia's terms of population and things like that. But whenever there's an opportunity to invest in a community or an area or a hub that could be seen as a place where individuals are coming from or coming to the prisons from to provide some type of mental health support, addiction services, etcetera. And then just the conclusion, the story is proof of concept, radical accountability plus systemic support equals a contributing neighbor. And I just put that, I didn't speak too much about it because I wanted to open the floor for any questions about my personal journey along the way. But because I advocated for myself initially not being able to find help because of finding programs nationally in different spaces online, because of family support, eventually I was able to what I call stabilize mentally and then start rebuilding. And my story reflects many that are incarcerated and you guys may know some, but individuals can be successful on levels that they may not have been able to be successful on before. I've opened up schools. The nonprofit is very impactful and doing great work. And the message where I speak about mental health incarceration reaches many, and I'm fortunate to be able to spread that, not just on behalf of myself, but all individuals that are incarcerated. So I just wanna say thank you for allowing me to, you know, bring forth this brief presentation. I try to put a decent amount of information in there, But of course, if you guys have any questions, I'm I'm an open book.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Questions, Shawn?

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: It's it's a minor question, but is that Fred Hampton behind you in that picture?

[Chris Willis (Founder, Life Unit Inc.; Certified Forensic Peer Mentor, Georgia)]: It it is. And that's at the the American, which was the first hotel in Atlanta that allowed African American people to stay there, and we would meet with wealthy white businessmen and get things done. And it's a very historical site. The King Suite's there and everything else.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: That's sweet. That's great.

[Chris Willis (Founder, Life Unit Inc.; Certified Forensic Peer Mentor, Georgia)]: Yeah. It's a nice historical spot.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: And and more importantly, it it it you know, we just heard from another person before you were here who went through the incarcerate you know, who was also incarcerated. It's I know it's it's been five years now for you. But it's it's just amazes me how it doesn't seem like you've ever been in prison before other than you telling us that. It's just an observation. I don't know what that it means, but I'm just I it's a you've really given us this presentation like this. It's just it's makes me it gives me hope. So thanks.

[Chris Willis (Founder, Life Unit Inc.; Certified Forensic Peer Mentor, Georgia)]: Thank you. I really appreciate that.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: James?

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Chris, mine's not actually about the presentation. I thought it was great. As an army guy, I I wanna tease about being in the air force, but I won't. But where were you stationed? Where were you stationed?

[Chris Willis (Founder, Life Unit Inc.; Certified Forensic Peer Mentor, Georgia)]: After Lackland, and then I went to tech school in Port Wahgnini Naval Base in Cali, and then I was stationed at Minot Air Force Base in Scott's Scott AFB, and then I went to Ramstein briefly before back to Minot.

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: Thank you.

[Chris Willis (Founder, Life Unit Inc.; Certified Forensic Peer Mentor, Georgia)]: Yes, sir. Thank you for your service too.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You too. So, Chris, I read part of your book, 144.

[Unknown Committee Member]: Oh, wow.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I think what's the hardest part to read is when you first became incarcerated in your behavior and how you were lashing out.

[Chris Willis (Founder, Life Unit Inc.; Certified Forensic Peer Mentor, Georgia)]: And

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: I

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: don't know if you can share just a little bit of that, what it felt like to be incarcerated, what the system, the hierarchy in the facility and the culture and how you weren't getting anywhere, but getting into secure setting and then you'd settle in and then you could reach a less secure setting, then you would act out again. Just kind of briefly give the committee what was going on while you were behind closed doors? What was going on?

[Chris Willis (Founder, Life Unit Inc.; Certified Forensic Peer Mentor, Georgia)]: Yeah. It was that's a a great question. I was angry without outlet. And, like I spoke to earlier, I was placed at Sussex two level four. Very, very desperate situation, very hostile, very angry. And when I spoke about the mentality that you have to take on in prison in order to survive, that's what I had to do. I was on an institution where individuals were being assaulted daily. Individuals would lose their life. It was a high level of violence. And I was just turning 20. And the truth of the matter is I was scared to death. I was never somebody that was really like I never got in trouble. So I did what the vast majority of individuals do, I started to play this role. But the way I break it down to some people is it's sort of like going undercover for so long that you start to actually become that person. So I became this angry prisoner. I got immersed into gang culture because I was young with no outlet, no program. So here goes this gang leader with structure and an opportunity to do something, just do something today, whether it was negative or positive, because other than that, we were just warehoused. Something else that, I don't know if she was necessarily alluding to this, but it was definitely part of it during my time of incarceration because of that period, would spend over three years in solitary confinement. And it's a miracle that I am able to be here, but I had to fight for my mental health. I had to fight to remind myself that I wasn't that person. And I started that while I was incarcerated towards the end. But when you live a certain way for seventeen years, it may become less, but it's still there. If that makes sense. Like I went to a level one, so I wasn't on a level four, but it was still there. And it was a scary time when I look back at it, because I don't even feel like I was that person, but I stepped into that role so I could survive. And then I became part of the issue.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: The good way of summing it up. Kevin?

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: This may not be a fair question, but it sounds like you had some good opportunities since you were in the armed services for a while. I guess my question is, in you thinking back before you made the mistake that sent you to prison for a hundred and forty four years Mhmm. Do you do you recall what could have been done in your life to avoid making that mistake?

[Chris Willis (Founder, Life Unit Inc.; Certified Forensic Peer Mentor, Georgia)]: Yes, sir. So another reason I'm a big mental health advocate is because a vast majority of individuals that are incarcerated have unprocessed trauma that started during childhood. And I was an angry, rebellious childteenager at times. At the age of 19, I was still angry and rebellious at times, just for some of the normal reasons that a lot of kids, teenagers, etcetera, my parents had split up. And I just felt like a lot of teenagers do angry, even with the opportunities. Experience in the military, my first day on my, where I was actually stationed out of tech school, my master sergeant gave me a drink and I was 18 years old. So you combine the two because I continued my drinking, which was part of the problem for sure. But I would later on at 37 years of age, get a psyche eval because I was going through things transitioning back into society and was diagnosed with type one bipolar. One of the things that the psychiatrist said it was profound to me was if this had been diagnosed when you were younger, because that's when it happens, there's a big chance you probably would have never been ended up in prison. And again, hold myself accountable for the decision I make, but I know that the fuel behind it was anger, confusion, just being rebellious, thinking I can get away with things like a lot of 19 year olds. That's a great question.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Bipolar on top of typical teenage activity.

[Chris Willis (Founder, Life Unit Inc.; Certified Forensic Peer Mentor, Georgia)]: Yeah, yeah.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: The little experience I've seen with individuals is they get on medication. They're okay while they're on medication but then they get off and that, you know, it's it's a bad cycle like drugs, any other drugs but thank you for sharing that. I I just, how can we break the cycle?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Corrections doesn't do it. Incarceration doesn't do it.

[Chris Willis (Founder, Life Unit Inc.; Certified Forensic Peer Mentor, Georgia)]: Yeah, mental health support. You know, I'll keep leaning, I'll keep, if we get more emphasis and more focus on that and help the individuals process the trauma and the hurt, the resentment, whatever other feelings that they're feeling that allows them to make the decisions that they do to go to prison. Of course, there's people that are outside, a small person, they just they make, but a vast majority it's mental health when you have these conversations.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: James? I have a question, but I'll just make a statement first. I always remind people that there are definitely some bad apples to society for sure. But a lot of people, they get in trouble, just made a bad decision at the wrong time. And I always like to remind people that many of us have made some of those same decisions and didn't get caught. And you know, also different states, and I'm not advocating against states' rights, but one hundred and forty four years in Virginia might have been a eight year sentence somewhere else. So that's also hard to deal with, right? But what I was going to ask you was, so you mentioned getting involved in the gang and, you know, obviously structure and something to do. But as a young kid who was in there going like, hey. How's our driver? Like and maybe I don't know whether or not you knew what your cousin was doing or not. That's not relevant to this question. Mhmm. But you're in there with people that are pretty violent. What role did protection play in joining the gang?

[Chris Willis (Founder, Life Unit Inc.; Certified Forensic Peer Mentor, Georgia)]: Oh, 100%. I'm from Chicago, and I was locked up in Virginia, so that that definitely played a role. I I assessed the situation and the environment, and I was put in a in a situation where I was kinda forced to make a decision. Because me being from out of town, I was approached by some guys from another city just because that's the way the politics were there at the time. And it just made sense to me because I wanted to survive. My first day in prison, I walked over an individual that had been stabbed and left in the stairwell, possibly sexually assaulted from what I remember. And that was I mean, I didn't even get to the first night. So for me at that point, any decision that would make sense just to survive, because that was the first thing I needed to do, that's what I did. But man, it brought on a whole series of other problems and as you probably already know for sure.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Thank you.

[Chris Willis (Founder, Life Unit Inc.; Certified Forensic Peer Mentor, Georgia)]: Yes, sir.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Other questions? No. Chris, I wanna thank you for taking time out to share some of your experiences with us. I just thought maybe it might be helpful for committee members to hear from folks who have actually been incarcerated and then reenter the community and what it feels like because we deal with this legislatively, but we haven't been through it. So it's hard to know the feelings the emotions that are tied into it. So I want to thank you.

[Chris Willis (Founder, Life Unit Inc.; Certified Forensic Peer Mentor, Georgia)]: And I just want to say thank you and thank you everybody in the room. It's really amazing. I'm fortunate enough to have conversations in a few different spaces and places and the way you guys are approaching it, to hear us speak to our experiences is truly valuable. So I really appreciate that.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And thank you for the work that you do with folks who are currently incarcerated and also helping them when they reenter the community, because you're absolutely right. Those first three days are the most crucial to make sure someone is successful or they reoffend, come back into the system.

[Chris Willis (Founder, Life Unit Inc.; Certified Forensic Peer Mentor, Georgia)]: Yes, ma'am. We've I just wanna chime in those first three days to give an example, and I'm gonna be quiet. Just in the last or last month, January, for our seventy two hour calls, individuals that went into crises within first seventy two hours, we received five phone calls either from the individual direct to our helpline or family members. So it's definitely very serious.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Anything else before we finish up? Thank you so much, Chris. And thank you.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Thank you, Chris. Thank

[Chris Willis (Founder, Life Unit Inc.; Certified Forensic Peer Mentor, Georgia)]: you, everyone. I really appreciate it. If we can support in any way, please don't hesitate to reach out to us.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Great. Thank you.

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: Thank

[Chris Willis (Founder, Life Unit Inc.; Certified Forensic Peer Mentor, Georgia)]: you. Take care, everyone.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You too. Anyone wants to read his book, I've got it. Forty four years. It's a hard read. First half, it's a really vibrate.

[Unknown Committee Member]: I'd get a hundred and forty four years for his first offense.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's brutal. That's right. Know. I've been beaten up. Testimony to them. Yeah. No. It's been nice. Well, it's not like human services, judiciary, can be worse. Hillary. Hello. Hello. You're gonna help us figure out. We're gonna shift gears. We're gonna

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: work on

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: a bill. Go out. Where are we here? 559, parole board. Now we are at the stage, and we have Mary Jane with us as well. We've heard testimony, and we are at the stage that we need to have another draft made up because there's been recommendations and suggestions that have been made. And in conversations with Hillary, there are policy decisions that we as a committee need to make before another draft can be submitted. So I have worked with Hillary to help lay out policy issues that we're gonna need to make. So, Hillary, I'm gonna turn it over to you, and you can lay some of those out to us, and then we can give you directions. So pull out your bill. Pull out your notes.

[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Excellent. I am just joining the Zoom so that I can share my screen and have And the bill up there for

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Mary Jane, you can weigh in at any point. Okay. Alright.

[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I was like, I am muted. All right. Well, learning from the pro. Thank you, Director Ainsworth. For the record, Hillary Chittenden for the Office of Legislative Counsel. So as Chair mentioned, Chair asked me to come and walk through some of the remaining issues to discuss on H-five 59. So my plan is to walk through the sections of the bill. If there are issues that any of the members wanted to raise that they heard from witnesses or otherwise, please do. And otherwise, I will flag some of the issues that the chair had previously noted remained for discussion. So on section one, this is the section that discusses the powers and responsibilities of the DOC commissioner related to parole and snipped from the bill and these three asterisks are a number of other roles that the DOC commissioner has related to parole. But the bill would add this sixth one that relates to providing training for the parole board. So there were at least two issues raised related to this section in testimony. One was from Chair George, who suggested that in addition to the parole board director, that the parole board chair have some collaborative role with the director in putting together training. So that would mean adding here in collaboration with the parole board director and the chair of the parole board or similar language. So that applies here. That also comes up in language in two other places in the bill that I can flag when we get there. But I guess that first item for discussion is what are the committee's thoughts on whether to implement that change in an amendment, really a policy for the committee.

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: I'm in alignment with adding the chair there. I do have a comment prior to that that we had talked about too. And I don't know if we're doing the bigger question of should this be the commissioner of DOC or the AHS secretary? Because that was

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Sorry. You want me say the CCC one.

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: So I mean, that's the section one title, divesting this from DOC and having its own sort of line item with AHS. But to your direct question, absolutely, the chair.

[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Excellent. Before turning to the bigger question, does anyone have different thoughts related to adding the chair of the board to a role along with director in training.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Don't look to me to make the decision.

[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Third direction from everyone. We love to see it.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Don't have a question. I have a to, because I have a note here that Mary Jane indicated that their decisions are evidence based more so than related to making determinations of parole criminogenic behavior, topics related to. And I know, and Mary Jane, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not so much related to. It's based on evidence. So I don't know if related is the correct word,

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: Well, I've got striking making determinations of parole altogether.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yes. I know that too. It says on topics related to parole criminogenic behavior all that. Mary Jane? Do wanna come up to the chair next to the right piece that's available?

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: We kicked him out.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Mary

[Mary Jane Ainsworth (Director, Parole Board)]: Jane Answorth, director of the poll board. Think would again, I would suggest striking the language making determinations of parole just because I think the determinations of parole is made that I think is up to the parole board to come up with their own training mechanism and their own structure for the determinations. Or the other areas, I think, are more general areas where the Department of Corrections or the Human Services, depending on how this goes, has more expertise in around criminogenic behavior, mental health disorder, substance use treatment. I think that's where it's related to, is more of those general topics. I know when I talked to Todd Delos, who helped draft some of this language, he said he put it there. Has no he didn't have any input, but he was looking to my input more for that. So we do have our structured decision making framework, which is validated by the National Institute of Corrections. And we receive separate training from the National Institute of Corrections on that. So that's suggesting striking that one phrase of making determinations of parole. The other seem appropriate to me.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Where is the committee on this? I'm fine with making the determination of taking that out. But again, on line four, we did talk about evidence based training. Is that what you've also got you?

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: Yeah, but my notes, if we take out making determinations of parole, then it becomes training on topics related to criminogenic behavior. So we can say evidence based training or related to determining. I don't know how to do that. But if you want to insert evidence based criteria in there, it may or may not be as necessary if we just break out making determinations, because that's the subjective part. The rest is just listing worthwhile training.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Was the committee supportive of taking out making determinations of parole?

[Unknown Committee Member]: Yes, sir.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Read.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So for this training, it is the commissioner of DOC needs to provide regular training to the parole board at least once a year, at least once a year.

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: Unless we switch to a secretary. Yeah.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's the big issue. Right. We got to understand currently, because currently it is the commissioner who is responsible for the training, or is it the parole board directly? I'm looking at Mary Jane.

[Mary Jane Ainsworth (Director, Parole Board)]: So currently, I try to recruit training. Currently, there's nothing statutorily around training. This is a whole new section to that statute. Right now, I myself, the chair, with input sometimes we get input from DOC or human services or even outside entities through technical assistance. We try to do training. We don't have any formal training curriculum necessarily. And I think what this is trying to help provide some resources that we may not have in staffing because some of the experts, like there's a crime victim unit at DOC, there's mental health substance. There's more individuals at DOC that might have some of that training. We have had the Vermont Department of Health come in and do a substance use training for us. So I think it's more to try to help with resources because we just

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: have limited. So that's a question we need to ask the DOC. If they have the capacity to do this. We haven't asked that question. So that's a flag that we we need to follow-up with DOC. Because the thinking is if if it's under the commissioner, Commissioner of Corrections will provide the training and it would be on topics related to criminogenic behavior, maybe mental health disorders, maybe substance use treatment, trauma informed work of victims and serious prior rehabilitation. Can DOC provide that kind of training to the board? That's the question that needs to be asked of DOC. And we have not asked that question to my knowledge. And are there training programs that would be beneficial that are done nationally or wherever that would help in this process? Because you're saying different ones are doing different pieces, which is great too. But is there any formal training pieces that you know of?

[Mary Jane Ainsworth (Director, Parole Board)]: I don't know any. I know there are some conferences where they do specialize in some of these areas. One of them we try to send, at least myself, and I've been able to send two other members last year, and I'm hoping to send two more members this year as well. And they do hit on some of these topics. It would be really nice to be able to get more of that or even to tap into other departments within the state. That's something I'm trying to work at too, to have more of a presence within state government as well.

[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So there are some language options short of taking this exact language and assigning it to, for example, the Secretary of AHS. The committee could consider something like the DOC commissioner shall have the responsibility to collaborate in providing the training that the director and the chair are providing, there are some interim language options like that that the committee could also consider in addition to or before confirming the details of what requiring the department to provide resources would include.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I think the first question was to get DOC in here to weigh in on that. Because also this ties into what the chair of the board recommended that it really be under agency of human services and not the department of corrections, which is of total that that just opens it up completely. That's if we wanna even think about that, then we have to get the sec secretary of the agency of human service in here as well. But we've had them in at the same time. DOC as well as unit services so we can see the interaction. We got plenty of time next week. So I wanted to get this walk through so that we could figure out further testimony here. So

[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: for purposes of the amendment that I believe I am preparing for Friday, the changes I have for section one are to add and the chair of the parole board to the director to provide training and to remove on page two, lines two and three, making determinations of parole.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That can all change.

[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: More amendments are indeed possible. That gives me good direction for the start. Exactly. Was there anything else that the committee wanted to discuss on section one? All right, moving on to section two. I'll turn to the committee first. Were there any issues on your lists for section two?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: One, ten, not more than three terms. And then the next one says expire annually. Initial terms may be less than three years. And I had it underlined, but I'm not sure if there was a suggestion made or not.

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: Like 10?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Right. One ten at the end of it, not more than an internal living three eighteen shall expire annually, and then initial terms may be less than three years. And I just had to underline, I think there were some questions about it.

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: I've got the current chair suggesting that this might be a decision for the governor, perhaps upon recommendation of the chair. He's unsure if at all we need limits.

[Unknown Committee Member]: Yeah. I that testimony from the twenty second, I thought that, yeah, that he did not. But that's on my twelfth, though.

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I'm I'm in on my twelfth too. I'm not necessarily

[Unknown Committee Member]: But I think the line ten eleven language, my interpretation is that's we get 10 events to make sure that you don't have three people expired at the same time. No. I'm interested. Which makes sense.

[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. I think there were two issues raised in this little section. One is what representative Headrick was referring to, which was a suggestion that the governor to add a requirement that the governor consult with or consider input from the Parole Board Director and Parole Board and or the Parole Board Chair and appointing Parole Board members. And I wanted to look into whether there were any limitations on a bill's ability to do that. And I took with some of our other Legg Council folks who deal with appointment powers more regularly. And at least from the perspective of do laws exist that already require something like this? The answer is yes. So I have a couple of examples where the statute requires the governor to, as feasible, consult with certain relevant parties or consult as appropriate with certain relevant parties or appoint someone after consultation with the board. That's the parole board director example. So there are some examples in existing law of adding this kind of requirement, certainly a policy decision for the committee whether to require something like that.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So right now, remembering the chair's testimony, there's going be a big turnover of folks from the board. Some of them have been there for a long time. There's a lot of institutional knowledge that's gonna be lost. There was also at times folks who were appointed to the board that really don't have a good, I don't wanna say background, but a good understanding in terms of what the function of the role is. So, that's what's facing the board. So, where are the folks on some thought of the director or the chair of the board and the governor about them being able to weigh in with the governor or the governor reach out to them to consult them in terms of what skills, what areas of expertise are needed on the board when there's an opening. Where are folks on this? I'd say that's a good plan to have them work in together.

[Unknown Committee Member]: I'm I'm fine with that to the extent that it's not written as whereby they have some sort of override, not an appointment, which I don't think they could anyway.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Oh, that's the senate.

[Unknown Committee Member]: And you would think it's a matter of course, whether it's in statute or not, that that you would hope that happens? One would hope.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, this puts it in statute. This puts it in law that there will be a consultation. Do members of the board have to be approved by the Senate or is it just the chair? Yeah. All members do. Members of the board have to be approved by the Senate. So there's a legislative weigh in. There's a gubernatorial way in, but there's no way in at this point from the parole board itself. And there's no way in from DOC to weigh in on it either. Put that on the table for folks to process. So where are we?

[Unknown Committee Member]: Committee. I'm fine with that, I had

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: would few with say, the yes, they should. So is it in consultation? Is it on recommendation? Is it from the chair of the board? Is it the director of the board?

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: I mean,

[Unknown Committee Member]: the director of the board should not be involved in the appointments of the board. That's that's that's a no offense. That's just a that's a governance conflict.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, it's not making the appointment. It's making recommendations in terms of what skills will be needed, in terms of what background might be needed. It's not making a recommendation on the person itself. It's what skills are needed for the board.

[Unknown Committee Member]: Irregardless, that would be like a in a city manager, former government, city manager making recommendations for who should run for council. It's very it's very close to that. And I and it's it's not that that person isn't knowledgeable, but it's a it's an inherent governance conflict.

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: But it's not who should run for conflict. It's what would make a good counselor.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. Right. And if you need somebody with legal rules, they have a background.

[Unknown Committee Member]: Now they can affirm the chair or the board maybe, but they they shouldn't be in the vehicle, I don't think. Orange?

[Mary Jane Ainsworth (Director, Parole Board)]: So we had a similar situation to this a couple of years a few years ago.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Human

[Mary Jane Ainsworth (Director, Parole Board)]: services, so we are under the Human Services umbrella too. So I have a contact at Human Services. So the chair and I in Human Services actually did a lot of discussing before we went to the governor with some suggestions on our current board members. And we had to do some negotiating between the three of us because there are times where we disagree. So I struggle with this one because I think if there's an applicant pool the last few other than this chair vacancy, it has gone out for posting through the state government career website. And we've had resumes submitted, we've been able to look at those resumes, potentially talk to folks who are interested to gauge it, and then provide names to the governor's office, which has been very helpful to have that kind of posting. So I was looking at other boards to see how they recruit. I don't know if you've got any really clear on how because it seems like every board recruits differently. I was looking at the labor board, and they have an extensive process they go to before names get up to the governor and so forth. But I found that way of posting it and getting input to be very helpful because then we are getting interest from community members versus just potentially folks that may have reached out to the governor's office.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So the board posts the position?

[Mary Jane Ainsworth (Director, Parole Board)]: In conjunction with the governor's office, we worked with the appointments, the person who's responsible for appointments at the governor's office. They got the list of names. They gave us the resumes, and we reviewed them, talked to some folks, and then gave our input to the governor's office.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And that was done just basically as an agreement among new folks. Yes. So there's nothing But you found that it was helpful?

[Mary Jane Ainsworth (Director, Parole Board)]: I found it was very helpful because then we could vet. And I would think it would be helpful from the governor's office standpoint a little bit too, to have some kind of vetting process beforehand. And then if they have names, I think it's because making sure somebody has some expertise is very helpful, especially in this field, because it's such a complicated and there's a high due process and a person's liberty at stake to make sure that we have somebody who is familiar with the whole process.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's a quasi judicial board. Exactly.

[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I'm hearing two potential versions. One is well, maybe three. One is specifying and they're not mutually exclusive. You could have some combination of these. But one is specifying something about the process. So requiring a public posting or requiring that after posting applicants be shared with some designated individuals at the parole board. A second version is some role from either the parole board director and or the chair to provide input about the skills required or areas of experience required. So kind of weighing in to provide input about the kind of candidate that should be chosen. And then the third is, I think without saying a lot about the specific procedure, saying that the governor should consult with either the director or chair about the candidates themselves. There's kind of specify more about the procedure, about how it should go, that it should be public. There is have the chair or director weigh in about the kind of candidate that should be searched for. And then there is have the chair and or director weigh in on the applicants themselves. So is the committee favoring any of those directions or none or a fourth? And if so, we can also touch on whether it should be the director and or the chair.

[Mary Jane Ainsworth (Director, Parole Board)]: Can I add one more thing? I think it's also important to know, it just came to me, the makeup of the current board. Because if you have a vacancy, where is your expertise currently? I wouldn't want a board that is all law enforcement officers. I wouldn't want a board that's all mental health professionals. And making sure there's a balance board to know without having some kind of consultation, are you familiar with your current board makeup and what the backgrounds are of all the board members? So you can balance and have that diversity within the board to make the decisions.

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: Your thoughts, getting that in there?

[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. I think it's possible to include something like that apart from a consultation with the governor. So if you look at page two, lines 18 through 19, Can you see when I highlight? We didn't get that down right.

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: Makeup of the book. Current ex

[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. So the committee could consider requiring that when the governor is appointing members that the governor shall give consideration as far right now, it says shall give consideration as far as practicable to geographic representation of the state. If the committee were interested in adding some kind of experience area or knowledge diversity requirement,

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: Well, as it relates to the current makeup of the board, specifically, to Mary Jane's point.

[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So I will get better over time at throwing out possible language But for you on the that would look something like, and shall give consideration as far as practicable to geographic representation of the state and diversity of experience in light of current board makeup. That's in better statutory language, but that's the kind of thing that could be captured there. Yes.

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: We're still back at the original question.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Right. Mean, we've got the qualifications. I think we can agree that there should be a mechanism to get out there what what skills they're looking for or knowledge or experience. The question is, does the governor consult with the executive director or the chair of the board? Is there a or does the board submit some names to the governor? Or if the governor has the names, do they pass those names past the board for them to weigh in?

[Unknown Committee Member]: I like the last option first. What kind of chance?

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: She just said that.

[Unknown Committee Member]: But the board doesn't. But it did pass through the board first. Somebody don't send that.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: The names pass through the board first?

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Yes. Doesn't mean

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: I'm right.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Like the idea.

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: People like names and resumes. Right. I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other, Franklin.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So the higher level question, should there be some communication between the board and the governor's office about the appointments?

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: Yes. Mhmm. Mhmm. K. Agreed.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's one step.

[Unknown Committee Member]: And you're all of those are you know, your board has been formed by the director.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But then the next question is when does that occur? Does that occur when the position is posted? And who posts the position? Is it the board that posts the position, or is it the 5th Floor?

[Mary Jane Ainsworth (Director, Parole Board)]: I did it. I contacted personnel with permission from the 5th

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Floor. And was it this current administration or previous administrations? Or have you been through a few of them? It was

[Mary Jane Ainsworth (Director, Parole Board)]: with this current administration. I've only served under this current administration, but it was under different. So different individuals who've been responsible for the appointments have done it differently. And I'm not sure there's a new person in for appointments and I'm not sure how it's gonna go this time. And also when it's time for reappointment, I don't know if there's, I don't know, I don't wanna go down this, I

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: don't know if I should go

[Mary Jane Ainsworth (Director, Parole Board)]: down this rabbit hole of, is it the same kind of process if somebody is up for reappointment? And do we look at applicants or do we, is it that, don't know, because generally what's happened is somebody will express their intent to seek reappointment or they will express their intent to not seek reappointment. At times we've given input regarding that.

[Unknown Committee Member]: Can I

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: ask you a question? That input, can you think of times in both cases where somebody expressed an indication to seek reappointment and you're like, oh, absolutely, we hope you do. And did that convey to the governor?

[Mary Jane Ainsworth (Director, Parole Board)]: Yeah, we conveyed it to the governor.

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: In both directions?

[Mary Jane Ainsworth (Director, Parole Board)]: In both directions. And in one of those cases, there was a split divide between myself and the chair.

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: About whether or not they should stay or go? Yeah. Okay. This is messy.

[Mary Jane Ainsworth (Director, Parole Board)]: It's very messy.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Can I ask one more question?

[Unknown Committee Member]: With all the other people,

[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: where there was a split

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: divide, where is it luxurious enough to know that there was an applicant that you both agreed on? Or were you literally gonna be short?

[Mary Jane Ainsworth (Director, Parole Board)]: It was not a case of being short or not. Was a case of

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: Cite that, could you both?

[Mary Jane Ainsworth (Director, Parole Board)]: It was a case of I did not agree. We disagreed whether one person should be reappointed or not.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Right. But I mean, you didn't have someone to fill the position. That's what I meant.

[Mary Jane Ainsworth (Director, Parole Board)]: No, we didn't know if we had somebody to fill the position or not. Person was going to be reappointed or not. Before we got to that point. Okay.

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: So there's two different processes here. And the first process is ascertaining reappointment. And if that process leads to a vacancy, then you engage the vacancy filling protocol. If that assertation of whether or not a reappointment is going to be sought leads to everybody in agreement that reappointment was a good idea, I think we should defer to the reappointment and not engage the search process.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You've to have both parties. You've got to have the director and chair on board.

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: Right. And then, I guess, ultimately, it's left after the I don't think there's anything preventing the chair and the director to say to the governor, we're split on this and then let the governor make a

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: decision. That

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: can still inform the governor's decision. It's either no, yes, or split. So we let that play out. Then the governor makes a decision as to whether or not there's gonna be a vacancy based on that. And then there's a criteria for,

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: yeah, it's

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: possible to do this. It is. It's a if a equals b, then engage with c sort of thing.

[Unknown Committee Member]: But separately, going back to line 12, that I have, what's up in the term limit thing? Where where are people on that?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We're not there yet. Oh. We're trying to figure out what process will be when there is a vacancy. We kind of figured out what the process is for reappointment. Right?

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: Ultimately, it's gonna be the governor.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's ultimately right.

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: They're gonna take their advice from you. And it's either gonna be double yes, double no or split.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So who gives a recommendation in general to the governor? Is it the executive director or is it the chair? Or is it both, and they're in conflict? Should it be both, or should it be one or the other?

[Mary Jane Ainsworth (Director, Parole Board)]: I think that's a policy discussion for all of you, because we've also had input come in from the Human Services. Agency of Human Services has gone up to the governor's office and given input. We've had external individuals report their input as well that had led to a non re equipment.

[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: One note that specifying an individual or two who the governor should consult with does not prevent the governor from considering other information that comes to them from other parties.

[Mary Jane Ainsworth (Director, Parole Board)]: And I feel like we're making it might be I think leaving some consultation language or informing, I think, not to overcomplicate it. It's complicated enough. But I think that's

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You don't want 11 other people making it more complicated.

[Mary Jane Ainsworth (Director, Parole Board)]: I don't know what the best

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Purposeful ambiguity is better.

[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It is always an option in statutory drafting. It would still require specifying who or whom the governor is consulting with. So the

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: chair or the executive director? Or both? Mhmm. And And do do the recommendations still come from the board, from the executive director, or the chair?

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: I mean,

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: saying that we think he should consult with the executive director and the chair isn't complicated. The governor has the right to say yes or no to anybody's recommendation. A person off the street can say, hey, I think Johnny B. Good should be the person and they're like, hey, that's a better suggestion than the executive director. He has it like, so just saying that you're consulting with them doesn't mean anything. But if we're writing the language, would say it should be both. Not that way both are asked, their opinions are both sought so he can consider them versus just saying one or the other or leaving it needed.

[Unknown Committee Member]: I'm fine with that.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Welcome to writing legislation, folks. It's not the chair. It's a policy decision for my committee. So where are we?

[Unknown Committee Member]: Not binding. So, I mean, I I don't see where hurts you to get another opinion.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Statue.

[Unknown Committee Member]: Well but it's not binding. It's it's informative. It's it's it's the the governor is not compelled to make any decision based on information that the governor received from either of those parties. So I don't see where it hurts to have another opinion.

[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. The consultation is in statute. The result is Right. Still up to the governor. And that's the one thing that

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: Mhmm.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's not changing. It's what information comes to the board or the executive director and chair, what skills they need in the new member or members, and then to relay that to the 5th Floor.

[Unknown Committee Member]: Well, to to your point, you're talking about, you know, whether or not somebody is is free or or housed or whether or not we're, you know, putting somebody out on the street, maybe he shouldn't be there. So these are pretty weighty decisions these Yeah. The board is making.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So Hillary, do you know where we're at?

[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So we already heard the suggestion that I think the committee was in agreement that some consultation should go into the language. I've heard at least two members say that consultation with the chair and director is fine with them. Are there any contrary indications from the committee or does that proposal is the rest of the committee on board with that purpose? At least for purposes of putting in an amendment. And if further, I imagine that other stakeholders might wish to weigh in about the governor's requirement to consult with someone.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's a bigger conversation. Why don't you draft that up and flag it so we can have further conversations on it, and we'll have folks in the room on that. Excellent. For purposes of

[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the amendment, I will include language about the governor appointing members after consultation with the chair and the director. Before we hit term limits, because this was related, there was a suggestion that online 18 through 19 were still highlighted that in addition to considering geographic representation as practicable across the board, that the governor should consider as far as practicable kind of diversity of experience across the board members. Is that a suggestion that the committee supports and would like to see an amendment or?

[Unknown Committee Member]: Yeah. Why not?

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: I'm with the Troy. Thank

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: you. I mean, it makes sense.

[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And again, I can propose specific language in the amendment. When we walk through it, if the committee has tweaks or changes its mind, entirely the committee's progress.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You never know. It shouldn't

[Unknown Committee Member]: be sitting before a bottle lift.

[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The other those are the two changes that I have so far for the amendment in section two. The other issue that was brought up in section two was on line 12. Currently, the bill reads, no member shall serve more than two consecutive terms. I think the committee heard testimony and has had discussion about whether there should be any limit or whether the limit should be two, three, or four. What are the committee's current thoughts on this policy question? It was entirely up to you.

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: I can appreciate what Mary Jane brought to the table about encouraging turnover and diversity on the board. Also, the impact that any given governor's philosophy might have on this every election cycle. I don't know what my answer is. I don't think a consecutive of two terms is, that to me feels too few. I don't know if it's three, if it's four, if it's none, I don't know what the gravity is, but I can appreciate the need to maintain diversity on the board. If it becomes two,

[Unknown Committee Member]: Yeah, I don't support any term limits. You might have a truly superlative member who And by definition, if they're there that long, they're going to go through numerous administrations getting reemployed. So if there's a philosophical issue that's not okay with an administration, they're just not going be there. That and the general environment that we find ourselves in, there aren't a litany of people qualified in these very specific disciplines kicking around need to serve on boards. Little unwilling. Well, the pay is good. Well, compared to maybe a municipal board.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's big year.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Zero. Compared to year. Compared to a

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Zero.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: So to be clear, you wanna strike that sentence.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You just keep it the way it is. There's no term on

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: it.

[Unknown Committee Member]: Yeah. No. There's that's an addition.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Currently, there's no term on it. The language on line 12, the center line, is proposed new language.

[Unknown Committee Member]: Yeah. I

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: would I

[Unknown Committee Member]: would kill it. I would concur with that. Not gonna fight him.

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: Not gonna fight him.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So we get rid of term loan. Law prison. Term loan management. Yes. Okay. Make the bill shorter.

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: If they had a

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: change in administration and their philosophy that different, and they had a problem, that was definitely

[Unknown Committee Member]: Yeah, that's self correcting.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Her turnover had all the quasi judicial boards.

[Mary Jane Ainsworth (Director, Parole Board)]: I did some research on the quasi judicial boards in Vermont, and our turnover is half of most of the others. Most of the other boards are six year terms. I found that very interesting that the full board is a three year term where the majority, like the labor board, the human services board and other boards are six year boards. Interesting.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Six Six year term.

[Unknown Committee Member]: A long

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: time because you're dealing with someone's like it is. What I

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: was thinking. As soon as you said that, I was like, I wonder if it's because of the Not that those other boards are not very important in stress, they are. This is, I think, to me a next level thing, but maybe not. That's how I feel about it.

[Mary Jane Ainsworth (Director, Parole Board)]: It takes at least a year, I think. I would put that it takes at least a year for a pro board member to get fully comfortable in what they're doing. With

[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: an eye on time, I think there's one again, unless the committee has

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, top of page three, we're getting rid of something.

[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That we haven't decided on. That was previously in there. This reflects unless the committee is rethinking creating seven regular members as opposed to five or two alternates, the strikethrough on the top of page three is just to make sure that there is no other reference to alternates if there will be no more alternates. We're going to all regular members, we don't want the statute to otherwise talk about alternate members, which is what is happening on lines two through four of page three. With an eye on time and also anyone can stop me at any point on page three, line 16, just wanted to note that this is the second of three places where the committee directed that training should be designated by the parole board director with the chair or in collaboration with the chair. So the amendment will reflect that change on page three, line 16. And the third of three is on page four, line 10. Here, it's talking about the director in collaboration with the DOC commissioner and the chair will be reflected there as well. So unless the committee has other items, I think the one other outstanding issue that had come up was whether to provide that the parole board shall be responsible for submission of an annual budget to the governor.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I've got one thing. Yes. You go back to page three sixteen. Yes. For the parole designated by the parole board, child attend attend trainings designated by the parole board. And I have a note that the parole board director develops and provides the training. Is that true? That's true now?

[Mary Jane Ainsworth (Director, Parole Board)]: I schedule the majority of the trainings. There may be some technical assistance that the chair has to sign off on if we are requesting technical assistance. I think that's what Chairman George was referring to is when we're applying for the assistance. It has to come from the chair and or myself to apply for that technical assistance. However, once that application is done, I am then coordinating the training, scheduling the training, getting everything in line generally.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But you don't develop the material.

[Mary Jane Ainsworth (Director, Parole Board)]: Sometimes I develop the material, but most of the time, I may develop material after we have a training come in, but most of the time it's other experts that

[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: are coming in to do the

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: trainings. Which then ties in to the very first part that we were talking about in terms on top of page two, where we talk about the training on topics related to genetic behavior, mental health disorders. The assumption is that because of this section is under commissioner DOC, it's DOC that would be providing this. We don't know if they have the capacity to do that. So we will go into DOC and human services come in at the same time?

[Unknown Committee Member]: To clarify that piece.

[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And so to your point, Cher, that may impact further edits to language on page four, line 10, where right now it's saying the director shall be responsible for training in collaboration with the DOC commissioner. Depending on the testimony the committee hears from DOC, they may want to consider further edits

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: to that.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: The only little thing I wrote down is just to make it really specific on line 10 and page four is, like, with the commissioner of corrections.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: No. We're under DOC. We're in we're

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: under So it doesn't matter. You don't you don't need to say that?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. You're

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: under 2028.

[Unknown Committee Member]: Alright. Gotcha.

[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think if the committee made other changes to specify some role for the AHS secretary, maybe then it would be important to specify.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: But you

[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: don't think as written, it's not likely to be confusing. But that doesn't mean we cannot speak.

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: Just for me, that's all.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So there was also something that I flagged in terms of the legal support of the parole boards. It's from the attorney general's office, which is also the same person or the is it the same person that also represents DOC or is it the AG's office in general?

[Mary Jane Ainsworth (Director, Parole Board)]: Currently, it's the Assistant Attorney General who supervises the DOC litigation unit who is assigned to

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: the parole board's limitation. They represent both sides?

[Mary Jane Ainsworth (Director, Parole Board)]: Yes. They try to stay neutral, but they supervise the attorneys who do DOC's litigation.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's not Google. It's a fox guard in the hen house. Well, if

[Mary Jane Ainsworth (Director, Parole Board)]: you'd like a little further information, I know we're short on time. We found out recently that the attorney general's office is, according to their policies, they're not supposed to be representing quasi judicial boards. We don't have So we shouldn't be represented by them. However, there are no funds because the $25,000 was taken out to fill gaps in the FY 'twenty seven budget.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: $25,000 take a minute.

[Mary Jane Ainsworth (Director, Parole Board)]: Out of us to fill offsets. So we right now have no funding to try. Now that the attorney general is like, oh, we have attorneys who could possibly contract because we keep some on contract, we have no funding to contract.

[Unknown Committee Member]: You had a whopping $25 for legal counsel?

[Mary Jane Ainsworth (Director, Parole Board)]: That's what was found between AHS and Department

[Unknown Committee Member]: Corrections. Right.

[Mary Jane Ainsworth (Director, Parole Board)]: We had the money. We put it out to bid, got no response. And because we had no response, it is now It was taken away in this budget year, and it's continued to be taken away for next budget year.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: How can your board, the deals of folks, whether they should reenter the community or not from an incarcerated setting, operate without legal backup?

[Mary Jane Ainsworth (Director, Parole Board)]: We can't.

[Unknown Committee Member]: What what do do?

[Mary Jane Ainsworth (Director, Parole Board)]: We we have right now, we have an assistant attorney general, and they're staying with us. Till July. Well, I don't know when when they're pulling out as of right now because there's no money. They are continuing.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Do

[Unknown Committee Member]: you have them at all hearings?

[Mary Jane Ainsworth (Director, Parole Board)]: No. We are we do not have any legal counsel at any hearings.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: This

[Unknown Committee Member]: is But when do they when do you interface with them?

[Mary Jane Ainsworth (Director, Parole Board)]: We interface with them with policy issues and when litigation comes, they litigate all suits against the the board.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: My position on this, which is mine, is that it's a big enough one that we should have, the law already has this plan probably, but the attorney generals should come in and talk about that along with DOC, etcetera. And it's a longer conversation than two minutes, that's for sure, to figure that huge issue out.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's why I put it on the table.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: No, I'm saying we give it. I'm agreeing. That's a huge one. Bigger than a lot of the other issues in this bill.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So DMC Human Services and the Attorney General's Office. And

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: how long has it been this way?

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: For years or just

[Mary Jane Ainsworth (Director, Parole Board)]: For years.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, you've shared we've shared

[Mary Jane Ainsworth (Director, Parole Board)]: an attorney for years. Right.

[Unknown Committee Member]: You're about

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: to funding has gone away. I understand.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: The sharing is what I was Here's the

[Unknown Committee Member]: June. You're gonna have nothing

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: to shop.

[Mary Jane Ainsworth (Director, Parole Board)]: So until into our last assistant attorney general, who has now moved on, she is the general counsel of DOC, she raised this issue regarding the conflict, but has really pushed forward and still continues to push forward and still assisting us to try

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: to get that conflict counsel. I think she was here the other day, right?

[Mary Jane Ainsworth (Director, Parole Board)]: Gloria's been here. Well,

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: that then feeds into the big issue, is you do have a separate line item in the budget and not be under DOC, which then leads into a bigger issue of more pressure on your budget and that you need more administrative staff because some of your some of the help does come from DOC. But the other thought I wanna put on the table is when DOC puts their budget together, they don't reach out to the parole board. Right? They have not. And we could make a requirement that DOC reaches out to the parole board in their budget formulation. Because right now, they don't if we keep them under DOC. Because they have to present you're part of a division within DOC. I'm sorry. Like any other divisions in DOC, their work offender program or their any treatment program they may have?

[Mary Jane Ainsworth (Director, Parole Board)]: They just started doing quarterly budget reviews the last quarters.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But that doesn't mean you've weighed in with DOC in terms of what your budget requirements are for the fiscal year. So when they present their budget to the governor in the fall, parole boards included in that budget, but DOC had no conversation with the parole board as to their needs. It's not good. So I'd like to flag that issue too. So those are some issues. Maybe Hillary, you can wrap up with some language And yes,

[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: for purposes of amendment, I think I have clear direction on the items that we specifically agreed on. So that was providing that the director and the chair of the parole board are charged with training in those three places, removing, making determinations of parole, adding a requirement for the governor consult with the chair and director, and adding some diversity in board knowledge the governor has to consider as practicable in appointing board members, and then removing any term limit language. Mhmm. So I will reflect those in an amendment, and I believe the chair has scheduled that for discussion again on Friday morning. So you will have that in advance of Friday morning. And I'll mark with yellow where things are changing so you can easily see what's happening. Then

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Highlight what we've just been talking about. Exactly. It will be a time this week to have human services in DOC run with them. And they'll be prioritizing them to be here when when the new draft is presented. I know if there will be possible. That's when they need

[Unknown Committee Member]: That would be great.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: The prior to Friday so that they know what work, and then they can come on Friday. Know. We've got enough time. It's pretty pretty stacked. Our schedules, but it's stacked. Maybe one thing you could do, Hillary, is when you have a new draft to send that to would it to Todd at the AG's office?

[Mary Jane Ainsworth (Director, Parole Board)]: Or who I think he's been taking the lead on this.

[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Todd usually is my first point of contact.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And then Haley and the commissioner at DOC. I should say the secretary of the agency of human services, but I don't know if that even get on her radar. Who is who is the legislative liaison for agency of human services? Brandon? Brandon? Brandon? What would be sent? It used to be Charlotte. Remember Charlotte?

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Charlotte Street.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Here's a legislative liaison for It's not. No. It's Brandon. Brandon. Brandon.

[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I can also ask other folks in Ledge Council who generally work with HS more about the right person to send it to.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Brendan Atwood. Wouldn't Brendan Atwood. He is the director of policy and program integration for the Agency of Human Services Secretary's Office. So I would send it to him, Brandon Handrick. I

[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: will send the once I've drafted and editing takes a look, I will send it to you, Chair, just to confirm but I have approval, and then I'll send it to those folks.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And I'll have you back when, hopefully, some of those folks Friday at the 1st Floor.

[Unknown Committee Member]: Which hopefully is more timely this week.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, if she gets up, I'm walking out.

[Unknown Committee Member]: Oh, that wasn't the primary impediment. I won't get into that.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You, Hillary. You. Hillary. You've done the pretrial supervision, that draft. Yes. I think that started too, but may not be able to do that this week. We're pretty cramped. Maybe next week first thing.

[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Next week. It takes on an invite to at least save some time. So it's on my calendar for next week, but earlier. Would

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: you also reach out to Meredith or Eric? Which one or you. Which one could have a conversation on recidivism? What is current law with the practices in some way?

[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think it's probably one here. Michelle's handling the current there's a bill in house judiciary on recidivism, which started as a recidivism definition and I think is being amended to be a bit more about data tracking.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Wow. The committee here, this is sort of new to everyone, is the background of the current law in terms of how recidivism is defined. And Michelle really worked with Senator Sears and the Council of State Governments on this because that's where that language came

[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I will check with Michelle, and one of us will be the right person to talk about. Michelle, because she worked

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: this definition has been in place, I think, for six years, seven years.

[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And you mean the DOC definition of recidivism?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Because that was all done with the Council of State Governance, and Sandler Sears worked on that. So Michelle would have been integral To that. That's why I'm thinking if she could come in because she has that background. I will check

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: with her.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Moving pieces. I sent her an invite for next week. I don't think about

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: that. I'll talk to her.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: She has the background. I really want the background. So I know recidivism is an interest of some folks here. And if we're going to weigh in, the House Judiciary, we need to know the background.

[Hillary Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'll be talking to Sheldon. K.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Anything else? We're done for the day. We're back here tomorrow morning at what time are we here? 08:30? 08:30. At 08:30 with Laura Trishman. Stroke preservation intersection. We got a full schedule. Full schedule.

[Mary Jane Ainsworth (Director, Parole Board)]: Thank you, Hillary.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Let's go off of YouTube, and we'll be back tomorrow morning, Wednesday.