Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Morning,

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: folks. This is House Corrections and Institutions Committee. It is Wednesday, February 25. It's our morning meeting. We are working on House Bill five fifty, which pertains to health care for folks who are working I don't even know how to phrase it, for trans for gender equity. I'm just gonna put it that way. So it's really important to have the bill in front of you, and DOC has some recommended language changes that would be a good way for us to start focusing on the bill itself. Many members can have five fifty in front of them, as well as the document that DOC has with comments and recommended language changes. That was handed out to us last week. New folks were here, and we didn't have time to get to.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: For us digital people, is that the first one under Joshua to Heard?

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: It's called Yeah.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So Josh and Hayley, if you could identify yourself for the workshop.

[Haley Summer, Director of Communications (Vermont DOC)]: Good morning. My name is Haley Summer, director of communications for DOC.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: And Josh Rutland, facilities division deputy director.

[Haley Summer, Director of Communications (Vermont DOC)]: Well, thank you all for having us back. Very excited to be here.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: Thank you.

[Haley Summer, Director of Communications (Vermont DOC)]: You never left. So we're gonna talk through the bill. We have a few comments on some of the language. There are two documents that we're kind of looking at. One is the bill itself, and one is the document that DOC presented. If it will be helpful, I can put it up on the screen unless folks feel comfortable with what they have in

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: front of them. So, I'm going

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: to pull the committee on that.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: And I would say we didn't, in many cases, actually recommend alternative language as much as identified some Language is hard on this sort of stuff and some concerns around the language that's in there, but I don't know that I have the right language or the language I would suggest that picks it. And at least in one case, it's more a question of what the committee's intent is with the language and how that would be interpreted by courts afterwards, if needed.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's why we work with our lawyer. Yep.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: Which I am not, so

[Haley Summer, Director of Communications (Vermont DOC)]: Right. Okay. So we're going to skip right to page three. No issues with any of the intent language that the committee has put forth.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: For the intent language, I'm thinking we work on that at the end. But the intent language does not go into statute. It does not go into the Green Books. It's just a statement of legislative intent.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: So I think the first piece that we identified is lines three through six b. Two sort of two issues with that. The easier one maybe is the according to gender designation of the correctional facility where the inmate is housed, in that we have females lodged at our male facilities except for Northwest, sort of routinely. So even though we have a male facility, we almost always have cisgender females there as well. So if you say we're going to do searches based on it being a male facility, We do have some females there.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And I think just to

[Haley Summer, Director of Communications (Vermont DOC)]: add a little bit more context to that, the circumstances in which it would happen largely pertain to just very short periods of time. So if arrested and charged in Rutland and she has a hearing the next day that's in Rutland, we're not going to bring her to Burlington for twenty four hours and then move her back.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So, the way that the language is drafted

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: I'm sorry, I'm looking at lines seven through nine. I jumped. C. Yeah,

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: well, I'm looking at B.

[Haley Summer, Director of Communications (Vermont DOC)]: Yeah, well,

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: yeah, C is we can back up.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I would back up. Let's start with lines three through five. There's this talking about an inmate being lawfully searched. And it's according to DOC's search policies, which is in your directives.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: Yes.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And then it's according to how the inmate identifies themselves. Or according to the gender designation of the facility where the person is being housed based on the inmate's search preference.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: So I would read that as saying when somebody comes in and we ask their gender identity, if they say transgender female, then we would be obligated to search them with female staff. Currently, what we do is we make an independent determination on that. We look at the specifics of the circumstance, whether or not that's safe for our staff and appropriate. And sometimes we honor those requests and sometimes we don't. And I think there's good reasons to do that in some circumstances, and good reasons not to do it in some circumstances, specifically around the safety for our staff.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Okay. Troy and then Brian.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Are you obligated by your rules at all to articulate when why you deny that request, if you deny that request?

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: Is that in the new policy?

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: It is. Any accommodation that someone requests, we would the denial would be indicated as to why.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: We do currently indicate on the form that it's denied. I don't think we necessarily currently indicate why that's in the new policy that we would, but I don't think it's in the current policy.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: We've heard in previous testimony and I assume we're going to get into more hopefully today sort of how you can classify a person and what that process looks like. Is there a reason do we need to be separating whatever the initial screeningsearch looks like from best practices and what happens sort of after the initial contact or day one?

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: So that is what we've written into our new policy, is the shift supervisor is going to make a judgment when the person comes in based on the facts that are presented to them, including asking the person, but just with what's available to them. And then when our committee meets after the multidisciplinary committee meets locally and then essentially we'll make a more permanent decision. But at 02:00 in the morning, none of those folks are available for a deep dive into that individual. So the supervisor has to make an immediate decision based on the facts that are ahead of them. And keeping in mind that often when folks come to jail, they're not very charitable with us. And so by the next morning, we've had that opportunity to look into the facts a little bit more, to talk to the person after they've maybe calmed down, to look at their history a little more. And then we make sort of an ongoing determination how we're going to deal with this person going forward. But yeah, there's two different decision points and they involve both different parties and I think a different amount of information.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: And for that first one, there's some sort of checklist or guide or totality of evidence or that there's

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: We left it fairly open to the They have to ask the person's identity. They have to ask what the person wants. Then we left it kind of open to the supervisor to make that determination based on what they have, which is really widely variable. And second and third shift, well, we only have a second shift now, but overnight that lieutenant is the person who's there. They're the person who have to make that decision. That decision has to be made now when the person's being entered. So gave them some leeway on that on purpose so they can exercise their best discretion, knowing that our final determination may be different. But especially when we don't have a history with a person and we don't know how safe they're going to be.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: And then I guess the last one, I don't know if they'll shut up at least for a while, for that initial screening, could it be determined just by resources available at the time?

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: No.

[Haley Summer, Director of Communications (Vermont DOC)]: Are you referring to staff members who are on shift?

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: I think the best way to answer that is that it would be resources contingent on safety. So not as simple as, Josh is requesting a female, we don't have one so the answer is no. I think the reality is we would then have to figure out what is the safest way we can search this person and meet the request. So for example, it might be that we don't conduct a path search immediately, but we do a body scan. Or it might be that we put the person in an observation cell until we can get a person that's there. But if concern is that the person is in a state where an observation cell might be triggering, then at that point, that supervisor, which is why supervisors have hopefully our job has to figure out which one of those things is going to be better for the We're not talking about two positive choices necessarily. And so, going make that best decision based off of those circumstances.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: I'm going

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: have that same challenge with cisgender females. If you have a cisgender female come in at 10:00 at night and there's no female staff on duty, we're not going to say, Oh Josh, go search her. That's not okay. But we're going to figure out how do we assure this person safety until we have a female officer available to do that search. So I don't want to be in a position where we're saying no, because we don't have female staff on. That's not an acceptable response. But what are we going to do to keep that person and the institution safe until we can do a proper search?

[Brian Minier (Member)]: You answered the question I meant to ask. Okay, good. So

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: the language in the lines three through six really does encapsulate intake.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It does or does not?

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: It It encapsulates when someone comes in, we are either going to search them based off of the designation of the facility itself and that presentation when they come in or how they are identified. I think after that is where we have a much more inclusive and robust process. And so it's not limited to that. After that, a plan that we come up with that is not simply reduced to what you've asked for or where you are. And I think that's what we're sort of trying to say in that particular section is when we wrote our searches policy, we opened with a statement acknowledging we're a binary system, corrections is, it just is. And so when you come in, we are gonna operate from a binary lens. And then when we get new information that tells us we should do something differently, then we're gonna do it differently. Just like we do with folks who have mental illness, just like we do with folks who have physical disabilities, language barriers, we're gonna do that. And so I think this language is specific to intake. We wanna make sure that there's language that says we're gonna do the best practice we do after that, which is more robust than just those two things.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: And I do have concerns about foxing us in by law to you get what you ask for, because that's not always gonna be appropriate and

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: safe. I

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: don't disagree that corrections in a broad sense is a binary. It's structured right now as a binary, but it's primarily facilities based. Meaning your facilities are binary. I'm curious if anything within your stated protocols acknowledge that your philosophical approach is not attempts to not be binary.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: Yeah, think that's very specifically what we say is operating within this. We're still going to try and meet individuals' needs as much as we can, recognizing that there are some inherent binary pieces to the way institutions operate. But that we're going to try and meet those needs. Wish I had the exact language.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, I would love to see that. We can

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: get it. Can get

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: it. Really said it's like a binary housing system because we have male and female facilities. So think housing is in there that we were specific to. Like we have these designated facilities and you can only go there, but then the reality is that all depends if the sheriffs actually get it right. And I don't mean sheriffs get it wrong. I mean, a person can present one way and then their sex status can be something different. And we might not know that. And so we may have a transgender male show up at Chittenden because the the sheriffs have a female name and they bring a person to check-in and then the strip search is done and oh, okay, well now what are we going to do? So that's the reality is that we don't always know. We think we know but we don't know.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: So here's the current draft language that we have and Haley can address in this.

[Haley Summer, Director of Communications (Vermont DOC)]: So wait a minute, wait

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: a minute. Draft language to what? A policy. Your policy. So let's take a step Okay? Just trying to work through this as it works through in DOC's world. The statute that we're amending is classifications of persons. Mhmm. Does that happen at booking? Because what we're talking about here, what we're focused on is the search policy for folks at booking.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: Yeah.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. Is that in your classification statute?

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: So there's two classifications starts when you come in the door, because we're immediately making some decisions about people when they come in the door based on are they being charged with felony or misdemeanor? Are they pre arraigned? Are they post arraigned? So, there's And then our five day classification within the first five days that you're incarcerated, then we do the rest of our sort of formal classification process.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So, okay. I'm just looking at the structure of the bill. So, section two, the section we're dealing with is classification of persons. And that is pertaining to within the five days of sentencing or commitment, the person is classified and then determined where the person will be held. Then it goes on to new language. Classifying or assigning an inmate to a correctional facility, the commission would ensure that the inmate is addressed in a manner consistent with the inmate's gender identity. So this is after booking or at booking. And then we go into b where it talks about the search. So I'm wondering if the structure, the language, and where it's placed needs to be clarified. Because right now, what we're talking about is the search that occurs at booking. There could be a search that occurs later on.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: Right.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Maybe you're trying to detect if the person has some contraband on them or whatever. So I just wanna be clear that right now, what we're talking about is when a person's in booking and they've come in and it's the supervisor. Now does that supervisor actually go into the booking area and talk to the person?

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: Yes.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Make that determination. Yes. So this is a booking, and I'm not sure the language is really clear that we're talking about booking.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: I don't think it is, because it says the five day. Now mind you, the inmate is addressed in a manner consistent with their identity. That we do.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's single quote.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: But I mean from the moment you walk in the door, never mind at five day. But you're right, B sort of falls under that five day, so it would seem to read that it means within our five day classification, not immediate upon intake.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: If the what you're talking about right now, our conversation that we that we are having pertains to booking. Yep. Well, I would flag that, members of the committee, on whatever draft you're using, that we need to flag that, talk with our alleged counsel, if this language needs to be different section or address different.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: And I'm wondering if we because we added the language about the shift supervisor. And the main reason being able to make determination that's different than either the person's sex or immediate information because we immediately thought of, Haley was with us previously and we did X, Y and Z, and she's come back, why wouldn't we do X, Y and Z again if we could? But we also can assume that the kid is still asking for X, Y, and Z. And so, but we also didn't want to put supervisors in a position where we are pretending that they are gender identity experts, or that they know all things. So, I wonder if we could send the language that we added specific to how we do our decision making at intake to account for what the person is asking previous knowledge of that.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's in your direct view.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: And to your point, Chair, that there are kind of two different decisions. There's that immediate and then there's the slightly more studied decision where we get everybody involved. And we very intentionally treated those as separate. And I think that's appropriate. We do the same thing with sort of other classification decisions for folks. We have to make an immediate judgment, and the next day or by five day classification, make a more informed judgment.

[Haley Summer, Director of Communications (Vermont DOC)]: If that would be helpful, we can send the language to Hillary. I can't speak to the section that this language is in regarding statute, but do you have no concerns with language being added that clarifies that it's up on intake?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. I mean, for lines three and six, lines three through six, does that work the way it's currently drafted for folks in booking? Yes.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: No. Yes and no. It says or, so.

[Haley Summer, Director of Communications (Vermont DOC)]: Yeah. I think as it's written, it provides VOC You're with the saying no because it's strictly they said it, so we do it.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: Well, except the truth is this is where the catch all comes in. If we said no because of security issues, then we would be compliant with Part two because they would be searched according to the facility they're at.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: That's just confusing.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: I understand.

[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, what you said.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: If I come in and I say that I'm transgender, I'm launched at Springfield, I say I'm transgender female, and the department decides that it's not appropriate to have a female strip search me, even though that's what I asked for, does that language allow the department to make that determination that's not appropriate or safe?

[Haley Summer, Director of Communications (Vermont DOC)]: I think B does, but C does not.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Correct. B does not because it's This said is where folks

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Or is doing a big look there, though.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Right? I mean, this is where folks should really have to read the language, and we do not have Hillary here. So I'm asking for committee members to really look at this language in the bill and give me your interpretation.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: What did Troy say?

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: The or in section B three through six is a big lift with regard to the question that we were just asked.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: I think I'd be comfortable trying to explain.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: Well, think it reinforces binary because what we're saying that in a bill is this is a male facility, this female facility. So either we will search you by your preference for your identification or we'll search you by these binary. Sounds like you guys don't

[Brian Minier (Member)]: Right.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Want it to work in the binary Where where if you read this, it may be searched according to your directive for the inmate's gender identity, one path, or according to the gender identity or gender designation of that correctional facility where the person is being booked based on the inmate search preference. So which one is the controlling? Is it the inmate search preference, or is it your directives, or is it the facility?

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: I I think so. My question. That that would also be my question, I guess.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I'm gonna go to Shawn because he just raised his hand and then Troy.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: I'm just looking at that first sentence and I'm not understanding after the comma of searched, it says the inmate be, it's will, may, could, probably. What's the word after the inmate?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: The inmate be searched?

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: The inmate something be searched. You can't that doesn't sound like a proper sentence.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: Previous page. Right?

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: No. I think I think just the word will likely to be there.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: This back in

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: 1920. Yeah. I get what you're saying, Shawn, and that's a question when we start putting in a new draft.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Okay.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: How that's worded. That's it. Yep. Troy?

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: I think there's room for clarity here that might be accomplished if we also in this section, Section B, lines three through six, accommodate the delay that might be needed for any search when, as DOC has articulated, might be a holding cell, might be a body scan. If we accommodate the need to clarify that here, that might help us clean up the questions that are in front of us right now. It gives us an I want to call it an out, but that's the only thing. That if there is a discrepancy between preference, binary institution at which they're housed, and that creates a hesitation on the search process, we can articulate that

[Brian Minier (Member)]: things can be paused. In the case of conflict between. Yeah, right.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: Is this one of those times where it would be easier to say than not? So meaning that it say an individual will not be searched simply based off of the gender designation of the facility or their genital status. And then inserting language that says what it is that we're going to do. I don't know what you're-

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Okay, So what I this is where I suggest, because we got a long ways to go in the bill, and I don't wanna spend all morning on this particular piece. So I'm gonna recommend that our legal staff watch this YouTube, and it's been flagged that there's two different types two different times that a search can occur. The first time is at booking. So we need language around that piece. And then the next part for a search is the person is incarcerated. It could happen during their sentence. Could happen as a

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: judge. Absolutely.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Then we need to structure language around that. So I would leave it at that level at And this in terms of the actual structure of the language, I would really encourage having conversations with Hillary and really figuring out the language for that.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: Does that make sense?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Because we're just gonna spin our wheels So for the committee, flag this. And then let's go on to your next concern, which is still on page three, line seven through nine.

[Haley Summer, Director of Communications (Vermont DOC)]: This was what we had touched upon when Josh first started speaking, relating to concerns around searching someone based on the gender designation of the facility and that alone.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: And I think that's related to the same language problem. I don't don't know that that's a dramatically different issue.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And that's the same at booking as it would be if the person was a detainee or sentenced?

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: Not necessarily because in the entrance, a female lodge at Southern State isn't going to stay there, but the sort of gender designation of that facility is male, but we do house females there for the short term. So I think it's maybe semantic, but we certainly search females there according to them being female, even though it is primarily a male facility.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So C really pertains more to booking. Yes. And not for when a person is a detainee or sex?

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: No, because after, yeah, after arraignment or whatever, they'll be transferred to Chittenden over the appropriate place.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: Okay. The other clarification is, we say gender identity, and my question is, do you actually mean gender identity or do you mean gender identity and sex? Because they're not the same. So sex is the genital status and so are you asking that? Because we would, within reason, we would always know someone's gender identity based off of what they said, what we hadn't paid for work or what we're seeing. So, and it shouldn't necessarily know someone's sex. And so I think that this section needs to be clear about which one or both. Like, do you mean both? Do you mean just one?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And that would be true for both B and C. To clarify, mean, it to clarify that throughout the whole statute? Yes.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: I think the intention, and representative had this, this is your bill originally, right? Is that we take into we look at gender identity, not just biological sex.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Right. And I don't know if determined is the right word there. Maybe it's a different word other than determined.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: Especially since you have folks who are non binary, so they don't fall into either box.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So I'm just looking at WellPath here, because I do have a definition of gender identity. A person's internal sense of their own gender.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: So

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: one would almost we don't have a definition of gender identity in our state statutes, do we? I'm not sure.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: I don't know. Have one we use, but I don't know that, which I think we relied in part on WPATHS.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: We did.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: Because get it, yeah.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: Three terms that we are using are intersex, transgender, and gender diverse, because we know there's changing language that happens with non binary gender non conforming. And so gender diverse was a term we were using, which came from medical document to the National Medical Board, if I recall, because it seemed to be a great term to encapsulate words being used now and whatever words get added in the future. So we did keep transgender as a different term, but gender diverse was for anything.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: We've got a definition.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Are you one BSA? 144. The

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: term gender identity means an individual's actual or perceived gender identity or gender related characteristics intrinsically related to an individual's gender or gender identity, regardless of the individual's assigned sex at birth.

[Haley Summer, Director of Communications (Vermont DOC)]: May doesn't reference that, though. That might need to be added.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Sometimes there's multiple definitions instead.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Right. Mean, this is, again, drafting that we could say wherever the term gender identity is used pertains to what we currently have in definition and statute.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: That would be helpful.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: This just goes back to your question or point about line seven about determining. Would it be resolved by saying if the question of an image generated cannot be resolved? Does that fix the yeah. Okay.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So what's that? Is it in one BSA?

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: In BSA 01/1944.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: Well, if that definition says old or perceived, then we will always know because we will our staff will be trained to proceed or ask.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: It's actually what we've received. We

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: would then always know something but then again that's where the intake process is different than potentially the long term process, because we would operate off of perception in the beginning, but then when we got new information, we would then operate off of actual potential.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So the definition of gender identity is fluid?

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: That's what he just read. It said actual or perceived. So that would that mean we would always have an answer.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Okay. That's what I wanna make sure. Doesn't lock you in in one situation of booking versus another situation for sentenced or detainee. Correct. And that's actually what

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: aligns with what we do.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: Yeah. We've just taken some work to get there. So, moving on to lines 10 through 12, and I do see sort of the caveat included in lines 19 through 21.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Before we go there,

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: I

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: want to go back to your comment, DOC's comment on slide seven and nine, where it conflicts with current PREA guidance. Is that true?

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: So PREA does require that we make an informed decision and it's not just as clear as someone has these genitals and you will do this. And so our search policy is sort of based off of and practices based off of that, but it's not so prescriptive. And I will add that in pre op, it does say that you cannot search someone for the purpose of determining their genital status. And that I don't know if you didn't put that in our notes, but that may be something.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: It is in our policy. It has been in our policy for flow guide.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: Long time. And so I don't know if that's language you would want to add in here as well. Because we support that in all the ways. And that includes medical. We will consult with medical and have medical, have a conversation with the person, but it is not to have the person remove their clothing and see what's there. Well, have a conversation

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: with them to make.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So C is both for someone who I'm just trying to think this through. So c is both for someone who's being booked, but it also can apply to a sentenced or detained person. Or is it just a booking?

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: If we're gonna define gender identity the way that it is in statute, that representative Casey said, I don't know if c is necessary because I don't know we'd ever have a situation where somebody's gender identity couldn't be either actual or perceived.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You're talking about searching.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: Right.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: B and C talks about the search process.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: Right. But C is only a caveat if gender identity cannot be determined.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: And the definition that was read in statute didn't always be able to be determined.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: But that There might still be

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: a conflict between perception and the stated.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We need to really clarify that.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: Which if you tweak B would address that?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: A B is only for booking.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: Not. We were saying to add like, B1 intake, B2. Right, if we set it up. If you did that and put the language we were just talking about in there and use the definition and statute currently, then you would not need C.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: It would make it less confusing.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So this is where we really need Hillary to figure all of this out. But the language you're referring to, Jen, is the one in Priya that should be included as well.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: If you guys think it's a good idea, we do not

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: search just to figure out what somebody has for genitals. And that's been our policy for a long time, certainly support that being

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: And to me, is something that would be absolutely appropriate to be in a bill because that's a big deal.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's a big deal. Okay. Are people clear on that? On this one? What I may do is this is a heavy lift to remember all these moving pieces. I think what we need to do is have a few members of our committee sit down in person with Hillary to highlight some of the parts of the bill that we really need to focus and ask Hillary to really pay attention to our discussion on YouTube. Does that make sense to folks? Right. But she's a lot of this. So it's really important piece because I wanna keep moving too. How long can Hillary be here? She comes in for the rest of the time.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: 10:30. Okay.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Anything anything else on b and c before we move on to d? K. Let's go to d.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: I I think d Well it's more E, but I think D as long as that language in '19 through '21 is okay, because it does allow us to make a decision contrary to what the person asks as long as we can articulate the reason for that. And think there's been discussed in testimony why what somebody asks isn't automatically what's appropriate. We just need to we would strongly ask to preserve that discretion for the safety of the folks in our custody.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So I'm having a hard time following what you just said.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: So somebody asked to be housed in a female facility based on their preference, and we determine if that is not safe or appropriate, and we're going to continue to house them in a male facility. Sometimes you're going to have to be housed in a female facility and we'll say, yes, that's appropriate. We're going to do that. We have some transgender women living there now and the mother's circumstances we're going to say, that's not appropriate. That's not safe for the women who are there and we don't support that. The language in 1921 does allow us just to do that as long as we give a reason for that.

[Haley Summer, Director of Communications (Vermont DOC)]: But

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: what you're talking about here in D is residential treatment programs Within

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: the It says, I always had a correctional facility.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Right. But if eligible, because it's really talking more about the residential treatment program. The way that I read this language is that it's talking about the choice of which facility to house an individual on.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: That would also be how I read a chance.

[Haley Summer, Director of Communications (Vermont DOC)]: It does include information about residential treatment, but the department didn't take that language into too much consideration as we were really focusing on the placement in a correctional facility.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: We're talking about the first part of the comma, because if you read that as an alone sentence, it's their housed, a court based on the inmate's preference. So that's what we're saying is concerning, because especially when we have people who make requests who are making them for nefarious purposes and not because they're transgender. And that's what we're trying to

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Right, that's what you're trying to, yeah.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: Because very rarely do we not approve things for folks who are transgender, gender diverse. Others.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: You know what saying, right? The 19 through 21 covers the

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: intent where

[Brian Minier (Member)]: 10 through 12 cannot be honored.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: I think so. I think so. And I just wanna But yes, I believe that does fit. And we

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: haven't gotten into this yet. I just wanna bring it into conversation. Those decisions that are contradictory to the stated preference or the stated wishes, we're going to want to make certain that those decisions are made by probably a panel of people, including medical, who and we haven't gotten to this part of the bill yet are bound by a statute that requires them to be culturally competent around transgender issues. So we're talking about intake right now, which is a very immediate decision making process. But at some point, the permanent housing is going to be discussed. And we're going to want to make sure that we have a consistent protocol that includes trans specific health care, mental and physical health care, as these determinations are being made that might ultimately lead to conflict

[Brian Minier (Member)]: with the initial request. Does that make sense?

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: Yeah, does. And that would be We have the multidisciplinary team locally and then the central one. I think we could always use more capacity in terms of full term competency in that area. We've certainly tried to build that over the years. We do have medical and mental health at the table, but I think we can always use more competency in that area. It is sometimes difficult to find. Right. The intent is is a very

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: statute that we might require you to find it.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: I've seen that in there. But yes, our practice, our policy would be that that's made at that central committee, which really should be the department to experts in that area.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: And if I recall, our policy requires that the local plan is to us within three days of entry.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: Three days, yes.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: Just to sort of put those Businesses, at

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: three business.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: Did we say three? Oh yeah,

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: we said three business. We said three business. Not calendar, because of holiday weekend and all of a sudden you're not in compliance with your policy. Or you're rushing and you're not making good decisions because

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: you're those documents from facilities. I just didn't want folks to think it's like two weeks before it makes it. It's not. And as I said, we meet every Wednesday. So we have those plans already ready and waiting and that we're having the meeting to discuss them.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: Although we keep testifying on Wednesday. So the last two weeks in a row.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: We don't have anyone to

[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: discuss. Good. Thanks.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So my understanding is that d is okay with you folks because three a covers a denial.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: Yes, ma'am.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So there's also more to three than A. There is also B at the top of page four. Before we get to B, I

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: would love to touch on 2E. Specifically single cell status. We don't have that. We have very limited single cells. We've been in here a number of times to talk about fasting the system. The other thing, of course, is that then you start building in a reason for folks to do something for secondary gain because a lot of folks would prefer single cells.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And that's in close custody. It's in SEF.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: SEF, it's in close custody. We have single cells in our high acuity mental health and infirmary.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's not in the living.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: It's not in general population.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's not in living.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: So I don't have it. And I think that'd be really problematic and give folks a reason to try and game a system, which is really what we try to avoid. But single cell status would certainly be coveted by folks. But

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: we're just requiring serious consideration. We're not requiring granting that upon request.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's true. But again, it's not even something that the department is capable of granting. Wait a minute. You have administrative post custody, administrative SIG. Yes. You have that.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: I do not want to put somebody in administrative segregation for

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I know, but you do have, and this is new to the committee, because we worked on this years and years ago. You have administrative seg that is designed for a person's safety. If a person is feeling threatened in the facility, administrative seg could be used for two days. It's not in perpetuity. There is a due process Mhmm. In that statute dealing with that. But there is administrative SEG that deals directly with with, the safety of the person, And it's not ongoing for a long period of time. So I just want to put that on the table. There a short mechanism.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: There is. I don't know that either intent or the language of the bill would suggest that we well, or that we would want to be putting folks in any sort of segregation because of their gender identity.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I agree with that. But if a person is being threatened in a male facility and they identify as a female, And

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: that we have done in short term until we consider They

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: would have a right to administrative sick.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: So PREA has some language around that as well, around the use of using segregation just based off someone's gender identity status. There's timeframe And so we already have in policy language around that. We also have in policy the use of it when someone is indicating they're not safe. And so I think the issue is, at least for me, when I read this sentence, I believe that we will have cisgender male inmates who will be identifying as transgender to get a single cell. And that is what I'd like to avoid.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And that's fair.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: I also think that, I don't think anyone intended this, but as we said, we currently don't house our transgender folks all in single cells, some are, some aren't. And so we know that oftentimes with transgender or gender diverse individuals, there's some perception, some judgment, some confusion. And so what we have actually found is that folks who maybe had some different thoughts and opinions when they end up living with someone who's different from them realize, Oh, those things I thought weren't accurate. And then what you actually end up having is a built in buddy system, protection system for this person who is vulnerable. And if we have them in a single cell, we don't have that because we don't have We can tell you that we can protect people, but we can't. We do the best we can, but if you're a single officer in a unit with 70 people, you can't do that. And so sometimes folks cellmates are the ones that are looking out for them, or they're the ones coming forward and telling us, hey, this person is getting, you know, rubbed around or they're telling them, hey, here are some options of how you can report. And so we isolate them, the concern is there's then this visual presentation that you're different and you're alone. And you need to be alone because you're unsafe, transgender females with males. When you have a transgender male, the assumption is not a perversion. But when you mentioned transgender female, automatically there is this assumption that that person is sexually deviant. And so if you put them in a cell by themselves, or you say that's what we should do, it almost reinforces this belief without meaning to that this person is deviant and has to be alone. I don't think that's what anyone meant, but I do think that the folks could easily perceive it that way.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Yeah, not necessarily advocating for this, but is there ever a situation where the interstate compact would be used for a vulnerable person like a transgender inmate who just felt bullied from facility to facility? So we've certainly used interstate compact. I don't

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: know that we've ever used it in that circumstance, in part because Vermont runs one of the safest systems in the country, and if somebody is getting fully due to gender identity, I don't know that there's a state I can magically send them to where that doesn't occur. I think where we've used that around safety concerns has been more either when somebody's crime is so egregious and has raped up a lot of community sentiment, or when they have a law enforcement connection or something in the state where housing them in our system would be. So I think a number of years ago, had a probation officer commit a crime and had a year sentence to serve. He'd worked with the department for fifteen years. We didn't feel we could house him safely in our system. We used him in state combat there. But I don't know that if we were to have somebody who's we've never had somebody where it's a gender identity thing and we feel they'll be better served in another state.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: We did explore it when we were talking about moving someone out of a facility and Colorado because they have a designated facility in Munich. I did speak with their pre coordinator, however, and we were trying to explore the idea of interstate compact where the conversation stopped is that the way that it works in their system is they staff the person and then they make a decision about the best facility for them. And they don't do that if the person's not in their custody. So what we would have had to have done was interstate compact in the Colorado. And then if Colorado decided that's not where they should go, they would have been an immense facility. And we're like, that's not what we want to happen. And we certainly didn't want to ask Colorado to do anything different, but we did explore. And if may be something we'd look at again, if it's even they have to check their stuff too, but that might be an option. So we did explore it in one case.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: But again, you're not going to find many systems where somebody's going to be safer and I don't think there's any system anywhere in the country where there's not some prejudice and discrimination on this topic. Vermont is more progressive than most, but there's just not a state where we can go this won't ever be an issue. At any given time, how many people do we

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: have out of state on that interstate compact?

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: Actually very few. Think we're down to six or seven. We used to, and I think the chair will remember this, we used to use this more heavily with folks who have long sentences or egregious crimes and we've really moved away from that. Even for folks who have committed egregious crimes, for the most part we can house them safely in Vermont and we can house folks for long term and by and large, state contract aside, we would like Vermonters to be serving their sentences in Vermont.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: And I think one of the other drivers would be is obviously if our own staff got in

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: trouble

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: because we need to look after For law enforcement.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: Law enforcement, that absolutely we've used Really it around

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: uncomfortable position. It's just really uncomfortable for everybody. So it's just not, those are cases where we look at sending some information.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: Or theoretically, you would have a female who had offended against staff at Chittenden, for instance, there's no other option. If I have a male who's offended against staff at a male facility, I can move to another facility. If I had a female who'd done that, Chittenden is the only place. So in theory, that could be a situation.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It was, in the past, also used for maximum security because we don't have maximum security.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: We have close custody. And there are, in theory, some folks who just have an ongoing determination to act in a very, very unsafe manner that might be better served in another system. We tried to reduce our reliance on that, but there's a couple.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: To remind the the security level within a correctional facility is not determined by what they were convicted of. It is not determined by the crime. It is determined by the behavior of the person within the correctional facility. They could have the most egregious crime, the most violent crime, but that doesn't mean that they need the highest security level.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: We had a gentleman who tried to escape from Chittenden and then went up to Northwest and tried to escape from Northwest and assaulted a staff member doing so and two escape attempts in a fairly short period of time and a serious assault on staff. We decided that it would be better for that person to be housed in the federal Bureau of Prisons. And we made that in our general government amendment. It had nothing to do with this crime, and we have folks here in the state who have committed very serious crimes and are fine in our system, but sometimes folks

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: The public perceives it as if they had the most egregious crime, that's maximum security.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: And it's really not. It's really more far more about how you how you do time inside.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's important for members to keep in the back of your mind whenever we're talking about supporting law in a facility. So getting back to the language, I do have a question. Are there ever times, like I'm looking at line seventeen and eighteen, removing an inmate or individual who pose a threat, Do you ever, if someone is harassing a trans person and it's pretty continuous, do you relocate the one who's doing the Absolutely. Previous

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: Some of that's required under PREA depending what the behavior is. Sometimes it doesn't reach that level, but we still think it's inappropriate to have them or if we see somebody engaging in some sort of grooming behavior. So certainly we recognize that transgender folks who meet the owners on our system And so sometimes that's where they're housed and sometimes it's who's housed in their area. And so we've had cases where we're like, No, this person's engaging in grooming behavior toward this person. We're going to move the person who's engaging in that behavior to perfect physical safety. So that happens. I mean, that is a practice, yes.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: And it was an intentional philosophical shift in the department. I would say definitely over the last decade, we used to move the victim because they're the easy one to move. I mean, it's just that simple. And we really stopped that practice. Think Priya helped drive that a lot. But the truth is once we gave folks that language, they were like, oh, yeah, nobody was against it. So we really have changed that in kind of all the ways that the emphasis we try to move the perpetrator first. But in some cases the victim is the one that actually makes more sense to move or they're asking to be the one to move. So there's that too. So we have that flexibility, but the emphasis is on the arbitrary adversity.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: So

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: for 13 through 18, is the real issue granting single cell status with that section?

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: I think that's going be the biggest challenge because we really struggle to do it outside of those restricted environments. We just don't have single cells in our system. And recognize your point that it says serious consideration, but if the answer is always no, then it's hard for me to say I've given it serious consideration. The other factors in here we do certainly give consideration to.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: And the other thing we would hate to have happen is that if we were going to move someone to a facility because we thought that facility was the better place for them, if that facility didn't have a single cell, so then they had to stay where they didn't want to stay because we had to wait for a cell to be available, then it's like we're making a bad decision because of that particular thing. So we generally wouldn't do that. We move them first and then get to where your desired location.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Troy? We kept it in there, but put a qualifier in there to the degree that medicinal cells might be available. I mean, it doesn't get rid of

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: the fact that they're not. They're not. I was going to say that's kind of the challenge. If you're asking us to do something that we just don't have And to Jen's point, I do worry about singling folks out in that way as well, but the biggest issue is just that we don't have the single cell.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: What if we get rid of the word granted? So the consideration is to the single cell, not the group. To me, that says like the emphasis is on you will give it versus you will consider it being given as an option, just like health and safety. If we got rid of the word granting.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: I suppose. We don't have general population single cells.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: Right, but then we would consider it. We would say we don't have any available and we would move on.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But would that then open the door for the inmate to file a sentence.

[Dr. Allison Richards, Director of Psychiatry (Wellpath)]: Can I jump in from a psychiatric perspective?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Please identify yourself, please.

[Dr. Allison Richards, Director of Psychiatry (Wellpath)]: Yes. Yeah, I'm Doctor. Allison Richards. I'm currently the director of psychiatry for well path and health care contractor. Just from my perspective, I coming from academic medicine at UVM into the correctional health care system, single cell status is one of the things that has struck me the most in that how inmates will use that. I guess I don't like to use the word manipulation, but to get their needs met. And so when we don't have access to that, for example, like hunger strikes, people will go to extreme measures for just a single cell, hunger strikes, extreme self injury. There's all kinds of reasons someone might want a single cell. And I could also see this potentially being something that people will try to utilize. And if it's in statute, grievances, lawsuits, potentially, I don't know. I just think if it's not something available, which we get caught in the middle oftentimes, we are often caught in the middle. Patients come to us and say, we were just talking about it this morning and kind of redirecting the staff that we don't recommend single cells, we stay out of it. But it is really, I guess it would say one of the things that has shocked me the most working in corrections is how people will go at having a single cell and do everything they can to get one. Just sharing that from a mental health psychiatric perspective, it's been quite profound.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: And people hate cisgender males because it is cisgender males more than any other population because the cisgender females do not fight for them because there's not many and there's only one facility they can be in. It is predominantly cisgender males that really fight to the teeth for those cells. Brian?

[Brian Minier (Member)]: I don't know if DOC has a specific suggestion to what we're talking about here to the degree that you do or could. Is it just striking a single cell status portion? Or are you essentially saying that E is unnecessary because you're already giving enough weight to the health and safety, or even the perception of health and safety?

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: I'm okay with E. I think that the language is fine. If I had a magic wand striking the single cell status piece would probably work really well for me, whether or not that's the committee's intent or desire.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: Well, is he doing anything? Is he useful or needs of?

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: Well, think the rest of E matches up with some of our program language because we do give consideration to their health and safety as part of their plans. That's part of the discussion. That's whether or not it belongs in statute is really your guys' way, not mine. But that is a process that we do that is part of our housing plan is talking to the person. What do they need to feel safe and healthy in this environment?

[Brian Minier (Member)]: So the effect here would just be putting into statute what is already in policy? Correct. And

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: I actually think Priya may require that we do that. I know we do many. I think Priya requires that we give serious consideration to it. So, I don't have a problem with that language. It's really just the single cell piece. Correct.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So how does this play into our out of state bid contract? Do we house any I don't believe we Do we house any trans folks out of state?

[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: We have. We don't. I know we

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: We don't currently. We have an ability in process to do it if we felt it was appropriate, but we have them in place sometime.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: Again, expecting Mississippi as a state to abide by the same expectations we do is unfair. And so, I mean, it's just that simple. It has nothing to do with course. I mean, there's some control, but you can't take New England philosophy and stick it in the South and expect it to be successful. It's just not going to be. And so if we're going to house people the best way we should be, that is absolutely one of the factors we look at first. How successful would this be? Oh, we're that successful. Okay, then we don't do it. But we have established since we returned the group of folks some better relationships and communications with folks at ForeCivic. But more intentional. I don't mean anyone was against it. We just have put things in practice. So if we were going to do it, there would absolutely be a conversation between myself and their pre a coordinator. We would absolutely involve the out of state team and we would ensure that we had a comprehensive plan before.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: And it might be based on their request. They have a very long sentence. They want to be there. And then the other thing is by having the ability to do it, avoid anybody claiming for secondary gain because you don't send, so therefore if I say this, you can't send me.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: Well, and we also get, we eliminate the thing of someone who is transgender, who wants to go out of state now feeling like they have to say they're cisgender so they can go out of state. We don't want that. If they choose to do that, that's fine. But we don't want to create a system where they know there's more for them to do out of state and it's more. So they might want to do that and that's okay.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: Well, it's warmer and as you all know, we have facilities that are

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

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: Also makes sense and detained, so a little bit more unstable. I know some of the guys for out of state because everybody down there is doing sentences, and so it's a pretty stable environment. You want folks who are coming in, who are all dysregulated, And I know that for some of the guys out of state, that that is a preference I like to be about other folks who are doing bids, not the guy who's going home next week. Consistent. Consistent, yeah.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: Okay, so let's move on.

[Haley Summer, Director of Communications (Vermont DOC)]: The next comment that we have is actually not addressed in the document. It's something that Josh flagged the other day. Yes. So it's on page four, the lines ten and eleven. Before you go there,

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I just wanna bring it back to when you're housing a person and denying that housing preference. It covers D on page three, but there's also a B on number three at the top of page four, if an inmate raised concerns about their health or safety, the inmate's housing and placement shall be reassessed. That still plays in with taking care of the issue in d.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: Yeah. I don't we don't have any objection to that. That part of current practice, if somebody somebody expresses concerns, we we look at it again.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: The only thing if you wanted to add it is just like PREA requires, our policy says it's that at any point in time, someone is requesting any new accommodations, then they initiate the process and we reassess them at any point in time. So they don't have to have a concern about their health or safety. If they are now saying, I didn't ask for this before, but I would like to ask for

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: this now. They can't at any point in time.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: And sometimes that's just an evolution in their process and their gender identity. But there is absolutely, don't have an objection to be.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: You could just add request in that sentence if you wanted to, like if the inmate requests raises a concern or what like if you want to do that.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So I'm gonna go back to the bottom of page three, lines 19. Any denial of an inmate search or housing preference Pursuant to two like, the subs pursuant to subdivision two. Went away. Say it went away.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: You mean big A? That would make sense.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: No, it's little A. It's talking about no.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Wait, where are you reading? Are you in line nine page three?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Nineteen and twenty.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Wondering if it refers

[Brian Minier (Member)]: to line 10 chair on page Page two.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Yes. It's gross.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: It's going

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: to suggest.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: No, it's not, no, Subdivision 2, of this subsection A. Subdivision 2, okay, that's when you're classifying or assigning an inmate to a facility. And that's when you're doing the search of booking. Okay. Is that denial of the inmate search or housing preference, can the inmate grieve this?

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: Yes. Yes.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: I'm gonna

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: go back to did you find a little way? Yeah.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: Yes. I think any discretionary decision on the department is is grievable. It's kinda the point of the grievance process.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Have you seen grievances being filed in any of One. These

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: We have one now.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: We have one. But I mean, any discretionary decision the department makes gets grieved at some point by somebody. Program entry, program removal, work camp placement, sentence computation. I mean, people grieve a number of decisions we make, and that's kind of why we have the grievance process there. So there can be a more in-depth look, and we make sure all the way up to the commissioner that the department's answer is something that we were willing to support.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: I don't think I'm having trouble finding I mean, we know there were some suits filed. On housing plans? Well, because the person wasn't transgender.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: Right, right, But the terms of appearance is the one.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: Yeah, I can only think of one. I cannot think of

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: But certainly it would be an issue that because it's a decision by the department, a discretionary decision, I would certainly think they would be eligible to grieve it. And then it would ultimately go up to through the process and the commissioner to support or not support the department's decision.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I asked that question purposely so that members can be aware because there is a grievance process within our DOC structure.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: And in that same case where we now have agreements, the person also communicated with prisoners rights who came to us and we explained the decision making. There's prisoners rights is also an option that a resource folks can use. And then we can have an open communication with them around like a little, sometimes a little more expanded because there's certain things we may not want to disclose to the individual especially specific safety issues but we would be able to disclose that potentially to prisoners rights who can then work with the individual.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I just wanted to put that on the table.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: We certainly, I mean, I'd say, I don't think it's a surprise to anybody, not every decision we make in corrections is popular with everyone who's incarcerated. It's true.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: The grievance I can think of is there was an individual at Northern who requested a female specific job. Those don't exist. Didn't know. So I think this was years ago and I think they grieved it and it was obviously denied at the low level because there are no gender jobs. So you can't request a specific, you can't say you're transgender to get a specific job.

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

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: I don't. Why we said no?

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: 4C lines ten and eleven. We were trying to figure out what this language means and how to interpret it and came up with a couple of different ways to read it. I think the one that would be most concerning to me is we do have some cisgender. If a transgender male has a history of physical or sexual violence against women, that does not automatically mean we will not consider putting them in Chittenden. On the other hand, it is certainly something that we want to look at. If somebody has that history of physical or sexual violence against women, we have the safety of our women, our cisgender women, in Chittenden to think of as well. So would C mean that because some cisgender women have a history of physical or sexual violence against other women mean that we couldn't look at that factor or cite that factor in a transgender woman as a reason why we don't think it's appropriate. Say that out again. Okay, so I have a transgender male. Transgender woman? Yes, I'm sorry. Yes, transgender woman who is incarcerated for sexual assault against a woman. That is not an automatic no, but it's certainly something you Because want to we also have some cisgender women who have sexual violence against women, it is therefore a factor present among inmates at the preferred facility. So would that mean I cannot consider or cite that as a reason why not to put that person there? It's infrequent among cisgender women, but we do certainly have some who have sexual and physical violence against women.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: And because I don't want to stick only to conversations about transgender females because it's the real easy one for everyone to talk about, this is popular one in the news. The opposite of that or the other consideration is the inherent belief that men's facilities are more violent and men are more violent and men are predatory and discriminatory. We wouldn't place a transgender male at that facility because they're at a greater risk of being assaulted. So just by nature of the fact that men are violent, like that's not good enough as a reason. So I just want to make sure that when we're thinking about this, we are not just thinking about transgender females and we're considering transgender males as well.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: I just can't, I'm just curious, struggling with what C means and how that would play out in practice.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So this is what I'm thinking in terms of going forward here, There's a lot of moving pieces, language changes. So to help Hillary and to help us, what I would really recommend, I wanna continue with testimony. But what I would really recommend is to have a few people from the committee here, along with a few people from DOC to work directly with Hillary on proposed language changes.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: And that would be

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: a tremendous help. But I wanna continue with the testimony, but there's flags coming up all over the place. And this is gonna be a lot of work to deal with. And speaking of that, I have a question on line six. Page four. The department shall not deny a search or housing placement based on any discriminatory reason. And I have a question here. Who determines and how do you define that? Is the discriminatory reason just a, b, and c, Or it's more than that? Including

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: So I don't think it's just a, and c.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, it's broader than a, b, and c. Agreed.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: Agreed.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And who do we have that terminology in DOC and other places?

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: In ours, would be considered discriminatory to the transgender or gender diverse population and intersex if we allow a thing for the cisgender male or female population, and we're not considering it for the transgender, gender diverse sex population. And what I mean by that is we provide tampons and maxi pads to cisgender females because we have to and we should. We are not going to automatically provide those to transgender females because they do not need them. So, we have to consider all of that. So, it's not that we get to say no to searches. It's that just because you've said you're transgender female, I'm not going to give you tampons and that's because you don't menstruate. That's a medical device for menstruation. So that's what we're looking at in here. So that wouldn't be discriminatory but if we said, well you have a vulva so you can't go to Northwest, that's discriminatory.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: I think to your point though, Chair, I think 6 is pretty wide and without it being defined, I don't know. Certainly, we wouldn't want to make decisions based on race or religion or things like that. Identity statuses, protect identity status, things like that. But it is just sort of pretty wild language.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: I think Priya basically put that in wording to say, all things done just based on genital status is what Priya sort of encapsulates as this sort of bigoted or discriminatory approach. So a lot of times in Priya what you see is you cannot make decisions based solely on genital status. You have to be comprehensive in your planning. That's sort of the way I read five and six. And at least that's what our policy encapsulates.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: Yeah, and certainly, I mean, totally aligns with seven, eight, and we would certainly have no objection to nine as well. We shouldn't be making decisions based on, know, what was sexual orientation.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: Yeah, it's just totally get why it's in here, and we agree. It feels a little

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

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: Disconnected to I other think that needs

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I would flag it. That needs some clarity.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: To return to the subject of lines ten and eleven, was the discussion that the intent wasn't understood or that it could be more broadly interpreted or misused?

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: Both. I

[Brian Minier (Member)]: shouldn't assume, but I'm assuming intent is prejudice on the part of other inmates should not determine where the person is placed. I assume. Can't speak Well, with

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: can't. And intent only goes so far when things end up in court, as they sometimes do. The court interprets the language of the bill or the language of the statute and whatever anybody's intent was. We certainly run into that challenge in the past sometimes when intent isn't clearly reflected.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: And so is like a broader floating concern about its misuse or is there a specific example that

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: you should think I think that example around physical and sexual violence is a very specific one that I would have concerns about, although I'm sure there could be others, but that's the one that comes most sharply to mind.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: Well, then what is a factor? Because if somebody to me, if somebody wanted to read this from a discriminatory lens, an answer could be, I have this, you have that, so we can deny this because you don't have that. So you don't align or vice versa. So like, I think that's where we were concerned. When you say a factor, what does that mean? Is it the violence? Is it genital status? Is it I don't know.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well,

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: I suppose if you were to I've got a transgender woman who has killed another woman. If I have any female murderers in Chittenden, does that mean I can't look at that factor or cite that factor of the denial? I don't know that that's where I don't think that's where I would want to go. It's certainly a factor I'd want to consider.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's why I want a group of folks from here, with you folks, with Hillary to work it through.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: We keep putting a lot of heavy lifting on Hillary over it. You missed the whole first half of this. It was all about Hillary too.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I already have three people on mind here.

[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: I truly am,

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: because well written bills

[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: are what makes me happy. So I'm delighted to have the

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: chairs to be clearer. And

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: I will say the language is hard. I mean, we struggled with our policy language. Kathy, Ben and I were all involved with that, with our policy language and intent and meaning and how do you explain it in policies easier to change than statute. But language in this area is really hard.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: Well, and clearly what came out of testimony is knowing that we already have a lot of this stuff in practice is then really helpful because then when you're making your bill, it's about ensuring that we're following that practice and that the principles are covered, but we're able to do the things we need to do to house people fast. I think that at least it seemed like from the last testimony that that was really helpful because when you think we're not doing anything, then you have to start from scratch and put it all in. And we are definitely committed to not having you have to do that.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Let's keep moving on. We flagged this one.

[Haley Summer, Director of Communications (Vermont DOC)]: The last thing that we wanted to address, and this really is a thing for alleged counsel. I also apologize because I'm realizing now that on the document we provided, it references page six, but it's actually on page five. Well, starts on page five. So, it's with regards to the section that some of the new language about the intake and classification process it's outlined in. So it's included in section or 28 BSA eight zero one, which pertains to medical care of inmates. And the language that was added pertaining to classification intake of incarcerated people, which actually is on page six, is not pertaining to medical care of incarcerated people. So I don't think that that's an appropriate section for that language to be in. It could probably, and affirmative inquiry, be placed in the

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: Under seven zero one, under the classification, not under eight zero one.

[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: I raised a similar concern during the walkthrough that makes a lot of sense to me. And I think from Professor earlier, rethinking which sections and whether a new section or different section makes sense to outline what's happening at intake, what's happening generally, might be a better way to fix some

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: of the concerns folks have raised.

[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: And putting that in an intake section separate from medical care would make a lot of sense.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: And I do think on line 15, again, if you want it to be put in there, because it says each MH shall be given a physical assessment. I do think if you're going to reference a physical assessment, it would be a not bad idea to be clear that that physical assessment is not to determine general sex.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: And that's existing. I mean, that's not proposed. That's existing language. We do that.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: Well, But this one is specific to medical and our policy is for our whole thing and I think if you're gonna say that, but again absolutely medical should conduct a physical assessment but not for the purposes of determining genital status. But

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: existing that law is that they'll do a physical assessment for folks and it should be.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: Think this goes back to the comment around cultural competency, but medical should be evaluating the specific physical needs for someone who is transgender or gender diverse and they have specific medical needs connected to surgery or not surgery or whatever.

[Haley Summer, Director of Communications (Vermont DOC)]: That was really the only thing there. I know that last week Doctor. Euler had raised some concerns around the language of cultural competency. I know he's also not here today. Don't know if there was anything that you wanted to add, Doctor. Richards, with regards to that language or if that's a conversation that we have on a later day.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And that there is a definition of it. Refers to, if you go to page seven, there is a definition that we're including here, but it's the definition of cultural competencies in 18 BSA. Yes. 51. So we need to see what that definition is, then how it applies to you both.

[Dr. Allison Richards, Director of Psychiatry (Wellpath)]: I think I should look

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: at

[Dr. Allison Richards, Director of Psychiatry (Wellpath)]: that definition. I think Doctor. Was kind of alluding to we're

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: all

[Dr. Allison Richards, Director of Psychiatry (Wellpath)]: we try to have all of our staff be as culturally competent as possible, but depending on the definition, his analogy was kind of, but not everyone can be a cardiologist. We can all provide a level of medical care, vital signs, a general overview and be confident to get the patient to the right level of care. I may be misspeaking for what he was saying, but it was not everyone can be a cardiologist. Expect everyone to be that level of expertise. But maybe offline we look at the definition. I don't know if it's possible for me since it's under the medical. Is it okay for me to bring up just another question around during the on page six, during the intake and classification process, it's 3A and it says, and in a private setting, is that the department versus like, the medical staff even though it's under medical?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, it's under medical.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: I think that's part of the we're figuring out where that goes.

[Dr. Allison Richards, Director of Psychiatry (Wellpath)]: Okay. Yeah. Sometimes it's difficult.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: In fact,

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: we actually have more privacy than than we do generally in terms of that sort of stuff

[Dr. Allison Richards, Director of Psychiatry (Wellpath)]: I just wanted to bring up like sometimes privacy, depending on the patient is not really possible if someone's very psychotic or manic or in an acute agitated state, and it's just not possible for safety reasons. I don't know if there are other qualifiers that it would allow it, but sometimes it's just not safe for anyone to do that. We always try to respect privacy, but sometimes there are other issues going on. It does say like in a private setting, and I wasn't sure that's always possible due to safety. Sometimes you have to have two guards in the room with you or at the door.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: Yeah, well, and where we balance that is we don't want to deny somebody access to care because they're not being safe. So sometimes you sacrifice privacy so you can give somebody care even though they're not being safe.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: I know there's language in PREA and I believe what it says is as private a setting as possible. And again, in PREA that language was there because when someone comes in on intake, you can't stand in the main area of intake and ask them, are you gay? Because you're now outing them to everyone in intake. At that point, if you have somebody in a segregation cell on intake because they've come in under the influence and that's where they need to be, You may have mental health meeting with them and that's not private because for them to be able to hear you're talking quite loud. But that is as private as you can get as safely allowable.

[Dr. Allison Richards, Director of Psychiatry (Wellpath)]: And that makes sense, like just maybe even changing it to as private as possible or whatever the pre language is matching the language.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: Doctor.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Richards, I want dig a little deeper into the we're not all cardiologists analogy as it pertains to the cultural competency we're asking for with regard to trans care. Certainly, despite the fact that you're not all cardiologists, you will have incarcerated patients who need a cardiologist. Similarly, we are going to have incarcerated trans identified folks who need trans specific medical care. So

[Dr. Allison Richards, Director of Psychiatry (Wellpath)]: that's thoughts on that? Yeah, yeah. Think just if you I know apologies for sending the policy out. I wanted to make sure I dotted i's and crossed t's before I was releasing that. But I think what we're what our approach and with the department is really to try to instill that level of cultural competency for all staff. As I mentioned just briefly, and I know some people couldn't hear me well last time, that this week we're doing mandatory trainings for all healthcare staff. So even dental assistants, everyone is required to attend a gender affirming care hour long training to set the stage for everyone. That it's around pronoun usage, it's around respect, So it's I think we're embarking on that combined with the policy. If anyone wants gender affirming care, we direct them through to our committee and to the right people who have experience and expertise. That we do have a cardiologist, a WPATH mentor that's working with us.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Despite the factor, in addition to the fact and I'm glad to hear that you're doing that sort of training that's still a generalized training. That's still we should use pronouns that have been indicated to be preferred. That's a baseline. On top of that, there are going to be very specific physical and mental health needs for trans identified people. And we should have specialists for those needs. That's what I want to make sure is in here.

[Dr. Allison Richards, Director of Psychiatry (Wellpath)]: Yes. And that's I mean, we do have a special so I think there's the general tier for everyone. We sent several members last year to a WPATH. It was a workshop. It was mental health professionals and one of the medical team, myself and Brian Castle, the director. And then we just recently have hired and have a contract with Doctor. Brandy Brown, who has her own company in Maine, but she's I think it's Transform and Rise Up. And she's a doctorate of social work and is an expert, a certified WPATH, I think it's GEI-eight mentor. And we have just started working with her. So for example, someone I think we're getting much we're strong on the basics. If someone comes in from the community, identifies as trans, we get their records, we continue hormones. We have a committee to address requests, surgical requests, whatever the requests are, we collaborate with the DOC and we run that committee monthly. What we've done to take it to that level, I guess, of expertise is to work with Brandy Brown. On more complicated cases, I mean, any case I've worked on in corrections, there tend to be some of the more extreme cases that are complicated, but we are using her both as a consultant to meet with patients specifically to work on the treatment plan because she has that level of expertise. We're also starting to utilize her for the team and that we're starting at the women's facility to have them do case presentations to her and have her also teach them to be experts in the diagnosis of gender dysphoria, co occurring diagnoses. Those are all sort of in the works and happening. And I really think that that is the next step and or sending more of our staff to certain trainings to get them that level of expertise, if we need to do that. I mean, I think she's an excellent resource and certainly an expert.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: So I guess to your point, any medical person should be able to identify somebody who's potentially in cardiac arrest, child

[Brian Minier (Member)]: or cardiac

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: distress as a baseline. And if somebody needs a cardiologist, that expert level of care, we also should have access to that. And sort of the same thing regarding trans care. That would make sense to me.

[Dr. Allison Richards, Director of Psychiatry (Wellpath)]: Well, and I was just going say the other thing we've done. I've been in contact with the community health center. They're much easier to reach their gender affirming care experts. Doctor. Natalie Antosh is really responsive. Jacqueline Rose helped connect me with her and so I can reach out to her and we have a lot of patients we share in common and so we try to be on the same page about our patient care and coordination of care.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So that leads me to page six, lines 13 through 16. Now, this is within the medical care arena. Where folks who consistently fail to use the proper pronouns, there would be verbal and written communication. Now that's within the medical field. But we don't address this within the day to day operations of DOC with line staff.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: So we do. I suspect this piece may just I be the wrong think it's in the wrong section. Think this is another

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Bill doesn't. Now, when we took initial testimony for this, it was indicated that this is brought up at roll call.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: It can't be on roll call. I mean, it's part of initial training at the academy. I was the chief of security when we first changed policy on this a decade ago, and it was conversations with staff, it was training, it was follow-up with staff. The biggest problem I had with staff was they were upset that they messed it up, and I would have staff on my desk show up in my office like, I said the wrong thing. Great. Perfect. Thank you for and we'll work on that. But yeah, If our policy folks are required to use the honorific and the pronouns specified. And if somebody were to consistently refuse to do that, they're in violation of policy. That's a potential disciplinary issue. We have a process for that as we would for any other policy violation. But to your point, Chair, yeah, it's in the wrong section here.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It should be in both.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: It could be in both.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Shouldn't just be medical.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: Four different trainings that I can think of at the Academy of Color. And additionally, if a person did it repeated and repeated in Priya does not mean if I say it to MJ 10 times, it's repeated. If I say it to MJ and I say it to Kathy, that can be repeated. And so that would be defined as sexual harassment under PREA. So we also have then a different set of requirements that we would have to follow for that. Because in the staff definition of sexual harassment, gender is included in the incarcerated individual definition, it is not. Now that does not mean that it's okay. It just means it's not then sexual harassment from your career. So what happens and someone said this in testimony last time and I didn't hug you because I can't. PREA violation is not a real thing. I mean, the only people actually who can violate PREA are people in this room. So we don't use terms. Well, people do use those terms in the institutions and we work very hard to have them stop using those terms. It's sexual abuse or sexual harassment. So oftentimes what happens is people think something's a PREA violation or they want to make it a PREA violation because they think it has more weight. I understand why it feels that way because there are certain requirements timeframes, so we might handle things differently. But it doesn't have to be a pre op violation for us to do something. So if we had an incarcerated individual intentionally engendering someone, there's discipline for it and there's a process we would follow. If it was a staff person, and again, it would have to be repeated because that's a word that's used in PREA, then it would then be considered sexual harassment under PREA. And then while it's also misconduct, it would also be a violation of the federal pariah standards.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: And that would apply to any other derogatory behavior toward an incarcerated individual. If I had a staff member who was calling folks pejorative names, that would be a policy and training violation and they'd be subject to discipline.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: And I know it was said in the last testimony, someone made a comment about someone's voice being deep. And so one of the things we have to be clear on is, right before the last testimony, I had been in the hardware store dressed like I'm dressed and I had my Irish cap on and a gentleman said, Why don't you take this person and I'll take this gentleman referring to me? And then he did the, Oh, I'm so sorry. And I was like, whatever, like, I'm at the heart, like, don't care. And so we have to be clear around, again, we are a male dominated world, people say things, we use the term, we say he all the time when we're talking about people. And we have to be clear about when is it discrimination? And when is it just bad practice? And so while I can appreciate not wanting to hear something about my voice being deep, if a person was, if I'm a cisgender female with a deep voice and someone comments about my voice being deep, is that discrimination? No. So we might coach the person around, okay, when you're commenting on the depth of someone's voice, you may not know it, but you are ascribing certain expectations you may not want to put in there. So just be mindful that that language is going to maybe have you not have friends. But it's not necessarily discrimination. And so being really clear about those things, because it doesn't have to be discrimination to be bad, or bad practice. And we're going to address those things no matter you know, what as best as we can. We get a lot of different opinions in there.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yes, we do. So anything else?

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: I feel like that was enough. Don't care. It's enough. I feel

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: like we covered the deck. Got a lot of work.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: I'd like to offer a moment of appreciation for the Josh Jen dynamic. Yeah. Well,

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: they're gonna keep going.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Finish each other's thoughts. You sometimes argue, but it's very compelling testimony. And I don't feel like we're getting spun at all. It feels like a good partnership. Just wanna say that.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: You manage

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: to Well, be no, that is awesome. But I mean, we're both on committees together and we are going to disagree. We should. The That's point of having a multidisciplinary committee is to have different points of view and perspective. Jen comes from one perspective. That's both her role and her experience, and I come from a different one. That's why we work together and why we work together well, is to balance some of those things. And we've been working together for a minute.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: A minute.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: It feels like you bring a lot of compassion to the work, I want to say so. That's appreciated.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I've got two things. One, I got more than two things, but we've gotta have another draft of this. Mhmm. But before we get there, I I would like to have your policy directives in terms of this issue sent to us. I think it's really important for committee members to read this. This comes from headquarters of WellPath in order in terms of how they deal with the transgender population in the medical field, which I think is important for folks to read this to understand this. And then to go forward, get new language to help Hillary, I'd like three members of the committee to sit down with Hillary, along with you folks from DOC. I would like Gina, Brian and Troy to sit down and go through the changes that we've talked about here and really look at the language of the whole bill because we haven't read much. And I don't wanna worry about the intent language of It's the statute chance to really get this in a good form. So that could happen.

[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: I might suggest in terms of process, have been enough suggested changes this morning that I think preparing a new draft for that group of three to discuss

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: might be Well, there's more that you missed.

[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: I am glad to know that that is not the case. Think my suggestion is that I prepare an amendment that covers we discussed this morning, and that that will

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: be the most useful thing for the group of

[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: three to review. And then we've other issues. But I think that might be an efficient way to move forward.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: And I would just flag for the committee in terms of the WellPath policy, and we enjoy working with WellPath, Doctor. Richard, don't take this wrong, we change medical contractors So while that is certainly the policy of our current medical contractor, historically we're on the seventh or eighth that I recall. So those do change. We have to put that out for RFP periodically. That is relevant now, but not

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: One of the big changes we did, Hillary, was at the very beginning, which you've missed, which was It's all on YouTube. It's all on YouTube, which deals with the search and the person is being searched on page three, b, and c. That needs to be broken out in terms of what happens at booking and then what happens after the strategic team. So that has to be really addressed.

[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: And just confirming that as I'm working with the group of three on the draft language, We can touch base with folks here. Well, DOC should be part of that group. Should

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: be five of you working with Hillary for that. Other thing I want to broach do. The the other thing I wanna broach is his interest in codifying Priya here in Vermont. And I haven't looked at this. I got an email from Haley. I don't know if it was late last night or this morning about some possible statute that we could do. It's based on Connecticut. I quickly opened it up this morning and I said, well, I'm gonna wait until we get the committee. But if people are interested

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: in codifying PREA, which might be a really smart move, we should also include that in the next draft, if possible. I actually have an intern just researching the different states. I think five states are working on it or have done it. So he was just going compile something. Maybe we could send to you, Hillary, to take a look at that. Because I think if you codified Priya in its entirety, it would be voluminous, right?

[Dr. Allison Richards, Director of Psychiatry (Wellpath)]: No, we don't

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: want to.

[Haley Summer, Director of Communications (Vermont DOC)]: I was going to

[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: say, the ability to include it in a timely next draft depends on what we're saying

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: in codifying Priya. So since Priya is in my title, I have some care. After the conversation, I was thrilled with the interest and also weary because how do you do that and have it be manageable and achievable? And what you got sent was Connecticut's proposed bill. I did not read it with a fine tooth comb, but I read it and the opening statement I was like, oh, well, that's how. So basically what they wrote is, we're gonna follow Priya and these things that it requires. So if Priya changes, all of the main subjects are in there. And it's all of the essentially what I call the special interest topics, that you will consider how you house transgender people that you will respond to sexual abuse. So what it does is it identifies the what and not the how, because what cannot happen and you see this if you read Priya, Priya doesn't tell you the how, that's what the standards did. The PRIA was passed in 'three, we didn't get standards and measures until 2014 because it took that long for a ton of people to get them together. So again, I'm not saying this is the one that like is the best of all because I haven't read others but it was a great idea of oh okay I see how you went about it. Where it just basically says we agree that these things that Priya identified are important too.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: Would fortified the standard to the statute, I think would be both difficult and time consuming, but overly restrictive and prescriptive in a way that would be problematic.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So I just forwarded to the committee an email what Haley sent last evening, it was yesterday, so it was during the evening, the proposed bill in Connecticut. And I just sent that to Hillary as well. So that could be a good starting point for folks possibly.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: And Jen definitely gets the hot seat for that. I don't even have to be here.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But you can talk with Hillary, you five, to see how we can incorporate it possibly in the next draft.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: And in case it needs to be said, the department has no intent on changing anything. And again, nothing has changed as far as the standards are concerned, they're still there. And so as far as if there's any concern that all of a sudden we're like, we're good, that's not the agency's direction, it's not the department's direction. We are still committed to ensuring that folks are safe from sexual.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: Some of us were talking the other day, who started before PREA was law, and the change in culture. Vermont, maybe not as much as some states, but corrections culture changed with PREA, that was a good, positive, important overdue change.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: When did PREA come in?

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: Law itself was 2003. Then the statute, the standards didn't come out still some years later, but the law itself was 2003.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Anybody So were dealing with it in the late nineties. Oh. We had legislation that were dealing with sexual assault with power structure of our facilities. There is no consent. We were dealing with that in the late nineties in this committee. So that was pre pre

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: pre pre Yeah.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: Well, that's that's what drove pre I That's what the Prison Rates Commission and the testimony came from advocate communities because folks were getting released from institutions and talking about the sexual violence that they encountered. Then those advocacy groups, A. A. And religious communities are the ones that brought it forward to DC saying this is a problem. And then the corrections administrators said, wait a second, we agreed. We just didn't know what to do. Now that you're saying you also agree it's important, you want to be at the table. And so they're like, I don't know all the states, but as many states as I can think of all were participating in the drafting of the standards and working on that final rule to make sure that it worked just like we did today so that it was achievable. So we agree.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Anything else before we take a break here? Because we've been in quite a while. So Gina and Brian and Troy and Josh and Ben, figure out when we can sit down with Hillary or reschedule? Or maybe next week. Oh, we're away. Especially

[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: if we are at the free, will not be frightening.

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: To touch on Well, if

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: you I think you're scheduled for Friday. Right? Are you scheduled? I've got to look I

[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: don't believe I'm scheduled to be here on Friday.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Right. I'm just wondering, even if we could get no, you're not. Yes, you are. I don't know. Even preliminary draft that does not include Korea, would that be possible?

[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: Not by Friday morning.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Not by Friday morning? No. Not by Thursday. I got a.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: Yeah. Don't do it by Friday. But if can do it by Thursday, that'd be great.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Maybe you could. Maybe there might be time to sit down with Hillary prior to our town meeting break. I'm not sure if there would be or not. If you could sit down with Hillary and go through some other changes, would that work

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: If the group of three

[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: is available on Friday

[Jen (PREA Coordinator, Vermont DOC)]: afternoon, schedule is.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, we're not working. We have something Friday afternoon at about twelve that won't last more than half an hour, forty five minutes. So I don't I'd leave it It'd be great if

[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: That's something unedited for us to discuss at that point.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Right. It would be great if because if we get this bill out, we only have the week we have coming back from town meeting. So it'd be great if the three of you and the two folks could meet Friday afternoon with Hillary just to go through that rough draft so that at least we have something put together when we come back the week after. I was gonna say the week after Thanksgiving, the week after town meeting.

[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: Draft this to the pre addition for about next week, maybe on Monday.

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: Depending on how much work

[Hillary (Legislative Counsel)]: that will take, but we need to make a decision about what's feasible. But that timing, that works for folks.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. I'll let you five figure it out with Hillary for when you wanna meet on Friday. K? So I'm just trying to move this along. So when we come back the week the week we come back after town meeting, we gotta get the bills out. And we got some work ahead of us. I'm trying to get as much in place as we can this week. So we don't have to work late nights. We could come back as we might make crossover. So anything else before we take a break, shift gears?

[Josh Rutland, Facilities Division Deputy Director (Vermont DOC)]: We appreciate being at the table and able to offer input. I should like to work on this issue. It's important to us as well, but the specifics about it.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We appreciate you being here, being willing to work through this. Because I know sometimes this topic can be really uncomfortable for folks, and it's a real learning experience also for many. We appreciate the dignity that you bring to the conversation. I appreciate that. Anything else before we go off of YouTube? So go off YouTube. Let's take a five minute break and come back, and we'll be