Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Brian Minier, Member]: And

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: welcome back, folks. This is House Corrections and Institutions Committee. It is Wednesday, February 11. We have shifted gears now. We're going to be working on a bill, h I. 59, that deals with the plural board. We've been working on this bill for a little bit. We thought we had it pretty well summed up. And there's some remaining issues. There's a lot of issues we still need to resolve, policy issues we need to resolve as a committee. The first, I'm gonna put these out. We need to resolve the legal representation. There's still some concerns about that, where the board is still going to be represented by folks in the AG's office who are still connected with DOC. There's an internal conflict there. And we did receive correspondence from the executive director of the parole board explaining that conflict. So I would recommend the committee member look at that email that came out over the weekend. So please look at that and have that in front of you. And another issue is the formulation of the parole board budget and how that gets presented or not presented to DOC because the parole board budget is within the DOC budget, but it's it's it's not not really delineated in a way that the parole board has a voice to DOC when they are to submit their proposed budget to the administration in the fall when the new fiscal year budget's being formed. So there isn't a way for for the parole board to weigh in with DOC and say, is our needs, and this is what we recommend as a budget that you incorporate in the DOC budget. They're not in the loop. The other issue is who do they answer to? They don't answer to anyone, but they're in DOC's budget and the chair of the parole board recommended that it be put under the agency of human services, which means the secretary. And we haven't resolved that one. And then the other big piece is do we try to do a line item for the parole board in our general fund budget? And if we do that, there's gonna be some inherent costs to this because they're gonna need money for training. They're gonna need money for legal assistance. So it would increase the cost because some of that they get internally from DOC. So that's another policy decision. So we got a lot of policy decisions to make here before we can even come in with another draft. So are folks clear on this? Folks? I don't know where to start. Let's start with the legal representation.

[Brendan Atwood, Policy Director, Agency of Human Services]: We have

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: all the players in room. We have the Attorney General's office. We have department of corrections, and we also have, the pro. Do you wanna be put on the hot seat, Mary Jane, on the representation piece first or not? I don't wanna create a issue here. But I really wanna resolve this because I know it's within the attorney general's office. I don't know if the AGs comes first.

[Todd Daloz, Representative, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: I'm happy to go. I think AHS legal counsel may or DOC legal counsel may be the right place

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: to start Okay. Because we Yeah, come on up. And Laurie, you've been here before for other issues. But if you could identify yourself for the record. Absolutely.

[Lori Fisher, General Counsel, Vermont Department of Corrections]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Name is Lori Fisher. I'm currently General Counsel for the Department of Corrections. When you started talking about this, I'm kind of leaping to this chair for a reason. I was formerly an assistant attorney general, an attorney at DeLos' agency. And I was the director of several AHS litigation units, including the Department of Corrections. I think you heard from Chief Conor's last week, who has taken over interim support for that team in relation to the parole board. Part of the four members of that team, I, my tenure, handled the DOC litigation piece. And then part of that handled the prosecutions of potential violation of parole. And my role was independent of theirs. I had no interaction with their cases. My role was solely to provide counsel to Director Ainsworth and the parole board on general matters. And so I've worked with the parole board in that role for the attorney general for a number of years. And I just wanted to be very clear on what that looks like. When you say conflict, that sounds an intimidating word in the legal realm. What it really means is that there is a portion of the AGO embedded team. So the Attorney General has embedded attorneys in the agency of human services of various entities. Those attorneys are assistant attorney generals, but work literally inside the agencies and provide legal representation of various degrees. And DOC is the same. So the attorney general provides the legal support. Historically, as I understand over the last couple of decades, the need of deferral board to get independent legal counsel on complicated legal matters has increased. I saw that over my tenure as well. And so I wanna be crystal clear that guidance is not as to what the board should decide in relation to specific cases. That was never anything or it continues to not be anything that Chief Conor's does. What the role is, is to provide them When you get a complicated motion, how do you deal with it? The parole board is not judicially trained. They're not legally trained. And so it's more about how do you handle complicated matters as they increase over time. So working with director Ainsworth, at the time, a number of the attorneys that are embedded, because they were in front of the board as prosecutorial, any appeals that come out of those parole board decisions would be handled by me on the other side of the table. And so therein lies what we would call a conflict because part of my team is advocating for the violation and what the recommendation would be to the board. And then I'm there if they have procedural or appellate questions thereafter. So it's an intimate setting for legal guidance and can be uncomfortable if not managed. I truly believe the attorney general's office handles it really well. There's a lot of safeguards in place, but I think discussion is worthy to talk about what it looks like in the future for the board. My understanding, and I will defer to attorney Delos if that has changed, the attorney Conor's would be continuing to give that legal guidance to the board in general. So I don't want there to be a perception that they are going to be without any sort of legal resource. So they will have that. I think Director Ainsworth and I worked for a number of years to figure out what that looks like. So there's a comfort level with the guidance that's received. It's difficult to come in and talk about DOC items and parole officer items. And then I'm sitting next to the parole board on the other side, having those conversations. So that is just, I wanna make sure the lay of the land and what that looks like.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: Do have a question. Sure.

[Brian Minier, Member]: You just maybe give me a picture of worst case scenario liability coming out of this situation?

[Lori Fisher, General Counsel, Vermont Department of Corrections]: Going give you Worst case scenario, liability. I see there to be liability. I see there to be the need on the attorney who's assigned to that role to identify if there was any overlap, and then go back to the attorney general and say, I think an attorney from another division needs to be assigned to this matter. So I haven't seen that happen, that there would be a concern for liability. I don't know that there would be any legal guidance given that would create any liability, because it's not in relation to the decisions being made. I think that's where I would see more of a liability issue. If there was guidance on, like, we need to look at this information, this person should be violated or not, and that just doesn't happen.

[Brian Minier, Member]: Well, doesn't happen? Could it happen? And if it did happen, would that create the liability then?

[Lori Fisher, General Counsel, Vermont Department of Corrections]: Sure. I I suppose it could happen. This team is very sensitive to this issue.

[Brian Minier, Member]: Yeah, and I don't doubt that. I'm just wondering, though. It just feels like we could create a system that erases any potential liability. And just because we haven't faced that liability doesn't mean it's not potential, right? Sure.

[Lori Fisher, General Counsel, Vermont Department of Corrections]: It has been raised by the Defender General's team, the prisoners' rights team. A couple of appeals have been suggesting that, I mean, to be blunt, but the parole board was kind of doing the handling for DOC. Right. And so I had to defend

[Mary A. Morrissey, Member]: a few of those

[Lori Fisher, General Counsel, Vermont Department of Corrections]: appeals. And the judiciary agreed that the parole board is independently in charge of their own docket and handles that docket. So we were able to avoid any sort of liability discussion because the judiciary said they can ask the witness, they can issue subpoenas. That's the closest we've come to a liability issue, but I do believe as far as the individuals that are in front of the parole board and our legal counsel, who the defendant general are the ones that would likely point out their concerns about being a pretty tight camp. So that's fair. What I'm hearing is the counsel's offering help with the process that should be used rather than interpretation of law. Yes. Therefore,

[Kevin Winter, Member]: there's less risk of conflict than in some situations.

[Lori Fisher, General Counsel, Vermont Department of Corrections]: Yes, that been what we have done, and that's Yes, what we continue to sir. I believe Chief Conor's explained the same model. I mean, we're very sensitive to that. But yes, I can say very clearly that I was never asked by the parole board to provide any guidance to them specific to an offender's case, specific to a violation. Maybe handling evidentiary objections was a big one. Constitutional confrontation of witnesses was another. But it's more under helping them understand, which gets to the training piece that we do support, department supports. Getting them to understand what the legal premise is in front of them to make a decision. Not so much whether Mr. And Mrs. Smith actually violated their parole. Yeah,

[Conor Casey, Member]: sure. I'm just trying to get a sense as we have different people coming to weigh in on this. Does the department have a position on this? If we can alleviate the discomfort and remedy that by an appropriation to the parole board to bring in private counsel? Is that preferable? Should we do it if we can?

[Lori Fisher, General Counsel, Vermont Department of Corrections]: I mean, yes, I can't speak to adding any money to anything that's outside of what has been proposed by the governor. But I can say that any ability to get the parole board comfortable with their legal advice and get the litigants to feel as though the role of the department is very specific in these hearings is always a good idea for the court. That's fair.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: So I wanna ask a question about parole revocation hearing. How does the attorney general's office, the legal representation, handle that?

[Lori Fisher, General Counsel, Vermont Department of Corrections]: For so

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: For parole revocation hearing. Sure. How does that get played out in terms of legal representation for which party? The parole board, the person who is the subject of the revocation, the offender. Sure. How does that get carried out?

[Lori Fisher, General Counsel, Vermont Department of Corrections]: The individual that is there for the violation, the offender is typically represented by the Defender General's team from the prisoner's rights office. So they, particularly on violations, 99.9% of the time, they have an attorney for them. What happened previously and what's happening now in relation to the representation of the department officer that's there, that's presenting the information, That recently changed since I joined the department. We've aligned that process right now with what we do with the state's attorneys in relation to criminal probation violations. What So that looks like, I can walk you through it. There's no lawyer in the room for the parole board, statutorily prohibited from having a lawyer present for them to refer to in a violation hearing. So although there were occasions where I would watch the hearing, if Director Ainsworth got indication that there'd be a motion filed, I can't chime in. I can't consult with them. I couldn't have any conversation with them. So the parole boards in the actual violation themselves, they are unrepresented.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: Right. Because by statute

[Lori Fisher, General Counsel, Vermont Department of Corrections]: Yes, ma'am. The parole board

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: in those revocation hearings cannot be represented by the assistant AG or an attorney employed by DOC. And those were the only attorneys available to the parole board. So there lies in a problem where during those revocation hearings, the offenders represented and has legal representation, but the parole board does not. And to me, that's an issue.

[Brian Minier, Member]: Can you clarify that statute? It doesn't prohibit them from having counsel. It prevents prevents them from having specific counsel. Right. AG or

[Kevin Winter, Member]: Right.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: They can the parole board cannot be counseled in those revocation hearings by an assistant AG or an attorney employed by DOC. So the only legal counsel that the parole board has anyway is through the assistant AG. Yes, ma'am. So in those revocation hearings, because it's law, they can't represent the board, the assistant AG or DOC. So the board during those revocation hearings has no legal representation while the person who violated those conditions of parole does. That to me is a problem. Mhmm. I would not have to resolve that. To resolve.

[Lori Fisher, General Counsel, Vermont Department of Corrections]: Again, I've testified in front of you all before, the issues in front of the parole board are much more complex with presumptive parole, with the docket changing on furlough numbers over to the parole board. Their numbers are close to 700 that they have parole. And there's mid 100s on furlough now. So the Justice Reinvestment worked in that respect. But what, from my position, didn't keep up with that pace was the support provided to the board and in relation to the complex legal issues that they face. I

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: don't know how to resolve that.

[James Gregoire, Vice Chair]: It's the hard part, right?

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: But that's policy decision for this.

[Kevin Winter, Member]: Can we get an estimate as to how often that lack of legal advice in the moment is an issue?

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: When you're dealing with whenever they have revocation hearings. So it's when a person's violated their conditions of parole enough times that they come before the board, because parole is determined by the board. It's not determined by DOC. It's not determined by the courts. It's determined by the board, whether or not the person should be put back into an incarcerated setting, or new conditions are implemented and the person's released again. And the person who has violated those conditions of parole does have legal counsel, as does the parole officer, the DOC employee. The other piece, the parole board does not have legal representation. They're on their own. And if the cases are really getting more complex, I mean, they're dealing with someone's life and they're dealing with public safety.

[Brian Minier, Member]: So, James? Well, the other part that in

[James Gregoire, Vice Chair]: theory is an easy solution, but we learned the other day that when they went out with a request or tried to find other attorneys, nobody responded, right? So it's not, that would be the easy solution, but if nobody's interested in the job, then now it becomes an extremely challenging decision. It's probably more than just money, but yeah, probably money is a huge issue.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: Well, they had 25,000. That's not gonna buy you anywhere. No. So then that money got moved somewhere else within DOC's budget. Think

[Lori Fisher, General Counsel, Vermont Department of Corrections]: it it got removed. It just was just down. It was in remembrance.

[John T. Murad, Interim Commissioner, Vermont Department of Corrections]: It was down for the

[Kevin Winter, Member]: year when we were mean,

[John T. Murad, Interim Commissioner, Vermont Department of Corrections]: as everyone knows, we are strapped. For minute.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: So that even puts more pressure on the parole board not having legal representation. Okay. During revocation hearings. I will,

[Lori Fisher, General Counsel, Vermont Department of Corrections]: and I don't, again, wanna speak for Attorney Delos' camp, but I did have a conversation with Chief London from the AGO recently about it. And the AGO does have attorneys that are outside of the AG that provide legal counsel to quasi judicial boards in the state in general. That at least on an initial exploration conversation may or may not be interested in this role for the parole board. Again, I can't speak to any costs associated with that, but Chief London was indicating there are attorneys outside of the AG that are utilized for quasi judicial boards.

[Brian Minier, Member]: Who pays that?

[Lori Fisher, General Counsel, Vermont Department of Corrections]: I don't know that I

[Mary A. Morrissey, Member]: can answer that. I do

[Lori Fisher, General Counsel, Vermont Department of Corrections]: not know. We didn't get that far, obviously, in the conversation. I do know that And when Director Ainsworth and I, in my former role, were looking for legal counsel to step in and assist, that was not the list of people we explored at the time. So just for purposes of That might be another resource available. I can't identify what the cost would be associated with it.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: What would be the level of knowledge for those attorneys who are not connected in any way to come in and have to represent the parole board but may not know the function of parole and the function of supervision and a function of replicating, taking away someone's liberty. Absolutely. The individuals that

[Lori Fisher, General Counsel, Vermont Department of Corrections]: Keith London identified to me have experience in the boards that do have that authority. And some of them do also have, as I understood, criminal legal background that I think would be appropriate. She had identified a few that she thought would fit that for that reason. But you're absolutely right. They need to be versed in that subject matter, for sure.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: But you need to be fairly represented. What's the committee thinking?

[Conor Casey, Member]: Think we need an appropriation for legal services for the parole board.

[Brian Minier, Member]: Yeah. Pretty simple. More than $25,000 Yep.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: For them to go out and contract with an independent? Correct. For FY twenty seventh?

[Brian Minier, Member]: Well the better.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: You know where the committee is.

[Brian Minier, Member]: Could you do it sooner? No. You can't. Alright. So that's the best way you can do

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: it. Yeah.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau, Member]: Well, if if you can either do that. Right. Mhmm.

[Todd Daloz, Representative, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: So if you could either do that

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: Nope. That would have to be part of our recommend to appropriations committee, the DOC budget, if we keep the parole board within the DOC budget. So where are the other members of the company?

[Lori Fisher, General Counsel, Vermont Department of Corrections]: And I think it's important we fund legal services on the

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: For the board. Yeah.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau, Member]: I'm certainly on board, but I am and we can't answer this right now with this witness. But, you know, I'm curious how much this is going to cost, which in a way I mean, I think we're arguing for this on on principled grounds. But but I am curious about Kevin's question, how often? How much?

[Brian Minier, Member]: That's helps. In that same vein, I'd be curious more

[Lori Fisher, General Counsel, Vermont Department of Corrections]: by providing the support, what would it would it offset from members of the board currently, but also the staff at the board as well. I think that would be helpful to know as well in addition to cost. I don't know that I can answer that specifically. I can give you testimony on my experience on frequency and need. We went through this exercise when director and I were first starting to look at that model. We were estimating So to answer specifically, violations happen typically four to five days a week, the boards and panels, and they're assigned by facility. And so if you wanted to know the frequency in which someone would be sitting there to be available to counsel them, that would be closer to a full time legal position. What has happened historically was that it would be sometimes, Director Rangel would need me a couple times a month to answer a legal question. If we had an appeal, that would obviously increase the work that I did for that particular month. So I think we were averaging somewhere on a quieter day, a quieter month, somewhere around fifteen to twenty hours in the month of legal services needed. It's the model, however, that you're looking at and allows statutory the person to be there and give them more consistent legal counsel, that would obviously increase frequency.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: So you indicated that's four to five days a week that you were saying for revocation hearings?

[Lori Fisher, General Counsel, Vermont Department of Corrections]: They're set by facility, and so they're scheduled out over Yeah. During the week, three out of the four weeks a month ish.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: And those are the times right now that the board has no legal representation. Present with them while

[Lori Fisher, General Counsel, Vermont Department of Corrections]: they're holding the hearings. Correct.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: Put that context for folks. Brian, then Conor.

[Brian Minier, Member]: Status, we haven't talked about the issue of training either. The pro board cannot receive training by statute by DOC or the AG. And that's

[Brendan Atwood, Policy Director, Agency of Human Services]: a role that needs to be in.

[Brian Minier, Member]: So I'm willing to entertain the question of, does the parole board need in house counsel?

[Todd Daloz, Representative, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: Than just

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: All the time, but they may need it.

[Brian Minier, Member]: Right. So like a 50% position, a 75% position, I don't know.

[Conor Casey, Member]: Yeah, mean, that's where I was going. I know it's expensive, but the parole board's a pillar of our criminal justice system. And I believe the firewall's working out because I have faith in the people doing it. But if there's even the perception of a conflict, people lose faith in the system and that's not good. So I think it's worthy of investing in, knowing that it's gonna be expensive.

[Todd Daloz, Representative, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: I'm fine with any expense to the extent that there's an offsetting expense that that negates the that negates the overall bottom line or change into it, which is somewhat out of our purview.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: So No. I'm just thinking what the process would be. So we could make sure in the statute that we're clear that the parole board, during the revocation hearings maybe, or other times, not sure about other times, that's more conversation with the parole board, would need legal representation. That's not, and I'm gonna use it loosely, not in conflict with the representation that is given to the offender. Then the question is, how do we achieve this? Which would then be a committee recommendation to our colleagues and appropriation when they're working on the FY twenty seventh budget to include money for the parole board to go out and contract for legal representation, knowing that's gonna be a cost of probably about 50 gas. 25 isn't gonna cut the mustard. It's not gonna do it.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau, Member]: I'm not gonna do 50.

[Lori Fisher, General Counsel, Vermont Department of Corrections]: No. No. He's seeing what you have.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: Kevin?

[Kevin Winter, Member]: Maybe I missed it, but are we all assuming the Pearl Art team believes that it would be better for them to have this additional counsel?

[Brian Minier, Member]: You can read Mary Jane's email.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: Mary Jane sent over

[Brendan Atwood, Policy Director, Agency of Human Services]: to me.

[Kevin Winter, Member]: I wanna hear it though.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: We will. We're gonna have But

[Kevin Winter, Member]: the recommendation is from the parole board that they need this separate representation.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: So I'm getting a feel for the committee is. Okay. While we have the attorney while we have the legal representation for the Department of Corrections. I'm gonna we wanna hear back from the parole board and other folks in the room. But I was getting a feel of where we are as a committee. And there seems to be support, the concept that the parole board should have legal representation, particularly when there's a revocation here. Joe?

[Todd Daloz, Representative, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: Part of this, you you touched on when we opened up the set of testimony is that the parole board doesn't have an opportunity to present independently to the administration, which I think is something we we we could deal with maybe this year. I'm just gonna just to make that box available for future years so that that that voice exists and that doesn't necessarily need to carry an appropriate agent with it, I wouldn't think.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: So there is support to explore this. The question is how do we do it? Just trying to think of some of the other issues that we have here before us, but let's see if we can get this one resolved. Anything else for the legal counsel from DOC? Would have the probe work. Thing else. Thank you,

[James Gregoire, Vice Chair]: Lori. Mary

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: Jane, you're next. You heard the questions. I'm not gonna be too tough on you. So the question is, I would have a question on how often in frequency does the board really feel that they need legal counsel? And then how would you best see that being resolved in terms of having legal counsel? So if you could just identify yourself.

[Mary Jane Ainsworth, Director, Vermont Parole Board]: Mary Jane Einsworth, Director of the Parole Board. Thank you for reading my email and tried to outline some of it. I want to just be clear. I believe, just in listening to some of the questions that were coming out, I don't believe we need 100% legal representation at all of our revocation hearings. I feel that having an attorney available who could counsel on issues, if there's a revocation hearing, we could postpone the hearing to answer some of those legal questions. But I think it'd be important to be able to have legal counsel that could train our board members on how to handle evidence, how to handle hearsay, how to handle objections, really the legal training. Also someone to help write policy to make sure we're being compliant with the law policies as well. It's easier when it doesn't involve the parole violations because the parole violations seem to be the area that there's more, the statute really limits us more. The board did try to have training a few years, probably about around in 2020, around parole violations, how to deal with different aspects of hearsay and so forth. And at that time, the attorney that was assigned to us allowed a prisoners' rights attorney to co train with them. And basically, that attorney took it upon themselves to try to train the board, which does not sit well as a director having the opposing side training the board member in the rules of evidence or rules in general of how to conduct their revocation hearings. The statute says they need the opportunity to be there. It doesn't say they need the opportunity to train. However, that entity has kind of taken that role of wanting to train the board in that aspect. And I think part of that line that we've skirted over the years is not providing that training to the board because the board can't be candid with their legal counsel can ask questions freely and openly if they don't know something or want to propose scenarios and so forth. It makes it very uncomfortable for a board member as well as an attorney.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: So this goes further in terms of legal support, goes much further than the revocation hearings. Right. And when you're having brand new members of the people coming into the board, which is going to be happening over the next two years and a new chair, They're winging it. I'm sorry. I'm feeling the board members are winging it. And they're this is really, really serious decisions that that board is making in terms of someone's liberty

[Mary Jane Ainsworth, Director, Vermont Parole Board]: and public safety. They're getting on the job training by the chair and myself and other board members and legal counsel who comes in and tries to provide some legal advice, but skirting that line of when do we have to invite the Defender General's office to be at the table for those.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: So if you contracted out for legal counsel, that would be more than just representing the board during a few of the revocation hearings that really get a little dicey, where you need some advice. You need it in terms of training, we hadn't really thought about before. As well, there's a lot of policy that the board has to be compliant with as well as loss. Right. And so

[Mary Jane Ainsworth, Director, Vermont Parole Board]: in some of that estimate, the estimate that we estimated, and even with the 25,000 that was appropriate, we were ready to take it on to use it appropriately, however we could and get the max benefit out of it. We don't know how much we're going to be litigated right now. It has not been a significant number, but you ever know. But I think that also provides some protection if the board is properly trained. I think the training, really having that training and developing that training curriculum with an attorney that we can ask questions to bring up these issues that are arising from time to time would be the piece. And I I don't think, and I know I've talked to folks since and that we are looking at at for FY '28, bringing the appropriation back. And we could continue this model as we're continuing it for FY '27. It's just how do we look forward and how can we move forward around these pieces?

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: Where are we,

[Lori Fisher, General Counsel, Vermont Department of Corrections]: Gina. I think we need to do it, and I think it's gonna be expensive.

[Mary A. Morrissey, Member]: We're training some theory.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: It's an increase to the budget. Yeah.

[Todd Daloz, Representative, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: But there it's an unquantified increase. We need to you know, there needs to be some sort of proposal which we don't have.

[Mary Jane Ainsworth, Director, Vermont Parole Board]: And I think the original 25,000 was to pilot it because the unknown number, the decision between the Agency of Human Services and I believe the Department of Corrections at the time when they found the 25,000, I don't remember exactly how it came about, was to pilot this because we didn't know it was unknown.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: So how would it be piloted? Would it be at a certain facility?

[Mary Jane Ainsworth, Director, Vermont Parole Board]: No. When I say pilot, it would be we would have the we would the 25 we would see how far that 25,000 would go in legal services.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: Kind of go very far.

[Lori Fisher, General Counsel, Vermont Department of Corrections]: Oh, we could just get

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: it over for a minute.

[Lori Fisher, General Counsel, Vermont Department of Corrections]: That's what happens when it runs out and go for, you know, two months into the next fiscal year, and now we're not offering that going forward. I mean, we can't just leave it hanging like that.

[Brian Minier, Member]: Mary Jane, have you ever Even for an individual training event that you had hoped to put together, have you ever looked at costs for those? Or do you ever get somebody saying, Yeah, I'll do it for this, but it's going to cost you this?

[Mary Jane Ainsworth, Director, Vermont Parole Board]: We've never looked at that. Started brainstorming with our in house legal team, providing some of these legal trainings. It's some of the other separate trainings, like on parole decision making, conditioning, so forth. We have talked with an expert from the Center for Effective Pet Public Policy, and he gave an estimate of about 5,000 to come in for three, four days.

[Brian Minier, Member]: Three or four days, $5.

[Mary Jane Ainsworth, Director, Vermont Parole Board]: And

[Brian Minier, Member]: are there other state models that you've looked into?

[Mary Jane Ainsworth, Director, Vermont Parole Board]: I've been trying to reach out to my counterparts in other states trying to get some of those models. And I'm going to really delve into that more when I'm in person with them on the ground in May.

[Brian Minier, Member]: In May.

[Mary Jane Ainsworth, Director, Vermont Parole Board]: But I am trying to reach out to some of my counterparts to get some information. But some of them are in similar situations as well.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: Conor, then Mary?

[Conor Casey, Member]: Yeah, I'm just thinking we got like a week or two to get recommendations downstairs to appropriations. Is it hard to like you know, could you take the AG hours that were coded for the purpose of the parole board and then apply that with I'm seeing the head shakes there.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: Don't wanna give up their money. Troy?

[Todd Daloz, Representative, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: Todd, they're lives for the AG's office. We don't code ours.

[Conor Casey, Member]: Okay. Okay.

[Todd Daloz, Representative, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: When Tim gets the call or when Laurie used to get the call, they do the work.

[Brian Minier, Member]: They keep calling what

[Conor Casey, Member]: they're doing. So so we just have to kind of estimate, how many?

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: It's all within your budget.

[Todd Daloz, Representative, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: I'm happy to provide a little more context for that. But depending on which AAG is answering those questions and as Oh,

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: then it gets built there.

[Todd Daloz, Representative, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: The AGO pays for it when it's not in the DOC legal unit and it's just part of the legal services we're providing for the state. If it's the DOC legal unit, as General Counsel Fisher said, it's part of the DOC budget.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: Mary? I don't think my question is answered.

[Kevin Winter, Member]: Kevin? I think we're nervous. Maybe we start by having a certain amount of money that could be targeted towards training, which would get us down the path closer to the board understanding those areas they don't understand. That's better than nothing and maybe it's a workable number. Is that a way to start? I

[Mary Jane Ainsworth, Director, Vermont Parole Board]: think it could be a potential way to start. I think the problem, the struggle that I have is having someone come in outside and do legal training. Great. But it'd be nice to have that continuing. Yeah, continuation with that same person.

[Brian Minier, Member]: It's not

[Brendan Atwood, Policy Director, Agency of Human Services]: a one time.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: Right. I mean, parole is complicated. Parole is Parole complicated. We're dealing with some pretty complex cases where it's not a person that's incarcerated for multiple offenses. And your low level risks, your moderate level risks of reoffending and your severity of crime, your low and moderate ones, they're not showing up in corrections. These are your high risk folks with high severity of crime. So, there's a lot weighing on the decisions that the parole board makes. And they need support because we're putting more pressure on parole in some ways. If presumptive parole ever really worked, you'd have a lot more cases for presumptive parole than you do right now. Kevin?

[Kevin Winter, Member]: A different way, what coming at this elephant is, can you think of situations where in the absence of this legal advice, the new board, I would say, made a decision they regret? Do you have situations where you say, Boy, if we'd known, we

[Brian Minier, Member]: could have done it different.

[Kevin Winter, Member]: Think of any.

[Mary Jane Ainsworth, Director, Vermont Parole Board]: I can't think of any offhand. I think there's times in hearings where the board members struggle sometimes on how do I deal with an objection? How do I deal with, can postpone this case to gather more information, to subpoena witnesses on own, are we allowed to question the witnesses? What's the board's role? Are they truly the judge or are they also the judge and prosecutor a little bit too? And that's some of the questions that are coming up now and trying to figure out being that role of what exactly is their legal role in these revocation hearings.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: Let's compare that to us. Consider one of us sitting on the parole board. In our knowledge of the parole board, there isn't much. But you're dealing with a lay person that got appointed to that. And look at yourself as a legislator wanting to legislate. Just think if you had to do it on your own, we didn't have legal counsel. Just think we had to do these bills and draft these bills and we didn't have legal counsel. That's what we're talking about here federal board. That's exactly what we're talking about. How does it feel for us as legislators when we're trying to do it on our own?

[Mary Jane Ainsworth, Director, Vermont Parole Board]: And I don't want to say that we don't have legal counsel because we do have legal counsel. We do have an assistant attorney general who is assigned to us. So we do have legal counsel. It's just those situations where the board could use the additional training and the additional legal advice that becomes difficult.

[Brian Minier, Member]: This position that we're conceptualizing right now, though, would that supplement or replace the legal counsel from the individual office? Or do you have an ideal?

[Mary Jane Ainsworth, Director, Vermont Parole Board]: I would assume that it would replace. I'm looking for

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau, Member]: Are you picturing two tracks with one training and one representative or something?

[Brian Minier, Member]: No, if we can do this all with one person. I'm still contemplating an in house position, whether or that's an FTE or not. But if it's one person that can do everything in

[Kevin Winter, Member]: a more

[Brian Minier, Member]: clean line than how it's currently done.

[James Gregoire, Vice Chair]: One point, can it really be? Because some of these things are training issues. Some are legal issues. You identified, they have questions about if they're the prosecutor and the judge, those are like process type things. And not that a legal attorney couldn't get into it, but there's also things that are much more legal that some consultant would be able to give you advice on. So they're kind of two different roles.

[Mary Jane Ainsworth, Director, Vermont Parole Board]: I'd say yes and no, because I think there's also that legal advice about what's due process, what is looking at the legal aspects of what is their role in these hearings legally. And I think there's so many legal components, especially with revocations. It's much easier to look at the parole process. All of our other processes, I think it's very easy to have a consult come in and consult with. It's more the violations is where the legal training, legal advice is much more important.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: John?

[Todd Daloz, Representative, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: I feel like a certain extent we're shooting at the breeze here. Generally agree that there needs to be some modification in how a council is representative of how training is treated. But we're not expert in what your your needs are. So I I think it could be useful if there were if this could be revisited, and then we maybe come before us with a a a quantified package of what those training and council needs are and with a proposal, what the cost, I think it might be more productive.

[Conor Casey, Member]: Yeah. It kinda gotta be an all or nothing downstairs in appropriations, though. Right? Because what if we make the request? They give us half that and then you're scrambling for extra hours, that type. So we really need some assurances from them before I think we go too far.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: Yeah, we need to really lay the groundwork here. And I think I was just gonna say, let let's have some time that the committee can noodle on this. And it might be worth for some members to really have a heart to heart with Trevor and see some moving pieces, and I should be part of that. I think it's beyond the two folks here. Really try to vet this a little bit. I think that's where we're at. And I'm not even sure we need language at this point, even in the bill at this point. So let's park that. It's there. Let's park it.

[Mary A. Morrissey, Member]: Mary? Is there a way, though, that you can get information from your fellow colleagues across whoever you contact? Kinda has some cases of what we would be looking at financially because I wouldn't want to do this if we were going to do it half baked and then had been holding the bag in the middle of the year going, now what would we do? That would again just not be good.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: Also, tomorrow, we are gonna go in-depth in the DOC project. So we may find some moving pieces there that we're just not aware. People can get in here at 08:30 tomorrow morning. I understand the travel. I don't have a problem with that. If you're in the building, you need to start on time because we have two hours scheduled with them.

[Brian Minier, Member]: Mhmm.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: And we may be able to have better information on this.

[Brendan Atwood, Policy Director, Agency of Human Services]: Okay.

[Brian Minier, Member]: Well, I guess my question, do

[Lori Fisher, General Counsel, Vermont Department of Corrections]: we have DOC's budget given to us already? Are they

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: It's 200,000,000 plus. $230,000,000? I

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau, Member]: guess before we're leaving this, this goes back to what I was asking Troy for clarification about and what a couple of people have kicked around. But it would be great to have a full time position that is performing both of these distinct functions, one of which is representing, one of which is training. Suppose we don't get that, suppose there's not enough money, where does the bigger conflict come in? Which is the one that we're really worried about, which is the one that we've gotten in trouble with before. Is that whatever

[Brian Minier, Member]: I'm doing. I don't know.

[James Gregoire, Vice Chair]: I'm just trying to

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau, Member]: figure out if we could have a look what we could have done.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: Mean, that

[Mary A. Morrissey, Member]: might not have gotten to that position if they

[Brendan Atwood, Policy Director, Agency of Human Services]: had No, been I totally agree.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: You've got to nice attention.

[Mary A. Morrissey, Member]: You've to have a basis of what you're doing.

[Brendan Atwood, Policy Director, Agency of Human Services]: Okay. It's training issues. Joe

[James Gregoire, Vice Chair]: may have brought up, but I think it's a good one. I'd like to see, I don't know how we do it. Mean, it's gotta be an organization. I'd like to hear from somebody that does the trainings for pro boards elsewhere and what's available. But maybe that's going down too far. But at the same time, wanna hear what is available to be told to board members so that they have a strong basis and that can answer some of the more rudimentary or process questions. I think Mary just hit on it as well, that if you have that base knowledge that came from good, solid training, some of these other issues go away, and you still need legal counsel. But anyways, that's my right.

[Mary A. Morrissey, Member]: And we have to understand,

[Brian Minier, Member]: if we're

[Mary A. Morrissey, Member]: approaching appropriations for additional money, we better have something in line as to what we're actually asking.

[Brendan Atwood, Policy Director, Agency of Human Services]: Concrete and supportable. Absolutely.

[Kevin Winter, Member]: How many years has this been going on? How many years have we been putting up with this lack of

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: Quite a while. A while. Long insight.

[Brian Minier, Member]: Yeah,

[Kevin Winter, Member]: right. So this isn't a new problem, is my point. We haven't found ourselves in a big hole. It's robbed Peter to pay Paul by looking at the commissioner.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau, Member]: John, yeah.

[Conor Casey, Member]: I

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: think the issue is the offenders that are coming before the board now are very different. In terms of needs and issues than they were even ten years ago. The parole board had a real, the last revamp for the parole board was late 90s, I wanna say, I think.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau, Member]: Twenty five, thirty years ago.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: Early two thousand, when I was on the committee, I remember we dealt in-depth with because that's when we got the training in place. That's when we got the membership. Unless we had a Absolutely. After that.

[Mary A. Morrissey, Member]: So where did the training go? Just dropped off?

[Lori Fisher, General Counsel, Vermont Department of Corrections]: Yeah.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: I was trying to look where where it indicates the training for the parole board and statute because we did address that. Are you are you referencing around the the by the revocation hearings or I think it was just regular training. Or was it around the revocation? Because I remember we talked quite a bit about training for parole board members. And that was in the late '90s, or maybe it was 2000 when we were doing it.

[Mary Jane Ainsworth, Director, Vermont Parole Board]: Might have been the early 2000s, before Chairman George came on. Because when he came on, he was tasked with rewriting a policy manual. Think that's when the director of the parole board got pulled out of DOC because they were, I believe, parole board was embedded within the department at that time as well.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: So anyway, I just don't know where to go with this. I really don't know where to go. So I'm gonna park the issue of legal counsel trying to figure out should legal counsel be all encompassing in terms of doing the training as well as the legal representation to the board? Or is it two avenues for that thing? We need some conversations with among ourselves, as well as with representative from appropriations. And I would assume the representative Squirrel is gonna reach out to the parole board also to have these conversations as well. The other part that we need to really look at is policy decision of parole board is under the DOC budget. The parole board has no say when DOC is formulating or presenting their proposed budget to the 5th Floor in the fall for the formulation of the general fund budget for the upcoming fiscal year. So that's the other issue. So do we go over to the finance folks for DOC? Or what's the plan there?

[Brendan Atwood, Policy Director, Agency of Human Services]: I think I can speak to that. So Brendan, I'm the policy director for the Agency of Human Services. The way the agency addresses our budget now is as an agency rather than department wide funding. So I don't think it would make any practical distinction if it rests there or if it rests with the central office. We're going to leave it the same. I do appreciate that there has been maybe not as direct access to the agency, the leadership making these decisions. We're committed to improving that. We'll be meeting with Mary Jane next week, starting those conversations. And my commitment is making sure that that access is there.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: How do you ensure that that access is there going forward, regardless of who's sitting in these positions and regardless of who's sitting around this particular table as mentors?

[Brendan Atwood, Policy Director, Agency of Human Services]: And I appreciate the concern, Madam Chair. I think this, as far as I understand, it was more of an operational limitation. And I think we're able to address that pretty easily within our process than we're committed to.

[Brian Minier, Member]: So the agency doesn't do this department by department, does it matter one way or the other whether or not you now have a Department of Appeal Board?

[Brendan Atwood, Policy Director, Agency of Human Services]: It doesn't at a high level. In terms of the workflow, it would change how we manage it internally. So

[Brian Minier, Member]: But it would almost guarantee advocacy now that we have the parole board, wouldn't it?

[Brendan Atwood, Policy Director, Agency of Human Services]: It wouldn't change that access.

[Brian Minier, Member]: We're hearing that right now. It's not ideal.

[Brendan Atwood, Policy Director, Agency of Human Services]: No, and again, I think that that's independent of how the budget's put together and where it sits. And just so again, I think we're appreciating that we need to do a better job of giving them that access, we're committed to doing that.

[Brian Minier, Member]: So I don't know how to ask this question more directly. What I'm hearing is doesn't really matter because we're going to do better. What I want to focus on the it doesn't really matter part. If it doesn't really matter, then it shouldn't matter either if we create a more direct report access to you. If it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter.

[Brendan Atwood, Policy Director, Agency of Human Services]: Well, it will change the existing workflow. So we would have to have

[Brian Minier, Member]: We're trying to do just that, change the existing workflow.

[Brendan Atwood, Policy Director, Agency of Human Services]: Well, just in terms of how it's managed. So the folks who are putting the budget together and doing our ups and downs, we have teams within each department and we also have our essential office team doing that. So it would change their workflows. It wouldn't change the decisions that are made around that budget.

[Brian Minier, Member]: I think

[Brendan Atwood, Policy Director, Agency of Human Services]: what I'm hearing is

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: does the information from the parole board get up to you?

[Kevin Winter, Member]: I don't know if you

[Brendan Atwood, Policy Director, Agency of Human Services]: can speak to what your communications with the agency have been.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: Put you right back in it.

[Brendan Atwood, Policy Director, Agency of Human Services]: Unprove.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: I'm sorry, Troy, but how do they get the information? If it's the agency of human services, it goes up the line. And how do you, at the top, the agency of human services knows the needs of the borough board?

[Mary Jane Ainsworth, Director, Vermont Parole Board]: So I meet approximately quarterly with the administrative services director, I don't know exactly her title, at the agency. Donnell. Yeah, Donnell. Sure, chief operating. Oh, chief operating. Thank you, sorry. I meet with her quarterly. Or if I have an issue, I will call for a special meeting. From there, where the issues go, I'm not 100% sure. This isn't good. This is not good. So I think we're now having those conversations. Brendan and I were speaking this morning. We're having a meeting next week to really kick off really looking at the communication string and how to improve communications.

[Brendan Atwood, Policy Director, Agency of Human Services]: And if I may, I want to note that this is the first year that we have approached our budget differently as an agency. Historically, it has been department by department. And within that, there are opportunities to improve the way we're doing things. And identifying them really is important to us. And I just I don't have any concern that we'll be able to have this addressed more meaningfully.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau, Member]: I still have

[Brendan Atwood, Policy Director, Agency of Human Services]: a concern.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: I can't help but not make this statement, but I'm gonna make a statement. The agency of human services is under a lot of pressure because of potential loss of federal funds. And you have to approach looking at your individual department budgets differently because you've got to look to see where

[Todd Daloz, Representative, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: you're

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: going to lose federal dollars and where general funds could be used to backfill. And the one department that relies totally on general funds with very, very, very little federal funds is DOC. So that could be why the agency is kind of looking at their making their budgets a little different, because knowing they're going to lose federal dollars.

[Brendan Atwood, Policy Director, Agency of Human Services]: If I may, the reason for this change really reflects what had really been more of a competitive approach, where the departments were kind of advocating for their own budgets and not necessarily contemplating the impacts across the agency. And so it was important to us this year that any decisions that were made took into account the full impacts across the agency. So that was really the intent of having this agency wide budget development process. And certainly, the executive leadership team from which Commissioner Minier Ed sits and the other commissioners sit and secretary sits and CFO, that is the venue in which these decisions are made. They're made collectively through consensus. And that will continue to be the case.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: I get that. But I think what's fueling that is the potential loss of a lot of federal dollars.

[Brendan Atwood, Policy Director, Agency of Human Services]: This process was underway before some of those reality people have backed up.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: I mean, all your departments are interconnected because you're dealing with the same clients Exactly. Across all those departments.

[Brendan Atwood, Policy Director, Agency of Human Services]: And we wanna make sure that there are no unintended consequences when we We'll leave her over here, maybe understand the impacts across the agency to get safe.

[Conor Casey, Member]: I just think the way it's currently structured by the nature of it puts the parole board in competition with priorities that DOC has each budget year, without a ton of input as we're hearing there. So it's a separate entity. And I think as you're saying, Chair, the only way to guarantee if different people are in these seats and positions ten years from now is to have that separate line item so they can advocate for themselves.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: So I'm wondering before we get to that point of a separate line item. So if you're looking at the budgets agency wide, you're still looking at the commissioners, and I don't wanna put the commissioner of DOC on the spot, but I'm some kinda am. But you're looking at all the commissioners of the different departments, what's your budget? Right? You need to know what the commissioners, what each department is looking at. If you're gonna look at it holistically with the agency of human services, you need to hear from each commissioner of your departments where are their pressure points and where are their priorities, right? At that point where the departments will relay to the secretary's office and the agency of human services is dependent on what those individual departments see as priorities and wanna fund. So the point is that parole board needs a vehicle, needs some in statute, needs something to present their budget to the commissioner of corrections. If they're staying under corrections and it's not a line item at this point, then there needs to be a mechanism that they need to submit their budget requests to the commissioner of corrections. Because right now you're in the dark or the commissioner's in the dark in terms of what the needs are of the parole board.

[Brian Minier, Member]: Troy? I just wanna mention too that not only are they in the dark, they are a section of the Department of Corrections that we rely on a lot of grace for the volunteers who are on that patrol board parole board. Aside from the director and you've got two staff and the chair. Right? So they're easily looked over, I think, easily forgotten, easily disregarded as an entity because we don't really have to pay attention to them because we've got people who are willing to volunteer to do it. And here, we're talking about a request that I'm actually a little surprised that we're spending this much time not just coming to a conclusion of, of course, we need a training. This is a drop in the bucket. We're not even asking to pay the parole board members. We're asking to clean up a potential liability, provide adequate training to people who are doing their work largely for free. And we're talking about a $240 budget right now. $240,000 Million dollars $140,000,000 budget.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: To put in DOC.

[Brian Minier, Member]: I don't know why we're not fixing this a little more easy. This

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: is what is before.

[Brendan Atwood, Policy Director, Agency of Human Services]: So we've

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: to fix this. And we may not be able to fix it in one fiscal year. But right now, Mary Jane, when the budget process is going forward in the departments to formulate their budgets to submit to the Secretary of the Agency of Human Services to the 5th Floor to make the fiscal year general fund budget. Does DOC reach out to the parole board to ask what your budget needs are?

[Mary Jane Ainsworth, Director, Vermont Parole Board]: I have now been reached out to in the seven years that I've been the director. I've had off conversations with financial directors. Had, I am now have started having budget, quarterly budget meetings. I've had two. So now I'm starting to have more of those conversations. I know DOC has gone through a lot of change in the financial office, and I appreciate that. And so we're trying to work through some of that. So I'm now meeting with the financial team every quarter, as does, I believe, the facilities and the field offices and other entities within the budget. And we're starting to have those conversations.

[Mary A. Morrissey, Member]: Yeah. But you're just starting.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: That's not acceptable. So my question is, how do we make ensure that continues? Because what's sort of going through my mind is we all know the process of departments and agencies submitting their budgets to the 5th Floor for the upcoming fiscal year. If we had something similar to that, the parole board submits their proposed budget and needs to the Department of Corrections to be included in DOC's budget. If we keep the same structure for this next fiscal year, that at least it'd be a process laid out that the board needs to submit to be to the commissioner, but to the department what their proposed budget should be for the upcoming fiscal year in FY twenty eight.

[Brendan Atwood, Policy Director, Agency of Human Services]: The stuff that's going through

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: my mind. Now I may be totally off base. But Brian?

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau, Member]: I think it's on point, and I don't know if I missed it. When Brandon Atwood was describing the AHS's procedure for this agency wide budget development process, I don't know if everybody else knows what that looks like. I don't. And I think you've said that unanimity has either sought after or achieved consensus. Consensus. So yeah, guess can you say a little more about what that process looks like? And I guess to the point of hand, how would they be represented in that consensus?

[John T. Murad, Interim Commissioner, Vermont Department of Corrections]: Yes.

[Brendan Atwood, Policy Director, Agency of Human Services]: And we could certainly have the agency central office come in and provide a presentation. We had done this in appropriations and housing services and in house healthcare that outlines what this process looks like. So you can look at the slides on those websites as well, if that's helpful. But essentially, it's a process that begins in the summer. We have targets that are given from the Office of Finance and Management, Department of Finance and Management, and we allocate those out to departments. We first start by understanding what the costs are to keep services as they are. That almost always requires an increase in funds due to cost of living increases and other factors. From that, we figure out where we need to go relative to the target. This year, we were about $70,000,000 off of that, that we had to figure out how to plug the gap. And then from there, we decided which programs and services are priorities for cut, which any new initiatives that we want to put forward. And then we just kind of go through a process on a weekly basis, sometimes more frequently, where we're working through all of those. We also have a number of different ways in which we assess risks to clients, costs, whether it be services that are being provided elsewhere, what the impacts would be to things like cost sharing, how we can draw down Medicaid funds, things like that. So it's a very comprehensive look. We spend months doing it and ultimately come up with a set of proposals, including cuts that we have to put on the table. And this year, cuts generally reflected things that had not yet been implemented. So there were a number of other programs that are with new funding that we haven't put on the table because they haven't been started yet.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau, Member]: Well, I guess the question's always who's at the table for that prioritization process?

[Brendan Atwood, Policy Director, Agency of Human Services]: Oh, that's good question. So the executive leadership team. So that's the secretary, the deputy secretary, all the commissioners, the chief financial officer, top part of those conversations as well, and then the teams from each of the departments as well, sometimes deputy commissioners. So are these currently then represented through the commissioner to AHS? That's right. And as noted, MJ works through our chief operating officer, which I think, frankly, we're identifying as limitation, and that's why we're committed to addressing, and I think can easily address that. And I understand the committee's interest in making sure that there's equipment to that long term. I would also offer that M. J. And I will have these conversations over the next year. Think we can come back with a proposal that the committee would feel good with that allows for that access. And again, we're committed to that. We're not intending to keep anybody out of this process. We have to make our decisions in many spaces, and certainly excluding folks from that consideration is not part of our approach.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: I appreciate that, and I don't know if that will be workable, but I think we also have to think in terms of the political landscape, it's a general election coming up in November. And you never know who's gonna be in these positions by next January in terms of the administration. That will be true regardless because every two years, it can change. So I just wanna put that on the table for folks to process as

[Brendan Atwood, Policy Director, Agency of Human Services]: well.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: But I appreciate what you said. I think because maybe because the legislative branch is starting to look into this, it's gotten folks more focused on it. Kevin?

[Kevin Winter, Member]: I was sort of joking but I guess in a way since DOC is picking up the tab right now, how unreasonable is it for you to identify what part of your budget has been spent on parole and break it out separate. I mean, I don't know the process of coming up with another line. But

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: it's not freestanding. It's within DOC's And

[John T. Murad, Interim Commissioner, Vermont Department of Corrections]: I guess, I mean, that is a question for John Murad, interim commissioner in the Department of Corrections. That is a question with regard to the degree of independence that we want with regard to the level of both how much money we want to allocate to the parole board. And many of these things that have been said today are accurate. Should there be more? Is there sufficient counsel available to the board, etcetera? We do break it out as a line item about what monies go to the current director and to the staff that are paid and per diems that go to everybody, and then the money that goes to the chair. And so they are volunteers. We're incredibly grateful for their volunteers, but we do pay some amount of money to them. Whether that's adequate or not is certainly a question for this body. We do break that out. The money that we took out of this year's budget was money that had been unspent. And I want to say confidently that you had communications with Deputy Commissioner Caliber and or Marlene about I mean, that wasn't something that we just did without consulting.

[Mary Jane Ainsworth, Director, Vermont Parole Board]: I was not aware of that.

[Brendan Atwood, Policy Director, Agency of Human Services]: You were not?

[John T. Murad, Interim Commissioner, Vermont Department of Corrections]: No. So that is something that we certainly we can do better at as the department. But it was money that hadn't been spent and we were looking for every single shave. The process that Brendan outlined with regard to how AHS creates a very holistic team based budget, rather than six departments creating a budget, is as he described. It's one in which everybody comes together around the table and figures out what are we collectively going to do? What is collectively important to us? What is collectively something that we can oftentimes with a great amount of regret lose? DOC participated in that. I did. And it was something that, frankly, for DOC was a little less painful than for other parts of AHS in the sense that we are almost entirely funded by the general fund. And our margins are already razor thin. We are responsible for the component of facilities that we upkeep. Some of it is BGS. Some of it is us. We are responsible for payroll, we are responsible for food, etcetera, and we are responsible for health care for the people who are in our custody. And so those are by far the largest share. And in talking yesterday, for example, to appropriations or to other or senate institutions rather, talking to appropriations during budget pieces, the ups and downs that we experienced at DOC were relatively small compared to really large hits. Brendan mentions nearly $70,000,000 savings that were sought in order to bring us in line with what we as an administration want, and what's available to us with regard to a tight, tight budgetary year. The vast majority of that 70,000,000, approximately 70,000,000 was experienced by other parts of AHS, not DOC. And so, we have a $244,000,000 budget. That is nothing to sneeze at. It's a huge responsibility that DOC takes very seriously. But the amount of that that is actually available to be moved around is incredibly, incredibly marginal. And every time we change either any of the small amount of revenue that the department takes in, or any time we have a loss here of a grant, or a change in what we do or don't spend on things that we desperately want to do, but may not be able to afford, it really has an outsized impact, because the amount of money that is in that $244,000,000 that is actually available for anything other than our core operational necessities is very small.

[Mary A. Morrissey, Member]: So can I ask the question? So having said that, is it best that this small budget, which I'm thinking it would be somewhat of a small budget, goes to the parole board to run the operation.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: Yeah, I wanna clarify line item for folks who budgeting is totally new. Yes, when you look at the appropriations, big bill under DOC, there is a line there for parole board. Okay? That is a line item within DOC. Okay? We're talking about a totally separate line item that is not connected to DOC. That's the difference. Okay. So I just wanna be clear on that It's totally separate so that they're an independent body and not connected to DOC. And That's when we say, do we have a line item Right. In the budget? So I I know what you're saying, commissioner, and you're right. Right now, parole board is a line item in the budget in DOC's budget. So when we say line item, a separate line item, like when Conor was talking, we're talking about a totally separate entity in the budget that's not connected with DOC.

[John T. Murad, Interim Commissioner, Vermont Department of Corrections]: And if I may, because of the team based consensus based budget that secretary Samuelson has created for AHS, something that is relatively new for AHS and I think really went off well this year, A lot of collaboration between those six departments and the central office at AHS. Because of that movement of it from DOC into the general AHS budget would not be a tremendous lift for AHS. It's not without any implication. But I guess a component of that is, is that a sufficient amount of distance from DOC for independence? If you want complete independence, there's going to be a lot of questions around efficacy of scale. To create an entire new budgeting entity for this would be, I feel, not the best use of taxpayer money. Moving the line from DOC to HS is not by any means an insurmountable lift and would create a degree of that distance.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: And that's what we've grappled with in terms of where would they have the administrative support? Because right now, they do have some administrative support from DOC. Where would they have some budget support? They do have some budget support from DOC. They might have some curriculum training from DOC. That's what we have to figure out as a committee, what would be those ancillary costs if the parole board was on its own. And

[Mary Jane Ainsworth, Director, Vermont Parole Board]: I think to go a little bit further than that, don't have my other notebook with me, but I did find out that we are appropriated X amount and then DOC allocates us X amount and there's a difference. And I think that's also to cover some of those ancillary costs of fee for space, IT costs. I think the department absorbed some of our IT costs for our equipment. I don't know what all those costs are, but they provide us budget staff. So there is a bigger issues. If we were to be pulled off, we wouldn't have budget staff. I don't know if we fund personnel staff at all. I don't know how DHR is that kind of thing. The fee for space, all of those other ancillary costs that DOC does pick up for us through their budget. So I want to note that as well. And it's not in, I don't know if I would advocate for us to be our own line item because I don't think we have the capacity and it would be a bigger venture, a more costly venture

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: at this time. That's what we have to do with.

[Mary Jane Ainsworth, Director, Vermont Parole Board]: Right. So I just wanted to put my James?

[James Gregoire, Vice Chair]: I was saying there might be some language ways we can make it so it's more concrete that they have

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau, Member]: to be worked with rather than

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: Well, That's why I was thinking if the parole board could do a similar process that the bigger picture does, that the parole board lays out what their budget needs are for the upcoming fiscal year And they submit that to DOC to be included in the DOC budget. But this is our true budget And you're at the bottom of the total. I'm sorry to say, but it really feels in terms of priorities that the Department of Corrections has, which I'm not negating those priorities. They're taking care of Vermonters, folks who have gone through the criminal justice system and are under their custody. And there is a state responsibility to those folks. And that's a priority. But also a priority is to make sure that when a person has met their time being incarcerated and they are eligible for parole, that that is a priority as well, that we have trained individuals and individuals that have legal backup on that parole board to make those decisions for people's liberty and public safety.

[Mary Jane Ainsworth, Director, Vermont Parole Board]: And I think from stories of before my time, I heard of the chair and the previous director going around the agency and potentially Department of Corrections to get an additional position. And I think now we're rectifying a lot of it is more of a seat at the table and more of a how is, if there is some needs, it seems like I always come in late. If I say, hey, we could use this. Always like, oh, the budget's already set for the year. So it's more of just, and I think we're working through that as a team to get that seat at the table.

[Mary A. Morrissey, Member]: But that's why I asked the question. I wasn't thinking we would go that way necessarily by taking your budget out, but there's gotta be the communication and the understanding of what the real needs are and that it's in pretty black and white. When I sat on appropriations years ago, you had, you know, every little line item was in the budget, you knew each section of each part of your bigger budget, and that's all I'm saying. I was kind of playing devil's advocate to say, well, would it be better? Because it sounds like even the one item there that is under statute that you said that hasn't been going on, Everyone blew that off, and that's in in the green books. Mhmm. No one's following it. So let's just kinda get back together and and do this right so that we we have a program that doesn't put you at liability and recovering what we need to do. That's all I was saying.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: Thank

[Brendan Atwood, Policy Director, Agency of Human Services]: you, Madam Chair. So I think, as the committee bowls the silver, I just wanna reflect our commitment to working to team on this. I think that we wanna take the time and make sure that we do our due diligence to make sure that this process is designed well. And we're happy to come back, even if you wanna legislate this engagement, to come back to the committee with a proposal about how we make sure the seat is at the table. Again, I think we're still in the process of refining our approach to budget building, and this is a good opportunity for us to work on this piece as well. And then if the committee is not satisfied with that approach, there's still an opportunity to go further.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: So one thing that, and I would have to talk with Hillary about this, but one thing I'm thinking in terms of how to approach that, we do the bill, but we also have a section that deals with session law in terms of what the process would be in formulating the FY twenty eight budget for the parole board in conjunction with the agency of human services budget. And these are the requirements that would have to be met. We do something like that for the budget piece. We could also do something like that in terms of the legal representation. My brain hasn't gotten there yet. I'm just trying to figure out how to work through this. So I just put that on the table. I don't know what the committee thinks about that.

[Mary A. Morrissey, Member]: I think the committee needs to go into discussion ourselves to lay out what we learn.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: And we need Hillary here for that.

[Lori Fisher, General Counsel, Vermont Department of Corrections]: I just want you referenced earlier what the statutory language was in relation to the training requirement of the Defender General. Don't know Hillary's not here, but I can give you the statutory draft.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: It's Title 28, right?

[Lori Fisher, General Counsel, Vermont Department of Corrections]: It is 28 BSA four fifty six. And Subpart C is the section that indicates that Defender General has to be notified prior to the training and giving an opportunity to participate. So that's the piece of training that has quietly been tabled to try to work out this conflict. Any other deeds of the parole board have been met by the Attorney General to date. We say

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: it again? April what?

[Brian Minier, Member]: It's in Mary C. It's right at It's Mary Beth's eve.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau, Member]: Mary Cotton.

[Mary A. Morrissey, Member]: Do we need to listen to the attorney general's office for anything?

[Brendan Atwood, Policy Director, Agency of Human Services]: I'm always happy to assist

[Todd Daloz, Representative, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: the committee reticent to assist the committee three minutes before lunch.

[Brian Minier, Member]: Good call.

[Mary A. Morrissey, Member]: Smart person.

[Brian Minier, Member]: Yeah, okay.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: It seems like I remembered that there was, I'm pretty sure that came through, there were requirements in terms of your training, in terms of timeframe or what needed to be involved. I remember we talked at length about that. Maybe it never ended up in legislation. I've never seen it in statute, but

[Mary Jane Ainsworth, Director, Vermont Parole Board]: I also haven't gone through the supplements to see if anything's been changed.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: In those supplements, because there's something I do remember talking quite a bit about training.

[Brendan Atwood, Policy Director, Agency of Human Services]: It says it says, like, they cannot receive any training specific to the role of application. So

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: Without the defender general, they notified the training. Right. And given the opportunity to participate, the opportunity to participate has turned into something quite different.

[Kevin Winter, Member]: Correct.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: So something is really missing in statute. When I'm looking at

[Brian Minier, Member]: What kind of 51A, Madam Chair?

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: Yep. Wait a minute. What? I've got too many numbers, Scott. 151A.

[Brian Minier, Member]: Is that what you were looking for? What are I'm sorry. I'm in 28, chapter seven, sub chapter one, and whatever number I just told you.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: Yeah, what's the section? And around the arrest of a person. Oh,

[Brian Minier, Member]: that's correct. Sorry. I was in probation, and now I'm not. Hold on. I'm sorry. To Todd's point.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: This Oh, still on, Troy. Been sitting here forever.

[Brian Minier, Member]: Yeah. Sorry. I thought I found something I didn't.

[Alice M. Emmons, Chair]: Okay. Well, we're gonna have to schedule some committee time just for discussions, I think, to see where we are. And I think it's we'll have to have Hillary present. We wanna help this situation. We don't wanna hinder it. And we wanna make sure that the parole board needs us, has the support that they need, because we're losing a lot of institutional knowledge on this board over the next year or two. And these folks, new folks coming in, I don't know who they are. They don't know who they are, but they're pretty green. And we've got some real serious cases that come before that. These are very, very difficult cases. And I wanna make sure the board has the tools that they need to have with their discuss. And I think committee as a whole would feel that. So thank you all for coming in. We will notify you when we schedule time with our led budget council to kind of brainstorm see where we go. If any of you have any thoughts or recommendations in between, feel free to reach out. And I want to thank you all for being here. Be patient, because I know we started late. So for the committee, it is 12:00. We're going to break for lunch. We are back here at 01:00. And we're going to be talking about pre transition, a new language, we hope. So let's take a lunch break.