Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Folks. This is House Corrections and Institutions. It is Wednesday, February 25. We are now working on House Bill two ninety four. And we're gonna be really looking more at the telecommunications piece, I believe, than the commissary. But we'll see where we go as a committee. So we have our legal counsel, John Gray, with us to re appoint us with the bill. So John, it's all yours.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you, guys. Good morning. I am John Gray, Office of Legislative Council. This is a bill that we walked through last year, so this is probably just gonna be to reorient, but I will try to right size my window and then screen share with you.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: believe I gave a copy last week, h two ninety four. That's just one. Yes, exactly. Yep. Okay, here we go. H two ninety four, this is the bill as introduced. So this is to provide communication services at no expense for an evaluation of particular contracts. It required that incarcerated individuals receive at least federal minimum wage. But as the chair discussed, I think you're focusing on the public communications piece.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: No. I think Troy wants us to also talk about the minimum wage.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So section one, or at the bottom of page one, is amending your existing section in title 28. So title 28, section 802A, to address this no cost for communication services. So starting on page two, we have the actual substantive edits. Under existing law, upon admittance to a correctional facility, the inmate shall within twenty four hours be allowed access to a telephone for outgoing telephone calls at the expense of the inmate. This bill proposes, as you see on lines two and three, to change that to at no expense to the inmate. And it's essentially the same change throughout the subsections that you see here. The section speaks to the different call systems, debit, calling collect, and placing these charges onto the inmate, and then you're just gonna see in each instance an update to remove those charges. So under subsection b, an inmate shall be allowed easy access in placing telephone calls at no expense as opposed to in placing collect calls on admission to a correctional facility under reasonable conditions determined by the commissioner, unless the inmate has been prohibited for breach of rules and regulations.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So I'm gonna ask a question of Haley. I know that you're the only one from DOC here. But when it says upon admittance to a correctional facility, upon admission to a correctional facility, that means that for right?

[Haley (Department of Corrections Representative)]: Yes. I think upon intake would be more consistent with the operational language that we use in our policies, but that is the way that I'm interpreting it.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah, that's what I'm just kind of So what is the process now for when a person at intake and booking for them, they are they allowed a a phone call at no expense at all right now?

[Haley (Department of Corrections Representative)]: I am not familiar with what it looks like on ground, the but I can ask our operational folks and they will probably respond to me

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: pretty quickly. Just specific to the phone call piece and whether that's provided. Right. I mean, I just, again, wanna take this step by step for folks.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I would assume they would be allowed a call at no expense to legal counsel if they have it. Or a family member to let them know that they're incarcerated?

[Haley (Department of Corrections Representative)]: Any call that someone makes legal counsel, we do have those attorney lines that are free. So any call that someone makes is at no cost to the incarcerated person. I can't speak to whether that's true for a family member directly upon intake.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So that's what I will confirm.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: A and B should, instead of upon admittance, be upon intake. And I'm sorry. Thought that was a water.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: That's that's the lie.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Or egg night. You're good. Okay. Is that a common

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: subseason. Right.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: K. I just wanted to clarify that language. So if we work on this, then that should be changed to upon intake. Mhmm.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sounds good. Just to confirm, we're we're

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So what is the difference between a and b? I mean, there's a is talking about within twenty four hours. So I'm assuming that's booking. And and what what's the difference with B? Is that after they've been brought into general population?

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So A is speaking to within twenty four hours offered currently under existing law at the expense of the inmate. And B is saying you get easy access. And then it's saying, but if you've reached particular rules, you're not extended this privilege.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So it says upon admission. So does that still mean?

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But this would be ongoing. A speaks to just the twenty four hour period. B is saying allowed easy access upon admission. It doesn't stipulate that it expires after twenty four hours.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So it's ongoing.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You have easy access to placing calls, but if you violate rules, you may be losing that privilege. That's the way that I read b.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's we don't use the term upon admission anymore. That's what's kind of throwing me. So a is in a is booking, and b is once you're in the facility for a while. It's just the upon admission just really throws me in terms of how it gets interpreted.

[Haley (Department of Corrections Representative)]: And to answer your earlier question, Chair, individuals are provided a call upon intake. It is a collect call, so it's at no expense to them, but it is at an expense to the recipient. So that would be their family or loved ones, whoever they choose

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to make that call to.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So, by changing the language in line two and three doesn't change the practice? That's accurate. Because there's no charge to the inmate. They're just calling collect. So, upon intake, at booking, when someone's brought in, they can make they're allowed to make a phone call within twenty four hours. And right now, they can call, and the call is collect

[Haley (Department of Corrections Representative)]: Yes.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Whomever they're calling. So by putting in no expense to the inmate doesn't change anything. Not

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I would offer that it should be read in conjunction with subsection d, which speaks to the award of contracts, which say that the costs can't be passed along to families. Are you charged or something, You could also extend that same language to subsection a if you wanted to, but we'll get to that. But I think if you read a and d together, you wouldn't be passing a lot of charges.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But is there a contract to provide that telephone intake?

[Haley (Department of Corrections Representative)]: That is not the contract I think that this legislation is in reference to. It's not the same as IC Solutions. It's a physical line instead of the tablets.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Booking. Yeah. So it's not so it's not part of the contract? Yes. So that then makes it not connected to d. Right? Because it's any contract to provide telephone or telephone services.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Yeah. If not contracting for what happens in a, then I agree. So

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: the proposed language in a doesn't change current practice. Okay? It's not an expense to the person coming in. They are allowed to call, but it's a collect call.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But it does change what's permissible under law. So it may not change what happens if they're not currently charging the inmate, but it does prohibit them from changing their practices to charge to be. It does have a meaningful legal effect. But I thought I understood the intent of the bill, I think, to be that there should be no onus upon the inmate or their network of support, whether that's family or whoever, in which case we do want to change it to free of charge, do we not, as opposed to let's just put the burden on somebody other than the inmate? Right.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, if it's free of charge to the inmate, they can still call collect.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. But I thought the intent of the bill was to avoid that charge by someone else too, in which case you need to put in free of charge as opposed to just free the inmate. You would just add the language in subsection d to a, where it says no cost to inmates, to their families, and to others communicating with inmates. Because that would be the sponsor's intent.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So that's a policy decision that we need to make. K? That makes sense to folks? Mhmm. I see a lot of blank stares sometimes, so I just don't know how to interpret that. Okay. Okay.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I readily accept the blank stares.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Oh, it's not

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: even Oh my god.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Aren't we really trying to say that the DLC is gonna pick up the charge? Isn't that a simpler way of saying it?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Hence legalese. It's understandable.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: We start listing all the people who aren't gonna have to pick up the expense, it's easier to just say who is picking up the expenses. But is there a

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: cap on this, or is it a Yeah.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: So one call.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So, Hailey, upon when they're in booking, how many phone how many calls do they allow? Do you know?

[Haley (Department of Corrections Representative)]: High to check.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Booking is very different than once they're within the facility as a sentenced or detainee. Okay? When they become part of the facility as a sentenced person or detainee, DOC works through with the inmate in terms of a list of folks that they can have access to. There are folks that they deny access for security reasons, for protection of the victim, that type of thing. But upon when they're at intake, are they allowed one phone call, or are they allowed two or three phone calls?

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The current record is already plural, right? Yep. It's at least sufficiently capacious to capture that if that's what they're doing, but it may be that they only access it once.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Need clarity in terms of what the practice is for DOC. Okay. And I would like, I don't know, line five saying upon admission, is there a better way of stating this? We're talking about folks who are detained or sentenced folks. It's not upon admission, right?

[Haley (Department of Corrections Representative)]: I think there are a few ways that you could say it. And I'm not sure whether it is addressed consistently in statute, I would assume perhaps not, but something along the lines of upon it, if you're during the booking process that would be consistent with what we use in operational language.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But that would be for A. B is going forward when the person is detained or sentenced. Yes. Again, it says upon admission.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Do you just wanna say an inmate shall be allowed easy access, placing telephone calls at no expense within a correctional facility under reasonable condition. Within? Just you don't need to have a temporal call out if you're just saying when Yeah. You're

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. So you take out upon admission. That that term just really bothers me, it looks like.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Let's keep going. Subsection c. So existing law is when an inmate requests and receives a list of parties approved to receive telephone calls, the inmate shall be provided the option of using a debit or collect call system to place such calls, and under the debit system, pay at the time of use, automatically deducted from an account maintained by the inmate for that purpose. The update here is when an inmate request and receives a list of parties approved to receive those calls, inmate shall be provided a system to place such calls at no expense to the inmate. Same substantive thing here. Do you need to carry over the language from D again to make clear that it's

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: not gonna be charged to it? If that is

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the Yeah. Right.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So it's a policy decision that we have not made yet in terms of whether or not, and then we pay for the phone calls. We have not made that policy decision. That's what the bill language is indicating, but we have not made that policy decision as a committee.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Subsection d, which we've already talked a little bit about, but any contract to provide telephone or other, which will come to an e, or other communication services inmates in state correctional facilities shall be negotiated and awarded in a manner that provides for no cost to inmates, to their families, and to others communicating with inmates. That last set of call outs, inmates, families, others communicating with inmates is what's being proposed to be potentially added. Proposal for a and c, just to clarify, no expense to inmate would also extend to the parts to which they're communicating. Subsection e, the department may supplement telephone use with other communication services, including video and electronic communication services, provided that any other communication services shall be offered at no expense to the inmate. Same concern would apply to this final callout. But subsection e is adding, you can use other communication services. If you do, don't subject those to charges as well.

[Haley (Department of Corrections Representative)]: And to answer your earlier question, Cher, during the booking process, it's generally limited to one call. It's not prescribed. So if an individual is trying to reach someone and they don't, it will, of course, provide them another opportunity to do so. But just given the activity that takes place in the booking area, we're not able to accommodate unlimited phone calls for people.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So I'm just trying to figure out where to go from here. We did have this document from DOC. I feel like I'm flying this by myself right now. And it talks about the call volume and calculating if DOC's to restore the call fees, what DOC's incorporate is projecting is about 406,000 a year to cover phone and video calls. That's what they're projecting.

[Haley (Department of Corrections Representative)]: That is the projection based on current call volume, Although based on what has been seen in other states, once they've made unlimited phone and video calls available, those costs go up quite astronomically as individuals are making more phone calls and video calls

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: with that option.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: What's the committee thinking? General or specifically? Telecommunications. Shawn?

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: I remember last time when we were talking to John about this, weren't we gonna put some kind of cap on this so that it wouldn't go crazy? And I think that Hailey, you might've mentioned something about that, but I just kind of think, do we want to write that in so it doesn't become a million dollars?

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Yes. Do we have consensus within the committee on what we're trying to accomplish?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's what I'm trying to find out. Oh, John. Then, I mean, not John. Conor.

[Conor Casey (Member)]: Oh, okay.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And then

[Conor Casey (Member)]: James. I'm interested in moving forward. I think the research we saw was compelling there. And mostly, this is gonna be a targeted tax on a select group of people if we stick with the status quo and the taxes on the inmates, families and loved ones there who committed no crime. But they're trying to keep a connection with somebody who's incarcerated. And by keeping that connection, it's going to reduce recidivism. It's going to make for a more pleasant environment as prison can be there for the people in it. It's going be better for staff, going to be better for inmates. And yeah, the people who are suffering right now are the inmates, families and loved ones there. So by taking that out of consideration, don't know if I do support a cap there. Because it sounds like the more interaction they have with, could be children, could be spouses, that's a good thing and ultimately something we should be working towards.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: James? Much more conflicted than I was last time we even looked at this. I think of my six years upstairs in human services and the services we provide to people. And then I'm in a hallway and I'm talking to Luneau and the cuts that they're facing for services they're providing to people and the budgetary issues and the fact that Vermonters are tapped out. And I'm like, how much more money can we spend and where do we start looking at being more pragmatic in our money? And it's not that I disagree with the value either, but I'm starting to find myself trying to weigh these things. I'm listening about adoptive parents getting their budgets cut and I'm like, where's the money coming from? And so you start weighing all these things. But again, I spent six years dealing with this stuff and it's become more of an issue to me in the last couple weeks than I wish it to be. But I'm struggling with the financial side

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of the fact that we have no money.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Other folks? Joe?

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: We touched on this, I don't know, sometime in the last couple of weeks, but I think there's some opportunity to redivert the commissary commission revenue stream to supplement telecommunications at some level. So it appears as though the people paying the the commissary commissions are getting very poor value for for for those commissions. It's a in practice right now, it's it's all beaten up by the by the rec director payrolls that are getting, you know, crumbs after that.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So you're saying the proceeds from the commissary could go to offset the cost?

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: In art, that's what I was thinking.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Ms. Fad? Mary? My concern

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: with this, and I've altered the communication, but I'm wondering if we should start this, like, a year to see what actually comes from it. Because just like when we did the map program, that went right through the roof, and that was not the intention when we did it. And I'm a little bit concerned about this taking a bit of that direction. I'm all in favor of it, and I appreciate the fact that folks think that recidivism and that is lessened or that, but we really don't have any factual data that shows that. Would love to see something that actually codified those kinds of statements, but I think, to begin with, I would want to see possibly some kind of cap, and I don't know what that looks like, but I am very concerned with other programs we've started that have just escalated off the charts.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Other folks? Yeah. Will?

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: I thought one of the things that we potentially I guess, kinda building on Mary's point about about, you know, just not letting it blow out of proportions from what we're expecting it to be because it is gonna be volatile since we don't know what the call volume be like. But I thought that we were discussing potentially just doing the phone, but back to the telephone and not the video calls? And could that because the way I read that language a second ago, that was all included together. Is I wrong on that, anyway?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Here it says 405,000 per phone and video And video.

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: Yeah, so it was included though. But I thought we said we might potentially separate it and test out just the comfort. And then if it's stable, it's financially solvent, then expanding over to the video. I'm

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: not remembering the contract. Will, is it meaningfully different, the charge for a video It is different. It is has

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: been documented. Is the calls are 2¢ a minute. Is that 2¢ or 2 tenths a Yeah. 2¢ a minute. The tablet messaging is 25¢ a a message. The tablet video is 16¢ a minute. And voice messaging is 25¢ a minute. So the phone calling is 2¢ a minute. So that 405,000 plus is based on current usage, and it is based on both phone call and video for that. You can go to your document here.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, just for a marker, I think the testimony on the federal government suggested that in Massachusetts, it went up to about double of what it was.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: At least, it's human nature. Can you go out in the cafeteria in the morning with a free copy and presents? Okay, there's a line for the free copy.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, I get it now. Don't believe when I'm buying the coffee, the evidence actually says twice.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So the call volume between November 1, January 31 of this year, which is roughly a quarter, for minutes for phone calls was the cost was 82,383, and video calls was 18,900. There were less video calls than there were phone calls. The bulk was phone. What's the average length of time? Do you know, Haley, of folks who stand on off?

[Haley (Department of Corrections Representative)]: I don't off the top of my head, but I believe we could pull that.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So I was at ten minutes, five minutes, half So an

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: I can be about half real quick with Yes. This.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Oh, it has $161,161 $6.33, and it was 1.7.

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: The average phone call is almost eleven, I guess.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Out of 10. Thoughts?

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I've already talked, but I'm just thinking back to Joe Luneau's point about commissary. And nobody's certain about any of these numbers, but it sounds like per year is about 400,000 now per calls. If it does double like Massachusetts did, it'd be about 800,000 And the commissary revenue from FY 'twenty five was about $700,000 So I don't know. They just want to try to pay for one with the other, if people are not into what commissary is doing for their rec fund, there is a trade there.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But is that 700 from the commissary paying for staff?

[Haley (Department of Corrections Representative)]: I can weigh in on that.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah.

[Haley (Department of Corrections Representative)]: So I did send Rutlandeau and Rutlandeau the breakdown of the commissary revenue and how exactly those were split out per facility. A majority of the revenue does go towards supporting those recreation coordinator positions at each facility. I don't have those exact breakdowns in front of me, but I can find them. The thing I would note about using the commissary fund or the revenue for that to go towards free phone calls for incarcerated people. The spending for that revenue is Those decisions are largely made by the incarcerated people at the facility. So, I would be hesitant to take that autonomy away from them and let them know that now we're going to be using that money for this other service. Then they would have to make the decision of the items that they're currently getting through that revenue, which is like, you know, recreational equipment, sometimes it's items from commissaries, sometimes it's services for people who are indigent, they would now have to assume those costs. So I would recommend that if the committee wanted to pursue that option, that we actually poll and survey the incarcerated people as to what they want. As I don't feel comfortable taking that autonomy away from them.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Yeah, I was just happy for that. So the autonomy they actually had is over very, very limited.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Can I ask a question?

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

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Do the inmates currently have the ability to designate usage of those funds for these purposes, meaning that they are currently making the decision not to dedicate these funds to these groups? I don't know that it's out

[Haley (Department of Corrections Representative)]: of the question, and I don't know that it's something that is

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: probably explored. I

[Haley (Department of Corrections Representative)]: wouldn't say it's impossible. Think that's a fair question.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Other thoughts?

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Yeah. Well, this is the you know, a challenge with that is under the current system. Let's say the telecom usage were an option. No money there. Was like I'm just looking for your document, but there's like what is it, dollars 20,000 a facility or something. I'm just putting the number out

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of factory. Yeah, after factoring in the positions,

[Haley (Department of Corrections Representative)]: the funds are it certainly would not cover the cost of taking three from the video calls. Actually think it is an interesting idea to explore as to whether those remaining funds should be diverted to cover those funds. I would just want to provide the incarcerated people with the option to make that decision. I think it's an interesting idea, representative.

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

[Conor Casey (Member)]: Yeah. Haley, not sure if you know this. Are the course civic charges similar to what people pay in state at the moment? Is there any limit or

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: not shaking. I said no, no, no.

[Haley (Department of Corrections Representative)]: I have an idea, but I'm hesitant to say on the record without checking first so I can provide that information. I believe that there is some increase in the number of free phone calls that they get currently through the contract. Individuals are in state

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: at three phone calls a week. Okay,

[Haley (Department of Corrections Representative)]: I believe it might be higher for those out of state, but I can check.

[Conor Casey (Member)]: I'd be interested in looking at that because I think that's a population that obviously doesn't have the luxury of visitation, you know, down in Mississippi, so I would. I'd certainly want to extend it to those folks, maybe free calls, but.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Shawn, did you want to weigh in on that at all? Well,

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: yeah, I guess you know, I was just doing some math. I won't share it with you because we're in public. But it does seem like it's not a bad like, I look at what I pay as a family plan that's unlimited, but it's monthly it's a monthly fee. I mean, this is definitely less expensive than that. So it's actually not horrible, the the 400,000 a year for these people. So I I I actually I caught myself because I just wanted to do the math quick. Anyway, I just wanted to share that with you. It's actually it's actually a pretty good deal for

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: $400.

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: We brought that up.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah, ma'am.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Fundamentally, don't we have to be asking the question if we're gonna add base funding to DOC for corrections of a half 1,000,000 or whatever the number is, we've got to ask, where is that going to come from?

[Conor Casey (Member)]: I can think of 2,000,000. Well, I'm

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: saying, that's the question. If we're gonna add these services, where are we going to cut back?

[Conor Casey (Member)]: But Chittenden, this is much more tangible than pretrial supervision.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: I hear you. But that's the question. I mean, the rates are based on the fact that they're providing hardware at no cost. So they've got to cover that plus the usage. Fair play. Brian? Where are we gonna cut back if we're gonna give this freebie?

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, just wanna make sure that that is the only discussion that we need to have here. I wanted to make sure there isn't an objection to the notion of providing this kind of a service. Does anybody feel that inmates or their families or whoever the network should be footing this bill? Is is it just that we or, you know, is it a money question? Is that the is that the only question here?

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: I think almost everything's a money question, you know, because it's all it's all about relative need. Right. So, I mean, almost everything we see has some sort of merit, but are there things that aren't being funded? You know? Like, I don't know. Like, residential mental health beds or or anything. You can can make a list of 50 things that have more merit than this. And I think the answer is yes. And and so I'm not particularly supportive of of the endeavor unless there's there's a cap and and some sort of funding source.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I just wanted to understand the nature of the argument and if there's a second one.

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

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: no. I agree with what Joe said with that. And I guess I'm looking at the cost also in the other at the other side of the spectrum that, you know, what we saw over the fall and summer where there are people denied access because their accounts were being transferred over. I just worry about, you know, what kind of liability we run if we don't make things like this accessible to people. So I look at it at a cost that way. Could it be a lawsuit? Could it be something else? Also, maybe that's a little too, I don't know, over the top.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Other thoughts? So I've heard a variety of things. I've heard about the unexpended funds of the commissary maybe be used to offset the cost. I've heard if we did something like this, there's a cap. I've also heard, let's see if we can look into this a little bit further before we jump off and do the whole thing. I'm afraid that it's just gonna spike. We open this up immediately.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Shawn? I mean, this is a question for you, Alice, really. Is it realistic to think that we can take the money if we don't do the pretrial supervision? Can that money be reallocated to this as this funding source?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That would be a proposal this committee would make to appropriations, but they're the ones that would make that final decision based on our recommend.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So I wouldn't put all of our eggs in that basket just to be honest. So I have some thoughts that possibly we could ask DOC to do an evaluation in terms of maybe alternatives to the current model in terms of inmates paying for this and come back with how they might be able to see it being implemented for a no cost system and what that cost is. We could do language to that effect. And that addresses the concern that if you do open it up, all of a sudden is the usage gonna spike. Also, I was intrigued by some testimony that we received that I think in California, one state, they look at this through the Public Utilities Commission and they regulate it as utility. Is that something worth looking into for us? That even if DOC continues contracting it out, that it's really PUC could oversee that and look at it through the eyes of the utility. I don't know. That kind of had me questioning because it is a utility. They do regulate our telephone rates of sorts. They do regulate electrical rates. I don't know if that would be appropriate or not. That would be conversations with PUC. And then if DOC does an evaluation, what would be required in terms of statutory changes or even operational changes. And that operational changes would incorporate what Kevin was just saying about the internal wiring and the infrastructure that would be needed.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know if this is implicit in what you were just saying, but we had a vendor presentation a couple of weeks ago that was talking about a different model.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Different model. And maybe have DOC explore some of those different models in that evaluation.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: may be the way not to jump off the cliff and do it, but set in

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Set a tone.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Set a tone. The other thing we could also do is, in conjunction with that, have the Justice Oversight Committee do some work on it in the procession. Yep. So that it doesn't die. We keep the conversation going. So just the thought to keep the conversation going, because nobody's ready. I'm not picking up people who ready to jump off the cliff all at once. I need people.

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: I'm ready to just at least put something into action, whether it's just the phone calls or we test it out in just Mississippi, something that gets some results back.

[Conor Casey (Member)]: That's what I was gonna say. Could I throw for the committee's consideration, maybe a pilot project with the Mississippi population? Is a small number to look at where you could actually analyze the numbers there. But they would benefit the most in my mind from it. What

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: is the cost? Do you have a cost of that in terms of what's happening with our out of state beds? I would have

[Haley (Department of Corrections Representative)]: to do that analysis in terms of costs. The one thing that I would note, and this is more anecdotal, is that a lot of individuals who choose to go out of state, sometimes it's because they have severed their connections with individuals in Vermont. And so the amount of phone or video calls that they might

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: be

[Haley (Department of Corrections Representative)]: making might not be exactly equivalent to what individuals in state. And not to sway you in any way, just wanted to mention that point as it's something that I've heard from individuals.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Yes. Well, do you evaluate the value add you get by providing this no cost? How would you determine that? When you spend half $1,000,000, what have we gotten from it? Our gut says it's a good thing to do, but how do you measure that?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: How do you measure results of human communication? Exactly.

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: Well, as I said, what Haley said actually leads, I think, more to the point that it would be good to pilot it there since you already have a small population, but it's even a smaller population that's wanting to communicate with their families. So I feel like it's a bit lower cost associated with it and still get to do that.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I do know of situations of folks who were sent out of state, and it was really important for them to stay connected with the family, and it was important for the family to stay connected with them, particularly when they moved down to Mississippi. When it was further here, like when it in Kentucky or Pennsylvania, there was more access for the family to be able to travel down to meet. But once you're down in Mississippi, that is not feasible. So I've heard from folks over the years that home communication was really important.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: James? Well, to Haley's point and to Will's is that if the usage is just pretend it is. I don't know the data. If it is lower than the general population, it wouldn't be a good comparison for science. You'd want something that was similar usages. Yes, a smaller group, but if just pretend 30% takes it up versus 60% of the general population, You'd

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: have a smaller sample size and you'd have a higher error margin, but

[Conor Casey (Member)]: you

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: could account for that.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: You'd do some figuring.

[Conor Casey (Member)]: Yeah. I will just say some of this stuff's not going to be measurable. But we do it anyways because we bring Lund into the Chittenden facility so people can talk to their families. And we know that has intrinsic value. Just the human level of it, certainly. And whatever national data we see suggests that that reduces recidivism. But I don't think we're going get the data necessarily of how many visits you had with your kids. You just can't do it.

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

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So in the vendor presentation two weeks ago, they did talk about evidence from within the facilities about the reduction in imprisonment misconduct and the decline in violent misconduct. That's fine. You could extend that further till after people get out and you could start to look at recidivism. But for those who don't want to support this, that's still not enough evidence. Because what does that mean? What does that cost? What are you actually balancing? Are we comparing apples and oranges? So I'm not sure what that data, even if we could have it, would get us.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, I think you just brought up a good point in terms of security within the facility. It lowers the temperature for a lot of people.

[Haley (Department of Corrections Representative)]: And that, I think, carries

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: that helps the staff, and that helps the people who are living there 20 fourseven.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, that was just Greece, not currency also.

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: Conor, I'm sorry not to put you on the spot, but when you talked about the recidivism just a second ago, did you say that we've seen it's worked in other states, but that we don't have the data?

[Conor Casey (Member)]: Well, I was kind of referring to what Brian was saying. There were some big national numbers there, but generally we're not gonna get the sample size in Vermont to say This reduces incarceration by 20%.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: There's so many factors involved. To say it's tied directly to telephone calls is virtually impossible.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, I think, and we talked about this with the kids apart, it's to really keep those communication levels open because the person will be coming out of an oppressive setting at some point. And if those relationships with family or friends, whatever, is still solid, they're going to need that upon reentry.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: What's the value without a number, I think?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah, you can't put a number.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, was just going to add, picking up thread. I think it's probably helpful to the committee's discussion if folks are specific as to what kinds of results you're trying to gauge in the data, because I think there's some talking past each other maybe happening. If the point is just about gathering fiscal information, expected usage rates, you can know what to expect in terms of costs, that's one thing that might be achievable in terms of the data that you receive. If it's instead a point about recidivism or those kinds of things, just as a practical point, you're probably looking at a time horizon for determining any of those results that doesn't allow you to make a decision, in which case I think you're stuck with existing data on those pieces. So just being specific about what you hope to gain from a pilot or smaller thing could be helpful in knowing whether or not information you could gather, it's helpful to you or not. So just specificity, I think, is

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: What I'm picking up from committee is the fear. Maybe not so much the fear, but the impact in terms of what the cost would be and the balance we need to do with our budget. And that is related to the spike in usage. We don't know what that spike would be. And then yes, you get a spike. But over time, does it level off? And then what is the cost? So that's what I'm hearing in terms of what the real issue is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I'm hearing. So you had your hand up in that.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Well, I mean, to John's point, the actual You can never measure the impact of human interaction like it's a widget. You know? I mean, obviously, it's there there's there's some inherent value in keeping communications lines open. I I I just don't think there's enough relative merit here compared to things that we all acknowledge almost universally be made and don't fund. That's that's all. K.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: We we can calculate the cost per incarcerated person right now, whatever that is. The question is, are we willing to spend X more? And if not, we've gotta say, where's it gonna come out in some other service? That's the first question we gotta ask ourselves because we don't have an increased budget as far as I can tell in the two years. We have so much. So, that's the first question I think we have to ask. Is this more valuable than something we're already doing? I, for one, think that safety of everyone in the facility is the top priority. And I am frustrated that we seem to think that we just can't guarantee the safety, whether it's bullying because of their gender or the need or desire for drugs that somebody else has got, or I'm small and you're big or whatever. Safety, it should be number one within the prison. And that's where I think we should be putting the money as opposed to so many other things. I'm sorry for the soapbox, but these are little band aids where the most basic function of keeping people safe and not fearing for their life and not being able to sleep at night. I'm not trying to be melodramatic, but we've just talked about single cells and people deciding they want to be transgender so they can

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: get into a single cell.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: I mean, are huge things because of safety. That should be the number one in my opinion, not telephone service.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think happier people are less violent people, and I don't think any amount of security is gonna provide you all the safety that you want.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Well, but an example would be, and we brought it up before, is the body cams on the parole or the officers inside. So that would say, hey, I've got proof positive that what's going on here is appropriate.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: As I understand. I can either

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: see it's okay or not. So if we need more cameras in the facility and somebody monitoring that on a regular basis so that we can see the perpetrator of the problem, that's where I wanna spend the money because the safety within the facility is more important than even the remediation, if I can use that.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I believe that body cams are available and not being used because of a labor issue. It's not. But that's separate. That has to be starting to understand.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You did that five

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: years ago. And I just want to

[Conor Casey (Member)]: go back to one point, because I do believe this is an economic justice issue. Somebody is paying for this, right? And it's not the inmate. This is disproportionately hitting low income families in Vermont who have suffered. Suffered by having somebody go through the criminal justice process there. They're trying to maintain a connection. I'm not saying everybody's low income, but disproportionately, this is a tax on low income promoters, the status quo. So,

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I put out a thought in terms that DOC might be able to do a comprehensive evaluation of this program, what it would take if we took over, if the state paid for it, what it would take, and any alternatives to the current model. We've had some testimony from one or two companies that provided at a lower cost. They could evaluate that. They could evaluate if the state took over the payment of just the phone calls, not the video calls. And maybe looking into regulating it as a public utility. I don't know. And have them work with the Justice Oversight Committee to maybe come in with a proposal next session, if possible. I don't know, I'm just putting thoughts on the table for folks, James.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Those are all good. I agree with them. The other thing is, it's come up multiple times, but it seems like it's an obstacle maybe to some people and maybe I'm just reading it wrong. There's no legitimate reason we can't put a cap. It doesn't have to be, well you can't afford it now, we're

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: gonna give it to

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: you for free, but free for all, like a free for all. Why can't, if we're looking at this at some point, can we say, oh, we're gonna give you X number free and cap it so that people do have that connection, but the taxpayers of the state are also struggling, have some consideration as well. I don't know, there's gonna be a happy medium somewhere.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So right now, Haley, the contract we have right now began I'm just looking at your document. You're It began in February '25? Yes. And how long does that go before it's up for extension?

[Haley (Department of Corrections Representative)]: The contract runs through February 2029, and there are two optional one year extensions.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So we're locked in for another three years unless we break the contract. Yes. Or you honor the contract, you trace you know the calls that are being made, but the DOC picks up the minutes and pays the contractor.

[Haley (Department of Corrections Representative)]: Yeah. That I'm not sure. I haven't looked at the contract in-depth recently if that would require a contract amendment, but that's also an option.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I'm thinking the evaluation is more of place to go figure out. Would the committee be comfortable with working through language on having a comprehensive evaluation and then to look at maybe how much it will cost, looking at a cap, whatever that may be, looking at maybe other providers that aren't in there necessarily for profit because we did have some testimony from some entities, and possibly regulating it like a utility, but that's looking at PUC. And then any statutory changes that would be needed or operational changes that would be needed.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, can I assume we're agreeing to that as a framework now? We don't have to hash out the details. Like, we could make calls free and cap you know, like, that's for them.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Right. That's what the evaluation

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's comes back. Yep.

[Haley (Department of Corrections Representative)]: Does that

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: make sense to folks? Yeah.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Mean, it is. That's what it says.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Do you have enough direction on that, John?

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think so. DOC to evaluate this alternatives to the existing model, how to implement no cost to inmates type proposal, examining the set of factors that you guys just described, cost cap, potential providers. The regulating as a utility, it's easy for me to include that in language here. I would suggest that feels different to me from the other factors that you're having considered and may require expertise that is beyond, I don't know. I'm just suggesting that as soon as you brought that up, was like, oh, I'm gonna have to bring in Maria if we start going down this route of utilities pieces. So I would just question, maybe you want that in there, but I don't know how.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: DOC would need to consult with the PUC. That's how that would be in an evaluation. Think they will consult the PUC.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If this is the route you guys go, this is an evaluation from DOC. You had mentioned previously something about the Justice Oversight Committee. Do you want input from those folks? Or is this really DOC housed and then they consult experts as needed?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I think of the Justice Oversight Committee as somehow in the loop. It kinda keeps the focus on. That's what I'm thinking. It could get lost. Then this next year is a brand new biennium. Who knows who's sitting around here? But it kind of keeps it in the forefront and expands it to folks who aren't used to thinking about phone calls and what it costs. Those are people who sit on that committee that are up in human services. They're in appropriations. They're in judiciary. And they're in health care.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the point of this would be not just a oversight committee input, but basically for them to receive regular updates, or just to be along for the ride as this is happening. Is that

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I think it might be worthwhile for Justice Oversight to weigh in a little bit for that. It might be worth it.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: I

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: think it's more than a check-in. I think it's looking I'm looking at Haley here, but I think it would be good for justice oversight to be aware of this issue. Kevin?

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Yeah, it

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: seems like you're putting together a list of requests on DOC to come back with a proposal. On my train of thought, question would be, can you absorb this added cost? And if not, what services do you need to recommend to take away to because it's lower priority than telephone calls?

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. Yep. I gotcha. What would need to be offset? Can you interpret the cost?

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Because now I'm shifting a little bit. Our education cost problem right now is, in my opinion, the same thing we're doing here with corrections. You just keep adding services and you get to a point that you, it's not sustainable and to regulate through the PUC, that's just taking the cost and distributing it over everybody else that's paying the bills. So, the the cost isn't going to go away. We have to figure out what we're either going to give up or say, no, we're going to pay higher taxes. That's the fundamental question we've gotta ask.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: What kind of deliverable do you get? So, one is just consider the proposal, provide considerations to the legislature, but not to take a definitive position on what should be done? It's like, here's the sorts of things you would need to address, including how to absorb the costs. Like there's different ways to do it, or do you want outright a recommendation with legislative language?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: They could do the evaluation of information. And then maybe do an analysis of, I'm just looking at something here that Troy wrote, A fiscal analysis for alternative telecommunications models that could be evaluated. And then if you go with the state picking up the cost of the phone calls and what are the feasibility of doing that? What is the cost and what's the implementation considerations that would need to be looked at to do that? And I don't know if we want them to make a recommendation to do this or not, or you just wanna gather the information and let the legislative body determine if it's worth going forward. I mean, this is just really broad at this point. And I do wish that Troy was here because he spent a little bit more time. So it might be worth a conversation with Troy to see if he's got a few more thoughts.

[Conor Casey (Member)]: He's asking how it's going on this. He said we accept this when he follows his recommendations. True.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Did not

[Conor Casey (Member)]: ruin his day. You can let him down later. That's very

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: good point, Kevin.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I just mentioned one or two just now, but it's just for DOC to evaluate the pros and cons of going forward with it and try to quantify it so we have a better idea of what the real cost and the usage would be. I mean, we did this with Kids Apart. It was the same thing that we did with Kids Apart. We had them go, and I forgot how we totally structured it, but we had them go and they worked with Lun to figure out if we expanded Kids Apart to other facilities, what it would look like. And they did a survey. They did a survey of the folk. And was it all the male facilities? Yeah. Northern's the one that had the most Oh, this is way at Northern. It did only at Northern. But maybe there could be something similar to that. The DOC could do a survey. Yeah. Or maybe work with print. Yeah. I

[Haley (Department of Corrections Representative)]: think that's a great idea. If I could add to that too, Chair. We actually did do much more simple analysis of what it would look like in 2024 after the passing of the Martha Wright and Reed Act. And as part of that analysis, we did survey other states in the country to see whether they had contemplated making phone calls free or if they had done it themselves and what those impacts have been. So I think we do have capacity for including information that would be helpful for this body to decide how to move forward.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah, it's get the information to help us decide. Because I think Mary is absolutely right. You open the flood gates and go, and then it would level off. But on the other hand

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Oh, and then we'd have to come back and cut programs or see where we're juggling it, and I want it to be successful, but we can't just give a credit card or say, Go have research.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: To make a point, know, air conditioning, the facilities might bring the tension down a lot more than having free phone calls to home. I'm not trying to be funny. That that may be a higher priority for the same kind of cause. That's the kind of analysis I think we should be doing. That's what the appropriations committee has to do. Mhmm. So let's think that way before we make a recommendation that's going to cost millions of dollars.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The point is we don't know what it's going to cost and I would throw in also internet connectivity's router. You know there are plenty of things that you can put into that bucket.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Right.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We don't know what this is gonna cost.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Well, we could extrapolate the number of incarcerated and make an estimate of how many phone calls compared to what they did in Massachusetts. Different provider rates.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Different provider, different time.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Well, okay. But you can make enough estimates on that to

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: come up with a ballpark.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm not saying we shouldn't even do an estimate. I'm saying we shouldn't guess now.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. That's why we want an evaluation. Absolutely. Better information to make a decision. Shawn?

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: I mean, Alice, I'm just I'm kinda going back to what you were saying. I think that with kids apart, the great thing about it when you know, just because I dealt you know, I kinda got into it last year and learned a lot about it was that, you know, there were two really good things about it. They had a data lot about how that money spent really did show real positive signs with mothers and kids keeping those connections and mothers coming out of being incarcerated. And there were some great success stories. Also, was a budget. I'm not saying a cap, but we gave them a certain amount of money to do it with. And I think everybody felt pretty good about that last year because they knew, okay, good outcomes and we know how much money we're spending. And this is like, are we getting the outcomes and how much money are we spending? So those are, to me, two things we need to overcome.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And that's why the evaluation from DOC would help for that. James?

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: That's another thing. Kids Apart has been mentioned multiple times. We still can't afford to put that everywhere. We? So I mean, we're balancing stuff. It's our job to balance stuff, but just throwing it out there, that's yet another issue.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But that feeds in. If Kids Apart can't be spread out to the other facilities, it allows those parents and the other facilities to keep access with their kids through a phone call.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Well, I don't necessarily disagree. I'm just saying that there's a lot of things to put on the table.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Shawn? Could I know. I don't I mean, this is probably

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Hailey's gonna have to answer this or John. But could you and it might not work. Anyway, could you use free phone calls as a carrot to people inside the Crestron facilities? And listen, if you're acting up and you're not toeing the line, then you gotta pay for your phone calls. But if you're an ideal person in there and you're doing a great job, then you get to use phones for free. I don't know if a good or bad thing, but I just wanted to throw it out there.

[Haley (Department of Corrections Representative)]: That's a fair point to raise, Representative Sweeney. I know that there are systems that do use incentives to incentivize good behavior and that there is some research as to what types of incentives are effective and what might not be. I have not seen any information out there, not to say that it doesn't exist, around using free phone calls as an incentive. So I would be hesitant to speak to that right now.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And we were careful in Kids Apart that we did not try to do disciplinary situations to keep them away from visiting their kids through Kids Apart.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I know the answer as to the permissibility of doing something along those lines, would note that existing law does condition access to telephones on not being such right. The the sections that we just looked at, and I can show them to you helpful, but under subsection B, it's existing law, we do have inmate allowed easy access and placing those calls unless the inmate has been prohibited under section eight fifty three regarding punishment for a breach of the rules and regulations of the correctional facility. So subject to other statutory procedures and rules and regs that the department has, breaches of those can result in loss of your privileges.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Management tool.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Well, but to Sean's point, though, is that whether the data is there to support whether or not it's a good management tool, that's a totally different story. But, yeah. Anyway, I agree with the chair about your proposal about how to move forward with this.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So I'm looking here at one thing that Troy wrote In terms of what the report, if we did an evaluation in terms of what the recommendations might be, you know, a summary of what they looked at, detailed cost modeling and comparative fiscal analysis of alternative telecommunications models that were evaluated, Feasibility finding in terms of how feasible would it be to go forward with maybe DOC providing at no cost and implementation considerations of that and any recommended legislative action. And then a proposed timeline to implement so that that addresses Mary's concern. And then he also wrote there might be able to be some measurable performance metrics for evaluating outcomes, but I think that would be a little difficult. But I don't know. So those are some of the thoughts in terms of what the report would encompass. Okay. So does that make sense to see work on some language for that for us to come back to? Does that make sense to folks? Sounds very possible to me. What is you know, we're all up against crossover, the weekly comeback. What is your time frame for tomorrow and Friday? I hate to do it, but

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Easy right now on Friday. And I plan to be in here for most of tomorrow afternoon. The question would just be if I'll have something drafted by that point, which is possible. So either either tomorrow afternoon or I can do Friday depending on committee app. It's obviously easier for me if Friday, but I don't know what you guys' logistics are.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Tomorrow tomorrow afternoon. But

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: could

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: we not bother with editing going through editing? That would free up some time. Right?

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I mean, I can just show you an unedited draft if that's what you like.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That would free up some time because I'm sure that it will change.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You wanna do, like

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We could do one or I have a interruption in the afternoon from two to 02:30 when I'm not available.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So this is the latest agenda I have. Right?

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Our our afternoon tomorrow is

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Wide open. Let's try. I know this may really squeeze you, but let's try 01:00. Okay.

[Haley (Department of Corrections Representative)]: Just log in, sorry. And I know this

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: is not considered on my availability, but we'll be in house this year, so there's not going to be a DOC representative.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: How long are you at?

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's only from one to two.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We'll do it without That's okay. But if you could share the language with at least Haley that you could then get it.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. That's right.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's just down the hall.

[Haley (Department of Corrections Representative)]: So Yeah. Well, if it ends early,

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I can pop over here.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Because we also I'm trying to get out row board. I really wanna get out roll board possible both tomorrow. Yes.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Is it not feasible to do 02:30? In which case, are those flippable is, I guess, my question? It is not a problem for me. I'm just suggesting if you're trying

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: to increase participation.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Trying to think what else. Let me see. I really wanna finish the parole board. They're scheduled tomorrow at 08:30. So we have a new draft coming in. I really wanna get the parole board out this week. Got the license thing to do, driver's license, that's just a vote. That would be great if we could do that maybe today or tomorrow. We haven't heard anything from Senate.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They ended up voting today, but I can connect with Megan. Yeah.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Gender equity wasn't gonna get ready until Friday? Friday. Yes. When she was gonna leave her house. It's Friday.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: I

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: would rather do the 01:00

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: on

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Thursday because I know DOC is not gonna be here, but it's gonna take more work.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. I'd

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: rather do 01:00.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: One question about what you're expecting to see. This is all a replacement for section one, but we haven't talked about other sections of the bill. Is this a replacement for the entirety of the bill or just for section one?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, we haven't talked about commissary, and I don't know what people we have a little group of folks working on the commissary. And I don't know where we are right now with that commissary.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: We've discussed it. Would be curious, as long as we're talking about commentary, what is the vast majority of those commissions are taken up by the payroll for the director of this. What's a schedule of the director looks like? Are they I just don't know the answer to that. Think Do they need to be one in every facility? Could the two facilities share one? I'm not saying that's feasible.

[Haley (Department of Corrections Representative)]: I think similar to pretrial, the travel might be not super feasible. But if it would

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: be helpful, I'm happy to share with you

[Haley (Department of Corrections Representative)]: some more information about their role and

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: what a day looks like and what functions that they have.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: That's where all the money is in the commissions, The vast majority of them. Sure.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Can you and Kevin talk to Haley and kind of figure that out and see if there's any language we want to put in? I mean, what's in the bill right now is to negotiate those contracts and that the contracts awarded that the prices are set not to exceed more than 10% of the fair market value of the products that are sold.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: But even going back to last year, you know, we had testimony on the price list, and the pricing is not that it's it's not unreasonable. It's it's not. And I think we we we got that far, you know, in in last spring. But I think where there's possibly some opportunity is how the commissions have spent. And even the commission rate, if you look at other states, it's it's in the ballpark. It's not crazy. But the commissions are I don't have the exact number, but it's over 80% of the commissions are taken up by payroll for rec directors. And maybe all the rec directors do need to get this, but is there an opportunity, in my opinion, for there to be some consolidation in that regard, which would then free funds up for other things, which could see.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So why don't you and Kevin work with Haley to figure out what those rec directors are really doing and see if there's any consolidation there. And then come back to us in a day. So you got lunch hour. You can do that while Haley is here.

[Haley (Department of Corrections Representative)]: Yeah, I don't have that information on my fingertips.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You don't? It's an issue. I'll do reach out. Your toes?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Or my toes. Or my nose. Just pushing because I just No.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: I don't have lunch, I'm sorry.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So so for tomorrow, the thing I'm bringing is not something with a vision of voting. It's just a draft of a section. I'll just do it as a stand alone thing. It's not even in the form.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's a strike call or whatever. Exactly. Yeah.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We'll worry about that later.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I may want you to hook in a little bit with Troy because he did miss part of this too. I think that would be important. But don't worry about putting it through editing. It takes up more time because we'll change it anyway. It's my thinking for that. And on the pricing

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: and the commentary items, are not assuming and I'm emphasizing the word assuming. It takes more labor and time to restock the shelves within a correctional facility than James's shop park, gas station. So, you expect the cost to be higher. There's more involved with doing that service in correctional facilities than in a mini mart. It's just the reality. They've gotta make a profit just like James has gotta make a profit. So the numbers did seem reasonable, is what I'm saying.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Yeah, think somebody remembers it differently. I think we got that for our last year.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Okay. It's lunchtime. It's noon. Thank you, John.

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

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Appreciate it. And I don't know where Troy is, but I would like to hook you and Troy up and me a little bit before you

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: get I'm sure he'll be perfectly happy with our progress here this morning.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: I don't know. Alright, sir.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I don't know. We're not talking about wages. So, you know, we didn't talk about that this morning. So we I'm gonna look at the schedule here. So we're the lunch, and then we're back here at 01:00, and we are going to be talking again about free trial.

[Conor Casey (Member)]: Thank goodness.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Shot. Yay. Don't have anything scheduled for 02:30 or did we

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: put some

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Are we still on?

[Haley (Department of Corrections Representative)]: Do you have my

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes,

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: we are. I really want to be sorry. We're on YouTube still. I really want to resolve how we're going to move forward with pre trip. So we're here at 01:00, and we'll go from there. But I really wanna have a hard conversation so we can get off the dime on this.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Seems to me that's a huge opportunity for us. We have the governor recommending more money. We've got testimony that says there's success. It seems like that should be

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: The more money was in pretrial supervision, so the success was in the docket, accountability, where the money is not with the accountability. So that's what we have to figure out.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: It sounds like the personnel may be at the tool.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So we're back at 01:00, and we'll talk with